Sitting of 14 May 1986

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

    Small and Medium-Sized Firms
    Mr. Brightasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what his Department is doing to improve the export marketing of small and medium-sized British firms.
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Alan Clark): The services offered by the British Overseas Trade Board provide valuable support for companies' export marketing. About three quarters of those using these services are smaller companies employing fewer than 200 people. The British Overseas Trade Board is currently running a series of conferences on export marketing throughout the United Kingdom, which are designed primarily for smaller companies and those new to exporting.
    Mr. Bright: I welcome my hon. Friend's answer, but will he take it a step further? Bearing in mind that, in the latter half of this year, we shall hold the presidency of the EEC Commission, is it possible to get to grips with a situation in which many firms have to manufacture to different specifications for each European country? As a business man, I know how difficult it is for a small company to do that. What are the prospects of ironing out that problem?
    Mr. Clark: My hon. Friend is right. The essence of the internal market, which consists of 330 million consumers, is that there should be free circulation of goods without artificial impediments. The harmonisation of technical standards is one of the most important of those elements.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: Why does the hon. Gentleman think that tiny companies in Italy—often cottage industries—can manufacture knitwear and other textile products which feed into large units and then into exports, but apparently we cannot cope with such a system here?
    Mr. Clark: That simply constitutes a different approach to marketing. If British manufacturers do not adopt that approach, there must be very good reasons for it.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: Is it not a fact that about 6,000 firms in this country with turnovers of between £1 million and £10 million a year do not export? Does my hon. Friend agree that this presents just the right target for the BOTB's attention?
    Mr. Clark: It is perfectly true that breaking into export markets can be time-consuming and expensive. Many firms may find it more appropriate to wait for customers
    688
    to come to them, and thus opportunities are lost. The BOTB's initiatives in this respect are extremely valuable. The board holds a number of conferences which are extremely well attended by business men at which it explains what facilities are available.
    Mr. Evans: Why has there been such little progress in the harmonisation of technical standards in the EEC? Is it not a fact that the Europeans can apparently export goods to this country with impunity, but we cannot export to them?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Member on the right question?
    Mr. Evans: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is about technical standards.
    Mr. Speaker: Is it about export marketing of small and medium-sized firms?
    Mr. Evans: Yes, Sir. The Minister should answer.
    Mr. Clark rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Couchman.
    Mr. Couchman: My hon. Friend may care to know that a strong team from my borough of Gillingham has just visited Japan. The team included the chief executive, the leader of the council and people from the enterprise agency and the chamber of commerce. They made valuable contacts, but they were struck by the difficulties faced by firms, especially small companies, in penetrating that market. Is there not a case for the Department to set up a regular and consistent counselling service for small companies so that they gain expertise in this regard?
    Mr. Clark: The British Overseas Trade Board does have such a service. I would very much like my hon. Friend to ask his delegation to communicate with my Department and report on what it found. I am doing my best to build up a picture of the various difficulties and restrictions faced by British exporters to Japan, and the more material that I can have presented the better.
    Mr. John Smith: Will the Minister now kindly answer the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans), which was highly relevant to export marketing and technical standards, which, as the Minister should know, is very much at the heart of our potential export success? If he does not know the answer, will he just say so?
    Mr. Clark: It is far too early for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to take this ludicrous and pompous line. He knows perfectly well that if Mr. Speker had wished me to answer that I would have done so. I cannot remember whether the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) was even in the Chamber when I answered the question initially. I said that the harmonisation of technical standards was the most important single element in the completion of the internal market.
    Mr. Stokes: In spite of all the help which the Government are at present giving to firms in this country, does my hon. Friend agree that the prime responsibility is for the management of British firms? Firms in my constituency, which export all over the world, do not go to the Government with a begging bowl all the time.
    Mr. Clark: I congratulate the firms in my hon. Friend's constituency. However, I do not think that we are talking about a begging bowl. We are talking about the

    689
    difficulties that many small firms experience in starting to export on their own account in the first instance. To help them with that, the BOTB is extremely useful.

    Tin Mining Industry
    Mr. Rogersasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the latest situation within the tin mining industry.
    The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Morrison): The Department has received applications for assistance from Geevor and RTZ. We have already made it clear that we will give urgent consideration to projects designed to make the mines competitive in the new market situation.
    Mr. Rogers: Will the Minister constantly bear in mind the importance of the tin industry to an area which already has severe unemployment and a fragile economy? Will the Government give an undertaking to help that area and the tin industry, and not turn their back on it as they have done with most other British industries, are about to do with the shipbuilders, and as the Minister for Trade did on the question from my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans)?
    Mr. Morrison: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I know the area. I have visited the tin mines and have been down them. I am more than aware of the implications of those tin mines having to close. That is precisely why we are looking very carefully at the applications that have been put to our Department.
    Mr. Harris: Will my hon. Friend accept my thanks for his response to my personal plea that the Government should find some money to enable Geevor's pumps to keep going while the application is being considered? When he considers the application from Geevor and from Carnon Consolidated, will he bear in mind the phrase from the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, when it said that it believed that the Cornish tin industry was worth saving, because the whole of Cornwall believes that as well?
    Mr. Morrison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for referring to the fact that, with the Cornish county council, we have been able to provide a period of some four weeks to look at the development of Geevor tin mine's application. Certainly my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will bear in mind what the Select Committee said on this important subject.
    Mr. Penhaligon: Does the Minister have any idea how weak his answer to the fundamental question posed appears to those in Cornwall? We recognise that Government decisions sometimes take longer than many of us would desire, but some six and a half months have passed since the crisis started. There have been numerous meetings—I pay homage to the Minister for having the meetings—but no decision has appeared. People in the far south-west are wondering just when the Government expect to reach a conclusion. Can the Minister give us some idea of when he expects the review to be completed?
    Mr. Morrison: With respect, the hon. Gentleman is being less than fair. He will be aware that RTZ put in its application less than two weeks ago. It is impossible to decide whether an application is viable until we receive it and look at it carefully. He should also be aware, after
    690
    meetings that I have had with the trade unions, that they would want us to look at those applications very carefully and not rush them.
    Mr. Williams: Nevertheless, it is six months since the Minister saw the crisis emerging. How much more governmental dither and indifference must Cornwall suffer? The Government have taken millions of pounds in regional aid from the south-west in the past few years, and plan to take millions more in the next few years. Is it not time that they put some of that money back?
    Mr. Morrison: By the tone of his question, the right hon. Gentleman wants me just to say no without looking very carefully at the viability of the applications. I am looking carefully. I am encouraging the companies to come forward with viable applications. That is what they and the trade unions would want me to do.

    European Regional Development Fund
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the value of the grants allocated to England from the European regional development fund since its inception?
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Butcher): About £997 million.
    Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend think that the size and extent of those grants has been sufficiently well publicised in this country? If not, what steps does he propose to take to ensure that the public are aware of the level of assistance that we receive from the fund?
    Mr. Butcher: I think that there is awareness among the key clients of that area of expenditure, particularly among local authorities and those who bring forward applications for infrastructure investment. It is the major section of spending under this head of account. Obviously, we would look for methods of improving the publicity, particularly to the private sector applicants, but in the main we are satisfied that the volume of applications is being matched by the funds available.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: Does the Minister not agree that, in comparison with the scale of funds given out through the common agricultural policy, the funds given out for regional policy by the Community are very small indeed? What are the Government doing to seek to increase them, to help the regions where unemployment is so high?
    Mr. Butcher: I do not think that the amount spent here is ungenerous. I accept the implication of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, that this area of spending has benefits for the United Kingdom which are greater than usual. I should inform the hon. Gentleman that the United Kingdom's share of the fund in 1985 was £345 million, representing about 26 per cent. of the total budget. In terms of applications, in 1986 the United Kingdom's share is about £376 million, which is about 19 per cent.
    Mr. Hill: Will my hon. Friend confirm that applications will be made to the European development fund for the infrastructure that will be needed on this side of the Channel for the Channel tunnel? Is it not a fact that most of the funds seem to be earmarked for infrastructure? Would that not be a good thing?
    Mr. Butcher: In the main, the areas that receive assistance from the fund coincide with our domestically

    691
    identified assisted areas. My hon. Friend raises a particularly interesting point. The best thing to do at this stage is to agree to look at that, given that it is an especially European—I stress European—venture.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: Is the Minister not aware that, despite the figures he mentioned, regional aid has been halved under this Government, and is to be halved yet again? Was it the EEC that insisted that access to the assisted areas grant be restricted to 35 per cent. of the working population, or was it the Government who made that decision? Will the Minister consider an urgent review of the assisted areas map? Will he bear in mind that 3 million people are now in areas with unemployment rates of between 15 and 26 per cent., yet those areas receive no regional development grants and no regional selective assistance?
    Mr. Butcher: I am grateful for the opportunity to restate the circumstances against which the 35 per cent. area coverage was brought about. During the Government's review of United Kingdom industrial regional aid in 1984, we were given to understand that if we were to seek Commission approval for an assisted area map covering more than 35 per cent. of the working population of Great Britain, the Commission saw little likelihood that it would approve that. Reductions might have been forced upon us to bring the coverage down to 35 per cent., or even less, which was likely. In the circumstances, the Government decided to set the map coverage at 35 per cent., and that was accepted by the Commission.
    Mr. Forth: Has my hon. Friend made any estimate of the likely impact of the enlargement of the EEC to include Spain and Portugal on the United Kindom's share of the regional development fund? Does he agree that to attempt constantly to move economic resources around arbitrarily where they do not want to go is a futile exercise anyway?
    Mr. Butcher: Where possible, these forms of assistance should be coloured by the needs of market forces. I understand my hon. Friend's point, but hon. Members on both sides of the House voted for Portuguese and Spanish accession to the Community, and it was almost inevitable that our share of the budget would fall.

    Cable-producing Industry
    Mr. Tony Lloydasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will discuss with relevant manufacturers the future of the United Kingdom cable-producing industry.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: I would be happy to discuss with the industry any specific points it might wish to raise about its future. I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing a delegation to see me yesterday.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Minister is aware of the closure by Sterling Greengate Cables of a factory in Trafford park in Manchester and the movement of some of that work to Aldermaston, where unemployment is much less of a problem than it is in the north-west. In his discussions with manufacturers, especially multinationals such as the one to which I referred, will the Minister point out, not only that they have social obligations to areas such as the north-west, but that the Government demand that their investment plans should include a recognition of the geographic dispersion of that investment?
    Mr. Morrison: As I said to the hon. Gentleman when he raised the matter with me yesterday, regional grants are based on precisely the premise that he has advocated. I remind him that my constituency is about 30 miles down the road from Trafford park, which he represents and where many of his constituents work, so I understand his point.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: Is my hon. Friend aware that the United Kingdom cable industry enjoys an excellent reputation throughout the world? It has contributed substantially to the United Kingdom export drive, but it is deeply worried about the EEC proposals on product liability, which it perceives to be very damaging, and which could assist non-EEC importers.
    Mr. Morrison: I have looked into product liability. I should be happy to be told more about it, but I am assured that it need not be a problem for the industry.
    Mr. Eastham: Do the Government have any strategy for the cable manufacturing industry, or do they intend to leave it to market forces? That would mean that the cheapest markets, irrespective of where they are, would take from Britain this industry, which is valuable and strategically important to it.
    Mr. Morrison: I agree that the industry is important. That is why, in the aid and trade provision, substantial sums go indirectly, if not directly, to the cable industry. The hon. Gentleman is aware that substantial sums have been spent to attract new cable manufacturers to Britain. Only last week I visited a manufacturer in the north-east who was successfully using the most modern methods of production.

    Financial Services (Provision)
    Mr. Sternasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is satisfied with the progress towards the harmonisation of the provision of financial services throughout the European Economic Community; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Alan Clark: My aim is freedom to offer a diversity of services. Progress towards the full achievement of this objective has been disappointingly slow. I hope it will now quicken, given the high priority attached to it by Community Heads of Government.
    Mr. Stern: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the greatest barriers to a true market in financial services throughout the EEC is the restrictive practices that exist in so many of those services in Britain and in other EEC countries? Will he bend his efforts towards persuading individual providers of services to reduce those restrictive practices as much as possible?
    Mr. Clark: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. We have already made progress in unit trusts. Recent judgments in the European Court will make it easier to advance in non-life insurance. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer hopes to carry forward the mortgage credit proposals that will allow building societies to invest in property outside their territory.
    Sir John Farr: What attention is my hon Friend's Department giving to the unfair protection laws that exist in many Community countries, especially in Germany in respect of its domestic insurance markets?
    Mr. Clark: My hon. Friend has identified a market that is proving to be especially difficult. The matter must be agreed in the Council of Ministers. Perhaps when majority voting is introduced it will be easier to make progress in that area.
    Mr. Gould: Will the Minister bear in mind in any harmonisation exercise our unfortunate experience with the EEC listing particulars directive and ensure that any future harmonisation is attuned to the needs of our financial services industry, which is, after all, the most powerful in Europe?
    Mr. Clark: I shall do my best to advance and nurture the interests of our financial services industry, but, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, each Minister will be endeavouring to achieve the best result for his domestic industry and it is that contest which makes these councils sometimes such a labourious business.

    Research and Development
    Mr. Powleyasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much his Department is spending on support for research and development; and if he will give comparable figures for 1979–80.
    The Minister for Information Technology (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie): My Department plans to spend £415 million in 1986–87 on support for research and development. The comparable figure for 1979–80 was £142 million.
    Mr. Powley: I thank my hon. Friend for that informative answer, but does he agree that the Government have an important and continuing role in research and development alongside industry and commerce? What efforts have been made in the Norwich area in that direction?
    Mr. Pattie: I agree with my hon. Friend. Under the support for innovation scheme, 11 projects worth over £8 million are being supported in the Norwich travel-to-work area with grants of nearly £1·4 million. The technologies supported include electrical engineering, food machinery and printing. One of the largest recipients of DTI support in the area has been Datron Electronics, which manufactures electronic test and measurement equipment. I plan to vist that company in the near future, and I look forward to seeing the results of my Department's support.
    Mr. Lamond: In view of the tremendous success of the A320 Airbus, which managed to achieve 81 definite orders in the first 10 months of last year and employs about 30,000 people in Britain, is there any chance of some of that £405 million being given as a loan as a launch-aid and research and development aid to the A330 and A340?
    Mr. Pattie: The hon. Gentleman is understating the case on the A320, which has already been the subject of launch-aid, because when I checked a few days ago there were about 130 orders with deposits.
    I answered the question about the A330 and A340 on a previous occasion when I said that we await the discussions with British Aerospace and the Airbus consortium, which have yet to decide whether they want to proceed with those projects.
    Mr. Pawsey: I appreciate what my hon. Friend has done for research and development, but what plans has he
    694
    to encourage industry to do more R and D? Does he agree with mergers, for example between companies such as GEC and Plessey, which would then concentrate resources on research and development, to the benefit of the nation in penetrating export markets abroad?
    Mr. Pattie: I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want me to comment on that particular example when it is still the subject of a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. It is obviously advantageous to British industry to have certain centres of excellence within industry, and there can be advantages in some companies coming together to provide a scale that will enable them to compete in international markets. We would expect an increase in research in industry to come from an increase in improved profitability, and at present profitability levels are at their highest since 1973.
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Will the Minister confirm, however, that under the important support for innovation scheme funds available have been cut this year and will be cut further next year? Is he aware that the Treasury attitude towards United Kingdom expenditure on research and development in Europe is damaging to British interests? Can he assure the House that United Kingdom contributions to such programmes as EUREKA and ESPRIT in Europe are not being offset by cuts in national United Kingdom programmes in Britain?
    Mr. Pattie: Yes, I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance, because we have made it clear that EUREKA and ESPRIT programmes will be funded up to what industry regards as satisfactory levels. There is a planned reduction in the support for innovation scheme, because we have increased the provision on awareness programmes, technology transfer programmes, advisory services and industry education, by 25 per cent.

    Commercial Vehicle Industry
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals he has for the future of the commercial vehicle industry in Britain.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: The future of this industry, as of others, will be determined by market demand and its ability to compete.
    Mr. Dalyell: What advice would the Minister give to a skilled man from Bathgate who wishes to continue his career somewhere in the British commercial vehicle industry?
    Mr. Morrison: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am concerned about the position at Bathgate and I have made every possibility—
    Mr. Canavan: Answer the question.
    Mr. Morrison: I will answer the question.
    I have made every possibility available to see whether there are new industries that will come, as has my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The hon. Gentleman will know that unless the truck industry becomes competitive there will be no truck industry, but there may be opportunities for the person to whom the hon. Gentleman referred at the Leyland Trucks plant.
    Mr. Madel: Will my hon. Friend confirm that one way to secure thousands of jobs in our commercial vehicle

    695
    industry is to get more American investment? To that end, will he confirm that he is constantly reminding General Motors that more investment by that company in this country, especially in Bedfordshire, is not only beneficial for it, but is very beneficial for us?
    Mr. Morrison: I can certainly confirm that the Bedford plant in Bedfordshire is very important indeed and that, over a long period, General Motors has invested substantial sums in that plant, which, until recently, has provided a healthy and viable industry and livelihoods for many thousands of employees.
    Mr. Hoyle: What discussions did the Secretary of State have with Mr. Robert Stempel of General Motors when they met in New York on 4 May? Did they discuss Bedford and Leyland commercial vehicles? If not, what did they discuss, and will the Secretary of State make a statement?
    Mr. Morrison: I am assured by my right hon. Friend that they did not meet.
    Mr. John Mark Taylor: Is my hon. Friend now reconciled to the fact that the future of Land Rover lies independently of Leyland and, one hopes, in the private sector? Will my hon. Friend encourage the new chief executive of Leyland to look at those possibilities?
    Mr. Morrison: I am not reconciled to any particular facts about Land Rover, but I wish it every success in an expanding market place.
    Mr. Terry Davis: If there are some doubts about jobs at Bedford, would not it he a good idea to consider the possibility of General Motors' van-making operation, which is losing money, being taken over by the the profit-making Freight Rover?
    Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman will recall that he and I visited the Freight Rover plant in his constituency and I hope he recalls that I was impressed by what I saw.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Will my hon. Friend accept that many of us were obliged to the Government for seeing the sense of the argument that Land Rover, as a specialist manufacturer, should stay on its own, but will he also accept that many of us believe that rationalisation of our commercial vehicle industry is important and that most of us who were against the earlier plan would welcome General Motors, through its Bedford subsidiary, having sensible talks with Leyland Truck, so that a viable and prosperous truck industry can survive and thrive in this country?
    Mr. Morrison: It is a welcome exception to get a pat on the back from my hon. Friend in this area, and I am most grateful to him. I am also most interested in my hon. Friend's concern for the future of the truck industry, which, as we have been saying constantly throughout this year, is most important indeed and about which difficult decisions will have to be made.
    Mr. John Smith: Since, as the Minister well knows, from August 1984 until earlier this year the Government had a strategy to dispose of our commercial vehicles industry, or large sections of it, to American interests and that has now collapsed in a shambles, what is the Government's present strategy for the industry? Can the Minister tell us whether any talks are going on or are planned with any foreign interests to acquire any part of the British motor vehicle industry?
    Mr. Morrison: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been told on several occasions that the Government's strategy is to rationalise, where that is necessary, to ensure that there is a healthy and viable commercial vehicle industry. No talks are taking place.

    Competitiveness
    Mr. Thurnhamasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is satisfied with the competitiveness of British industry.
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Paul Channon): I welcome the increase in our share of world trade in manufactures last year, and the continuing improvement in our manufacturing productivity, but I cannot be satisfied as long as unit labour costs in manufacturing industry are rising faster in the United Kingdom than in our main competitor countries.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the profit-sharing proposals in the Budget should be of particular benefit to manufacturing and other companies which have to compete in world markets?
    Mr. Channon: Yes, I hope that they will have some effect. I hope that those proposals, which I warmly welcome, will receive a good welcome from both sides of the House.
    Mr. Evans: Does the Secretary of State ackowledge that the competitiveness of British industry would be greatly improved if it were operating on the same basic standards as those of our EEC competitors? Will the Secretary of State answer the question which his hon Friend the Minister for Trade could not or would not answer, as to why has there been so little progress over the harmonisation of technical standards in the EEC and why it is that EEC countries can export to this country, although we cannot, apparently, export to them?
    Mr. Channon: I should like to look at a specific example, because the situation varies from industry to industry. In general terms, I believe that quite a lot of progress is being made on the harmonisation of technical standards. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that it should proceed faster I agree entirely with him, but, alas, that is not entirely within our gift.
    Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. Friend accept that competitiveness depends crucially upon new products and that that in itself depends upon the birth of new and smaller businesses, which, under this Government, have never enjoyed a better environment? Does my right hon. Friend also accept that, to be truly competitive, our products must be designed properly, built with quality, delivered on time and given adequate after-sales service? Again, does he accept that under this Government the environment has never been better for encouraging competitiveness, particularly because of our firm exchange rate?
    Mr. Channon: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that the factors he has cited are crucial if British industry is to be more competitive. Immense strides have been made, but I remain worried about unit labour costs, which are extremely important and a major factor.
    Mr. Haynes: When will the Secretary of State and the Government wake up to the fact that we cannot possibly

    697
    compete against other nations of the world, which receive heavy financial assistance from their Governments? When will this Government stop industry floundering around and collapsing right across the nation? When will they wake up and do something about it?
    Mr. Channon: Most uncharacteristically, the hon. Gentleman exaggerates his case. In fact, the prospects for British industry are extremely good. The forecast for the economy is also extremely good. I look forward with confidence to the progress of British industry during the next few months.
    Mr. Holt: Will my right hon. Friend note that, however competitive the furniture industry may be, it is impossible for it now to compete with the flood of furniture that is being imported from the Eastern bloc? It is undermining a very old and well-established industry in this country. If the Government do not take action, the industry will suffer a serious decline.
    Mr. Channon: If there is evidence of dumping in the furniture industry, I shall be very glad to receive it and to take appropriate action.
    Mr. Gould: Does the Secretary of State accept that the most widely used index of competitiveness, the IMF index of relative normalised unit labour costs, shows a loss of competitiveness since this Government took office of no less than 30 per cent.`? Will he therefore have a word with his right hon. Friends about this? His right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is the latest culprit, after his appearance on television last Sunday. All those Ministers constantly, and Wrongly, assert that competitiveness has improved under this Government. Will he give the facts to them so that they cease making false and misleading statements?
    Mr. Channon: We are doing well on productivity and we are doing well in industry. The forecast for the economy is good, GDP is now entering its sixth successive year of growth and investment is at a record high. The Labour party's attempts to diminish these achievements are very misleading and undesirable.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Minister recognise that real interest rates in Britain are still higher than in competitor nations? Is he aware that our inflation rate is still the second highest in Europe—ahead only of Italy—and that wage rates here are much higher than in competitor countries? Does he accept that unless he does something more effective—for instance, by joining the European monetary system and imposing more effective wage restraint—[Interruption.]—those three factors will continue to undermine the competitiveness of British industry?
    Mr. Channon: We shall all want to study with care what the hon. Gentleman said in the last part of his question, which did not seem to meet with universal approval. I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's views on wage rates and wage restraint. I hope that we shall soon have good news about inflation. The news on inflation is becoming better and better, and long-term interest rates are at their lowest for 14 years.
    Mr. Roger King: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way to improve the further competitiveness of British industry is to remove the penal rating which many Labour authorities throughout the country are levying on British
    698
    industry? According to the Birmingham chamber of commerce and industry, £55 million extra is being spent by industry and 10,000 jobs have been lost. Is it not time that we did something about the rate system?
    Mr. Channon: I agree with my hon. Friend. He is right to draw our attention to the fact that high and excessive rates imposed by Labour councils can cause damage to industry throughout the country.

    National Educational Resouces Information Service
    Mr. Lawlerasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are the aims and the objectives of the national educational resources information service.
    Mr. Butcher: The national educational resources information service is a computer-based service for schools. It will provide information on educational resource material directly relevant to the school curriculum and is designed to assist teachers. It is interactive and can be accessed by means of a local telephone call.
    As my hon. Friend the Minister for Information Technology announced at the press briefing on 28 April, the service will be available from January 1987. It is being financed for three years by the Department of Trade and Industry.
    Mr. Lawler: I thank my hon. Friend for spelling out the detail on that service, which I am sure will be welcomed by all teachers. To ensure that there is wide usage, can my hon. Friend ensure that individual teachers are told clearly how they can gain access to the information database?
    Mr. Butcher: There is a considerable degree of marketing of the scheme. I know that my hon. Friend takes a close interest in the training of young people and in maximising their chances of finding employment. Provided that schools have a modem attached to their existing or new micro-computers they can gain access to the central database very easily, for the cost of a local telephone call.

    British Leyland
    Mr. Robert Atkinsasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a further statement on the future of British Leyland's truck and bus divisions.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: A number of possible offers for Leyland Bus are being considered by the BL board and my right hon. Friend expects to receive a recommendation shortly. The position regarding Leyland Trucks is as he announced in his statement on 25 March.
    Mr. Atkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents will this weekend be celebrating the 90th anniversary reunion of the company's activities? What message can I give to them about the uncertainties facing the bus and truck industry so that their future may be resolved and so that I shall be present at their celebration of 100 years?
    Mr. Morrison: If I was not aware as little as five years ago, I have been made perfectly aware by my hon. Friend of the importance of Leyland truck and bus divisions to his constituency. He will appreciate that both bus and truck

    699
    industries are in difficulties. Difficult decisions will have to be taken. If they are taken correctly, a viable bus and truck industry will be ensured.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Leyland National bus plant at Workington survive?
    Mr. Morrison: That depends on what recommendation the BL board makes to my right hon. Friend. I am more than aware from the hon. Member how important an industrial unit is the bus plant in Workington.
    Sir Hector Monro: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind repercussions far afield from the plant at Leyland? Does he realise that an important, modern and small construction engineering plant in my constituency will be gravely at risk if the Workington plant closes? Will he do all that he can, under whatever ownership, to ensure that that plant and others continue satisfactorily into the future?
    Mr. Morrison: I can assure my hon. Friend that when any decisions are made about any part of the vehicle sector, the component suppliers and the implications for their future are taken carefully into account.
    Mr. Park: Does the Minister accept that the continuing uncertainty created in British Leyland by the examination and re-examination of the corporate plan must be overcome as quickly as possible? Is there not now to be another examination under the new chairman, who not only has to pass an opinion on the corporate plan, but first has to inform himself about the industry?
    Mr. Morrison: On the latter point, I have every confidence in what Mr. Graham Day will do as chairman and chief executive of BL. I understand the hon. Gentleman's former point. However, he will know and appreciate that during the period of uncertainty the percentage share of the market for trucks actually went up.
    Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Is my hon. Friend aware that in 1970 the BL truck division was the largest manufacturer of trucks in the world? Is he further aware that, despite recent advances, it has since declined to become the smallest of the major truck manufacturers in Europe? Therefore, is it not becoming increasingly apparent that the opposition to the Bedford-Land Rover—Leyland merger was opportunist, anachronistic and wholly ill-informed?
    Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend has put his finger somewhere near the button. I would call it political pot-stirring of the highest order.

    Competition Policy
    Mr. Yeoasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received regarding competition policy.
    Mr. Channon: I receive regular representations on competition policy from hon. Members and others.
    Mr. Yeo: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern about the growing practice of companies which are the subject of competing takeover bids to collaborate, on a rather cosy basis, with the management's preferred suitor to plan a programme of asset disposals, the sole purpose of which is avoidance of a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?
    Mr. Channon. I am aware of that, and also of the public comment about it. My concern has been to make
    700
    references primarily on competition grounds. That has been the case since 1984 when my right hon. Friend. now the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, announced the results of his review. I think that, in general, it is working well, but I shall certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's point.
    Mr. Flannery: Is not British industry's state of collapse because of its failure to compete due to Government policy? British Shipbuilding is in such a dilemma. Is it not true that money on a grand scale is going from this country into the coffers of our competitors? When the Japanese Government see an aspect of their industry in trouble, do not massive subventions of cash go into that industry to corner the market and flood the world with goods? This Government sit still and let our industry reach a state of collapse.
    Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman is not expressing the facts about British industry. As I said earlier, its prospects are extremely good. That is generally recognised both inside and outside the House.
    Mr. Favell: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the competitive position of Austin Rover, which during the first four months of this year saw its home market share drop to a disastrous 16 per cent.? Therefore, is it not time to re-open talks with Ford of Great Britain?
    Mr. Channon: No, Sir, I have no plans to do that. However, I understand my hon. Friend's understandable concern about the competitive position of Austin Rover. It has good products coming along and it has made great strides, especially in Europe. I hope that hon. Members have noted the increase in percentages there. I am sure that under Mr. Graham Day and his board every effort will be made to improve the company's position still further.
    Mr. Ryman: This question is about competition policy. Is the Minister really satisfied with the unsatisfactory state of affairs in a number of recent hostile takeover bids? Does he not appreciate that there is complete uncertainty about the attitude of the Director General of Fair Trading as to what bids are or are not referred? The system seems to follow no logical principle to protect the public interest. Was not the most glaring recent example the Distillers-Argyll-Guiness battle, which has baffled experts on both sides?
    Mr. Channon: I make no comment on the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. On his general point, I do not think that there is uncertainty in the market. As I have tried to explain to the House—I think that this is well understood outside—references are made primarily on competition grounds. That has been my practice during my short period in office as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and that was the practice of my predecessors from 1984.
    Mr. Nelson: In the context of competition policy, will my right hon. Friend consider whether it is desirable that we should have a decreasing number of major joint stock banks? Does he consider it to be in the interests of borrowers, depositors and the public at large that the number should be decreasing and that such major takeovers as are currently proposed—for example, Standard Chartered Bank and Lloyds—should be allowed to go ahead in an untrammelled way?
    Mr. Channon: I note what my hon. Friend says. I do not think that he will expect me to make a comment on a specific case at present, as it is a matter that I may be called upon to decide. I take note, however, of what he says.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: Does the Secretary of State agree that many of the mergers that have taken place in recent times have been little to the benefit of the work force, customers or the public interest, and have been based largely on the self-aggrandisement of those who own the companies or those making the bids? Does that not illustrate the ineffectiveness of the Government's competition policy? Will he consider changing the basis of it so that those making bids have to prove the benefits that might flow from them?
    Mr. Channon: I should be reluctant to make that change. I do not agree with most of what the hon. Gentleman said in his supplementary question, but I believe that there is a need for certainty and consistent policy. This is an area of policy which is difficult and needs study, and I am considering all aspects of it.

    EUREKA
    Mr. Bellinghamasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what benefits he hopes to accrue to the United Kingdom from the EUREKA initiative.
    Mr. Pattie: EUREKA is benefiting us both by increasing the opportunities for British firms to collaborate with European partners in developing new technology, and by focusing attention on the need for action to open up and integrate the European market.
    Mr. Bellingham: In spite of the unfortunate name, may I congratulate the Government on adapting the initiative to British requirements by turning it into a market-led programme, which should create new and real jobs? Will he do all that he can to ensure that small firms, especially those in Norfolk, are able to benefit from the programme?
    Mr. Pattie: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. The flexibility of the EUREKA framework allows projects of differing sizes, and small firms with specialist skills are well placed to participate. I am encouraged by the extent to which they have shown interest.
    Mr. Dalyell: Was it not concern about the future of the EUREKA project that partly prompted the gravest doubts on the part of the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan), which were overcome only when on Thursday 5 December at 9 am he, along with the Secretary of State for Defence, were summoned separately to No. 10 Downing street to be told that if those doubts were not overcome they could like it, lump it or go? Was that not the truth of the situation?
    Mr. Pattie: I have not the faintest idea what the hon. Gentleman is talking about.

    Manufactured Goods
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the latest balance of trade in manufactured goods.
    Mr. Alan Clark: In the first quarter of this year there was a deficit of £1·4 billion.
    Mr. Canavan: How can the Government claim that their economic policies are a success when they have been responsible for the worst manufacturing trade deficit in British history? Bearing in mind that the deficit has existed continuously since the 1983 general election, will the Minister admit that we shall probably never see a manufacturing trade surplus again until this incompetent Tory Government are replaced at the next general election by a Labour Government who are committed to industrial regeneration and the growth of exports?
    Mr. Clark: I am just as anxious as the hon. Gentleman to see a manufacturing trade surplus. The wealth of a nation is measured by its gross domestic product, which is composed of many different elements. The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question does less than service to our manufacturers, whose exports in 1985, both by volume and by value, were higher than ever before.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does my hon. Friend share my alarm at the fact that the deficit in trade with the EEC in the first quarter of the year, at £2·8 billion, was the highest ever recorded and is equivalent to almost 1 million job losses? Why do we find it so difficult to make good trading arrangements with the Common Market as compared with the rest of the world?
    Mr. Clark: My understanding is that the exceptionally high deficit in the first quarter of this year reflects trade in the more erratic items.
    Mr. Pike: When will the Government realise that we shall never solve the country's financial problems until we get our trade in manufactured goods back into surplus? When will they realise that people in the north-west, who depend heavily on manufacturing industries, will never be got back to work unless the Government change direction and get our manufacturing industries back into surplus?
    Mr. Clark: Trade in manufactures is but one element in the overall picture of trade. The overall surplus reflects revenues from oil, a surplus in services and the money from increasing manufactured goods and exports. We spend on imports of intermediate goods to fuel growth. on capital goods to invest for the future and on consumer goods to enhance freedom of choice.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that his original answer was somewhat disappointing to those of us on the Tory side of the House who feel that genuine wealth is created by manufacturing industry and that it is upon manufacturing industry that service industries depend? In view of the somewhat unsatisfactory results in the by-elections and local government elections last week, will my hon. Friend prevail on our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and on Treasury Ministers to give manufacturing the emphasis and priority which it deserves, to stand up for British manufacturing industry in the arenas of the world and to provide fair rather than unfair competition?
    Mr. Clark: My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is a principal objective of the Government and this Department to ensure fair conditions of trading. In fair conditions, I am confident that, provided British manufactures are competitive—much of their decline, it must be admitted, rests in that they have lost competitive quality in several respects—they will advance. As I told the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), manufacturing exports increased by 5·5 per cent. last year.
    Mr. John Smith: Is the Minister aware how serious it is that, in the first quarter of 1986, we have had a balance of trade deficit on manufactured goods as high as £1·4 billion? What do the Government intend to do to reduce our balance of trade deficit in manufactured goods, bearing in mind that, as the oil balance deteriorates, it will become a much more serious problem? Why, if the so-called erratic items were so important, was no reference made to them when the trade figures were published, or is this the hon. Gentleman taking a semi-detached view of the matter?
    Mr. Clark: I do not think that it was thought necessary to make any special reference to what were only exceptional figures for one quarter.

    Support for Marketing Initiative
    Mr. Richard Pageasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his Department's Support for Marketing initiative.
    Mr. Butcher: This new advisory service will be introduced by the Department later this year. It is intended to assist and encourage small and medium-sized firms to develop or improve their marketing strategies by offering financial assistance for up to 15 man days' expert consultancy in this important area of their operations.
    Mr. Page: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree with the old adage which runs, "If you don't tell you don't sell"? What reassurances can he and the Government give that the new initiative will not suffer from the shortage of funds which has unfortunately affected the business and technical advisory service?
    Mr. Butcher: Some of Britain's critics have sometimes said that, although we might be excellent at developing products, we are perhaps not so good at marketing them. The scheme is a response to those who requested an enhancement of training and consultancy, especially small and medium-sized companies. I understand that success has caused the problem of queues in the business and technical advisory service, especially as we have multiplied by five times the amount of money
    704
    that is spent on that general scheme during the past four years. I take my hon. Friend's point. We shall act to ensure that the queues are shortened.

    Companies (Political Funds)
    Mr Winnickasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce legislation that would require companies to ballot their shareholders on whether a political fund should be established to make political donations.
    Mr. Channon: No, Sir.
    Mr. Winnick: As the Government were so insistent that trade unions should have to ballot their members every 10 years about whether a political fund should be established or maintained, why should the same not apply to companies? Is the Minister aware that a recent MORI poll found that 82 per cent. of the people surveyed believe that companies should be treated in the same way as trade unions? Did the Minister say no simply because the bulk of the money goes from companies to the Tory party and its front organisations?
    Mr Channon: No. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there are completely different factors relating to trade unions and companies. Shareholders have complete freedom of choice to invest their money, but many trade union members have no choice, and, even now, are forced to join a union to get a job. Moreover, we all know how misleading the trade union campaign was on political fund ballots. The two matters are not in any way analogues, and it would be wrong to legislate.
    Mr. Sumberg: Is it not a fact that every company must have an annual general meeting, and that at that meeting the shareholders can accept or reject the donations? The fact that they rarely, if ever, do, proves that British industry and shareholders want a Conservative Government returned at the general election because they know that if the Opposition were returned it would be a disaster.
    Mr. Channon: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I am glad that British industry shows that common sense.

British Shipbuilders
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Paul Channon): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
As the House will know, British Shipbuilders won only 23,000 compensated gross tonnes of orders last year. This was little more than a tenth of the amount forecast in its corporate plan. This was not for lack of Government support. The financial support for individual orders is not the problem. The problem is that orders are simply not there to be won. In Sweden, for example, which a few years ago had one of the most modern merchant shipbuilding industries in the world, the entire industry is closing down. This reflects the latest downturn in the shipbuilding market, which has resulted in capacity reductions and redundancies across the world. Despite Government support of over £1,400 million since 1979 and the recent increase in the level of support for new orders, it has proved impossible for British Shipbuilders to maintain its current capacity in the absence of new orders.
British Shipbuilders has, therefore, today announced measures which deal with this over-capacity. They include a decision to close by the end of the year, Smith's Dock, the Troon shipyard of Ferguson-Ailsa, and the Wallsend site of Clark Kincaid. In addition, British Shipbuilders has, as part of its wage negotiations, proposed a two-year deal which will seek to match manpower and capacity more closely to demand. The Government regret that these necessary measures will lead to total redundancies of some 3,500 people by March 1987. British Shipbuilders hopes that a substantial number of these will be achieved by voluntary redundancy.
The Government propose to provide British Shipbuilders with immediate support of up to £5 million in the current financial year to enable it to set up a new subsidiary, British Shipbuilders Enterprise Ltd. This will provide expert and practical services for those facing redundancy. It will ensure that they have at their workplace counsellors with the skills and resources to guide them towards retraining and redeployment opportunities, and to provide financial support to take advantage of those opportunities. It will also offer financial help and advice to those wishing to take the initiative of setting up their own businesses.
In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has asked the Manpower Services Commission to provide a further £1 million specifically for the retraining of redundant employees of British Shipbuilders in direct co-operation with the new enterprise corporation. He will also make available £1 million via the City Action Team for job creation measures and to stimulate enterprise in the north-east.
The community programme is already being expanded in the north-east from its present level of 22,000 jobs to 29,000 jobs at an extra cost of some £30 million. My right hon. Friend has asked the Manpower Services Commission to explore urgently new ways in which the resources of the community programme and the enterprise allowance scheme can be used in order to lead to permanent jobs in the north-east.
706
In addition to these measures, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has reviewed the derelict land reclamation and urban programmes in the areas affected—[Interruption.] I had thought that this matter was of some interest to the north-east.
At £13 million, the reclamation programme in the north-east region this year is already substantial, but it will be increased by a further £1 million. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State also proposes to allocate an extra £2 million under the urban programme, adding to the region's £35 million programme this year. British Shipbuilders Enterprise Ltd. will also operate in Scotland. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will consider urgently additional measures to help the areas affected by the redundancies announced today.
The measures that I have outlined will be in addition to the existing regional aid programmes, including assistance via English Industrial Estates for which the areas concerned are already eligible.
Mr. John Smith: Is the Secretary of State aware that the chilling and desperate news contained in that statement will cause not only dismay but deep anger throughout the shipbuilding areas? Is he not ashamed to come to the House to announce 3,500 redundancies? Why did he not tell us about redundancies in particular yards—[Interruption.] Conservative Members may not like it, but they will have to listen to it. Why did the Secretary of State not tell the House that there would be 495 redundancies at Govan Shipbuilders? Why did he not tell us that there would be more than 900 redundancies at Austin and Pickersgill, and Sunderland Shipbuilders? Why was that information not given to the House? Was he ashamed to give the details?
Is the Secretary of State aware that the collection of small sums which he has offered to the House in a desperate passing of the hat around Government Departments amounts to no more than putting tiny pieces of sticking plaster over gaping wounds? Is he aware that that money is just a pittance compared with the tens of millions of pounds taken away from those areas by the halving of regional development grants in the past few years? Does the right hon. Gentleman not now think that the decision to hive off and sell the naval shipyards, thus breaking up the integrated nature of the British shipbuilding industry, was, as a former chairman declared this morning, a "national disgrace"?
The Secretary of State spoke about the Government having helped, but why did they not intervene to ensure that British Nuclear Fuels plc, in whose company they were the majority shareholder, ordered the fifth nuclear carrier from British shipyards just like the previous four had been ordered, instead of allowing the order to go to Japan? Why do the Government not have a programme of bringing forward public sector orders to ensure that ships that will need to be built some day are built now, while our shipbuiding industry is still capable of building them? Why do the Government not urgently reassess the systems and packages of support so that British Shipbuilders has as good a package of support as any other shipbuilding firm in the world?
Why do the Government not set up a special task force, charged with the job of ensuring that our British shipbuilding industry survives? It is clear that in 1986

707
British merchant shipbuilding will either survive or disappear. On the evidence so far, the Government are completely indifferent as to which.
Mr. Channon: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong on almost all points. I do not think that British shipbuilding is on the verge of disappearing. It is important that we should try to take the necessary steps to keep merchant shipbuilding going in this country. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about public sector orders. Some are expected soon, including a fisheries protection vessel and two small ferries for Scotland, for which both British Shipbuilders and other British private sector yards are tendering.
The House must understand that further public sector orders cannot be conjured out of thin air if there is no need for them. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is misleading the House and the country if he imagines that there is some pool of public sector orders that are desperately needed and that can easily be brought forward. That is not the case. He would also mislead the House if he were to give the impression that this is a British problem; it is a worldwide problem. If the House wants details of the redundancy figures I gave, I can simplify them, but I have already told the House the unfortunate total of redundancies.s
As to our subsidies being competitive, as a whole, subsidies available to British Shipbuilders match those available elsewhere. It is quite misleading to make comparisons of the credit available without comparing direct production subsidies. It is essential that we do our best to help the industry. It is not good enough for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to misrepresent the position that exists all over the world.
Mr. Neville Trotter: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not a money problem but a worldwide problem? There is throughout a lack of shipbuilding orders caused by the calamitous state of the shipping industry worldwide. I welcome the palliatives which my right hon. Friend has announced and offer my congratulations regarding the British Shipbuilders enterprise corporation. Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is essential that this country continues to have a merchant shipping capability? We must continue to have some fundamental level of shipbuilding capability. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that we must maintain research and development facilities in British Shipbuilders, because the future lies in specialist and complicated vessels?
Mr. Channon: Yes, I agree. As my hon. Friend said in the second part of his question, it is important that facilities for research and the appropriate technology are both available. My hon. Friend said that it is a worldwide problem. I have already cited the example of Sweden. I shall cite also the example of Japan. For nearly 10 years, the Japanese have had to cut capacity. They are now considering reductions of one third in the larger yards. They have already laid off 10,000 people. To give the impression that it is solely a British problem is wholly misleading.
Mr. Bruce Millan: Is the Minister aware that there are orders available in the world, that 13 million tons of orders were placed worldwide last year, and that we won orders for only 20,000 CGT? The orders are there and we are not getting them. [HON . MEMBERS:
708
Why not?] Why do not the Government spend money on helping us to get orders instead of spending it to pick up the pieces of unemployment? Is the Minister aware that Govan Shipbuilders, which has suffered 500 redundancies today, is interested in orders from China for container ships and in a ferry order? However, it can get those orders only if there is a sufficient package of Government support. That is what we are asking for today.
Mr. Channon: The right hon. Gentleman's point about Chinese container ships is entirely right. We are prepared to offer the appropriate amount of mixed credit to make that possible. The House must understand that, in trying to get orders, it is not just a question of subsidy. There is a desperate shortage of orders worldwide. The United Kingdom is offering the same sort of credit as other countries offer—fully competitive packages. British Shipbuilders is doing its best to win the orders. One does it a disservice by demeaning what it is trying to do.
Mr. Tony Speller: I refer my right hon. Friend to the Appledore shipyard in north Devon, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills), who is absent today due to sickness. Workers at that shipyard live both in my hon. Friend's constituency and in my constituency of Devon, North. Although 650 workers may seem a small number, their redundancies will be a huge, catastrophic occurrence for our area. On the subject of reviewing the boundaries of regional aid and access to European funds, does my right hon. Friend agree that the time to take action is now rather than delay further while matters get worse?
Mr. Channon: I shall certainly consider what my hon. Friend has said, although the question of where the boundaries should be drawn raises difficult problems. I hope that the effect in Appledore will not be too severe.
Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Does the Secretary of State accept that we are seeing a decimation of our shipbuilding industry? If it is a worldwide problem, why has the Conservative party, since it came to office in 1979, done little to work with other Governments to stimulate world trade and to increase the demand for shipping? If the industry has been facing massive problems, why have the Government deflected it from the major market, construction and manufacturing problems facing it with the re-organisation and the privatisation programme?
As for the north, especially in the Cleveland area where Smith's Dock is to be closed, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance, in addition to the ad hoc measures which he has mentioned, that he will support financially the proposal by the Northern CBI, the Northern TUC and others for a northern development company?
Mr. Channon: I shall of course consider the hon. Gentleman's last point. He must face up to the fact that this is a problem of the shipbuilding industry not only in Britain but all over the world. The hon. Gentleman implied that the Government had neglected shipbuilding. I have already told the House that, since 1979, there has been Government support of more than £1·4 billion. If that is neglect, I should like to know what is not.
Mr. James Tinn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in the 20-odd. years in which I have been a Member, I have watched with admiration the first-class work of the men and management at Smith's Dock in my

709
constituency? Their achievements were confirmed as recently as last November in a letter from Graham Day, the then chairman of British Shipbuilders, in which he discounted rumours of future closures. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this announcement is a shabby return for all their sterling work? Does he agree that the ameliorative measures which have been announced amount to little more than a contribution to the funeral expenses of an important sector of the British shipbuilding industry? If reports that the Cubans are looking for four or five vessels—depending on the finance available—are correct, will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that British yards are able successfully to tender for them?
Mr. Channon: I understand and sympathise very much with the hon. Gentleman's comments. I recognise his understandable feelings at this difficult time. I do not think that any Cuban orders have yet been won. Negotiations are taking place, but I do not want to be drawn into the details. It would obviously be a great help to British Shipbuilders and yards in the United Kingdom if they won the Cuban orders. I shall certainly bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's points.
Mr. Piers Merchant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this problem has been brought about not because of Government dereliction but because of the world crisis in shipbuilding—a crisis which he has faced up to with positive courage? Does my right hon. Friend agree that his package of nearly £10 million of extra aid will be widely welcomed in the northeast? Will he consider appointing a Minister to oversee the way in which that money is spent so that it does not fall into the hands of unaccountable and unelected organisations?
Mr. Channon: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments about the assistance that the Government hope to give in the affected areas. It is not for me to appoint a Minister to undertake that task. However, I am sure that we shall have to devise effective ways of ensuring that the money is spent in the best possible way to help in this difficult situation.
Mr. James Callaghan: Does the Minister appreciate that many of us believe that it is an act of folly for an island—not Sweden—which imports and exports 90 per cent. of its trade to allow its shipbuilding industry to be almost destroyed? Whether or not orders are there to be won—the right hon. Gentleman says that they are not and, of course, we must accept that—do the Government believe that it is essential to preserve a viable shipbuilding industry of considerable size? If it is necessary to adopt a scrap-and-build policy, as was done earlier, to meet the needs of a temporary problem, why not do that? What are the right hon. Gentleman's comments on the national position of our shipbuilding industry?
Mr. Channon: I understand, and to some extent share, the right hon. Gentleman's view. It is extremely important that we have a merchant shipbuilding industry. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will pay me credit for trying to achieve a situation in which the industry is viable.
I am afraid that if British Shipbuilders keeps everything open the industry's financial position will worsen, not improve.
710
I believe that the merchant shipbuilding industry is in a position to survive and will survive. I do not believe that the scrap-and-build process that the right hon. Gentleman has advocated was a success, but obviously we are considering every step that can be taken.
Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this lack of orders has caused a serious situation in Scotland, especially at Govan Shipbuilders and the Ferguson-Ailsa yard at Troon? Will he say a little more about how the British Shipbuilders enterprise corporation money will be shared out? Will there be adequate allocations for Scotland? Will there be discussions with the Scottish Development Agency, taking into account the successful work of the British steel industry in similar circumstances, which has brought many valuable jobs to the west of Scotland?
Mr. Channon: I think that I can give all those assurances to my hon. Friend. The British Shipbuilders enterprise corporation will operate in Scotland. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is considering additional measures, and I shall ensure that everything that my hon. Friend has said is drawn to his attention.
Mr. Frank Field: Does the Secretary of State accept that the House will be perplexed that not one of the new initiatives announced today will save shipbuilding jobs? Does he accept that merchant shipbuilding is on the point of collapse? If so, what new measures does he intend to announce today?
Mr. Channon: I do not accept that it is on the verge of collapse. It is an extremely difficult situation, which is why these measures have to be taken. Further yards remain, and I very much hope that they will survive.
Sir David Price: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his depressing statement is a logical consequence of the very rapid decline in the British merchant fleet, about which the Government have been warned consistently from both sides of the House, especially by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann) and myself? Even at this late hour, will my right hon. Friend and the Government take some of the measures taken by other countries to support their merchant navies? If we support the merchant navy we may get some orders for our shipbuilders.
Mr. Channon: I certainly take note of my hon. Friend's point. I shall discuss it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
Mr. Don Dixon: Does the Secretary of State realise that what he has just announced means 3,500 highly skilled men going on the streets? A few community jobs and derelict land schemes will not save the valuable skills of this maritime nation. When will the Minister take some notice of what has been said by the Oppositon since 1979 about the decline in merchant shipping and the British shipbuilding industry? When will he come forward with something constructive? What he has announced today will do nothing for the British shipbuilding industry.
Mr. Channon: I have been trying to announce steps that will help the difficult position faced by the House and the shipbuilding industry. It is a serious situation, as the hon. Gentleman knows better than anybody. He also knows better than anybody that the problems facing the

711
shipbuilding industry are worldwide and not confined to Britain. Such problems are faced by many countries and they have taken similar steps. It is foolish, misleading and unfair to suggest that we could take steps to get out of this position when other countries have not been able to.
Mr. Richard Holt: Although I accept that today's announcement is the accumulation of years of neglect and the lack of orders, does my right hon. Friend accept that the closure of Smith's Dock in Langbaurgh, with the current high level of unemployment, will be much worse than anywhere else in the country? Therefore, will he take whatever steps he can, and say whether the £5 million he has announced is a limited figure or whether, once that has been used, further moneys will be made available? What steps will be taken to assist those people who would like to relocate to areas where work is available from an area where the house prices are the lowest in the country? Any form of help will be most welcome to my constituents.
Mr. Channon: I understand my hon. Friend's views. I hope that the amount of money announced today will be sufficient, but, of course, we shall keep the matter continually under review.
Mr. David Lambie: Is the Minister aware that the decision by British Shipbuilders to close the Ferguson-Ailsa yard at Troon, making 350 people redundant in this already high unemployment black spot, will increase male unemployment to nearly 40 per cent. and will put the final nail in the political coffin of the Secretary of State for Defence, who represents that area? Will the Minister consult the Secretary of State for Scotland to see whether the present orders for two ferries for the Scottish sea routes and one replacement vessel for the fisheries protection fleet that the Minister spoke of today can be directed to Ferguson-Ailsa in order to keep the yard open and ensure the future of the Port Glasgow and Troon shipyards?
Mr. Channon: I shall not comment on what the hon. Gentleman said in the first half of his question. As to the second half, the orders will have to go out to tender and competition in the normal way. A great many yards would like to have those orders.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: As shipbuilding is a cyclical industry, will the Minister take steps to preserve the facilities at Smith's Dock and Ferguson-Ailsa for a possible recovery? Can he understand the feelings of those who work in shipbuilding, as I did before coming to the House, who are just a bit sick when we see that the total amount of cash provided for next year is equivalent to what we are paying every four days to subsidise agriculture and produce items that nobody wants because there is acute world over-capacity?
Mr. Channon: That may well be so, but surely my hon. Friend agrees that this is not so much a cash as an orders problem. There is a lack of orders for ships all over the world, including this country. That is well understood.
Mr. Taylor: Who wants to buy agriculture?
Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend talks about this being a cyclical industry. All the forecasts that I have seen remain extremely gloomy about the industry for a long time.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: In the light of the decision to close the Troon yard of Ferguson-Ailsa, may I point out to the Secretary of State that it is absolutely crucial that the fisheries protection vessel to be ordered by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland and the Caledonian MacBrayne passenger ferry come to Ferguson-Ailsa in Port Glasgow, or the firm will disappear altogether? Has the right hon. Gentleman's Department informed the Associated Container Line that assistance can be obtained for the enlargement of its four vessels by way of the home credit scheme? There are orders there if the right hon. Gentleman's Department gets to its feet and helps British Shipbuilders to look for them.
Mr. Channon: On the hon. Gentleman's final point, that is well known, but I shall have to have that matter specially looked at. On his first point about the fisheries protection vessel and the ferries, it will be extremely important which yards those orders go to. British Shipbuilders and other yards are tendering for them now. I think that the only fair thing is for them to go out to tender in the normal way.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Is it not the depressing reality that there are too many modern ships chasing too little cargo and that, consequently, freight rates are at an historic low? That means that there is too little money to invest in new ships and too little incentive to do so. Is my right hon. Friend aware that many ships that are being built now will be laid up as soon as they emerge from the yards?
Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend shows graphically the real problems that face shipping and the shipbuilding industry—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must say to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that none of what he is saying is going into Hansard, so it does not help us.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: Why did the Secretary of State fail to announce in his statement any support for the present shipbuilding industry? Is he aware that it would take four Nissans in the north-east of England to make up for the shortfall of jobs that he announced today? Why cannot our community have the protection that the Government seem so willing to afford Harland and Wolff in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman is being unfair. I have said that there has been Government support of more than £1,400 million since 1979. The problem now is a lack of orders all over the world. In that difficult situation, I hope that the package that I have announced will create jobs, and be of help in the north-east and in Scotland.
Mr. Ralph Howell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that public expenditure in South Korea accounts for 20 per cent. of GDP and that in this country it is 45 per cent.? South Korea has a thriving shipbuilding industry while ours is in a shambles. Will my right hon. Friend make that point to those of his right hon. Friends who want to increase public expenditure?
Mr. Channon: Yes, I will certainly make that point to my right hon. and hon. Friends. My hon. Friend must also be aware that the Korean industry is by no means in as good a shape as it was.
Mr. Robert C. Brown: Is the Minister aware that it is not true to say that there are no orders? The problem lies in the fact that for every 700,000 tonnes of world orders last year, the British industry received only 1,000 tonnes. There must be a message in that for the Minister who is responsible for the industry. The right hon. Gentleman has been less than truthful with the House and has told only half the truth. He has not mentioned the other half of the British shipbuilding industry, which is in private hands. He did not mention, for instance, that the 3,500 job losses that he has announced today will be further increased by 2,000 losses when Swan Hunter announces redundancies on the Tyne as a direct result of the Government's failure to give a shipbuilding order.
The former hon. Member for Tynemouth, the late Dame Irene Ward, must be turning in her grave after hearing the contribution of her successor today. Like her successor, the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), we can also afford to ignore the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Merchant) because he will be a goner at the next election.
Mr. Channon: I think that the House will know that special steps have been taken in an attempt to help Swan Hunter in relation to the auxiliary oiler replenishment vessel. I am acutely aware of the problem faced by Swan Hunter. Of course, there are some orders available, and the hon. Gentleman was correct about that. However, there are many fewer orders than there were, and I believe that every shipbuilding industry in the world is cutting back.
Mr. Richard Page: Does my right hon. Friend accept that I know that he and the House regret the necessity of having to make this statement? Does he have any idea how much money would be needed, in addition to the £1·5 billion already given, to secure the shrinking world orders that are available? Is he also aware that National Coal Board (Enterprise) Ltd., which was so denigrated by the Opposition, has created thousands of jobs and would he agree that British Shipbuilders Enterprise Ltd. will do the same?
Mr. Channon: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The coal and steel enterprise companies have created thousands of jobs and I very much hope that British Shipbuilders Enterprise Ltd. will receive a welcome from both sides of the House and will be successful. I suspect, as I have told the House, that it is not a question of money, Government support or more subsidy. Such assistance would make little difference to British shipbuilders. There are very few orders available and those that are will not be given away. The House is misleading itself if it imagines that there is a simple solution.
Mr. Bob Clay: Is the Minister aware that workers at Austin and Pickersgill, the Sunderland shipbuilders, will take it as a sign of the Minister's indifference to their position that he could not be bothered to mention in his statement the 925 redundancies that were announced in Newcastle this morning? Is it not true that, unless the Minister changes his careless and complacent attitude, he will be back before the summer recess to announce that another one third of the industry has gone under? Is it not also true that the whole industry will disappear by the end of this year or early next year? Does the Minister accept that it is not
714
true that there are no orders? Hon. Members have referred to orders from China and Cuba, and Yugoslavia is tendering for 23 ships abroad. Is Britain incapable of getting even five or six of these ships? It would appear that we are incapable under this Government. Will the Minister not tear up the appalling and shameful statement and get off his backside and do what Opposition Members have for long enough requested him to do?
Mr. Channon: I have already explained the position in relation to the China and Cuba orders. We are doing our utmost to win them, and the Government are helping to the maximum extent—[HON. MEMBERS: "What is the right hon. Gentleman doing?"] We are helping through the aid and trade provisions in terms of the China order, and talks are continuing about the Cuban orders.
On the hon. Gentleman's specific point about Sunderland, the figure that the hon. Gentleman referred to was included in the total number of redundancies that I announced in my statement.
Sir Kenneth Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that only a year or two ago—in the lifetime of this and the previous Administration—manufacturing industry was going out at a rate of knots? There is now an upturn in the demand for manufacturing goods and we do not have the capacity to provide for the market. Will my right hon. Friend therefore accept that I am more optimistic than he that in a year or two from now there might be a demand for shipping if world trade improves? Will he ensure that he keeps some of the units available and does not close them altogether so that they can be used again when there is an increase in shipping demand?
Mr. Channon: In general, my hon. Friend is right about the opportunities and prospects for British industry in the coming year. Some industries are still facing serious problems, and the shipbuilding industry is perhaps suffering most. I wish I could be as optimistic as my hon. Friend about the prospects for the shipbuilding industry worldwide, but I will certainly consider his remarks.
Mr. Robert Litherland: Does the Minister agree with the former chairman of British Shipbuilders that the position now is so serious that the Prime Minister should intervene? Will she do that?
Mr. Channon: I heard what the former chairman said, but I agreed with very little of it.
Mr. Charles Wardle: Did my right hon. Friend see a report that was published last month which revealed that there is surplus capacity worldwide of 60 million tonnes in the bulk carrier market and 100 million tonnes in the tanker market? Against such a background is it any wonder that there is no demand for new ships?
Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend is quite right and the House must consider the points that he made. There is a worldwide problem and it would be foolish to imagine that any Government can take steps in isolation to cure the problem. If the Opposition were responsible, they would not take the line that they are adopting now.
Mr. James Wallace: Does the Secretary of State really believe that the Government's dogmatic obsession with reorganisation and privatisation has been helpful to the shipbuilding industry? At such a

715
critical time the Government should have been concentrating their efforts on marketing and chasing orders. Rather than coming to the House to announce a rather puny welfare package, does the Secretary of State not accept that the communities in the north-east and in Scotland are looking for a package for industrial regeneration?
Mr. Channon: I do not agree that the privatisation of the warship yards has had an effect on the position. The orders required by both sets of yards are quite different. That is not to say that there are not serious problems in warship yards as well.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: When my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) raised the question of scrap and build, the Minister said that he had some sympathy with that. If so, will he consider orders for the four much-needed ocean survey ships which will he successors to the clapped out Heckla and Hecate? Will he consider successors to the Uganda? The Uganda was used during the Falklands war, and there is now no educational cruise ship available. Would it not be sensible to consider a viable scheme involving educational cruise ships? Such a scheme worked properly until the Uganda was taken over to be used as a hospital ship. If the need ever rose again, where would we find a hospital ship for an operation similar to the Falklands campaign?
Mr. Channon: I have some sympathy with the remarks of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), although he was not referring specifically to scrap and build. Ship scrapping was tried in the 1930s and I, like most people, believe that that scheme was riot a success. It is unlikely that it would be a success in the present climate.
Mr. John Ryman: The Minister has referred to a worldwide shortage of orders. What steps, if any, have he or the Government taken to influence orders and so stop them from going abroad? Is he aware, for example, that P and O placed a mammoth order with Norway quite recently, which should have gone to British Shipbuilders? If he is destroying the British shipbuilding industry today—and that will be greeted with horror and disgust in the north-east—what will happen if there is a worldwide revival of the industry and the work-force has been broken up and the yards have been closed?
Mr. Channon: On the specific point which the hon. Gentleman raised about getting British shipowners to buy in British yards, our recent record is similar to that of most other European countries. I have examined the figures and they are more or less the same for all the countries concerned. It is in the interests of British shipowners to place orders in British yards if the terms are right. In the case of P and O, a ship is being built at the present time.
Mr. Stuart Bell: In relation to the Secretary of State's last statement, will he accept that all the statements that Labour Members have show that we have the worst record in the EEC on placing orders for ships in domestic yards? Will he also note that in the House today anger turns to sadness and sadness turns to shame at his exposition of our shipbuilding industry and what the Government propose to do about it? He has not referred to the 1,350 jobs at Smith's Dock. He has not said that the £1,400 million was essentially to cover deficits
716
and was not new investment, and that it went to the naval industry as well as the merchant yards. He has not said a word in praise of the shipyard workers in Smith's Dock who have rendered a signal service to our local economy and have delivered on time ships of the highest quality. He has mentioned Cuba and China, but he has not said whether, if those orders transpire, the yards that he has mentioned today for closure will stay open. Will he now give the House the commitment that, if those orders transpire between now and the end of the year those yards, including Smith's Dock, will stay open?
Mr. Channon: If an adequate number of orders can be found to keep those yards open, that will be highly desirable and something that I would welcome. But it would be wrong of me and misleading to those concerned if I were to stand at this Dispatch Box this afternoon and say I thought that that was at all likely. That would be raising false hopes, and I would be misleading people. That would not be doing them a service. Only about a third of the orders by British shipowners have been placed outside the United Kingdom, and that is about the average for the rest of Europe.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Secretary of State aware that his response to the constructive proposals put by my right hon. and hon. Friends displays a lack of willingness to try to rescue the difficult situation in British Shipbuilders? Why, when Ministers come to the Dispatch Box and willingly put thousands of people on the scrapheap of unemployment, do they always look for the worst example in the world, in this case Sweden, and seek to emulate that worst example? Have the Conservative Government now lost any willingness to try to do just a little hit better than the worst for the people of Britain? Does the Minister realise that the Government established BSC (Industry) Ltd because they decimated the British steel industry, that they established NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. because they decimated the coal industry, and that they will now establish British Shipbuilders Enterprise Ltd. because they are decimating British shipbuilding?
Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman is being unfair. I have already told the House of the Government's support of £1,400 million since 1979. It is unreasonable for the hon. Gentleman not to accept that and to say that the Government have not supported the industry. He says that I have quoted only the Swedish industry. I give him the example of the Dutch, the Japanese, the Koreans, the Germans and the French whose industries are also cutting back, some in a major way.
Mr. Christopher Chope: What has been achieved since 1979 by spending £1,400 million of taxpayers' money other than to delay the evil and sad day that we are now experiencing?
Mr. Channon: It was right to spend that money and to support British Shipbuilders in the way that I have described. The situation that I have described today is unavoidable and is happening in many other countries.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Has not the Minister got a cheek to talk about shipbuilding being viable when in the past few years the Government have had double standards about viability in parts of the British economy? Why, if everything is tested by viability, was Johnson Matthey bank provided with £100 million of taxpayers' money in 1984 even though it was bankrupt and had run

717
out of reserves? Why cannot shipbuilders' families be treated in the same way as people in the casino economy? What about the viability of the Common Market, which received £250 million of British taxpayers' money because it went bankrupt last year? What about the Export Credits Guarantee Department. Last year, £250 million went down the Swanee and the Government bailed it out? That was not viable. Is the House of Lords viable? Is this place viable? [HON MEMBERS: "Are you viable?"] It seems to me that the Government are concerned only with their own people. They would rather throw people on the scrap heap—the dole queue—than keep them in jobs. It is like the fellow in Bolsover told me the other day—this Minister is educated beyond his intelligence. Come on, answer.
Mr. John Smith: Does the Secretary of State realise that through all the wearisome recital of platitudes and ministerial hand-wringing to which we have been subjected this afternoon, he did not announce one new initiative to help the British shipbuilding industry to survive? Does he realise that the cost to the taxpayer of the unemployment that has been announced, with a spin-off in other industries, will probably amount to £80 million a year? Should not that be taken into account in assessing the public expenditure consequences? Those people in the industry who have not been subject to redundancy announcements today desperately need reassurance. Can he tell us that he will not be back at that Dispatch Box before the end of 1986 announcing more redundancies if he is so confident that merchant shipbuilding is not at stake?
Mr. Channon: The future of merchant shipbuilding in this and every other country will be determined by the orders that are won and the work that can be found. British
718
shipbuilders and the Government will try to ensure that they are. No one can be sure that that will happen, but that is our aim. Indeed, as the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said when he had responsibility for this industry,
"Shipbuilding industries all over the world from Japan to Sweden are accepting the inevitability of contraction, and Britain cannot be insulated from this world trend."—[Official Report, 24 February 1977; Vol. 926, c. 1653]
That is the truth of the matter and it is hypocritical to pretend otherwise.
Hon. Members: Resign.
Mr. Speaker: Mrs. Lynda Chalker.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is to do with these exchanges, Sir. Will you promise to reprimand me on future occasions, as you have recently reprimanded that dreadful and persistent drip, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), because if you were to do that, that would ensure that my frequently more witty observations would be engraved on those tablets of stone, the Official Report?
Mr. Speaker: The words which go into Hansard are those spoken when a Member is called to speak by the Chair, not those made from a sedentary position.
Mr. Faulds rose—
Mr. Speaker: I shall do what the hon. Gentleman originally asked.
Mr. Faulds: But further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It was you who changed the ruling. In the very old days when I first came into the House witty interventions from a sedentary position were recorded in the Official Report, and it frequently lightened the exchanges.
Mr. Speaker: Maybe, if they were witty.

Foreign Affairs Council
4.17 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council, which took place in Brussels on 12 and 13 May 1986. I represented the United Kingdom.
As a precautionary measure following the Chernobyl disaster, the Council agreed a Commission proposal for a regulation to ban the import of certain foodstuffs from the USSR, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. The ban entered into force on 13 May and will last until 31 May. It will be reviewed on 20 May, taking account of the latest scientific evidence. In addition, member states have undertaken to set contamination standards for intra-Community imports which are no higher than those for domestic produce, to limit the contamination level in exports to other member states to that acceptable to the recipient state, and to lift national controls on imports.
The Council discussed Community strategy in preparation for the launch of a new GATT round of trade negotiations.
The Council discussed improvements to the Community's mandate for negotiations with Mediterranean third countries on the adaptation of their cooperation and association agreements following the accession of Spain and Portugal. There will be further discussion at the June Council.
The Council reviewed the steps being taken to normalise the Community's relations with Turkey in preparation for a meeting of the Association Council which is expected to take place in the early autumn.
The text of a joint declaration by the Council, member states, Commission and Parliament against racism and xenophobia was agreed.
The Council also had a further general discussion of the current budgetary situation in the Community during which the Commission outlined its plans for a 1986 supplementary budget and the 1987 preliminary draft budget.
An Association Council with Malta was held in the margins of the Council. The operation of the EC-Malta association agreement and the possible implications for Malta of the enlargement of the Community were discussed.
Mr. George Robertson: The most important part of the Minister's statement related to the constraints placed on trade from eastern European countries. She did not enlighten the House much on that important subject. It seems that this whole shambolic pantomime has had far more to do with safeguarding the agriculture of certain European Community countries than with protecting our citizens from food contaminated by radioactivitiy.
The way in which the provisional ban—it is no more than a provisional ban—has been arrived at gives us and the British people no great confidence in the capacity of the Community to take action to deal with such emergencies. In any event, will not the existing shambles be made even worse by today's meeting of experts if it produces suggested safe radiation levels which some countries are almost bound not to accept?
720
The European Council has assuredly failed to reassure worried people who have watched naked commercial interests put before agreed safe standards. In addition, we have undermined our relations with eastern European countries whose produce, alone of that of all the nations over which the Chernobyl cloud has moved, is to be affected. Can we be reassured that any future action on imported foodstuff will be directly related to the risk of contamination and less related to public relations exercises in reassurance and national commercial protection?
Will the Minister tell us what advice the World Health Organisation gave on a wholesale, seven-nation ban? Finally, will she accept that the initial, unforgiveable secrecy of the Soviet authorities must not be used as an excuse for Communist-bashing by any members of the European Community, as the most vivid lesson of the disaster is that we need closer relations within Europe as a whole and not a dogfight?
Mrs. Chalker: The measures that the United Kingdom has taken since 2 May affected all incoming produce from the Soviet Union and Poland. Our measures were already in existence and, as one item in a series of items at the Foreign Affairs Council, we agreed that there should be standards that should be regularly reviewed. The hon. Gentleman says that confidence is undermined because this process has taken time, but it is bound to take time. However, the United Kingdom Government have made it absolutely clear, right from the beginning, that our citizens were protected in relation to produce coming into this country. It must be right regularly to review a situation when that situation is developing. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pour scorn on that in future, as he has today.
Of course we abhor the secrecy over this matter, which has made it more difficult for countries to take the decisions that they wish to take. Every country in the 12 has taken its own measures and we have come together in the decisions that I have referred to and which have been mentioned in the papers for some days. I believe that not only the British people but others in the European Community can have confidence in all the checks that are going on in all member countries, and of which the institutions concerned with these matters are fully aware.
Sir Bernard Braine: While I fully accept the good sense of the British Government's stand, is not there an underlying anxiety, which was expressed by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and which some of us share? Having attended the gathering, does my hon. Friend detect any new resolution among European Governments to move more in step? For example, why is aid given unconditionally by European Governments to some countries that continue to violate basic human rights? Is there yet any realisation of the poor impression that European Governments other than our own gave to the world by not facing up to Libyan terrorism and thus forcing the Americans to take action on their own part?
Mrs. Chalker: I assure my right hon. Friend that there is a definite resolution among all member countries of the 12 not only to allay anxieties, but, more than that, to make sure that there are measures in force in each country to test produce to make sure that it does not reach the markets of those countries.

721
There was no lengthy debate on human rights. There was an agreement on racism which follows exactly the policy in force in this country.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: What does it mean?
Mrs. Chalker: It follows our own policy in exactly the way that I think my hon. Friends would, in the past, have probably accepted. It is not a legally binding declaration, but it reflects existing policy, which condemns all forms of discrimination on racial grounds.
I should add to my right hon. Friend the member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) that we did not have a full discussion about Libya. There were discussions in the margins, but they were not on the agenda.
Mr. Richard Livsey: Was there any discussion about the impact of the Chernobyl disaster on European Community stocks of food? As the Ukraine produces 20 per cent. of USSR agricultural production, is the Community ready to assist the Russians?
The Minister's statement refers to a supplementary budget. Will that match the estimates of Agra Europe, that it might reach 1·5 billion ecu in the current year?
Mrs. Chalker: If the USSR seeks to buy cereals on the world market from stocks, that will be dealt with in the normal way. The proposed supplementary budget is within the 1·4 per cent ceiling. It will include the further 500 million ecu for the British 1985 abatement and it will certainly not go as high as the hon. Gentleman suggested. It will be kept within the strict budgetary guidelines to which we have always sought to adhere.
Sir Anthony Kershaw: Is it not surprising to hear the risk of contamination being taken so lightly in the House? Is it not entirely because of the lack of information from the Soviet Union and eastern Europe that we have been compelled to take steps that may or may not be necessary, but which have to be taken as a precaution?
Mrs. Chalker: Indeed. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Contamination, whether of food or of the ground, is a most serious matter. The 12 members of the European Community and the countries in eastern Europe now seem conscious of the need to share information at the earliest possible opportunity. That has been one of the outcomes of the discussions that we have had. The International Atomic Energy Agency will be co-ordinating the gathering of information from whatever source. I welcome the Soviet agreement to provide the IAEA with reports on radiation levels. That will enable us to have fuller discussions at earlier dates. The IAEA board of governors will be meeting next week to discuss the matter.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the hon. Lady believe that the single sentence in her statement about the budgetary problems faced by the Community is sufficient information for the House? Is the Community facing bankruptcy, as many people believe? Is there a crisis on the way? If so, should not the House know now rather than later?
Mrs. Chalker: As the budget has not yet been presented to the Council of Ministers, there was no substantive discussion of it. That is why I have no substantive discussion to report on. It is quite clear that we
722
have already done well to secure the price cuts that were agreed in April by the Agriculture Council. They would not have been secured without budgetary discipline. We shall continue with that discipline to ensure that we reach the kind of solution for a reduction of surpluses that this country and the rest of the Community seek.
Mr. Ian Gow rose—
Mr. Teddy Taylor: No supplementary budget?
Mr. Gow: What contribution was made by Her Majesty's Government to the discussion about a declaration against racism and xenophobia? Will my hon. Friend enlighten the House about the advantages that will accrue to mankind as a result of the discussions that took place?
Mrs. Chalker: Once more I have to say to my hon. Friend that the discussion followed the discussion by us of our existing policy and, indeed, the discussion in many other countries. I have already said that it was a combination of all our views to condemn all forms of discrimination on racial grounds. It is a moral and political undertaking. It is not legally binding.
Mr. Budgen: An undertakine—ah!
Mrs. Chalker: But it has been made available to the House. Three months ago my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, placed an explanatory memorandum in the Library of the House. That will provide my hon. Friend with all the details. There was no substantive discussion.
Mr. Robert Parry: On the situation in Turkey, are Her Majesty's Government and the Council of Ministers satisfied about the progress towards human rights and democracy in that country and about the trials there of trade union leaders and peace activists?
Mrs. Chalker: These matters were very much to the fore in the discussions that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had with the Prime Minister of Turkey. The same line has been taken in the discussions within the European Community. Some Opposition Members seem to enjoy refusing to acknowledge that progress is being made. That does nothing to promote human rights. If the progress that is being made were to be welcomed, we would encourage countries that do not observe the human rights standards that we wish to see to do even more. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do that.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is it not unfortunate that an announcement about another massive Common Market overspend has been made on the same day as the announcement of the closure of a third of our shipbuilding industry, because there is not money with which to build ships? On the containment of radioactive food from east Europe, has my hon. Friend the Minister found the answer to a question that has been asked several times since last Thursday: how do we distinguish a Polish pig from an East German pig if both of them are shipped through Leipzig, which is not covered by the new restrictions?
Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend might have had a chance during the earlier statement to ask his question about shipbuilding. But it is not simply a question of overcapacity in shipbuilding throughout the world.
Mr. Taylor: Just like farming.
Mrs. Chalker: I say to my hon. Friend that the money which in his view should be spent on ships should certainly not be spent on further surpluses.
Mr. Taylor: It is being spent on surpluses.
Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend knows full well that every measure that we can take is being taken to reduce surpluses. On his question about East German pigs or Polish pigs, he knows that imports of such material are covered by the agreement.
Mr. John Evans: Why was East Germany left out of the ban? That struck most British people as being very odd indeed. Can the Minister answer a question that I was asked at my surgery last Saturday? Why have the British Government banned the import of foodstuffs from Eastern bloc countries, although they have informed British citizens that they are free to travel on holiday and business to those areas, where they will surely be eating those very same foodstuffs?
Mrs. Chalker: East Germany is beyond the 1,000-km limit that was drawn, but the West German Government have undertaken that any of the produce coming from East Germany will be fully tested under their system of monitoring.
Mr. Budgen: May I thank my hon. Friend for her important and detailed statement about racism? Will she please reassure the friends of the EEC that her statement was not mere vacuous posturing and that the British Government will be pressing all the nation states of the EEC to introduce immediately into their national Parliaments legislation that is analogous to the much-respected race relations legislation in this country?
Mrs. Chalker: I suggest to my hon. Friend that if he looked at the legislation that is on the statute books of other countries, he would find that the member states of the European Community could not have agreed to this declaration unless that policy was already on their statute books.
Mr. David Winnick: Bearing in mind the relations that the Foreign Affairs Council has with other European countries, were the Foreign Ministers aware of the continuing concern that such a deeply stained individual as Kurt Waldheim might be elected President of Austria? Although this is a matter for the people of Austria, there are, nevertheless, few people who now believe that he told the truth about his wartime role. Clearly he knew full well what was going on and that the German army and the Nazis were involved in killings and deportations.
Mrs. Chalker: Although I know that it has become commonplace to try to attribute every ill in the world to the European Community, I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that the Foreign Affairs Council did not discuss the matter that he has raised.
Viscount Cranborne: Would my hon. Friend be kind enough to tell the House how the EEC defines xenophobia? For the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) is she able to tell the House what penalties the EEC and this Parliament will impose if anybody transgresses and becomes xenophobic under the definition established by Brussels?
Mrs. Chalker: I have already said that this is not a legally binding declaration
Mr. Budgen: What is the point of having it, then?
Mrs. Chalker: It reflects existing policy in this country I should have thought that my hon. Friend would have had the—
Mr. Evans: Decency?
Mrs. Chalker: Maybe that is the word. I should have thought that my hon. Friend would have had the "whatever" to realise that discrimination on racial grounds will not lead to progress for anybody in this country or anywhere else in the world.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I put a very precise, factual, informed question to the Minister? Although she may be unable to answer it at once, I am sure that she will be able to get information from the Box and answer it later. At what time, on what day, some two or three days before the announcement and news came from Sweden, did a telephone call come through from Russia to a British member of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna asking for advice about how to deal with graphite fires? Precisely what was the Russian request and in what terms was it phrased? I do not say that it mentioned Chernobyl, Minsk or Kiev, but what, precisely, was the question? What were they asking for? Did the British official of the International Atomic Energy Agency take any steps to let the members of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority know? And did members of the Atomic Energy Authority—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Did all this go On at the Foreign Affairs Council?
Mr. Dalyell: The Minister raised the question of what happened, and I am asking a very precise question. Was the IAEA informed? Did the IAEA inform the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and were Ministers informed? The Minister knows perfectly well that—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has done jolly well. It would make an excellent Adjournment debate.
Mrs. Chalker: I shall read the Official Report with great care. I shall look into the matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised and try to unravel what is going on.
Mr. Colin Moynihan: Will my hon. Friend confirm whether there were any discussions at the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council regarding the International Atomic Energy Agency and, if so, what was the outcome of those discussions?
Mrs. Chalker: Indeed, the International Atomic Energy Agency was discussed briefly because we were able to welcome the Soviet agreement to provide reports on radiation levels to the IAEA. We also welcomed the concerted effort by the IAEA not only to gather the information but to identify further needs for data and to disseminate that information to all interested parties—a crucial establishment of the facts against which further measures should be judged.
Mr. Andrew Faulds (Watley, East): Will the hon. Lady propose to the British ambassador in Russia and to her colleagues in Europe that their ambassadors in Moscow should attend the funerals of those who have died

725
at Chernobyl and of those who will die from the effects of the Chernobyl disaster because, but for the grace of God, there go all of us?
Mrs. Chalker: I think that the hon. Gentleman exaggerates a little. We have total sympathy with the relatives of all those affected by the disaster, but I fear that the location of those funerals will not be made known to foreign embassies, so the suggestion may not be possible to implement. Certainly, the suggestion will be considered.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Did the Foreign Affairs Council discuss the ludicrous idea that members of the European Assembly should be granted immunity from arrest and prosecution? Is that perhaps because they are xenophobic? Secondly, I am chairman of the British-Malta parliamentary group, so can my hon. Friend inform the House what is happening about Malta in view of the enlargement of the EEC?
Mrs. Chalker: On my hon. Friend's first question, I do not think that we can take that issue much further this afternoon. On his second question, we are talking about the Association Council in the margins. We had a discussion informally, and then a little more formally, about security in the Mediterranean, but there was no question of coming to any decisions. Discussions with Malta will continue about its associaton with the European Community. Nothing substantive was decided.
Mr. James Lamond: What about the important question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) concerning what is to happen to those people who journey beyond the Iron Curtain, such as the important IPU
726
delegation? Fourteen members of the House, led by the Deputy Prime Minister, no less, will no doubt be eating and drinking their fill of the food that is not allowed into this country. Is there not something rather illogical about that?
Mrs. Chalker: When an IPU delegation is on its way, I am sure that it carefully considers where it is going, what it is going to do, and what it will eat and drink. I am certain that, as the delegation is going to Moscow, the Soviet authorities will take good care of the hon. Gentleman and ensure that nothing goes near his lips that will be injurious to him.
Mr. George Robertson: I asked the Minister a question earlier which she did not answer. What was the advice given by the World Health Organisation about the need for a wholesale ban on the produce of seven nations?
Mrs. Chalker: A wholesale ban on the produce of seven nations was not the advice given and it was certainly not the advice accepted by the national experts, who are also meeting in Brussels on Monday. I shall look again at what the hon. Gentleman says so that it comes up at the review meeting if that is necessary.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When officials know perfectly well the answer to a question asked by an hon. Member, should there not be some mechanism by which the Minister can answer, even if she does not know the answer immediately? Should not the Minister be able at least to make a statement at the end of Question Time? All that I ask for—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a heavy day ahead of us and the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked a question which was rather long. I have no doubt that he will receive the answers for which he asks. There are many other ways of asking such questions.

Shipbuilding Industry
4.43 pm
Mr. John Smith: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the crisis in the merchant shipbuilding industry."
I shall be brief, but I hope that my brevity will not lead the House to think that there is any lack of seriousness in my application.
The matter is specific because this afternoon we heard the proposal to close three shipyards and to make 3,500 workers in the shipbuilding industry redundant. The matter could hardly be more specific for those most directly affected.
The matter is important because, as was made clear in our exchanges when questioning the Secretary of State, the whole future of the British merchant shipbuilding industry may be at stake. It is difficult, if not impossible, to underestimate the significance of this afternoon's statement and the matters to which it relates.
The issue requires urgent consideration because time is short and 1986 may be the year in which it is decided whether the British merchant shipbuilding industry survives or disappears. An important part of the industry has already disappeared as a result of the statement this afternoon. I submit that the subject falls within the purview of Standing Order No. 10.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the crisis in the merchant shipbuilding industry."
I listened with great care to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as I listened with care to what was said in the House earlier this afternoon. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, my sole duty when considering an application under Standing Order No. 10 is to decide whether it should be given priority over the business already set down for this evening or for tomorrow. I regret that I cannot rule that the matter meets all the criteria laid down in the Standing Order and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House respects your judgment in the conventional form and is aware of all the matters that you must take into account when coming to that judgment. It would be inappropriate to make any comment on that, but Ministers are present and they understand that this is an emergency, although we understand why you do not regard it as such. I hope that the remarks by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) will be taken into account, so that in the very near future we may have a debate.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman and the whole House understands that I am bound by the Standing Order. I hope that there are other ways in which this important matter may be raised on the Floor of the House.

Hinkley Point Power Station (Accident)
4.47 pm
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the refusal of the Central Electricity Generating Board to publish the full report of the hoard of inquiry into the Hinkley Point accident of 29 November."
That accident involved a release of radioactivity at Hinkley Point in Somerset and resulted in the issue of anti-radiation tablets to the work force for only the second time in Britain. The CEGB promised a board of inquiry into the accident, which would be made public.
On 13 December I was promised in a parliamentary reply that a full report of the inquiry would be issued "soon". Since then the CEGB has given me five promises about the imminent publication of the report, including a number of specific dates. Each has failed to materialise.
At 2 o'clock this afternoon, the CEGB made public a four-page document saying that there was very little to worry about. But it has specifically refused a request from me to make public the full report.
The CEGB has said that the accident was not very serious. I have no wish to disbelieve that, but the public have a right to see the evidence. There can be no acceptable reason, in the light of public concern at the time, highlighted by the Chernobyl tragedy, why the full report on this important accident should not be published. The CEGB cannot expect to receive public support for nuclear power while it keeps secret such vital information.
The CEGB's refusal runs; counter to the undertakings to me. It also makes a mockery of the assurances by the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Energy yesterday that in future nuclear matters would be conducted in the open.
This is an important and specific matter because we can have no faith in the assurances of the Secretaries of State about openness in nuclear matters if they allow the CEGB to keep this document secret.
In view of the widespread concern about nuclear power, it is now important that the House receives assurances that the Secretaries of State for Energy and the Environment will live up to their undertakings about full openness on this and all other nuclear matters.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the refusal of the CEGB to publish the full report of the board of inquiry into the Hinkley Point accident on 29 November."
I regret that I have to give the hon. Gentleman the same answer that I gave to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10, and I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

BILL PRESENTED
  DOG FIGHTING PENALTIES (No. 3)
  Mr. Harry Greenway presented a Bill to amend the Protection of Animals Act 1911 to increase the penalties for offences against animals under Section 1(1): And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 4 July, and to be printed. [Bill 62.]

Shops (Sunday Trading and Workers' Protection)
4.50 pm
Mr. Ray Powell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to reform the law relating to Sunday trading and to provide protection for workers in the retail industry.
Most hon. Members are well aware of the anomalies in the 1950 Shops Act and certain other Acts that govern the laws applicable to regulation of shop opening hours both on a Sunday and for the remainder of the week. They are also aware of the difficulties and problems of enforcing those laws. As legislators, we have a responsibility to change the law so that its application is enforceable and practical, thereby ensuring the right and just protection of the people it covers—be they shopowners, shop workers or shoppers.
There are three major criticisms of the 1950 Act—first, its many and varied anomalies, secondly, its complications and thirdly, the difficulty of enforcement. Many argue that the Act was hopelessly out of date when it was enacted, and after 36 years of far-reaching changes in the structure and pattern of retailing it is necessary to alter something that is entirely out of touch with modern conditions. The Act is a complicated piece of legislation; it is not easy for a lawyer. let alone the average shopkeeper, to understand and interpret.
There is also the problem of shops selling a mixed range of goods, some falling within the exemptions in the act and others not doing so. Compliance by shopkeepers and understanding by shoppers are severely tested, and effective enforcement becomes virtually impossible.
Added to all that, the penalties for breaches of the Act have not kept pace with the times. Currently, the maximum penalty for infringing the Sunday trading restrictions is £1,000, and only £100 for breach of general closing hour requirements. The level of fines imposed by magistrates is little deterrent to large traders to break the law. Frustration with the inadequacies of the penalties deter local authorities from enforcing the law.
Clearly, the Act has produced such difficulties and so much criticism that there is a profound need for change. Many have shared that view and attempted to change the Act. There have been six attempts by private Members in the other place and 12 attempts in this House, and in 1961 the Home Office departmental committee, under the chairmanship of Lord Crathorne, conducted considerable research. Yet they all failed to introduce the necessary legislation. Of course, most recently the Government's own proposals for complete deregulation were rejected by the House. Some hon. Members have suggested that, after that marathon debate, we should forget about reform.
730
However, I am sure that most hon. Members, appreciating all that I have stated about the Act, would like action to be taken.
My Bill would seek the establishment of a standing conference under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), who should succeed to the position of Father of the House if he is reelected, and who is recommended by the present Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan). That proves conclusively that I am suggesting things beyond the realms of personal political prejudice on this issue.
Representatives on the standing conference would include all organisations that declared interest in the recent debate—Members of Parliament, religious organisations, the Keep Sunday Special campaign, the National Chamber of Trade, the Retail Consortium, the Multiple Food Retailers Employers Association, local authority associations, the police, the Union of Shop. Distributive and Allied Workers, other interested unions and representatives of consumers. In addition, all other organisations involved in retail distribution should be considered, including ACAS, so that the broadest spectrum can be covered.
The standing conference would be asked to consider in detail the 1950 Act and other Acts involved in the retail trade, and, by agreement, to recommend to the House either amendments to the existing Act or a new shops Act. It would be asked also to consider other factors before presenting its recommendations. such as the exercise of the right to worship, the employment, remuneration and working conditions of employees, costs and prices in retail distributive industries, the interests and wishes of consumers, the incidence of crime, the demands on transport, the effect on the environment and the interests of residents.s
The Bill is necessary, for a number of good and cogent reasons. Equally important, it should enable adequate protection for some of the most low-paid workers in this country. The Bill would make a serious attempt not to tinker with one or two sections of the 1950 Act, but to make constructive proposals for wide, involved and comprehensive consultation with those directly or indirectly affected. It is also essential to show the nation that this House is prepared to continue with consent, discussion and negotiation and to make all attempts necessary to remedy and rectify any and every law that is widely treated with contempt.
It is for those and all the other reasons to which I have referred that I ask the House to give leave to bring in my Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ray Powell, Mr. Thomas Torney, Dr. Oonagh McDonald, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Frank Haynes, Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe, Mr. James Hamilton, Mr. Sean Hughes, Mr. David Winnick, Ms. Jo Richardson, Mr. Frank Cook and Mr. Terry Lewis.

SHOPS (SUNDAY TRADING AND WORKERS' PROTECTION)
Mr. Ray Powell accordingly presented a Bill to reform the law relating to Sunday trading and to provide protection for workers in the retail industry; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 4 July and to be printed. [Bill 63.]
Orders of the Day

  Wages Bill
  As amended, (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Ordered.
  That the order in which proceedings on consideration of the Wages Bill, as amended, are taken shall be new Clauses relating to Part I, Amendments to Clauses 1 to 11, Schedule 1, new Clauses relating to Part 11, Amendments to Clause 12, Schedule 2, Clauses 13 and 14, Schedule 3, Clauses 15 to 25, new Clauses relating to Part III. Amendments to Clauses 26 to 28. remaining new Clauses. Amendments to Clauses 29 to 31, Schedules 4 to 6, Clause 32 and new Schedules.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

  Wages Bill
    New Clause 9

      DEDUCTIONS
      '(1) No deduction

      (a) shall be made front any workers wages and no payment shall be required from any worker for any disciplinary purpose of more than 10 per cent. of gross wages in any pay period;

      (b) shall be made or payment required for disciplinary reasons unless the employer can show that the worker concerned was guilty of the act or omission complained of.

      (2) Any worker who is dismissed for complaining to a tribunal about an illegal deduction or payment shall have a right to apply to the Tribunal for an immediate reinstatement or adequate compensation for loss of employment.
      (3) When the Tribunal finds that a worker was subjected to an illegal deduction or request for payment, it shall award compensation to the worker taking account of the loss and inconvenience suffered by the worker and the failure of the employer to comply with the law.'.—[Ms. Clare Short.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      5 pm
      Ms. Clare Short: I beg to move. That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 15, at end insert—
      'and;
      (c) the worker concerned was guilty of the act or ommission complained of'.
      No. 19, in clause 2, page 3, line 34, leave out 'in retail employment'.
      No. 20, in line 34, leave out from 'makes' to 'any' in line 35.
      No. 28, in clause 3, page 4, line 34, leave out 'in retail employment'.
      No. 30, in page 5, line 2, leave out 'in retail employment'.
      No. 43, in clause 5, page 7, line 9, at end insert—

      '(e) that an employer has dismissed a worker because he made a complaint to an industrial tribunal under this section, or

      (f) that the employer has not shown that the worker concerned was guilty of the act or omission complained of, or

      (g) that the amount deducted or paid by one or more workers was greater than the value of the loss complained of'.

      No. 44, in page 7, line 44, at end insert—

      '(c) the tribunal shall make an award of compensation to the worker taking account of the loss and inconvenience suffered by the worker and the failure of the employer to comply with the law;

      732

      (d) in the case of a complaint under subsection (1)(e) the tribunal shall order reinstatement or adequate compensation for loss of employment'.

      Ms. Short: Today we shall consider part I of the Bill. Having completed Second Reading, consultation and consideration in Committee, most people are aware that the Bill is seeking to cut the pay of 3 million of Britain's poorest workers in the wages council sector—for example, textiles, hotel and catering, shops and distribution. It is not widely understood, however, that the Government are making changes, which are set out in part I, to make it more likely that workers will be subjected to fines and deductions from pay for disciplinary reasons. The examples given to us in Committee by the Under-Secretary of State for Employment were lateness, absenteeism and failure to comply with health and safety standards, and the Bill refers to deductions or fines for cash shortages and stock deficiencies. The Bill makes it clear that an individual who can prove that he is not guilty of causing any shortage of cash or stock might still be subject to a deduction and have no right to have that reversed.
      The laws that will be repealed by the Bill are set out in the Truck Acts, and the Paymaster General is fond of sneering at their old age and making that a dogmatic reason in itself for repealing them, irrespective of whether they have worked well. The part of the Truck Acts that applies to deductions and fines is not that ancient in that it was enacted in 1896. That measure is currently in force and it limits the extent to which deductions and fines are used to discipline workers. I am sure that its repeal will lead to a great increase in the use of deductions and fines.
      The Act lays down a number of conditions, which means that employers must think carefully before making deductions. It provides that there must be a signed contract, with the worker signing and agreeing that he is willing to be subject to deductions. The employer has to provide written particulars of the sum that has been lost or of the omission that led to the fine or deduction. A register must be kept of all fines and the deduction must not exceed the value of the loss of which the employer is complaining. The amount deducted must be reasonable.
      In the light of these restrictions, the making of deductions is not a widespread practice in British industry. These restrictions are to be lifted, however, and under the new law anyone will face a fine or deduction if he agrees to sign a contract which states or even implies that his employer might subject him to fines or deductions. There will be no requirement that a fine must be reasonable or must not exceed the loss to which the employer has been subjected. The employer will not have to specify what act or omission led to the loss that led in turn to the deduction.
      The only protection that the Government are offering is that a limited number of workers—those in retailing—will not be able to lose more than 10 per cent. of their wages each week if a deduction is made as a consequence of a cash shortage or stock deficiency. The Government have made no case for that protection being restricted to retail workers when many other workers might be subjected to deductions.
      The Government tell us that we need not worry and that all workers will be properly protected. They say that if a worker is subjected unfairly to a deduction, he will be able to take his case to a tribunal. However, if a worker goes before a tribunal and says that he was desperate for a job, signed a contract which said that he might face deductions

      733
      in certain circumstances, had £5 or £10 deducted from miserly low wages, can prove to the tribunal that he was not responsible for the loss and states that a fellow employee is willing to confess, the tribunal will not be able to reverse the deduction.
      The tribunals will be extremely weak. They will be able to impose a penalty on an employer only to the extent of ordering him to restore the amount of deduction or fine. Therefore, the Bill is a charter for employers to make a deduction when in doubt. If an employer is found to have broken the law in making a deduction, he will have to pay back only the £5 or £10 that was deducted. That sort of sum might be considerable for someone earning £50 a week, but it will not be very much for the average employer.
      The new clause and the amendments seek to amend the Bill to prevent the widespread growth of deductions from workers' pay for disciplinary reasons. The Government seem to envisage the operation of the Bill as part of a great move to macho management. The new clause would impose a limit of 10 per cent. of gross wages on all deductions and fines for all workers. If the Government are not willing to accept this proposal, they must tell us why retailing is so special. Why will it be all right to deduct 20 per cent. of the wages of a cleaner or hotel chambermaid, for example, who might be working for similarly low wages of £40 to £50 a week, and not all right to take more than 10 per cent. from the wages of a retail worker? We accept the 10 per cent. limit—we would like a lower limit—but there is no reason why such protection should extend only to retail workers.
      My argument is not theoretical. In the past, employers have taken enormous sums from low-paid workers. Petrol pump attendant work is notorious. The famous case of Barrett was taken under the Truck Acts. A young man who was unemployed agreed to accept a job at a low rate of pay because he was desperate for employment. His contract stated that he would be responsible for any till shortages. He thought that that was reasonable, but he did not know that many others would have access to his till. In time, he faced deductions of £20 a week from a wage of slightly more than £50 a week. If the Bill is enacted without the amendments that we are proposing, it is likely that many more workers will face deductions of that sort without being able to take action.
      Secondly, the new clause provides that an employer who makes a deduction from a worker's wages will be required to show that the individual facing a deduction or fine was guilty of the act of which he complains. It is remarkable that under the Bill an individual who can prove that he had no responsibility for a shortage of cash or stock, or some other loss or damage, and can prove that someone else carried the responsibility, will still face fines and deductions if he has signed a contract that states that he might be subjected to fines or deductions. That is unacceptable, and we believe that all reasonable people will take that view. We are proposing that workers should be subjected to deductions and fines only when the employer can show that the worker was guilty of the act or omission of which he complains.
      Thirdly, the new clause addresses itself to those who are subject to an illegal deduction and take their case to a tribunal in the way that the Government propose, only to find that they lose their job because the employer is annoyed at being dragged before a tribunal for breaking
      734
      the law. At present, a worker who has been employed for less than two years has no right to initiate an action for unfair dismissal. A part-time worker—40 per cent. of retail workers are part-timers, and it is a sector where the Government expect many deductions to be made because they have made special provision for retailing—has to be employed for five years before he has the protection of being able to complain that he was dismissed unfairly.
      Under the Bill, someone who faces an unfair deduction and loses money from a small wage packet that he cannot afford to lose is offended and hurt by the suggestion that he is guilty of dishonesty when he is not. He may go to all the trouble and loss of time from work that is involved in taking and proving a case before a tribunal. But if he takes that course, he can be sacked, and he will find that he can do nothing about that. This is outrageous. We are saying that anyone who is sacked for taking a case to a tribunal that finds his employer guilty of making an illegal deduction should have the right to bring an action for unfair dismissal and be restored to his job or to receive compensation for the loss of employment.
      New clause 9 would empower tribunals to award compensation to a worker, taking into account the loss and inconvenience to that worker of taking the case to the tribunal. The Minister told us repeatedly in Committee that we must not worry about some low-paid workers being likely to lose large chunks of their money because, if anything wrong was done, they would be able to take their case to an industrial tribunal. Taking a case to an industrial tribunal takes an awful lot of courage, organisation, time, energy and money. It means loss of pay for the days that have to be taken off to prepare the case and to appear before the tribunal, and travelling time.
      A worker in retailing might earn £50 or £60 a week and be subjected to a deduction of £5 or £6, but it will cost more than that to take the case to a tribunal to prove innocence, and the worker can be awarded only the £5 or £6 deduction. The Government are saying that people have the theoretical right to take their case to a tribunal. In practice, employees will be scared to take a case to a tribunal because they will be sacked if they do, or they will not be able to afford to pursue the case. No employer will be intimidated by the possibility of being taken to a tribunal, however, because the punishment that can be meted out is so small.
      The Minister made much of the fact that small employers are worried about industrial tribunals. Surveys show that they do not like to be taken to tribunals and that they fear cases of unfair dismissal. We accept that, but the Government have to take account of tribunals' powers in such cases. They can force an employer to take back a sacked employee or to award compensation, which can be thousands of pounds, for loss of a job if the employer is unwilling to take the worker back.
      Small employers find tribunals frightening because they fear losing and what might be done to them. Employers will laugh at the tribunals on deductions, however, if their only power is to force the employer to pay back £5 to some low-paid employee. The employer will not bother to go along. Rather he will send the office-keeper or even write a letter saying, "I do not care about the outcome." Being taken to a tribunal will not be onerous. It will prove no sanction in preventing employers from imposing illegal deductions on low-paid employees.
      Everything about the new clause is reasonable. If it is not accepted, workers throughout the country should note

      735
      that, from now on, any employer who wants to impose fines or deductions on workers can have a field day. It will be simple to take large chunks from workers' pay. That is likely to happen extensively in the least well-organised sectors of the economy, where low pay and bad employment conditions are prevalent.
      The Government have introduced a power, but seem unconcerned to include sufficient protections to ensure that the right to make a deduction or to impose a fine will not be exercised unless there is real evidence that a worker is guilty of an offence. Nor have they ensured that, if an employer behaves wrongly, a worker can have his or her rights protected.
      Without the new clause, the Bill will be deeply objectionable. It will lead to a widespread growth in deductions, conflict and tension in industry and unjust reductions in the wages of some of the poorest paid workers in the country.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Ian Mikardo (Bow and Popular): In Committee, we often complained—the complaint was made by some Conservative Members as well—that much of the Bill showed' evidence of having been drafted by people who had never seen the inside of a factory, store room or retail establishment. Many factors about real commercial and industrial life have not been considered in the least.
      We see things most clearly if we take hard practical examples. I shall take the example of a trade supplier. It may be a supplier of motor accessories or tools. It is therefore outside the retail industry—a wholesaler. The front part of the establishment has a trade counter, behind which is a store. The chap who owns it employs a young fellow as a storesman, who goes to the back to fetch stuff out.
      Mr. Richard Holt: The hon. Gentleman used the words "trade counter". I did not hear him mention them in Committee, but they are relevant in this context. According to the explanatory notes, we are concerned with places where members of the general public are served. Would he like to guess whether a person who goes to a trade counter is a member of the general public or some other special type of person who is not covered by the Bill?
      Mr. Mikardo: I am talking about an establishment that sells to the trade, such as a builder's merchant who sells to builders, not members of the general public, or a chap who sells tools to engineers, or a chap who sells motor accessories to repair garages. His having a trade counter takes us entirely out of the ambit of retailing.
      The storesman picks up the requisition and puts two of these, one of those and two of those in a tray and brings them out to the trade counter to sell them. There is nothing to prevent the owner from telling his storesman at the end of the week, "There is a stock deficiency of £40." He does not have to prove it. He can tell his storesman, "I shall make a deduction from your pay," and because the business is not retail, the deduction is not limited to 10 per cent. of the storesman's wage.
      The owner does not have to say that the deficiency is in five-inch spanners, and that nine have gone. He does not have to say, "I know that you are responsible because I saw you going out with some spanners in your jacket pocket." He does not have to adduce one tittle of evidence to demonstrate that the storesman is responsible for the
      736
      stock shortage. Indeed, he does not have to produce one tittle of evidence to demonstrate that there is a stock shortage at all. He can invent a stock shortage. He can even create a stock shortage himself by nicking half a dozen electric bulbs and taking them home. He could then tell his assistant, Joe Bloggs, "Half a dozen bulbs are missing and you have to pay for them."
      I hope that the Minister will not say in reply, "Not many employers would behave in that way." Of course not many would, but the law tries to deal as well as it can with all contingencies, not merely with majorities or minorities. Only a small percentage of the population engages in house-breaking, but that does not stop us having laws to deal with those who do.
      The employer can tell an employee, "There is a stock shortage," but he does not have to prove that there is one or that the employee is responsible for it. Someone else may have been responsible. He may have been responsible himself. On that basis, he can make a deduction
      The lad knows that he was not responsible for the shortage because he knows that the old man nicked the bulbs and took them away. He is angry about that, so he decides to go to an industrial tribunal. That is not easy. As the Minister said—my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) agreed—there are difficulties for employers, but the difficulties for employees are much greater. Those who work in sizeable establishments which are unionised have the help of their unions, but the wages council industries are almost entirely composed of trades where the average establishment is small and the turnover of labour is rapid by comparison with other trades.
      That is true of the hotel and catering industry. It is true to a lesser extent in some parts of the garment and needle trades and to an even lesser extent of retailing. In all those trades, unionisation is rare because of the difficulty of organising in establishments where only a handful of people are employed, and where that handful of people is liable to change rapidly.
      Therefore, the trade supplier for whom the lad works is unlikely to be unionised.
      Ms. Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right to say that the workers who are most likely to be subject to deductions are low-paid workers in the wages council industries, but the provisions mean that, in future, all workers will be liable to such deductions.
      Mr. Mikardo: I appreciate that it could happen to any worker. The Bill gives the employer greater power than rests with the judiciary, because it gives him the power to fine without proof of guilt. No magistrates court, county court, assizes, appeal court or High Court could fine me without having established that I was guilty of something. But under the Bill, any worker anywhere—those who will get it in the neck will be the low-paid workers in the wages council, non-unionised industries—can be fined by his employer in a way that the Lord Chief Justice could not fine me. He can be fined by his employer without a jot or tittle of evidence that there has been any culpability.
      For the life of me, I do not understand how anyone can begin to justify that position. There is no hon. Member who, if it happened to him, would not believe himself to be the victim of a gross injustice and who would not scream to high heaven about it. How can we justify inflicting upon others a condition which we would never accept for a moment as applying to ourselves?

      737
      Let me return to my trade supplier. The lad is aggrieved and, notwithstanding the fact that he knows little about tribunals and that he does not have a trade union to represent him and that he does not know where the tribunal is or how to get the forms, he asks round—perhaps at the citizens advice bureau or perhaps his friends—and he appeals to a tribunal. His employer says, "You had better drop that, Harry, because if you continue with it, you will get your few quid from me, but you will get the sack as well." There is not one word in the Bill to prevent that.
      Even worse, the employer need not even forewarn the lad. The lad goes to the tribunal and gets an award giving him back his own money. That is the only award that he will get. There will be no compensation for the time during which he lost the money or damages for the aggravation that he has been caused or the injustice of being falsely accused of theft. There is not a halfpenny of compensation for that. All that he will get from the great victory is his own money back. Then his employer says, "I am fed up with you. You were out last Thursday at the tribunal. I do not want you; I want people who will be here every day." There is nothing in the Bill to prevent that.
      I shall listen with great care to the Minister, who, in his personal relationships, is a fundamentally decent chap, trying to justify, within the parameters of his personal morality, this hideous, raving injustice.
      Mr. Holt: We had many a happy hour in Committee debating this element of the Bill. Like the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), I am sure that many thousands of people will discover, to their surprise, the legislation that the Government have introduced. I found elements of surprise even at the highest levels of the Institute of Personnel Management. Indeed, I found a Minister who was amazed when I told him what the Government proposed to do, and who encouraged me to continue my vendetta against the Government on this part of the Bill.
      The Government have been extremely clever in many ways; one must give them credit for that. Many Conservative Members, not necessarily supported by Opposition Members, are in favour of the proposals in the wages council element of the total package. But this curate's egg brings with it not only the simple abolition of the wages councils or their restructuring and reformation, but more work for the lawyers in the industrial tribunal courts. I put down a marker that I shall return to industrial tribunals several times.
      I endorse the view of the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) that the Government's proposals will create a minefield of trouble for them. I have the simplistic view, as one who has worked in industry for most of his life, that the best industrial relations are those engendered between employers and employees without interference from Government. The Government should be only a last resort when all else appears to have failed.
      The Truck Acts have been on the statute book for a long time, but that does not necessarily make them bad. Marriage laws have been on the statute book for a long time, but we are not proposing to abolish marriage and to introduce some new consolidation Bill.
      Mr. Tom Pendry: Give them time.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Holt: The Government have no right to bring before the House change for the sake of change, without justification. The Government have made no case for changing and abolishing the Trucks Acts' element regarding deductions from wages. I can find no Government supporters for the fundamentals of this issue.
      The Government will say, "We carried out a survey which showed that the majority of employers favoured the 10 per cent. deduction method." If one is asked whether one wants to be shot in the left or right foot. one makes a choice, but one would prefer not to be shot in the foot because it is unnecessary. From my practical experience and from what I have read in the media and, more particularly, in my institute's journals, I can find little evidence that there is a minute case, let alone an overwhelming one, for the introduction of this element.
      Obviously, there are rogue employers and rogue employees, but the law in situ is working. It is not breaking down.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Trippier): I have often heard my hon. Friend speak about industrial tribunals, and I respect his view, although I do not share it. Is he suggesting that he would prefer the existing Truck Acts which cover this part of the Bill to remain in force without the built-in protection which he must acknowledge will be given to workers by limiting the deduction to 10 per cent. of pay?
      Mr. Holt: My experience is that the law is known and understood by, and working for, the most humble in the land to the most eminent members of the Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Directors. The Minister may argue that greater protection is being afforded to employees, and I believe that he sincerely thinks that. However, I cannot accept that, because I believe that the scenario put forward by the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar is much more realistic in this context. As I understand the Bill—I am willing to be corrected—the protection that the Government are affording is only that deductions will be limited to 10 per cent. of pay, and that if a person goes to a tribunal, that money must be repaid without compensation.
      Ms. Short: In Committee and today we have talked as though the 10 per cent. protection will extend to all workers, but that is not so. It applies only to workers in retailing for cash shortages and stock deficiencies, not for lateness or absenteeism. Therefore, only a small group of workers will be protected by the 10 per cent. provision.
      Mr. Holt: I accept that, and it is a reason why I am puzzled why the Government are introducing this element as such an enormous protection. In my 30 years in business, no employee has ever told me a tale of an employer removing money, without the employee having a right to go to court. Employees already have that right. We are only duplicating it or, worse still, weakening it.
      Mr. Dave Nellist: There is a significant difference which I may develop if I am called to speak. Under the old law, an employer must take a worker to court and prove his guilt, but under the Bill a worker must run to an industrial tribunal and defend his innocence. That is completely different.
      Mr. Holt: With respect, I think that that worked both ways. I understand that an employer will now be able to rely on an industrial tribunal.
      I did not wish to develop my view on industrial tribunals at this point, but a tribunal is a lottery. All hon. Members who read my magnificent speech in December on industrial tribunals—at that time in the morning, there were not many listening—will know that the Minister accepted the Russian roulette aspect of industrial tribunals. Industrial tribunals cannot have an appeal made against them except on a point of law, whereas under the present law, if a deduction is under dispute, the full panoply of the law is available to both sides, and the case may end up in the other place or, perhaps, even in Europe. Under the Bill, that will be denied. Therefore, far from giving added protection to employees, the Minister is seeking to give extremely limited protection; it is subject to no penalty and it is a lottery. Once a case goes to an industrial tribunal, the outcome depends on how the chairman felt when he got up that morning and came to work. Either the employee or the employer will be lucky, because that is how the case will be decided. A decision will be made only on whether the deductions made up to that point were lawful, or were unlawful and must be repaid.
      This seems to be legislation for the sake of legislation. The honest truth is that the Government merely intended to abolish the Truck Acts. That may have been argued and justified. However, to erect a smokescreen by suggesting that they are being replaced by something superior, fairer and nicer simply does not hold water. It does not bear examination. The Government's case is wafer-thin, and water is seeping through.
      Even at this late stage I suggest that my hon. Friend the Minister has a deathbed repentance on this aspect of the Bill. Then, some of us could with much greater heart support other parts of the Bill which we favour. I seek to be fair and discriminating by supporting the parts which are good law and by not supporting those which are bad law. The Government have produced bad law on this aspect, and it will not be long before it will bring the whole Bill into disrepute. I do not want that.
      In his intervention, the Minister made it clear that in reply he would seek to justify this element by saying that it gives additional benefit to employees by making industrial tribunals available—I promise that we shall talk more about industrial tribunals later—and by staggering repayments over two, three or more months—[Interruption.] Did I hear something about 10 o'clock tomorrow morning? We cannot expect the country to support Conservative Governments and Ministers—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—if they introduce bad laws for which there is no public support. There is no public support for the abolition of the Truck Acts from professional, managerial, trade union or working people. There is none. Apart from a place which I am not supposed to mention, I can find little support for these proposals.
      Whenever I speak on this very serious subject, I try to introduce a light-hearted tone. The hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) and I have debated this issue several times, and he knows that hon. Members should not be misled by my style. I have spoken to many of my right hon. and hon. Friends who are not all in the Chamber today, and I think that I reflect their views when I say that the Government have impaled themselves on something
      740
      similar to the Shops Bill. The Government should listen to what their Back Benchers are saying, especially if those Back Benchers are in touch with industry and commerce.
      I have yet to be shown any evidence to support this part of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Minister must make his case, or we shall be here for a long time. If he does not make his case, I shall carry on asking question after question, trying to find what justification there is for introducing such a deduction. Regardless of whether the employee is highly or lowly paid, the deduction is very immoral. It is immoral to take money away from people without justification or proof and without any recourse to a normal court. That part of the Bill does not merit my support. The Government are seeking not merely to throw out the baby with the bath water but to throw out the bath too.
      Mr. Ken Eastham: I rise to support the amendment, and am greatly encouraged by some of the comments of the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt). In Committee, there were one or two exchanges on this issue, and perhaps our points have now sunk into Conservative minds. If the hon. Gentleman is joined by some of his colleagues tonight, there may be one or two dramatic changes to the Bill.
      In the early stages of the Bill, we said that we thought that it was the Government's original intention to abolish wages councils altogether. But they realised that it was such an outrageous idea that they retained the Bid while nobbling its contents.
      5.45 pm
      The Truck Acts date back more than 150 years to 1831. The Government are making these alterations for the sake of change. They certainly will not benefit the workers and that is why, in Committee, Opposition Members resisted the Bill with great tenacity and conviction for two and a half months. The Minister will probably say that there will be a contract. That is true, but we object to the fact that the contract is to be solely on the employer's terms. We frequently pointed out that in such desperate times, with 4 million people unemployed, low-paid workers—who are the subject of this Bill—may be induced or forced to accept intolerable conditions just for the sake of the job.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) pointed out, the employer's entitlement to make weekly deductions is quite outrageous. There is no onus on the employer to make a case for the deduction. We contend that the employer could be dishonest about his case for deciding to withhold part of an employee's weekly wage packet. Time and again we have said that if there is any dishonesty—something that we would not defend—the matter should be pursued through the courts. The police could be brought in and a case could be made. Thus the employer could prosecute in a court or dismiss the man. There are options other than the one that seems to have the Minister's favour.
      For the first five or six weeks in Committee the Minister kept on saying that employees could go to an industrial tribunal. But during one sitting he suddenly said that he did not want too many appeals to be made to tribunals as that might clog up the works. He implied that the odd case might be all right, but that people should not pursue their rights too often.
      Mr. Holt: I believe that that point coincided with a written question to the Minister from me. I asked him what

      741
      provision he was making for additional courts or tribunals. He replied that he was making none, and suddenly the need for tribunals also waned.
      Mr. Eastham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention.
      Hon Members on both sides of the Committee then pursued the Minister about the provision being made for personnel, and so on. The Minister said that there would be other people. On another occasion. he suddenly mentioned ACAS, as though that might make up for the deficiencies in wages inspectors. We found it less than convincing that the Minister should say in one breath that someone could go to an appeal tribunal and then say in another that he did not want too many appeals as they might clog up the works. That did not show any great enthusiasm for justice for the workers.
      The amendment makes a good case. If a worker goes to a tribunal, he may incur considerable personal expense. He will have to take time off work, and he probably will not be compensated for it. For all we know, the appeal tribunal may not be in his town, and he may have to pay the cost of travelling 10 or 15 miles in order to prove his innocence. Indeed, after spending time and money he may be found innocent, but he has no apparent right to be reinstated or compensated. Because of that, we are correct in saying that it is a worthy amendment and the Minister should give real consideration to it.
      Mr. Holt: The hon. Gentleman made an interesting and valuable point about the fares that people have to pay. The hon. Gentleman realises that the fares are available to anyone going to a tribunal if he has to travel over six miles. These fares are paid out of public money. The money does not come from a respondent who may have flouted the law in getting an appellant to the tribunal in the first place.
      Mr. Eastham: The hon. Gentleman has reminded me that people who have to travel a certain distance will receive compensation. Nowadays, it costs a small fortune to travel on public transport, even if one is travelling only three or four miles. There is a considerable penalty on those who must undertake two journeys.
      When a worker proves that he has a legitimate claim, he should have certain rights. If the Minister were fair minded, he would say that there is justification for what we are saying and he is prepared to put that part of the Bill right. We do not like the Bill. We object to it clause by clause, but at least we are trying to make it more just than it is.
      We contend that there should be penalties for an employer as well as an employee. I have never known anything as one-sided as the Bill. The Bill contains next to no penalties whatsoever for an employer. For those reasons, I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic and give serious thought to the matter.
      Mr. Nellist: I have spent the best part of three months considering the Bill in a Committee Room. It is interesting that of all the Tory Members who sat silent during the Committee's consideration of the Bill, only a couple are now prepared to sit in the Chamber during the debate. Be that as it may, the central importance of proposed new clause 9 relates to part I of the Bill which deals with the right of an employer to make deductions. The tone and
      742
      tenor of the Bill and of the Government's general approach to working people in British society are set in line 2 of clause 1 which states:
      "An employer shall not make any deduction from any wages of any worker of his".
      That is the possessive nature of the kind of society the Tory Government would like to see. The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean)—
      Mr. Don Dixon: Unamended.
      Mr. Nellist: Yes, unamended. The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border introduced a description in Committee of the relationship between master and servant. He thought that the Bill epitomised that description. It is necessary for us to attempt to amend, at Report stage, the language and principles of that part of the Bill. My comrade the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) said in Committee that the Tory Government are only interested in workers insofar as they are interested in the appendages at the end of their two arms. That description came out in the debate on that part of the Bill.
      Unless we succeed in adding the new clause and making the consequent amendments to part I, employers will be given power to discipline workers by fining them. Clause 1 is one-sided. It gives power to employers to deduct the wages of workers, albeit with a maximum limit of 10 per cent., without even making mandatory the joint signature of an employer and a worker in an agreement that that is the case. No doubt we shall deal with that specific point later.
      The Bill weakens the current position under the Truck Acts as to the power of employers to make deductions. Central to the arguments which other comrades have already deployed, it reverses the whole concept of what we, and, no doubt you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were told at school—that under British law a person is innocent until he is taken to court and proved guilty. The Bill allows an employer to be the judge, jury and executioner. An employer may implement his decision by imposing a fine, saying. as a concession to a worker. "Go to an industrial tribunal, if you wish to do so, to prove and defend your innocence, because I, as an employer, have decided that you are guilty."
      Ms. Clare Short: The position is even worse than that described by my hon. Friend. I am sure he agrees that it is possible for a worker to face a fine, go to a tribunal and prove his innocence but, because an employer can say that under the contract of employment the employer is entitled to impose a fine, he cannot have it overturned. Even if a worker proves his innocence, he can still be subjected to a fine.
      Mr. Nellist: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I hope to return to the point later. To add to the point that she made, third parties could be involved, which could be established by the tribunal, but the power would exist for an employer to make the original deduction. As a result of information coming from embassies, certain immigration procedures, such as those which applies when people appear at airports and points of entry, have been tightened up. In most British legislation there is a concept that a person is innocent until he is proved guilty. The Bill turns that concept on its head.
      Let us imagine that an employer discovers that there is a shortage of stock or a shortage of money in the till. There could be a number of reasons for that. It could be because

      743
      of poor management or a lack of supervision of those working on the till or doing the stock checks. It could be due to the systems that are set up for stock control. It could even be due to the fact that too few workers are employed in a certain section and the work load causes stress and strain. The Bill does not attempt to deal with problems such as those. It merely gives an employer the immediate right of fining an employee whom he considers caused a problem. It could be that a third party, some other person, is responsible for the condition. In that event, an employer can say, "Go and prove your innocence in an industrial tribunal."
      Ms. Clare Short: Is my hon. Friend aware of the report of the employment unit at the law centre of north Kensington entitled "Fingers in the Till"? The report demonstrates that many stock shortages are caused by incompetent organisation, such as when a shop reduces prices but fails to knock the values off the notional stock. The shop thinks that it has a shortage but it does not. It is perfectly possible that the shortages are no one's fault but are due to incompetent organisation.
      Mr. Nellist: My hon. Friend has referred to the example I gave of the possibility of a stock or till shortage occurring. The Kensington law centre, citizens' advice bureaux and my own legal and advice service in Coventry are aware of cases. Labour Members of the Committee received a number of documents and affidavits. We were given thousands of examples of individual workers in the retail trade and the petrol industry who were fined for actions which were not of their own doing—a third party or incompetence was the main reason. Workers are offered that option to prove their innocence before an industrial tribunal.
      Difficulties are associated with appearing before the tribunal. A worker would lose a day's pay by taking that opportunity to prove his innocence. He might have to pay for legal assistance. Character witnesses would lose wages. Even if the worker won his case, he would get back only the money that had been deducted in the first instance by the employer.
      6 pm
      In most cases, the worker is likely to be someone on low pay. In Committee, the Under-Secretary of State made some points about that. A low-paid worker in receipt of family income supplement whose employer deducted the maximum of 10 per cent. of the gross wage from net take-home pay, after tax and national insurance deductions, might appeal through the normal appeal channels. His net pay might then be below the family income supplement level and he would be worse off than workers in a similar position. According to the letter of 8 April, by the Under-Secretary of State for Employment—the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier)—it would not be possible for that worker then to claim additional family income supplement.
      The Government lay down definitions stating the level below which the income of a family which includes a certain number of children should ever fall; yet the Bill would allow an employer to make deductions from a worker's wages which could take him below the poverty line defined by the Government. and he would have no redress.
      The Under-Secretary of State held out a rather funny lifeline. In a letter written on 11 March, he stated that if
      744
      it were proved before an industrial tribunal that a deduction was incorrectly made, it was possible for the worker to appeal to the independent Inland Revenue tax commissioners for a tax rebate on that deduction. A worker on £100 a week gross, which is a pretty high wage in the service sector, whose net take-home pay was £65 or £68 a week could lose up to £10 in deductions because the employer had accused him of being responsible for a till or stock shortage. That worker could go to the tax commissioners and attempt to claim £3·30 of that sum. What a farce. If an employer suspects that an employee is a thief, he should take the employee to court where the burden of proof should rest on the employer.
      Mr. Martin Flannery: I am not an expert on the Bill and was not a member of the Committee. What I have heard is appalling and unbelievable. Do I understand that clause 9 as it stands turns the whole basis of British jurisprudence on its head? The whole of our law is based on a person being innocent until proved guilty. The clause does the very opposite. This clause alone is a massive step. I hope that the Bill does not turn the whole of British jurisprudence on its head. If the clause does that, it is almost a crime to put it before the House.
      Mr. Nellist: I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, but the clauses do not get any better. Until 1979, our youth were taught in schools that a person was innocent until proved guilty by a jury of 12 of his peers. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) eloquently summed up in fewer words than I have used what the clause does—it turns British jurisprudence on its head. People will be assumed to be guilty. They will need to prove their innocence before an industrial tribunal.
      A full-time worker who has not worked continuously for two years or a part-time worker who has worked fewer than 30 hours a week and has not been in the job for five years can go back to the employer the day after winning the case in the industrial tribunal and, at the flick of a finger, the employer can sack him. The worker cannot go back to the industrial tribunal a second time to ask for his job back, because he would not qualify.
      Mr. Dixon: If an employer sacked an employee, could it not take the whole of his lying-on pay to pay the rest of the fine?
      Mr. Nellist: That is correct.
      Most of the workers affected by the Bill earn £60, £70 or £80 a week. We are talking about an employer's power to deduct 10 per cent. from gross wages, which means £6, £7 or £8 a week. Unlike most Tory Members, many of whom count their income in tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds a year, the workers about whom we are talking have only one job. They are not like the right hon. and learned Member for Hexharn (Mr. Rippon) with his 35 jobs—one as a Member of Parliament, one as a QC in the law courts and one as director of a company and with 32 chairmanships under his belt. The right hon. and learned Gentleman might be able to afford to have deducted from his pay packet 10 per cent. of the income from one of those 35 jobs. A poorly paid worker in a time of mass unemployment—when 4·5 million people are denied the chance to work—tries to bring up his family on £60, £70 or £80 a week, yet an employer may have the

      745
      power to deduct 10 per cent. of his wages without needing to prove that a crime has taken place. Labour Members oppose that.
      On 11 February. the Paymaster General and Minister for Employment described this part of the Bill as providing a
      "fairer set of statutory rights concerning deductions"—[Official Report. 11 February 1986; Vol. 91, c. 801.]
      The Bill does not mention that the deductions must be fair and reasonable. It turns the concept of justice upside down on its head. It allows employers to decide guilt and say to the workers, "You have the opportunity before an industrial tribunal to attempt to prove your innocence." The measure will be used mainly against low-paid workers—as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) said, mainly those in areas where trade unions are not yet predominant in industry. For all those reasons and for others, which no doubt my hon. Friends will give, I urge the House to adopt the new clause and the consequent amendments and to defeat this part of the Bill.
      Mr. Pendry: I shall not take too long, because the points made by Labour Members and by the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) have shown that this part of the Bill and, indeed, the whole Bill, are nonsense. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh must not believe that the sanctity of marriage will necessarily be preserved by a Government as hellbent on deregulation as this one. The Under-Secretary of State might address his remarks to that.
      I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) is present and to make the point he did, and that we have a wider audience, although it is not much wider, than in Committee.
      Dr. Norman A. Godman: It is a good audience.
      Mr. Pendry: Yes, it is a good audience. My hon. Friends are beginning to understand—I do not blame them—the ramifications of the legislation. As a result of the debate on this and other clauses, the people outside the House will also begin to understand what will hit them.
      The decency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) always shines through on these occasions. He began in Committee by referring to the Minister as a "chum". He has gone down a little and called him a "decent chap". I suspect that my hon. Friend, because he is decent and so perceptive, probably knows something that we do not know. I want therefore to finish my speech, soon so that I can hear the reply by the Under-Secretary of State to our points. It may be that, because last Thursday Rossendale went Labour for the first time in its history, the hon. Gentleman is a little shaken and is rocking a little. He might therefore listen more attentively to what people, especially his constituents, say.
      I am pleased that my hon. friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) made it plain that this does not just affect low-paid workers. The clause affects a whole range of workers in this country. Of course, the Opposition are mostly concerned about low-paid workers, because a 10 per cent. deduction is bad enough for some workers—we think it is too much—but for the workers we represent, such as home workers, cleaners and many others, it is an unbearable burden for them to have to endure.
      Ms. Clare Short: It is very important that we all remember that it is not just 10 per cent. There is a limit of 10 per cent. per week for workers in retailine, but for all other workers there is no limit. We must not mislead the public into thinking that it is only 10 per cent., bad as that is, because the sky is the limit.
      Mr. Pendry: I was just about to make the point that that is the bottom line. The deduction is open-ended and the ramifications are such that, when the full force of our case is heard outside, I believe that the Government will be forced to think again and, not for the first time, will have to retrack their legislation in a short space of time.
      As I have said, most of the points have already been made and it would be silly to go over them again. However, the workers involved in this part of the Bill are certainly proved guilty before they have even had a trial. The employers have it all their own way under the Bill at present.
      Many of the points made in Committee have not been listened to clearly by the Minister. However, at times he did attempt to answer our points and said that he would reflect on them and come back to us. I hope that this is one occasion when the Minister will answer the forceful points made in Committee and on the Floor of the House much more positively and constructively.
      The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) got it right again. I do not want to praise him too much because it could damn him with his colleagues. Unfortunately, he has made great points, but he has not voted with us in the Lobby. I hope that on this occasion he will have the courage. It is no good making those points and sounding reasonable if, at the end of the day, he does not join us in the Lobby. No doubt he will attract a great deal of attention in his local press.
      Mr. Holt: I would just like to comment on the hon. Gentleman's point about the local press. We are discussing the Wages Bill, on which it might be thought that I was being a little bit naughty to my own side, on the same day as the Government announced the closure of Smith's Dock in my constituency.
      Mr. Pendry: I am sure that that has reinforced the hon. Gentleman's position in supporting us on this occasion.
      The hon. Member for Langbaurgh rightly said that the law should be a backstop for industrial relations. I should have thought that the Conservative party had learned its lesson. They began trying to introduce legislation in a heavy-handed way in the early 1970s and they had to shelve that legislation because it clearly did not work. My bet is that this legislation will be shelved in a similar way. I certainly wish to hear the Minister disprove that and perhaps he can make an early start by agreeing to the points that have been made by my hon. Friends in this debate.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Richard Caborn: We should cast our minds back to the Second reading of the Bill, especially when we are dealing with part 1 in relation to the Truck Acts. The case argued by the Government was, at surface value, probably correct. The Truck Act of 1831 probably needed some amendment and refining and we probably needed a new act to be put on the statute book to give some support and protection to workers. In fact, we have seen a complete reversal of the Truck Acts and what they stood for.

      747
      The fundamental principles of the Truck Act of 1831 was "fair and reasonable". The Truck Acts stood for a certain amount of justice. That is not to say that we must keep the Truck Acts on the statute book for ever more. However, one would have hoped that the fundamental principles of the Truck Acts, which have been tried and tested, would have remained. I have worked in industry for a number of years and have had dealings with the Truck Acts. I know they have operated well and the employers and trade unions have taken on board the fundamental principles and tried to develop them in negotiations when the Truck Acts have been involved.
      Many hon. Members, especially from the Opposition, who were not on the Committee, have been aghast at what is in section 1. Clause 1 of the Bill has turned natural justice on its head. A worker now has to prove his innocence after being found guilty. That moves away completely from the underlying position of the Truck Acts which clause 1 of the Bill is supposed to update.
      Nobody in the House has defended the Government's position. It would be difficult for the alliance to defend the Government's position, because there are no alliance Members in the Chamber. They have not tabled any amendments to the Bill, let alone to clause 1. That is deplorable, when the alliance is always stating that it is a protector of workers' rights. Having said that, nobody has come to the defence of the Minister. In fact, he has been attacked by his own party for the position the Government have taken on clause 1.
      When the Minister opposes the new clause, I have no doubt that the defence will rest on the industrial tribunals. Many points have been made as to how there are blockages in the industrial tribunals, and how difficult and expensive it is for people. In low-paid areas people may be fearful of going to industrial tribunals.
      Many low-paid workers have been employed for less than two years. Also, the restrictions within those establishments could debar many people who could be caught under this part of the Bill from using the tribunals, even if they wanted to.
      In Committee I think that I clearly illustrated what we are talking about. It was brought to my attention that in one of the country clubs in Sheffield—there are not many of them—the owner had sacked four employees. Not only had he sacked them, but he owed them between £150 and £200. They did not even know the reasons for their sacking. When they tried to extract the reasons from the owner, he said that they had been sacked for stealing and dishonesty. They were absolutely flabbergasted. There are a number of courses they can adopt. They can go to tribunals or the courts. However, that is the type of employer that many people will have to deal with. When natural justice is turned on its head, those people have greater licence than before. The principles that were originally emobdied in the Truck Acts should be adhered to in the Bill. However, they will be turned on their head, and there will be less protection for the workers than previously.
      When we were discussing part I of the Bill in Committee, we brought fraud to the Minister's attention. That was reported in the Financial Times of 13 March, which showed that 40 per cent. of United Kingdom companies are now experiencing fraud, and in London alone there was £867 million-worth of fraud, which had been notified to the police and the fraud squad. We are
      748
      trying to deal with fraud, yet in the Bill we are taking away a fundamental right and turning British justice on its head; we are attacking the lowest paid in our society, and taking away their protection.
      I hope that Conservative Members have listened to the only constructive statement to have come from Conservative Benches, totally opposing part I and the removal of those basic principles. I hope that having done so, many of the colleagues of the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) will support new clause 9 in the Lobby.
      Mr. Dixon: I shall confine my remarks to our amendments Nos. 43 and 44, which will protect workers.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield. Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) was astonished at part I. I should like to tell him that it gets worse. Throughout the Bill, we are talking about deductions. They mean fines. When the Bill is on the statute book, the employer will have the right to fine his employee without getting or submitting any evidence.
      We are talking about part-time or low-paid workers, and many employees who are not covered by trade unions. If an employee has the audacity to go to an industrial tribunal, to prove his innocence, there is nothing to stop the employer sacking the individual. It is not just the individual. There might be a stock deficiency or cash shortage in the till, and two, three or four employees might be sharing the till or looking after the stock. Under the Bill, the employer has the right to fine the four employees 10 per cent. of their salaries for the stock deficiency or cash shortage. That is what the Bill is about.
      We must accept that, in the working class movement, we have one or two rascals who might steal from the till. But the Conservative party might have one or two reasonable Members to support our amendment.
      However, if someone stole, the rest of his workmates could be fined by the employer. That is one of the reasons why we have tabled amendment No. 43, which will protect the employee against being sacked if he has the audacity to take his employer to an industrial tribunal, simply to prove his innocence. Under amendment No. 43, a worker may present a complaint to a tribunal
      "that the employer has not shown that the worker concerned was guilty of the act or omission complained of"
      Under the Bill, the employer does not have to have any evidence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) said, there could be a deficiency because of a fault in the till. If the employer found a deficiency, he could fine all his employees 10 per cent. of their wages.
      Amendment No. 44 concerns industrial tribunals. If the worker goes ahead and takes the chance of getting the sack from his employer by going to an industrial tribunal to prove his innocence, and if he proves himself innocent, the only thing that the employer is obliged to do is to give the employee the 10 per cent. of his wages that he previously stole. There is no recompense, compensation or expenses. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) made that point. I think that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) will agree with this. At times, people from Newcastle have to go to Darlington for industrial tribunals, and vice versa. Because one works in Newcastle, that does not mean that the tribunal will sit in Newcastle. It might be in Jarrow, Iangbaurgh or somewhere else.

      749
      We are talking about employees, some of whom are receiving the princely sum of £57 a week. They will have to find the fares to go to the industrial tribunal, take time off work and take the chance of getting the sack. If they require a witness, the witness will have to be prepared to sacrifice his wages and pay expenses to prove the employee's innocence. That is what we are dealing with in part I. It is only the tip of the iceberg, I remind my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough.
      I believe that our amendments Nos. 43 and 44 give some safeguards. They do not make the Bill more palatable for people who have any concern about low-paid workers or other employees, but at least it is better than what we have at the moment. I hope that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh and one or two of his colleagues who have listened to the debate will join us in the Lobby. Not one person has defended part I or clause 5. One would have thought that those who supported the Minister in Committee would defend him tonight, but not one has done so. The only contribution from Conservative Benches has been an attack on this part of the Bill. I hope that some Conservative Members will join us in the Lobby.
      Mr. Trippier: We have had the opportunity to debate at length the principal issue behind the amendments, which is the deduction from wages. We had some interesting and long debates in Committee. Wherever possible, I have tried to meet the concern of some Opposition Members. There is evidence of that on the Order Paper because we shall move amendments aimed at doing that.
      The amendments that we are now considering go too far. I do not want to drive a wedge between my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) and his new-found friendship with Opposition Members as a result of the debate thus far, but it seems to me to be absolutely extraordinary that there is more that divides them than unites them on this issue. First, Opposition Members who have spoken so far will agree that they are in favour of industrial tribunals. The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) recognised their importance. My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh does not like them at all. He has been consistent throughout—
      Mr. Holt: I am happy to be chastised for what I am guilty of, but not for what I am not guilty of. If my hon. Friend cares to read my speech in December, he will see that I am in favour of industrial tribunals, but the completely reformed variety, which takes all the legalism out of it.
      Mr. Trippier: All right. So we are getting a little clearer now. My hon. Friend is in favour of reformed industrial tribunals but in the main Opposition Members are in favour of industrial tribunals—
      Ms. Clare Short rose—
      Mr. Trippier: I shall happily give way to the hon. Lady. She knows I always do.
      We should not try to find some new form of cemented relationship between Opposition Members and my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh on this issue. It is clear that Conservative Members and Opposition Members do not agree about industrial tribunals. We all know, if we
      750
      were to put our hands on our hearts, that these tribunals protect the worker more than the employer in the vast majority of cases.
      6.30 pm
      Ms. Clare Short: The Opposition, and I assume the Minister, are in favour of the existence of industrial tribunals. However, we do not think that it is right that workers should be forced to go to industrial tribunals to get basic justice and to prove their innocence. We believe that there should be reasonable law and reasonable industrial practices.
      The Opposition are worried—I believe that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh agrees with us on this—although there may be disagreement between the hon. Gentleman and the Opposition about part II of the Bill—about the increase in legalism, the use of lawyers and the high expense of going to industrial tribunals. The original intention of these tribunals was that they would provide a cheap and informal procedure.
      Mr. Trippier: Industrial tribunals are cheap and informal procedures. I agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) that industrial tribunals are good, although my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh does not appear to share that view. My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh does not seem to believe in deductions; at least, that is what I understood from his speech. I presume that Opposition Members do not agree with the deductions either. That is very strange because the present legislation allows deductions to be made, conceivably up to a limit of 100 per cent. However, with this Bill we are building in added protection for the worker.
      Opposition Members have suggested that the amendments we are considering will withdraw protection from the worker. That is not the case. Opposition Members have argued that the present legislation dating back to 1896 should continue. That is absolute nonsense. There is no logic in the argument that the present legislation should continue. It is clear from the first few clauses in this part of the Bill that we are desperately trying to protect the workers. We are especially trying to do that in relation to workers in the retail trade.
      Part 1 of the Bill provides that deductions from wages or payments by workers to employers are lawful only if they are authorised by statute, by the contract of employment or by written agreement of the worker. No one has mentioned that last point so far in the debate.
      Mr. Eastham: I did.
      Mr. Trippier: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, I could not have heard him say that.
      In addition, there are special controls of deductions relating to cash shortages or stock deficiencies and the worker has a right to complain to a tribunal about an unlawful deduction. There should be such a right. We shall move the amendment today to strengthen those controls and to ensure that workers have a copy or a written explanation of the contractual terms authorising deductions. That point was drawn to my attention in Committee by the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar. The amendments will introduce a time limit on deductions relating to cash shortages or stock deficiencies and I readily accepted that point in Committee.
      In Part 1 of the Bill, we already have a substantial body of controls based on the philosophy that it is best to allow

      751
      the parties involved to sort out a regime for themselves to control deductions from wages, to ensure that the regime is clearly understood and enforced.
      Dr. Godman: As the Minister will know, I was not a Member of the Standing Committee. However, I have been present throughout the debate today. The Minister used the phrase "added protection given to employees". How will the Minister publicise that protection? Will his Department produce and distribute a code of practice on that point?
      Mr. Trippier: It is certainly our intention to increase awareness of the new proposals that will follow when the Bill reaches the statute book. In our Department, we consider ourselves to be pretty good at that. We will go to extreme lengths to ensure that people are aware of the new regime. That point was raised in Committee and I understand why the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) should wish to raise it again. We are anxious to increase awareness not only for employees but for employers. Any changes will obviously make significant differences to the running of firms.
      Ms. Clare Short: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Trippier: I would like to deal with the specific point that the hon. Lady raised in her previous intervention. I shall deal with that point and then give way.
      I must stress that 75 per cent. of cases which are intended to go to tribunals are settled before they reach a hearing. I understand that Opposition Members would always try to convince the House that it is more of a strain and inconvenience for workers to go to a tribunal than the employer. I can understand that and in some cases I believe that that is true. However, I have always argued that it is more of a strain on the employer. The evidence of the number of cases that are settled prior to an industrial tribunal bears that out.
      I am also convinced from the consultation exercise that we undertook that the industrial tribunal is a disincentive to increasing employment in the private sector. I accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh made that point in Committee. Private sector firms obviously do not want to suffer the hassle and trouble of going to an industrial tribunal.
      I believe on balance that it is more of a disincentive to the employer than it is to the worker.
      Mr. Eastham: I am sure that the Minister will recall that, when we made our observations on this clause in Committee, we contended that employers did not need to go to tribunals. They could simply go to the police. If the staff were found to be breaking the law there could be an inquiry and the employer could have recourse to a proper court of law. Such an action would not cost the Minister's Department anything.
      Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point that I was trying to make in Committee. There are many instances in which an employer may choose to discipline a member of his work force but he may not wish to go to the extent of dismissing that member of staff. The member of staff may have committed an offence that would be punishable in a court of law. However, the employer might choose not to pick up the telephone and call the police and all that that means. The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley must have known employers who are decent in that way and I am sure that many hon.
      752
      Members have acted in a similar manner to give someone another chance. An employer may sometimes choose not to call in the law. However, he may want to exercise the disciplinary powers that are available in the contract. That point has not been made so far in the debate—the powers must be in the contract. All hon. Members, irrespective of political persuasion, should welcome the fact that in some instances matters do not have to be taken to the police.
      Ms. Clare Short: I believe that it was the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) who suggested in Standing Committee that ACAS might be asked to draw up a recommended contract covering the Minister's points. Speaking from memory, I believe that the Minister said that he thought that that was a useful suggestion and that he would consider it. That suggestion paralleled the proposal from my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) that there should be a code of practice. I hope that the Minister will proceed with that point and not forget it.
      Mr. Trippier: That is a fair point to make. I seem to remember the exchange of views that we had on these matters in Committee, and I will certainly bear that point in mind. If I did not make it crystal clear, and if this point is not obvious in the Hansard record of the Committee, I will say that it would be a good idea to have a draft form of contract prepared by ACAS. That point should be made known to increase awareness.
      Five principal issues are dealt with in this set of amendments and the new clause. First, it is proposed that all deductions for disciplinary purposes should be limited to 10 per cent. of gross wages.
      Of course, the Government have introduced such limits to control deductions related to cash shortages and stock deficiencies, as that is the area of contemporary concern and abuse.
      Mr. Mikardo: Rubbish.
      Mr. Holt: If a pieceworker botches up an entire lot that he has been given to manufacture, whatever it is, will he still be paid 90 per cent. and have only a disciplinary stricture of 10 per cent.?
      Mr. Trippier: My hon. Friend could not be more wrong. I assume that my hon. Friend is talking about a pieceworker in manufacturing industry, not in the retail business. If it is in the contract that deductions can be made, the Bill's provision to limit deductions to 10 per cent. on pay day will not apply. That does not apply outside the retail sector. I shall try to develop that.
      The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar said, sotto voce, that it is rubbish that evidence shows that there is abuse. I must assure him that that is the case. In the consultation exercise, to which I referred on a number of occasions in Committee, the evidence was clear. The hon. Gentleman gave the House examples of what could happen in certain instances, but there is no evidence that that has proved to be a problem. But, trying to be reasonable, as I have endeavoured to be with the hon. Gentleman throughout, if there were evidence that that was causing concern, obviously I would look at it. Incidentally, the situation that he described exists at the moment under the present law. I am sure that he understands that. I cannot put it any clearer. We are changing that situation but still building in the protection for the worker.
      Mr. Mikardo: As we are legislating we should improve conditions and there is no improvement here. Under the present law and under the Bill, I repeat, a worker can have a deduction made for a shortage that does not exist or for a shortage that does exist for which he is not in the least responsible. What sort of a condition is that? Why are we not legislating to get rid of that gross injustice?
      Mr. Trippier: As I have said, and as I know that the hon. Gentleman will recognise, we have tried desperately in the Bill to strike a fair balance. We must recognise on the one hand that employers who are concerned about cash deficiencies and stock shortages will not take on more people unless they have the power to deduct. Many would say that, rather than press ahead with running a business which is so much of an encumbrance and becoming incredibly bureaucratic, thanks to the Government introducing so much legislation which acts as a brake on enterprise, they will not go ahead. They will pack up. If they have any money left they will invest it in gilt-edged stocks in the stock exchange.
      Mr. Nellist rose—
      Mr. Trippier: I am desperately trying to get on. I have allowed a number of interventions.
      The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar referred to the Lord Chief Justice. The situation that the hon. Gentleman described is exactly the same. If the employer is to have the right of making deductions from pay taken away from him, he will not take on more workers. That is a lifeline for those businesses that are dealing with cash. We have given all sorts of examples of garage forecourts, cigarette kiosks and so on. If those who operate such businesses—hon. Members should be glad of them because they are serious employers—do not have the right to make deductions, they will simply say that because of the problems that they have experienced—there is evidence of them—they will simply not carry on running such businesses. That is the sad and tragic alternative.
      6.45 pm
      I still say that it is better to leave disciplinary procedures and general limits on disciplinary deductions to be determined between employers, workers and trade unions, again short of dismissing people. That is a good alternative. Under the Bill, a worker suffering a disciplinary deduction can complain to a tribunal if he has not agreed or consented to it and if it was not provided for in his contract. That is surely sufficient protection.
      Mr. Michael J. Martin: The Minister mentioned industrial tribunals and the fact that workers can go to them. He must know that a tribunal can award against an employee going to it if it feels that the claim was not justified. Therefore, the Minister is not giving the full facts to the House when he says that a person can go to an industrial tribunal, when he knows that if he goes along that particular road he runs a risk of having to pay the employer's costs, legal fees and whatever other expenses have been incurred.
      Mr. Trippier: I know that the hon. Gentleman would never wittingly seek to mislead the House, but he must make it clear that the number of instances where that has arisen are minuscule. To comply with the law as it is now—nothing to do with the Truck Acts—that complaint must be frivolous or vexatious. Only a handful of people
      754
      have been treated in that way and both of us should be glad about that. However, the evidence that I have brought to the House today that 75 per cent. of claims are settled outside a tribunal is more compelling than anything I have heard from the Opposition.
      Mr. Holt: My hon. Friend must realise that what he is doing will affect many millions of people for many years. We are talking at this moment about industrial tribunals and vexatious or frivolous aspects. Most of the cases where the appellant has been found guilty by the "tribunal" and forced to pay have been where there has been a pre-hearing assessment which has gone against the appellant but the appellant has nevertheless proceeded with the case to tribunal. I have not heard whether the pre-hearing assessment scene will be introduced into this and whether, if an employee feels that he has been unjustly treated, there will be a pre-hearing assessment. I have not read or seen any of that in the Bill.
      Mr. Trippier: The simple answer is that it will be. There has to be a pre-hearing assessment and my hon. Friend is right to refer to it. That will be broadly welcomed. It is perhaps a little amazing that we did not discuss that at some length in Committee, but we did not. My hon. Friend is right and I am glad to give him that assurance.
      As I said, a balance must be struck. The more employees and workers are tied up in statutory controls, limiting what they can agree to in their contract, the more likely it is that employers will be reluctant to take on workers or will resort to dismissals rather than deductions.
      The balance is about right in the Bill, given that we are proposing some amendments which have been brought forward in a real attempt to meet the concerns expressed by Opposition Members. That I am anxious to do, but I strongly recommend that the House rejects these amendments.
      Ms. Clare Short: In the spirit of the strange love-hate relationships that are developed in Committee stages, may I pay the Minister an inverted compliment by saying that he is not at his best today.
      The Minister said that the Government were trying desperately to protect workers. That is just not true. The consensus is that the Truck Acts have inadequacies but provided better protection than what is being put in their place. The Minister's only argument—I do not believe it—is that employers say that if they are not given more powers to deduct pay, they will not take on more workers. I challenge the Minister to provide me with any evidence of his claim that employers have told the Department of Employment, "We can't take on any more workers unless we have more powers to deduct."
      Employers have powers under existing law to deduct up to 100 per cent. of wages. Under the Bill they may deduct up to 100 per cent. of wages except in relation to stock shortages or cash defficiencies in the retail sector. The Minister cannot pretend that the Bill improves protection.
      Mr. Trippier: I was not arguing that employers were saying that they should have wider powers to make deductions. We all agree that they have considerable powers at the moment. We are restricting those powers by limiting deductions in the retail sector to 10 per cent. We believe that it is abhorrent that workers could face

      755
      deductions that were so substantial that their net take-home pay would be next to nothing. We believe that to be immoral; that is why we are introducing the legislation.
      Ms. Short: As long as Hansard is not interfered with, it will show tomorrow what the Minister said. I wrote down his words as he said them, because this is the first time that he has introduced the argument. I do not believe his claim and my challenge stands. He said, "Employers will not take on more people unless they have power to deduct."
      Employers already have the power to deduct money from workers' wages. The Government must justify their legislation, and part of the Minister's justification was to say that employers throughout the land were knocking at his door saying that they could not take on more workers unless they had the power to deduct money from their wages. I do not believe that employers have said that to the Minister.
      The Minister suggested that a balance had to be struck, and we agree with him. However, the balance in the Truck Acts was a much fairer and more just balance. The balance struck in the Bill is grossly unjust. Workers who are not guilty of any dishonesty and may even be able to prove that they are not guilty of dishonesty may be subject to deductions and fines. The only way for them to clear their reputation, let alone get their money back, is for them to lose time and money in going to an industrial tribunal. We have just heard that there is to be a pre-hearing assessment, which will mean two days off work instead of one.
      Even if workers prove to a tribunal that they were innocent of any act or omission leading to a loss, but their contract states that they may be subject to a deduction if there is a loss, the tribunal will not be able to reverse the deduction. If the workers win, they will get back only the money deducted from their wages. There will be no compensation for the cost of going to the tribunal and no compensation for the hurt and damage to the characters of those who are accused of being liars. In addition, the employer will have the right to dismiss workers whom he has not employed for at least two years or five years—depending on whether they are employed full-time or parttime—if he is aggrieved by the fact that they took him to a tribunal.
      The Bill is an outrage. It is unjust and it will lead to more deductions and fines in the worst organised sectors of our work force. It will also lead to increased conflict and a greater sense of injustice. The Minister should have left the old law alone if he could do no better than this Bill. We reject this part of the Bill and I hope that all my hon. Friends and decent Conservative Members will vote for the new clause.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 192, Noes 249.

      Division No. 178]

      [6.53 pm

      AYES

      Abse, Leo

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Barnett, Guy

      Alton, David

      Barron, Kevin

      Anderson, Donald

      Beckett, Mrs Margaret

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Bell, Stuart

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Ashton, Joe

      Blair, Anthony

      Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Boyes, Roland

      756

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

      Lambie, David

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Lamond, James

      Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

      Leighton, Ronald

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

      Buchan, Norman

      Litherland, Robert

      Caborn, Richard

      Livsey, Richard

      Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Canavan, Dennis

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      McKelvey, William

      Clarke, Thomas

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Clay, Robert

      Maclennan, Robert

      Clelland, David Gordon

      McNamara, Kevin

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      McTaggart, Robert

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

      Madden, Max

      Cohen, Harry

      Marek, Dr John

      Conlan, Bernard

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

      Martin, Michael

      Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Maxton, John

      Craigen, J. M.

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Meacher, Michael

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Meadowcroft, Michael

      Dalyell, Tam

      Michie, William

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

      Mikardo, Ian

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

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Deakins, Eric

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Dewar, Donald

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Dobson, Frank

      Nellist, David

      Dormand, Jack

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Douglas, Dick

      O'Brien, William

      Dubs, Alfred

      O'Neill, Martin

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Eadie, Alex

      Park, George

      Eastham, Ken

      Parry, Robert

      Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)

      Patchett, Terry

      Evans, John (St. Helens N)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Ewing, Harry

      Pendry, Tom

      Faulds, Andrew

      Penhaligon, David

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Pike, Peter

      Flannery, Martin

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Prescott, John

      Forrester, John

      Radice, Giles

      Foster, Derek

      Randall, Stuart

      Fraser, J. (Norwood)

      Redmond, Martin

      George, Bruce

      Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Godman, Dr Norman

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Golding, John

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Robertson, George

      Hamilton, James (M'well N)

      Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

      Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

      Rogers, Allan

      Hancock, Michael

      Rooker, J. W.

      Hardy, Peter

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Rowlands, Ted

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Ryman, John

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      Home Robertson, John

      Shields, Mrs Elizabeth

      Howells, Geraint

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Hoyle, Douglas

      Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

      Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)

      Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Silkin, Rt Hon J.

      Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Smith, (Isl'ton S & F'bury)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Snape, Peter

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Spearing, Nigel

      John, Brynmor

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Strang, Gavin

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Straw, Jack

      Kennedy, Charles

      Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Thorne, Stan (Preston)

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Tinn, James

      757

      Torney, Tom

      Wilson, Gordon

      Wallace, James

      Winnick, David

      Wareing, Robert

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Weetch, Ken

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Welsh, Michael

      White, James

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Mr. Don Dixon and Mr. Frank Haynes.

      Williams, Rt Hon A.

      NOES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

      Alexander, Richard

      Durant, Tony

      Amess, David

      Dykes, Hugh

      Ashby, David

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Eggar, Tim

      Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

      Evennett, David

      Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

      Eyre, Sir Reginald

      Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

      Fallon, Michael

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)

      Farr, Sir John

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Favell, Anthony

      Baldry, Tony

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Batiste, Spencer

      Forman, Nigel

      Bellingham, Henry

      Forth, Eric

      Bendall, Vivian

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Bennett, Rt Hon Sir Frederic

      Fox, Marcus

      Benyon, William

      Fry, Peter

      Best, Keith

      Gale, Roger

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Galley, Roy

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

      Blackburn, John

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Body, Sir Richard

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Gow, Ian

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Gower, Sir Raymond

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

      Grant, Sir Anthony

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Gregory, Conal

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon

      Bright, Graham

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Brinton, Tim

      Grist, Ian

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Ground, Patrick

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

      Grylls, Michael

      Browne, John

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Budgen, Nick

      Harris, David

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Harvey, Robert

      Burt, Alistair

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Butcher, John

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam

      Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

      Butterfill, John

      Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

      Carlisle, John (Luton N)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hayes, J.

      Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hayward, Robert

      Cash, William

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Heddle, John

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hickmet, Richard

      Chope, Christopher

      Hicks, Robert

      Churchill, W. S.

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Cockeram, Eric

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Colvin, Michael

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

      Conway, Derek

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Cope, John

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Couchman, James

      Hunter, Andrew

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Critchley, Julian

      Irving, Charles

      Crouch, David

      Jackson, Robert

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Dicks, Terry

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Key, Robert

      Dover, Den

      King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

      758

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Knowles, Michael

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Knox, David

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Lang, Ian

      Speed, Keith

      Latham, Michael

      Speller, Tony

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Spencer, Derek

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Squire, Robin

      Lester, Jim

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Lilley, Peter

      Stanley, Rt Hon John

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

      Steen, Anthony

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Stern, Michael

      MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

      Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)

      Major, John

      Stokes, John

      Maples, John

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Marlow, Antony

      Sumberg, David

      Mates, Michael

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Mather, Carol

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mayhew, Sir Patrick

      Terlezki, Stefan

      Mellor, David

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Merchant, Piers

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Thurnham, Peter

      Moate, Roger

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Neale, Gerrard

      Trippier, David

      Neubert, Michael

      Trotter, Neville

      Newton, Tony

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Onslow, Cranley

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Osborn, Sir John

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Ottaway, Richard

      Viggers, Peter

      Pawsey, James

      Waddington, David

      Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Walden, George

      Porter, Barry

      Waller, Gary

      Portillo, Michael

      Ward, John

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Powley, John

      Watson, John

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Watts, John

      Rathbone, Tim

      Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Whitfield, John

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

      Wilkinson, John

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Rost, Peter

      Wolfson, Mark

      Rowe, Andrew

      Wood, Timothy

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Yeo, Tim

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Mr. Donald Thompson and Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 10

      PAYMENT IN CASH
      'No worker who is currently paid in cash shall cease to be so paid without his or her consent.'.—[Mr. Eastham]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Eastham: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 53, in Clause 11, page 11, line 40, at end insert
      'except that no worker currently paid in cash shall cease to be so paid without agreement'.
      Mr. Eastham: By moving new clause 10 and discussing with it amendment No. 53, the Opposition are

      759
      attempting to amend clause 11. I preface my remarks by saying that we recognise that millions of workers who are paid by cheque through their banks find it a completely satisfactory method. We do not propose to change that procedure. All we say is that workers should be given a choice.
      The Bill gives employers all the options. The employee has virtually no say about the way in which he shall be paid. The Bill deals not with highly paid workers but with the lowest paid. It affects 2,750,000 workers. A total of 41 per cent. of workers covered by wages councils are below the European decent wage threshold. Four out of five workers in wages council industries are women. Often people say that women work just for pin money, but that is not so. Low-paid workers are desperately in need of their jobs and reasonable pay.
      In our earlier debate we reminded the Minister that the Government are turning the clock back more than 150 years to the time of the Truck Acts. They were introduced to counter the dishonesty, greed and malpractices of some employers. If the Government have their way I fervently believe that once again corruption will occur. We say not that all employers are corrupt or bad, but that some are unscrupulous and must be controlled by legislation.
      On Second Reading the Minister tried to justify taking away payments in cash. He said that better security would result. That is a fact. Security will be greater because no cash handling will be involved. The Minister said that employers would save up to 50p per payment if transactions went through the banks. The employer will save money, but no consideration has been given to providing matching benefits for the employee.
      In the two and a half months that we considered the Bill in Committee, we were furnished with numerous documents. One of them was from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux dealing with this aspect of the Bill. It is not a political organisation and it is therefore fair to quote some of its comments. It has an unbiased opinion in the interest of the people to whom we are referring.
      The document states:
      "In 1984–85 the Citizens Advice Bureaux service dealt with over 6 million enquiries: of these, 600,000 related to employment problems. A substantial proportion of employment enquiries concerned deductions from pay, non-cash wages and low pay."
      Dealing directly with the right to be paid in cash the document continues:
      "Citizens Advice Bureaux deal with a considerable number of people working in low-paid employment and dependent upon weekly cash wages. Many such people are unable to open a bank or building society account and even if it were possible they would find the cost of running such an account prohibitive … employees should retain the option to be paid in cash."
      The document makes some further worthy observations. It states:
      "Bureaux throughout the country have urged us to repeat the recommendation made in our original evidence paper for all employees to have the option to be paid in cash. Bureaux' experience has shown that serious practical problems do arise for people on low incomes when they no longer receive their wages in cash."
      7.15 pm
      The main points made by the bureaux are as follows:
      "As a matter of principle, … all employees should be free to use the method of payment best suited to their needs. Many CAB clients do not have a bank account and few have post office savings or building society accounts. A direct change to payment into one of these can cause particular difficulties.
      760
      Those who have had problems in the past with regard to credit and are perhaps on a black list, may not he able to open a bank account. Many clients, particularly in rural areas, do not have any easy access to banks, post offices and building societies. They may be far away and only open during working hours.
      Many clients without accounts have experienced hardship because of the difficulty in trying to cash cheques or crossed giros … The cost of getting to and from the place where cash can be drawn may be high …
      In several cases salary cheques have not been met when presented for encashment because the employer did not have sufficient cash in his account. This can be costly for the employee who will be charged for a returned cheque and consequently may incur additional bank charges. In addition an employee will suffer hardship if wages are not received on time.
      There may also be some delays between payment being made by cheque and it being cleared, which can cause hardship ….
      Some clients would have difficulty in operating a bank account. People on low incomes may depend upon cash-in-hand to maintain their budget and earn too little to allow flexibility.
      In cases where transition to credit transfer has been made employees may be forced to move from weekly to monthly payments. Where the employer does not make provision for the change, the effect upon the household budget can be drastic. The attitude shown by banks towards credit can push people on low incomes into debt; there are two aspects of this:
      The ease with which credit can be obtained has forced many clients into debt, often for the first time.
      Banks may take unfair advantage of their creditor status and may make direct deductions for overdraft and loans. This can cause hardship, especially to those trying to clear several debts."
      Those are some of the submissions and objections expressed by citizens advice bureaux throughout the country. They make a logical and compelling case and support our belief that the worker should be allowed to choose.
      One or two points have not yet been mentioned in the debate. It is not uncommon for mistakes to be made in wage calculations, whether computerised or manual. Employees paid in cash can go to the wages office and have the mistake rectified immediately. The cashier will usually hand over any deficiency in the pay packet. If employees are now to be paid by bank transfer, it will take time to authorise an additional payment to rectify a mistake, and that will cause problems for employees.
      It is worth emphasising that some worker groups, especially the low paid, are not familiar with banking methods and may find it difficult to keep tabs on their bank statements. Low-paid workers may not be as conscious of deficiencies in their wages. In Committee, the Minister admitted that wages inspectors had discovered underpayments of £11·9 million over a five-year period. He hastened to add that 80 per cent. of that had been retrieved. However, the number of wages inspectors is to be reduced by as much as 50 per cent., so I fear that underpayments will not be discovered and retrieved.
      There is a possibility—even a probability—of further and greater underpayment as a result of the banking method that workers are to have forced upon them.
      Mr. Holt: The hon. Gentleman is becoming thoroughly confused when talking about underpayments and mistakes in calculations. The anomalies that the wages inspectors found were deliberate underpayments by employers and contraventions of wages councils' rules. Mistakes in calculation computing do not total £11·9 million.
      Mr. Eastham: Whether it is a mistake in calculation or a deliberate underpayment, the suffering is the same for

      761
      low-paid workers. I am concerned not about the reason for any deficiency, but about workers receiving their full entitlement.
      Mr. Nellist: When genuine mistakes are made in the wages of workers in wages councils industries, where employees are paid weekly in cash, they are put right within a week. The system proposed in the Bill allows employers to use monthly bank transfers, so mistakes would take a month to rectify.
      Mr. Eastham: My hon. Friend is correct. We are talking about workers earning only £55, £65 or £75 a week, when the average weekly manual wage is £165 or £170 a week.
      Mr. Holt: With respect, we are not talking about that. It does not help the hon. Gentleman's case to make false statements. This legislation covers everyone's cash payment up to any figure—it does not cover only low-paid workers. The hon. Gentleman must please get this right.
      Mr. Eastham: I accept that the Bill covers all manual workers, but I am emphasising the position of the low-paid. Hardship is greater among them than among those earning £160 or £170 a week. We must concentrate our attention on that.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) said, the switch from weekly to monthly pay will be agonising for some groups of workers. The difficulty will be compounded because of low wages and the difficulty of even trying to earn a living. All fair-minded people must be concerned about the effects of the Bill, and especially about this clause which will cause extreme hardship to the low paid.
      Mr. Caborn: Does my hon. Friend agree that many shift workers, especially those paid late on a Friday night, will find the proposed system very difficult? Currently they receive cash in the hand, which they can give to their wives for the week-end shopping.
      Does my hon. Friend further agree that no one—the trade unions, industry, the CBI or the banks—wants the course proposed in the Bill? Does it not show the illiteracy of the Government in dealing with industry?
      Mr. Eastham: My hon. Friend is correct in all that he says. The Minister said in Committee that facilities were available for those who were unable to get to the bank before it closed. He said that, for example, they could go to the Post Office. However, the Post Office has now said that a charge of 50p will be made to cash cheques on a Saturday morning. People may be faded with all sorts of charges when trying to obtain their wages. At present, a worker receives his pay packet on pay day and he faces no charges. Conservative Members may say that free banking is available provided one stays in credit, but there is no guarantee that the banks will not change their policy. A banking crisis might result in a charge of 25p for every withdrawal, which will mean that the low paid will suffer a wage reduction.
      It seems that the Government are intent on giving rights only to employers. Employers will be able to tell their workers, "From next month you will be paid through the bank, and not in cash." A worker's bank may be 12 miles from his village, he might find that after six months he
      762
      incurs bank charges in obtaining his wages and the employer may decide to introduce monthly pay instead of weekly pay. There is no provision in the clause to oblige the employer to make compensatory allowances to tide over the worker who is to receive no wages for three weeks. Employees are being denied a choice, and that is why we have tabled the clause.
      7.30 pm
      The Bill deteriorates clause by clause. It is a Robin-Hood-in-reverse Bill. The Government are seeking to rob the poor to give to the rich. The emphasis is in one direction, and certainly not towards employees. For these reasons, I hope that the House will support the clause.
      Mr. Gordon Oakes: I support strongly the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham). It is a modest new clause. The Bill—especially clause 11, which will abolish the Truck Acts—will cause heartbreak in many tens of thousands of families. In working-class households there is something almost mystical about the pay packet. The employee has worked for the week, and has worked hard. He has put in his hours and as a reward he receives the coin of the realm in a packet. The pay packet has a great significance to many working-class families. The new clause does not provide that all workers should be entitled to payment in cash. It provides merely that those who have been paid in coin of the realm throughout their working lives shall continue to be paid in that way if they so desire.
      I have no doubt that the Government will say that there are many anomalies in the Truck Acts, some of which go back to 1831. That may be. It may be right that the anomalies should be ironed out, but we must not throw away the baby with the bath water, which is what the Government are trying to do in clause 11.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South-East (Mr. Nellist) talked about the pay packet and mistakes or otherwise, but I do not wish to talk about the employer who tries deliberately to mislead and to defraud his employee. Let us say that a mistake is made by someone in the accounting department and a man or a woman receives the wrong wages. When the employee receives his pay packet, he will open it and read the statement. If there is an error, he will be in the pay office within 10 minutes of receiving the pay packet. He will not be able to do that at the end of the month when he receives his bank statement, and he may well be in that position as a result of the Bill.
      Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I am not clear how monthly payments have come to feature in the debate. There is nothing in the Bill to suggest that payments will be made monthly. Surely it is open to an employer to pay weekly or monthly.
      Mr. Oakes: I have never suggested that the employee will be paid monthly. I do not know the hon. Gentleman's bank, but I receive a monthly statement. I am never supplied with a weekly statement. I have no doubt that I would be supplied with a weekly statement if I requested it, but it would be necessary to ask specifically for that arrangement. The banks will not want the scheme that is envisaged in the Bill if it will involve the issuing of weekly statements.
      Ms. Clare Short: Experience and practice tells us that when employers move to cashless pay they seek to move

      763
      also to monthly pay. That is the way in which employers move in the real world. That has been the experience in retailing and local government, for example. Employers do this because they can make two sets of savings at the same time.
      Mr. Oakes: Yes, that is practice and experience in the real world. Unfortunately the Government do not understand the real world and what happens in it.
      In many areas—I have no doubt that what I am about to say will be endorsed by my hon. Friends the Members for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), for Wigan (Mr. Stott), and for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), and by many Conservative Members—it is traditional for a man, especially an older working man, to take his pay packet home and give it to his wife. There is nothing sexist about that. The man does so because his wife is the controller of the household. She will know how much she has to pay for children's shoes and she knows the price of meat, for example. She has to plan and to budget, poor woman. The man merely hands over his pay packet. Imagine what the position will be when that pattern of a lifetime changes and the man returns to his wife and says, "I have no pay packet. My money is in the bank."
      The Truck Acts were designed to protect the worker against employers' abuses. They prevented employers and their pals paying in the form of tokens that could be exchanged only in shops owned by them, their brothers or their brothers-in-law. The Government may say that that can no longer happen, but it can. Banks can exploit their customers, and they can do so mercilessly. If a bank account is opened by someone who has never had one previously, I have no doubt that the bank will invite him or her to have a credit card. It will say, "You are entitled to a credit card and perhaps you would like to apply for one." It may even supply one gratuitously.
      I attended a lecture last week at which a distinguished theologian was talking about the modern world. She made a good point about credit cards being a misnomer. They are debt cards, not credit cards. Those who supply the cards want the holders to get into debt; they do not give them anything. Think of the misery that can be created by someone who is not used to the credit card system. He or she might well be used to having cash in the cupboard to pay the rates or the rent. Suddenly this individual is given unlimited finance through a credit card. The Government cannot say that the banks do not do this because we know that they do. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) has a thick dossier on the banks' treatment of students. They advance ludicrous sums to students who are receiving only a pittance in the form of grants. These ludicrous sums cannnot possibly be repaid. I have no doubt that the banks would treat ordinary working people in the same way.
      If the Paymaster General or I live some distance from a bank and we find on arrival that the cash till is closed and it is necessary to go to the next branch, or if we find that there is no dispenser from which we can obtain cash on a Saturday or Sunday, we can drive to a branch where we know that there is a cashpoint. The ordinary working person we are talking about will not have a car. He will not be able to travel as easily as the right hon. and learned Gentleman or myself to a branch where there is a cash dispenser.
      764
      This is a retrograde step. The Truck Acts were intended to defend the right of working people to be paid what they had earned in the coin of the realm. The Government claim to believe in choice, but they are denying workers the choice to be paid in real money. I envisage endless difficulties resulting from the repeal of the Truck Acts. I envisage much hardship in many homes because many people will not understand that the pattern of a lifetime has been changed.
      Nobody wants change. Neither employers, the banks nor trade unions want it. The Government will listen to nobody. They insist on pushing the change through in the face of universal opposition. The Under-Secretary of State for Employment represents a constituency in the northwest. He should know how things work in working-class households. I hope that the Paymaster General, whose roots are in the working class—his is a significant title in this context—will realise that this is the wrong way in which to treat working people.
      Mr. Trippier: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and I appreciate that he referred to my right hon. and learned Friend and me in pleasant terms. Does he not know that he is absolutely wrong to say that employers do not want the Bill? Even ICI, which is represented in his constituency at Blackley, cannot wait for it to be enacted—
      Ms. Clare Short: The employers want it.
      Mr. Trippier: It is not a case of money for them. They are sick to the back teeth of robberies of the cash that is brought through the factory gates. Many employers want the Bill.
      Mr. Oakes: I can understand that some employers do not like paying a security firm to bring the wages in. We should take account of that, but we should also take account of the working person's right to be paid in real money. The employee should be able to choose whether to put the money in the bank. Many people dislike banks. If hon. Members do not believe me, they should consider how many families put their savings in a building society. Building societies are open when people are out shopping. When people are off work, the banks are shut. They cannot go in and argue. They can use cashpoints if there are any and they are working, but they might be miles away.
      I ask the Paymaster General to think again and to exercise his office.
      Mr. Holt: Throughout the Committee stage, I have been fairly consistent in my inconsistency with my own side. When I talk to people, I discover that they find the House of Commons a strange place. They consider that it is noisy, that people do not debate properly, that items are introduced for discussion but that hon. Members go off at a tangent. I therefore thought that I would find out what the Opposition had done on this matter. They have learnt from their lesson upstairs. An amendment which we debated in Committee proposed that all wages and salaries should be paid in money. The Opposition have obviously listened and learnt as they have now brought forward a much more reasonable amendment.
      Ms. Clare Short: The point of that amendment was about the Truck Acts and whether people are paid in kind. It was not about cash. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that there were other amendments.
      Mr. Holt: I am sorry that I have to withdraw the credit that I was giving the Opposition.
      It is easy to pass legislation that is favoured by a small number of large firms and which will have a direct bearing on the daily lives of many people. Payment in cash is intrinsic to English working life, and has been for as long as I can remember. It is not unreasonable to suggest that it should continue unless people consent to change. To lose that right as a result of arbitrary Government action is not very good.
      I understand the Government's argument that we are in the technical age of the computer and that everything can be done differently, but being paid in cash is desperately important to many people. I fear that, if everybody is paid by bank credit transfer, overdrafts will become the norm rather than a rarity and that many people will get themselves into debts which they will never be able to get out of. By abolishing the worker's right to be paid in cash, the Government are abolishing the discipline that the worker imposes on himself because he knows that he cannot spend more than the cash in the pay packet.
      7.45 pm
      When customers come into one of my establishments, they pay in cash. My staff are frequently asked for a little credit, but they know that they will be fired if they give it. Amazingly enough, the cash always turns up. The Government would do well to heed the new clause. It does not preclude a shift from cash payment by consent. That element of consent should be considered closely, as it is not unknown for trade unions to negotiate such a right away, although the worker may not agree with it and might be disadvantaged as a result.
      Mistakes in pay packets have been mentioned. If pay is short, the employee quickly knows and nips down to the wages office to get it rectified. If there is an overpayment which is discovered but not declared, the employee is guilty of theft and can be taken to court. It might not be so easy to assess whether the pay is right from a computer printout, but an employee who inadvertently keeps £22 when he is entitled to only £21 is still guilty of theft. The Bill could lead more people into that trap. The change has not been asked for—indeed, many people say that they do not want it—and it is unnecessary. Only a few people want it.
      The Government have impaled themselves on trying to do something unnecessary by imposition when it could have been done by persuasion. I am sure that most people could eventually be persuaded that it is not unreasonable to be paid in a form other than cash. It is unnecessarily harsh, however, to take the right away by law. That is especially true for the people in the north of England, such as my constituents, who are used to cash and unused to computer printouts. Perhaps the two systems could run in parallel for a while. But to enshrine it in law that an employer—against the wishes of all his employees, or a majority, or even a significant minority, of them—can remove their rights will do the Government's reputation no good.
      Mr. Pendry: The Government are the only people to be out of step on this measure. The Minister visited ICI Gillingham and assumed that ICI Blackley and everyone else took a similar view, but almost everyone is against the measure. My right hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) made the point with which I wished to begin. We have been told for years that the Conservative party
      766
      is the party of choice. The new clause follows that principle. The Opposition are giving the people the opportunity to choose.
      Some of my colleagues may not agree with me, but I believe that people should be paid by cheque. That is common sense. I have done exactly what the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) said, although I did not remove the rights of my trade union members. When I was a union official, I negotiated many agreements whereby workers were paid by cheque. It was always done by consent, because it was a democratic decision. We always negotiated agreements whereby the workers got something in return for giving away that right. Some did not wish to do it, and their rights were observed.
      The Conservative party seems to have lost its connection with the rural worker. Two examples taken at random—Ryedale and West Derbyshire—show that the Government are out of touch with the circumstances of the rural worker. He does not have a banking network and, because of the Conservative policy of closing rural post offices, he often must travel miles to the nearest post office.
      We must live in the practical world, about which we hear from only one Conservative Member—the hon. Member for Langbaurgh. Although we do not always agree with him, and he does not always follow his comments by voting in our Lobby, from time to time he talks practical common sense. That is what my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) meant when he talked about citizens advice bureaux being at the sharp end. Those are practical examples of what happens in our society.
      Although I agree that, for safety and many other reasons, people should be paid by cheque, it should be done by negotiation and with consent. That is what the new clause says, and I am surprised that the Conservative party does not wish to be associated with its spirit.
      Mr. Nellist: The Truck Acts, which the new clause would in part retain, give workers the right to be paid in cash. The Paymaster General recently described that method of payment as archaic and anachronistic. He meant that protection is not needed in his perception of modern-day Britain.
      Most of the people who will be affected if the Bill is passed unamended will be lower-paid workers. They have the most to lose from such a transfer. All the costs of shifting from cash pay to bank transfer, and from weekly to monthly payments, will be borne by the workers, and all the benefits will be gained by the employers. It has been estimated that, especially in large companies, when the transfer to a banking system rather than a cash system is run through the Bankers' Automated Clearing Services Ltd—the chairman of the Conservative party has put the benchmark on that—every change would cut costs by £30 a person per year. In Committee, we heard some examples from Sheffield city council and British Telecom, which estimated savings of £31 and £35 per person respectively.
      That will not be a one-off saving to the company, but an accrued saving every year. When the change from cash to bank payment is coupled with the change from weekly to monthly payment, especially in large companies, employers will effectively borrow workers' wages for four

      767
      weeks, and leave it in their bank accounts to attract interest before paying it to the workers who have earned it. If workers are paid in arrears, the problem becomes worse.
      I disagree with some of my comrades about the position of banks. I have just discovered that 7 million workers are paid in cash and that only half of them have bank accounts. The high street banks, considering the prospect of 3·5 million new accounts, must welcome this legislation because of the extra profits that those accounts would generate.
      Ms. Clare Short: The briefing from the banking information service states that banks have not pressed for the repeal of the Truck Acts. They said in previous documents that they did not want customers by compulsion. That is their position on the record.
      Mr. Nellist: I accept that they say that they do not want customers by compulsion, but, faced with the possibility of 3·5 million new customers, they must welcome the legislation.
      The clause would create many disbenefits and difficulties for workers. In Committee, we were told that there would be fewer muggings and robberies and more security, but cash can be stolen only once. A cash card or cheque book, once stolen, can be used many times. I question whether there would be more security for workers. We have heard about the difficulty of access to banks, especially in rural areas, the difficulty of opening a bank account, the fact that those aged under 18 would not normally be given cheque guarantee cards, the difficulties of workers with literacy and language problems and the danger of delays in cheques being transferred into the bank.
      A law centre brought to my attention the case of a worker paid by bank transfer who had an overdraft. The money coming from his firm was poured down the black hole of the overdraft and he had no money on which to live. He was not entitled to supplementary benefit because he was receiving a wage, so he had to rely on charity handouts to buy food for his family.
      The movement from weekly to monthly pay would pose many problems for workers in bridging the gap between surviving on weekly pay and having to wait perhaps two or three weeks before the cycle of monthly pay comes round. On bank charges, the Minister said in Committee that almost every bank operates free banking. That is often true only if an account is in credit—in some cases in credit by £100. For many workers, £100 is two weeks' wages. It may not be much to Tory Members on hundreds of thousands of pounds a year. Hon. Members smile. The hon. Member for Brighton and Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) and his brother and father net £160,000 a week from their ownership of the grocery chain Sainsburys. They can keep their bank accounts in £100 credit and not incur bank charges. It is rather different for those who work for such a grocery chain and who are paid only £50 a week.
      I do not have enough time to read out a letter from a full-time official of the Transport and General Workers Union in Coventry detailing the problems in the factories in Coventry, especially for the workers on piecework. Earlier, I said that if a mistake is made in a weekly wage packet, the worker can run to the wages office and get a payout on the Thursday or Friday afternoon to compensate. If he is paid monthly, he will have to wait for at least a month to have the mistake rectified. In the
      768
      factories in Coventry, and no doubt in the few manufacturing centres that are left after seven years of Tory Government, some workers still carry out piecework or work on bonus schemes. The variations in their wages, which are calculated in the wages office, could cause problems on a monthly basis.
      Time does not permit me to raise points about the National Union of Tailors and Garment Workers and the difficulties which its women workers in rural areas are experiencing. They cannot shop on a Friday night because, by the time they finish work, the banks and building societies are shut. I received a letter from the district secretary of the Tailors and Garment Workers in Belfast informing me that the banks shut between 12.30 pm and 1.30 pm in the city. How are workers supposed to go out during their lunch break and collect money from a bank., if the legislation is passed? But I cannot cover all those details in my short speech tonight.
      8 pm
      Many workers have negotiated the right to transfer to a monthly or bank transfer. Coventry city health authority made a once-and-for-all £30 payment to workers for that. In Leicester, Marconi increased the status of manual workers to staff status. In Southwark, that meant that staff were entitled to London weighting worth £6·20 a week. Leeds council provided more holidays. In those cases trade unions, having discussed the matter and probably having balloted their members, negotiated a transfer of payments.
      If this provision is unamended by new clause 10, it will remove that choice from working people, and at the end of the day many workers will be out of pocket. I hope that all my comrades will support the new clause and that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt), who spent three months in Committee parading his conscience before us, as he has done tonight, and then sat on his hands and registered a No vote, will also support the new clause tonight and put his money where his mouth is.
      Mr. Caborn: I wish to raise two important points which have been omitted from the debate.
      I have received serious representations from ethnic minorities, including the Sheffield Asian Welfare Association. They say that they will face new difficulties if cashless pay is agreed to. Because of the Government's attitude toward immigrants, they are afraid, and have great difficulty registering with an authority. If the Government are not prepared to accept the new clause, and if cashless pay is agreed to, it will have a major effect on our ethnic minorities. Therefore, I ask the Government seriously to consider accepting new clause 10. It is reasonable.
      People who have been dealing with the trade union side of industry have agreed that we would all like to move toward cashless pay, but without being forced to do so I hope that the Government will take that advice from industry. The Minister has been able to mention only one company which is in favour of this proposal—ICI. Even the CBI is against it. I suggest that the Minister should bear that in mind when he replies.
      Mr. Holt: The hon. Gentleman has raised one matter which has not so far been mentioned, and I hope that the Paymaster-General will deal with it when he replies. In talking about ethnic minorities and the abolition of the Truck Acts, we are talking about payment in the coin of the realm. There is a possibility that ethnic employers will pay in ethnic money which can then be exchanged only at

      769
      ethnic shops and through ethnic banks. It will not be against the law for employers to pay in that way. The Government are opening that door by abolishing the Truck Acts without concerning themselves with the coin of the realm.
      Mr. Caborn: I had not taken that point on board, and the Minister should consider it when he replies.
      The Paymaster General and Minister for Employment (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I have never before had the pleasure of listening to the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) speak from the Opposition Front Bench. It may be that this is his first time, and I congratulate him on that. I should like to have begun by replying to him on a new clause or amendment which I could accept on behalf of the Government, but I am afraid that in urging this new clause he is on a somewhat ill-conceived mission.
      Several hon. Members have mentioned that this part of the Bill repeals a provision which was first introduced by the Truck Act 1831. In a speech during the last debate, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) was a little critical of my, apparently, scornful views of the legislation, and the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) reminded me that I had described the legislation on Second Reading as archaic. Like any good Conservative, I treat old legislation with suitable veneration, and the fact that the first Truck Act was passed in 1831 is, in itself, not a reason for repealing it.
      The description of the Truck Acts given today, confirms my impression that the trade union and labour movement is extremely old-fashioned and backward-looking. Its veneration for a slowly vanishing society can sometimes be taken to extremes. I shall illustrate that first by reminding the House of the basis of the Truck Act 1831, which remains the basis of the present law until this Bill repeals it.
      As many hon. Members will know from their modern history lessons in school, the origins of the Truck Act go back to the pernicious system that sprang up in the early 19th century when some labourers began to be paid in truck instead of in cash. It usually took the form of tokens, which could be cashed only at a company shop, and, obviously, the company could dictate the price of the goods exchanged for the tokens. That is the basis of the legislation, and it has dictated the form of legislation which has come down to us 150 years later. The provision about which hon. Members have been speaking provides that manual workers have the right to insist on payment in cash.
      All hon. Members will appreciate that a great deal has happened since 1831.
      Ms. Short: So that no one is misled, may I tell the House that the most recent relevant legislation is the Payment of Wages Act 1960?
      Mr. Clarke: That was when the measure was last consolidated. The right of manual workers to be paid in cash has come indirectly through various subsequent provisions from the Truck Act 1831.
      A great deal has changed since then. First, the business of paying in truck has ceased to be a social problem. Secondly, we no longer make the distinction between
      770
      manual and non-manual workers for most pay purposes. In both cases we expect the important aspects of pay and remuneration to be decided by agreement and discussion and, where necessary, by contract. There is no distinction between the way in which manual and non-manual workers arrive at agreements over important matters, such as rates of pay, bonuses, overtime rates and holiday entitlement. The law is the same for both manual and non-manual workers, except that manual workers have the right to insist on being paid in cash. That has meant that some employers and trade unions have found that where there is a desire to consider non-cash payment for manual workers, a handful of people, who insist on their legal rights to be paid in cash, can hold up and prevent the whole transition.
      For non-manual work we have seen all sorts of non-cash payments which are fringe benefits and much coveted by others, such as company cars. It would be illegal to give them to manual workers because it would be in breach of the Truck Acts, which are being so passionately defended. On the other hand, a manual worker can insist on payment in cash.
      Mr. Nellist: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Clarke: Both the hon. Members for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) and for Blackley appear to imagine that they are talking about the low paid. The law which they are defending has nothing to do with the low paid. Many low-paid workers are not protected by the Truck Acts and are exposed to this misery and hold this great grievance.
      Mr. Nellist: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Clarke: I will in a second.
      This provision, which is being defended so eloquently, is of benefit only to manual workers—the labourers of 19th century England who had its protection. Shop assistants are not protected by it.
      Ms. Short: They are.
      Mr. Clarke: Shop workers are not. Ms. Short: Yes, they are.
      Mr. Clarke: I am open to correction, and if the hon. Lady has found an authority, obviously I shall look at it. I understand that the whole provision depends on the definition of manual and non-manual workers. Clerical workers or shop assistants are not protected—[Interruption.]. There are plenty of low-paid non-manual workers who are not protected by the Truck Acts. No non-manual worker has ever lobbied me to extend the benefits of the Truck Acts in order to protect him from the fearful exploitation to which Opposition Members believe that he will be exposed.
      Ms. Clare Short: I refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the Library briefing. That says that in 1896 shop assistants were brought within the protection offered by the Acts.
      Mr. Clarke: Perhaps I could see the Library briefing, as I am not sure that the hon. Lady is very certain of her facts. But if she is right, I shall accept that correction. I have not looked up the authorities, but I should be surprised if shop assistants were included in the definition of manual workers to be paid in truck.
      Ms. Clare Short: I shall give the Minister the briefing.
      Mr. Nellist: Will the Minister give way now, while he is reading the briefing?
      Mr. Clarke: I see that shop workers are included for the purposes of deductions for fines, damaged goods, materials or services. The right to be paid in cash does not extend to shop workers. It extends to manual workers. A well-paid manual worker digging a ditch and earning £150 to £200 a week—and plenty of manual workers are paid that much—is covered by the Truck Acts. However, a shop assistant or clerical worker—I am on very sound ground when it comes to clerical workers—who is paid £40 or £50 a week is not protected by the legislation.
      Mr. Nellist rose
      Mr. Clarke: A low-paid clerical worker has never come to me demanding the protection of the Truck Acts.
      Mr. Oakes: Will the Minister address himself to the new clause, which says:
      "No worker who is currently paid in cash shall cease to be so paid without his or her consent."
      We are not asking for the repeal of clause 11. The new clause refers to "any worker".
      Mr. Clarke: I shall come to that point. The Government take the view that this provision, which is designed to stop labourers being paid in tokens, is perhaps not the most pressing cause at present. However, it is undesirable that a handful of people should be able to stop a change towards a more cash-free society. We propose repeal. But the Opposition think that in 1831 the provisions did not go far enough. They think that in today's social conditions any workers who are now paid in cash should be protected in law. They are moving in a direction that is a little out of touch when it comes to legal reform.
      Mr. Nellist rose—
      Mr. Clarke: I shall give way to an hon. Gentleman who, I am quite convinced, is out of tune with the times on a wide number of social and political matters.
      Mr. Nellist: Saying that the 1831 Act has no validity ought to stick in the craw of a Government who are supposed to be taking us back to Victorian values. The Minister accused us of talking about the Act as if it applied only to low-paid workers. Of course it applies to manual workers on £150 or £200 a week. But if they were given the choice, those workers might well go over to cashless pay, because they would not have to worry about keeping £100 in their bank accounts to avoid bank charges. They might even have cars, so they would not have to rely on the poor bus services in rural areas to reach a bank, building society or post office when it is open. The low-paid will be hurt most if they lose the right to be paid in cash, because they will, by definition, have the most problems if this Bill is enacted.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Clarke: In defending part of the Truck Acts, the hon. Gentleman is not defending Victorian values, because we are talking about pre-Victorian legislation. The provisions that he so passionately defends were almost out of date before the great Queen died. It has taken us a long time to get round to repealing them. It has been frequently said that employers and employees do not want
      772
      this change. But if nobody wants it, there will not be any change. Nothing in the Bill obliges an employer or employee to stop cash payments if that is what he prefers.
      Opposition Members may have noticed that an increasing number of people have bank accounts. The banks are beginning to reverse their appallingly anti-consumer behaviour of a few years ago and are opening once more on Saturdays. There are also automatic paying-out services. More and more people have building society accounts. People are also paid in Giro, and we are moving towards a more cashless society.
      We propose to repeal the legislation because the bulk of employees might be quite content to go over to non-cash payments—and good luck to them if they can negotiate some share of the savings—but it would need only a handful of people in the company to say that they are protected by the Truck Acts and that they will not agree to being paid in a different way, for that change to prove impossible. We have heard some amazing hyperbole and tales of agony and grief. If we repeal this provision, we shall move towards being a cashless society in line with other modern societies that we should consider to be our rough equivalent.
      The proportion of payments made by cash in this country compared with the proportion made by cash in other countries is relevant. In Britain, 39 per cent. of wage payments are made in cash. In America 1 per cent. of wage payments are made in cash. In the Federal Republic of Germany 5 per cent. are paid in cash. The Truck Acts have stopped that drift towards a cashless society.
      There are two advantages to making it much easier for the bulk of the population and their employers to move into the late 20th century and further towards a cashless society. First, it is much more efficient and less costly. Substantial savings can be made per employee. That is why various bodies such as local authorities as well as many private sector employers are anxious to move to cash-free payments. If substantial sums can be saved—
      Mr. John Evans: What about collective bargaining?
      Mr. Clarke: Collective bargaining cannot waive legal rights. If neither the employer nor the employee is interested in non-cash payments, I assume that they will not be made. But if a trade union wanted to negotiate changing to non-cash payments and had the support of the employees—perhaps there is some deal that will share out the savings—it would need only a couple of employees to say, "Blow that. We shall insist on our legal rights under the Truck Acts," for that process to be brought to a halt, unless our Bill is enacted and the Truck Acts are repealed. Unions cannot negotiate away the legal rights of their members.
      The hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) is defending archaic law. In this country there is a high proportion of wage payments in cash, which means that costs are imposed on industry. In many industries, both the employer and the employee are deprived of the chance to participate in the savings that can be made from going over to a cashless system of payment.
      A cashless system of payment would also reduce the opportunities for crime. I spoke about that on Second Reading, so I shall not dilate about it again. In this country, wage snatches are a profitable form of criminal activity. Very large sums of cash are moved about in order

      773
      to pay people under our old-fashioned system, and that means a high security risk. In 1984, there were almost 450 armed robberies at factories and offices or on the public highway. Many of them were wages snatches. It is a totally unnecessary credit risk to have security lorries stuffed full of banknotes going in and out of factories every week because we are such a traditional society that we have not got round to repealing the legislation.
      Savings can be made, and there are obvious implications for crime prevention. The Bill would enable us to make social changes, in line with more modern societies, which most people would regard as perfectly predictable in today's age. I am told that people do not have bank accounts, that they cannot open them, or that they are costly. But the position is steadily changing. I am told that 75 per cent. of adults have bank accounts. Almost 90 per cent. have accounts at some deposit-taking institution.
      There are more credit cards, and more people are accustomed to taking advantage of automated banking facilities.
      Ms. Clare Short: What about stolen credit cards?
      Mr. Clarke: When the hon. Lady replies, she will obviously launch into an attack on the whole concept of the banking society. She feels that credit cards and cheque books worry hon. Members. I can only assume that the hon. Members who have spoken in the debate and the hon. Lady, who is about to do so, keep their savings in an old sock at the bottom of their bed and pay their bills in pound coins. The fact is that three quarters of the adult population have a bank account. We are plainly moving towards a society in which less cash will be used and more convenient non-cash transactions will take place. There are small, vulnerable groups which for years have been accustomed to taking payments in forms other than cash.
      I conclude on what I regard as a telling point. The Opposition's claims about the low-paid employed presumably do not apply to the unemployed. For years, the unemployed have not been paid the unemployment benefit by cash. They have been paid by Giro. All social security benefits are paid by Giro. I am astonished that the Opposition have not thrown in that all-embracing clause, that march back to the great days of William IV of 1831, and the equivalent legal protection for the unemployed and those who receive social security benefits. The Opposition have not thought through their proposal.
      An extraordinary and impassioned debate has been aroused around a quite insignificant repeal provision. The Opposition's new clause would have the preposterous effect of extending a legal protection, which became outmoded a century or more ago, to many people to whom it does not apply at the moment.
      Ms. Clare Short: The Paymaster General and Minister for Employment insulted low-paid workers by pretending that the Bill which will damage them so severely is about giving them cards. That was not funny. We are talking about workers who run out of money at the end of every week. Each week, they must decide whether to spend their money on food for their children or on clothes that they might need. Too many people live like that. The Minister insulted the unemployed when he talked as though they do not have plenty of time to go to a post office or a bank to
      774
      get their money. That is just whey they do have—too little to do, and too little money. To say that we are holding back the low paid from the conditions enjoyed by the unemployed is a joke and insensitive.
      Neither the Labour party nor the British people are opposed to cashless pay. In fact, in the recent past, there has been a massive shift towards cashless pay by negotiation, agreement and freedom of choice. In 1969, 75 per cent. of all employees were paid in cash. Now, the figure is below 40 per cent.
      We are in favour of massive progress by agreement, consent and free choice. Our new clause and amendment say that those who are currently paid in cash shall continue to be paid in cash unless they give their consent to a change. We advocate freedom of choice to people, and not legislation that forces them into something that they do not want.
      The repeal of the Truck Acts is not required to introduce cashless pay. The Central Policy Review Staff, the old think tank, said in its study that it was not a major barrier. The movement has been going on, in any event. The repeal of the Truck Acts means that people can be forced into such a position in an inconvenient way, without sharing the benefits of the savings to employers. Until now, employers who have moved in that respect have had to negotiate. They have known of the benefits to themselves from such a change. They have told workers, "We shall give you part of the benefit. We are moving to monthly pay. We shall help you in the process of change." None of that will be necessary now. It can, and indeed will, be forced on workers whether they like it or not.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has already received a complaint from shop workers who have been told that, with the legislation, they will be moved on to cashless and monthly pay. Those shop workers are women on low pay. They are worried because, after finishing work, they spend their money on shopping for their families.
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I intervene because the hon. Lady is being carried away, again, into error. The legislation and the Opposition's new clause have nothing to do with changes to monthly pay. As to a change being made without agreement, if it is a term of the contract of employment, nothing in the legislation enables an employer to overturn, unilaterally, the contract of employment. The example cited by the hon. Lady was miles wide of the mark with respect to the effect of the Bill or the new clause.
      Ms. Short: The Minister is wrong. In practice, in the real world, the shifts to cashless and monthly pay go together.
      Mr. Martin rose—
      Mr. Jack Straw rose—
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke rose—
      Ms. Short: I shall give way to my hon. Friend.
      Mr. Straw rose—
      Mr. Clarke: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Ms. Short: No, I gave way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman just now.
      Mr. Straw: The Minister said that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) was in

      775
      error. I corroborate everything she said about what is happening in Blackburn. The information came from me. I am certain about it. Whatever the Minister says about a particular national firm—I shall not name it because the employees fear for their jobs—[Interruption.] Oh, yes. The Minister knows about unemployment in Blackburn. The company is moving towards cashless pay only because of the legislation and the fear that it can generate in the minds of workers.
      Ms. Short: My hon. Friend reinforces the point—
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke rose—
      Ms. Short: I shall not give way. We are under pressure. The Minister spoke for some time.
      It is inconvenient for some workers to be paid in a non-cash form. Women who earn a small amount, who perhaps work part-time, like to get their money and go out shopping. They find it inconvenient to receive cashless pay because they must go to a bank to withdraw the money.
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke rose—
      Ms. Short: I shall give way before I am finished, but not yet. I understand that the Truck Acts extend to shop workers. I understand that the Under-Secretary of State has looked up the legislation. The Minister and I shall have to look it up in detail. There is a general understanding that shop workers are covered by the protection of the legislation.
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Lady is wrong.
      Ms. Short: I am not wrong. I do not know why the Paymaster General seeks to heckle. I think that it is because his case is so bad. [Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The Minister should set an example to hon. Members. He is not the only one who heckles from a sedentary position, but he is the last person who should do so.
      Ms. Short: The Opposition do not care about what is happening in the United States of America in the way that Government Members passionately do. We care about what is in the interests of workers in Britain. We want those workers to have freedom of choice. We want those workers who are currently paid in cash to continue to be paid in cash or to negotiate agreements that suit themselves.
      Mr. Martin rose—
      Ms. Short: I must finish or my Whip will strangle me.
      The Opposition are in favour of freedom of choice. The Government are taking from low-paid workers the right to be paid in cash if that suits their convenience.
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Lady said that she would give way to me before she resumed her seat. I am not talking about the facts of the Blackburn case. I point out to her that the law to which she referred applies to manual workers' rights to be paid in cash. She is not talking about the real world. She is talking about the 1831 law. The debate has nothing to do with weekly or monthly payments and part-time women workers, because hardly any of them are manual workers. It has nothing to do with the low-paid, because it protects some low-paid workers and not others. Does the hon. Lady concede that she has actually got the legislation to which she referred fairly thoroughly around her neck?
      Ms. Short: The Minister protests too much and knows too little. There are many female part-time manual workers in my constituency. They live in poverty. They need their money in cash. That is their preference. The Opposition believe in their freedom of choice. The Paymaster General does not.
      Question put, That the clause be read a second time:-
      The House divided: Ayes 165, Noes 248.

      Division No. 179]

      [8.29 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Golding, John

      Anderson, Donald

      Gould, Bryan

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Gourlay, Harry

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Hamilton, James (M'well N)

      Ashton, Joe

      Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

      Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

      Hardy, Peter

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Barnett, Guy

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Barron, Kevin

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Beckett, Mrs Margaret

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Bell, Stuart

      Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Home Robertson, John

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Hoyle, Douglas

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Blair, Anthony

      Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

      Boyes, Roland

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

      John, Brynmor

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

      Lambie, David

      Buchan, Norman

      Lamond, James

      Caborn, Richard

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

      Leighton, Ronald

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Litherland, Robert

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Clarke, Thomas

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Clay, Robert

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Clelland, David Gordon

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      McKelvey, William

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Cohen, Harry

      McNamara, Kevin

      Conlan, Bernard

      McTaggart, Robert

      Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

      Madden, Max

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Marek, Dr John

      Craigen, J. M.

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Martin, Michael

      Dalyell, Tam

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

      Maxton, John

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

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Deakins, Eric

      Meacher, Michael

      Dewar, Donald

      Michie, William

      Dobson, Frank

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Dormand, Jack

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Douglas, Dick

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Dubs, Alfred

      Nellist, David

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      O'Brien, William

      Eadie, Alex

      O'Neill, Martin

      Eastham, Ken

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)

      Park, George

      Evans, John (St. Helens N)

      Parry, Robert

      Ewing, Harry

      Patchett, Terry

      Faulds, Andrew

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Pendry, Tom

      Fisher, Mark

      Pike, Peter

      Flannery, Martin

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Prescott, John

      Forrester, John

      Randall, Stuart

      Foster, Derek

      Raynsford, Nick

      Fraser, J. (Norwood)

      Redmond, Martin

      George, Bruce

      Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Godman, Dr Norman

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      777

      Robertson, George

      Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

      Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston)

      Rogers, Allan

      Tinn, James

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

      Torney, Tom

      Rowlands, Ted

      Wareing, Robert

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Weetch, Ken

      Sheerman, Barry

      Welsh, Michael

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      White, James

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

      Williams, Rt Hon A.

      Silkin, Rt Hon J.

      Wilson, Gordon

      Skinner, Dennis

      Winnick, David

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

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Snape, Peter

      Spearing, Nigel

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

      Mr. Don Dixon and Mr. Frank Haynes.

      Strang, Gavin

      Straw, Jack

      NOES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Alexander, Richard

      Critchley, Julian

      Alton, David

      Crouch, David

      Amess, David

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Arnold, Tom

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Ashby, David

      Dicks, Terry

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Dover, Den

      Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

      du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

      Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

      Durant, Tony

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

      Baldry, Tony

      Evennett, David

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Eyre, Sir Reginald

      Batiste, Spencer

      Fallon, Michael

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Farr, Sir John

      Bellingham, Henry

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Bendall, Vivian

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Benyon, William

      Forman, Nigel

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Forth, Eric

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Fox, Marcus

      Blackburn, John

      Freud, Clement

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Fry, Peter

      Body, Sir Richard

      Gale, Roger

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Galley, Roy

      Bottomley, Peter

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

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

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Gow, Ian

      Bright, Graham

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Brinton, Tim

      Grant, Sir Anthony

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Gregory, Conal

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon

      Browne, John

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Grist, Ian

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Ground, Patrick

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Grylls, Michael

      Budgen, Nick

      Gummer, Rt Hon John S

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Burt, Alistair

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam

      Hancock, Michael

      Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

      Hannam, John

      Carlisle, John (Luton N)

      Harris, David

      Carttiss, Michael

      Harvey, Robert

      Cash, William

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

      Chope, Christopher

      Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

      Churchill, W. S.

      Hawksley, Warren

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hayes, J.

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Hayward, Robert

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Cockeram, Eric

      Heddle, John

      Colvin, Michael

      Hickmet, Richard

      Conway, Derek

      Hicks, Robert

      Coombs, Simon

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Cope, John

      Hind, Kenneth

      Couchman, James

      Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

      778

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

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

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

      Scott, Nicholas

      Howells, Geraint

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas-

      Shields, Mrs Elizabeth

      Irving, Charles

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Jackson, Robert

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Speed, Keith

      Jones, Robert (Herts W)

      Speller, Tony

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Spencer, Derek

      Kennedy, Charles

      Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

      Kershaw, Sir Anthony

      Squire, Robin

      Key, Robert

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

      Stanley, Rt Hon John

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Steen, Anthony

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Stern, Michael

      Knowles, Michael

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

      Knox, David

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Lang, Ian

      Stewart, Ian (Hertfdshire N)

      Latham, Michael

      Stokes, John

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Sumberg, David

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Lilley, Peter

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Livsey, Richard

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Maclean, David John

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

      Major, John

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Maples, John

      Thurnham, Peter

      Marlow, Antony

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Trippier, David

      Meadowcroft, Michael

      Trotter, Neville

      Mellor, David

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Merchant, Piers

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Viggers, Peter

      Moate, Roger

      Waddington, David

      Neale, Gerrard

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Newton, Tony

      Walden, George

      Onslow, Cranley

      Wallace, James

      Osborn, Sir John

      Waller, Gary

      Ottaway, Richard

      Ward, John

      Penhaligon, David

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Porter, Barry

      Watson, John

      Portillo, Michael

      Watts, John

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

      Powley, John

      Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Whitfield, John

      Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Wolfson, Mark

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Wood, Timothy

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Yeo, Tim

      Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Rost, Peter

      Mr. Tim Sainsbury and Mr. Michael Neubert.

      Rowe, Andrew

      Question accordingly negatived

    Clause 1

      GENERAL RESTRICTIONS ON DEDUCTIONS MADE, OR PAYMENTS RECEIVED, BY EMPLOYERS
      Mr. Trippier: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 9, leave out 'of his' and insert 'employed by him'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient also to consider Government amendments Nos. 6, 48, 49, and 51.
      Mr. Trippier: These amendments change the phrase "worker of his" to "worker employed by him" wherever it occurs in the Bill, and make changes consequent on such rewording. They reflect concern which was expressed by the opposition in Committee about the infelicitous, although unintended, inference which could be drawn from the original wording.
      The point—eloquently put at the second sitting of the Committee by the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo)—is that "worker of his" could be taken to imply ownership, reducing the worker to the same status, I recall him saying, as a machine tool or workbench, something that is the property of the employer. "Worker employed by him" avoids any such implications of ownership.
      Ms. Clare Short: My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), who moved the original amendment in Committee, cannot be here now. I am sure that he would be pleased at his symbolic victory. It is a pity we could not win more real changes in the Bill. None the less, for the Government to bring forward in 1986 a Bill which talks about workers belonging to their employers shows something about their attitude. My hon. Friend's efforts have amended the Bill in a desirable direction.
      Amendment agreed to
      Mr. Trippier: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 12, leave out 'term' and insert 'provision'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient also to consider the following: Government amendments Nos. 7 and 8.
      Amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 7, leave out 'shown' and insert 'given'.
      Government amendments Nos. 10, 11, 12 and 17.
      Mr. Trippier: This is my attempt to be fair and reasonable, despite the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) has just said. These amendments have been tabled in response to an undertaking that I gave, which I think is referred to in column 65 of the report of second sitting of the Committee.
      On that occasion I undertook to consider a proposal put forward by the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar that the written term which sets out the circumstances in which a deduction from wages may be made should be given rather than shown to the worker.
      I think that Opposition Members will agree that these amendments achieve this intention. Their effect is that, where the employer relies on a written term of the contract to authorise a deduction he must, in advance of the deduction, give the worker a copy of the term authorising the deduction or give him an explanation of the term. Indeed, the amendments go further by providing that, where the employer has to rely on two or more terms, a copy of each of these terms must be given to the worker or the combined effect of such terms must be explained to the worker.
      These amendments improve the Bill and give added protection to the worker against unlawful deductions from wages. I commend the amendments to the House.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Nellist: I remember taking part in that debate in Committee. I ask the Minister the same question now as I asked then. He has made a halfway house attempt with this set of amendments. Why, given the Government's view that a contract of employment is a quasi-legal document which is solemn and binding, is he not prepared to introduce Government amendments which say that the question of deductions and so on should be in a document signed by the worker and the employer to show that both agree to its provisions?
      Mr. Trippier: When we are talking about a contract of employment, as we discussed in Committee at some length, it does not have to be a written contract. With this legislation we have insisted that at least there should be a written term of a contract which makes it clear that there is a power to deduct. A written term has to be handed to the worker and there must be proof that that has taken place. I think that the hon. Gentleman should be satisfied. Amendment No. 9, tabled in the name of the Opposition, will have a similar effect to the amendment I am moving. I hope that, under the circumstances, the Opposition will feel it necessary to withdraw that amendment.
      Ms. Clare Short: This again is a small but welcome amendment. Under the Bill as drafted it would have been possible for an employer to make a deduction simply having waved a piece of paper under the nose of a worker and only showing the written terms of the contract to the worker and not having to give a copy to the worker. That is rectified by the amendment. The amendment is a concession—only a small one but it is something—that the Government have been forced by the Opposition to make. We are grateful for that and, of course, we shall withdraw amendment No. 9.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: That does not arise on the question before the House. We shall deal with that, if necessary, when we come to it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Caborn: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 15, at end insert—
      '(c) the employer makes the deduction within 12 months of the discovery of the act or omission complained of'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient also to consider Government amendments Nos. 26, 27, 29, 31, 32, 33, 38, 39, 41 and 42.
      Mr. Caborn: In Committee we argued forcefully about the position of an employer being effectively handed an open cheque in being able to make deductions from a worker going back any length of time that the employer could find to be justified. We thought that that was wrong and, to a large extent, against the natural trend of British justice. Timetables are laid down, and we thought that that was extremely important for the Bill. We did not believe that it was right that an employer could tell an employee that he had committed an act of theft or whatever five years previously and that that was now to be brought against him.
      It is evident that the force of argument put by my hon. Friends in Committee has sunk in with the Government because in amendment No. 26, the Government, to a large extent, accept our points. However, their amendment is to a different part of the Bill—clause 2. That is welcome. My hon. Friends' arguments were put forcefully and in a

      781
      common-sense way. They were born out of their knowledge of industry. The Paymaster General's performance showed that he does not even know who is covered by the Truck Acts. That shows a certain amount of misunderstanding at best and total illiteracy at worst.
      Therefore—
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke rose—
      Mr. Caborn: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will have plenty of time to have a go.
      Therefore, I hope that the Government will concur with what I have been saying about our amendment. Their amendment No. 26 shows that they agree with its purpose.
      Mr. Trippier: I was waiting to hear the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) say that he was prepared to withdraw his amendment, because I am about to try to convince the House that the amendments tabled in the Government's name meet his point.
      This group of amendments comprise 10 Government amendments and one Opposition amendment. They are all concerned with the same point. We have tabled our amendments because of the commitment that I gave in Committee that we would consider whether an amendment was required to ensure that deductions related to cash shortages or stock deficiencies would be entirely prohibited if there was unreasonable delay between the date the cash shortage or stock deficiency occurred and the date the employer made a deduction from wages in respect of that shortage or deficiency. Having considered the matter in a fair and reasonable light, I believe that something specific is required in the Bill, and I am happy to support the amendments, which I am sure will meet the concern expressed by Opposition Members.
      The amendments will mean that, in order to make a lawful deduction on account of a cash shortage or stock deficiency, an employer will have to make the deduction no later than 12 months after either the date on which he established the existence of the shortage or deficiency in respect of which the deduction is made or, if earlier, the date when he ought reasonably to have established its existence. In layman's terms, that means that a deduction will be lawful if the employer makes the deduction within 12 months of finding out about a shortage unless he could reasonably be expected to find out about it earlier, in which case the deduction would be lawful only if he made it within 12 months of the date on which he ought to have found out about the existence of the shortage.
      That will prevent employers—I am sure that they are few in number—who decide to victimise a worker, for whatever reason, dredging up a lot of old events on which they took no action at the time and eventually starting to make deductions in the distant future. That was the point that I accepted in Committee. I thought that that was immoral. In addition, the provision will help to prevent disputes over events that happened so far back in the past that memories have become blurred about what actually took place, and to avoid resultant injustices—for example, the wrong worker suffering a deduction or shortage.
      I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that the amendments are an improvement to the Bill. I commend them to the House and ask the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central to withdraw his amendment because ours meets his point.
      Ms. Clare Short: This is another series of concessions achieved by the Opposition, and they are of some significance. Under the Bill as drafted, an employer was given the power to go back as long as he wished—10 or 20 years—to find any shortage or damage and act against the worker by making deductions or fines. We said that two people might work together in a friendly way but then fall out, and it might lead to the employer seeking to victimise the worker, going back over many years, claiming that there had been stock shortages and then claiming massive deductions from the worker.
      The imbalance in the Government's perspective was clear in the unamended Bill, in that the employer was given the right to go back timelessly, but any employee who intended to go to a tribunal to complain that he had had an illegal deduction had to act within three months or lose his legal right. In this group of amendments, the Government have conceded both points. The employer is limited in that he can go back only 11 months and the workers can take their case to a tribunal within a period that a tribunal judges reasonable. I think that that is a correct understanding of the Government's amendments. Therefore, the three-month time limit is gone.
      The Bill is still highly unacceptable, but at least the Opposition have gained improved protection for workers, little as it might be. I imagine that in the circumstances, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) will be willing to withdraw our amendment, although it is notable that the Opposition amendment takes up only two lines but the Government found it necessary to have 10 lines to achieve the same objective.
      Mr. Caborn: I thought that the Government might accept our amendment, based on what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) has said—that ours is much shorter and will take up less space and paper. Obviously, that is not so. When one sees a ray of common sense from the Government, one has to grasp it with both hands. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendments made: No. 6, in page 2, line 2 leave out `of his' and insert 'employed by him'.
      No. 7, in page 2, line 4 leave out 'term' and insert `provision'.
      No. 8 in page 2, line 5 leave out from 'contact', to 'on' in line 7 and insert
      'means any provision of the contract comprised—
      (a) in one or more written terms of the contract of which the employer has given the worker a copy".
      No. 10, in page 2, line 12 leave out
      'any other express or implied term of the contract'
      and insert
      'in one or more terms of the contract (whether express or implied and, if express, whether oral or in writing)'.
      No. 11, in page 2, line 13 after 'effect', insert
      ', or (as the case may be) combined effect,'.
      No. 12, in page 2, line 17 leave out 'term' and insert 'provision'.—[Mr. Trippier.]
      Ms. Clare Short: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 2, line 17 leave out from 'contract' to 'or' in line 18
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 14, in page 2, line 23, leave out
      'the variation took effect or (as the case may be)'.
      Ms. Short: The purpose of the amendment is to check that the Bill means what the Minister claimed in Committee. We were concerned that under the Bill it would be impossible for an employer to produce a version of the contract—we have to be clear that an implied term of a contract can justify a fine or deduction—wave it in front of an employee's nose and then say that he was therefore making a deduction that was allowed under the contract. The Minister assured us that that was not possible. He told us that under the Bill it was absolutely necessary that the terms of the contract were clear and shown to the worker before the act or omission complained of led to the deduction or fine. Indeed, the Minister spoke in quite strong language. He said that it would be immoral if it were otherwise. I am sure that what he said was sincere and that that was his honest reading of the Bill.
      I do not claim to be right on this matter, although we think we are right on shop assistants. It is notable that the Paymaster General got that wrong as well as so many things in the Bill, but I am sure we shall come back to that.
      Let us look at clause 1(4). The protection that the Minister relied on in his arguments in Committee seems to apply only to a variation in the term of a contract, not to the provisions of the original contract. The amendment will change subsection (4) to read:
      "For the purposes of this section—

      (a) Any relevant term of a worker's contract or

      (b) any agreement or consent signified by a worker as mentioned in subsection (1)(b), shall not operate to authorise the making of any deduction, or the receipt of any payment, on account of any conduct of the worker, or any event occurring, before the agreement or consent was signified."

      I hope that the Minister will respond fully to this point.
      The Bill as drafted does not guarantee the position that the Minister said would be the correct one. The amendments are necessary to bring the Bill into line with the undertakings that he gave. That is the purpose of the amendments and we will be interested to hear the Minister's response.
      Mr. Trippier: It might be helpful to the House if I tried to explain, in speaking to these amendments, exactly what subsection (4) of clause 1 achieves. The previous subsections established that a deduction from pay may be lawful if it is provided for in the contract of employment, with any provision that provides for a deduction being given or explained in writing to the worker to ensure compliance with subsection (3) before a deduction authorised by such provision is made.
      We start from the position that both sides, employers and workers, know the rules about deductions and observe them. Subsection (4) means that, if a contract is changed so that an employer can thereafter make deductions if certain behaviour occurs, the employer is prevented from making deductions in respect of conduct that occurred before the change.
      9 pm
      We cannot provide that no change in a contract can ever be made. If we did that, contracts would be set in stone for all time. We can start, and we intend to start—this is the assurance that I gave the Committee—making changes retrospectively authorising deductions, and subsection (4) achieves that. I believe that that is sufficient protection.
      Ms. Clare Short: I am carefully following the Minister's comments. However, my reading of paragraphs
      784
      (a) and (b) of subsection (3) leads me to believe that it would require the employer to show the written terms of the contract or any other express terms of the contract to the worker at any time before making a deduction. The Bill appears to state that. However, in Committee the Minister said that he considered that that would be immoral and that the terms of the contract must have been shown to the worker before the act or omission that led to the deduction. Perhaps the drafting could have been improved. That is the point I am trying to secure and I hope that the Minister can understand that. Paragraphs (a) and (b), as drafted, do not secure that position.
      Mr. Trippier: I can only repeat to the hon. Lady the assurance that I gave her in Committee. I have expressed my understanding of the matter and that is the legal interpretation of the Bill on the advice given to me by my Department's solicitors.
      The Committee agreed with me that it was objectionable and wrong that an employer should spring a deduction on an employee at a moment's notice. For example, it would be unacceptable for an employer to decide on a Thursday evening—if wages were normally paid on a Friday—to hand a written term to the employee for an event that occurred weeks or even months before. I can assure the hon. Lady and the House that as subsection (4) is currently drafted, there is no way that we would allow retrospective authorised deductions. I believe that that will be sufficient protection.
      The amendments appear to be designed to stop employers changing the contract. There is a difference of opinion between the Government and the Opposition on this point. Under the amendments, a deduction arising from a changed term would mean that a change could be made in the term without the written consent of the worker. That is not necessary, as a contract cannot be changed without the worker giving consent, even if that consent is only implied in the fact that the worker does not repudiate it. There is no extra protection in the amendments and no reason to put extra hurdles in the way of the parties if they agree to change the contract.
      Ms. Clare Short: I have no alternative but to accept the Minister's assurances. However, I am baffled by the drafting of the Bill in that subsection (3)(a) provides:
      "a written term of the contract which the employer has shown to the worker shall be on any occasion prior to the employer making the deduction in question"—
      Mr. Trippier rose—
      Ms. Clare Short: I should like to finish my point. Subsection (4), which authorises a variation in the contract, states that such a variation
      "shall not operate to authorise the making of any deduction, or the receipt of any payment, on account of any conduct of the worker, or any other event occurring, before the variation took effect".
      It would seem that there is more protection in the case of a variation than in the other case. Therefore, the purpose of the amendment was to apply the protection that applies in the case of a variation to all contracts, not to make it impossible to make a variation. I do not think that we will settle this point tonight. I assume that the Minister and his advisers are correct, although I am not confident of that.
      Mr. Trippier: I would like to reassure the hon. Lady. I am truly not being unfair to her. I have been down this track before. She raised the matter with me, quite rightly,

      785
      on 25 February. I decided to consider it and said that I needed notice to study it in some detail. In Committee on 27 February my first words were:
      "On a point of order, Sir Anthony. The Committee will recall that, on Tuesday, I gave an undertaking to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) to confirm that my interpretation of clause 1(4) was correct. I am happy to assure the Committee, and especially the hon. Lady, that subsection 1(4) ensures that an employer cannot, by any means, introduce a term allowing a deduction to be made for conduct after the incident has occurred."—[Official Report, Standing Committee K, 27 February 1986; c. 113.]
      Ms. Short: Given the Minister's assurance, which I hope proves to be right in practice when interpreted by the courts, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 2, line 26, leave out subsection (5).
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 50.
      Mr. Clarke: The amendment gives me the opportunity to return to a small matter which is causing a little agitated debate between myself and the hon. Members for Birmingham. Ladywood (Ms. Short) and for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn)—whether the main Truck Acts include shop workers in the definition of manual labourers.
      I accept that a number of political issues could come between myself and the hon. Lady, and I am sure that she will agree that there are probably more substantial matters that we could argue about than the Truck Act of 1831 as applied by the Truck (Amendment) Act 1887.
      But I understand now why there have been these vigorous exchanges between myself and Labour Members. They are relying, in exactly the same way as I would rely if I were in opposition, and as I used to rely, on a letter from the economic affairs section of the Library. I would normally have relied on that briefing and, as I know its author well, I would particularly have relied on her opinion. But those who advise me have shown me the references and I have looked them up for myself and I believe that on this rare occasion the advice from the Library is wrong.
      The definition of manual worker in the main Truck Acts of 1831 was made clearer by the Truck (Amendment) Act 1887. That is explained in pages 1700 onwards of the second edition of Redgrave's "Health and Safety in Factories". There are a fascinating series of decisions about this legislation. The one relevant to shop assistants is Bound v. Lawrence, 1892, 1 Queen's Bench, 226. If anybody wants to know, bus conductors, bus drivers, railway guards and others are not protected by the Truck Acts, and shop workers and assistants could not rely upon the Acts that we are talking about.
      On the other hand, when one moves to deductions, one finds that the Truck Act 1896 extends the protection on deductions and fines to shop workers as well as workmen. It was that change which led to the phrase in the letter from the Library and is relevant to these technical amendments which are designed to clarify the definition of the word "deduction" for the purpose of the Bill. I hope that they will be acceptable to the House, including the Opposition, because the principal purpose of deleting clause 1(5) and
      786
      replacing it with the new subsections is to try to close a possible loophole that a less than scrupulous employer might try to use to evade the protection that we are giving in the Bill to those in the retail trade in relation to deductions.
      Let me give brief illustrations of the problem and what we are doing by giving three examples of what might amount to a deduction from pay. First, an employer could disagree with a worker about how much pay is due to the worker. If the employer pays what in his opinion is due, and he has a genuine disagreement with his employee, who thinks that he is entitled to more, that is not a deduction for the purpose of the Bill. That is a dispute about the contractual entitlement to pay and that will be decided by the ordinary courts, not by the industrial tribunal. That is true under any definition in the Bill.
      In the second case, the employer might pay the worker concerned less than his ordinary entitlement by taking out of the pay that he hands over some sort of fine or deduction, perhaps for disciplinary reasons or to cover a deficiency. That plainly is a deduction. We covered that in our first attempt to define a deduction and that is principally what this part of the Bill is about.
      Thirdly, an employer may deliberately pay a worker less than he owes him and may do so merely for some general reason, perhaps because he simply does not wish to comply with his full contractual obligations.
      As the Bill was originally drafted, there might have been room for doubt about whether that deliberate failure to pay amounted to a deduction. The amendments, which would put two new subsections into clause 8, provide that, when the employer pays a worker less than is properly payable, that will be a deduction, unless the reason is an error of computation concerning the amount of wages due.
      I hope that I have been reasonably clear about two technical amendments which will clarify the meaning of "deduction" and close a potentially serious loophole through which some employers might have escaped.
      Ms. Clare Short: There has been some interesting confusion about whether shop workers are covered by the Truck Acts. The Paymaster General was right when he suggested that we had relied on the briefing from the Library. Such briefings are normally second to none and I am not yet convinced that the Library is wrong in this case. We shall look into the matter, but I accept that it is possible that the Library is wrong and that is why we were misled.
      However, it seems that the national multiple chain in Blackburn was misled in the same way as our Library, because it told its workers that they will have cashless pay imposed on them. It seems that that major company is under the same illusion—if it be an illusion—as the Library.
      The Government's reasons for the amendment are not objectionable to the Opposition. Indeed, if the Paymaster General answers a question in the affirmative, we shall warmly welcome amendment No. 50. The amendment provides:
      "Where the total amount of any wages that are paid on any occasion by an employer to any worker employed by him is less than the total amount of the wages that are properly payable by him to the worker"
      and the underpayment is not due to an error of computation, it will count as a deduction.
      If an employer is paying illegal wages under part II of the Bill, will he be caught? Does the amendment mean that

      787
      workers who are illegally underpaid will acquire the right to go to a tribunal and to take action immediately, without having to go through the wages inspectorate which never prosecutes? It seems to me that that might be the meaning of the amendment.
      What are the wages that are "properly payable" to the worker? Are they the wages that are normally paid or are they the wages that are legally required? If an employer is making illegal underpayments, surely they are not wages that are "properly payable".
      The amendment says that a deficiency shall be treated as a deduction
      "for the purpose of this Part",
      but I cannot see that that excludes my interpretation.
      I am enormously interested in amendment No. 50. It could be an enormous change of heart by the Government, although I think that it is probably an accident. The Government may have stumbled into giving workers who have received illegal underpayments a remedy that would be easier than that currently available to them, given that there are too few wages inspectors and that the wages inspectorate is obsessed with being friendly with employers, does not collect adequate information on the needs of workers and has an absolute policy of not prosecuting on first offences. Perhaps my interpretation of the amendment is fanciful, but it seems to me to be a possible interpretation.
      Mr. Martin: May I ask the Minister a few questions about a matter concerning which I have already asked various questions? I do not expect him to recall them because his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang) answered them. It relates to an organisation that runs a Manpower Services Commission project, for which I understand the Paymaster General is ultimately responsible. A complaint about delay was made about that organisation. It was not the first time that such a complaint had been brought to my attention. It was that the sponsors of the project, who were therefore acting on behalf of the Government, had delayed paying the bus fares of those who were on MSC projects.
      9.15 pm
      In view of what the Minister has said, would this deliberate delay in the payment of fares be regarded as a deduction from wages? If so, would employees be entitled to take the matter to an industrial tribunal? It would be helpful to have an answer to that question.
      Wages councils cover only certain people in certain services. The catering industry is one such service; hairdressing is another. The Paymaster General knows that, on certain MSC projects, meals are provided for the elderly. That is perfectly satisfactory, but all the employees involved in those projects are doing a job identical to the job performed by those in the catering industry. They are working in kitchens. They are serving, preparing and delivering food. If necessary, do those employees have recourse to the wages councils and to the wages inspectorate?
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The previous disagreement between us was because both of us were relying upon what is usually completely reliable advice, but on that occasion it came to differing conclusions. On this occasion I am flying somewhat more blind. If I sail perfectly into error on this occasion, I shall write to the hon. Lady and correct what I am about to say.
      788
      The hon. Lady asked a very interesting question about what would happen to those employees who are covered by the wages councils as far as this definition of "deduction" is concerned. I understand that, when a deliberate deduction is made by the employer, it will be regarded as a deduction and will be subject to the provisions of the Bill. The dispute can be solved by an industrial tribunal. If, however, an employer makes a computation error—if, in other words, he makes a mistake—the matter will go to the courts. If there is a disagreement between the parties about what wages are properly due, that also will go to the courts. If, as I say, there is a deliberate deduction from what the employer knows to be due, it will be covered by the Bill and the matter will go before an industrial tribunal.
      To relate that to the wages council provisions, if an employer is paying less than a wages council's required rate and if he knows that he is paying less than that which is properly due, which means that he is intentionally paying less than the wages council's rate, my understanding is that the hon. Lady is right and that the protections that are afforded under this part of the Bill will apply. If, however, the employer does not realise that a higher rate is properly due and he makes a computation error, that will not count as a deduction under the Bill and the matter will have to be resolved by the courts if the wages inspectorate is unable to sort it out in the ordinary way.
      Ms. Short: I am grateful to the Paymaster General. I agree with his interpretation of the wording of this amendment. May I ask him for an undertaking: that if we are both right he will not amend the Bill; he will leave it as it is, so that workers who are illegally underpaid will have the right to go to an industrial tribunal on the grounds that they have suffered an illegal deduction?
      Mr. Clarke: I am content to give that undertaking. When an employer deliberately makes a deduction below that which he knows to be lawfully due, that will be covered by this part of the Bill.
      I know that the Bill is more limited in terms of protection than the Opposition would like, but everything that we have said about deductions will apply if an employer deliberately pays less than that which he knows legally to be the entitlement of the employee. An error or disagreement about the rate would be resolved in the courts.
      To settle the bus fares issue, we must turn to the definition of wages in clause 7. I shall write to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) about the second part of his question, which I did not follow because I was considering the first part and listening with only one ear. The repayment of bus fares and other expenses is not covered by the definition of wages in clause 7, so a failure to pay extra expenses is not relevant. Clause 7(2)(a) expressly excludes from the definition of wages any payment in respect of expenses incurred by the employee.
      Mr. Nellist: I understand that the Minister thinks that it is wrong for an employer wilfully to allow somebody to be paid less than that to which they are legally entitled, and that there should be some redress.
      After I argued with the junior Minister in Committee I received a letter saying that anyone in receipt of family income supplement whose wages fell below the family income supplement baseline because of a deduction,

      789
      would not have the right to claim anything extra from the DHSS because the assessment of FIS is based on the notional gross wage before deduction. Is there not a parallel between that and the concession that has just been made to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), in that the DHSS would willingly allow someone to fall below the official Government-defined poverty line by disregarding regular deductions?
      Mr. Clarke: That was a good try. I do not accept the analogy. We are talking about a deduction by the employer. If the employer knows what his employee is legally entitled to, and pays less than that deliberately, he is making a deduction and must be prepared to comply with the Bill's provisions; otherwise, the employee has a remedy.
      The way in which family income supplement is assessed and the definition of income for the purpose of making the annual assessment of FIS entitlement is a matter for DHSS regulations. The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) will have to raise the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services if he wants to argue that the rules for FIS should be changed.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Trippier: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 2, line 40 at end insert—
      '(aa) to any deduction from a worker's wages made by his employer, or any payment received from a worker by his employer, where the purpose of deduction or payment is the reimbursement of the employer in respect of any overpayment of wages made (for any reason) by the employer to the worker;'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 18.
      Mr. Trippier: Under this amendment the provisions of part I will not apply to deductions made by an employer or payments received by him to recover earlier overpayment of wages. Deductions to recover overpayments of wages should not, in the Government's view, be caught by the Bill and employers should not be hampered in recovering such payments.
      Since the Bill was published, representations have been made to the Government that it would lead to difficulties in payroll administration if it was not made clear that deductions from wages made merely to recover earlier overpayments of wages were not covered by the Bill.
      It is the practice of some firms to make small overpayments of wages, for reasons of administrative convenience, that are later recovered. An example is where information on bonus or overtime payments are not available in the pay office until after the wages have to be paid—or the computer run—so a standard sum is paid with a small adjustment, up or down, the following week. Without this amendment, such downward adjustments would be deductions for the purposes of the Bill and thus unlawful unless explicitly provided for in the contract.
      The effect would be to require contracts of employment to be rewritten to ensure that the employer does not fall foul of the Bill if he ever makes adjustments to recover anything overpaid, accidentally or for reasons of administrative convenience, in an earlier payment of wages. We do not want to cause such an upheaval in personnel practices and consequently propose to disapply the Bill to deductions to recover earlier overpayments.
      790
      There is no possibility of injustice arising from that. If a deduction is to recover an overpayment, the worker has received what is due to him. If the worker disputes that the deduction is for that purpose, he can, of course, complain to an industrial tribunal that will have to form a view on the matter.
      Amendment No. 18 is required to avoid a situation where the Bill would make the enforcement of court or tribunal orders ineffective. Without the amendment, an employer who had obtained a court or tribunal order against a worker requiring the worker to pay an amount to the employer would be in breach of clause 1 of the Bill when he received a payment from the worker under the order. That would happen because, when the employer received the payment, it would not have been authorised by statute, by the contract, or with the prior written agreement of the worker. So the requirements of clause 1(2) of the Bill would not be met. It would obviously be a legal nonsense if an employer who obtained a court order against a worker found that he could not obtain the amount from the worker without being in breach of the Bill.
      The amendment will resolve that by removing deductions and payments in such circumstances from the scope of clause 1. Payments may be received from the worker by the employer to meet the amount specified in the court or tribunal order without complying with clause 1(2). Alternatively, deductions from wages to meet the amount specified may be made without complying with clause 1(1), provided that the worker has given his prior agreement or consent in writing. The latter is a reasonable safeguard for the worker because it ensures that deductions to satisfy the order will be lawful only if he has agreed that the sum that he has been ordered to pay can be recovered by deduction from his wages. Furthermore, it is likely that if the employer decides to recover the amount by deductions, he will agree to do so in instalments, which is an obvious benefit to the worker.
      Where the employer fails to obtain the prior written agreement of the worker, the provisions of clause I will apply and the deductions from wages will be in breach of the Bill. A worker would then have the right to complain to an industrial tribunal that an unlawful deduction had been made.
      This amendment is essential to resolve an unintended consequence of the Bill and I ask the House to accept it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 17, in page 3, line 11, leave out 'term' and insert 'provision'.
      No. 18, in page 3, line 27, at end insert—
      '(e) to any deduction from a worker's wages made by his employer with his prior agreement or consent signified in writing, or any payment received from a worker by his employer, where the purpose of the deduction or payment is the satisfaction (whether wholly or in part) of an order of a court or tribunal requiring the payment of any amount by the worker to the employer.'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

    Clause 2
      DEDUCTIONS FROM WAGES OF WORKERS IN RETAIL

        EMPLOYMENT ON ACCOUNT OF CASH SHORTAGES ETC.
        Mr. Trippier: I beg to move amendment No. 21, in page 3, leave out lines 43 and 44 and insert—
        "pay day", in relation to a worker, means a day on which wages are payable to the worker:'.
        Mr. Speaker: With this we shall take Government amendment No. 34.
        Mr. Trippier: These two amendments are concerned with definitions—the definitions of "pay day" and of "demand for payment" in clauses 2 and 3. The two expressions are unclear without the amendments. The amendments are for clarification and do not change policy.
        Clauses 2 and 3 introduce controls on deductions and payments on account of cash shortages or stock deficiencies, which are limited to 10 per cent. of any wages payable to a worker on a pay day. The question is whether the pay day should be the day on which wages are payable—that is, due to be paid—or the day on which they are actually paid.
        Amendment No. 21 changes the definition of pay day in clauses 2 and 3 from
        "any day on which any wages are paid to a worker"
        to
        "a day on which wages are payable to the worker".
        The amendment is required because the day on which wages are paid is not always a precise concept. When wages are paid by direct debit to a bank account, it is not clear whether the day on which wages are paid is to be regarded as the day on which the employer authorises payment or the day on which it is credited to the worker's bank account, which will be later. The amendment does not, however, alter the way in which the controls on deductions related to cash shortages and stock deficiencies operate.
        9.30 pm
        Amendment No. 34 clarifies what the phrase "demand for payment" means in clause 3 and how and when a demand is to be made. Clause 3, inter alia, requires that an employer may not lawfully receive a payment on account of a cash shortage or stock deficiency unless he makes a demand for payment in writing on a pay day.
        The amendment provides that a demand for payment is made if it is given to the worker, posted to the worker's last known address or left at his last known address either on the pay day or, if the pay day is not a working day—if it is a Bank Holiday—on the first working day of the employer's business following that pay day. The amendment is needed so that employers and workers can clearly understand how and when a demand for payment must be made.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Mr. Trippier: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 3, line 46, after 'worker', insert
        '(whether on a regular basis or not)'.
        Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 23, in page 4, line 1, leave out
        'directly with members of the public'.
        Government amendments Nos. 24 and 25.
        Mr. Trippier: The amendments fulfil an undertaking that I gave in Committee to consider further the need to ensure that to protections given by clauses 2 and 3, which ensure that deductions from wages or payments made by the worker to the employer that are related to cash shortages or stock deficiencies are limited to 10 per cent. of gross wages, apply to all workers who need such protection. As drafted, the Bill covers those workers who are engaged in retail transactions directly with members of the public. I think that it was the hon. Member for
        792
        Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) who said that those working in hospital or factory canteens might not be so covered as they sell goods to fellow workers rather than to members of the public.
        The amendment ensures that the protection applies to all workers who are engaged in the sale or supply of goods to members of the public, fellow workers or other individuals in their personal capacities. The amendment ensures also that a person who sells both to companies and to the public is fully covered in respect of all his sales.
        I hope that hon. Members will support the amendment and those grouped with it, which provide a useful clarification of the Bill and extend the protection that it offers. Amendment No. 23 was tabled by the Opposition and it was designed to achieve the same effect as amendment No. 24. In the light of the Government's amendment, I hope that the Opposition will withdraw amendment No. 23.
        Ms. Clare Short: This is another small concession, but one of some consequence to some workers, which has been won by the Opposition The House will be aware that it is the Opposition's view that the limitation of fines or deductions to 10 per cent. of gross wages should apply to all workers for all disciplinary purposes. We advanced that argument strongly when discussing the first group of amendments. I am certain that we won the arguments, but unfortunately we do not have enough votes in this place to amend the Bill, although the time seems to be rapidly approaching when we shall have them.
        The amendment is of significance to all workers who handle stock or cash but do not deal directly with members of the public. An obvious example is those who work in staff canteens. There are many who work in that capacity who do not deal with the public but handle a great deal of food, stock and cash. If the amendment were not made, they would be liable to deductions or fines up to 100 per cent. rather than to the 10 per cent. limit which the Government, for some strange reason, have decided to provide as a protection for retail workers only.
        The Minister has explained that the protection has been given to retail workers because it is in the retail sector that there is the most worry about cash shortage and stock deficiencies. He appears to be telling us that this is the sector in which employers—that is the group to which the Government talk—think that a lot of fiddling is going on and in which deductions should be made. It seems to turn logic on its head to say that because employers are so concerned, the deductions that they make should be limited. We are grateful for small mercies and glad that the protection for workers in retailing extends to workers in canteens who deal with cash and stock, but with fellow workers rather than members of the public.
        Mr. Nellist: Perhaps my hon. Friend could refresh my memory about the other half of the reason that the Minister gave. Was not his justification for not accepting our amendment to extend the 10 per cent. limit to all workers that, unless employers could fine employees, they would not be willing to take more workers on, which would lead to increased unemployment? Is not confining the limit to retailing effectively saying that the Minister expects more jobs to be lost in retailing?
        Ms. Short: My hon. Friend is right. The Minister used that argument. My hon. Friend has quite fairly extended

        793
        the logic and exposed the ridiculousness of the Government's case for not extending the 10 per cent. limit.
        The amendment will protect some workers. It will protect canteen workers and probably others whom we have not thought of. We are glad of that, but wish that we could have achieved the same for more workers. As the Government have conceded the point, I shall not press the amendment.
        Mr. Martin: Is there any way in which the Minister can legislate to prevent employers from deducting trivial amounts from employees? Perhaps I could give an example.
        In 1978, when I was a union officer, the Ayrshire and Arran health board, which is not noted for being a good employer, called in the police because it alleged that a woman canteen worker had a pint of milk in her bag. The police charged her and the procurator fiscal in Ayrshire decided that there was no case to answer.
        The management sacked the woman, though, so I had to take the matter to an unfair dismissal tribunal. The union's time and resources were tied up. The unfair dismissal tribunal found in favour of the woman to the extent that she got a re-engagement order. For the sake of a pint of milk, the matter trundled on for months. Quite substantial Health Service resources must have been involved. Many of the officials who were sacking the woman for taking the pint of milk must have lifted a telephone from time to time, perhaps to tell their wives that they would be late, and used more of the health board's money than the lady in question.
        It must be possible to put something into the Bill to prevent the small minority of employers who would do something so stupid from doing what the Ayrshire and Arran health board did. Had there been such provision, a great deal of money would have been saved.
        Mr. Trippier: I do not know the background to the case that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) has mentioned. Perhaps he will elaborate later. I do not know whether the bottle came to be missing intentionally or accidentally.
        There must be a clear understanding in a contract that deductions can be made. It may be that, when the matter was drawn to the attention of the industrial tribunal, that understanding was not in the contract, so the employer was taking advantage of the position by dismissing the worker without any deduction being allowable under the terms and conditions of service. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and his trade union colleagues tripped the employer up on that.
        The provision in the Bill regarding that is perfectly adequate, and the Government do not wish to intervene further in the relationship between employers and workers.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Amendments made:
        No. 24, in page 4, leave out line 2 and insert
        'or with fellow workers or other individuals in their personal capacities;'.
        No. 25, in page 4, line 5, leave out
        'to members of the public'.
        No. 26, in page 4, line 7, at end insert—
        '(2A) Where the employer of a worker in retail employment makes a deduction from the worker's wages on account of a cash shortage or stock deficiency, the employer shall not be treated
        794
        as making the deduction in accordance with section 1(1) unless (in addition to the requirements of that provision being satisfied with respect to the deduction)—

        (a) the deduction is made, or

        (b) in the case of a deduction which is one of a series of deductions relating to the shortage or deficiency, the first deduction in the series was made,

        not later than the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the date when the employer established the existence of the shortage or deficiency or (if earlier) the date when he ought reasonably to have done so.'.
        No. 27, in page 4, line 31, after 'provision', insert 'and subsection (2A) above' .—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

    Clause 3

      PAYMENTS BY WORKERS IN RETAIL EMPLOYMENT ON ACCOUNT OF CASH SHORTAGES ETC.
      No. 9, in page 4, line 44 leave out 'subsection (2)' and insert 'this section'.
      No. 31, in page 5, leave out lines 6 to 11 and insert—
      '(2A) A demand for payment in respect of a particular cash shortage or stock deficiency, or (in the case of a series of such demands) the first such demand, shall not be made—

      (a) earlier than the first pay day of the worker following the date when he is notified of his total liability in respect of the shortage or deficiency in pursuance of subsection (1)(a) or, where he is so notified on a pay day, earlier than that day, or

      (b) later than the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the date when the employer established the existence of the shortage or deficiency or (if earlier) on the date when he ought reasonably to have done so.'.

      No. 32, in page 5, line 14 leave out 'subsection (2)' and insert 'this section'.
      No. 33, in page 5, line 25 leave out 'subsection (2)' and insert 'this section'.
      No. 34, in page 5, line 29, at end insert
      '(5) For the purposes of this Part a demand for payment shall be treated as made by the employer on one of the worker's pay days if it is given to the worker, or posted to, or left at, his last known address—

      (a) on that pay day, or

      (b) in the case of a pay day which is not a working day of the employer's business, on the first such working day following that pay day. '.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

    Clause 4

      PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO SS. 2 AND 3
      Mr, Trippier: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in page 5, line 30, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
      '(1) In this section "final instalment of wages", in relation to a worker, means—

      (a) the amount of wages payable to the worker which consists of or includes an amount payable by way of contractual remuneration in respect of the last of the periods for which he is employed under his contract prior to its termination for any reason (but excluding any wages referable to any earlier such period), or

      (b) where an amount in lieu of notice is paid to the worker later than the amount referred to in paragraph (a), the amount so paid,

      in each case whether the amount in question is paid before or after the termination of the worker's contract.'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 36, 37 and 40.
      Mr. Trippier: These are a set of technical amendments to the first three subsections of clause 4. The subsections ensure that the limits on deductions to payments related to cash shortages or stock deficiencies established by clauses 2 and 3 do not apply to the final payment of wages.
      Mr. Eastham: As the Minister rightly said, these are technical amendments. I was intrigued by the Government's subtle use of the word "instalment", as, originally, the word "payment" was used. I do not understand the reason for that change, and I am always suspicious when sophisticated language is used. As a consequence of that change, how much more will workers lose? I am not a lawyer, and perhaps the answer is obvious to a barrister or solicitor.
      I also wish to ask about the reference to
      "an amount in lieu of notice."
      We are sometimes, rightfully, suspicious when an employer decides to get rid of an employee who, if he must leave the premises immediately, is entitled to pay in lieu of notice. I wonder whether the amendment has been drafted in such a way that the accumulation of 10 per cent. deductions, which could be fabricated, could mean that an employer could withhold the pay in lieu of notice, thus practically sending the worker home with nothing. I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify those points for me because I am a little baffled.
      Mr. Caborn: I wish to follow that point by asking about people who have accrued holiday pay. Sometimes the accumulation of holiday pay depends on the time served in a company or at a place of work. If holiday pay were to be paid to a person leaving a company, would that also be subject to the type of deduction to which my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) has referred?
      Will the Bill have a different effect if the new type of pay slips which the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced recently were implemented, in which 20 per cent. of one's wages can be tax-free? If so, does that mean that it would also be deduction-free in relation to the 10 per cent.? I should be interested to know the answer, because it might throw a new light on the Bill, given the new wages structure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer apparently wants to introduce.
      9.45 pm
      Ms. Clare Short: The Minister spoke extremely briefly to the amendments. He did not explain why the Government had introduced them. Perhaps that was because he got into something of a muddle in Committee about what clause 4(1) really meant, about what was covered and about what was included in the final payment of wages. I suspect that the amended drafting is considered to be better, and it probably is. However, it would be interesting to hear the Minister explain its introduction.
      We must not let this opportunity pass without saying how strongly we object to the Government's definition of the final payment of wages, and the way in which they have exempted that final payment from any protection, such as the 10 per cent. limitation for a small group of retail workers who are accused of cash shortages or stock deficiencies. The way in which the amendment provides for payment in lieu of notice to be treated is an invitation to an employer to confiscate the whole payment in lieu of notice when someone is being sacked as a result of a dispute. It is outrageous that the Government should invite employers to treat their workers like that. If there is a case for giving a 10 per cent. protection to workers, it also extends to the final payment of wages.
      Judging by the way in which the Government have drafted the provision and have drawn attention to money
      796
      paid in lieu of notice, they are telling employers that, if they decide to sack someone and to accuse them of something that they have not done, they can deduct all the money paid in lieu of notice. The Government are saying that they can do that if they want to be spiteful, and that they will go to great trouble to draft the Bill to enable them to do so. We have here yet another example of the Government's mean-mindedness, which infects every part of the Bill.
      Mr. Trippier: That is a bit thick. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) said that the Government were mean-minded. The hon. Lady knows from the amendments that I have tabled that I have been anxious to meet many of the points made in Committee. She has been churlish in remarking on the Government's attitude and my attitude, and has claimed credit every lime she thinks that the Labour party has pulled something off. There has been no recognition of the fact that we debated the matter fully in Committee and that I sometimes accepted the points made. That is unfair.
      Ms. Clare Short: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Trippier: I shall give way in a moment. The attitude adopted by the hon. Member for Ladywood would not, I am sure, have been adopted by the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo). But I shall try to respond to some of the points made in this short debate.
      Ms. Short: It is, perhaps, appropriate that we should fall out at this late stage. But we have made it clear to the Minister throughout that the Bill is rotten. The Bill's whole nasty approach will lead to an increase in poverty among the poorest paid workers in the country. We also made it clear that we did not think that there was much point in simply getting angry with one another. We wanted to make a detailed case against the Bill, and that is what we tried to do in Committee, instead of shouting at one another incoherently.
      In the course of that long dispute, some minor concessions were won. We were grateful for every scrap that we could get. Each time we got a scrap, we said that it was a scrap and that it did not affect the fundamentally objectionable nature of the Bill. However, we were grateful for the scraps, because they would protect some workers. That remains the position. The Minister knows it. There has never been any dispute about it. For him to suggest that we are somehow changing our position at this late stage is quite wrong.
      Mr. Trippier: I am not suggesting in any way that the Opposition have changed their position. I respect the fact that they have opposed the Bill throughout and, have done so, as far as they were able, in a constructive manner. I am simply saying that I think the hon. Lady has been unfair today. I was referring not to the Opposition, just to the hon. Lady.
      The hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) referred to holiday pay. Clause 7 deals with the meaning of wages and what is incorporated in the definition of wages under clause 4. The hon. Gentleman's point is covered in clause 7(1)(a).
      I do not agree with the hon. Member for Ladywood when she says that the Opposition do not like the fact that any outstanding moneys which are due to an employer could not or should not be collected on the last day that a payment is made to a worker. If money is due to an

      797
      employer, it is absolutely right that it should be collected. If there is not sufficient money in the gross pay which is paid in the last payment, it is absolutely right that the employer should have recourse to a court of law, which he does through civil proceedings, for collection of the money, although I suspect, as I have said in Committee, that on many occasions an employer would not go to that trouble.
      I am under an obligation to deal with a point raised by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham). The amendment changes the term "final payment of wages" to "final instalment of wages". Although that is of no legal consequence—I do not want the hon. Gentleman to read anything into this—it conveys more satisfactorily the concept that the payment is the final one in a series of periodic instalments of wages. The amendment also shortens and clarifies the proposed subsection. If the Opposition wish to be consistent—they have said that they like the shorter wording in the Bill—perhaps they will agree to the amendments which are purely technical.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 36, in page 5, line 44, leave out from 'from' to end of line 6 on page 6 and insert
      'the worker's final instalment of wages. ' .
      No. 37, in page 6, line 9, leave out
      'payment of wages is made'
      and insert
      'instalment of wages is paid, but (whether or not the requirements of section 1(2) would otherwise be satisfied with respect to it) his employer shall not be treated as receiving any such payment in accordance with section 1(2) if the payment was first required to be made after the end of the period referred to in section 3(2A) (b).'.
      No. 38, in page 6, line 10, at end insert—
      '(3A) Legal proceedings by the employer of a worker in retail employment for the recovery from the worker of any amount in respect of a cash shortage or stock deficiency shall not be instituted by the employer after the end of the period referred to in section 3(2A)(b) unless the employer has within that period made a demand for payment in respect of that amount in accordance with section 3. ' .
      No. 39, in page 6, line 11, leave out from 'that' to 'on' in line 13 and insert
      'the employer of a worker in retail employment is (in accordance with section 1(2), as it applies apart from section 3(1)) entitled to receive any amount from the worker'.
      No. 40, in page 6, line 21, leave out
      'payment of wages is paid'
      and insert
      'instalment of wages is paid'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

    Clause 5

      COMPLAINTS TO INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS IN RESPECT OF UNAUTHORISED DEDUCTIONS ETC.
      Amendments made: No. 41, in page 6, line 40, after 1(1)', insert
      '(including a deduction made in contravention of that provision as it applies by virtue of section 2(2A))'.
      No. 42, in page 7, line 6, leave out `(2)'.—[Mr. Trippier.]

    Clause 7

      MEANING OF "WAGES"
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move amendment No. 45, in page 9, line 23, at end insert—
      '(aa) any payment by way of an advance under an agreement for a loan or by way of an advance of wages (but without prejudice to the application of section 1(1) to any deduction made from the worker's wages in respect of any such advance);'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No 46, in page 9, line 26, at end insert
      ', allowance or gratuity in connection with the worker's retirement or as compensation for loss of office;'.
      No. 47, in page 9, line 29, at end insert—
      '(2A) Where any payment in the nature of a non-contractual bonus is (for any reason) made to a worker by his employer, then, for the purposes of this Part, the amount of the payment shall—

      (a) be treated as wages of the worker, and

      (b) be treated as payable to him as such on the day on which the payment is made .' .

      Mr. Clarke: It is a long time since I have heard technical and drafting amendments debated with such heat, vigour and care on Report, but I hesitate to say that amendments Nos. 45, 46 and 47 are technical amendments. They deal with clause 7 which sets out the definition of wages. They are designed to sort out some confusion in the way loans and advances of wages, lump sums on retirement or loss of office and non-contractual bonuses are treated in the definition of wages. I commend them to the House.
      Mr. Nellist: It is only 9.52 pm and I do not wish to disappoint the Paymaster General.
      Mr. Speaker: It is no disappointment—the hon. Member has all night.
      Mr. Nellist: Hon. Members who have taken part in the debate, which has lasted for about five hours, may be content to leave this group of technical amendments so that their hon. Friends from London can deal with the EEC and parental leave for child care. However, before we conclude, I shall ask the Paymaster General for an explanation of the effects of the Government amendments. It is not good enough, even at the tail end of a long day's debate, to state that the amendments are additions to matters outside the definition of wages. Subsection (2) payments are excluded from subsection (1) sums. There was heated debate in Committee on the sums mentioned in subsection (1), especially about bonuses and piecework rates. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) moved an amendment on that point. He may think that the points he made then are still worthy of being repeated.
      Why are there such large changes in the definitions of wages, especially with respect to the exclusion of benefits in kind, in the Wages Bill 1986 compared with the Truck Act 1831? The original definitions in the Truck Acts are superseded by the provisions in clause 7. There was no mention of many of the benefits in kind which are still pertinent to workers, including tied accommodation, meals on premises and-I hesitate to say this because of our earlier exchanges - company cars, which the Minister assured me were a benefit in kind. By not mentioning those items, does clause 7 mean that they are up for grabs when it comes to deductions? If the deduction

      799
      is limited to 10 per cent. for specified items, and other items are not mentioned, does that mean that those that are not mentioned can be made the subject of larger deductions by employers, if they wish?
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) is entirely within his rights to ask for a more careful explanation if he is worried about these technical amendments. The starting point of his query was the question: why are we taking such care to draft the definition of wages in this way and moving a little from the definition in the 1831 Act? I remind him that the Bill contains two innovations which make it important that we get the definition right and which will assist those in tribunals and elsewhere who have to apply it.
      One innovation is the 10 per cent. limit on the deductions that can be made from the wages of retail workers and the other is the new right of access to an industrial tribunal where there is a dispute about the deductions. It is important, especially in calculating the 10 per cent. limit, to know exactly what that limit is and to have an extremely precise definition of wages. The amendment has been moved because it represents a further attempt to define exactly what is meant by wages and what is excluded.
      The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East correctly spotted the fact that all three amendments are concerned with additions to the list of matters which, for the purposes of the Bill, are not to be regarded as wages. Although that may sound disadvantageous, it is not.
      On amendment No. 45, by ensuring that loans and advances of wages are not included in the meaning of wages, one reduces the total amount that counts as wages and therefore reduces the amount that the employer can lawfully deduct under the 10 per cent. limit. If loans or advances of wages were permitted to be added to the total sum for the purposes of this definition, the effect would be to weaken the protection to the worker, because 10 per cent. of the lawful deduction would be a higher sum.
      Amendment No. 46 defines payment by way of payments that are akin to pensions, which are already excluded in the Bill as originally drafted and which were considered in Standing Committee. We consider that lump sums paid on retirement and sums paid in compensation for loss of office are similar to payments by way of pension. They have been excluded from the definition of wages because we believe that disputes about such matters should be resolved by the courts and are not really within the compass and competence of the tribunals which would otherwise find themselves being drawn into this somewhat complex area.
      Mr. Nellist: Will the Minister give way on that point?
      Mr. Clark: May I just answer all the hon. Gentleman's queries?
      Amendment 47 deals with payments made to a worker by his employer of sums to which the worker is not
      800
      contractually entitled. It can be called a "non-contractual bonus". When those sums are paid to the worker, they would not, as originally defined in the Bill, count as wages because they are not legally payable. The amendment ensures that, for the purposes of part 1 of the Bill, repayments are treated as wages and subject to the provisions.
      Mr. Nellist: Does amendment No. 46 include accrued holiday pay in the payment of money to workers for redundancy and so on?
      Mr. Clarke: I had sat down because of the 10 o'clock rule. Holiday pay is already dealt with in the Bill as drafted. In clause 7 on page 9 holiday pay is "wages" for the purpose of this part of the Bill.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 46, in page 9, line 26 at end insert—
      ', allowance or gratuity in connection with the worker's retirement or as compensation for loss of office;'.
      No. 47, in page 9, line 29, at end insert
      '(2A) Where any.payment in the nature of a non-contractual bonus is (for any reason) made to a worker by his employer, then, for the purposes of this Part, the amount of the payment shall—

      (a) be treated as wages of the worker, and

      (b) be treated as payable to him as such on the day on which the payment is made.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

    Clause 8

      GENERAL INTERPRETATION OF PART 1
      Amendments made: No. 48, in page 10, line 3, leave out 'under his contract'.
      No. 49, in page 10, line 5, at end insert—
      'and "employed", in relation to a worker, accordingly means employed under his contract;'.
      No. 50, in page 10, line 30, at end insert—
      '(2A) Where the total amount of any wages that are paid on any occasion by an employer to any worker employed by him is less than the total amount of the wages that are properly payable by him to the worker on that occasion (after deductions) then, except in so far as the deficiency is attributable to an error of computation, the amount of the deficiency shall be treated for the purposes of this Part as a deduction made by the employer from the worker's wages on that occasion.
      (2B) In subsection (2A) the reference to an en-or of computation is a reference to an error of any description on the part of the employer affecting the computation by him of the gross amount of the wages that are properly payable by him to the worker on that occasion.'.
      No. 51, in page 10, line 32, leave out 'of his' and insert 'employed by him'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]
      Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]
      Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  10.1 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 6871/83, draft proposals for a Directive on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment of men and women in occupational social security schemes, 5825/1/84, draft Directive on the application of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in self employed occupations including agriculture and on protection during pregnancy and maternity, and 4118/86, communication from the Commission to the Council concerning a medium term Community programme (1986/90) on equal opportunities for women; and endorses the Government's commitment to the principle of equal treatment while seeking to ensure that unnecessary burdens are not imposed on business in the United Kingdom.
  I welcome this opportunity to debate these European Community documents. The draft directive on equal treatment in self-employment was originally proposed by the European Commission in 1984. We share its underlying objectives but along with several other member states doubt the wisdom of some of the proposals.
  Its objectives are the elimination of any direct or indirect discrimination on the ground of sex which has the effect of preventing a person from obtaining a loan or other facilities to set up or run a business; the removal of legal and financial barriers to business partnerships between husband and wife, or the employment of one by the other; the recognition of a spouse's right to build up separate entitlement to maternity, invalidity, social security and retirement benefits; and the creation for such spouses of a legal right to receive consideration for the work they contribute, whether in cash or in some other form.
  Of course, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 already deals with some of these matters. In particular, it makes it unlawful to discriminate in the provision of facilities such as loans on grounds of sex. The other point to stress is that there is now no obstacle in United Kingdom law to prevent spouses establishing a formal business relationship if they wish to do so. So article 5 worries us not at all. The difficulty with the directive lies, I think, in article 7, the detailed requirements of which seem likely to create as many problems as they attempt to solve. It is not in our view sensible to provide the spouse of a self-employed person with a legal right to receive consideration in cash or in kind for the work he or she performs. It is a principle of our legislation that it should not seek to regulate private relationships where there is no intention to create a legal business relationship. I am sure that no hon. Member wants to see husbands and wives taking their housekeeping disputes to the courts, but that could easily be the result of this sort of provision.
  No one in the Government under-estimates the importance of self-employment and I am told that the number of self-employed women increased by some 25 per cent. between 1983 and 1985. It is Government policy to create a climate where their enterprise can prosper and to ensure that there are no unreasonable obstacles in their path. As I have said, our law already provides that there should be no discrimination in the provision of services that are essential to the formation of new businesses. In principle, therefore, I think that we would welcome a
  802
  European measure which made that guarantee of equal treatment in self-employment part of Community law. But I do not think that we could accept a measure which placed an increased and unnecessary burden on small firms and provided for the interference of the law in personal relationships.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: My hon. and learned Friend mentioned Community law. As most of us understand it, the European Community was established to enable free trade between the countries within Europe, which is a fairly sensible thing to do. Does it necessarily follow that we have to have the same legislation as other European countries with regard to men and women and equal opportunities? Are we not grown-up and mature enough to make our own decisions on the matter?
  Mr. Waddington: The Community brings forward draft directives, and the member Governments have to make up their mind as to whether the draft directives are justified in view of the terms of the treaty. After that, the member states have to come to a decision whether the proposals put forward by the Commission are reasonable. I have to tell my hon. Friend that this draft directive is currently under discussion by member states at official level. It is likely that it will be amended, possibly quite substantially, before it is submitted to the Council of Ministers for discussion.
  Mr. Marlow: I think that my hon. and learned Friend will feel like me, although I am not sure whether he would be prepared to say so. Were he to go round the pubs and working men's clubs and knock on doors in his constituency, and ask people whether this was an appropriate area for the Europeans to bring forward legislation, or whether it would be a more appropriate area for us to consider our own legislation, I think that the latter is the conclusion that he would get.
  Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend has brought forth an important point. Perhaps he will speak on the matter later. I had better stick to the terms of the debate and put to the House the apparent purpose of the draft directives, and then the House can come to its own judgment on them. I think that I have stated the legal position correctly. We are talking only about draft directives. They are now under discussion by officials and eventually the Council of Ministers will have to come to a conclusion on whether to accept them.
  I had better move on to the draft directive on equal treatment in occupational social security schemes. The draft directive was issued by the European Commission as part of a continuing programme aimed at the elimination of the unequal treatment of men and women in the Community, and it is designed to bring clarity and, if possible, legal certainty to an area in which the application of equal treatment is often a matter of doubt for both workers and employers. It relates to occupational schemes providing benefits of a social security nature, for example, occupational sick pay schemes. But its main target, and the area where it would seem to have most application, is occupational pensions. Here it requires equality of treatment in access to scheme membership, in the conditions for reimbursement of contributions and the rights to deferred pensions, in the conditions for the grant of benefits and in the setting of levels of benefits and

  803
  contributions. The directive would also require equality of pension ages and benefits for surviving spouses, but permits the deferment of those provisions until equality in those respects is present in state social security schemes.
  Within the United Kingdom there is already legislation that gives a measure of equality to men and women in occupational pensions schemes. The Social Security Pensions Act 1975 provides for equal access to membership, and lays down conditions for the preservation of benefits which apply equally to men and women. But there remain significant differences in the treatment of men and women in relation to pension ages, and survivors' benefits, and actuarial factors are used that reflect differences in the morbidity, mortality or life expectancy of men and women. It is there that the provisions of the draft directive could be of major importance.
  In 1976 the Occupational Pensions Board produced its report on equal status for men and women in occupational pensions schemes. After detailed study, the board recommended that, because there is an obvious link between occupational and state schemes, when one comes to the fundamental issues of unequal pension ages and survivors' benefits, equality should not be enforced except in partnership with the state scheme.
  This view is also enshrined in the draft directive which permits deferment of the introduction of equal treatment in relation to pension age, and in relation to the provision of benefits for surviving spouses for so long as such differences exist in the state scheme. A provision allowing deferment is welcomed by the Government, provided that it covers all survivors benefits, and also other benefits and provisions which are linked directly to pension ages.
  As to actuarial data on the different life expectancy of men and women, the European Commission regards the use of such data as contrary to the principle of equal treatment if used to set different levels of benefit or contributions, but this approach has drawn almost total opposition from pensions practitioners and actuaries, not only within the United Kingdom but in other member states. It is argued, with some force, that actuaries take into account different factors in regard to ill-health, mortality or life expectancy, not simply by convention or through unjustifiable prejudice, but in order to establish the truth. The truth is that women generally live longer than men. Thus, even leaving aside any question of earlier retirement ages for women, their pensions are in payment for longer and, for a given level of benefit, are more expensive to provide. Unless these actuarial differences between men and women are disregarded, equal contributions for men and women provide lower benefits for women. Conversely, for women to receive equal benefits there have to be higher contributions.
  This is a very large and complex area and the Government are now in discussion with the Association of British Insurers and others, about the possibility of using unisex actuarial tables in some areas of pensions provision. No conclusions have yet been reached but in the context of the draft directive, it is not essential that they should have been. What is important is whether the directive as drafted is viable in relation to United Kingdom occupational schemes, and in the best interests of men and women in this country; and it seems to us that some changes are needed. First, the directive should not have the effect of prohibiting the proper use of statistical data. Secondly, the directive should apply compulsorily only to
  804
  periods of membership falling after the operative date of implementation, and those operating schemes should have a reasonable time in which to make the necessary changes to their rules.
  The cost involved in the changes will vary from scheme to scheme, depending on their present benefit structure, on the balance of men and women and the measures necessary to implement equal treatment. Since we already have equal access to pension schemes and most benefit-defined schemes provide the same scale of personal benefits to men and women, and since the directive would not require immediate equalisation of provisions for survivors or pension age, the likely costs of a directive modified as outlined in the explanatory memorandum would not be likely to be very great overall.
  In considering its response to the draft directive, the Government have consulted widely among those with a direct interest in the subject—those representing practitioners and scheme members. Many of the same bodies submitted evidence to the Select Committee on European Legislation. Inevitably there are differences of opinion, but the approach outlined by the Government in their explanatory memorandum commands considerable support.
  Since the issue of the memorandum in August 1983, discussions have been taking place in Brussels. It is apparent that a similar view of the deficiencies of the original draft directive is held by a majority of other member states, and that the approach adopted by the United Kingdom Government offers the best hope of securing agreement.
  Mr. Marlow: This is a complex issue and perhaps my hon. and learned Friend will be able to clarify it. Will he confirm that the draft directive applies not just to the provisions that Government will make but to provisions that the private sector pension schemes will make? If that is the case, will he also confirm that if at the moment men and women pay a certain amount for a pension, the whole lot will be thrown into the pot again and either men will have to pay relatively more or they will receive relatively less? Against the actuarial tables that he has been talking about, is not that profoundly unfair?
  Mr. Waddington: With respect, we are not dealing with Government pension schemes. The draft directive is on equal treatment in occupational social security schemes. I am sure that my hon. Friend will wish to develop his argument on that in due course, but I must make that plain.
  Lastly, let me deal with the second Community action programme on equal opportunities for women for the period 1986–1990, accompanying which was a draft Council resolution which, with some slight modifications, is likely to come before the Council shortly. It is a resolution which the Government would be very pleased to adopt.
  We are fully committed to equal opportunities in the labour market and support the general theme of the new action programme. We particularly welcome the attention to education and training policies which expand women's occupational choice and we have already taken many positive steps in the seven areas where the programme recommends action by member states.
  Under the first of these seven headings, "Improved Application of Existing Provisions", we can point to the Equal Opportunities Commission's excellent code of

  805
  practice on employment which came into force last year. Under the second heading, "Education and Training", we can, I believe, claim significant achievements.
  On education, Government policy is to continue to work for equal opportunities across all aspects of schools provision and to encourage girls towards higher achievements in those areas of the curriculum where they tend not to participate to their full advantage.
  One of the most exciting advances in education in recent years has been the development of school-industry links. One initiative being sponsored by the Government this year is the executive shadows scheme, which the Department of Trade and Industry is running with the Institute of Directors. That will involve a significant number of top business executives—about 750 have joined the scheme so far and we are hoping for many more—being "shadowed" for a week by sixth form students, both girls and boys. In that way they can learn a lot about the opportunities for women in business today.
  For older women, the Manpower Services Commission's full range of adult training programmes is open equally to men and women, and women are encouraged to consider non-traditional skills. In addition, the Commission has a small but valuable programme of special training for women. For example, there are some 2,000 places per year on the wider opportunities for women courses.
  The third heading of the action programme is "Employment". Here a variety of measures are suggested for member states, including a review of discriminatory legislation, the original purpose of which was protective. We have, in fact, already carried out such a review, as a result of which we have brought forward proposals in the Sex Discrimination Bill to repeal the unnecessary and outdated restrictions on women's hours of work which prevent women being employed in jobs based on shift work or night work.
  The programme also outlines the European Commission's continuing commitment to removing discrimination against women from member countries' tax systems. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has recently published a Green Paper on the reform of personal taxation which examines this and other issues. It looks closely at a system of independent taxation with transferable allowances which, in the words of the Green Paper,
  "would give married women the same opportunity for privacy and independence in tax matters as their husbands".
  The next matter referred to in the programme is headed "New Technologies" and the Government agree about the importance of increasing women's representation in occupations involving the new technologies. One of the MSC's priorities in the area of women's training is helping women to train for jobs in which there are actual or forecast skill shortages, and which are of key economic importance. That frequently means jobs involving new technology. The MSC also funds an Open University course for women returning to technological work after a spell away.
  The fifth action area in the programme concerns
  "social protection and social security".
  The Government support the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security as set out
  806
  in the 1979 social security directive and have reported to the European Commission on action taken to implement the directive.
  The sixth heading is
  "Sharing of Family and Occupational Responsibilities".
  We support some of the measures proposed under this heading, for example the encouragement of more flexible working hours and of part-time opportunities for either sex. Where we differ from the European Commission is in regard to the draft directive on parental leave and leave for family reasons. The Government cannot accept that an instrument so burdensome on employers and detrimental to job prospects would enhance equal opportunities.
  We recognise that many women—and many men—will want to combine family responsibilities with a career, but we believe employers and employees should be left free to agree between them the most suitable working arrangements for their own particular enterprise. Companies are already recognising the need to modify their traditional career patterns to recoup their investment in women. I commend the Engineering Council's report last year on career breaks. That demonstrated the importance of personnel policies that will attract the ablest young women into engineering and showed that many employers would be sympathetic to requests for longer than minimum maternity leave, reinstatement or nonstandard working arrangements.
  The communication refers to
  "Increasing Awareness and Changing Attitudes"
  and rightly stresses the importance of breaking down stereotyped images of men's work and women's work and their respective roles in society. There is much that I could say on that score, but I think that the House will agree that I have spoken long enough.
  As must be obvious from all the action already taken in this area and from the list that I gave of measures that are being taken, we do not accept the strictures of the Opposition, as expressed in their amendment. The amendment looks pretty silly when set against the number of Opposition Members who are present to support it. It is a silly and inaccurate amendment, because it refers to
  "obstruction of equal pay for work of equal value".
  This Government, unlike the previous Labour Government, have provided for equal pay for work of equal value. I do not know why those who drafted the amendment were silly enough to insert that phrase.
  10.23 pm
  Mr. Alfred Dubs: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'approves the European Community Documents Nos. 6871/83, draft proposals for a Directive on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment of women and men in occupational social security schemes 5825/1/84, draft Directive on the application of the principle of equal treatment for women and men in self-employ occupations including agriculture and on protection during pregnancy and maternity, and 4118/86, communication from the Commission to the Council concerning a medium-term Community programme (1986/90) on equal opportunities for women; and deplores the Government's lack of commitment to the principle of equal treatment for women and men and equal opportunities for women, as demonstrated by its refusal to implement the directive on parental leave, its obstruction of equal pay for work of equal value, and its failure to extend invalid care allowance to married women.'.
  Listening to the Minister one would think that we lived in a perfect world where men and women were equal in all respects and there were no problems apart from the

  807
  occasional document from the EEC. The fact is that there is considerable inequality in this country between men and women in all aspects of life. The Minister knows that discrimination against women is widespread, and no amount of glossing over the truth will hide that fact.
  Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to make that remark, but I do not know what bearing it has on my speech. I was not discussing whether there is discrimination; of course there is some discrimination, but I was merely outlining the purpose of the Community documents.
  Mr. Dubs: The purpose of the documents is to tackle discrimination in many areas of life in this country. The Minister said that the Government agreed with occasional items in the documents, but were not happy with the general thrust of the documents. The Minister of State made that clear and the Government motion makes it clear, too. The Government ask the House to take note of these documents. They do not say that they approve of them. There is a world of difference between the two.
  It is not easy to tackle discrimination. There is no way in which one piece of legislation. no matter how large and wide-ranging, can deal with it. It takes years of effort and pressure slowly, item by item, to reduce discrimination, whether it is discrimination against women or discrimination against black people. The Government's record is not good. On one occasion after another, the Government have resisted the voice of common sense. They have not listened to those who have told them how to prevent discrimination.
  There has been a European Court ruling on the Government's attitude towards different retirement ages for men and women. The Government did the absolute minimum to comply with that ruling. The Government have also consistently refused to give the same invalid care allowance rights to women as to men.
  When I first looked at the EEC documents I thought that they represented real progress. Then I noted the wording of the Government's motion. They are reluctant even to approve these documents. That is the basis of this debate. If the Government had said that they welcomed these documents and that they would do their best to implement them—
  Mr. Marlow: The Government said that.
  Mr. Dubs: No, the Government did not say so. The Government have carped and found reasons for rejecting the bulk of the EEC documents. That is why the Opposition have tabled the amendment. The Minister knows that Britain has the worst record of any European country over complying with these types of directives.
  I regret that these are EEC initiatives. I should have preferred them to be British initiatives. I am not a particular fan of the Common Market and its many institutions, but when sensible initiatives are put forward I believe that it is better for this country to agree that they are sensible and to adopt them. That is better than carping, because of the source from which they come. That is the basis of some of our disagreements with Conservative Members who sit below the Gangway. If the Government were to produce their own initiatives, we should not have to pay regard to the EEC directives. However, there are no Government initiatives. Therefore, we have to examine the EEC directives.
  808
  I shall comment briefly on the three documents. First, I shall deal with the medium term programme. It is a wide and all-embracing programme that is designed to tackle discrimination under many headings during the next few years. Therefore the Minister should have been less lukewarm when he referred to it. Some of the recommendations are sensible and good and they are worth adopting.
  The Minister said that there is good integration between formal education and vocational guidance, and that there are good links between the workplace and school. I am not convinced by his argument. There are many areas where improvement is possible. We welcome the code of practice to which the Minister referred. However, it is the only new feature in this area that commends itself to the Opposition. It will make a major difference.
  The document also refers to the importance of having women in teaching posts at all levels. The Minister did not refer to this point. The document refers to the need to provide opportunities for women to take training courses and to the need to make such opportunities easier by additional provision for child minding. The document also refers to the need for improved information and to the need for public sector employers to set an example. That is very important, as public sector employers are directly under the Government's control.
  Some local authorities have shown useful initiatives on contract compliance. That is a means of bringing pressure to bear upon suppliers to the public sector. Contract compliance is a useful and important innovation, and I regret that the Government have not sought to adopt it. The Minister expressed support for it, but he was then told that this was not the direction in which the Government were going.
  The document also refers to improving the opportunities for women in decision nuking. I think that that is well worth while, although it also refers to the
  "opening up of political parties",
  and I wonder whether that is as much in the Government's power as the directive suggests.
  The document contains a useful suggestion about providing help for the disadvantaged, single parents and migrants—we would refer to members of the disadvantaged black community. It also refers to home workers. It contains a welcome suggestion about giving women greater opportunities in the new technologies.
  Some of us were on the bus in the Members' Car Park last Monday inspecting an exhibition sponsored jointly by the Equal Opportunities Commission and British Gas introducing a scheme—"Women into Science and Engineering." I found it interesting that schoolgirls were so enthusiastic about computers and other aspects of science. That is a welcome development. I do not see why science, technology and computer studies should he the prerogative of boys. Some of the girls on the bus carne from Wandsworth. They were full of enthusiasm and were determined not to allow boys to steal a march on them. That is an isolated initiative. I regret that there are not more.
  The document refers to sharing family and occupational responsibilities, to parental leave and to schemes to improve leave for family reasons. I regret that the Government consistently say that they will not adopt such sensible proposals. The Minister talked in generalities. He

  809
  said that the schemes were good but that the Government were against specific suggestions such as those on parental leave.
  I welcome the document on equal treatment for people in self-employed schemes. I understand what the Minister said about the problem of legal arrangements between spouses, but the document contains many other useful proposals. The EEC says that the Government would have full discretion to implement the proposals in the best way appropriate to national circumstances. The document breaks new ground and makes useful proposals which would improve women's lot.
  The occupational schemes initiative is worth while in terms of equal treatment for men and women when hit by
  810
  sickness, invalidity, old age, accident. occupational disease and unemployment. A number of clear suggestions are made about action which should not be acceptable if equal treatment is to be the norm.
  I regret the Government's attitude. I regret that the Government pay lip service to equal treatment for men and women. The Government say, "Yes. If it is easy we shall do it", but if there is any difficulty they capitulate and say no.
  The Minister made a sorry speech. The women of our country will be angry and will regret that the Government have turned their back on a number of useful initiatives. The women of our country will not accept that and it is time that the Government realised it.

  Equal Opportunities
  10.34 pm
  Mrs. Edwina Currie: I disagree with almost everything that the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) said. I welcome the Minister's wise words. One always worries in such debates that the Minister will have to kow-tow to spurious ideas of equality and that some of the dafter notions about how to achieve equality will be on their lips. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister is more robust than that.
  Tonight we are discussing three directives. I shall set aside the draft directive on equality in self-employment, because from what I have read of it we are already carrying out most of it—especially on equality of access to loans. The hon. Member for Battersea should know that, because it was his Government who passed that legislation some 11 years ago. In law and in practice, the bulk of the suggestions in the directive have been carried out in this country for a long time.
  I wish to concentrate on occupational pensions and on the overall Community action programme for equal opportunities for women. I note in passing that it proposes to spend 2·6 million ecu on the latter by the year 1990. I suspect that such groups as the late lamented GLC women's committee, which managed to spend £16 million before its demise, could show the Community a thing or two, yet it did not bring about a scrap of additional equality in this city.
  Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend mentioned the late and unlamented GLC women's committee. As she has read and understands all the detail of the legislation, can she advise me whether it would be possible to have a women's committee without also having a men's committee?
  Mrs. Currie: I refer my hon. Friend to the Minister, who is not only fully briefed by his Department but is a learned member of the law and therefore better able than I to advise my hon. Friend.
  I wish especially to discuss pensions. Like most women Members, I take a close interest in my pension entitlement. I am statistically more likely to draw it than my male colleagues, and for far longer. Therefore, I take a close interest in pensions. My oldest constituent is a lady who will soon celebrate her 106th birthday. She has been drawing a pension for 70 years, and is taken to collect her pension by her son, who will be 87 this year. That is a fate that I suspect will befall a good number of the female members of our community, but precious few of the male members.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): If the equality of opportunity to live the sort of stressful life that is commonplace among men is extended to women, does my hon. Friend believe that women will continue to enjoy this ext
  Mrs. Currie: Naturally and absolutely—it as been like that since Bible days and beyond, and it looks as though it will be like that for a few more millennia.
  The occupational pensions draft directive seeks completely to ignore the differences in demography between men and women. The European Commission considers that the use of statistics relating to ill-health or
  812
  life expectancy that differ for the two sexes is contrary to the principle of equal treatment if used to set different levels of benefit or contribution. Yet male and female mortality rates are different and women do live longer than men. One might as well try to abolish the real world.
  I call in evidence professor David Wilkie, research actuary at Standard Life Assurance in Edinburgh. Back in November 1983 he warned of
  "enormous difficulties in the crude implementation of a principle of equality. This was quite inappropriate for funded schemes."
  He was absolutely right.
  Mr. Harry Cohen: The hon. Lady referred to life expectancy being different, but the report from the Comission states:
  "differences in life expectancy are very clear-cut between categories of male workers, according to the occupation pursued. if account is not generally taken of them in calculations it is difficult to see why an exception should be made only in the ease of female workers."
  Does not the hon. Lady agree with that?
  Mrs. Currie: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait until the last few words of my speech, when I shall take up some of his points.
  If women want equality of treatment, they must earn it. They are earning it substantially because more than 60 per cent. of women are working, and more than 70 per cent. of those of my generation are doing so. We now form over 41 per cent. of the work force, and the percentage is rising. We have been mightily successful in the new forms of employment that have become available in recent years as we seem to be taking the bulk of the new jobs.
  If women want equality of treatment, they must pay for it. They must earn it and pay for it, and that is where it gets harder. I suspect that many of my sisters are not willing to pay. Many of the women who are working now are paying little or no tax arid low-level or no national insurance contributions. By far the largest bulk of women currently drawing pensions are doing so on their husbands' contributions and not on their own. National insurance contribution law changed in the mid-1970s, but it will be many years before a full generation of women are drawing state pensions that are based entirely on their own contributions and not those of their husbands.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State mentioned the Green Paper on personal taxation, which proposes transferable allowances. That was widely welcomed, but one of the implications for the 2 million women who are currently paying no tax on their earnings is that they will have to do so in future. They will not like that, and they will not thank my hon. and learned Friend or any of my colleagues for the equality that they are buying.
  Many of the calls by women for equality of treatment ignore the whole question of paying for it. It is part of the general malaise of the British people that we all want the services but think that there is a special tree growing in No. 10 Downing street that has little golden apples on it that will allow someone else to pay.
  Mr. Frank Field: The hon. Lady is presenting a picture of women not wanting to pay. Is she aware that, because the Government are putting such emphasis on increasing part-time jobs, with most of them going to women, most women do not earn enough to be called upon to pay contributions?
  Mrs. Currie: The hon. Gentleman has put my argument in a slightly different way. If and when the time comes and the rules are changed and women are required to pay tax and national insurance contributions, every Member of this place will have a postbag full of letters from women saying, "If this is equality, I do not want it." I look forward to the day when they will say, "We want this and we are prepared to pay for it."
  Mr. Field: That will occur only when women have the chance to obtain full-time jobs.
  Mrs. Currie: They do have the chance. We all have the chance. These opportunities are taken up.
  If we want equality, it will cost us. If we believe in equality, we should be willing to pay. If we are not the bulk of the work force but we are the bulk of dependants, we must accept inequality, which cheerfully and wickedly works in our favour—in other words, it is the men who are paying—or start digging deeper into our handbags. That is a reality that we must begin to face. Whatever the Common Market says, the demography will not go away, and neither will the inexorable logic that that imposes.
  We see exactly the same double-think in employment protection. We have heard about the sex discrimination Bill that is to be introduced this year, which will remove the protection that prevents women from working at night and in certain occupations. Women in my constituency have told me, especially those who are breadwinners, that they welcome the proposed change. They would like to see the restrictions removed, but self-appointed women's groups are talking about women being at risk and how dangerous and difficult it will be if women have to work at night or undertake the sort of dreadful work that some men have to do. There are howls of rage on those grounds.
  It seems that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister is on a hiding to nothing, but I wish him well. I should like to see the present restrictions removed and to see competent people, whether male or female, take their place in the job market as they will, wherever possible. I support him on that, but I warn him that he will find himself up against the women's groups, which are all so keen to have the directive on equality which is causing the changes to be brought about.
  I long for a world in which we no long see the words "man" and "woman" in every piece of legislation that is written. I would prefer a world in which we see people—collections of individuals—with their own ambitions and abilities. Each person should be encouraged—I agree with some of what has been said this evening—to make his or her best efforts and the best contribution that he or she can make to our society. I want a world in which family responsibilities are taken seriously by all the members of the family, preferably before the family actually arrives, and in which those responsibilities are shared not in an artificial way, not in the way that is set out in the directive, but according to the tastes, abilities and interests of all concerned. That is the true path to equality of recognition and equality of achievement for women in Europe, and I commend it to the House.
  10.44 pm
  Mrs. Ann Clwyd: In the two years that I have been a Member of this House there have been few debates on equality between men and women, and they have always been greeted with ridicule by Conservative
  814
  Members. This is a serious subject that ought to be debated properly. I remember my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) speaking about parental leave. Her speech was rubbished throughout by Conservative Members who refused to give her a fair hearing. I hope that we have some semblance of a decent debate today. If hon. Members have nothing better to do than ridicule and make fun of serious proposals, they should leave now.
  The Government's attitude to equality between the sexes is clear from their being prepared only to take note of the various Community documents. The Government have almost always had to be prompted by legal action in the Community even to begin to amend the sex discrimination and equal pay legislation, which was progressive in its time, but which have loopholes that have been described time and again. The Government are dragging their feet on the Sex Discrimination Bill in the other place. Discussions in the Community on further directives or legislation to promote equality will obviously not be treated seriously.
  In 1981, the Equal Opportunities Commission recommended 25 amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. The Government have accepted only three. That shows how seriously they take the subject. They have accepted the equal pay recommendation, which is to widen the definition of equal pay on which a claim can be based. The Government are also accepting the reference to collective agreements and the reference to include small firms and undertakings.
  Anyone who has followed what has happened in the European Court of Justice can only be ashamed by the attitude of Britain, which is depicted by Conservative Members who do not understand what proposals are being made, cannot be bothered to listen to the arguments and have never taken the subject seriously while they have been in the House.
  Those who have experience of being in the European Parliament can only feel ashamed that Britain has appeared before the European Court of Justice on sex discrimination issues more than any other EC country. I do not know how the Minister expects to be believed when he says that the Government are full of good intentions, bearing in mind the Government's refusal since 1979 to tighten loopholes in the sex discrimination and equal pay legislation.
  Miss Helen Marshall, the retired dietician, is the most recent in a long line of women who have caused the European Court of Justice to pronounce Britain's equality laws as leaving women far from equal with men. She fought for six years against her enforced retirement at an earlier age than if she had been a man doing the same job in the National Health Service. The Government have acted with some speed to implement that particular ruling against the compulsory retirement of women at the age of 60, but it is a pity that they did not see fit to rectify the anomaly until ordered to do so by a court outside the United Kingdom. When the Sex Discrimination Bill is suitably amended, probably this summer, women will have the legal right to stay at work until they are 65.
  That is a far cry from the early 1970s, when Britain seemed to be at the forefront of those giving women more equal status, particularly at work. The key legislation was the Equal Pay Act 1970 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975—both infants of a Labour Government. The European Commission has taken a much more genuinely equal view of women's status through a series of directives which the Government have repeatedly refused to

  815
  implement. Britain has been one of the states most prone to drag its feet to obey them. A series of defeats at the European Court of Justice has torn both those Acts asunder, leaving Britain with a poor image on equality.
  It is worth looking briefly at some of the background. Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome states that men and women should receive equal pay for equal work. Pay is defined as the ordinary basic or minimum wage or salary and any other consideration in cash or kind which the worker receives from the employer. The Council of Ministers has also adopted three directives on sex equality at work. The 1975 equal pay directive sets the principle of equal pay for equal work. The 1976 equal pay treatment directive aims to overcome sex discrimination in the hiring of staff, in vocational training, and in promotion and working conditions. It also forbids sex discrimination, particularly in connection with marital or family status. That directive was breached by Miss Marshall's enforced retirement at a younger age than a man.
  The 1979 social security directive forbids discrimination over contributions or entitlements to social security and benefit schemes. The British Equal Opportunities Commission and the European Court have highlighted time after time Britain's failure to treat women equally, although many other EEC states have also been found dragging their feet.
  I shall not go through all the incidents in which the United Kingdom has been dragged before the European Court of Justice, but the court ruled against Britain in 1982. As a result. Britain had to amend the Equal Pay Act. Since 1 January 1984 women have been entitled to equal pay for work of equal value. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) seems to believe—I suggest she looks at the new earnings survey 1984—women were still earning less than men in 1984 in a range of occupations, including those where the concept of equal value is easy to assess. Recently, the EC backed a test case where a cook from Cammell Laird claimed her training and work was of equal value to that of other craftsmen in the company. That case will be dealt with shortly. If that cook wins, the Equal Pay Act will be redundant in all but name. Women will once again have scored a victory, with enormous cost implications for private and public sector employees.
  Mrs. Currie: I should be grateful if the hon. Lady would explain how insisting on higher pay for women will aid the promotion of employment for women. Will it not result in many of those good ladies losing their jobs because their employers cannot afford to keep them on?
  Mrs. Clwyd: The hon. Lady has missed the whole point. I was arguing not for higher pay for women but for equal pay for women doing equal work. If she had looked at the new earnings survey, she would have seen that women's earnings as a percentage of men's earnings in a whole range of occupations are much lower. That is the point. We want equal pay for equal work. I was not arguing for higher earnings.
  Mr. Cohen: The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) implied that higher pay meant job losses. But does not the privatisation of, say, hospital cleaning mean lower pay and fewer jobs?
  Mrs. Clwyd: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The information from Conservative Central
  816
  Office is obviously not as good as the Labour party's information, which is contained in "Women, Low Pay and Employment Protection". If Conservative Members want to know the facts about low pay and the employment of women, they should look at a copy of that document. They might find it very useful, and discover what low pay is all about.
  The policies of the European Commission can be effective only if national Governments have the will to implement them. I believe that organisations and individuals have a role in putting pressure on their Governments. The United Kingdom Government are the only Government, of course, planning to exercise a general veto on the parental leave measure. [Interruption.] Nine other EC countries have already introduced various forms of parental leave. Thus, once again, this country is dragging its feet. I hope that those women who listen to the debate or who read about it tomorrow will write to some of the reactionary Conservative Members present and spell out their views on this important issue.
  Nowhere are these European Community policies needed more than in the United Kingdom. Three important directives are returning to the Council of Ministers for ratification in June. All three have been blocked by the United Kingdom Government in the past.
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Well, they have done something right, anyway.
  Mrs. Clwyd: It is interesting to hear Conservative Members say how much they approve of blocking measures for equal treatment for men and women—[Interruption.] I hope that their constituents are listening. The first directive proposes equal treatment for men and women in occupational security schemes. The second introduces protection for self-employed women during pregnancy and motherhood, and the third covers parental leave. No doubt the Government will again be dragged screaming and kicking in front of the European Court of Justice for failing to implement EC directives when they become law. If the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South has read the new report of the Equal Opportunities Commission, which clearly showed the amount of sex discrimination in recruitment, she cannot possibly believe the arguments that she put forward. That report found that most employers still saw jobs in terms of men's or women's work. They specifically seek women to fill the jobs offering lower pay, and poor promotion prospects.
  The report said that employers neither understood nor were they concerned with upholding the sex discrimination legislation. The research took 10 years. It was very thorough. I do not think that even Conservative Members would dispute the findings. For almost half the vacant jobs, the employer already had in mind the sex of the person to fill the post, even though 86 per cent. of the jobs attracted applicants of both sexes. Discrimination occurred between men and women according to the characteristics of the jobs. Employers preferred women for the jobs with lower pay, fewer promotion prospects and where work colleagues and supervisors were female.
  Let us not argue for one moment that women receive equal treatment. That is simply not true in terms of pay, social security and a range of provisions. I wish that Conservative Members would try, for once, to conduct a reasonable debate on this important issue. I am sure that women electors in their constituencies will show their

  817
  disdain for the way in which they treat problems that affect those women, and their disdain for the way in which they treat them in the House. I think that it is disgraceful, and Conservative Members should be ashamed of themselves.
  11.1 pm
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: I endorse many of the thoughtful and correct comments of hon. Members whatever their party. [Interruption.] I think that we would agree that it is rather sad that the public school boy hooligans are out in force tonight.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: They are not public school boys. They are a poorly educated lot.
  Mr. Kennedy: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It may be an unfair reflection on public schools. [Interruption.] If Conservative Members will allow me to to do so, I shall endorse many of the points and thoughts that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) put forward.
  Mr. Budgen: Has the hon. Gentleman heard the arguments before?
  Mr. Kennedy: I noticed that the hon. Gentleman breezed in half way through the debate. I hardly think that he is in a position to make such a comment. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley made a lengthy speech. I shall be curtailed from doing so because the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) wishes to contribute before the winding-up speeches begin. I think that we should conclude on a high note of levity.
  The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) put forward her view of the legislation. She told us that it was up to society to treat people as people and that such legislation was not necessarily helpful. It is worth remembering that the hon. Members for Cynon Valley and for Derbyshire, South, are in this institution, very much the exception rather than the rule in terms of their sex and their membership of the House. In considering in detail, as the documents do, the need to change not only attitudes but Government policies to provide fairer treatment and opportunities for men and women, we need look no further than the House of Commons, which is one of the most drastically unrepresentative institutions in western Europe. [Interruption.] Conservative Members should remember that, earlier this week, the alliance was delighted to welcome a lady into the House of Commons as one of our Members of Parliament.
  I endorse the view that the Minister's opening speech was somewhat disappointing. The Government have given a lukewarm response to the draft directives. It is strange that the remaining bastions of liberal thought, as they affect legislation in this country, are invariably the House of Lords, the High Court and European legislation or directives. Little innovative or progressive work in these matters is initiated in the House of Commons by the Government. Time and again we find ourselves at this hour of the night debating draft directives and alterations to statutory instruments which are the result of external pressure on the Government, not a positive desire by the Government to promote policies on sex discrimination which should have broad support and in which Parliament should show the lead. This is a matter for all parties, not one party or one side of the House.
  818
  The Government's reluctance to give these documents the wholehearted approval which they should have is very much related to the point made by the pensions industry on the implications of equal treatment on existing United Kingdom legislation. The Government may take cognisance of the views of the pension industry and reflect its concerns about the possible effects of these directives if enacted in Britain. However, I wish that they had been willing to give so much attention to that industry's views when they reformed the state earnings-related pensions scheme. If the Government were a little more consistent and less selective in listening to and ignoring the views of financial institutions, they might have had slightly more credibility in advancing this argument. The Government's response is disappointing. We cannot and will not support it.
  We accept that, in taking a rational look at the horrendous long-term costs of pension provision, there cannot be overnight reform. No one suggests that there can be. The Minister rightly emphasised that point. If we want the principle of equality of treatment, as opposed to equality of access which we have under existing legislation, and want greater sexual equality through our institutions and our legislation, we must start to be more committed and wholehearted and stop waiting for Europe, the courts or the House of Lords to tell us how to make our decisions.
  Until we have a House of Commons that reflects more accurately the breakdown of society into two sectors, it is highly unlikely that we shall have a Government who are as committed as they should be. Until that day comes, I doubt that this Government will bring forward the type of legislation that we want. On that basis, the Goverment's response is inadequate and disappointing, and we shall not support it.
  11.8 pm
  Mr. Tony Marlow: When I first became a Member, I may have been a little naive and a little simple—[Interruption.] I thought that that would get them going, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believed that Governments could decide and choose what legislation they wanted to bring forward. I did not realise the extent to which outside lobbies, bodies and foreign institutions were able to bully, cajole and press Governments into bringing forward the sort of nonsense that we are considering. As a member of a Conservative governing party which was elected on the platform of less law, I am appalled that this sort of nonsense has been brought before us tonight. If I had brought a random sample of my constituents here to watch our proceedings and they had seen that we were discussing this issue, not because we in the United Kingdom wanted to discuss it, but because we had been told by Europeans to do so, they would have been appalled and amazed.
  Europe is about trade and co-operation. It is not about Socialism. It is not about imposing complex legislation of a pan-European nature on social issues. I understand that day by day, week by week and month by month, the Labour party is becoming more enamoured of the European Community. We understand why; because of the bureaucracy there and because of the ability to espouse Socialism and force Socialism on this country from the institutions on the other side of the Channel.
  We heard a lot from the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) about the European courts, and she is

  819
  ashamed that we are made to take measures because of the European Court. I will tell the hon. Lady, as the vast majority of my constituents would tell her, that we could not give a fig for European courts. We are legislatively mature enough and long enough in the tooth to decide on our own social policy, our own measures and our own laws, and it is only right that we should make our own laws without having advice and influence from overseas.
  The hon. Lady, who took about 20 minutes of the House's time, was going on about discrimination against women. What about discrimination against men? When men get the pension at the same age as women, I will pay a little more attention to what the hon. Lady says. When we act fairly towards men who suffer divorce and whose ex-wives, who are in receipt of finance from them, go and live with other men and still get the full divorce settlement from their husbands, although their husbands have other children to look after, then I will listen to the hon. Lady. If we are to have no discrimination—it is not possible, because men and women are different and long may it remain so—let us have no discrimination in both directions.
  We believe in the market in this party, and we believe in the private sector. The private sector provides pensions, just like the private sector provides insurance. If someone insures a sports car, he pays more because the chances are that he is more likely to have an accident. If he has a red car, he pays more for the insurance, because he has been assessed as being more likely to have an accident. Women live longer than men. If women are to get a better deal on pensions, and there is only a certain amount of money available, it means that men will get a less good deal. That is unfair to men.
  It is nonsense. It is against the interests of this country. We will make up our own minds.
  11.12 pm
  Ms. Jo Richardson: The speech of the hon. Member for Northampton. North (Mr. Marlow) was no laughing matter. I wonder where the Conservatives of Northampton, North found the hon. Gentleman. I wonder, too, why, when there is any possibility—there are few—of a debate in the House on equality, it brings out the chauvinistic, not to say sexist, bores in the Conservative party. I hope that television cameras will come into the House soon, so that the behaviour of hon. Members on the Bench below the Gangway will be seen by their constituents. They would not remain here for much longer.
  This is a serious matter and I make no apology for taking it seriously, as the Government took it seriously in tabling the motion. It seeks support from the House for the Government's singular failure to implement the Community's first action programme, which began at the end of December last year. Moreover, by endorsing the Government's record and approach to equal treatment, the motion seeks to congratulate a Government who have played a prime role in blocking arid obstructing progress and agreement in this area in Europe, and who have obstinately deferred and unnecessarily complicated all practical, progressive measures that have been forced on them by the European courts.
  The Minister of State, Home Office, ridiculed us for including
  "equal pay for work of equal value"
  in our motion. We did that deliberately. That concept was introduced after the Government had been dragged
  820
  through the European Court and were brought kicking and squealing into this Chamber not wanting to introduce it at all. The Government introduced it in such a complicated and obstructive form that it is almost impossible for women to take claims before the court.
  It is important that we support the call for approval and implementation of the directives. If we do not, we cannot be sure that the Government will support the medium-term Community programme for 1986–90. The Government have done hardly anything, in spite of what the Minister said, in the programme for 1982–85. In the introduction of the medium-term programme the Commission noted that the programme can be realised only if it is supported by the "political will" of all the parties, particularly the member states. I have no love for the European Community and I agree with those, including the hon. Member for Northampton, North, who say that we should introduce our own legislation. However, we are not introducing our own legislation. Therefore, we have no other option but to try to bring to the attention of the House the legislation going through other parliaments.
  The Government do not have the political will. If they did they would have set out approval of the documents in their motion. Among the 16 actions set out in the 1982–85 programme, the Commission has stressed the importance of adopting the draft directives based on them as a demonstration of that political will and commitment. We all know that the directive on parental leave was emasculated by the Council of Ministers before it ever came to us and, to the eternal shame of the Conservative Benches, it was rejected by the House in November 1985. Not only have the Government refused to adopt the diluted proposals for parental leave, but they have actively withdrawn support for child care and other services for adult or handicapped dependants by restricting local authority and health authority spending.
  The other two directives we are asked to underline tonight have already been mentioned. One is about helping the problems of farmers' wives. In my view, that directive does not go far enough, because the families of farmers as well as their wives do much unpaid labour and that should be taken into account. The Commission also calls for the implementation of the directive drawn from action 4, the aim of which was to achieve equal treatment in ocupational social security schemes.
  It has not gone unnoticed that the Government have seen fit to point out that equal treatment does not preclude reducing benefits for one sex rather than increasing them for another. The Tory Administration has been an abysmal failure in this policy area. One has only to look at the so-called Fowler review of social security—heralded as the most comprehensive review since Beveridge—the European ruling on the Marshall case, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and at the Advocate General's guidance on the extension of invalid care allowance for married and cohabiting women.
  The Government have disregarded not only the views of the European Commission but the views of their own Equal Opportunities Commission, as well as the views of many distinguished women's groups and organisations throughout the country and in Europe. They have in4isted upon retaining and consolidating the breadwinner concept and aggregation, which constitute and perpetuate indirect discrimination against women.

  821
  Similarly, the Commission's proposal on action point 8, to end discrimination against pregnant women, has been flagrantly flouted by the Government. They have launched an unprecedented attack on all maternity benefits, through the Fowler review and their proposals for so-called reform of statutory maternity allowance.
  Strangely, although perhaps not really so strangely, coming from this Government, who have so consistently used equality as a mask for worsening the conditions of women and men—we have only to look at the ill-fated Shops Bill and the Wages Bill—the Government have grasped only one of the action points, and are seeking to abolish protective legislation in the Sex Discrimination Bill, which has been through the House of Lords and is coming to the House shortly. That will worsen the position of women.
  It is not surprising that the Government seek to ignore the Commission's better recommendations by merely noting them. They expose the only real strategy that the Government have in relation to women. It is, under the guise of economic necessity, to block all advance and, wherever possible, to undermine existing achievements. I cannot put it better than a paragraph of the 12th report of the Select Committee on European Legislation, on 26 February 1986, which states that the Government
  "conclude that any further legislative burdens on employers must be considered in the light of their likely detrimental effect on job creation and hence on equal opportunities, and consequently will seek to ensure that any resolution adopted by the Council contains no unacceptable commitments as to further directives."
  In other words, the Government, in the name of lifting so-called burdens from employers, blame equal opportunities for their failure to tackle unemployment. In short, they are making women pay for the failure of their economic policies; it is that economic, social and political fact that our amendment seeks to expose. I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to support me in the Lobby against the Government.
  11.22 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Ian Lang): The debate has ranged wider than the three European Community proposals concerning equal opportunities and equal treatment for men and women. Even the three proposals cover the responsibilities of at least three different Government Departments, but I shall try to answer as many of the points that have been raised as I can in the time that remains.
  I should like to begin by reaffirming the Government's commitment, as the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) seems to be in some doubt, both to the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment for men and women, and to action to help make it a reality. Of course, there is a long way to go, but we have already passed some milestones. Today there are nearly 11 million women economically active in Great Britain, making up some 40 per cent. of the labour force. The United Kingdom has the second highest female labour force participation rate in the European Community after Denmark, with about 60 per cent. of women of working age economically active, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) said in an excellent speech.
  The United Kingdom accounted for more than half the Community's total female employment growth between
  822
  1983 and 1984. The number of women in full-time jobs rose by 17,000 in the year to September 1985, and the number in part-time jobs by nearly 180,000.
  I think that all hon. Members recognise the Government's achievements in the sphere of training, particularly youth training. The youth training scheme is particularly significant for girls, who have obtained only a tiny share of traditional apprenticeships. In the one-year scheme, for example, 80 per cent. of all young women on the scheme were in employer-led provision, gaining direct experience of industry and commerce. In two-year YTS, with its increased vocational focus, all young people will have the opportunity to acquire a vocational qualification or a credit towards one. That will revolutionise the opportunities which 16-year-old girls leaving school have until now had to obtain such qualifications.
  Last December, the Youth Training Board endorsed a package of measures designed to challenge sex-stereotyping in YTS and further encourage girls to consider training opportunities in occupations in which they are under-represented. The package includes encouraging providers to set up single-sex schemes in occupational areas not traditional to women.
  The Manpower Services Commission is also promoting equality of opportunity in vocational training in a number of other ways. For example, it is currently involved in the programme of "Women's Training Roadshows" touring the country under the auspices of the Women's National Commission. The roadshows are exhibitions aimed at encouraging girls and women to consider careers not traditionally associated with their sex, particularly science and technology-related careers.
  The hon. Member for Battersea referred to the bus that set off from Westminster on Monday. I helped to send that bus off under the auspices of the WISE scheme—women into science and engineering. There is also a scheme known as WOW intended to give wider opportunities for women. The Government are also bringing forward the Sex Discrimination Bill which will shortly come to the House for Second Reading. We have also, of course, supported the Equal Opportunities Commission's code of practice of 1985.
  The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) referred to women's pay and complained that insufficient progress was being made towards equalisation of pay rates. She might like to know that average weekly earnings for full-time adult employees since 1979 have risen by 93 per cent. for men and for women by 99 per cent. There is a divergence of 6 per cent. at a time when the inflation rate rose by some 75 per cent.
  The hon. Member for Cynon Valley also referred to the Helen Marshall case. Of course, if the Social Security Pensions Act 1975, brought in by a Labour Government, had provided for equality in retirement, Miss Marshall would never have had to resort to the European Court.
  Mrs. Clwyd: This is 1986. Where has the Minister been in the meantime?
  Mr. Lang: The hon. Lady also referred to the United Kingdom blocking the occupational pensions directive. I must tell the hon. Lady that we are not blocking that directive. The approach adopted by the Government, and outlined in their explanatory memorandum, commands considerable support among other member states. It offers the best hope of securing a directive. Also, we are not

  823
  blocking the directive on the self-employed. There is certainly disagreement over some of the provisions that it contains from a number of countries, but we hope that a suitable draft can be achieved. We are simply trying to amend those aspects which are unworkable.
  Special training for women is being offered by an increasing number of institutions which my colleagues and I have designated under section 47 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 which allows training to be restricted to one sex only where it is for work in which members of that sex are seriously under-represented or where the trainees have been out of the labour market for some time discharging domestic or family responsibilities. To date, some 150 bodies have received such designation—all but one of them since the Government came to power. In 1985, the United Kingdom topped the European league for women's training, with 92 projects obtaining social fund money. Second came Italy with 13 projects.
  With regard to the parental leave directive, to which the Opposition"s amendment referred, of course the Government recognise that domestic responsibilities are a constraint on pursuing a career for many women, at least for a time. But reconciling child care with employment is not a problem to which there is a single solution suitable to be imposed by legislation. Indeed, there are a number of possible solutions, and parental leave itself is only a temporary and partial one.
  The Opposition amendment also referred to the equal pay for work of equal value directive, to which the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) also referred. I cannot understand what the Opposition mean in the amendment when they draw attention to the Government's obstruction to equal pay for work of equal value. The Government amended the Equal Pay Act 1970 in 1983 to provide for equal pay for work of equal value following the judgment of the European Court of Justice. The original Act, which was introduced by the Labour Government, did not fully implement European law on that matter. I stress that the Opposition did not choose to include the concept of equal value in the Act that they introduced in 1970.
  The Opposition are in no position to criticise the Government. The same story applies if we consider the invalid care allowance. That is currently the subject of a reference to the European Court of Justice to ascertain whether the EEC directive on equal treatment in social security matters applies to that allowance.
  We have not yet received the court's judgment—it is expected next month—but the Government have made their position quite clear. We have a good record in complying with the directive and in removing discrimination from schemes—discrimination which was often introduced by the previous Labour Government, as was the exclusion of married women from the invalid care allowance. We have often gone further than the strict terms of the directive.
  Equal treatment for men and women in occupational pensions is a principle which few would argue against. There can be as little justification for inequality here as in any other area of economic activity where men and women work side by side, but there is a basic problem in applying the principle of equal treatment to occupational pensions. It is to decide what "equality" means. There is no shortage of opinion and assertion on the question; some of it is informed and some of it is expert, but, regrettably, much of it is neither.
  824
  Our approach to the discussions that have taken place—
  It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business), That the amendment be made.—
  The House divided: Ayes 82, Noes 157.

  Division No. 180]

  [11.30 pm

  AYES

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Barron, Kevin

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Boyes, Roland

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

  McKelvey, William

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Madden, Max

  Canavan, Dennis

  Martin, Michael

  Clay, Robert

  Maxton, John

  Clelland, David Gordon

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Michie, William

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

  Miller, Dr M. S, (E Kilbride)

  Cohen, Harry

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Nellist, David

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  O'Neill, Martin

  Craigen, J. M.

  Parry, Robert

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Patchett, Terry

  Dalyell, Tam

  Pike, Peter

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

  Prescott, John

  Deakins, Eric

  Raynsford, Nick

  Dewar, Donald

  Redmond, Martin

  Dixon, Donald

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Dobson, Frank

  Robertson, George

  Dormand, Jack

  Rogers, Allan

  Dubs, Alfred

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Rowlands, Ted

  Eadie, Alex

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Eastham, Ken

  Short, Mrs (W'hampt'n NE)

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Ewing, Harry

  Snape, Peter

  Faulds, Andrew

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Fisher, Mark

  Strang, Gavin

  Flannery, Martin

  Straw, Jack

  Foster, Derek

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Foulkes, George

  Wallace, James

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Welsh, Michael

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Haynes, Frank

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Mr. Ray Powell and Mr. Chris Smith.

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Amess, David

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Ashby, David

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Budgen, Nick

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Burt, Alistair

  Baldry, Tony

  Butterfill, John

  Batiste, Spencer

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Carttiss, Michael

  Benyon, William

  Cash, William

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Chope, Christopher

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Blackburn, John

  Colvin, Michael

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Conway, Derek

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Coombs, Simon

  Bottomley, Peter

  Cope, John

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Couchman, James

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

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bright, Graham

  Dover, Den

  Brinton, Tim

  Durant, Tony

  825

  Eggar, Tim

  Lang, Ian

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Latham, Michael

  Fallon, Michael

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Forman, Nigel

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Forth, Eric

  Lester, Jim

  Fox, Marcus

  Lilley, Peter

  Gale, Roger

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Galley, Roy

  Maclean, David John

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Major, John

  Gow, Ian

  Marlow, Antony

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Merchant, Piers

  Gregory, Conal

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Ground, Patrick

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Osborn, Sir John

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Porter, Barry

  Harris, David

  Portillo, Michael

  Harvey, Robert

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Powley, John

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hayes, J.

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Hickmet, Richard

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Holt, Richard

  Rowe, Andrew

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

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Jackson, Robert

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Speller, Tony

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Spencer, Derek

  Jones, Robert (Herts W)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Stern, Michael

  Key, Robert

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Sumberg, David

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  826

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Whitfield, John

  Thurnham, Peter

  Wilkinson, John

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Trippier, David

  Winterton, Nicholas

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Wolfson, Mark

  Viggers, Peter

  Wood, Timothy

  Waddington, David

  Yeo, Tim

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Walden, George

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Waller, Gary

  Mr. Michael Neubert and Mr. Francis Maude.

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Watts, John

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 6871/83, draft proposals for a Directive on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment of men and women in occupational social security schemes, 5825/1/84, draft Directive on the application of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in self employed occupations including agriculture and on protection during pregnancy and maternity, and 4118/86, communication from the Commission to the Council concerning a medium term Community programme (1986/90) on equal opportunities for women; and endorses the Government's commitment to the principle of equal treatment while seeking to ensure that unnecessary burdens are not imposed on business in the United Kingdom.

  Resolved,
  That Sir Richard Body be added to the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

  PRIVILEGES
  Resolved,
  That Mr. David Steel be discharged from the Committee of Privileges and Mr. A. J. Beith be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Boscawen]

  PETITIONS

    Social Security Reform
    11.42 pm
    Mr. Andrew Bowden (Brighton, Kempton): With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to present a petition on behalf of about 1,000 people, most of whom live in Brighton.
    The petition states:
    That legislation based on the "Reform of Social Security—Programme for Action" White Paper would be extremely detrimental to the residents of the United Kingdom who are in receipt of social security benefits.
    Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House do not pass legislation arising out of the "Reform of Social Security" White Paper.
    And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray.
    To lie upon the Table.
    11.44 pm
    Mr. Michael J. Martin: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to present a petition similar to that presented by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) from the Springburn Elderly Forum about social security reform. The forum was formed recently and consists of senior citizens who are fighting to ensure that the pensioners' case is put properly to Parliament and to everyone who is responsible for their welfare. It gives elderly people the opportunity to discuss their problems.
    The petition has in excess of 2,000 signatures, and was organised by Mrs. Rose MacCallum of 85 Broomknowles road in my constituency. The petition is against the White Paper for the reform of social security, and states:
    "The Humble Petition of the Residents of the Constituency of Glasgow, Springburn Sheweth That the proposed changes in Social Security Benefits would be harmful to the people of this country.
    Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House reject these proposals. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray &c.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Board and Lodging Regulations (Midlothian)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boscawen.]
  11.45 pm
  Mr. Alex Eadie: The subject of the debate—the operation of the board and lodging regulations in Midlothian—is causing great anxiety in my constituency. It is fair to say that that anxiety is widespread throughout the country.
  The problem I face as a constituency Member for Parliament arises from statutory instrument No. 613, driven through the House by the Government's majority last year, entitled "Supplementary Benefit Regulations 1985". It is commonly referred to as board and lodging allowances, and I wish to discuss its effect on the elderly in 24-hour care in registered nursing homes.
  The problem with payments arose when the Government introduced new restrictions on DHSS payments. We were told that they were aimed at the so-called Costa del Dole—young people living in coastal towns. However, they also set a new limit of £170 a week on payment of nursing home fees.
  Even on the later aspect, it is claimed that the order is defective. It is not a new experience for this Government to find their orders defective. Indeed, they have been brought before the courts to be told so.
  The bitter experience that I shall relate to the House should give the Minister and his Government great cause for concern. The Minister is aware of the case that I shall describe at this late hour, and the time available compels me to do so in shorthand. It concerns a woman of 95, Mrs. Agnes Scott, formerly resident in Parthhead, Midlothian, but now resident in a nursing home. She is severely disabled and confined to a wheelchair. The medical evidence describes her as frail, suffering from dementia and osteoarthritis, and says that she requires full-dine nursing care. I hope that the Minister will at least have the grace to agree with those medical facts.
  I must pay the highest compliment to Mrs. Agnes Scott's grandson, Mr. H. Leonard Scott, who has campaigned for justice for his grandmother. I do so deliberately because he gives the lie to what is abroad nowadays—that children, or grandchildren, show lack of concern for their parents or grandparents. Mr. Scott has been a tower of strength to his mother, who is a pensioner and has been seriously ill. She is worried sick about what will happen to her 95-year-old mother. Lest there be any doubt about the role that she has played in looking after her mother, I want the record to show that for 16 years she cared for her mother until her own health broke down. Only reluctantly, under the pressure of medical advice, did she consent to her mother being cared for in a nursing home. Mrs. Agnes Scott's daughter was in no position to choose any particular establishment for her mother, because she herself had been hospitalised for eight months.
  The statutory instrument sets a limit of £170 a week on payments for nursing home fees for the elderly and disabled. I regret to say that I was given deplorable advice by the Minister in a letter. He wrote that charity should be asked to make up the shortfall between the limit and the fees. That was his response when I wrote him about the

  829
  case of 95-year-old Mrs. Agnes Scott, who has lived in Hilton Lodge nursing home since 1 October 1984. It is suitable for her needs and she is perfectly happy there. If she were removed on the ground of cost, the consequences would be fatal for her. The Minister has had a letter from me to tell him that his charity advice offers no solution to the problem.
  In the Minister's letter of 8 April he asserted that Mrs. Scott is in the nursing home that charges the highest fees. My response demonstrates that that is not true. He has been given the figures and I hope that he will concede that the information given in his letter of 8 April is misinformation.
  The feature that bedevils Mrs. Agnes Scott's case is that she has a decision in her favour arising from a tribunal decision of 21 February 1986. I shall quote the judgment in its totality because it has a bearing on what I want to say about the regulations. The judgment reads:
  "The Tribunal considered Regulation 9 of the Requirement Regulations and Schedule 1(A) and 2f which gives the figure of £138·60 per week ie the prescribed rate. This prescribed rate is now £170 a week as Mrs. Scott was paying £190 a week prior to 29.4.85 This became the protected rate. The majority held the view that it was her tenancy in the suitable nursing home which was protected and this would take into account any reasonable weekly increase, and in this case the weekly increase of £9·50 a week was reasonable in that it was less than the rate of inflation this was what 'protected' meant in the meaning of the Act and word."
  To give a fair picture, I should add that the dissenting member held that the tribunal had to take account of what the Act said, not what the tribunal thought that it intended to say. He maintained that the £190 per week was protected, not any subsequent weekly increase, however resonable.
  There is no decision in regard to inflation, which reveals the defectiveness of the Act. The adjudication officer has challenged the legality of the tribunal's finding and is appealing to the social security commissioners. The tribunal's decision is frozen, and poor Mrs. Scott and her relatives are left to sweat it out.
  Many of my constituents are puzzled. They believe that Parliament makes the laws and that, if a law is defective or in doubt. Parliament hastens to clarify it. If I had more time, I could give examples of defective unfair and unjust legislation that Parliament has remedied. When the statutory instrument was debated in November 1984—it was imposed in April 1985—the Secretary of State for Social Services gave the House the assurance that there was no question of elderly handicapped or disabled people being moved out of their existing accommodation and that their position would be protected.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), was asked in a radio interview last July whether the limits were not putting on families the onus of paying for nursing homes. He replied:
  "We are definitely not. People are saying that because they are misinformed."
  The 95-year-old lady has a daughter who is herself on a pension. She cannot maintain her mother. At great personal sacrifice, she has attempted to buy her mother what can be called the basic necessities.
  The statements that I have quoted do not tally with the history of the case. Ministers must be held accountable for what they say. It is a serious matter if they have deceived
  830
  Parliament. The Minister has some explaining to do, although other Ministers should be at the Dispatch Box to explain.
  Real compassion for 95-year-old Mrs. Agnes Scott is alive in my constituency, but there is also anger that the Government do not seem to match it. Her grandson asked me whether his grandmother would be murdered by a parliamentay statutory instrument, because that was what it would mean if she were moved from Hilton Lodge. I could not answer the question. Can the Minister answer it tonight? The answer is anxiously awaited by the Scott family, by many other elderly people throughout Scotland and by Age Concern Scotland which reads our proceedings on behalf of its many elderly citizens.
  12 midnight
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Major): I must say immediately that compassion does not merely rest in Midlothian or, indeed, on the Opposition Benches, although I appreciate that the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) did not suggest that. The welfare of the elderly and the disadvantaged are matters of concern to us all, and I shall seek to deal with the issue.
  I am exceedingly familiar with the case from which the hon. Gentleman drew a great deal of his text. He will know that the tribunal judgment is at present the subject of an appeal, and it would be unwise and improper for me to trespass on that matter. I appreciate that the charges relating to other homes are a relatively minor matter, but the hon. Gentleman has slightly incomplete information, and he may find that, for that innocent reason, he has been misled.
  The hon. Gentleman will know that it has long been an established practice under both Governments that the details of individual cases of this nature tend not to be discussed on the Floor of the House. However. I am perfectly happy to meet him privately at any time to discuss the matter. He has only to ask for us to have a conversation about the particular details of Mrs. Scott. I make that offer now, as I would have done previously, had he approached me requesting such a meeting at any time in the past.
  Mr. Eadie: The Minister should not deceive the House with that offer. I will accept any offer from a Minister to meet and discuss any case. He should be fair to the House and admit that I received an answer to my letter only when I tabled a question asking when I would receive a reply. That does not show any sense of urgency or co-operation on the part of the Minister.
  Mr. Major: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to be contentious, I am prepared to meet him. I was endeavouring to make him a realistic, civilised offer because I am not prepared to swap the details of a lady's particular difficulties across the Floor of the House. That would be neither proper nor appropriate and I will not do it, whatever the provocation may be. I am prepared to discuss the matter with the hon. Gentleman, and that was the point that I was making to him.
  I must commiserate with the hon. Gentleman about the timing of the debate. As the collective House is aware, although the hon. Gentleman did not mention it this evening, we have been reviewing the supplementary benefit limits for all forms of board and lodging, including

  831
  those for people in homes and hostels. We shall shortly be announcing the outcome of that review, and obviously, I cannot anticipate it. I must confine my remarks to the present arrangements, although I am acutely aware of the difficulties facing some elderly people, and we have paid special attention to them. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that.
  It may be helpful to put the matter in a proper context if I remind the house briefly of the background to the changes we made last year. That was noticably absent from the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Our changes had three aims in respect of both ordinary board and lodgings, to which there was a passing reference, and residential and nursing homes in Lothian and elselwhere.
  The first of those aims was to gain control of very rapidly escalating expenditure. I shall return to that point later. The second was to target expenditure more precisely on those in real need, and the third was to help to curb undoubted abuse in some—although. of course, not all—areas. We were also concerned that, with the easy availability of high boarder payments, the benefit system was, in effect, acting as an artificial stimulus to the market, resulting in some cases of exploitation and waste. I emphasise "some", because I am not making a more general charge. It is not a matter of dispute between us that that was a genuine problem—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman had a great deal to say earlier. He might do me the courtesy of listening in the time remaining, so that he cannot at some later stage say that I did not respond to his points.
  The hon. Gentleman expressed concern about people in homes. That has to be seen in the context of the Government's very good record in recent years. Since the Conservative party took office in 1979 we have enabled many thousands more people to opt for the residential care of their choice, and that is continuing. The hon. Gentleman talked of compassion, but a sharp contrast can be drawn between us and the Labour Government. He did not mention the fact that, under that Government, supplementary benefit was only rarely sufficient to meet the charges incurred by elderly people in homes. I fear that he overlooked that point.
  The 1979 supplementary benefits handbook explained just how little could be paid then. Local limits were set by reference to
  "the highest charge a short-term claimant might be obliged to pay to find full board and lodging in commercial establishments of a reasonable standard".
  In other words, the amounts payable were geared to short-term unemployed claimants, not to the needs of the elderly and the disabled. There has been a material change in that respect.
  People in need of residential or nursing care had very little choice at that time. Those who could not pay privately had to rely on local authorities to provide accommodation, or they filled the long-stay wards of National Health Service hospitals. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that in many cases hard-pressed families felt that they had to cope as best they could in difficult circumstances. I am not tonight arguing that the present system is perfect in all respects. Clearly there are difficulties with it. But, with all its difficulties, the present system is infinitely better than that. That point must be made so that people view policy in the round.
  The Government changed the benefit rules so as to open up the option of care in the independent sector. That
  832
  should be remembered, as it is important to many people in this country. The figures speak for themselves. In 1978, 7,000 supplementary benefit claimants were assisted with their fees in residential care and nursing homes. By 1984, the estimated figure was a six-fold increase, to 42,000. Expenditure has gone up even more. In 1978, £6 million was spent in that area; by 1983 expenditure had reached £105 million and by 1984 it was estimated to be £190 million. That was a quite staggering increase, but it was justifiable, and I hope that 'the hon. Gentleman welcomed it.
  It has never been the Government's intention to supplant the valuable role of local or health authorities in this area. Indeed, we are discussing with them how collaboration can be improved. There are grey areas of difficulty between their role and the role of supplementary benefit. I regret, although I understand the point, that a number of authorities took the increases in benefit entitlement as a cue to cease sponsoring claimants in residential care. Nationally, the number of people sponsored by local authorities in private and voluntary homes has been declining although the numbers in homes have tended to increase.
  That picture is mirrored in Lothian. In 1980, there were 544 people sponsored in the Lothian area. By 1985, that figure had fallen to 427. I understand that this trend is likely to increase in future. I should reiterate that local authorities still retain their rights and responsibilities in this area—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is always trying to make political points. The situation is precisely the same in many areas in which the Labour party is in control, and he should acknowledge that.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: Give us the figures.
  Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman will get the figures if he tables a question. We are discussing Lothian, and nominally at least, the hon. Gentleman is not, as far as I am aware, part of the debate. If he so wished, he could have indicated in the normal way that he wanted to take part in the debate. From the way in which the hon. Gentleman has intervened, it is becoming apparent that the debate has as much to do with party politics as with anything else.
  Mr. Eadie: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I resent the fact that the Minister, in an Adjournment debate granted to an hon. Member, has acted in such an arrogant manner. He has been given 14 minutes out of 30 minutes to reply to the debate. Let us have a little less arrogance.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. That is not a point of order, as the hon. Member knows.
  Mr. Major: It certainly was not a point of order. It was one of the most ludicrous interventions that I have heard in my few years as a Member of the House. I assume that the hon. Gentleman would like an answer, although there seems to be some question about that.
  Mr. Eadie: The hon. Gentleman had 14 minutes in which to reply.
  Mr. Major: It is a jolly sight less, with the interruptions and mutterings from the hon. Member for Midlothian and his Front Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing). One begins to wonder whether the hon. Gentleman wants a reply.

  833
  Although the changes in the supplementary benefit rules since 1980 brought many advantages, the system did not always work fairly. For example, the amount of supplementary benefit for people in residential care homes varied substantially from place to place—from £51 to £215 a week. Nursing home limits, which, admittedly, were more relevant to Mrs. Scott, varied between £80 and £295 a week. Because limits were set locally by adjudication officers by reference to charges actually levied, they were susceptible to manipulation by the more unscrupulous proprietors. Excessive profits were made at the taxpayer's expense, and value for money was not always given. In other circumstances, the hon. Gentleman would have been the first person to criticise that trend, although he has offered precious little support to the Government in trying to curb it.
  No responsible Government could ignore such problems, and last year we took steps to deal with them. We replaced the old local limits with a new, more consistent structure of national limits which varied according to the category of home—for elderly people, those who were handicapped, and so on. The limits operated in progressive steps to meet the anticipated cost of providing an appropriate level of care. The new limits were specifically intended to allow reasonable charges to be met in homes satisfying the registration requirements. Last November, we increased those limits by £10 for residential care homes and by a substantial £31·40 for nursing homes. That was another material fact that slipped the hon. Gentleman's mind when he addressed the House earlier.
  The limits for residential care homes now range from £120 to £180 a week. While the limits for nursing homes range from £170—as the hon. Gentleman mentioned—to £230 a week. Those new limits were substantially higher than those they superseded in some places and for a large number of people. In other cases, they were lower. The hon. Gentleman expressed concern about the position of people already in homes charging above the current limit when the changes were made. For those people. we provided unprecedentedly extensive transitional arrangements, which were described not by Ministers but by the Social Security Advisory Committee as generous. People
  834
  over pension age had their existing level of benefit protected until such time as payment under the new rules became more favourable to them.
  That was the extent and nature of transitional protection. It was precisely on all fours with the nature of transitional protection at all times since we have had a social security system—whatever party has been in power. There is nothing novel about the way that transitional protection worked. People under pension age were protected for a year until April 1986 to give them time to make alternative arrangements. There was provision to extend the protected period where exceptional hardship would otherwise result.
  In keeping with all precedents under Governments of both parties no provision was made to increase the transitionally protected amounts to meet fresh increases in fees. The hon. Gentleman suggested that that was harsh but, as I said a moment ago, it is not my intention to discuss Mrs. Scott's case across the Floor of the House. In the moments left to me, I reiterate, although I wanted to say much more, that I will be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the case and the wider application of the board and lodging rules, if he so wishes. That is an open offer to him.
  I should like to say that the Government's intention, in their care for the elderly and the disabled, was to make the transitional protection provision as generous and as flexible as possible. I know that Mrs. Scott's grandson felt differently, but people do retain the same level of protection if they move to another home, although no one can receive more than the actual charge that they are required to pay. The logic of the hon. Gentleman's position can only be that any fees that proprietors choose to impose should be met, whatever their level. I am pleased to put it on record that the hon. Member for Falkirk, East shakes his head. [Interruption.] I did not say that the hon. Member for Midlothian said that. That is the logic of what he said. I am pleased to have it on record that it is not the Labour party's policy that any fee increase of any sort should be met.. That is an important—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at fifteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.

WALES
  Cancer Treatment Facilities
  Cancer Treatment Facilities
  Soviet-Nuclear Accident
  Soviet-Nuclear Accident
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Fraud
  Fraud
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  ASIAN Development Bank
  ASIAN Development Bank
  Crown Agents (Exhibition)
  Crown Agents (Exhibition)
TRANSPORT
  MV Derbyshire
  MV Derbyshire
  Roadworks (London)
  Roadworks (London)
  Bus Shelters
  Bus Shelters
  Tyres (Tread Depth)
  Tyres (Tread Depth)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Teacher Training
  Teacher Training
  Universities and Public Sector Institutions
  Universities and Public Sector Institutions
  Nursery Education
  Nursery Education
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
  Schools (Parental Choice)
  Schools (Parental Choice)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Carryduff Primary School
  Carryduff Primary School
  District Councils
  District Councils
  Terrorism
  Terrorism
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prison Officers (Dispute)
  Prison Officers (Dispute)
  Heathrow Airport
  Heathrow Airport
  Population Statistics
  Population Statistics
  Police (Establishment)
  Police (Establishment)
  Police Duties
  Police Duties
  EC (Broadcasting Directive)
  EC (Broadcasting Directive)
  Community Radio
  Community Radio
  Terrorism (Remanded Persons)
  Terrorism (Remanded Persons)
ENERGY
  Petrol Prices
  Petrol Prices
  Sellafield (Radiation)
  Sellafield (Radiation)
  Nuclear Power
  Nuclear Power
EMPLOYMENT
  Basildon Local Enterprise Agency
  Basildon Local Enterprise Agency
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  New Workers Scheme
  New Workers Scheme
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
SCOTLAND
  Radiation
  Radiation
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Research and Development
  Research and Development
  Motor Vehicle Registrations
  Motor Vehicle Registrations
  Manufactures
  Manufactures
  Fleet Support King Vessel
  Fleet Support King Vessel
  British Steel Corporation
  British Steel Corporation
  Conference Trade
  Conference Trade
  EC Exports (American Sanctions)
  EC Exports (American Sanctions)
  A330 and A340 Airbus
  A330 and A340 Airbus
  South Korea
  South Korea
  United Kingdom Exports (America)
  United Kingdom Exports (America)
  Domestic Motor Market
  Domestic Motor Market
  BSC (Industry) Ltd.
  BSC (Industry) Ltd.
  British Leyland and General Motors
  British Leyland and General Motors
  Polycad Scheme
  Polycad Scheme
  British Shipbuilders
  British Shipbuilders
  Bankruptcies
  Bankruptcies
  Domestic Power Plant Industry
  Domestic Power Plant Industry
  USA (Ministerial Visit)
  USA (Ministerial Visit)
  Shipbuilding Industry
  Shipbuilding Industry
  Manufacturing
  Manufacturing
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
  Steel Imports
  Steel Imports
  Multi-fibre Arrangement
  Multi-fibre Arrangement
  Industrial Management
  Industrial Management
  Filament Synthetic Cloth
  Filament Synthetic Cloth
  British Steel
  British Steel
  EUREKA Programme
  EUREKA Programme
  Manufactured Goods
  Manufactured Goods
  United States Exports (Controls)
  United States Exports (Controls)
  Exports
  Exports
  Community Trade Marks Office
  Community Trade Marks Office
  Design Excellence
  Design Excellence
  Inward Investment
  Inward Investment
  Self-Changing Gears Ltd.
  Self-Changing Gears Ltd.
  US Investment
  US Investment
  Director General of Fair Trading
  Director General of Fair Trading
  Radio Frequencies
  Radio Frequencies
  Monopolies and Mergers
  Monopolies and Mergers
  Unit Labour Costs
  Unit Labour Costs
  Rolls-Royce
  Rolls-Royce
  Council of Ministers Meeting
  Council of Ministers Meeting
  Soviet Union (Tourism)
  Soviet Union (Tourism)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Imports
  Imports
  Milk
  Milk
  Intervention Storage (Costs)
  Intervention Storage (Costs)
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Bees
  Bees
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Iran and Iraq (Armaments)
  Iran and Iraq (Armaments)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Betting Duty
  Betting Duty
  EC Budget
  EC Budget
  EC (Expenditure)
  EC (Expenditure)
ENVIRONMENT
  Protomised Timber
  Protomised Timber
  Radioactive Waste
  Radioactive Waste
  Housing Waiting List
  Housing Waiting List
  Nitrates
  Nitrates
  Local Authorities (Accounting Procedures)
  Local Authorities (Accounting Procedures)
  Radiation
  Radiation
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
  Homeless Persons
  Homeless Persons
  Widdecombe Report
  Widdecombe Report
DEFENCE
  Libya (Cyprus Bases)
  Libya (Cyprus Bases)
  Youth Training
  Youth Training
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Domestic Violence
  Domestic Violence
  Immunisation
  Immunisation
  Handicapped Children
  Handicapped Children
  "Care in Action"
  "Care in Action"
  Measles
  Measles
  Radiation (Monitoring and Advice)
  Radiation (Monitoring and Advice)
  War Widows
  War Widows
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Board and Lodging
  Board and Lodging
  Maternity Services
  Maternity Services
  Dentistry
  Dentistry
  Doctors
  Doctors

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

Hydro-electric Power in the Highlands
The Earl of Cromartie: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is true that any profits made by the North of Scotland Hydro-electric Board are paid into the Treasury: and, if so, whether they would consider using this money for the further development of hydro-electric power in the Highlands.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin): My Lords, the North of Scotland Hydroelectric Board retains its profits to finance its capital investment programme and to reduce its debt. It is up to the board to make proposals for further investment in hydro schemes where these can be economically justified and the Government will consider such proposals carefully.
The Earl of Cromartie: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister. I am delighted to see that somebody knows the part of the country I am talking about. I should like to ask my noble friend another question. Many years ago before the first world war my father started the first hydro-electric scheme in Britain for the benefit of the Highlands, so that they would have cheap power. This was carried on, but he had to give it to the Scottish Power Company and it was carried on by them, as it was when the first hydro-electric board was formed, when that great man Tom Johnson was Secretary of State. Then, quite suddenly, without any particular reason, all this was altered. It was taken away. One thing that was also taken away was the headquarters which were supposed to be always in the Highlands. They are now in Edinburgh. Apart from that—
Noble Lords: Question!
The Earl of Cromartie: My Lords, the headquarters are not in the Highlands, and are well out of the hydroelectric area. What is more, the Highlands do not get the benefit which they were supposed by all the founders to get. I should like my noble friend to give me some answer to this, if he would.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, what a pleasure it is to see my old friend Lord Cromartie with us and to have a Question on the North of Scotland Hydroelectric Board, which I know holds a place of such affection for him. The Government are, of course, constantly faced with competing claims for scarce resources and, given the constraints on public
1134
expenditure, the development of run-of-the-river hydro schemes was not high enough on the north board's own list of priorities to justify inclusion in its capital investment allocation. I can assure my noble friend, however, that should the North of Scotland Hydro-electric Board, having satisfied itself with an up-to-date evaluation of the present situation, again decide that it might consider going ahead with such a scheme, the Government will consider it very carefully at that time.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the Minister used the phrase "reduce its debt" with regard to where the profits were going. Can he tell me to whom this debt is owed, and what proportion of the profits go towards this as against capital development?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord that anwer without notice, but obviously the debt is a borrowing debt and the proportion of profits which goes towards the reduction of borrowing debt must in the long term be in the best interests of those who are within the north board's area.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does it borrow from the Treasury?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, originally the debt would have been a Treasury debt.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister tell us whether it is the Government's intention to privatise the North of Scotland Hydro-electric Board?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, there are no plans to do so at the moment.

Whooping Cough Immunisation
2.40 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the numbers of small children being vaccinated against whooping cough.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, no, the Government are not satisfied. Although the percentage of children immunised against whooping cough in England has risen steadily in recent years, much remains to be done if we are again to achieve the high rates of the early 1970s. The department advises parents and the health professions that the risks of vaccination are greatly outweighed by the benefits of immunisation.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her reply. If the Government consider that the risk of any side effects from the vaccine is much less than the risk of death or damage from whooping cough, which is what I assume from her reply, will the Government make a special effort to publicise the

1135
desirability of this vaccination and encourage it? I am of course referring not only to England but to other parts of the United Kingdom. I noted that her reply was only for one part.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. Of course, I meant to say the United Kingdom. The Health Education Council is presently running a major publicity campaign to inform parents of the current whooping cough epidemic and advise them on immunisation. The Government gave the council an additional £480,000 in 1985–86 which the council supplemented with £100,000 of its own funds to finance the campaign. We are evaluating its success and considering whether further action is needed.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, in supporting the noble Lord. Lord Campbell of Croy, may I ask whether the noble Baroness recalls that when this issue was considered on a Question by my noble friend Lord Molloy on 28th April, I referred to the court case for compensation for vaccine damage, which I said might have an adverse effect on the take-up of pertussis vaccine, and to whether the department had contingency plans for such a situation? The noble Baroness quite rightly said that because of the court case it would be inappropriate to comment. Now that the court has found in favour of compensation for a plaintiff, does the Minister feel that she can now state what are the special publicity measures—if there are special publicity measures—to counter the inevitable effect of a successful plea in the courts?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we are aware that a number of cases have been brought where vaccine damage is alleged. In seven of them, proceedings have been issued against the department. As one case is currently before the courts, it is not appropriate for me to comment further. We shall consider whether any further action is needed in the light of the judgment.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, will the noble Baroness emphasise that the need for immunisation against whooping cough is primarily in very young children who are particularly at risk from this disease? Will she also bear in mind that most doctors believe that whooping cough in older children is so trivial a disease that it does not warrant the slight risk in relation to the pertussis immunisation? With regard to the risk factor, will the noble Baroness accept that general practitioners at the moment are in some difficulty because of the different figures being published by different authorities on the precise risk involved in pertussis immunisation? It would be immensely helpful if the department were to disclose fully all the information in its possession on this point.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, regarding the first part of that question, I would confirm that whooping cough remains a serious disease among children, especially infants. It may be complicated by bronchitis, pneumonia, collapsed lungs and convulsions. In the two most recent epidemics, there were nearly 200,000 cases and 38 deaths. On the
1136
matter of advising parents on possible risks, the department helps fund the Health Education Council literature which explains the risks for parents. The risk is very slight compared with the safety that a vaccination will give.
Lord Morris: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that on national television news some months ago a spokesman for the medical profession stated quite clearly that only one child in 100,000 would be exposed to the risk of brain damage as a result of whooping cough vaccine? I ask my noble friend whether, if she had grandchildren, she would expose those children to that risk.
Baroness Trumpington: No, my Lords, I would not expose my children or my grandchildren (which is probably more suitable) if I had any, to the risk of non-vaccination. I think that the Prince and Princess of Wales gave a very good lead in that aspect by having their children vaccinated.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, does not the noble Baroness agree that there is everything to be said for vaccination, because if anything goes wrong you can now get compensation but if you are not vaccinated there is an almost equal chance of getting the same side effects for which there is no compensation available?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I do not know whether noble Lords understood that question. I actually did not.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, may I—
Lord Mellish: My Lords, will the noble Baroness—
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the noble Lord has a louder voice than I.
Lord Mellish: Yes, my Lords, and I happen to have seven grandchildren. Will the noble Baroness please issue figures showing the actual number of children who were hurt or at risk as opposed to the number of children who have had the vaccine and are not at risk? This is the kind of action that will convince the public that it is right to have the vaccine. Figures will do the trick. Will they please put the matter in proportion?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I should be delighted to see that those figures are published and made available in the Library.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, as a grandfather of nine grandchildren, may I therefore stake a claim? Is it not the case that the quality and efficacy of this vaccine has improved considerably in recent years?
Baroness Trumpington: Yes, my Lords; and I hope that one day I catch up with the noble and learned Lord.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, will the noble Baroness comment on the fact that there is a dilemma here? In the case of this and many other preventable diseases, once we have vaccinated down to a certain

1137
level then the risk from the vaccination itself becomes greater than the risk from the disease. We then cease to vaccinate; the danger of the disease then becomes greater and there comes a fluctuation. Is there any way of getting past this point?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, until we reach a 100 per cent. take-up of vaccination I do not see that it is possible to reverse the picture. It is my hope that we shall reach the 100 per cent. take-up level very soon.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to an infant. As the father of a four year-old and the grandfather of a 14 year-old, may I ask the noble Baroness to tell me how old is an infant?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is my belief that an infant is under five. Until your fifth birthday you attend an infants' school.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether the doubts about the whooping cough vaccine have affected the take-up of other childhood vaccinations such as tetanus, diphtheria and polio?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the NAO Report commends the results achieved in immunisation against diphtheria, tetanus and polio. That has led to the near elimination of those diseases. However, high up-take rates continue to be necessary to ensure that this success is not lost, and we expect health authorities to bear this in mind in setting targets.

Gas Industry: NALGO Ballot
2.50 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the appropriate government departments were ever informed of the result of the ballot for or against the privatisation of the gas industry organised by the National Association of Local Government Officers (NALGO), of which approximately 50 per cent. of all gas employees are members.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, we are of course aware that NALGO held a ballot in March among its British Gas members, proposing that they take industrial action against our proposal to return British Gas to the private sector. The members voted against industrial action. I applaud their good sense, for they must recognise that privatisation will be good for the industry and good for those working in it.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am most surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, has not asked a supplementary question. In the light of the Answer that he has given, I hope that the Minister will disown the attempt by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, to use the Order Paper to mislead the House. Noble Lords will note that the ballot asked
1138
members of NALGO whether they would take industrial action, not whether they were for or against gas privatisation—and that is quite a different question.
Is the noble Lord aware that in November last year a Gallup poll was taken among the British nation, asking whether or not people were in favour of gas privatisation? Of those who answered, 57 per cent. said that they were against privatisation. Under those circumstances will the noble Lord now drop the Bill?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I should have thought that the action taken so far as the NALGO ballot was concerned, and the silence from NALGO since then, spoke volumes in themselves.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that if anybody has tried to use Question Time to spit out propoganda, it has been the noble Lord who has just asked a question?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Not at all, my Lords!

Employment and Unemployment: Statistics
2.52 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what increases there have been since 1983 in the numbers of the labour force in the United Kingdom, in new employment and in unemployment.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, the number in the employed labour force increased by 990,000 in the United Kingdom between March 1983 and December 1985. That is progresss on new jobs unmatched by our European competitors. During that period, the seasonably adjusted total of unemployment, excluding school-leavers, rose by 309,000.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, if I heard the noble Lord correctly, I do not believe that he has answered the three parts to the Question that I asked. Has the noble Lord given the House the increase in the labour force since 1983 as well as the figures for new employment and for unemployment?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I have given the increase in the labour force, which was 990,000. I have given the increase in unemployment, which is 309,000. But the increase in new employment is not a statistic that is normally kept, because new employment is a figure that can vary day by day.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the Minister has constantly stood at that Dispatch Box and boasted of the figures of new employment that he has created during his tenure of office. What is the figure that he uses when he is claiming that the Government are creating new employment?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am proud to boast that I have never on behalf of this Government claimed credit for creating any new jobs by the Government. What we have always done is claim credit for creating the climate that will enable people to create jobs for themselves. That is the function of government.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that, stripped of all the statistics and rhetoric, the figures for unemployed are appalling? They are disgraceful, they are ongoing and they are increasing. When will the noble Lord tell the House what measures the Government intend to take, and take soon, to reduce the total of unemployed? Has the noble Lord seen the TV-AM programme entitled "Divided Britain"? What does the noble Lord propose to do to remove the shocking regional imbalance between the unemployed in this country?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, if I stripped the rhetoric from the noble Lord's question I should find little to answer. I believe that what the Government have done is self-evident. We see the United Kingdom creating jobs faster than any other country in Europe. We see, both since 1978 and since 1981, unemployment increasing in this country at a rate either less than or comparable to that in Europe. We see in this country a determined effort to deal with the evils of unemployment by the only route possible, which is the creation of new jobs. That was the purpose of the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, and that is the Answer I gave him.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord the Minister will now give the figures required by the Question. Perhaps he will now state without any propaganda or equivocation what are the figures for new employment.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I can gladly state that since 1983 we have seen 1 million new jobs come into being. I can say also that I accept that since 1979 one can find a drop in the employed labour force of 1 million. And, of course, one has seen a drop in the employed labour force throughout the whole of Europe. What I cannot say is what proportion of the 23 million working population across this country are in new jobs. Do we mean new since 1st January, or new during this decade, or do we mean new during this century? What we have is a rapidly changing employed population. It is very difficult to define new jobs. We customarily define them by the increase in employment.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, then perhaps in future the noble Lord will leave new employment out of his answers to the questions that are addressed to him. In any event, there is a finite date set in the Question on the Order Paper; it mentions 1983. There is therefore no difficulty.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I always endeavour to answer the questions that are put. The Question put concerned,
"the numbers of the labour force in the United Kingdom, in new employment and in unemployment".
1140
I have given the increase in the number of jobs. I was asked whether I could say which of the 23 million jobs in this country could be classified as new. That is not a statistic that is kept by my department or, to my knowledge, by any department.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, would it not be constructive and positive sometimes to concentrate on employment as against unemployment? Is it not a fact that per 1,000 of the population there are more people in employment in Great Britain than in any other European country except Denmark?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I always find it helpful to concentrate on constructive aspects of the employment question. I do not always get the opportunity to do so in your Lordships' House. I hope very much that I shall have such an opportunity in future. In an endeavour to help in that regard, I remind all in your Lordships' House that of all the adult population of this country of employable age, no fewer than 65 per cent. are in paid employment. That compares with 60 per cent. and 59 per cent in France and Germany respectively.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister how many of those 1 million jobs are full-time jobs for women and how many of them are part-time jobs for women.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, we have had surveys that show women are looking very much for part-time jobs.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the jobs that we have are not jobs that have been created by anybody but are filled by those who wish to have part-time jobs. Before noble Lords look down on those who take part-time jobs—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, such noble Lords should ask those people who fill them, because those jobs are very much wanted.
Lord Orr- Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend say whether he has had any clear indication what Her Majesty's Opposition are going to do about unemployment?
Noble Lords: Yes!
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, when may we expect facts and figures of a constructive nature about tackling this problem from the Opposition, who only criticise?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am quite happy to answer for the Government but I am most unhappy to answer for the Opposition.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that the policies of this party on the creation of new jobs is well known and clearly stated?

1141
Also, will the Minister tell the House what proportion of the new jobs he has stated are part-time? Is he aware that we welcome part-time jobs as being better than unemployment and the very high rate of unemployment that this Government have created since 1979? Will the Minister be good enough to clarify the position and to indicate clearly how many of the new jobs are part-time?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I shall be delighted to do so. I should of course prefer to have a Question on that particular point, but I shall arrange to have an answer placed in the Library.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that from the figures he gave me originally, with an increase of nearly 1 million in the labour force and an increase in unemployment of more than 300,000 it would appear on a rough calculation that one in three of the new labour force has joined the ranks of the unemployed? When the Minister is talking about comparable figures, will he tell the House what other country among the industrial countries of Europe has a higher unemployment percentage figure than does this country under this Government?
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes, my Lords. Certainly Spain has a higher percentage unemployment figure. Ireland has, as have others. It depends how you define unemployment. It depends very much on the social systems which support unemployment and it depends very much on the size of the labour market itself. This is a complex matter which is not best served by having quick answers to questions. If the noble Lord wishes to ask that as a particular Question, he should do so.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, is that not a disgraceful answer when the figures have been published? Is it not unfortunate that the noble Lord the Minister seeks the whole time to avoid giving the true facts, never disclosing the number of part-time jobs? Is it not the case that figures have been published on European comparable bases, comparing like with like in all countries, and that they show that out of the 21 relevant countries, 18 have unemployment at a lower percentage than this country and only three—the three the noble Lord mentioned—have unemployment at a higher rate?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is also true to say that United Kingdom civilian employment rose by 4·2 per cent. between 1983 and 1985, compared with rises of 1·5 per cent. in Japan, 1·3 per cent. in Italy, 0·9 per cent. in Germany and an absolute fall in France. Indeed, rises in United Kingdom employment contrast with a fall in employment in the rest of the European Community as a whole between 1983 and 1984. I have already said that we have one of the highest proportions of population in employment. I find the noble Lord's use of the word "disgraceful" to be unfortunate.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that the figures he has given us depend entirely on what is the level of unemployment in a given country at the time at which that figure is measured?
Lord Young of Graffham: No, my Lords. The absolute figure is the level of employment. The level of unemployment is the difference between the number of people in employment and the number of people available for work, or the working population. We live in a world where, for example in France, the number of people available for work is shrinking. In France, they actually have rising unemployment in a reducing workforce. In the United Kingdom, we have rising unemployment in a fast increasing workforce. That is a very different matter indeed.

Business
3.2 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement to be made in another place on British Shipbuilders. This will be followed by my noble friend Lady Young who, again with the leave of the House, will repeat a Statement on the Foreign Affairs Council on 12th and 13th May.
With the leave of the House, I should like to say a few words about the two short debates standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. Going on the principle that the mover is allowed approximately 15 minutes and that the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, in the case of the short debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, this means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of 11 minutes and in that of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, to 12 minutes. If any noble Lords should speak at greater length it will be at the expense of subsequent speakers in the debate.

Disability: Prevention
3.3 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton rose to call attention to the importance of preventing disability in the United Kingdom and in developing countries; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move my Motion on the importance of preventing disability in this country and in developing countries. I see from the list of speakers that 12 noble Lords have put down their names to speak on this Motion on preventing disability and another 11 noble Lords—I do not call them a second XI—have decided to speak on the Second Reading of the Bill concerning those who are already disabled. I think that is an index of the interest and concern of this House from noble Lords, in all parties and in none, about the problems of the disabled.
I can illustrate the extent of disability in the world by referring to the United Nations estimate in 1983 that 450 million people in the world are severely disabled; and that is mostly in the developing countries. It is about one-tenth of the world's population, or eight times the entire population of the United Kingdom. I

1143
suppose that since 1963 the world population has increased to some 5 billion, so the estimate for those who are severely disabled would now be more like 500 million.
In this country alone the proportion of the population that is severely disabled is about one in 20, or 2.5 million, and more like one in 10, or 5 million, if lesser disabilities are taken into account. Much of this disability is avoidable and I hope the House will agree that two-and-a-half hours of its time is well spent on discussing means of avoiding disability by prevention or control of prevalent disabling conditions; at home through existing health programmes and in developing countries through the United Nations and its agencies. Your Lordships will see that by the use of the word "avoidance" I have included measures both of prevention and of control.
Let me now briefly say a few words about the origin and growth of a remarkable but far too little known organisation called IMPACT. Soon after the International Year of Disabled People in 1980, Sir John Wilson—who is himself blind but one of the world's visionaries—suggested that a team of those most interested in the prevention of disability, which was one of the ideas of the IYDP but not much pursued during that year, should be drawn together to meet and to prepare a plan of action, which it did at Leeds Castle. This had the backing of the DHSS, I am glad to say, and had the immense advantage of having the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, as its chairman. Incidentally, the noble Lord would be here today but for a prior engagement in Edinburgh.
It is from that conference at Leeds Castle that the IMPACT programme was developed. This was presented to the General Assembly of the United Nations by Sir John, with Foreign Office backing. I am glad to emphasise for a second time that this has had government backing. It was then adopted by the United Nations as part of its decade of action concerning disabled people. Now, in 1986, we are halfway through that decade and already much has been achieved by three agencies of the United Nations: its development programme, UNICEF and the World Health Organisation, as well as other programmes on water and food shortage.
The IMPACT programme was launched in India in 1983, in Africa in 1984, in the Asian and Pacific region in 1985; and this year there will be a launching in Latin America. So there has been rapid action in the hope that, if this is continued, avoidable disability world-wide may be substantially diminished, if not eliminated, by the end of the 20th century. Success will depend not only on skill and determination but on political awareness, administrative competence and the creation of reliable and cheap delivery systems.
I give some examples of the successful programmes in developing countries achieved through simple systems of delivery at low unit cost: first, vaccines. The size of the problem is indicated by the fact that 3.5 million children are disabled each year by polio, TB, measles and neo-natal tetanus. It costs about £3 a child—an incredibly low figure—for full immunisation if it is done on a massive scale and if it is done with full local co-operation, as was done recently
1144
in Madras. So we hope that the Madras example will be followed world-wide.
Secondly, there is malnutrition. I do not think that it is at all widely known that famine disables many more people than it kills. I hope that famine relief agencies will build into their programmes specific cost-effective delivery systems for disabilities, especially in children, consequential upon famine, and I hope that someone who has the ear of Bob Geldof is listening.
Examples of what can be done cheaply are: the delivery of vitamin A to children to save them from a disease which blinds 200,000 children a year; or iodine added to drinking water to prevent thyroid deficiency, which cripples 100,000 children a year through deafness and mental handicap. The cost per child is negligible.
Then there is blindness. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, will be talking about blindness and so I shall say no more than that there are eye camps that have been established for cataract operations at a unit cost of £5 or a little more. Similarly with deafness, middle ear operations—believe it or not—have been done in camp conditions for about £10 per unit in India and Thailand. Likewise, there are walk camps in India and East Africa where grossly crippled grovelling people can be enabled to stand upright and walk with the use of quite simple, cheap calipers, crutches and artificial limbs which are made to an internationally tested standard by village carpenters.
This is all most encouraging and heartening. I have no time to give your Lordships more examples, but I ask the Government to consider helping the international programme in the following ways. First, I hope that the FCO will encourage British representatives at meetings of the United Nations Development Programme, WHO, and UNICEF to speak in support of IMPACT programmes, and—for goodness sake, why not?—to give credit to this country for what is essentially a British initiative. Secondly, I hope that the ODA will earmark some of its funds specifically for disability programmes in the developing world, and will also allocate a small sum to the United Kingdom IMPACT foundation to cover the overseas travel and expenses of those who, for the most part, give their services free.
I turn to the topic of avoidable disability in the United Kingdom. The February seminar this year organised by IMPACT concluded that at least 20 per cent. of the disability in the United Kingdom was preventable or remediable through existing health programmes—I emphasise through existing health programmes, because that is by far the cheapest and most effective method of proceeding. However, it requires a full and firm commitment across departments of the Government to a coherent, national and regional strategy and also the same kind of commitment on the part of health authorities, local authorities, the medical and rehabilitation services and, not least, the voluntary organisations of and for disabled people.
Very briefly, the programme should include screening, the provision of reliable data, the elimination of excessive waiting time in hospitals, health education, medical training, participation of

1145
disabled people through their organisations, and of course research. In passing I may say that the February seminar supported the recommendations of the Warnock Committee on research into genetic disorders. There is also the need for genetic counselling for young parents and continuing research into congenital infections (those congenital infections which in fact are the biggest cause of multiple disability), environmental pollution, especially by lead, the prevention of accidents in the home, the street and the place of work, and so on. The list is endless and I have no time to go into details. I hope that those speakers who will follow me in this debate will do so.
I should like to make one exception and recall the debate on speech therapy in this House last summer. In a courageous speech, the noble Lord, Lord Smith, described his own aphasia, as a result of a stroke, and how the help of the Chest, Heart and Stroke Association had enabled him to recover his power of speech. Aphasia, which is a severe disablement and is common after a stroke, is often not treated at all and the victims are regarded as though they were mentally afflicted. So in this one small sphere much improved rehabilitation for stroke victims, involving neurologists and rehabilitation experts, is called for.
Arising out of the February seminar of IMPACT I should like to ask the Government to give encouragement and guidance to all the relevant authorities and organisations in undertaking cost-effective action in the vitally important role of preventing disability, and in addition to undertake a screening programme to detect potentially disabling conditions in time for effective prophylaxis. I know that sometimes these screening programmes have been tried and phased out—your Lordships will remember the mobile chest X-rays, for example—but there are other conditions which do demand screening.
Secondly, I ask the Government to provide an information programme. The statistics are wildly out of date. It is a long time since the Amelia Harris survey. It would be well worth while investing a modest sum to discover the causes, extent and distribution of disability in the United Kingdom, which in itself would lead to better allocation of resources and better formulation of priorities. I believe that there should also be ad hoc special studies based on random sampling.
I have referred already to the need to cut down waiting time in hospitals, especially for surgery. Better systems of referral from one region to another without administrative impediment or penalty for the region which accepts the case are surely necessary. There is far too much unnecessary waiting for relief for people who are blind or deaf in some regions where there is a full waiting list, while others have spare capacity. I should like to see the National Health Education Council have as a specific objective the avoidance of disability. I do not believe that it does so now. As regards research, in addition to fundamental research I should like to see operational research into the application of existing knowledge.
Finally, in relation to these requests to the Government, I believe that there really should be an expert analysis of the economic and financial benefits to the nation of fuller measures to prevent avoidable
1146
disability compared with the cost of allowing it to continue.
I have had in this speech various recurring themes of cost-effectiveness, research into getting priorities right and the need for effective delivery systems in time to detect incipient disability and in order to seek out those most in need of such detection or relief. The lower you are in the social heap, through ignorance, poverty, or despair, the less able you are to help yourself. This applies both at home and in developing countries.
In this debate I hope that something will be done towards alerting the general public and the Government to the need for a new drive in preventive medicine at home and in the developing world. Both public pressure and political will are necessary. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.20 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I should like to be the first to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, on having chosen this subject and on the way in which he has introduced it in a speech which most fluently covered a whole range of the most important points. I agree with him that we spend a great deal of our time concentrating on those in our community who are already severely disabled. It is as important that we should give our attention to another aspect of disablement and take every opportunity that we can to prevent disability from occurring.
In this short debate I shall concentrate on two subjects, both within the United Kingdom rather than in the rest of the world. The first concerns ante-natal precautions and the second immunisation. Because of advances in medicine and technology with scanners and other equipment it is now possible to know a great deal about the unborn child. Even in the early stages of pregnancy serious deformities, brain damage or mongolism can be detected. Screening in earlier pregnancy is encouraged by the Government, the health authorities and certainly by the medical profession.
I should like to ask my noble friend Lady Hooper, who is to reply, how widespread is the availability of screening with the modern techniques and equipment. It is no good encouraging women in early pregnancy to go for such screening if there is only limited availability or if a long distance has to be travelled in order to reach the appointment.
Where there is a serious deformity and that deformity or another defect is found, difficult decisions have to be taken. One option is abortion. That is a controversial subject and raises issues of principle and religion; I certainly understand and respect that. But I hope we can all agree that it is important that as much information as possible should be discovered at the early stages, if it can be, and that decisions can then be taken before birth, with advice from the medical profession and a picture being given so far as it can be of what the child's future is likely to be if it is born alive.
Those decisions are difficult. I can speak only for myself, and if as a prospective parent I was told that a

1147
very deformed or brain-damaged child was likely to be born, I should opt for abortion at an early stage rather than knowingly bring into the world a seriously deformed child. But I make it clear that I say that for myself only.
I reiterate that nowadays a family should have as much information as possible beforehand rather than experience the shock and distress of the sudden discovery after birth of a severe malformation. Nature reacts and responds automatically in many cases. It is estimated that about 65 per cent. of potential mongols are naturally rejected by miscarriage.
I must emphasise that many of the children born with serious handicaps are lovingly looked after and accepted by their families. In other cases that is not possible. I know of families where there have been severe strain, an overwhelmingly burdensome daily life and the break up of the marriage in certain cases. Perhaps in those cases the children should be institutionalised. I am glad to say that there are places in the country where such handicapped children can be well cared for and looked after. My point, which I cannot overemphasise, is that if we can reduce the number of such disabled people born into the world, more resources will be available for those who need the care.
That brings me to the research side. A great deal is being done with research into crippling diseases and conditions, but I believe that more could be done. I should like my noble friend today, if she can, to tell us more about what the Government are doing or encouraging others to do. There are many calls on private contributions for various good causes—and medical ones of different kinds—but research into cures for crippling illnesses should be a high priority.
Even at Question Time today we were discussing the matter of vaccines, and I now come to my second subject—immunisation. Vaccines or other forms of innoculation early in life have in the past 50 years gradually eliminated some of the most lethal and crippling diseases. Perhaps the most notable one is polio, but there are now vaccines for measles, whooping cough and other serious diseases that can leave disability. There must be proper arrangements for the rare cases where the vaccine has caused serious damage to someone who is vaccinated. We cannot pursue that now because, as we were reminded at Question Time, there is still a case before the courts. Clearly there should be proper arrangements. It is exactly what those arrangements are to be that needs eventually to be decided with the help of the courts.
When I was Secretary of State for Scotland in the early 1970s and therefore responsible for health as well as many other matters, I launched a campaign concerning rubella (German measles). It is a mild illness, but if a woman has it during pregnancy, it raises grave risks of a child being born with severe defects. I am glad to say that that has been carried on, and I think that it is now pretty widely known that, as a precaution, girls should have that vaccination in early life.
When I was Chairman for Scotland of the International Year of Disabled People in 1981 we gave special attention to prevention as well as the other aspects of disablement. Our particular Scottish project
1148
was an immunisation programme for children in the Sudan. We raised many thousands of pounds for that. It has proved to be timely, given the developments in that part of the world more recently.
There are other aspects of the subject; for example, prevention of accidents, health education and early remedial treatment before a temporary condition becomes permanent. I also should like to mention the case of the noble Lord, Lord Smith, who made his first public speech, after having had a stroke and being unable to speak at all, in the debate a year ago that I initiated on vocal disabilities. I am glad to say that he has been able to continue speaking since then. That is a remarkable case of someone overcoming a disability which in many similar cases has been permanent.
Prevention is an important part of the subject of disablement. I commend to the Government what the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said and I hope that they will give the highest priority to the prevention of disability.
3.30 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, who speaks with a great deal of authority on these matters, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, on the initiative and the originality which he has displayed in introducing this Motion. Since he became a Peer, the noble Lord has had so many compliments heaped on him that he may become a bit bored. I shall not break the sequence altogether. He has performed the extraordinary feat (unique in my time) of moving from the world of officialdom to that of a Life Peer. The only thought that occurs to me now is how boring it must have been for him during all those years to have been helping us to make speeches which were not as good as the ones he could have made himself. I thought he spoke effectively today, as always.
I know that the noble Lord and others will forgive me if I concentrate on muscular dystrophy or more particularly Duchenne muscular dystrophy. I suppose that I should mention my special reason for taking a more than ususal interest in that aspect of disability, although I have often spoken, as so many others have, on matters affecting the disabled.
Barbara, an old friend of mine, had a brother who when a small child developed muscular dystrophy. His muscles gradually faded away and he died when he was 16. By that time, my friend had had four children—two boys and two girls. She then discovered that she was a carrier of that fatal disease. It was also then discovered that although the affliction had mercifully passed by her two sons, both her daughters were carriers. One of the daughters is my godchild and another is my wife's godchild. I can therefore speak with a certain personal interest.
I have called the disease fatal, and so it is at present and will be for the foreseeable future. I do not for a moment rule out possibilities to which we cannot look forward just now. At the moment the disease is incurable. It is a muscle-wasting disease which takes three or four years to manifest itself, by which time the mother may have produced more than one child with the same affliction. There is no cure at present and no

1149
cure in sight. I hope that one will be found in years to come.
By the age of 10 or 11, the boy is usually in a wheelchair. He becomes progressively weaker until his muscles are so wasted that they can no longer perform their function—for example, breathing—and he dies. That used to happen at about the age of 15—I mentioned that my friend's brother died at the age of 16—but physiotherapy and a good diet can extend that to the early twenties but not beyond at the moment.
The mother with a defective X-chromosome, speaking generally, has a 50 per cent. chance of passing the disease to her daughters or her sons. A daughter who acquires the affliction may be what is called a low risk or a high risk carrier. I shall not go into that point at the moment. The daughter becomes a carrier and the son becomes a victim.
How do I relate that to the subject of this Motion—the prevention of disability? It is clear that if a person containing that defective X-chromosome chooses not to reproduce himself or herself, that is one way of preventing the disability being passed on. For that to happen, it is necessary for the first person to know that his or her body is defective in that way. In the case of men, although the vast majority suffering from the disease die young, the disease is all too obvious. In the case of women, it is not by any means obvious. It has only recently been possible to acquire the knowledge necessary to decide with reasonable confidence who is or who is not a carrier.
Last summer, I took the liberty of approaching every Member of this House—I am afraid that it was an impertinence—on behalf of the Westminster branch of the Muscular Dystrophy movement. I take the opportunity now of expressing my heart-felt thanks to the several hundred Peers who so generously responded. The genetic research towards which your Lordships' money went is devoted to finding as many ways as possible of knowing with certainty that a woman is or is not the carrier of a defective chromosome. I take leave to quote a slightly technical passage from Dr. Paul Walker, executive director of the Muscular Dystrophy Group of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. He said:
"In the last four or five years the techniques of molecular biology have made it possible to investigate the whole genetic make-up of the X-chromosome. Our scientists … have discovered that there are 'deletions', that is, small pieces of the chromosome which are missing, in about eight or nine per cent. of the boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. In those cases it is now possible, with about 98 per cent. accuracy, to tell the female relations who may be at risk whether they are carriers or not".
That applies to a relatively small number of those concerned, but Dr. Walker and his colleagues consider that that is an enormous break through. That is an addition to the much more rough and ready methods which have prevailed. As I explained earlier, my friend was diagnosed as a carrier a few years ago.
I shall quote one or two other sentences from Dr. Walker. He said:
"We should realise this is only an intermediate stage. The purpose of the research going on into genetic diseases is, first, to find out what the gene is, then what it does and then to find a way of treating the disease which will reverse the harmful effect of whatever it is that goes wrong".
1150
I am sure that Dr. Walker would not want me to exclude any possibilities for the future; but at the moment we are faced with the fact that unless one favours abortion, which I do not, the only way of preventing the disability being passed on is for those who are diagnosed as carriers to decide not to have children.
That is a decision which I should not dream of suggesting to anyone. I shall not say to those young women placed in that poignant position that I know best and that they should follow my advice. That would be gross impertinence. The decision must be their own. It must be their decision not to have children.
My family's two goddaughters have chosen not to have children. They are both fine, healthy, vigorous young women and that is their decision. I do not say that other people may not reach some other decision. If we say, looking at the matter nationally, that for this terrible disease to be prevented from going further we call for great, lifelong sacrifices from a number of young women, the least we can do is to make some small sacrifice ourselves by promoting the research that will make the disease less dangerous.

British Shipbuilders
3.40 p.m.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on British Shipbuilders that is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The Statement is as follows:
"As the House will know, British Shipbuilders won only 23,000 compensated gross tonnes of orders last year. This was little more than a tenth of the amount forecast in its corporate plan. This was not for lack of government support. The financial support for individual orders is not the problem. The problem is that orders are simply not there to be won. In Sweden, for example, which a few years ago had one of the most modern merchant shipbuilding industries in the world, the entire industry is closing down. This reflects the latest downturn in the shipbuilding market, which has resulted in capacity reductions and redundancies across the world. Despite government support of over £1,400 million since 1979 and the recent increase in the level of support for new orders, it has proved impossible for British Shipbuilders to maintain its current capacity in the absence of new orders.
"British Shipbuilders has therefore today announced measures which deal with this overcapacity. They include a decision to close by the end of the year Smiths Dock, the Troon shipyard of Ferguson-Ailsa and the Wallsend site of Clark Kincaid. In addition, British Shipbuilders has, as part of its wage negotiations, proposed a two-year deal which will seek to match manpower and capacity more closely to demand. The Government regret that these necessary measures will lead to total redundancies of some 3,500 people by March 1987. British Shipbuilders hopes that a substantial number of these will be achieved by voluntary redundancy.

1151
"The Government propose to provide to British Shipbuilders immediate support of up to £5 million in the current financial year to enable it to set up a new subsidiary, British Shipbuilders Enterprise Ltd. This will provide expert and practical services for those facing redundancy. It will ensure that they have at their workplace counsellors with the skills and resources to guide them towards retraining and redeployment opportunities, and to provide financial support to take advantage of those opportunities. It will also offer financial help and advice to those wishing to take the initiative of setting up their own business.
"In addition, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment has asked the Manpower Services Commission to provide a further £1 million specifically for the retraining of redundant employees of British Shipbuilders in direct co-operation with the new Enterprise Corporation. He will also make available £1 million via the city action team for job creation measures and to stimulate enterprise in the North-East.
"The community programme is already being expanded in the North-East from its present level of 22,000 jobs to 29,000 jobs at an extra cost of some £30 million. My right honourable friend has asked the Manpower Services Commission to explore urgently new ways in which the resources of the community programme and the enterprise allowance scheme can be used in order to lead to permanent jobs in the North-East.
"In addition to these measures, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has reviewed the derelict land reclamation and urban programmes in the areas affected. At £13 million, the reclamation programme in the North-East region this year is already substantial, but this will be increased by a further £1 million. My right honourable friend also proposes to allocate an extra £2 million under the urban programme, adding to the region's £35 million programme this year.
"The British Shipbuilders Enterprise Corporation will also operate in Scotland. My right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will consider urgently additional measures to help the areas affected by the redundancies announced today.
"The measures I have outlined will be in addition to the existing regional aid programmes, including assistance via English Industrial Estates for which the areas concerned are already eligible."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for having repeated the Statement made by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in another place. Indeed, on first looking, I was under the impression that the Statement might be repeated in your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. The fact that this is not the case relieves me of the necessity to point out that this Statement bears all over it the fingermarks and footmarks of the
1152
noble Lord himself. It is nothing more than a political patter littered with the usual ambiguities for which the noble Lord is famous.
The noble Lord himself will recall his statement in this House yesterday when he claimed the remarkable success of the Government's economic policies. Today's Statement just shows how valuable that observation is. In regard to the shipbuilding industry, in 1979 the labour force stood at 33,000. It has since been reduced by two-thirds and, before this announcement was made, stood at 10,000. It will now be reduced to 6,500. So much for the success of the Government's economic policy!
The fact of the matter is that the Statement is not concerned with the British shipbuilding industry at all. By the whole tone, tenor and content of the Statement the Government have given the country notice that they have completely abandoned the British shipbuilding industry. It is all very well to say, as indeed the noble Lord has said, that the Government have provided £1,400 million of taxpayers' money in support of the shipbuilding industry. That should be compared again, oddly enough, with the noble Lord's statement yesterday in reply to another question, in which he revealed that out of the taxpayers' pocket nearly £7,000 million had been paid in support of the common agricultural policy. He ought to be reminded of that.
The Government are always prepared to give way at the drop of a hat to the demands of the City. We have the Bank of England formally reproving the Chancellor of the Exchequer for introducing a tax on American depositary receipts. Now the Government are going to climb down on that. They are entirely in the hands of their City masters, and the Statement only underlines that.
The Government could and should have come to the aid of this industry a long time ago on matters that they cannot even apprehend. The Government know perfectly well that in France, Japan and Germany package deals for shipping are offered that are much more favourable than those that British Shipbuilders is able to offer. The Government also know perfectly well that they could have maintained the capacity of British shipbuilding by causing forward orders to be placed, by our requirements for fishery protection ships and other ancillary vessels for the Royal Navy, and so on. They could have exerted themselves to preserve and enlarge the British shipbuilding industry, but they do not care to do it. They have written off the shipbuilding industry.
Moreover, the rump that remains can hardly be encouraged by the fact that the world knows that the British shipbuilding industry has been abandoned. It is likely therefore that even the rump that remains will receive many orders from the outside world in the full knowledge that the Government themselves have no confidence in the industry? The noble Lord knows quite well that the Government could have offered special concessions to shipowners to build their ships in the United Kingdom, as happens in other countries where in some cases there is 100 per cent. take-up by foreign shipowners from their own shipyards. The Government choose to do none of these things.

1153
The Government complain from time to time—or the Government's supporters complain—that there is nothing wrong with the policies; it is only their presentation that is at fault. The noble Lord is a past master at the art of presentation. But no presentation on his part can mask the fact that in this one most vital industry in the country of enduring value the Government have backed down. They prefer to follow the policy that has been announced, often in raucous and strident terms, by the Prime Minister of free competition all over the place, even though other countries do not do so.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, we on these Benches share many of the preoccupations of the Labour Opposition. Perhaps I may start by saying that we are glad to see that an enterprise company has been set up immediately and without struggle or difficulty. We remember the long period of struggle and difficulty that we, on these Benches, and in another place, experienced in trying to get the same done for the coal mining industry. I am glad that this time the successful precedent of British Steel has been followed up without further ado. We welcome also what are, I take it, no less than five tranches of new money that will help this enterprise company and other government programmes up there. It is good that this has been done promptly. We can understand why it has been done promptly. We are happy that the results of our labours, as shown up in recent by-elections, should have led the Government, in this, their seventh year, to do the right thing so promptly this time.
I have three questions, two relating to the short term and one long term. My first short-term question is to ask whether the noble Lord can remind the House of the last recipient of a government shipbuilding order. Was it private or public sector? The second short-term question is to ask whether the Government will join us on these Benches in wishing Mr. Graham Day better luck with British Leyland than he has had with shipbuilding. The long-term question is to ask whether the Government agree that, in the long term, the solution to the problem is an equitable sharing of the burdens of shipbuilding, as well as the burdens of shipping, world-wide, in some kind of internatioanl system agreed by all the countries concerned. Will he agree that what is needed in this country to back that up and to provide the data and initiative for it is that the Government should at long last get a firm grip of the totality of national maritime policy, which includes shipbuilding as much as shipping and all other forms of seafaring activity?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, for recognising that the success of the Government's economic policy can be seen today in facing up to reality and not in looking at problems and wishing that the world were different. I know that noble Lords opposite often resent my talking about other countries and imagine that we are not only an island but also a universe to ourselves. I am forced, however, to remind your Lordships' House that Sweden, which once had the most modern facilities in Europe, has effectively abandoned merchant shipbuilding; that in Holland the Dutch Government refused support to their
1154
industry to build a sister ship to the large North Sea ferry won by Govan, and that even the Japanese are having to adjust to the shortage of orders. The Japanese have been cutting capacity since 1979. Today they are considering a reduction of one-third in larger yards and contemplating 20,000 job losses.
The Germans have cut their shipbuilding capacity by half since 1976 despite the widespread use of soft credit to finance sales to developing countries. France is also cutting capacity. I can tell your Lordships that we are bound by the fifth directive on shipbuilding aids to the credit terms in an OECD understanding. It is true that some Community countries are allowed more generous terms, but their direct production subsidies are lower.
We must face reality. The simple reality is that this year British Shipbuilders, the corporate plan of which calls for 200,000 tonnes of orders, has so far received orders for 23,000 tonnes. Above all, we must look forward and not back. In the plans outlined today we are looking for ways in which we can utilise the skills, the expertise and the energy of those employed in British shipbuilding in other occupations in the future. This has nothing to do with depositary receipts or many other things in the City. I would remind your Lordships of Glengarnock, a steel mill closed six or seven years ago. At that time it employed 700 people. Today, as a result of British Steel (Industry) and the Scottish Development Agency in setting up a Glengarnock Valley task force, over 1,100 people are employed. We have to look forward. The package outlined today is a way of dealing with a world-wide problem, a way of looking towards the future.
I know that in 1977 there were 38,000 people employed in British Shipbuilders. But there is an enormous world surplus of capacity in shipbuilding. Third world countries are becoming shipbuilders, and we have not seen the end of it yet. We are not giving up shipbuilding. We hope very much that, in its new form, we shall see British Shipbuilders as a viable and active company.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for his comments. I shall have to write to him and place in the Library the answer to his short-term question relating to the last order received from the Government. I can, however, say this. At present it would be wrong to go down the route of Polish ship orders, of providing a considerable subsidy and incurring further losses on ships that are simply not required. If we want to help British shipowners, what we must not do is help further to increase the surplus capacity of ships on the world market. What we must do is find ways of looking ahead, realising that the world goes forward and not back, and so find a way to utilise the skills of our work force.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord or anyone in the Government, with the possible exception of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, realises the effect that this further body blow will have on the North-East of England. As I have pointed out to your Lordships' House so often, the North-East has by far the highest unemployment in Britain. Middlesbrough has 28 per cent. unemployment. The county of Cleveland in which it is

1155
situated has 22 per cent. unemployment. And now this!
My noble friend has pointed out the contrast in regard to the Government's treatment of the agricultural industry. How many economic farms are there in Britain? Not one. Farms throughout the country are growing grain that no one wants. The Government are quite happy about that. Why the different treatment of these marvellous men? Let me tell the noble Lord that once the labour force of a shipyard is dispersed, it can never be re-assembled. This is dispersing one of the most valuable national assets of a maritime country. The Government committed the lunacy, the sheer idiocy, of privatising the paying parts of the industry engaged in naval work. Now, in spite of what he says, the noble Lord knows that they are abandoning the shipbuilding industry.
This Government are finished. They are bereft of ideas, bereft of policy, and discredited. They are clapped out. Why do they not go, before they ruin the rest of the economy?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's observations which I shall take as they were offered to me—surely in jest. The noble Lord does not seriously believe that government policy can create ship orders from nowhere. The noble Lord does not seriously believe that cross-subsidies will actually save industries. The noble Lord will surely accept that the world changes and that we have to look ahead. Of course, there is a surplus at the present time in the production of grain in Europe, and that will have to be dealt with through the Community. But it is an entirely different matter. If we see that there is to be—I hope that there will be—a return to building ships, we shall have in British Shipbuilders a facility to do so. But we cannot sit by and build castles in the air. There must be orders before ships can be built.
4 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether British Shipbuilders has given to the Government and himself any explanation of its apparent inability to match the delivery dates of its foreign competitors which resulted inter alia in the loss of the contracts for the refitting of the "QE2" and for the building of the new P and O cruise liner? Has that inability to match foreign delivery dates and to be sure of keeping to them anything to do with the demarcation disputes between the unions concerned which certainly in the years in which I was involved in this matter did immense and apparently permanent damage to the shipbuilding industry?
Is my noble friend also aware that some of us very much resent the personal observations about himself which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, saw fit to make?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I often feel that our generation has inherited the world's oldest industrial buildings. We have also inherited the world's oldest industrial relationships; and a relationship based on conflict was, I suspect, the legacy of the Trade Disputes Act 1906 which led to demarcation disputes. It led to our losing
1156
orders across a whole field of industrial activity in which shipbuilding has proved to be the one that has paid the greatest penalty.
I very much hope that in the future—and I prefer to look forward—we shall leave the age of demarcation disputes behind us. I hope very much that in the future we shall build quality products to time.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, has the noble Lord forgotten that on 2nd May your Lordships had a debate on the EC Committee's report on maritime policy? Has he forgotten that it was made quite clear that we cannot deal with maritime policy without dealing with shipping, shipbuilding and ports? Yet the whole of his Statement today has dealt solely with shipbuilding.
Does the noble Lord accept the arguments advanced by the British Council of Shipping, which are in line with those of the trade unions; and that nothing he has said in his Statement has anything to do with the policies advanced by your Lordships' EC Committee dealing with maritime policy in the UK and in Europe?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, my Statement today is dealing with a more limited matter; that is, providing a future for those who unfortunately will face redundancy in the years to come as a result of the lack of orders in the shipbuilding industry not only in this country but also I am afraid world-wide. That is the immediate problem. My concern is that those who are to become redundant are given, at the earliest possible opportunity, a chance to do something different, to use their redundancy to look towards the future. That is where I think your Lordships' House should be looking this afternoon.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, is the Minister aware that departments in Whitehall have been arguing for years—and I say literally for years—about the building of a new ship for the supply of St. Helena? This ship will eventually be required. Why can the order not be placed now?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the noble Lord has a far greater memory of Whitehall than I do; but I shall certainly look into the matter. However, I assure the noble Lord that orders that could be placed now have been placed. It is only with the greatest reluctance that we face the situation that we have today.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that sometimes the French build small ships which they hope to sell to third world countries for coastal defence purposes and if they do not sell them, they absorb them into the French Navy? If they sell them, it helps to retain an element of shipbuilding in France in this very difficult market.
Will the noble Lord press his noble friend the Minister of Defence to reconsider whether we could not start building some small ships on the same pattern? I do not know whether he saw in this morning's paper a report that following the position where Japan had half the world shipbuilding market and has now had to cut right back South Korea, this

1157
very morning, had an order for a third Norwegian car ferry. So Norway, which was also a first-rate shipbuilding country, in now losing its market to an up-and-coming South Korea.
In the face of this competition we recognise broadly that the noble Lord has to make temporary provision. We only hope that he is keeping the organisation going so that it can expand to meet the needs when world demand for ships expands.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. There are one or two orders in prospect. There is one for a fisheries' protection vessel, and a new ferry for services to the Scottish west coast islands. Both British Shipbuilders and United Kingdom private sector yards have been invited to bid. I have no doubt that a decision will be made before very much longer.
We must be very careful that we do not perpetuate the existence of a yard by building products which are no longer required for any purpose. It is more in the interests of the workmen themselves, and everybody in the yard, that we begin to look forward to finding them a productive future. I am told that even Korea has now ceased to make further investment in shipbuilding and is looking very hard and very competitively for new orders. I have no doubt that one of these days Korea will be in the same position as ourselves. There will then be other nations coming forward. The simple truth is that the effects of the Industrial Revolution, which started in this country 250 years ago, have so far gone only halfway round the world; the other half still lies ahead.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord is very fond of preaching to the House about facing reality. Does he not accept some responsibility by the Government for creating the reality that he talks about? I have asked the Government many times over the past 12 months about their policies towards the collapse of the British Merchant Navy. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has said, this is a part of the whole of maritime policy historically in this country. The Government have always fobbed me off by saying that while there may be a temporary lull everything is all right. About an hour ago the noble Lord was telling me that the Government cannot create jobs. Apparently the Government can destroy jobs, take jobs away from men.
Can the noble Lord answer this question? He is constantly telling us about the success of the Government's economic policies. Can he tell us why the most profitable parts of the British maritime organisation have been sold off from national control and put in private control? Can he tell us how government support for the shipbuilding industry in this country compares with that in other countries? It is nonsense to suggest that there is no longer any need for shipbuilding in the world. There is a great need for shipbuilding. It will go on. It may fluctuate, but it will continue. Why are we not retaining our share of it?
The noble Lord gave a figure of £ 1,400 million since 1979. That averages out at £200 million a year. Can he tell us how that compares with what the Germans, French, Japanese and Koreans are paying to subsidise
1158
their shipbuilding industry? The noble Lord gave the game away when he said that the Germans were making 20,000 shipbuilders unemployed. That figure of 20,000 is double the total number of those who were in work today before the cuts. How can the Germans afford a shipbuilding industry which employs that kind of number whereas this country, with a much longer tradition of shipbuilding and maritime expertise, is apparently going to be destroyed by the clear action and policies of this Government?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby. First, I must tell him that I do not claim that I have ever preached to the House. However, I have asked your Lordships, and the noble Lord in particular, to face reality on occasion and I would ask him to face reality today. We must look at a world in which the Government have invested £1,400 million to little avail—since the outside world has not changed. We must look at British Shipbuilders, which has succeeded in winning only 23,000 tonnes out of 200,000 tonnes, which in the reduced circumstances is the requirement in order to break even. We must look at a world in which not the Germans but the Japanese are contemplating a reduction which would involve 20,000 job losses; they have already taken 10,000, and a further 20,000 are a possibility. We must look at a world in which ship orders are simply not available—and all the wishing in the world will not bring them back. We must face reality. We must look forward. We must look for other occupations for many people who were previously engaged in shipbuilding.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer my question about privatisation?
Lord Young of Graffham: Gladly, my Lords. Surely, the one thing that makes no difference in the real world is whether you have a profitable warship-building company put together with other shipbuilding companies that cannot get orders, or whether you keep them separately and allow a privatised and revitalised company to go ahead from strength to strength. If we really want to see shipbuilding continue, then we should allow the warship-builders or the others to have full access to the private sector and to the market; but that does not deal with the real problem and it is only trying to avoid reality to say so.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I intervene again mainly as a result of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in which he accused me of making a personal attack upon the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham. I make a point of never attacking individuals, although I may attack what they say with some vehemence. However, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, knows that what I say is conviction and not malice.
The noble Lord has not addressed himself to the question. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, gave him some hint of it when he asked what steps the Government were taking as regards advanced orders. That lies within the sphere of government. If the Government are interested in the British shipbuilding industry, they know quite well that, in the same way as

1159
they pour thousands of millions of pounds into piling up grain which nobody wants, they can make useful expenditure in producing shipping that is required now; namely, fishery protection vessels, ferries, and ancillary ships. The noble Lord knows that that can be done.
It is not we on this side of the House who are not facing up to reality. We face up to the reality of this miserable Government which is very real indeed. Why does not the noble Lord address himself to the problem of the shipbuilding industry in a country that has been renowned for centuries for its shipbuilding skills? Are we to understand that the Government are prepared to abandon it completely? That is the impression which they give. In view of what has happened this afternoon, will the noble Lord convey to his noble friend the Leader of the House the fact that it is quite indispensable, in view of the nature of the Statement this afternoon, that the House has an opportunity to debate the whole of the shipbuilding question in the United Kingdom?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, if one matter has become absolutely apparent it is the Government's attitude and the Government's determination and desire to see that shipbuilding continues in this country. However, we have to face reality. We have to ensure that the volume and capacity of shipbuilding accords with the likely body of demand. In taking the steps that we are taking today, we are facing reality, we are defending the shipbuilding that we have, and we are not giving up as has Sweden (which was a great shipbuilding nation) and as have many others in Europe. We are looking at what we have in a different and changing world. It may well be that those opposite would very much have wished a few years ago to have kept blacksmiths' forges in operation. The world changes. They had to be turned into garages. Today we must look at shipbuilding and see whether many of the skills of our people can be turned to something useful.
Lord Annan: My Lords, as raucous and strident questions seem to be in order this afternoon, I wonder whether the noble Lord would permit me to put one to him following what the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, said. The noble Lord said that it was the Government's fault and that theirs was the responsibility for destroying the shipbuilding industry. Is it not a fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, that this industry was sold down the river, destroyed and demolished during the 1950s and 1960s by constant strikes, constant demarcation disputes and constant pilfering in the yards; and that the unions bear a very heavy responsibility for this—the unions, not the Labour Governments of the past, nor the Conservative Governments of the past? Was it not an example of trade unionism having run riot?
I wish to put another question to the noble Lord. People are disturbed about unfair competition. It occurs in many fields. Only the other day British Leyland were complaining of it in regard to restrictions put on their imports into Japan. Are the Government contemplating making a study of which countries discriminate against our exports? The noble Lord may
1160
reassure opinion to some extent if an inquiry of that kind were launched.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Although I suspect that the unions must bear some part of the blame for the conduct in the 1950s and 1960s, there is no question that even if we had a very efficient shipbuilding industry, such was the competition from the third world, such were the prevailing wage rates and other matters, I suspect that we would have found the industry in decline in any event. Nevertheless, we are very much aware of the problem of unfair competition; and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry only a few days ago set up an internal unit which is closely monitoring this matter and will ensure that steps are taken where they are deemed necessary.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, as I have been referred to personally, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether it is not a fact that for several years all the unions concerned with shipbuilding and with the maritime industry as a whole have been making representations to the Government about their fears of the collapse of the whole industry?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says. The time to regret a hangover is not when you experience it; you should slow down the night before. I wish that perhaps we had moderated our behaviour in the 1950s, because we may have suffered less in the 1980s.

Disability: Prevention
Debate resumed.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I hope that after that interesting excursion into maritime affairs, noble Lords will not have forgotten the three fascinating speeches that we heard a short time ago on the important Motion which was so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. We are all most grateful to the noble Lord for introducing such a very important subject. As I have said, I hope that noble Lords have not forgotten the three most interesting speeches that we have heard. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, is to be particularly congratulated for giving this interesting and important debate the international flavour which it undoubtedly needs. I was so glad that he referred to the excellent work of Sir John Wilson and the emergence of the organisation IMPACT following that important meeting at Leeds Castle, because the international dimension in the whole question of the prevention of disability is vital.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, looked rather more widely into the subject as can only be expected from a former Secretary of State for Scotland who was also Minister of Health for Scotland, among other things. The noble Earl, Long Longford, referred to an area of immense importance—that is, the area of genetically transmitted diseases; congenital defects of one kind or another—to which I shall shortly return.

1161
I should like to try to put this whole subject into a slightly different context. We must look at the complete picture. If we look the world over we find that health care resources worldwide do not match health care needs. There is a gap, and the tragic fact is that the gap is continuing to widen. There was a time when we all had great optimism. At the time that the National Health Service was introduced people tended to feel that once the financial barrier between the patient and medical care—whether it be hospital care or the general practitioner or whatever—was removed, somehow miraculously ill health and disease would disappear from the face of the world.
Of course that was totally false. What we found was that certain diseases disappeared—and I shall mention them in a moment—but we also found that as we learned to treat things which formerly we could not treat, as we learned to keep alive people who formerly would not have remained alive, we constantly increased the overall workload. Therefore, we have in our society worldwide people living and requiring regular medical attention who formerly would not be living. So the burden, the workload, continually expands.
One hopes that resources will expand; but I do not think that anybody can expect resources to expand to the extent to which all those engaged in the provision of health care believe advisable. Indeed, medicine and medical care could consume all the resources available if we allowed them so to do. There has to be some kind of establishment of priorities, and we have to find some other way of bridging the gap. We are talking about how we bridge the gap between the resources that we have for dealing with disability and the needs which those disabilities pose.
If we look at what has happened there is an immutable law of medicine that, as we get rid of old diseases—and we have got rid of many—new diseases always seem to rise up to take their places. When we look at the old ones we have got rid of, we seem largely in western society to have got rid of the old deficiency diseases such as rickets. There was a time when we could recognise anybody from my part of the world, Lancashire, by the way they walked, because they all had rickets. The deficiency diseases of the past have now largely gone in our society, although they have not totally gone in the developing nations to which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, referred.
We have got rid of all those diseases which were perhaps water and sewage-borne, such as cholera, typhoid and things of that kind. We have got rid of many infectious diseases. For example, tuberculosis. At the beginning of this century it was referred to as the captain of the army of death, and now it is hardly a threat at all. It disappeared largely as a result of improved housing conditions and an improved environment in general. It disappeared as result of the new methods of chemotherapy which have resulted in the fact that people once infected do not remain infectious for very long, so fewer people are exposed to that infection. That is another disease which has largely disappeared.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and others, referred to immunisation. Let us look at what has happened regarding smallpox. A vaccination
1162
programme was very successful. On the take up of smallpox vaccination, it might be worth mentioning in passing that it is interesting to note that when there was compulsory smallpox vaccination by law, the take up was never as high as when it became voluntary. There are lessons to be learned from that. The fact remains that we have now virtually abolished smallpox. I do not think there is a case anywhere in the world, and it may be that we shall never see another case.
It might be possible to do the same with certain other diseases. Reference has already been made to rubella. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, referred to that, and to the fact that a great many seriously handicapped children are born as a result of their mothers contracting rubella during pregnancy. Immunisation has largely put an end to that particular problem; and having done so, it has put an end to a great deal of disability. So it goes on and on, with old diseases disappearing. As they disappear, new ones rise up. One of the more frightening facts that I notice when I look at the scene as a whole is that in our modern, mechanised society, accidents of one kind or another, as a cause of death and disability, now rival the great killers like cancer and heart disease. Those are accidents in the home, on the roads, at work, and in the social environment in general.
There is something that can be done in the way of prevention. Nobody could dispute that these accidents lead to an enormous number of deaths. That is of course a form of disability—it is the ultimate disability. Secondly, they lead to lifelong disability for a great many people. I would not pretend that all accidents could be done away with; that we could avoid them all. But I have no doubt that with proper consciousness of the problem the total toll of accidents could be substantially reduced.
We also have in modern society the emergence of what are called stress diseases. It is a rather ill-defined term, and those who use it do not always know precisely which diseases are stress diseases. It is nevertheless a fact that a life from which all stress was removed would not be a very satisfying life. Indeed, we know that an element of stress is necessary in a person's life for full health. But stress which is excessive, or stress with which the individual cannot cope, is of course a potent cause of disease and disability, and perhaps ultimately chronic illness and therefore a form of chronic disability.
We then have the emergence of the vast toll of disease and disability and death from cardiovascular disease. That is clearly related, as many studies show, to the change in our lifestyle which has taken place over centuries; to effects related to our diet; to our lack of exercise; perhaps the lack of fibre in our diet; excessive animal fat, and things of that kind. One can argue about those aspects; but there is no question that the high incidence of the disease is clearly linked to the modern lifestyle.
We have had much advice from the Royal College of Physicians, and others, and from the Health Education Council, about ways in which we can change our lifestyle by taking more exercise, eating rather better, and so on, and that that would substantially diminish the incidence of cardiovascular disease. It would also, I have no doubt, diminish to some

1163
extent the incidence of cancer, which is one of the other major scourges of the modern world.
Then we have to look at things like smoking. That is self-induced disease. I am bound to say, as somebody who knows a certain amount about it having smoked originally, stopped for 10 years, and then started again—which shows that this is a form of addiction; addiction to nicotine is like an addiction to alcohol or anything else, nobody is wholly safe; once addicted you are always in danger—that the only real cure of that problem is somehow to persuade people never to start.
The sad fact is that we are not being very successful in that regard. Some research that I did two or three years ago showed that of new entrants to universities only one in 10 ever smoked at all. Of new entrants to shop floor jobs in industry—this was done at a time when there were some shop floor jobs and there was some industry, and not all that long ago—nine out of 10 were already established smokers. It is sad information. It shows that the propaganda has not got through to certain social groups among young people—and that is where the hope really lies. It lies in persuading people never to start, and never to develop an addiction which could be difficult to deal with later.
Time is moving on, my Lords. We have referred, of course, and we must refer much more, to preventive medicine in one form or another, and to the kind of thing that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, mentioned such as screening and things of that kind. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, used a phrase that I noted down. He talked of, "simple systems of delivery at low unit cost". Here is something we must underline. It is all very well to talk about preventive medicine and to assume automatically that everything we spend with the object of prevention is necessarily well spent.
In preventive medicine, as in therapeutic medicine, one really has to carry out some kind of cost-effective studies. Modern medicine being what it is, if you once adopt a practice and it becomes regarded as necessary for everybody so that they are all exposed to this particular test or to that particular test, and so on, that kind of thing is apt to creep into medical practice like some ritualistic form of religious observance so that it is difficult to stop. A great many people involved in health care the world over are at the moment doing things which are frankly unnecessary, and from which not a great deal of benefit emerges.
When we introduce new techniques like screening, we must look at what we are doing. Are we creating extra work for no obvious benefit? We must do cost-effective studies. May I give examples, my Lords? There are many people in society suffering from diabetes which is undiagnosed. It is perfectly simple to test urine for sugar. That does not consume vast, highly-trained resources. It does not take much time. That is the kind of thing that can be done easily. Equally it is simple to teach women how to palpate their breast in a sensible way so that they feel a lump if there is one. If they feel the wrong way with their finger ends there will always be a lump, but the Health Education Council has been teaching women how to feel their breasts properly so that they can diagnose
1164
something early. That is simple. It consumes no resources. However, we have had things such as the mass miniature radiography scheme which consumed vast resources but which gained almost nothing in the way of real benefits because the results were unreliable and in the end all it did was create a false sense of safety and security. Finally it was abolished.
If we talk about screening do not let us fall into the kind of American trap of some of the insurance health care schemes where perfectly fit and healthy patients go along and are subjected to blood tests to the point of extreme exsanguinity; and at the end what have we benefited? Let us make sure that before we introduce a new technique of prevention we examine it carefully, make sure it does not consume resources which are in short supply and are needed for other essential purposes, and make sure that some benefits flow from it in the end. That is the way we have to look at these things.
Before I finish perhaps I may say a brief word about the great importance of genetic diseases of one kind or another. It is a sad fact that modern society seems to have taken evolution by the scruff of the neck. Darwinism and the survival of the fittest no longer applies. We take, and rightly, the most strenuous steps to ensure not only that the least fit survive but that they survive and multiply. We are now finding a very worrying increase in the numbers of congenitally and genetically spread diseases of one kind or another. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred to one. We need a great many more genetic counselling centres so that people can seek advice and so that some of these avoidable conditions can be avoided.
We also need to do further research along the lines which have been discussed very thoroughly by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, and her committee. I hope that we shall take some active steps. The first thing I should like to see is the establishment of a statutory body responsible for licensing work in the field of embryonic research and responsible for supervising it in general. Having established that first stage, let us then slowly build on but do not stop it altogether. If we once stop it we shall be losing an opportunity of stopping a great deal of disability and preventable hardship. I have spoken for too long. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, and I await to hear other speakers.

Foreign Affairs Council: 12th-13th May
4.34 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement on the Foreign Affairs Council on 12th and 13th May which is being made in another place by my honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Mrs. Lynda Chalker. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council which took place in Brussels on 12th and 13th May 1986. I represented the United Kingdom.

1165
"As a precautionary measure following the Chernobyl disaster, the council agreed a Commission proposal for a regulation to ban the import of certain foodstuffs from the USSR, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. The ban entered into force on 13th May and will last until 31st May. It will be reviewed on 29th May taking account of the latest scientific evidence. In addition, member states have undertaken to set contamination standards for intra-Community imports which are no higher than those for domestic produce, to limit the contamination level in exports to other member states to that acceptable to the recipient state, and to lift national controls on imports.
"The council discussed Community strategy in preparation for the launch of a new GATT round of trade negotiations. The council discussed improvements to the Community's mandate for negotiations with Mediterranean third countries on the adaptation of their co-operation and association agreements following the accession of Spain and Portugal. There will be further discussion at the June council. The council reviewed the steps being taken to normalise the Community's relations with Turkey in preparation for a meeting of the Association Council which is expected to take place in the early autumn.
"The text of a joint declaration by the council, member states, Commission and Parliament against racism and xenophobia was agreed.
"The council also had a further general discussion of the current budgetary situation in the Community, during which the Commission outlined their plans for a 1986 supplementary budget and the 1987 preliminary draft budget.
"An Association Council with Malta was held in the margins of the council. The operation of the EC Malta Association Agreement and the possible implications for Malta of the enlargement of the Community were discussed."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement on a matter which is of great concern to the people of this country.
Perhaps I may deal first with the Chernobyl disaster. Did the Minister note the comment in the Financial Times which reads as follows:
"The whole exercise intended to reassure EEC citizens about their safety has rebounded as the member states have been shown incapable of agreeing on safe levels for often purely commercial reasons"?
Does she not agree that the safety factor is more important than the commercial factor? Can she indicate what the source of the disagreement referred to in the Financial Times was, if any?
Can the noble Baroness further say what are the implications of the provisional decision to allow member states to choose their own level of radioactivity in food, for the flow of goods between member states? Do Her Majesty's Government anticipate any further repercussions for British farmers on this? Can she also explain how the permissible
1166
radiation level in Britain compares with those in other European countries? Does she not agree that an agreed radiation level is desirable and should be sought urgently? Finally on this point, is there not a danger that the attitudes at the meeting appear, as I have just said, to be based on commercial considerations and not on the safety factor since they seem to have applied a blanket ban on Eastern countries with no reference to those countries in the West over which the radioactive cloud passed? Does she not therefore agree that this is the time for close co-operation among all countries which have nuclear power stations, on the simple ground that emissions from those stations know no national boundaries? Does she not agree that there is no Eastern or Western radiation cloud—there is a radiation cloud? That makes it difficult to understand the list of countries that she has given in the Statement.
May I ask the noble Baroness about another matter? I welcome some of the things that have been said, such as the declaration against racism and xenophobia, but can she say a word about the budget and the problems that may arise? Can she say what are the prospects of a settlement on this matter? I shall say no more because it is a complicated Statement which will require a good deal of definition. But is she satisfied that we are on the road to an agreement? If no agreement is made we are facing an extremely serious budgetary crisis.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. There is not a great deal that one can get out of the second half, because it consists mostly of a list of chats which have been had without any conclusion being reached. But matters look ominous when it appears that the Commission has outlined its plans for a supplementary budget which I assume arises from the surpluses and the disposal of them against American competition, bringing down the price. Perhaps the Minister would care to say something about the problems of a new round of GATT talks.
The beginning of the Statement is extremely important in regard to the Chernobyl disaster. The Foreign Ministers have obviously discussed a great deal more than has been written here. I understand a little why the countries specified are mentioned, and not others. I assume it is because they are nearer the accident and subject to a higher degree of radiation. I do not quite understand why East Germany is not mentioned along with Poland, as it may be in the same category. Perhaps above all the noble Baroness will tell us what plans there are for international standards being set and for the setting up of an international body to monitor arrangements for safety and to make arrangements for the disasters which appear to occur even in highly organised countries. I think they must have discussed this, and perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us something about it.
Could she also say what we in this country are doing to give confidence in the pronouncements of the Government? I think it is very important that the Government should come clean on all the levels of radiation and what dangers they present, even though that may raise panic in some people's breasts for a

1167
time, as long as the people of this country can believe that the Government are telling the absolute truth. I think that it is very important to establish this standard, and I should very much like to hear the noble Baroness give us an assurance that they are considering these points.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to thank both noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn and Lord Mackie of Benshie, for what they have said about this Statement. Both have referred in considerable detail to the first part of it, which concerns the Chernobyl disaster. If I can, I shall try to deal with the questions that they have raised. First of all, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked me about a possible source of disagreement on the safety levels. I can confirm to him that the original figures on safety levels proposed by the Commission posed some technical difficulties for some member states, but the experts are now meeting on that matter. As far as the question of safety levels and intra-Community trade is concerned, experts are meeting this afternoon in Brussels to agree on safety levels on the basis of scientific data for intra-Community trade.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, raised quite particularly the question of East Germany's exclusion. I can assure him—because this has been a point which I know has been raised in another place and has been of concern—that yesterday my honourable friend was given a firm assurance at the Foreign Affairs Council that food exports from the GDR would be strictly controlled by the FRG authorities and would be subject to the same tolerance limits as the very strict domestic levels applied in the FRG itself.
I was also asked about the future and about cooperation between countries in order to be better prepared should such an eventuality happen again. As was agreed at the Tokyo summit meeting, we shall press in the International Atomic Energy Authority for an early negotiation of a convention permitting parties a rapid exchange of information on nuclear emergencies. On the point that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, made at the end of his remarks about standards of information in this country, I am sure that he will have studied what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment said in another place yesterday in the debate there about giving the fullest information as soon as possible on these matters.
If I may turn to the other matters that were raised, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, welcomed the declaration on racism. On the question of the budget, which both noble Lords raised, may I say that, as to the question of the supplementary budget, the proposed supplementary budget is within the 1.4 per cent. ceiling. It will include a further 500 mecu (or £230 million) in addition to our 1985 abatement; and the proposed additional provision for agriculture primarily reflects the fall in the dollar and the recent EMS alignment. The price-fixing has actually saved money this year, but we shall, of course, be scrutinising proposals for possible savings.
On the particular problem of the budget, the ECJ judgment on the 1986 budget will be agreed in July and the Fontainebleau agreement and the own-resources decision make no provision for increase in
1168
the 1.4 per cent. VAT ceiling before 1988. I think this is the point which concerned both noble Lords on the future of the budget. I hope that I have covered all these detailed points in answering the responses to the Statement.
Lord Parry: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that there is a massive irony in the fact that the Government's Statement has fallen in the middle of a debate on the prevention of handicap both within Britain and worldwide? Did she see the "Panorama" programme on Monday evening, where disquieting information was given as to the levels of radiation that might or might not cause handicap in children? Did she also see conflicting evidence from doctors, which has been published in the last two days, as to the treatment of vegetables in Europe that have been exposed to radiation fall-out as a result of the Chernobyl disaster? Do the Government intend issuing fresh instructions specifically, for example, as to how to treat green vegetables so exposed?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am afraid that I did not see the television programme to which the noble Lord has referred, but I can tell him that what the Community have decided to do is to ban the import of fresh fruit and vegetables, live domestic animals, fresh meat, milk and milk products and freshwater fish from the USSR, Romania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia from 13th May until 31st May. This is a precautionary measure, and it is to be reviewed on 20th May in the light of the latest scientific evidence.
The question may well be raised as to what is the scientific justification for this ban, and there has been a great deal of discussion in the media on the effects of the fall-out from Chernobyl. The fact is that there is no scientific evidence to justify so sweeping a ban, but, in the absence of information from East European countries, it is difficult to establish firm data about contamination levels in Eastern Europe. The Community thought that it was prudent in those circumstances to introduce this short-term precautionary measure until the full scientific information was made available. The application of the ban of course remains subject to review.
On the other detailed points about the effect on the health of individuals, I hope that the noble Lord will appreciate that this was not an issue, I think, specifically discussed at the Foreign Ministers' meeting yesterday. I shall of course draw his remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, are we to take it from the last reply of the noble Baroness that no tests have been made on the food arriving from the countries that she has listed? However, if tests have been made, what is the level of radioactivity of the most contaminated foods?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think that it would not be true to say that no tests have been made because tests have been made in Europe, as they have been made in this country, concerning levels of contamination. What I think one does not want to do in what is really a very difficult and new area for

1169
everyone is to make statements which might give cause for an increase in the anxiety of people unnecessarily. The Community have taken this view because they feel that it is right to be prudent. It may well be that the whole thing is in fact unnecessary, but as in all matters of health I think it is right in these circumstances to be careful; because, as we know, this is a new situation and it would be a terrible lack of responsibility if, because the Community had not taken these precautions, many people suffered. I wanted to explain precisely the circumstances in which these precautions had been taken. As I have indicated, they are subject to review and the ban will be lifted on a given date.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, as I understand it we are concerned here with imports of food. Can my noble friend the Minister say whether other imports from the Soviet Union, such as toys and other items which could be subject to radiation, are included?
Baroness Young: No, my Lords. The matters which are covered are the list of items which I have just read out to your Lordships.

Disability: Prevention
Debate resumed.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the new revised time for the end of this short debate is now twenty-eight minutes past six.
4.51 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I seek to elaborate on the last recommendation made by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. A few weeks ago at Conservative Central Office I attended the launching of a discussion paper called When Nature Fails—Why Handicap? It was written by Mr. Peter Thurnham, M.P. and his wife. Sarah, who have adopted a handicapped child. They are also founder-members of Progress, a campaigning group which supports controlled research into human reproduction, infertility and congenital handicap.
This booklet recommends that pre-14-day embryos should be given special legal status and that any research should be strictly regulated by licence, such research to be undertaken to prevent hereditary handicap and to help those couples unable to conceive. I agree with this report and I think that it is morally and ethically just, as well as practically beneficial. More than 14,000 babies in England and Wales were voluntarily registered as congenitally malformed within one week of birth in 1984, and 250,000 miscarriages before three months of pregnancy were due to chromosomal abnormalities in the embryo.
There has been set up a voluntary licensing authority, to which the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, referred, under the chairmanship of Lady Donaldson, funded by the Medical Research Council and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. On the Floor of the House of Commons, the Prime Minister praised the first year of work of this authority.
1170
I should say that already research work is being carried out by Professor Williamson at St. Mary's Hospital. His special interest, anal the interest of many of us, is in preventing cystic fibrosis. I wonder whether Mr. Enoch Powell, when introducing his Unborn Children (Protection) Bill in the other place, banning pre-embryo research, fully appreciated the disaster it would be both to research and to the one in 10 couples having difficulty in conceiving, and to the one couple in 50 who are at risk of giving birth to a handicapped child.
Therefore, I ask my noble friend the Minister, first, are the Government going to set up a working party composed of experts in order to clarify and define the legal status of a human embryo and to examine the areas in which beneficial research could be encouraged, and to monitor the work of the licensing authority which is already established? Secondly, will Her Majesty's Government either make a substantial contribution to the work of the present voluntary licensing authority or, alternatively, set up a statutory body to do this work? These recommendations were supported by Mr. Brian Rix of MENCAP in a speech which he made in February 1986, in which he said:
"Legislation, under the recommendations of the Warnock Report, should be introduced to allow research on pre-embryos to prevent handicap".
I pass on to the whole realm of prevention of mental handicap and I should like to say that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, would have spoken on this subject had they been able to be here today. There are 1·25 million people with mental handicap in Britain. That equals 2 per cent. of the whole population and is one in every 45 people.
MENCAP, under the secretary-generalship of Mr. Brian Rix, have made 10 recommendations and perhaps I may bring them to your Lordships' attention. They say:
"Britain should establish a national policy on prevention of mental handicap, setting out specific targets and guidelines for both national and local action. This should include:
"1. Health education should be a part of the core curriculum, with emphasis on using the Health Service for health"—
not only for illness.
"2. All tobacco products should carry a warning that smoking during pregnancy can damage the unborn child.
"3. Efforts must be made to increase both professional and public awareness of the importance of individuals knowing their own family histories.
"4. Genetic counselling and screening must be made widely available"—
a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy.
"5. Positive discrimination in favour of vulnerable women, who are at risk during pregnancy, for social, economic and health reasons, should be introduced.
"6. Good standards of obstetric and neonatal care must no longer be a matter of 'geographical luck' ".
I think it is well-known, for instance, that in Oxford, where there is first-class medical help and preventive medicine, there are many more children born healthy as compared with a place such as Liverpool, and that cannot be right. To continue:
"7. Screening newborn infants for hypothyroidism should be mandatory.

1171
"8. Legislation, under the recommendations of the Warnock Report, should be introduced …
"9. A standing committee on prevention should be set up, with the stature of the US President's Committee on Mental Retardation. Its findings should be subject to annual, public reviews".
There is not time to elaborate on all these individual recommendations, but I put them to your Lordships' House. I take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for enabling us to make these recommendations.
4.59 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for raising this very important matter and for his explanation of why it is particularly relevant today. It is a vast topic. In fact, just one segment of this topic—the prevention of mental handicap—is being discussed at the Royal Society of Medicine in two weeks' time. That is a two-day conference with 30 papers by acknowledged experts on the subject, and it is only one facet of the whole problem of disability.
Disability can result from almost any serious disease process if people do not reach the ultimate disability, which the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, mentioned, of perishing. This can occur from before conception until after death, if one considers the damaging effect that bereavement can have. Disability affects all the peoples of the world with different afflictions, according to climate, geography and the stage of economic and social development.
In third world countries severe handicaps are much easier to spot than in our society. Blind or severely disabled people are glaringly obvious, often begging for money from affluent visitors. It is a sad reflection on how poor some countries are that a strategically placed polio victim with useless contorted legs can sometimes collect a great deal more money than the average able bodied citizen, though often the money is taken from him by an organiser in the background. In contrast to the situation in industrial societies such as ours, where new cases of disability are mostly due to congenital disease, accidents or degenerative disease, in third world countries the majority of the disabled are the victims of easily preventable infective disease often made worse by co-existent malnutrition, as was pointed out very succinctly by the noble Lord.
The key to the prevention of most forms of disability lies in the efficient working and availability of appropriate health services to all the people—I emphasise "everybody". This applies at all stages of development. It is reflected in the call of the World Health Organisation for "Health for all by the year 2000", through the provision of primary care. Even more important perhaps than health services are literacy, the provision of clean water and an adequate food supply. I should not like to see one-off campaigns—for example, to eliminate poliomyelitis or measles by immunisation—dissociated from efforts to provide primary care and community development in the developing world. These form the basis of permanent improvement in the health of underprivileged communities in the third world.
In our society, too, good primary care is vital in the prevention of disability, whether this be primary
1172
prevention (by immunisation, good ante-natal screening, as has been pointed out, child care and health education), secondary prevention, which spots the early manifestations of disabling disease and prevents or slows its progression, of tertiary prevention, which enables disabled people to make the best use of their lives. Primary care teams of doctors, nurses and others must be aware of what is available in hospitals and special units and make use of new discoveries for their patients, but they are the first port of call—if you like, the eyes and ears of the health service. The Green Paper on primary care recently published by the DHSS makes some useful suggestions with regard to improving preventive services in primary care, although the Royal College of General Practitioners has for some years been making very similar noises. In fact, forward thinking members of all the health professions are acutely aware of the issues about which we are talking this afternoon.
I should now like to turn to the much discussed question of congenital handicap and its prevention and follow along the lines first mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. I am very sorry, incidentally, that we have not been able to entice the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, here today, since I feel that her words of wisdom would have been very valuable in this debate.
As noble Lords are aware, owing to the pioneer work of Drs. Edwards and Steptoe it is now possible to collect human ova (or eggs) from a woman's ovary through use of the ingenious instrument the laparoscope. In a suitable culture medium these can be fertilised in vitro—that is, outside the body—by human sperm and then reintroduced into the womb of a woman whose fallopian tubes have become blocked. A proportion of these pre-embryos then implant in the womb and develop normally. Well over 1,000 test-tube babies have been born in many centres throughout the world. Sometimes more ova are collected than are necessary from the infertile woman; sometimes spare, unwanted ova can be collected from women who are undergoing laparoscopic sterilisation because they have completed their families. These are known as donor ova or pre-embryos if they are subsequently fertilised.
The Warnock Committee suggested that these spare ova or pre-embryos could be used for experimental purposes, but only up to 14 days after fertilisation. It is then that the "primitive streak" appears. This is a collection of cells which is the first identifiable sign of the developing human being; in other words, the true embryo. It is also very difficult to culture embryos after this stage. The committee agreed, as the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have pointed out, that any experiments on these embryos must first be licensed by a statutory licensing authority with half of its membership being lay people.
What kind of experiments can be done on pre-embryos? First, there can be experiments to improve existing methods of in vitro fertilisation, to improve a woman's chances of successfully bearing a child. Second (and conversely) experiments can be used to investigate new methods of contraception aimed at the egg or the sperm; and, thirdly, experiments can be devised which are aimed at developing methods of preventing genetic and chromosomal defects, which is

1173
what concerns us today. I should like to quote Dr. Ann McLaren, who was a member of the Warnock Committeee. She said:
"Research could determine whether such defects in a pre-embryo can be diagnosed before implantation. It might also help to elucidate the causes of the chromosomal defects that appear around the time of fertilisation".
One per cent. of babies born in Britain suffer from a genetic or chromosomal defect. There are other congenital handicaps due to conditions that occur during pregnancy, but these ones occur at the time of or before fertilisation; that is 7,000 babies each year.
A number of these conditions can be identified from examination of the nucleus of pre-embryonic cells by special methods. Methods of detecting other genetic defects are likely to be developed. It should be possible to develop methods of detecting affected embryos with, for example, Downs' syndrome or fibrocystic disease, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, so as to be able to replace in the womb only unaffected pre-embryos. These types of experiments are only illustrations of the work that might be done to help to reduce the incidence of handicap. New lines of research would evolve, but all research projects would have to be carefully scrutinised by the licensing authority.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has pointed out, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Medical Research Council have already sponsored a voluntary licensing authority along the lines suggested by the Warnock Committee. That authority has already visited all 26 centres in this country that are involved in in vitro fertilisation; 10 of those centres undertake research. All the research projects that have so far been submitted to that voluntary authority had already been approved by a local hospital or university ethical committee. Most of the experiments were of the first type that I have mentioned, to try to improve the efficiency of in vitro fertilisation itself, and thus improve the treatment of infertility.
Pre-embryo research, far from leading to the birth of human monsters or genetically-engineered clones such as envisaged by Aldous Huxley in Brave New World, should result initially in the reduction of the proportion of handicapped children born to couples known to be at risk, and it might well lead eventually to a reduction in all genetically determined disability.
It is said that the legislation that will arise from the committee of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, will be very complex and that is why no government Bill has been introduced. But I join the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, in asking the Government to think very seriously about introducing such legislation soon.
It is not true to say that complex legislation must wait for a very long time. Complex legislation was introduced very quickly two years ago to abolish the Greater London Council and the metropolitan counties. I hope very much that the Government will find time to introduce that much needed legislation in the next Session. Might it be possible to have even a slice of the cake and not the whole cake; the slice that sets up the statutory licensing body? Such legislation will be very important in averting yet another Private Member's Bill that might attempt to forestall it.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, the House is very much indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, not only for initiating this debate but also for the very cogent way in which he has presented this very important subject, It is a subject of which Parliament should always take account because disablement, despite the progress of medicine, will always be with us—be it congenital, be it at source, or be it already established.
Many noble Lords have personal experience of disability, as can readily be seen. Thirty years ago I certainly could not have made this speech in your Lordships's House, because I had a most terrible stammer. I still have traces of it. During my National Service in the Army my commanding officer gave me a certain amount of help which, together with that of my dear wife and some self-discipline, has made my stammer less noticeable. But mine is a very minor disability compared with some of the disabilities of childhood with which children are afflicted from birth.
I want to say a word or two about research because I believe that research is absolutely fundamental here. The Medical Research Council has done a marvellous job, not only in this sphere but in other medical spheres as well, However, it is worrying to see how depleted is the council of funds currently. If there is ever a body that should be well funded, it is the Medical Research Council. A nation free from disability as far as that is possible, is a healthy nation. Therefore, it is a nation that can be at work, even in times such as these when unemployment is a major problem.
According to the Office of Health Economics, in 1982 the Medical Research Council was given a grant in aid (and I am never quite sure what that means) of £120 million. In 1984–85 that grant was increased by 15 per cent., but as I understand it, and allowing for inflation, there is still a £1·4 million shortfall. I have not given my noble friend the Minister notice of this question, but I wonder whether those figures could be checked and whether the whole question of the grant to the Medical Research Council could be looked into. It seems to me absolutely fundamental to the question now before us that if we are to look into the causes of disability, whether in the United Kingdom or in the third world, research is absolutely vital.
I should like to put one specific question to my noble friend regarding the marrow bone transplant unit at Westminster Hospital. There are conflicting rumours as to what is to happen to the unit. Perhaps the Government themselves are not too sure. However, I believe that both your Lordships' House and the nation are deeply concerned with the implications of what might happen, because the work done at that unit is essential to preventing the real disabilities of blood cancer and other conditions.
One knows of the problems facing the health service at the present time. That brings to mind the question of ante-natal clinics. Much has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and others about pre-natal scanning and that kind of screening of pregnant women who can undergo tests to establish whether there is danger of their child being malformed. Those units are essential and it would be a very great shame if there were to be

1175
cuts in that field. It is fundamental to those women's peace of mind and also to the number of disabled and handicapped children that there might be, who would require to be looked after.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, made reference to accidents. I am honorary vice-president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, and the subject of accidents in the home has always been one of my main interests. The noble Lord is absolutely right. There are about 6,000 fatal accidents in the home every year. Here is the position of disability at source. A man may fall off a ladder at the age of 20. He may previously have been perfectly fit but might then be disabled for life. Accident prevention is largely a question of education. It is essential that schools, from primary schools upwards, should be seized of the need to teach children, particularly with the modern methods of video, of the dangers of climbing frames and so on that they cannot manage, and of drinking strange liquids out of strange bottles, which is the cause of much disability.
This has been a useful debate. It is always much harder to discuss the source of something, what causes disability, than it is to do something once the disablement has taken place. But that is to follow, and I believe that your Lordships' House, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, has done a very fine service today for Parliament, our nation and and the third world.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Parry: My Lords, in beginning to speak to this Motion I start with a tribute to the lifelong courage of the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, who has demonstrated again the way in which handicap, with care, education and support, can be overcome.
In the hot summer of 1976, during the Recess, I came into this House and passed through the Prince's Chamber to find, to my surprise, a beam crane. The Clerk to the Parliaments, the then Sir Peter Henderson, serving not as Clerk to the Parliaments but as clerk of works, was moving back into position two items of statuary which had been missing from their plinths in the Prince's Chamber for many long years. The statutes of Mercy and of Justice had been held to detract from the majesty of Queen Victoria and had been banished to the cellar until Sir Peter Henderson, historian and Clerk to the Parliaments, had them restored with the help of the committees. I arrived to see one statue in position and the other hanging on the crane. I then heard the remark, which I have cherished ever since, from the then Clerk of the Parliaments. He said, "Parry, you will notice that I have had much more trouble with Justice than I have had with Mercy."
It is a fitting point at which to begin and to tell the House that on Monday of this week, with the Lord Bishop of St. Davids and Mr. David Dell, the newly-elected showman of the year of the Showmans Guild of Great Britain, I spent the entire morning at the Portfield Fair, the May fair, riding the roundabouts and swings with some 50 handicapped children from Pembrokeshire. Two-thirds of those children need not have been there, and some of us need not have been there either if 75 per cent. of the knowledge we have
1176
had been applied to them in the period before and immediately after their birth.
The tragedy of our handicapped is that so much handicap is preventable, and the tragedy also is that although we know it we have not yet, despite the great agencies working to secure it under any government, regardless of politics, succeeded in bringing home the message on which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, is focusing in this debate. It is therefore a privilege to rise with him and bring forward one or two items.
I discovered when I looked at the statistics that in the hot summer year of 1976, perhaps because of the climatic conditions, there were 655,503 births in England, Scotland and Wales in that year. Of those babies, 6,338 were still-born and a great many more were born handicapped because in the period immediately before, during and after their birth they were in some way or other neglected to the point where they became handicapped. The scientists and the doctors in the perinatal clinics in Wales tell me that one of the great tragedies of our time is that here in Britain, in this Western civilised country, in the perinatal period we are handicapping "compost grown", beautiful babies who would otherwise have been perfectly formed. My emphasis, therefore, is on that area where I have shown particular interest: on spasticity and the causes of it. But I am not going to outline those here or dwell upon them because I want to assure this House that certain countries have awoken to the fact that there is self-interest so far as the nation is concerned in giving careful support and care to the handicapped and to the prevention of handicap in the newly-born.
When President Pompidou became President of France that statesman looked at the books, as all governments do when they come into office; and, as all governments are, he was horrified by what he found. He was particularly appalled to find that a very great deal of money was being spent on support for the handicapped—an item in the budget that his country could ill afford and yet to which it was totally committed. He sent first for his statisticians and his economists and said, "What is this figure? How can we cut it down?" They said that it could be done by preventing spasticity, mental handicap, and by preventing injury in the perinatal period. He did not know what the perinatal period was. He sent for his doctors to advise him. They told him that during that period a great deal of damage was done but that it was avoidable to a very large degree.
So President Pompidou set them to work. He told them to produce a system for France which would reduce all the havoc that was being caused. They set about it. The simple product of their investigation was the maternity book which was a presentation to all women who registered in pregnancy. The earlier they registered the better were their chances, so the French Government paid them to register early. It was a simple little payment made in three tranches so that the girls—working-class girls, unemployed girls—during the period of their pregnancy could, through those registrations, be identified as either at risk or as healthy potential mothers. The maternity book became their property and it went with them. If they moved they presented it to the authorities so that their registration could be continued.

1177
The result was dramatic because France, from having had some of the lowest good figures in Europe—conversely, some of the highest bad figures—moved very quickly up to scale of good providers and showed splendid progress in avoiding perinatal damage.
I was given, as were other Members of your Lordships' House, some figures from IMPACT, the international initiative against avoidable disablement. Since we have talked about Britain and about France I wanted to outline that in Africa it is estimated there are over 40 million disabled people in that land and that two-thirds of their disabilities could now be prevented or indeed cured. In Madras, in India, between April and August 1985, 216,000 infants were immunised against poliomyelitis in a city-wide campaign in which the Indian IMPACT foundation collaborated with state and city authorities, and others. They achieved an unprecedented 92 per cent. coverage of those people. It is estimated that that campaign alone saved over 800 of the city's children from paralysis during an epidemic of poliomyelitis.
I shall just mention the fact that France, Africa, India, Latin America and South-East Asia could all give examples of tackling the problem in a way that we would wish to see—with a new urgency. That is not criticism of existing government policy nor does it require defence, because I say it as someone who believes that we care alike for the underprivileged in our society and that we try to plan, whatever view we take of society, the best use of our resources in aid. But we are also much more likely to listen to the articulate. We are much more likely to listen to the organised. The voices of those who are well placed in society, who are well educated and well endowed, can be heard and facilities can be created for them sometimes even at their own expense; but I am not making any reference to that.
What does not happen—and it has already been said in this debate—is that sufficient of the resources moves down through society. It was Sir Anthony Eden, a Conservative, who once said that we have not yet succeeded in creating in this country a democracy. All that we have succeeded in doing is to broaden the basis of the oligarchy. At the bottom of the pyramid there are a great many pregnant women in Britain who, because young girls try to hide their pregnancy and because poorer girls try to work longer and will therefore register later, will have babies that are born handicapped.
The core figure is this: if a handicapped child grows up to be a handicapped adult, then between the ages of 16 and 60 he handicaps the economy of the country by £250,000 at least. So the prevention of that handicap would prevent the loss of £250,000 per head. If one adds to that the fact that if that person had lived until the age of 60 as a healthy person, who was at work, paid all his taxes and was able to make the same average contribution as other people, one sees that he too would make a similar contribution to the economy. So one handicapped child saved adds £500,000 to the economy of the country. That makes good sense. It also shows that the country can balance in the swings both Mercy and Justice and put them both back on their plinths.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I too am delighted to join in this debate, particularly as we are being introduced to IMPACT, which will be a very valuable organisation in the future. Their present consultant in this country is Sir John Wilson, whose wife is the chairman of the National Rubella Council. I have worked with Sir John Wilson since 1951. When he was 11 years old, he was blinded during a science experiment at school. He was a brilliant pupil who went on to Oxford where he met his wife. The two of them together have sustained a marvellous career over many years, and I should like to wish them luck in the future. I wish that there were more people in the Chamber to listen to this debate. Sir John himself would have liked to be here, but he and his wife are both doing research work in America at the present time.
I shall talk about only two things: first about rubella, which was mentioned earlier by my noble friend. and secondly about blindness. I should like to draw particular attention to rubella because this disease can so easily be overcome. If a woman catches German measles, that is, rubella—which is quite different from ordinary measles—in the first three months of her pregnancy, there is a strong possibility (over 50 per cent. if it occurs during the first month of her pregnancy) of the child being born handicapped. The child can be born deaf, blind, brain damaged, and have congenital heart disease or cerebral palsy. I understand that no developing cell is safe from attack by the virus and very often the foetus is miscarried or the child is still-born. If the mother catches rubella at a later stage of her pregnancy there is a chance of her having a child who is deaf only.
I should also like to say that this disease affects women of all races. It is not confined to European or African women. In 1951 when I was in Northern Rhodesia I came across an epidemic of rubella. The women, who carried their children on their backs, were even more badly affected because they caught the sun in their eyes as well.
In this country there were 120 rubella damaged children born in 1978–79, and there were 1,400 abortions associated with the disease. That is a shocking figure. In 1982–83 I am glad to say that there were fewer abortions associated with rubella—500 in fact. The disease is highly infectious, but it is sometimes very difficult for the victim to realise that she has the disease because its symptoms are quite mild and do not make her feel very ill. There would be no trouble at all, however, if women could be immunised before pregnancy.
The National Rubella Council in this country consists of 11 voluntary organisations which are concerned with the effects of rubella together with the Health Education Council and the Department of Health and Social Security. In 1983 the Minister of Health gave a grant of £1 million for a period of three years, and it is hoped that the number of young people at school who are immunised will go up. I gather that the uptake is about 86 per cent. at the moment. We should aim at 100 per cent. Everybody must work hard for this particular cause so that the blighting of young lives becomes unnecessary. I should now like to

1179
mention blindness in overseas countries. Blindness affects about 40 million people in the world today. At least 75 per cent. of them live in developing countries where the prevalence of blindness is 10 to 40 times higher than it is in the developed countries. Four out of five cases of blindness in developing countries could either have been prevented or can now be cured. If the present trend continues, the number of blind people in the world could double in the next 25 years.
The causes of blindness are universal, particularly cataract, glaucoma and trauma. Other major causes of blindness-nutritional blindness, river blindness and trachoma—are found extensively in the developing countries. These causes have almost been eradicated from developed countries as a result of improved standards of living and access to health care.
Over the past 15 years the Royal Commonwealth Society for the Blind medical teams have been restoring sight to nearly 2 million people across Asia, Africa and the Caribbean and have treated the eyes of nearly 20 million people who are threatened with blindness. In India and Bangladesh alone last year the medical teams conducted over a quarter of a million cataract operations. I can still cite a cost of £4 for each operation in an Asian village, for example. Surely this is worth doing, and helping these people.
The organisation that I am at present discussing, the Royal Commonwealth Society for the Blind, works in 38 different countries. There are certain places in Ghana, for example, where there are whole villages whose people are blind through river blindness. There is quite an interesting book telling how very disappointed the people were when visited to hear that the visitors were protecting themselves with mosquito nets. "What is the good of mosquito nets?" they asked, "We do not need them". Yet this was the reason for their blindness. Nonetheless, they were still very cheerful.
I should like to make one final point. In September this year we shall have the big CPA conference held in this country, and there is a book by The Commonwealth Association for Mental Handicap on developmental disabilities. This subject can be brought up during the conference. My noble friend and I are both delegates to this conference, and we hope that there will be a good response and more help will be given to the mentally handicapped in countries overseas. It is an excellent idea for them now to have an association, and I hope that we shall be able to further their interests in the coming weeks.
5.38 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, the worthy aim of this Motion is of prime concern to experts and thinkers on health and economics both at home and overseas. The universal value of a healthy person both mentally and physically can be sky high, whereas the cost to any society of the crippled left-overs of accidents, disease or any other condition can be colossal and relentless. Probably it is only those of us who have fallen victim who can calculate fully the individual cost in frustrated purpose and virtual inability to be more than a burden; the cost of support from families and siblings, partners and offspring. Just one victim can handicap a whole family.
1180
It was in the mid-50s that we heard the magic news that Salk vaccine from the USA was to be available to keep people safe from poliomyelitis: that scourge with its ability to maim and kill unsuspecting people could now be wiped out. There was never any deception or attempt to conceal the fact that there existed an infinitesimal degree of risk of vaccine damage; but compared with the risk of catching the virus that was indeed small. Then in every town and in most villages there were ugly, living reminders of the pre-immunisation era. The need to immunise was clear for all to see, and the figures progressed satisfactorily. It was when those horrifying effects began to disappear—when, like the dinosaur, only a few old examples remained preserved—that those immunisation figures were in jeopardy. Worse still, the cruel blow of vaccine damage obviously shattered people's confidence.
On the face of it, immunisation figures have kept up remarkably well, though in-touch organisations like the British Polio Fellowship are constantly worried. May I ask my noble friend the Minister whether in her reply she can tell us whether there is further research into the safety of vaccines and the suitability of the recipient's health? Anything to reduce the spectre of damage will boost the immunisation campaign. Action Research for the Crippled Child is always promoting prevention. It is now interested in measuring public reaction to immunisation, and that should lead to further useful progress. To think of the multitude still being paralysed overseas today through polio leaves one with only one light to shed on that dark subject. That is, the drives that are made to increase vaccine take-up by, for instance, Save the Children Fund, boosted by support from enlightened young people who follow Princess Anne's example in promoting immunisation overseas.
While vaccine is a highly scientific and clear-cut method of preventing disability, there is another weapon to which I should like to refer. It is rugged and basic but it is of vital importance and it is too often forgotten. I refer to the teaching of genuine health education within active school life. From their television viewing children have cultivated a superficial sophistication. They understand—they have to—much more about the physique than did earlier generations. After viewing TV programmes about the less fortunate aspects of existence, children are apt to ask, "Could that happen to me?". Positive answers given at school can encourage lasting self-help. It is my belief that by learning about the make-up of their bodies children can make the most of prophylaxis and protection. A message needs to be planted in the conscious and subconscious that damage can be avoided by proper use of the self. There should be an understanding of the variations in human structure and skills, and I support the remarks of my noble friend Lord Auckland.
Elementary anatomy, physiology and psychology need to be made known to pupils. That also applies to kinesiology, which concerns movement patterns and habits in relation to energy and for lifting and handling objects; indeed, all daily movements and activities. Where else but in school can most people get that kind of information? Of course that information is best absorbed after physical activities when the mind and

1181
body are relaxed and receptive. Already through the efforts of education authorities, physical education associations and voluntary organisations there are many centres dedicated to sport. There is some dichotomy between sport and attention to physical problems when surely there should be a great connection between the two.
Certainly it is in school that physical disorder can best be spotted. The Chartered Society of Physiotherapy and the Health Education Council are conferring to seek positive methods to promote health and prevent disability. They also seek the co-operation of GPs as essential and a central point in health. There are physical disorders which are best spotted in schools and which are sometimes missed by parents and GPs. They can be equally unaware of a disorder that may grow and change into something which will be of great importance in maturity and old age, such as bad feet, pseudo-rheumatics, back pain and bad postural habits. Unless those conditions receive accurate attention in childhood, adults may suffer pain and severe discomfort later on. To start with, people hate to admit such things; they take pain-killers and probably end up in NHS beds, to everyone's cost.
One result of the tension and pressures of everyday life can land children in avoidable difficulties and threatened situations. Smoking, glue sniffing and drugs all got going in many districts before grown-ups could step in. That must be a pointer to the authorities to provide the full story of how to keep well and to put some of the responsibility on the children themselves. Such a campaign could well be backed up by videos and every other modern aid to assist with interesting and enthusiastic teaching. I hope that the Department of Education and Science will take note of those requests.
The need of this as a subject of teaching has become obvious to many people. Children have never been more interested in self, and that interest should be well targeted now.The climate for such teaching is favourable and I believe the ground for it is fertile. If only the ground is tilled properly, I firmly believe that health education can have a profound effect on the object of the Motion—the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, which I beg to support and on which I wholeheartedly congratulate him.
5.47 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I too join with noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for giving us the opportunity to discuss the need to prevent disability or impairment before they occur. I thank him for his stimulating opening address. When we recall that in the United Kingdom—and our problems pale into insignificance compared with the developing world—one in 20 people is suffering from severe disability, it is evident to those of us who believe that the human race should live in happiness and should be free from suffering that prevention of disability must be a basic part of any radical approach to disablement.
The hopeful message that the noble Lord brought to the House is that much can be done to prevent disability. I believe that he was supported in that central message by my noble friend Lord Parry. I may have
1182
misinterpreted the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, but I thought that he was a little more pessimistic about our potential to prevent disability. If I am wrong, I am sorry about that.
Lord Winstanley: The noble Lord is wrong, my Lords.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am wrong, my Lords. Good! It is probably true to say that in a developed country in most situations the responsibility for preventive health care lies with the individual to the extent that he has a real choice in controlling his behaviour.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that the lower down the heap we are the more difficult it becomes for us to take the right decision. Nevertheless, it is the individual who decides on his diet, within the limit of his means; it is the individual who decides whether he will give up smoking; and it is the individual who decides whether he will drink and drive.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Winstanley that attitudes and lifestyles change slowly, unless of course we are confronted by a drastic problem such as exposure to the risk of radiation, following the nuclear disaster in the Ukraine. We need to give high priority to health education campaigns to promote public awareness of the risks. That is the theme which was developed by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, who referred to the need for health education in schools. For the young, the responsibility for preventive health care must of necessity lie elsewhere. It lies with the parents. The message which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, who made a very courageous speech, and others brought to the House was that there is a responsibility on parents.
During our century, environmental health services have reduced remarkably the environmental causes of childhood morbidity and disability. Today, infant disability and handicap are in considerable and significant part genetically determined. It is therefore all the more desirable that as few infants as possible should at conception carry a genetic predisposition to physical and mental handicap. We have heard again this afternoon the message that there is a need for accurate genetic counselling, if they want it, for those parents who are at risk of having a disabled child. The advice must be available but the decision whether to take the advice must be for the parents and not for the community or even for the doctors.
As the consequence of disability for an infant is so great and continues throughout his lifetime from the cradle to the grave, we have a moral responsibility to use our knowledge of genetic endowment in the interests of the coming generation. That point was first made this afternoon by my noble friend Lord Longford, who told us of his acquaintance with the horrors of muscular dystrophy. It will not be lost on the Government that that point was reinforced by a number of speakers, including the noble Lords, Lord Winstanley and Lord Rea, and the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull.
I very much look forward to hearing the reply of the noble Baroness the Minister to the questions addressed to the Government by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. We want to know the answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy,

1183
about how widespread is the availability of genetic counselling facilities.
I found myself in some sympathy with the cautious approach taken by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, towards the wholesale adoption of screening facilities, but nevertheless I accept and follow the plea made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, and others who said that it is still necessary for parents to protect their children against preventable diseases by vaccination. After the first year of life, accidents become the major cause of handicap. That point was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland. It has been said that the home can be highly dangerous for every young child. Dangerous toys lying about the place are a cause of anxiety. Some household products can be highly dangerous in the hands of an infant. Unstrengthened glass doors in the home are highly dangerous, and not only for children.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, reminded the House that for the citizen of working age in developed countries road accidents and accidents in work, many of which could be avoided, are the major cause of serious injury. The cost of road accidents and accidents in work are immense for the individual and his family in terms of pain and suffering. They are also immense for the community in terms of lost output and medical costs. Those points were made by my noble friend Lord Parry.
There have been one or two implied references to the urgent need to reduce dependency upon tobacco and alcohol. The Minister for Health recently described alcohol abuse as a disaster. The debate could have been constructed on the need for action based on the agenda produced by Action on Alcohol Abuse.
In the United Kingdom and the developed countries, in contrast to the developing countries, because medicine has succeeded so well in saving and prolonging life the old constitute the largest single group among whom the incidence of severe handicap is high. I understand that disability of some kind affects 25 per cent. of those over the age of 75. The prevention of disability among the elderly is in a sense, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said, a method of control rather than prevention. We must concentrate on the early detection and treatment of disease with a view to a return to improved health.
The potential effects of improved procedures for the detection and treatment of arthritis and dementia are tremendous. We are immensely grateful to the IMPACT foundation under the leadership of Sir John Wilson for its education campaign spelling out that effective measures for the prevention of disability are now physically possible. I join with the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, in paying tribute to Sir John and his good work. We are of course indebted to many other organisations which have been working in that area, but the recent IMPACT document Preventing Disability in the United Kingdom amounted, in my view, to a bold attempt to assess the United Kingdom's immediate requirements.
The national seminar held by the IMPACT foundation in February made at least 27 recommendations for the reduction of disability in the United
1184
Kingdom. It called for measures to clear the backlog of 20,000 cases of remediable deafness, particularly among children. It called for measures to cut the waiting lists of the 7,000 people who are needlessly blind for the want of a cataract operation. It called for a determined effort to reduce the waiting time for hip replacement operations. Has the department considered the suggestion that patients on the waiting list in one region should be transferred to hospitals in an adjoining region where there is spare capacity?
It should be repeated that the seminar's main conclusion was that the incidence of disability in the United Kingdom could be reduced by at least 20 per cent. by the application, through the National Health Service, of existing technologies and facilities and better management. That is an astounding conclusion.
The seminar's expert analysis and conclusions streamed into the DHSS just over three months ago. Will the Minister tell the House whether they have now reached the Secretary of State? Are they on his desk? Has the department picked a team to consider the recommendations? When does the department propose to be in a position to respond to the regulations? If any of the regulations are rejected, I am sure that the House and the public will want to know how the department responds to the evidence on which the regulations are based. I am without time to dwell on the need for more research, but one obviously supports the need for more research.
I must mention briefly the problems of disability in the third world. One person in 10, not one person in 20, in the under-developed world is affected by severe disability. I do not think that we in the United Kingdom can be concerned exclusively with disability in this country. IMPACT again has drawn our attention to what can be done outside the modern acute hospital of the United Kingdom with simplified technology to intervene massively and effectively to prevent disabilities in the under-developed world in order to restore sight, to restore hearing and to restore movement. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson and my noble friend Lord Parry have underlined some of the startling statistics in the IMPACT document.
In conclusion, I want to support very strongly the appeals made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, to the Government on behalf of the under-developed world. I found it rather difficult to believe that any British representative serving on an international committee concerned with the problems of disability would not already have appreciated the quality of the papers produced by IMPACT foundation; but it is conceivable that a British representative may not be aware that IMPACT is in a real sense a British initiative. I therefore agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that a timely word in the right place at the right time would be helpful. Indeed, the Foreign Office and the DHSS have helped in the past.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, then made a plea for a modest contribution of £25,000, and no more, to the IMPACT foundation to help with the expenses incurred by British experts travelling overseas to give voluntary service to the disabled. We urge the Government to give sympathetic consideration to this appeal.

1185
One's final thought at the end of this interesting and stimulating debate is this. The fact that so much can be done to prevent disability which is so widespread and often characterised by pain, distress and frustration makes the fact that it is still tolerated even more scandalous.
6.3 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, first I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, on choosing this important subject for our debate today. Disability as such and the treatment of disabled people is of course a topic to which this House has rightly given a considerable amount of attention in recent years. However, I believe that we have not previously concentrated in our deliberations on the vital topic of the prevention of disability. As has been said, the reason that we are doing so today is a direct consequence of the valuable initiative by the UK IMPACT foundation in arranging a seminar on the subject last February which had the full support of the Department of Health and Social Security. Like many of your Lordships, I wish also to pay tribute to the foundation and to the vision and energy of the chairman, Sir John Wilson. The seminar was clearly a very useful occasion and the admirably succinct summary of the conclusions, which most of us here today have seen, represents a valuable conspectus of the very wide range of issues involved in the prevention of disability. These are issues which the Government have taken and will continue to take very seriously.
The international repercussions of the IMPACT initiative have been referred to by many of your Lordships. I should like to start therefore by making some brief remarks about those international aspects of the prevention of disability.
The World Health Organisations' global strategy for health enshrined in its action plan to achieve health for all by the year 2000 focuses on primary health care. World health strategy is now therefore increasingly emphasising the importance of prevention of ill-health, removal of health risks and promotion of health. Developing countries in particular can now be expected to do more to prevent disabling conditions arising from, for example, poor perinatal care, malnutrition and infections. A net result should and we hope will be a reduction of new disability among children and infants.
Various successful examples of projects carried out in the last decade were quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, in his opening speech. Because of this increasing emphasis on prevention and the fact underlined by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, among others, that health care resources do not meet health care needs, the United Kingdom Government attach great importance to the prevention of disability in the ODA's bilateral aid programme. We approach this through the provision of basic health services to the community, including mother and child health services, immunisation and adequate nutrition.
A major proportion of the £20 million which the UK spends annually on the health sector in developing countries goes towards preventive medicine. This includes the provision of medical personnel and facilities such as clinics and research into the causes
1186
and eradication of disabling diseases. It does not, however, include expenditure on water supplies, disaster aid, population activities, main contributions to the international organisations and other related matters which affect health and would bring a total to well over £100 million. I hope that this goes some way to reassuring the noble Lord, Lord Rea.
I can assure noble Lords, and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, in particular, that British representatives at international organisations already refer to and promote the IMPACT initiative wherever possible. In response to his other question in this area—the request for funds for travelling for voluntary organisations and in particular IMPACT to attend conferences and seminars, funds for this sort of activity are not of course unlimited; but I am sure that the Overseas Development Administration is willing to give consideration to any application and indeed has done so.
We also contribute to a number of multilateral programmes which focus on the prevention of disablement. One of these, the World Health Organisation special programme for research and training in tropical diseases, was launched in 1976 to stimulate action by the international community to control the six major tropical disabling diseases including malaria, leprosy and river blindness. The United Kingdom played a prominent part in setting up the progamme and has been a major donor since it began having contributed a total of almost £3 million. Much of the programme's research is undertaken in the United Kingdom. Other World Health Organisation programmes to which we contribute annually are the expanded programme on immunisation, which aims to immunise all children against six common infectious childhood diseases— diphtheria, whooping cough, tetanus, poliomyelitis, measles and tuberculosis—by 1990; and the action programme on essential drugs and vaccines, which helps developing countries draw up lists of essential drugs and establish local manufacturing and distribution facilities wherever possible.
From the international scene, I turn to the prevention of disability in the United Kingdom. This was the main focus of the IMPACT seminar in February. Let me say first of all that promoting positive health generally through health education and preventive medicine programmes is, and will continue to be, high on the Government's list of priorities. This was made clear in Care in Action, the handbook of the Government's policies and priorities for health and personal social services published in 1981. As we have seen, action to combat disability abroad concentrated on specific, effective measures against, for example, tropical diseases. Similarly, we must be as specific in our actions to combat disability in this country. The position here, however, is very different from that obtaining say, in parts of Africa. Disability here often arises out of our comparatively affluent lifestyle. This was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. We are rightly concerned about heart disease, the effects of smoking, stress, the abuse of alcohol and drug addiction. We need to focus better on particular issues and to think incisively about priorities and deal effectively with the problems that face us in a logical way.

1187
I can perhaps refer at this stage to the question raised by my noble friend Lady Faithfull concerning the MENCAP proposals for strategy on the prevention of mental handicap. These bring together usefully a number of the themes—health education, lifestyle advice and genetic counselling to which I shall be referring later. They apply to many other different kinds of handicap, not just mental handicap. To make people aware of the dangers and risks to health that they can face in everyday life and to ensure that each individual understands as much as possible—the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies emphasised that this was ultimately the responsibility of each individual—the Government fund the Health Education Council to enable it to carry out a huge programme of public health education. This year the Government are giving some £10 million to the council. The council's range of activities is extensive. It sees its educational role as encompassing campaigning on healthy life style issues, sponsoring research and training health educators. Its main role is to make widely and easily available authoritative and sensible advice on a wide range of issues linked to good health. These include the effects of smoking, alcohol and drug abuse, family and personal health, and the prevention of coronary heart disease. Education and advice on health are available to all, from mothers-to-be through childhood and adulthood to old age.
Health education is also being taken to the workplace through the Health Education Council and its publication and project entitled Look After Yourself. More and more employers are taking part in this campaign which includes special workplace training courses and covers smoking, diet, exercise and stress management and other ways in which employees can look after their health, the practical effect in many cases being the prevention of injury and accidents. This must be an important step in the right direction.
Health education and, by implication, work on the prevention of ill health start from an early age. I trust that this will reassure my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox. The Health Education Council has a continuing programme of developing materials and providing training to promote an awareness of the importance of health among young people aged from four to 19. The White Paper Better Schools, published in March 1985, made clear that the Government regard health education as an essential curricula element. Health education continues into old age. The council's five-year programme related to health in old age was launched last year. Its aim is to enhance the potential of older people to live independently healthy lives in the community. The programme has set out to improve people's knowledge and understanding of health issues in later life in areas such as dental care, the value of exercise and nutrition. One of the features is an Age Well drive that focuses on ways of promoting health activities for and with older people with the emphasis on participation and self-help.
Sensible eating can, of course, contribute to a healthy life and counter the risk of heart attacks and disability. Much is being done in this respect. It may be of interest to noble Lords to know that, in addition, all National Health Service regions included policies for
1188
prevention in their 10-year strategic plans submitted to the Government last year. In turn, regions encourage and help districts carry out health education and monitor progress. Ministers can and do raise with regions questions about their progress in health promotion in the yearly round of ministerial reviews.
In the broad sense measures to avoid disability, therefore, are an inbuilt part of both the Government's and the Health Education Council's objective to improve the nation's health. Preventable accidents were referred to by a number of noble Lords, in particular the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Winstanley. I should like to focus in particular on accidents to children which are the commonest cause of death of those over one year of age and account for one-sixth of hospital admissions between the ages of one and 15. Responsibility for different types of accidents is widely spread among Government departments co-ordinated by the Child Accident Prevention Trust. The DHSS takes the lead in providing financial support to this organisation and currently has allocated grant aid of about £70,000 a year over three years from 1985 to 1988.
Turning to pre-natal care, raised by a number of your Lordships, health education in the widest sense of the word is only part of the story. I must therefore refer to specific medical and other services that have an important role. First, I shall say something about pre-natal care and then something about surveillance and preventive services for children. Vaccination of schoolgirls and women of child-bearing age against rubella is an important element here. I shall say something in more detail about vaccination and immunisation later. It is now possible, in a number of inherited conditions that cause disability, especially in children, to give couples precise advice on the risk of having an affected child. A number of your Lordships, including my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy and the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, have referred to screening. Recent advances in clinical genetics can permit informed counselling sometimes before conception or, failing that, early in pregnancy. Already it is possible to counsel those parents at risk of transmitting disorders of haemoglobin. Once a pregnancy has been confirmed some handicapping conditions can be diagnosed pre-natally; for example, neural tube defects or chromosome disorders. A range of tests and procedures is widely available, in addition to specialist genetic advisory centres throughout the country where couples with a family history of a condition can receive expert advice. The techniques to detect various congenital abnormalities and inherited disorders have changed dramatically in recent years. Most notable among the advances are, first, the development of gene markers which permit recognition of the carrier state or of an infected child. These will become increasingly important in the prevention of cystic fibrosis and Duchenne muscular dystrophy, to which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, explicitly referred. I can inform him that support is available in the research field. For example, there is Government support for the grant of £10,000 a year to the Muscular Dystrophy Group towards its welfare services. The second important advance is the use of high resolution ultrasound scanning, and the third the

1189
development of the techniques of fetoscopy and of chorion biopsy. With these methods it is now possible to detect a very wide range of conditions in the foetus that could not have been identified as short a time as five years ago.
For a few conditions treatment of the foetus in utero may be possible; in other cases arrangements can be made, where appropriate, for the baby to be delivered in a hospital with the best facilities for care after birth. The ability to predict and identify genetic defects in the pre-natal period has led to increased demand for specialist advice from couples who have a suspected or known family history of inherited disease. Such advice can inform parents of the prenatal diagnostic tests which are available in their particular circumstances and help them to make an informed decision on the basis of the possible outcomes, including treatment at or even before birth.
On this point, the noble Lord, Lord Parry, referred to the French system based on financial incentive. I must say to him that in this country we have preferred not to introduce systems of maternity care which smack of compulsion. But I should remind your Lordships that perinatal mortality figures in the country under our own system are continuing to fall.
We recognise that the likely rapid advance in medical knowledge in this very specialised field as new techniques are developed and refined will lead to an increased demand for advice and screening tests from "at risk" couples. To ensure that this demand is met in an efficient way, the department is currently funding a development project in three centres (two in England and one in Wales) together with a separate evaluation. This initiative is intended to provide a guide for health authorities in reviewing the genetic advisory services they are providing, and in planning future developments.
Screening to detect possible handicap is not limited to the time before birth. Every health authority is responsible for monitoring the health and development of all children living in its area. Preventive and advisory services are provided for pre-school children through a network of clinics and the health visiting service. These child health surveillance programmes aim to monitor the development of children, including their intellectual development. These preventive services also continue after children start school. In the early stages of a child's school career they will focus mainly on the continuing need to monitor vision, hearing and growth. As the children grow older the focus moves on to health education to encourage children to adopt positive attitudes to health and accept responsibilities for their own health.
References have been made to the role of the general practitioner. I would refer your Lordships to the importance which the Government give to this area and the review of family practitioner services and community nursing services which my noble friend Lady Trumpington announced to your Lordships three weeks ago. While we are talking about screening and surveillance perhaps I can report briefly to your Lordships on one or two interesting developments on screening for visual and hearing impairments—two areas on which the IMPACT seminar focused particularly, and to which, in particular, my noble friend Lady Vickers referred.
1190
First, I refer to visual impairment. The commonest cause of adult blindness in this country are senile macular degeneration and diabetic retinopathy. There are encouraging developments in the treatment of these diseases, including the use of lasers. Many patients can be effectively treated if they are diagnosed sufficiently early. The Government are concerned that detection and treatment should be as effective as possible. We are therefore funding a research study to evaluate different methods of screening for diabetic retinopathy. The department's chief medical officer recently asked a group of experts to report on developments in the treatment of senile macular degeneration. We hope that these initiatives will enable us to advise health authorities about the development of these services.
Time is against us, but much was said about vaccination and immunisation. Such programmes have a major part to play in the prevention of disability. Perhaps I can cite, as other noble Lords have, the near total elimination of poliomyelitis—one of the great success stories of public health since the Second World War. In 1955, the year before the first introduction of the poliomyelitis vaccine in the United Kingdom, over 4,000 cases of the disease were notified. In the five years 1978–83, there were only 22 cases in total.
However, in too many cases children are still not being immunised, especially against measles, whooping cough and rubella. This leads in some cases to serious disability. Some progress in improving uptake has certainly been made, but much more still needs to be done if we are to reach the high standards of achievement in many European countries.
I could not leave this subject without pausing to add my support to the comments by my noble friend Lady Vickers and others on the work of the National Rubella Council and its chairman and moving spirit, Lady Wilson. The council is a unique grouping of 11 voluntary bodies, including the Health Education Council and health departments. It has made a major contribution in this area.
I regret that in view of the time I must swiftly pass over one or two points and just refer to the need which was emphasised by a number of noble Lords for more research. In particular, I am aware of the interest of many of your Lordships in the subject of research involving human embryos. My honourable friend the Minister for Health will be meeting representatives from PROGRESS very shortly, and we shall listen very carefully to any suggestions that they put forward. We have fully recognised for some time that the question of research using human embryos has been the cause of deep concern to many people. As my noble friend Lady Trumpington told the House recently, it remains the Government's intention to legislate on the matters covered by the Warnock Report as soon as practicable, but I cannot speculate on the timing of any legislation. Nevertheless, I can reassure noble Lords that their views, and indeed the view of IMPACT, will be taken into account.
We have covered a lot of ground, and I apologise if, because of lack of time, I have not been able to respond to all the specific points raised. However, your Lordships may be sure that we shall follow them up. I

1191
should end, however, by once again thanking the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for providing us with the opportunity for this important and, I think, constructive debate. I hope that I have been able to indicate to your Lordships that the Government are making some progress in the right direction.
Lord Parry: My Lords, without wishing to detain the noble Baroness as she sits down, could she please explain to me how a system that is voluntary and depends on graded payments to encourage "smacks of compulsion", which I think was the phrase that she used?
6.28 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I think that I have but a minute to reply to the debate. I am sure that the noble Baroness will write to the noble Lord about that matter.
I have to thank with my whole heart everyone who has spoken throughout this debate, on all sides of the House. I must say that it was very nearly a broken-backed debate in view of the two bites taken out of it by Statements. Nonetheless, we are still walking—we are not paraplegic. We have come to the end of this debate with a highly informative and responsive reply by the Minister. With that, I should like to beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Agricultural Research and Development
6.29 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol rose to call attention to agricultural research and development; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name. Before getting on to the subject of the debate, I am sure that the House will wish to know that the reason my noble friend Lord John-Mackie is not here to debate this subject—in which he has such a keen and active interest—is that he has suffered an injury. I know that he would wish me to give his apologies to the House. The Front Bench will be in the capable hands of my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies and I do not think that we shall suffer on that account.
We have been waiting for this debate since last summer when I first put it into the ballot, but I have not been fortunate until now. However, I believe that the debate is still relevant. I believe that the questions which I would have asked at the time are still largely unanswered.
In January 1985 cuts were announced in agricultural research amounting to £10 million in 1986–87, and a further £20 million in 1987–88. That was in addition to cuts already made in the science budget of the Department of Education and Science following the Rothschild Report, which affected agricultural research and development quite severely.
Speaking in a debate in another place on 13th March 1985, the Parliamentary Secretary to the
1192
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, at col. 413 of the Official Report, said:
"The reductions in 1986–87 and 1987–88 are provisional and will be influenced by the scope for industry support of research carried out by the public sector".
The honourable lady then went on to explain the work of the Priorities Board to advise on the allocation of resources and she followed that up, at col. 414, with these words:
"When we have that advice we shall consult the industry about the mechanisms which might be appropriate for securing the greater involvement that we wish to achieve, and we shall be taking our decisions about the future direction of the research programme".
That suggests to me that the Government are not deciding which areas should properly be their responsibility, but are seeing how much they can hive off first, and will then make their decisions on what is left over. I hope that I am wrong about that, and if I am wrong I am sure that the noble Lord opposite will put me right at the end of the debate. However, that does not seem to me to be a responsible approach to strategic research.
Questions in this House on several occasions led us to expect that the Priorities Board would report towards the end of the summer. The report finally appeared in December 1985. When it came, as expected it merely suggested emphasis on certain areas within a reduced budget. It is interesting to note that the report commented:
"We believe that the scale of cuts will allow the essential research base to be maintained".
But it went on to say:
"but that a longer-term phasing would have allowed more efficient management of their introduction".
That again is a point which I hope the Minister will take up at the end of the debate, because the speed with which those cuts were inflicted on certain institutes has led to great disarray.
During all the time while awaiting the report, and indeed up to the present day, the various establishments under scrutiny have had to live with no certainty at all about their future prospects. If the Government had deliberately set out to destroy the morale and motivation of those loyal and dedicated teams they could not have found a more certain way of doing so. It is hardly surprising that some of our best and brightest scientists and technologists have taken other more secure opportunities with consequent damage to the projects that they have left. For example, the Plant Breeding Institute at Cambridge was working on a drought-resistant wheat which could have been of great benefit to some famine areas. However, when a key member of staff left they dared not replace that person because of other uncertainties, and so the project has ended. It is a very sad loss not only to us in this country but perhaps to other areas of the world where this research is desperately needed.
The cuts are already biting hard. I am indebted to the Institution of Professional Civil Servants for an up-to-date summary of the losses so far, and I shall quote from its factsheet. In ADAS in 1985–86 the sub-centres at Shardlow, Bangor and Cardiff were all closed, as was the Lasswade Veterinary Laboratory. The veterinary investigation centres at Moulton, Leeds, Cardiff, Gloucester, Liverpool and Chester were all closed. Indeed, 17 animal health offices and

1193
various area offices are planned for closure, and the planned job losses in that little group will amount to between 500 and 600. This is at a time when ADAS is to have greater responsibility than ever before under the Agriculture Bill, and will need not cuts but expansion.
As regards the AFRC, already 600 posts have gone and the Weed Research Centre and the Letcombe Laboratory have been closed. In 1986–87 a further 600 posts are to go. The Soil Survey of England and Wales has been reduced to a half. It has been renamed and it is now available for privatisation. The Plant Breeding Institute has been reduced and is also available for privatisation. I propose to return to the Plant Breeding Institute later in my remarks.
The National Farmers' Union is very concerned about those cuts and the proposed new cuts at what is a very difficult time for the farming community. Surely there cannot have been a worse time in at least the past quarter of a century at which to ask farmers not only to take cuts in the advisory services available to them, but to give more money for the basic research which should really be the Government's responsibility.
What is the future of the National Vegetable Research Station, the Poultry Research Centre at Edinburgh, the Glasshouse Crops Research Station in Sussex and the East Malling Research Station, to name but a few? What of Aberystwyth, on which we have had many debates in this House? I know that my noble friend on the Front Bench will want to speak on that matter and will want an answer.
A report from the Institute of Aquaculture in Stirling University draws attention to the inability of the institute to make long-term strategic research plans due to the Government's failure to keep university funding at the promised level. That has implications for fish farming, which is a growing industry in this country and a matter about which we should be concerned.
The Plant Breeding Institute at Cambridge was established in 1912 and has a world-wide reputation. Its long list of successes means that it more than pays for itself. It accounts for 83 per cent. of the NSDO's income and its breeding programmes account for more than 80 per cent. of Britain's winter wheat and a substantial part of potato, oilseed rape, winter barley and field bean acreages. It is now one of the leaders in work to apply molecular biology and other sciences to the development of disease-resistant and pest-resistant arable crops.
The British Veterinary Association has expressed anxiety about the effects of continued cuts on animal disease research. It is concerned about the number of staff seeking jobs abroad and about the difficulties of recruiting young people to research as a career because of the uncertainty of the future. It points out that our research base is being destroyed, that it would be difficult to restore it and that certainly it could not be done quickly enough to deal with an emergency situation. In a country which is supposed to care about animal welfare, that is a very sorry tale. It is essential that this work should continue if we are to reduce our future use of chemicals.
Coming back to the Plant Breeding Institute, which is no stranger to the world of commerce, I point out that it has substantial outside contracts and cheerfully looks to this side of its work continuing and improving. The Plant Breeding Institute is not resisting the privatisation to which it is accustomed and as regards which it has already been very successful. However, it is seriously concerned about the uncertainty surrounding more basic research about which it has been unable to get any specific assurances.
So why do we need publicly-funded research? The original main reason arose from the need to aim at self-sufficiency in food production. We have now achieved 80 per cent. self-sufficiency in indigenous foods, but overall self-sufficiency is still only 62 per cent. All developed countries give support to their agricultural industries. I understand that this year the French intend to increase by 10 per cent. their contributions to agricultural research and development.
As price supports are withdrawn and competition increases, research and development becomes even more important. This is recognised in the poll which is now being conducted by the Home Grown Cereals Authority into the willingness of the industry to finance a proportion of research and development through the authority's statutory levy. On the poll form they list the aims of industry-funded R & D. I imagine that not everyone who is listening will have seen this form, so I propose to quote a little of it at length because it gives a useful guide to what might be considered the Government's strategy.
They say:
"The aims of industry-funded R & D will be to enhance the competitive position of UK cereals by improving:
the efficiency of production, distribution or processing of UK cereals;
the qualtiy of UK cereals and cereal products on a cost-effective basis and in line with market needs
"Value for money will be a key factor in developing a programme. Generally speaking, industry-funded projects will be market oriented, lie at the development end of the R & D spectrum and have a reasonably short time horizon for potential pay-off. Research which is related more to public or Government interest than to potential commercial application will not normally be supported by industry funding".
Excellent, my Lords—exactly what you would expect to find in a document of this kind.
But then they go on to say:
"Examples of the subject areas which may be appropriate for industry support are:
development of new and existing uses for cereals;
breeding and ancillary work including variety trials;
work in connection with cereals quality and, in particular, the evaluation of quality, techniques for producing grain to required quality standards and the avoidance or control of adverse characteristics in grain".
They talk about techniques of processing—and again that is fair enough—and storage and drying, which again is fair enough, and,
"the efficient use of fertilizers and other agrochemicals and other work in connection with the control of diseases, pests and weeds; cultivation techniques and the application of machinery or other equipment;
crop handling (including straw disposal and utilisation);
if the possibility arises, levy money may be used to secure the future of the Plant Breeding Institute (PBI) as a research organisation working for the cereals industry".
There seems to me to be a conflict between the opening remarks in that particular document and the list I have just read out, and particularly that last sentence. This would seem to leave very little which the Government consider to be of sufficient general importance for them to assume complete responsibility. The last sentence seems to me to throw doubt on the continued existence of the PBI despite earlier assurances that we have constantly sought and gained in this House. But what happens if the farmers say no? And even if they do not say no, are we to assume that only those areas to which the industry is willing to contribute will receive government help? Or are the Government going to pick up the tab for those things that we all know are essential to the industry in the long term and must be continued?
I am running out of time so I shall be as brief as I can. It is vital that there should be unbiased support for areas of work where the commercial applications may be a long way off, or where such an end is not presently obvious but where final applications could bring environmental benefits. I understand that the time required to launch a new strain of wheat can be as long as 10 years from the beginning to the time when it is in sufficient quantity to market. Surely that cannot be expected to be funded privately.
Is it reasonable to expect an organisation whose main income is derived from the sale of chemicals to encourage and fund research which would reduce or eliminate one of its major markets? This is one of the points that will have to be taken into account when parts of the PBI are offered for sale, which is the present intention. I understand that some chemical industries are interested in them. It would be useful to have government reassurance that privatisation will be careful in its application and not simply a matter of putting everything up for grabs.
When will we be told which programmes the Government feel are essential and will continue to support? Repeated questions have failed to get answers. When will a decision be taken on the allocation of government funding for research and development in 1987–88? That is still not known. Can the Government assure us that at the end of this painful and destructive exercise there will be a clear indication of their long-term intentions, and a logical administrative system which can be understood by the industry? That, again, is something that we do not have at the moment. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, for at last finding the time—or the Government finding the time—to debate this problem. I agree with practically every word that she said; but I am sorry to say that I can only offer to my noble friend Lord Belstead vinegar, because I am highly critical of, and deeply regret, the cuts that the Government have made, and are indeed making, in agricultural research for the following reasons.
We lead the world in agricultural research, and it is a pity to lose that lead if only for the reason that such
1196
research is a benefit to all mankind, and not least the third world, about which I thought we were supposed to care. Secondly, the cuts were carried out too quickly, with disastrous effects on the work in hand and on the morale of the staff, resulting in the loss of many of our best scientists, which the noble Baroness pointed out.
Thirdly, the policy was short sighted, for the world will always need food efficiently produced. To say, as some do—I do not think that my noble friend does—that there is no need for agriculture to become more efficient because we are producing too much is to confuse production with productivity. Fourthly, it is wrong to state that agricultural research claims too large a slice of the research budget, for if the Government do not fund it, there is no one else to do so (a point that the noble Baroness made) whereas in most other research areas there is an identifiable person or firm that will have direct financial gain from doing so. For that reason I think it was incorrect to make AFRC direct some of their energies and funds into food research.
Such research can, and should, be funded from the food processors and sellers. No doubt some money will be channelled into AFRC from these firms, so I hope that my noble friend will be able to say that little—I would hope he would be able to say none—of the existing funds of AFRC will be diverted into food research.
There is one other point why agricultural research is so important, because it does not just concern itself with agriculture. I shall give one small example. Medical research, for instance, into AIDS-I believe a rather "popular" disease today—was much helped by veterinary research on the sheep disease maedi visna, a point I raised with your Lordships about six years ago. Therefore, perhaps others than farmers may in the end regret the cut back that is taking place in the AFRC on animal diseases. It is a large cut back, as I see from the blue book from the AFRC that I have here.
So much for my criticism. However, I believe that it is no good crying over spilt milk so I would ask my noble friend to look at ways that could perhaps help to alleviate the immediate problem. First, I would refer your Lordships to the 1984 Select Committee on Science and Technology report on co-ordination of agricultural and environmental research, a point that I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, will deal with because he was its eminent and good chairman. This report was critical of the oganisation of publicly-funded work in this area of co-ordination between environment and agriculture. I hope that the Government will encourage further support for such projects from the Economic and Social Research Council, the National Environmental Research Council and the universities, for I cannot see such work being funded by the farmers for the reasons that the noble Baroness has already said or indeed from individual firms. Indeed it is possible that to do so might be against their short term interests, even if farmers were flush with money which they are not at the moment as a result of having newly to fund organisations like Food From Britain and ADAS which the noble Baroness spoke about.

1197
There is, however, an immediate step that the Government can take; that is, to make quite sure that the proposed commercialisation of ADAS, as proposed in the Agriculture Bill now before your Lordships' House, does not lead to lack of information on environmental matters getting to the farmer free of charge; likewise on the other side of this story lack of feedback from the farmer through ADAS getting back to AFRC, an important part.
I hope the Government will accept this point and accept that such an undertaking be written into that Bill. The importance of these grass roots views is clearly stated in the AFRC corporate plan 1986–91 in paragraph 2.10.
There is also the question of the timing of the cuts. I ask my noble friend to accept that if the remaining (I hope they are really the remaining) cuts are to be implemented in 1987–88 he will realise that notices will have to be given to staff this autumn. This is really far too short and much too short for new funding to be found. Can the Minister please look again at this timescale? I am sure he can alter it slightly. Last, and perhaps most important, I reinforce the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and ask my noble friend whether he can assure me that if R and D is funded from outside, which we all hope, the Government will not respond by simply making further cuts.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, the time for this debate is limited and so I hope the noble Baroness will forgive me if I do no more than thank her very briefly for giving us the opportunity of discussing this enormously important subject and congratulate her on the admirable way in which she opened our discussion. I hope that she and other noble Lords will forgive me if I do not remain until the end of the debate. Unfortunately I did not realise (perhaps I should say I miscalculated) the length of time the two Statements would take. I have an appointment at eight o'clock for which I shall undoubtedly be late, but I do not know whether I can make myself late enough in order to stay until the end of the debate. I offer my apologies should it transpire that I have to leave.
This debate is being held under the shadow of surpluses of food in the Western world. "Shadow" is a curious word to use in regard to surpluses; rather it is a question of the glare and the warmth of the sun. It is fantastic that we should look on surpluses as something to decry and be afraid of rather than revel in surpluses and fear shortages. Although there are surpluses in this part of the world, in the world as a whole there are no surpluses. If everybody had enough money to buy the food that they needed for nutrition and that they wanted for their own satisfaction, there would be no surpluses whatsoever.
Let us remember that by the end of the century the world population will have increased by one-and-a-half billion people—one-and-a-half billion extra mouths to feed. At that time North Sea oil will be close to exhaustion, our industrial production will not have shown very many signs of increasing and our balance of payments will present serious problems. We must always have that in the forefront of our minds when we are talking of subjects of the long-term nature of both
1198
farming and research. Do not let us forget that it was not so many years ago—some 40 years or so—that we were short of food in this country. Even when the war was over we had to introduce bread rationing. It was largely because of the efforts of farmers and, above all, the successes of scientists in the 1920s and 1930s that we were able to overcome shortages. Surely there is a lesson to be learnt from that. It is that agricultural research must continue at least at the present level for the safety and for the wellbeing of the country, looking ahead over a 20-year timescale as indeed we must.
Quite apart from food production, there is biotechnology, about which we hear so much. I do not believe that biotechnology will help the immediate problem of food shortages, but I do believe that in the years and decades ahead it can make a very great contribution to our economic well being. The possibilities from this type of work, from the genetic engineering associated with it, are almost without limit. Other countries are working at it; we must be working at it ourselves. As environmental considerations increase in importance and as nonrenewable resources become dearer and even exhausted, we must look ever more to raw materials from renewable resources; in other words, from agriculture.
Let us press ahead far more urgently than we are doing with research into biotechnology. It is not only the question of the time lag that is important. What is also of enormous overriding importance is the relationship between basic and applied research. There is no hard and fast division between these two. One cannot just draw a line and say that on one side the research is basic and on the other it is applied—we shall deal with the applied in one way and the basic research in another.
Rather more than 50 years ago I was privileged to learn the then very new techniques of tissue culture at the Strangeways Laboratory in Cambridge. Who could have imagined then that even such a mundane thing as the breeding of new varieties of potato would be helped to a great degree by the technique of tissue culture, quite apart from the far more important matters of improvements and new techniques in medical science. What about synthetic pyrethrins? Investigations into the nature of natural pyrethrins started in 1948 (quite a long time ago) in a purely academic way. In 1965 new compounds were synthesised. Now, some 20 years later, those new compounds are present in 25 per cent. of all insecticides used in agriculture. They account for a turnover of very nearly £400 million a year and over £10 million in royalties to the British Technology Group. There has been basic science, basic research, and after 20, 30 or 40 years we have seen very real applied results from that.
I shall take one more example; and I could go on and on. In the early 1950s work was being done on a purely academic basis on amino-acids not incorporated into proteins. As I say, it was purely academic research. This has now led to a means of producing hybrid wheat which has potential advantages akin to those of hybrid maize, stemming from this academic research of 30 years or so ago. We cannot afford to forgo such research; yet in the past six years the staff of AFRC has fallen from 6,500 to 3,200. This has

1199
obviously—and the noble Baroness has touched on this—a disastrous effect on the morale of the people working there. Some have already gone into industry; more have emigrated. Still others, particularly young ones, have decided against a career in agricultural research at all—and agricultural research is today the loser. In 20 years' or 30 years' time we shall all be losers.
The noble Baroness has mentioned the Plant Breeding Institute, and I hope that your Lordships will bear with me if I say a few words about it, As we know, it has a worldwide reputation and it is founded upon truly magnificent work based on the closest collaboration between basic and applied research. I repeat that it is impossible to draw a line between the two. We have heard accusations by my noble friend Lord Diamond and the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, about selling off the family silver. That is bad enough; but it is sheer vandalism to break up the silver teaset and to sell off the teapot to one person and the milk jug to another, so that what has been built up over generations is dissipated.
Yet that, I fear, is what the Government are facing if they are intending—and I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will tell us more about this—to sell off the practical part of PBI but retain the basic research. No matter how great may be the need of the Government for ready cash, there are certain principles, whether for the Plant Breeding Institute or any other research institute, which must be adhered to.
In the case of the Plant Breeding Institute it must not pass to any group whose main interest is in selling products other than seeds for agriculture—products which might well compete with new varieties; for instance, as we have heard, disease-resistant strains. It must be controlled by people who are not looking for quick profits but who are prepared to wait 20 years or more for a return; and these people must also be concerned primarily with United Kingdom agriculture. It must belong to, and be controlled by, people who are prepared to give freedom to scientists of all kinds, the best and the not so good, to pursue their own line of research even though the commercial significance of that research is hard to quantify at any given moment.
But, above all, the basic and applied research must not be separated. The line between them, I repeat—and it cannot be repeated too often—is very hazy. But even if it could be drawn, the contract between the pure and the applied sciences is absolutely invaluable. For that reason, if for no other, I say very firmly from these Benches that we are adamantly opposed to the selling off of the Plant Breeding Institute and I very much hope that the noble Lord will be able to give us some news on this when he comes to reply.
If the United Kingdom is to retain its leading position in agriculture of which the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, reminded us, if agriculture is to continue to serve the country's needs, the present trends must, first, be halted and then reversed. Only in this way will established scientists remain in their present jobs, will morale be improved, will enthusiasm once more be
1200
seen; and only in this way will the high flyers of the future be persuaded to take up jobs at home.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Somers: My Lords, my first duty must be to follow the noble Lord, Lord Walston, in one thing, and that is to apologise to your Lordships if I have to leave before the end of the debate. I apologise particularly to the noble Lord who is going to answer, but I can assure him that I shall read every word that he says. I am going to confine myself to one aspect only, and that is what is known as intensive farming, or factory farming, as it is sometimes called. This has not gained very great acceptance in our country. It can be found but it has not spread very widely; although in France it has spread so widely that the old-fashioned farm is almost a rarity. I am hoping that we can do something to prevent that from happening here.
The main object of it is financial. It is a money-making concern, although actually there are signs that it is becoming less easy since the equipment that has to be purchased in order to start it is extremely expensive; and also they are not getting the same price for their products as they used to get. There are three reasons why it must be objected to. One is humanitarian; one is the quality of the product; and the third is the economic, including the effect on the third world. I will not dwell too heavily on the humanitarian because I know that when it is a question of making money that is not considered to be of very great importance. But it is extremely important to those who are worried about it. The animals are crowded together in quite unnatural conditions; they have no daylight at all, merely artificial light; they have no natural food, merely composite foods; and they have no freedom of movement. That does not make for a very healthy animal. I will leave it at that.
The next point—the quality of the product—is of some importance because one has to remember that when one eats an animal one also eats what that animal has been fed on and what it has been given. Hormones are used not only for battery birds but also for calves and other animals. And, of course, antibiotics are used widely. The trouble with hormones is that they are completely unspecified, nobody quite knows which hormones. Some can be very harmful and some not. There was a time not so long ago, only a few years ago, when a product was injected into calves which was later found to be cancer-producing in humans. That sort of thing, I am glad to say, has stopped now; but, on the other hand, one must be very careful about what these animals are eating.
There has been a good deal of research into battery eggs. It has been very difficult to show a scientific difference between the two types of eggs, but I have recently been translating a French book on the whole subject of battery farming and the value of that book is that it approaches the whole question in an entirely factual way, without being in any way emotional. The book includes a paragraph by the president of the French gastronomic press, Monsieur Edouard Longue, which reads:
"Laying hens, immobilised, over-fed, light during the night, give eggs of which the smaller yolk is less biodynamic, while the white

1201
contains a large amount of coarse albumen, whence comes a difference in digestibility very noticeable to the middle-aged or elderly".
I am not a great egg eater myself, but I shall be very careful after that to see that I eat free-range eggs.
Of course, too, one must consider the make-up of composite foods. The hens are given a mixture chiefly of cereals. In 1980, in France, they consumed 14 million tonnes of composite food, of which four and a half million was maize, two and a half million was wheat and one and a half million was barley, and other cereals, as well as foods such as powdered milk, lactose, molasses, fatty materials and mineral vitamins.
That is all very well, but it is certainly not a natural food for any creature, and it is given purely for the purpose of making them grow faster and lay more. But one must remember, too, that the colossal amount of cereals which is used in these foods would do a very great deal to relieve famine in the starving countries of the East. Therefore, as I said, it has its effect on the third world.
I have always had the greatest admiration for farmers. They are a gallant race, and they fight what is almost a losing war against our very changeable climate. But I would hate to see them turned into a race of factory managers. I sincerely hope that we will do something to prevent it.
7.13 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, I should first declare an interest as chairman of the Agricultural and Food Research Council as well as being a farmer. As such, I must resist the temptation, much as I should like to do so, to dwell on the problems that research councils are facing in these times of severe cuts. I am sure that the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, will be appreciated by those who are affected so directly by these cuts.
I should like to take a step back and look at the justification for publicly-funded agricultural research in the context of our civil research programme in this country. As the noble Lord, Lord Walston, reminded us, this has to be done in the context of agriculture as it is perceived by the public at the moment. These are times of surpluses; times when the agricultural industry itself is in some respects, striving to find its new role. The Government are certainly casting a new role for it, which is why their support has been radically modified.
The particular disfavour that the Government have with the present support system refers to the CAP. Previous Administrations have tried unsuccessfully to get a Common Agricultural Policy which is appropriate to our needs and, for that matter, to the needs of Europe—and I speak of the consumer as much as of the producer. All Administrations have failed. Successive agriculture Ministers and finance Ministers have had to accept that the majority view in the EC has prevailed. Inevitably, the national government have turned to the area of the support package, which is within their control, and have cut fiercely and predictably into the national support system. So capital grants, arterial drainage and advisory services
1202
have all been cut, and will possibly face more cuts. Inevitably, also, research and development was in line for those cuts.
In that context, the Government have looked at the entire package and have said, "We have got to go right through the list and cut." I think that they were mistaken not to have thought through quite clearly enough what is the strategy in these changing circumstances, where production for production's sake is no longer desirable. What is the role for the rural areas? What is the role for the producers of raw materials? What does the industry expect it will need in the very changed financial climate? I do not believe that this has yet been clearly thought out.
Going back to the role of research and development for agriculture and looking at what, at the moment, is included in public expenditure terms under this very wide umbrella that is described as "agricultural research", it is very important to remember that, as other speakers have already reminded us, it covers a far wider field than support for the producer—the grower, the farmer. It includes food research. My noble friend Lord Stanley would apparently like to see less of that. I disagree with him, because there is a continuum between production and the food processor, and it is very often difficult to determine when you are doing research, even in the field, whether the benefit is to go to the producer or the consumer. If you breed a milling wheat, that may be an advantage to the arable producer as well as to the baker. So I accept the Government's recognition of the need to underpin the food industry, which they did a year or so ago in response to the report of ACARD—The Advisory Committee for Applied Research And Development. I only hope that the funds will allow that initiative to continue.
Agricultural research also includes support for the agricultural engineering industry. Your Lordships have in the past referred to the great need to underpin this successful industry, remembering that we export more tractors than any other country, but an industry which in sectors other than tractors has often faced very severe times. The noble Lord, Lord Somers, referred to the animal welfare interests. Again, these are covered in part by the agricultural research budget, as indeed are veterinary interests in a wider field.
A subject on which the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, has chaired a report for your Lordships is the environment and agricultural research. By no means all such research will come out of the agricultural research budget, but much work on, for instance, nitrates in water supplies, slurry disposal and the like comes under it, as it should, because the agricultural research services carry out research into these areas most effectively. But these are all areas in which I believe there will be very wide public support for continuing, or increasing, expenditure, whatever your Lordships may think of underpinning production research.
It may surprise your Lordships to know that some aspects of human nutrition come under the agricultural research vote. Work at the Rowett research institute in Scotland, for instance, is funded by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland in a figure which will come under public expenditure on agricultural research. Again, that is logical, because it is an end-use for the food, and much of the composition of

1203
food can be influenced back through the production and storage chain. So whatever your Lordships' view may be about production research and the need to underpin the producer, I think there will be a wide measure of agreement that, within the total budget for agricultural research, there are many areas which will command wide public support.
Secondly, there is the underpinning of the biological sciences, to which the noble Lord, Lord Walston, has also referred. He referred to biotechnology and to other areas which are of great strategic importance to this country. It is not true that agricultural research has a monopoly of such underpinning research in the biological sciences, but it nevertheless has a very important part. The biotechnology programme within the research service is an extremely large and important part of the national biotechnology programme. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Walston, is right to say that it could be of enormous importance to us, not in the next two or three years, perhaps not even in the next decade, but certainly thereafter and well into the next century.
Today, when we have listened to a sad Statement from the Front Bench on the British shipbuilding industry, it is so important for us to identify and remember which industries are going to be helping us in 10 or 20 years' time and which are the growth industries. I would hazard a guess—others may disagree with me—at electronics and the biological sciences, and would say that those are the two areas on which we can put our money with some degree of conviction. If you have within the agricultural research umbrella a strong biotechnological programme, for goodness sake you would not wish to see it cut.
It may have been a misnomer to have described such work as agricultural research in the first place. After all, this biotechnological work, at a cellular level or wherever, could well eventually not only benefit the food industry or the producer but could produce replacements for our present energy sources. It could help the pharmaceutical industry, the chemical industry, feedstocks for industry and the textile industry—who is to say? This is a demonstration of how far-reaching these biological sciences could be in reshaping our industry. Noble Lords may say, "So much for that, but that is not what we meant by agricultural research". I have to say that that in part is what is meant by agriculture in public expenditure statements.
But I make no apology for saying also that the case for supporting production in this country is as strong as it ever was. I have to accept, standing as I do on this side of the House, that there will have to be cuts in support for agriculture. I will accept that there must be a greater sense of self-help by farmers. It is right that they should be paying more for research in the future. Other industries look with some surprise at the relatively modest amounts farmers contribute compared with other sectors of industry. The farmer, having in some ways been led up a blind alley by the Common Agricultural Policy, will have to face surpluses which depress the world price, and he is now being told by government that he will have to rely more and more on selling at something nearer world prices. He will have to face much fiercer competition
1204
than he has ever known before, at least in my lifetime. Perhaps those who can remember back to the 1930s will say that history will repeat itself in some respects.
Those agricultures in Europe and elsewhere around the world which will compete effectively are those which will implement the most relevant technology and will have the greatest aptitude for implementing such technology. I have the greatest confidence in the farmers' ability to implement technology, because whatever the British farmer has done he has been extremely successful in doing it. I have also—and here noble Lords may say that I am speaking from a vested interest—every confidence in the research service delivering the goods.
My noble friend Lord Stanley was correct in telling us that agricultural research in this country has been a success story. Against a framework of expansion encouraged by numerous governments, going back to food from our own resources, and by more recent Administrations, the requirement has been to increase production. Now the requirement will be to reduce costs—it may well be at lower inputs—to produce higher quality food, to do so with greater respect to the environment and neighbours, to find new markets in the world and to compete efficiently and effectively with other producers around the world. I believe that agriculture can do that. I believe that the British farmer will do it. Whatever other support he will need, he will need technology, and I beg my noble friend on the Front Bench to tell us that, whatever other support is to be removed, the research and development budget will be retained.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Tedder: My Lords, before proceeding further, I must own that I have an interest in the organisation of agricultural research in Scotland. I am a memorialist (or trustee) of the Macaulay Institute for Soil Research in Aberdeen.
The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland has suggested, among other proposals, that the Hill Farming Research Organisation and the Macaulay Institute for Soil Research should be combined to form a single research institute, concerned with land use, particularly in the hills and uplands. In addition, it recommends a transfer of some staff from the Macaulay Institute to the Scottish Crop Research Institute and to the colleges of agriculture.
I think it is fair to say that the majority if not all the members of the Council of Management of the Macaulay Institute, would welcome the merging of the Hill Farming Research Organisation and the Macaulay Institute to form an institute of land usage. However, there is dissension as to where the new institute should be sited. The possibilities are on the land owned by the Macaulay memorialists in Aberdeen or on the Bush Estate in Midlothian owned by Edinburgh University, some 10 miles out from the centre of the city. A major objection to the move to Midlothian is that it would involve the transfer of the larger of the two units. The staff at the Macaulay Institute is approximately 221 compared with 120 at the Hill Farming Research Organisation.
I am a little concerned by the paper produced by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland entitled, Strategy for Agricultural Research and

1205
Development. This paper lists a number of organisations on the Bush Estate which it is hoped will establish links with the new Macaulay Institute. No mention is made of the collaboration which at present exists between the Macaulay Institute and other research institutes in Aberdeen which include the three laboratories belonging to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, and several departments of Aberdeen University, including the soil, forestry and land economy departments whose basic research would particularly underpin that of the new institute. The collaboration lost by the move of the institute from Aberdeen to the Bush Estate is likely to be considerably more significant than future collaboration with units already on the Bush Estate. There appear to be more links to be severed by the move of the Macaulay Institute from Aberdeen than there would be by the move of the Hill Farming Research Organisation from the Bush Estate.
It is very hard to understand the justification of a large transfer of staff and resources from the Macaulay Institute to the Scottish Crop Research Institute as proposed by the department. It seems clear that both institutes need similar expertise, even when they are seeking different objectives. At present the relationships and the collaboration are excellent. Why interfere with this first class collaboration, particularly when it would involve splitting up expert teams?
The department's proposals are too rigid, and insufficient attention appears to have been paid to the need for flexibility. The new remit for the Macaulay Institute must enable the new institute to cope with changes in land use other than those associated with animal husbandry in the highlands and uplands. It is urgent that the staff should be versatile and that teams of research scientists with special expertise should not be fragmented, especially at this time when so many cuts are being made. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland must look to future flexibility and the ability to respond to changing circumstances.
I return to my main concern. The transfer of the existing staff and equipment belonging to the Macaulay Institute from Aberdeen to the Bush Estate would be a far more difficult and costly operation than the transfer of the Hill Farming Research Organisation from Midlothian to Aberdeen. If the new Macaulay Institute were to be established at the Craigiebuckler site in Aberdeen, few members of staff would be required to move.
My other point is that it is by no means clear what would happen to the Craigiebuckler site if the department went ahead and transferred the staff and equipment of the existing Macaulay Institute to Midlothian against the considered judgment of the memorialists. It must be hoped that the use of the Aberdeen site—the Craigiebuckler site—will be settled with the agreement of all concerned.
It seems clear from every point of view that it would be of the greatest benefit to agriculture in Scotland if the Hill Farming Research Organisation were to join the Macaulay Institute on the Craigiebuckler site, where its animal husbandry resources would be supported most by those of the nearby Rowett Research Institute, which is a world leader in that area. The present Macaulay Institute collaborates
1206
extensively with the Rowett Institute, and the relationship between the two is close and productive. Let it remain so.
So far, I have been concerned with a particular example of agricultural research in Scotland. I repeat what I have said so many times in your Lordships' House; the future of this country depends on the quality of its research in science and engineering. Let us do all that we can to promote good science in agriculture.
7.31 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, coming as it does at a very critical stage for the agricultural industry, I welcome the timeliness of this debate and the very positive, practical and thoughtfully progressive proposals put forward by noble Lords during it. I especially commend the points made by my noble friend Lady Nicol when she opened this debate. I am pleased to be following the noble Lord, Lord Tedder, who spoke for Scotland so cogently and progressively. I wish to express an interest on behalf of the Northern Ireland community and also the many others in Northern Ireland whose life, work and future prosperity is closely tied to the agricultural industry in the province.
Agriculture is Northern Ireland's largest single industry. In 1984, which is the latest year for which I have figures available, some 10 per cent. of the total working population were directly involved in agricultural production. In addition, about 4 per cent. of the working population are employed in industries and services directly related to farming activities, such as food processing, packaging, feed stuffs, machinery, transport, and other forms of indirect employment. In Northern Ireland, the role of agriculture in the economy is relatively more important than it is in any other part of the United Kingdom. Agriculture is based predominantly on the natural resources of the province and it makes a significant contribution to employment, output and exports.
I believe therefore that it can be fairly claimed that agricultural research and development is, on a population basis, eight times more important to Northern Ireland's future prosperity than it is for the rest of the United Kingdom. We have heard the importance of research and development emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Tedder, in general terms, and I was pleased to hear it. I consider that it is even more important in respect of Northern Ireland. I am not making any special pleadings, but I ask that the situation there be looked at.
I am pleased to say that Northern Ireland has over the years developed a highly sophisticated and expert range of research and development facilities. The development schemes are incorporated in legislation and cover agriculture and horticulture. Research provisions and facilities are provided by Queen's University and the Universityof Ulster, by agricultural colleges, and by research centres provided by the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture. They have been very well documented in reports of the Northern Ireland Economic Council and the Public Service Alliance, which is the trade union for research and agriculture workers in general, and by the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland.

1207
I realise that some of the matters I wish to deal with this evening are already contained in issues arising in the Agriculture Bill that is currently being considered by this House. Perhaps I shall have the opportunity to deal with those points in more detail when that Bill reaches its Committee stage. However, on broader and more general matters, I take this opportunity to emphasise that the small family-owned and run businesses that are a feature of the structure of farming in Northern Ireland have the usual difficulties of maintaining a reasonable cash flow and generating funds for new development. Their needs for technical and economic advice are of a different nature from those of large farm businesses, which can more easily purchase expertise and fit the costs into their normal financial budgets.
The farmer with a relatively small area of land, unless he has recourse to other employment has frequently to maximise his family's and his own labour inputs into his farm to maximise his profitability. That requires him to be knowledgeable about the very complex and rapidly changing technology that characterises farming today, and to be able to implement the results himself.
In addition, the role of the agricultural development and advisory services in Northern Ireland in low-cost farming systems is likely to be very similar to if not more vital than that which has been required of them during the past 10 years. Changes in the common agricultural policy designed to reduce surpluses will no doubt accelerate the search for increased efficiency. The absolute and relative importance of agriculture to the Northern Ireland economy makes it imperative that farming in Northern Ireland remains viable; that Northern Ireland products become even more competitive in the United Kingdom, EC and world markets; and that total production, and therefore employment, is maximised so far as possible, commensurate with those requirements.
Sadly, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, there are ominous signs looming darkly on the horizon for agriculture. Northern Ireland perhaps has more difficulties, as has already been stated, in respect of huge bank overdrafts, which have been publicised in the press and other media. They are now a feature of the Northern Ireland economy. There are also the difficulties of last year's winter and the problems already arising for agriculture because of the late spring conditions. Additionally, there are the proposals in the Agriculture Bill, which have already been mentioned, for wider and additional financial charges for vital advisory and research services that are critical and necessary to progressive developments in the farming industry.
In those circumstances, I wish to have an assurance from the Government that development and research in Northern Ireland will be reinforced to enable an increase in the efficient use of available resources; a reduction in the level of purchased inputs while maintaining output on farms of sufficient size to meet family income needs; and, I stress again, to ensure that developments in research in Northern Ireland will be maintained and improved to promote employment and prosperity for the Northern Ireland agricultural industry.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Adrian: My Lords, as has been anticipated already by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, I want this evening to say something about the relationship between agricultural research and environmental research. Before I do so, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, for introducing this debate. If I say nothing about the difficulties faced by the Agricultural Research Service and ADAS it is not because I do not recognise them. I am directly involved in them as chairman of a governing body of an AFRC- and MAFF-funded research institute. It is one, like many others, which has had to face many difficulties. The noble Baroness has already said very much on that score and I agree with all that she has said.
I had the privilege in 1984 of chairing a subcommittee of your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology. Its remit was to examine the borderline between agriculture and the environment. We said then that awareness of the environmental dimension ought to be written into the remit of all those concerned with agricultural research; both Government departments, as customers, and the AFRC and the Scottish agricultural research organisations, as contractors. I believe that events since that time, especially within the common agricultural policy, have confirmed the importance of that message. It is not necessary to dwell here on the problems of the CAP. They are huge, and feverish activity is going on to work out how production in Community agriculture can be contained.
The transformation of agricultural production from dearth to surplus in a quarter of a century is a striking tribute to the success of agricultural R & D; but this success has had its cost. I believe that the cost is felt particularly in marginal areas of poor agricultural land. These lands have increasingly been ploughed up for cereal production. But the factors which had made that land unattractive for agriculture were of course often the same factors which made it valuable for amenity or nature conservation. For example, roughness of terrain, low nutrient values or poor drainage. Therefore, land has been turned from a regime which respected those environmental qualities to the exclusive production of crops; crops which are now unwanted here in Europe because their supply is excessive.
The implications for agricultural R & D are substantial. As the CAP policy-makers look for alternatives to their present policies, research is urgently needed both to inform their decisions and to support farmers in the new conditions in which they find themselves. So emphasis in R & D is moving away from the pursuit of maximum production at any cost. This shift has been under way for some time and is likely to gather momentum. It is not possible to generalise about what alternative goals will be sought; but I am sure that more attention will have to be paid to the relationships between agricultural inputs and agricultural outputs. Instead of high input-high output regimes, there are many advocates of regimes that maximise the output but from substantially lower inputs. I believe that this may help to reduce the problem of surpluses without harming the farming community in a way which quotas and other draconian measures obviously do;

1209
moreover, there will be substantial benefits for conservation of the countryside.
The inquiry by the Select Committee on Science and Technology, to which I referred, was concerned with the organisation of research rather than specifically with its content. We wanted to be assured that agriculture and the environment were not seen as distinct entities. They cannot be separated. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of the Environment, for instance, or the AFRC and NERC, are acting in collaboration rather than in isolation from each other. We were also keen to ensure that research projects on the borderlines between agriculture and the environment did not suffer. Furthermore, we drew attention to the importance of bringing the Economic and Social Research Council closer to agricultural research in order that the socio-economic issues in new agricultural policies were properly considered.
I am glad to say that the Government's response to our report was a most positive one and I believe that the research councils have also taken full note of our recommendations. I particularly welcome the new duty accepted by agriculture Ministers, now proposed in Clause 12 of the Agriculture Bill before this House, to seek to achieve a reasonable balance between the interests of agriculture, conservation, recreation and the social and economic needs of rural areas. This is a very important development because, as the Select Committee said, the key to a proper balance in agricultural research depends largely on the customer. The agricultural departments must accept their obligation towards the whole environment and must promote research on the environmental effects of agricultural practices, whether or not such work appears likely to have benefit in terms simply of farming economics. That recommendation has been accepted by the Government, and we are grateful.
I am also aware of moves to bring the research councils closer together. The AFRC, in its corporate plan, for instance, states that it is exploring with ESRC and NERC ways of integrating research programmes more effectively and of giving clearer guidelines to universities on the research councils' interests and their responsibilities in applied biological research on agriculture, land use and the natural environment. I welcome the establishment by the research councils of a joint policy working group to encourage joint programmes in institutions and universities. I wonder whether the Minister can tell the House what progress is being made and whether the working group has yet become active.
No speech about agricultural R & D these days can fail to mention the subject of finance, and I have two questions for the Minister on that subject. First, the Select Committee recommended that MAFF should significantly increase its funding of strategic research. This has been one of the victims of recent cuts and I know that the priorities board said that, while it accepted a degree of industry funding of R & D as an active method of securing industrial commitment,
"it is likely that the industry will most readily fund work at the applied end of the R & D spectrum".
Since the Government's policy is to rely more heavily on industrial funding for agricultural R & D, I seek
1210
assurances that the funding of strategic research not fall by the wayside.
The Government's response to the Select Committee said that agriculture Ministers would be taking their decisions on the future direction of research effort in the light of the report from the priorities board and would bear the views of the Select Committee in mind. What conclusions have been reached? Perhaps I should give one example of the many strategic areas which need support; for instance, in soils the long term sustainability of rural resources and the preservation of soil fertility. This area, which was mentioned in our report, must be adequately covered by research.
The Government's response also said that MAFF was considering the funding of socio-economic research in agriculture in conjunction with the ESRC and the DoE. What decisions have been reached and has additional effort been put into this area?
Finally. I come back to the environmental effects of agricultural practices. The Select Committee recommended that the agriculture department should introduce a mechanism for identifying these effects. Otherwise, we did not see how Ministers could fulfil their responsibility to promote research into the effects. This is still the case. The environmental duty in the Agriculture Bill cannot be complied with unless Ministers have the facts on which to judge what is a reasonable balance between the interests of agriculture, conservation and the other needs of rural areas. The committee did not try to lay down what mechanisms should be adopted to identify environmental effects of agricultural practices; but we did recommend, as a contribution to that mechanism, a small and highly selective network of projects, perhaps modelled on the North Farm project of the Game Conservancy.
This excellent study of the grey partridge revealed some unexpected trends in the population dynamics of wild species, especially invertebrates, and potentially damaging ecological side effects which can flow from pesticide regimes and cropping practices. Strategic monitoring of this kind is needed to give early warning of environmental consequences and so to prevent pollution. Comparable projects are needed in other locations of different soil types and for different ecosystems.
In their response to this recommendation, the Government said that studies were being undertaken at Boxworth Experimental Husbandry Farm where the influence of different pesticide regimes is being assessed. NERC and AFRC were said to be exploring the possibilities of a number of studies within existing and proposed research programmes, which could provide a potential basis for a selective network of projects. 1 should be very grateful for a progress report on this matter, though I realise that in a short debate of this kind there is a limit to the number of questions which the Minister can answer. I should be perfectly happy to receive an answer to this question in writing if that would be a preferable way of doing it. However, I hope to hear that some kind of selective monitoring network is in process of being established for what I believe to be an important purpose.
7.51 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, this has been an extremely important debate and the House is fortunate that the noble Baroness was lucky in the ballot. She has introduced the debate with her usual great competence and the amount of work that she obviously does on these occasions and the excellent way in which she presents it to your Lordships' House always make me a little ashamed.
Every speaker has stressed the importance of research and development in their different ways and all of them have expressed—some more violently and some more tactfully than others—their astonishment that the Government should be cutting back on research and development at a time when the incomes of farmers are down—for example, in Scotland by some 80 per cent. this year. Many farms in my own area are up for sale simply because the farmers cannot retain them. Research and development is enormously important.
The whole history of my native county of Aberdeenshire is tied up with the development of the college of agriculture there. When I went to my present farm, which is in the good lands of Strathmore away in the deep south, at least 50 miles south of Aberdeen, I remember that the previous farmer said to me: "You must remember, laddie, that this is real farming country. It has been farmed for five hundred years, whereas Aberdeenshire has been dragged up between the stones in the last one hundred and fifty years". This is perfectly true of my native county. That history of the dragging of it into one of the biggest and best agricultural areas in Scotland is a history of research and development in agriculture.
The use of lime has been known for many years. It was propagated by the college. One of the great advances in the increasing fertility of land and flow of food from Aberdeenshire came from the introduction of wild white clover and the fixing of the nodules of nitrogen to increase fertility of the land. It was a tremendous advance. Then we went on to the new seeds and the new techniques. There was the work of Mr. James Findlay of the North of Scotland College of Agriculture who observed and measured sowing dates and crops for 40 years and, with a typical scientist's caution then said: "I think it is apparent that after 14th April in Aberdeenshire, with a crop of oats, every day you delay sowing on average loses a bushel a day". This sort of work that is undertaken over many years by the college and which is suitable for the area is of immense importance.
I do not think that research and development can be concentrated in one centre. It has to be spread throughout the country, be close to the practical farmer and suitable for the purposes of that area. In Northern Ireland just after the war Professor Morrison of the university there and his team were way ahead in the development of silage as a suitable winter crop for a wet area. That shows the value of local knowledge in the development of the many new practices that we can use. My noble friend Lord Tedder has spoken already of the unease that is felt in the Macaulay Institute and, I suppose, in the Hill Farming Research Organisation, at the combining of the two institutes in one establishment. The Government must realise the harm that is being done and the delay which is caused
1212
by moving a whole institute with its personnel (taking families and children from their schools) to a new location. Obviously, it must be done in a way which causes the least upset to the very important work that is being done in that area.
In Scotland as a whole, which of course I know best, we are suffering a great deal from the rundown—in fact the cutting out—of the Scottish Institute of Agricultural Engineering. I hope that in its new role, which has been much reduced because of the cuts in the colleges, it can once again be built up and continue to do the very important work that it undertakes for Scottish conditions; such as, for example, not producing potato harvesters which can work in the Fens but cannot possibly work in the rather stonier Scottish ground. There is also the Farm Buildings Institute which is extremely important for the development of any system. If we are going to move—which in my view we must do—to a system of lower farming, lower inputs, and perhaps healthier inputs, we shall need a great deal of research.
I hope that this will not mean that the fall in the price of land and the fall in the price of goods will result in great parts of England tumbling back into the kind of buttercup pastures which I am sure was not what the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, meant when he said that conservation was important. I am sure that we can do better than that. But it needs a great deal of research to see the kind of grasses that are required and the kind of conservation that is needed for the winter feed in that area and again to see the sort of buildings that are required to house the stock comfortably and properly in winter. It all ties in together.
I must say that I was delighted when my noble friend Lord Walston said that we were wholly against the privatisation of the Plant Breeding Institute. It is difficult to understand what the Government are doing. Privatisation does not appear to depend on competence or service to the community; it depends on being able to sell to somebody. It does not appear to me to be a good basis for the support of an industry as important as agriculture is and will continue to be. It is nonsense to think that agriculture can be an industry which will make the countryside pretty for people to visit. It is an industry which is of enormous importance and which at the present time is saving in imports some £2 billion a year more than 10 years ago. It will become more important as our oil exports decline. It needs to be supported by established institutions.
The Plant Breeding Institute, because of its close association with more basic research, has been able to produce 80 per cent. of the new wheats which are producing the surpluses (which are a good thing and not a bad thing) in this country and 30 per cent. of the rest of the cereals.
It is ludicrous to think about privatising an establishment that is already losing people because of lack of confidence in the future. The Government should think again. It is a good thing to make the National Seed Organisation more competent and to get it to export its excellent products. But to interfere with the Plant Breeding Institute as it successfully is at the moment appears to us to be stupidity of a high order, and influenced only by the doctrinaire thoughts

1213
of the Government which are already running them into trouble.
I could say a great deal more; in fact, if I find my notes, I will. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, stressed the importance of keeping up research into biotechnology, genetic engineering and all the other new features. I hope and trust that the Government will do that, will not rely on getting all the money from an industry that is being impoverished in other ways, will realise the importance of confidence and will do their duty instead of their doctrinaire worst, which is what they appear to be trying to do.
8 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I am sorry that my noble friend Lord John-Mackie is not at the Dispatch Box to wind up on behalf of the Official Opposition, but my task has been made considerably easier by the masterly opening speech of my noble friend Lady Nicol and also by the guidance that she has given me. She described carefully and accurately the nature and the magnitude of the crisis facing agricultural research and development in the United Kingdom and its long-term repercussions. She also identified apparent inconsistencies, if not contradictions, in government statements, and she asked a few awkward questions. Noble Lords who speak with great authority on the subject—the noble Lords, Lord Stanley and Lord Walston, in particular—have in powerful speeches reinforced her analysis of the crisis. The Government have a great deal to answer for.
The House listened with great interest to the speech delivered by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, chairman of the AFRC and a farmer. I am sure that his speech, which amounted to a justification for publicly-funded agricultural research, will be studied with great interest and will also be quoted by an audience far wider than that present here this evening. The noble Earl steered clear of discussing the immediate cuts that are around us, but I recall his explaining clearly to the House two or three years ago how at an early stage he recognised that the Government's policies bore within them the seeds of danger. In 1984 he warned that the cuts could be devastating and were more far-reaching than might then have appeared. I believe that that message delivered in 1984 has now been driven home.
The profound effects of the crisis are reflected in three paragraphs in the AFRC's corporate plan for 1986 to 1991; namely, paragraphs 3.6, 5.3 and 5.5. It is well worth repeating the essence of those three paragraphs. Paragraph 3.6 tells us that, assuming that costs are rising at 5 per cent. per annum, there will be a drop in volume of agricultural research of 26 per cent. over the eight-year period 1983–1991. Paragraph 5.3 tells us that in 1984–85, 600 posts were lost in AFRC institutions. In 1985–86, 580 posts will be lost; and in 1986–87, in the words of the document "another 600 will go". That means a reduction over three years of about one-third of the AFRC manpower resources. Paragraph 5.5 tells us that the corporate plan is unable to make a prediction of staffing levels beyond 1986–87, because that will depend on the level of funding available and that is an unknown factor. The crisis may not necessarily be over in two years' time.
1214
There is no doubt that the dismantling of projects, the closing of research institutes, the redundancies and the threat of continuing uncertainty have drastically affected the morale of the research workers, who feel that they are remote from the planners. The point has been made by a number of noble Lords this evening that all that undermines morale. We accept that agriculture is confronting major challenges; it is in a changing situation. That was spelt out clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, in a notable speech.
In such a period when the skills and the learning of the scientists have so much to offer to resolve the difficulties and the challenges, does it make sense to make them redundant? Is that not yet another example of government stubbornly and fervently pursuing a short-term policy of reducing public expenditure at the cost of jettisoning long-term benefits? It has been said that it is the wrong policy at the wrong time. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, called it a mistaken policy. We hope and trust that the Government will rethink some aspects of their policy.
The noble Lord, Lord Tedder, spoke of the Scottish experience, as did the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. My noble friend Lord Blease referred to the Northern Ireland experience. On those precedents I believe that I am entitled to refer to the Welsh experience! Some noble Lords will recall that in February 1984 in your Lordships' House we debated the future role of the Welsh Plant Breeding Station, which is the only agricultural research institute in Wales. It is described by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn as a national institution. We see that station as one specific victim and one example of the drastic reduction in spending on agricultural research.
In 1983–84 it was feared by the scientists and the research workers at Aberystwyth that the removal of the breeding project, and in particular the barley breeding project, and the consequent redundancies would seriously weaken the capacity of the station to undertake effectively its continuing remit and make it vulnerable in the future round of cuts. The staff at Aberystwyth put up a good fight against the 1984 cuts, but I am not sure what was achieved.
The staff at Aberystwyth were concerned about the future, but the Secretary of State for Wales took a different view. He announced to the world that there was a firm future for the Welsh Plant Breeding Station. He claimed that the loss of the barley breeding and some other programmes would be balanced by the station's new remit which would offer it an expanding role in improving hill and upland pasture. The anxieties of the research workers were not allayed. Some were made redundant. Others, fearing the writing on the wall, left the station and took up new and assured appointments, sometimes abroad. That has been a sad loss for the Welsh Plant Breeding Station.
Notwithstanding the optimism of the Secretary of State for Wales in 1984, the Welsh Plant Breeding Station now faces another round of cuts. On the morning of 18th April, research workers at the station were surprised to read in the Farmers' Weekly that five of their projects were on what the journal described as a hit-list of 22 projects which could be axed if the

1215
Ministry planners carried out their threat to slash funding in 1987. It is interesting to note that the five projects identified in the journal included a programme which the Secretary of State for Wales was building up two years ago as a substantial part of the 1984 expansion. Does that not suggest "ad hocery" and piecemeal planning? Naturally, the staff at the Welsh Plant Breeding Station turned to their director for reassurance but the director confessed that he too had been surprised by the article. He does not know whether or not it is soundly based.
If the Farmers' Weekly article is reliable it would appear that the Ministry planners want to decommission projects in at least seven institutes in England, and a similar number in Scotland. We know that they want to privatise one or two institutes in England.
Given the widespread concern in the country which has been expressed in the House this evening—I know that it would have been voiced by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn, the Leader of the Opposition, my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones and my noble friend Lady White, I shall be grateful if the noble Lord the Minister will answer a few questions.
First, will he confirm whether the article of 18th April is soundly based? Secondly, if the article is reliable, or substantially accurate, what is its significance for those projects which industry is unable or unwilling to finance or support? Will those programmes be terminated? What will become of the disbanded research? Thirdly, on what have the planners at the Ministry in London based their evaluation of the threatened programmes? For example, have they taken into account that terminating a project will have repercussions on the institute's remaining remit and undermine the institute's capacity to discharge that remit?
Fourthly, at what stage in the planning process will the Ministry planner discuss his proposals with the management at the institute—the management will know better than anyone else how the termination will affect the institute—or is it not the intention to consult the management? Is it right in this day and age that research workers should be told first by the Farmers' Weekly that their projects are at risk? Fifthly, and this point has been touched on by a number of speakers this evening, why is the Ministry in such haste to decommission projects, bearing in mind that haste can be achieved at the expense of consultations and adequate preparatory work?
Sixthly, will the Minister listen to the reasonable demands of the AFRC and of the research workers that the department should announce at an early date the level of public funding that will be available to the council as and from 1987–88? Will the Minister identify the areas of agricultural strategic research which will remain publicly funded for the foreseeable future? That is the question to which the noble Baroness seeks a reply.
Lastly, I return to Wales. Will the noble Lord the Minister confirm whether or not the consent of the Welsh Office will have to be given before any current project at the Welsh Plant Breeding Station is decommissioned?
8.17 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I should like first to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, for giving us this opportunity, the second in 10 days, to debate agricultural matters. I am only sorry that the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, is not with us this evening to debate agricultural research and development. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, suggested that the Government are not giving sufficient priority to research and development. That was a view which was followed by others of your Lordships.
On behalf of the Government I say that there is no lack of understanding on our part of the contribution which research and development make to the economic health of the agricultural and food sectors, and the economy as a whole. However, we believe that it is right to look carefully at the way in which such work is funded and the areas to which the Government's resources should be directed.
The noble Baroness questioned the timing and basis upon which expenditure on agricultural research has been planned by the Government. My right honourable friend made it clear well over a year ago that although there would be no changes in the financial year 1985–86, nonetheless, as part of our public expenditure policy, research and development budgets would have to be reduced for this financial year and for the financial year 1987–88. Those reductions reflect our view that there are limits to what the Government can fund and our belief that it is right to seek a greater contribution from industry towards the research from which it benefits. We believe that there is scope for a successful collaborative effort between industry and government, not only in the funding of research but in helping to determine the shape of the programme and ensuring that results are taken up even more rapidly and effectively than before.
I should like to point out that in 1987–88 we still expect to be spending almost £200 million on agricultural and food research and development. That is a major commitment by any standards and a clear demonstration of the importance that we attach to that work.
The noble Lord, Lord Adrian, reminded the House that the fourth report of the Science and Technology Committee, under his chairmanship, had asked for assurances about funds continuing to be deployed for strategic research. The Government are fortunate in having available the advice of the independent and highly qualified Priorities Board. In accordance with the advice of the board, the Government will increasingly be concentrating their funds on basic and strategic research and on work in such areas as safety, welfare and environmental protection.
In reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, who was critical about moneys being spent upon animal welfare, my advice is that some £80 million a year is being spent on research and development into animal welfare and some £25 million a year into animal disease research. I have no doubt that there is some overlap between those two figures, but they represent a substantial proportion of the total research and

1217
development expenditure on agriculture. As to short-term work where there is likely to be a clear and rapid benefit to the industry, that is where we would expect to see the industry's funds concentrated.
In the past year the Government have held intensive consultations with all sectors on the part that industry might play in future funding arrangements. Of course, some sectors, as your Lordships will well know, already fund a considerable volume of research. I am thinking, for example, of milk, potatoes and, indeed, sugar beet. We have recently had an encouraging response from the horticultural sector, which has declared itself willing to fund R & D. Subject to the approval of Parliament, we hope to be establishing a horticultural development council for this purpose as rapidly as possible.
Your Lordships will recall that we are also seeking mechanisms through the Agriculture Bill to allow the cereals and livestock sectors to play a larger part in the R & D programme. I should like to emphasise that it will be for each sector to decide on the level of funds that it wishes to provide and on how the money that it raises is spent, and to link it with the publicly funded effort in a programme of research that will serve each sector and ultimately each and every grower and producer to best effect. The response so far has been encouraging. We look forward to working closely with each sector to bring the new arrangements into effect.
My noble friend Lord Stanley drew attention to the importance of research into agriculture and into the environment meeting, as it were, as one, which is, of course, a theme brought out by the Select Committee on Science and Technology of two years ago. I very much agree. We must, I realise, be particularly mindful of the fact that, as over 80 per cent. of the land in the United Kingdom is farmed in one form or another, so farming must have a considerable influence upon the environment. Therefore, a prime aim of R & D is to achieve a more environmentally acceptable agriculture. Indeed, when the Ministry submitted evidence to the Select Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, I seem to remember that we included a seven-page list of R & D commissions with environmental objectives.
In this context, may I say in passing that your Lordships will be very well aware that in the Agriculture Bill now before your Lordships' House the power to designate environmentally sensitive areas, to which £6 million is to be committed in a full year, will enable farmers in areas under particular pressure to farm in ways that will help to preserve the landscape value and habitats of those areas.
I very much hope—this is the context in which I was wanting to mention the matter this evening—that this system will enable us to learn more about the environmental effects of different agricultural methods. In this context of environmental and agricultural research, the Government certainly accept that there is a need for R & D to have a better understanding of the biological interaction that in many habitats determines which species can survive and which species cannot. Here we believe in co-operation with others who have a particular expertise in these matters. One example of this is the study that is just about to begin in the Somerset levels where the Ministry of Agriculture has joined the Department of the Environ-
1218
ment and the Nature Conservancy Council to commission research into the effects of nitrogenous fertilisers on the botanical composition of herb-rich lands to be found in that area. We are also commissioning research with the British Trust for Ornithology in which we are supporting a statistical analysis of the common bird census to try to find out more about the relationship between habitats on farmlands and bird populations.
From the speech that the noble Lord, Lord Somers, made—although I realise it was more directed towards livestock—I think the noble Lord may be interested to know that in our research programme there are also studies on biological control of insect pests, the more efficient use of pesticides, the use of natural compounds for pest control, the treatment and disposal of animal wastes and research into alternative crops and land uses. Through these and other protects, we are examining the role of farming in the environment, and seeking solutions to the problems that we have.
The noble Lord, Lord Adrian, reminded the House that the Select Committee under his chairmanship wanted also to be assured that the Ministry's research programme is not planned in isolation. Indeed, it is not, and I think that the noble Lord was generous in his remarks in this way. We do have discussions with the Department of the Environment. However, it is also important to note that the research councils—namely, the AFRC, the NERC and the Economic and Social Research Council (the ESRC)—are setting up a joint policy working group on agriculture and the environment, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, to determine R & D needs and to devise co-ordinated programmes. Both the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of the Environment are represented on that working group.
The noble Lord asked also about socio-economic research. One example of the collaborative effort in the socio-economic field is the establishment of a rural data bank at Essex University. We are looking forward to developing this co-ordinated approach even further in future.
My noble friend Lord Selborne, if I may say so, made a most interesting speech about the role of research and development and its aims and objectives, and gave from his great experience several interesting examples. The noble Earl made an eloquent plea for the research and development budget to be continued at least at its present level. Indeed, that was the essence of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Blease, from the point of view of Northern Ireland. To both my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Blease, I have to say that I cannot give any undertakings beyond the period of the three-year public expenditure survey published in the Command Papers.
I feel that I must say, with my noble friend Lord Selborne in your Lordships' House, that I recognise that the reductions in the programme of commissioned work with the Agricultural and Food Research Council, under my noble friend's chairmanship, have led to some hard decisions by the AFRC and, indeed, by the Ministry. In that context, let us nonetheless remember that the Ministry is still going to be spending around £48 million with the AFRC on commissioned work in the current year. It

1219
will be about £43 million in the next financial year. In addition, the AFRC will be able to compete for funds through the open contracting arrangements that we have started. We hope that significant new resources will be forthcoming from the industry, also.
In making the changes to our research programme for the present financial year, we followed the advice of the Priorities Board in accordance with the advice given in the context of the resources that government are going to make available. We sought to achieve the savings that we had to make as far as possible through a rationalisation of the present effort and through identifying work that appeared to be of lesser importance. All along we endeavoured to have discussion between the Ministry and the AFRC management. Wherever possible, programmes were scaled down without losing the essential core in order to preserve a research capability for the future.
The research about which we are talking, if I may say so to my noble friend Lord Stanley, does include rather more emphasis on food research, which, as my noble friend Lord Selborne quite rightly pointed out, if I may say so, is of benefit to the producer as well as to the consumer.
I should like to say a brief word about the enormously important area of ADAS R & D. It is worth bearing in mind, when the noble Baroness is critical of this area, that the advisory services in England and Wales run 19 experimental husbandry farms and horticultural stations, and R & D represents a major part of the work of the agricultural science laboratories and the Central Veterinary Laboratory. The contribution of such work to the economic health of the industry is fully appreciated, but I have no doubt that there is scope for economies.
The noble Baroness mentioned, as she has every right to do, the closure of some laboratories and certain veterinary investigation centres. In each case this was a rationalisation, and the work that was done on those sites will be continued elsewhere. For the future we would expect ADAS to attract a proportion of the R & D commissions that will be financed by the industry. After these economies the cost of R & D work by ADAS will still be over £40 million a year and the total annual cost of running ADAS well over £100 million a year.
I would add that the agricultural departments and the AFRC are now considering the changes that may need to be made in the publicly funded programmes in 1987–88 taking account of the advice of the priorities board and the level of funds available. That consideration is being undertaken jointly by the sponsors—that means the government departments that sponsor—and by AFRC, with the aim of achieving the most rational and cost-effective use of resources. I believe that this joint approach marks a significant step forward in the management of the R & D programme.
In the time available I should like to try to answer some individual questions. The noble Lord, Lord Tedder, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, spoke about the proposed amalgamation of the Hill Farming Research Organisation and the Macaulay Institute for Soil Research. I listened with great care to
1220
the noble Lord, Lord Tedder. I shall most certainly draw the noble Lord's speech to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. As the noble Lord probably knows, no decision has been taken yet on the future location of the new combined institute. The respective advantages of location in Aberdeen or on the Bush estate near Edinburgh have been acknowledged and recognised. The noble Lord expressed concern that the strategy for agricultural research and development does not mention collaboration with the Macaulay Institute, which the noble Lord said can exist so well in Aberdeen. I would reply that a feasibility study is under way to assess the options in detail. This will consider all relevant scientific, administration and financial aspects, and assurances have been given that all points made have been noted and that no decision will be taken until the feasibility study has been completed and only after full and careful consideration of the options.
The noble Baroness, the noble Lord, Lord Walston, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, all spoke about the proposals of the Government for the Plant Breeding Institute and the National Seed Development Organisation. I can only say, in the time available to me this evening, that I have no fresh news on our proposals other than that known to your Lordships. The merchant bankers to whom we have gone for advice, Lazards, are expected to give us advice, I would hope, even before the end of this month. I would also add that, contrary to the expectation of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, several private organisations are indeed interested in bidding for this work.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the noble Lord expect to get any other advice from a merchant bank other than that privatisation is possible? To ask it to give any other form of advice is rather like asking a cow to lay eggs.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I did not go into detail because I have covered several times in your Lordships' House the reasons for the Government's proposal. We are not going to a merchant bank asking it to approve our reasons. We are asking for advice on how best to carry out the policy that we believe right in this respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked a series of questions based on an article, I gather, in Farmers Weekly about the Welsh Plant Breeding Station. In 1986–87 the Welsh Plant Breeding Station will be receiving public funding of just under £3 million. This, with respect to the noble Lord, is not a drastic reduction but a marginal reduction over last year. The efforts of the director and his staff have more than covered the difference by securing contract research from a variety of sources. The total value of these contracts amounts to more than £500,000. This will make a substantial contribution to the running costs of the Welsh Plant Breeding Station.
The noble Lord put to me a list of questions based on the Farmers Weekly article. I can only say that the direct statement in Farmers Weekly, as represented by the noble Lord, is not correct. What was said in the article represents options for possible industry funding

1221
and possible reductions. I do not have this evening any announcement to make about reductions relating to the Welsh Plant Breeding Station. Indeed, I hope that what I have said about the present funding of the Welsh Plant Breeding Station has put the context of the funding of the station into the correct light.
Three of your Lordships, the noble Lords, Lord Walston, and Lord Mackie of Benshie, and my noble friend Lord Selborne each mentioned the question of biotechnology. This new science, by which it is possible to probe genetic material, identify desirable genes, extract them individually and recombine them with the genetic material of other cells is enormously exciting. Even more exciting is the possibility of transferring genes from one species to another that could not possibly cross breed by conventional reproduction mechanisms. This means in practice, as many of your Lordships know better than I, that we can greatly accelerate the pace of genetic advance. Crops may be improved to give better yields for lower inputs and have increased resistance to pests and diseases and greater resistance to cold, together with extended cropping seasons. There is also the possibility of new crops yielding valuable compounds of interest to the chemical and pharmaceutical industries. Similarly, livestock may have improved qualities of growth, fertility and leanness and resistance to disease. Equally important in these developments are the new enabling technologies of tissue culture and micropropagation for plant breeding and the bulking up of plant materials.
Amid the considerable amount of criticism heard in this debate, which I realise stems from genuine concern, it is very heartening to consider that industry is well seized of the opportunities that are presented by this new science and is already matching interest with funds where it appears that developments might be successfully exploited. On that encouraging note I say to the noble Baroness that while not agreeing with a great deal of what she says, none the less I thank her genuinely for instituting the debate.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, it remains for me to thank everyone who has spoken in the debate. We have heard some well informed and thoughtful comments. The Minister has answered the debate with his usual charm and courtesy. I must say, however, that there is little comfort in some of his remarks for those directors of institutes who are trying to see their way ahead. In spite of some of the encouraging things the Minister had to say about funding, we are left in some doubt about the Government's own attitude to their prime responsibility. I hope that this can be answered on another day. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Bill
8.40 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
It is a privilege that the honourable Mr. Thomas Clarke, who sponsored this Bill in another place and
1222
who so ably negotiated its procedure through another place, saw fit to entrust it to me to take it through your Lordships' House. As a fellow member with Mr. Clarke of the All-Party Disablement Committee I can say that your Lordships will know how much support this Bill has had from all members of the committee and from all political parties. The Bill has many supporters from all over the country, and if Care in the Community is going to be meaningful it is legislation such as this which will help successful settlement and integration of many disabled people. Many of the provisions of this Bill are already being undertaken—and even more than is in the Bill. Regional health authorities, in conjunction with social services departments and voluntary agencies, like my own regional health authority in Yorkshire, are making great progress.
The Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Bill comes to your Lordships' House in the tradition of other Private Members' Bills before it, most notably the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill 1970 introduced in another place by the right honourable Mr. Alfred Morris—on which I made my maiden speech, as did my noble friend Lady Darcy (de Knayth)—and the Disabled Persons Bill 1981 introduced in another place by the right honourable Mr. Dafydd Wigley, and which I was pleased to take through its stages in your Lordships' House. Both Bills were improved in your Lordships' House because there never seems to be enough time for full discussion at all stages for Private Members' Bills in another place. I hope that with this Bill your Lordships will be able to make the improvements necessary without changing its agreed clauses. Should any changes be made which were not in the agreement in another place, the Bill could be lost.
The Bill comes to your Lordships' House with a list of distinguished sponsors and all-party support in another place. There has been no division on any aspect of the Bill and I hope that we can proceed with the same level of agreement in your Lordships' House. As I have said, the Bill has very wide backing outside Parliament too, not just from the voluntary associations which one would expect to be behind such a measure but also from the local authority associations, from professional bodies and—perhaps most important—from organisations of disabled people. The Bill recognises that disabled people are no longer passive recipients of service. They are no longer clients with needs. They are seeking the right to be involved in decisions about services that are to be provided for them, and in decisions about planning and developing of those services. The Bill is founded on those principles.
In assessments under Clause 2, disabled people have a formal opportunity to say what their needs for services are and a right to make further representations to a local authority if those needs are not met. Under Clause 7, where a person with special knowledge of needs of disabled people is co-opted to any council, committee or body that co-option shall only be made after consultation with organisations of disabled people. In the same vein, the Bill also makes provision for those disabled people who feel unable to speak out for themselves. Clause 1 gives them the right to appoint a representative to accompany them or speak

1223
for them in relation to services provided by social service departments.
To clarify any doubts, it may be useful to emphasise that the Bill applies to all disabled people to whom Section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948 and subsequent amendments apply; namely, persons who are blind, deaf or dumb and other persons who are substantially and permanently handicapped by illness, injury or congenital deformity or who are suffering from a mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health Act.
Before I deal with the provisions of the Bill clause by clause, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to a further key principle of the Bill. This is embodied in Clauses 3 and 4 where there is provision for an automatic assessment of need: for young people before they leave special education, and for people who have been in long-stay mental handicap or psychiatric hospitals before they are discharged. The assessments involve social services before crises occur. It is a small starting step in a move from crisis management to crisis prevention. At this traumatic point in people's lives, and at this point where there is a transfer of responsibility of care between agencies, the assessments will ensure a smooth transition and proper planning.
The Bill does not ensure that services will be provided unless there are existing statutory duties as, for example, under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. But it ensures for people that at key points in their lives their needs will be recognised.
Clause 1 is the newest legislative ground that the Bill covers. It gives disabled people the right to appoint representatives to accompany them or to speak on their behalf in relation to services provided by social services departments. It also allows this right to be extended to health authorities and other local authority services by the Secretary of State. Nothing in the Bill forces a disabled person to appoint a representative. This is the paramount principle: it is up to the disabled person whether or not they have a representative and it is up to the disabled person who their representative shall be.
There are of course people who, because of their disability, will be unable to appoint a representative themselves. These are arguably the people who most need someone independent of service providers to look after their interests. In subsection (7) of the clause the Secretary of State can make special arrangements to meet this need. Detailed discussions are already taking place between the DHSS, local authority associations and voluntary organisations as to how this may best be done. When the clause is fully implemented—in other words, when there is the right to appoint a representative in relation to health services and other local authority services—it will achieve what was envisaged in the original Bill. I hope that the Government will consult and proceed with this as quickly as possible. I ask the noble Baroness the Minister to give a firm indication of when they intend to initiate and conclude the consultation.
For many disabled people the quality of their housing and a modest level of nursing care are the most important factors in being able to continue to
1224
live in the community. In both those areas a disabled person cannot at present appoint a representative. At a time when many services, in particular for people with mental illness, are being provided in the community by both social services and health authorities it makes no sense to retain this rigid distinction between the two. In considering legislation, we are constructing a framework for the future and not codifying increasingly obsolete administrative divisions.
Clause 2 lays down a formal procedure for assessment when the local authority determines the needs of a disabled person for statutory services under welfare enactments. These are defined in Clause 12 as Part III of the National Assistance Act 1948, Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, Schedule 8 to the National Health Service Act 1977, and, in Scotland, Section 27 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947, the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 and the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984.
The clause is extremely welcome. It standardises what can be highly variable assessment practices from authority to authority. However, more than that, it lays out clearly in statute the right of the disabled person to be involved in the assessments being made for services to meet his needs. It recognises that the decisions are usually taken for, and not with, disabled people and that disabled people have views as well as needs.
It is also an important logical step forward. Many of us—and certainly the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington—will know of people who have assistance from their local social services department, but who find the services provided to be less than fully appropriate. Taking note, as this clause obliges local authorities to do, of what a disabled person says he needs will lead to the provision of more appropriate services.
Subsection (1) gives a disabled person or his representative a formal opportunity to make representations as to his needs for any services when the social services department is undertaking an assessment. Where representations have been made, and the local authority has decided which services will be provided, a disabled person or his representative can request, under subsections (2) and (3), a written statement from the local authority. The statement will (a) specify the services that the authority proposes to provide; and (b) give an explanation of the proposals.
As the clause is currently drafted, a disabled person or his representative can request a written statement from the local authority only when he has previously made representations on what are his needs for services. Also, as the clause is currently drafted, a disabled person or his representative will have a right to make further representations only where the local authority does not propose to provide any services to meet a need identified by a disabled person. They cannot, therefore, make further representations if their needs are partially provided for or inappropriately provided for. However, I understand that it is not the Government's intention to restrict the rights of disabled people on those latter two points, and that it is simply a matter of drafting. I look forward to

1225
amendments in Committee which will clarify these points.
I turn to Clause 3. I am delighted that the Government accepted the clause in this form in another place. It was drawn up after considerable consultation with officials of the Association of County Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and it has their full support. It is an important advance in the notion of shared care by local education authorities and social services departments of young disabled people with special educational needs. The clause ensures that before a young person leaves school at 16 years of age, or full-time further education at 19 years of age, the social services department will undertake an assessment of need for any statutory services under the welfare enactments.
Some technical amendments will have to be made on the timing, but at the start of the young person's final year at school or further education college the local education authority must inform the social services department of the likely leaving date. The social services department will then be obliged to complete an assessment of needs at least three months before the leaving date. I expect technical amendments in Committee to deal with these two points. The first will be to ensure that young people leaving full-time further education at 19 (when technically they may no longer be children) are covered by the provisions of the clause. Secondly, to ensure that the same provisions apply to young people in Scotland an equivalent Scottish clause must be drafted.
Clause 4 is perhaps the most complex clause in the Bill and it is probably easiest to begin with the position which is now being agreed between the sponsors of the Bill, the local authority associations—the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of County Councils—and the National Association of Health Authorities (NAHA) and which was implicit in the speech of the health Minister at Report stage in another place. The principles reflect long-standing Government policy and existing best practice. The first principle is that no one should leave a hospital for the mentally handicapped or a psychiatric hospital after lengthy in-patient treatment without a full assessment of his or her needs and a proper plan involving all relevant services. Secondly, it is agreed that the hospital should initiate the assessment process, but that the social services of the area where the person is to live must be involved. Those two aspects are specified in the clause as it stands. However, the Minister, Mr. Barney Hayhoe, was worried that the duty on the social services to co-operate in the assessment was not strong enough. Discussions are continuing and I am sure that all noble Lords will agree to improving the Bill by laying such a duty on local authorities—a duty which the local authority associations want.
The third point is the extent of the assessment. As it stands, the Bill refers only to welfare services. However, if the hospital is involved in the assessment, it would obviously be sensible—indeed, I should have thought automatic—to consider what health services were needed. I hope, therefore, that it will also be possible to reflect that in the wording of the Bill.
1226
The Bill refers only to people who have been in hospital for a continuous period of six months and only to those with a mental disorder. I know that there are many who are worried about the "revolving door syndrome" and would wish to see these statutory assessments extended to people returning to hospital regularly but never there for a full six months. There are problems over defining that group in legislation. However, I see no reason why once the system is in operation other patients could not be included on a voluntary basis.
There has also been pressure to include people with any disability, but we are forging new legislative ground here and to include everyone who had been in hospital for six months would vastly increase the number of hospitals involved and also the proportion of people for whom special assistance was not needed. I accept that the last argument is not overwhelming, but I believe it is right in this Bill to concentrate on the two groups where the need is greatest and the failure of existing community care policies most apparent.
There are a great number of technical details to be tidied up, and I am sure that the noble Baroness will refer to these in her speech, but I commend the principle and purposes of this clause most warmly to your Lordships.
Everyone acknowledges the immense debt that the country owes to the millions of people, mostly women, who devote their lives to caring for elderly and disabled friends and relatives, yet because the debt is so large it remains unpaid. Where there is a carer the social services often feel that they are excused from their responsibilities, especially where the carer is a married woman and can be "expected" to be at home anyway. And we all know that this has been the attitude of successive governments to the payment of the invalidity care allowance—an attitude soon to be formally declared unlawful by the European Court, we hope.
What is needed is a genuine partnership between informal carers, government and the social services. If, as a country, we are to meet the challenge of the increasing elderly population in a manner we would all wish, it seems extraordinary to me that in 1986 carers are practically ignored in legislation. This Bill is a small opportunity to mark the essential contribution of carers and provide a basis on which I hope governments will build in the future.
I must acknowledge that the Bill is weaker than I would have wished. In essence it only enshrines not best practice but universal current practice, which is why there have been no bleats about resources from local authorities. When a local authority is assessing the needs of a disabled person and that person is receiving a substantial amount of regular care, the authority must "have regard to the ability" of the carer "to continue to provide such care on a regular basis". As your Lordships know, the phrase "have regard to" is about the weakest formulation, which is often used. Nevertheless, while I am sorry that the Government have not agreed to a rather more positive approach, I am certain that this clause will prove a bridgehead, and that we shall return to this subject on many future occasions in later legislation.

1227
Clause 6 extends the scope of the information that a local authority social services department is required to provide to any disabled person who receives any of their services. Many local authorities provide excellent booklets on local services, and I hope that this clause will encourage all councils to do the same. The list of what may be included is endless, but would obviously include all the activities of voluntary organisations, transport schemes, leisure opportunities, and I hope also education and employment opportunities. Basic information on benefits should be included as well as all the personal services provided by the council and the National Health Service. Naturally it must be up to the council to decide how to provide the information. One guide may be sufficient for a London borough whereas several may be needed in a large rural county.
Clause 7 builds on those sections of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 which require certain bodies to consider the appointment or co-option of disabled people on committees. I shall not list all the bodies here but they include local council committees and various advisory bodies. Indeed, your Lordships' House has been instrumental in extending the list in the Transport Act and the Telecommunications Act, and no doubt will do the same in the Gas Bill.
No one can doubt the value that has arisen from these appointments. There is nothing like first-hand experience when decisions are being taken. Yet there are some organisations of disabled people who feel that some appointments are of "safe" disabled people who may know little of other disabilities and do not always have close links with representative bodies. This clause would ensure that nominations were invited from organisations of disabled people, and I am sure that this will improve even further the flow of information and guidance between disabled people and decision makers.
Clause 8 obviously links very closely with Clause 4, since it requires the Secretary of State to provide detailed information on people receiving treatment for mental handicap or mental illness, and produce an annual report on the development of community services for them. Although the community care policy is nearly 30 years old, if one dates it from the 1959 Act or from the right honourable Mr. Enoch Powell's "water tower" speech, we seem to be trapped in an eternal experimental stage. I hope that these reports will do much to evaluate experiments and move our community care programme from the experimental into the developmental stage.
Clause 9 simply puts beyond doubt that the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 applies in Scotland to people who are mentally ill or mentally handicapped. There has never been any doubt of its extent in England and Wales, but apparently there have been doubts north of the Border, which I am happy to be able to resolve in this Bill. Clause 10 is another clause added at the request of the Scottish Office. It includes a number of minor improvements to the law relating to disabled young people, which I am sure that the House will welcome.
Clause 11 was included in the original Bill as a marker for substantial improvements in the joint
1228
planning mechanism in Scotland which a number of groups there wish to see, in particular the Care in the Community Scottish Working Group. Unfortunately, agreement with the Scottish Office was reached only at the last minute, when Mr. John Mackay announced that he would ensure that a suitable extension to this clause, or a separate new clause, was brought forward in your Lordships' House. He also said that he wished to extend this clause to elderly people—something to which I am sure no one will object, but which requires an amendment to the Long Title. I know that one or two noble Lords wish specifically to address this issue and we shall obviously have a full debate in Committee when we have the Government's amendments before us. Clauses 12 and 13 are purely technical, but I should like to say a brief word on Clause 14.
First, the Bill leaves the dates of implementation totally to the Secretary of State, Clearly he must consult a number of organisations, but I hope the noble Baroness the Minister will during her speech be able to give us some idea of the dates on which the clause will be brought into force. It is my regret that the Northern Ireland Office has shown resistance to extending the Bill to Northern Ireland. It took eight years before the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, managed to persuade it to accept the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. but happily the Disabled Persons Act 1981 was extended by order soon after Royal Assent. Clearly the different structure in Northern Ireland would mean adaptations to the Bill. But I certainly feel that Clauses 1 and 2 are needed as much in Northern Ireland as in England, Wales and Scotland.
Finally, in commending the Bill to your Lordships, I should repeat what I believe is the key to this Bill—that is, partnership—an equal partnership between disabled people and public bodies based on information and full participation in decision making. It is only through such a partnership that we can meet the challenge of the next century.
Many of your Lordships have a great fountain of knowledge on these matters—far more than I; and I am delighted that so many noble Lords and Baronesses are to speak on this Second Reading. The noble Lord. Lord Stallard, has been a great supporter of this Bill from the start. I am also so pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, is giving her support. She has been a trojan supporter over the years of the needs of disabled people. I am grateful to all noble Lords who are here to take an interest in what is a very important Bill. I hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Masham of Ilton.)
9.12 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I am sure that all your Lordships wish me to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, on the brilliant way in which she has presented the Bill to all of us. It is absolutely excellent and has my full support. Any contribution that I can make will be short but enthusiastic.

1229
Your Lordships have already had a long debate this afternoon on the vital importance of doing everything to prevent disability. This Bill suggests many vital ways in which people with disabilities can become fully integrated into the community (so far as their disabilities allow) both in England and in Scotland. I speak tonight as having had all my experience of this in Scotland.
There is no doubt that a great change has come over the general public about disabled people. They now understand and want to be certain that the disabled have just the same opportunities as those who are not disabled, although there are difficulties that they cannot always be able to accept. It is there for the taking, so to speak. People are not segregated, put into special places and then almost forgotten by the community. That has gone, thank goodness! We all care desperately that the community shall show responsibility and care for the disabled.
The Bill has put forward many suggestions which, if agreed, will help enormously to bring disabled people into the ordinary community. First, there must be cooperation among all the services, whether national or local, voluntary or state. There must be co-operation between medical and hospital care and the community care through the social service departments of local authorities, through the health authorities and also through voluntary organisations. I was chairman for something like 15 years of a social work committee in a county area. I know that it is not always easy to get that kind of co-operation. Yet if we are going to get effective help for disabled people, co-operation is absolutely the keynote. One of the things about cooperation is to know when people in hospital are discharged to live in the community. It was often difficult to find out because there was not that cooperation between the social services in the area and the hospital and the health people. Then it was difficult for us to know what aftercare was needed. Sometimes it failed and this was disastrous because the person generally had to go back into hospital. Co-operation as recommended in this Bill would stop all that. If community services were not available, the person could appeal to local authorities in order to get some satisfaction for himself or herself.
I think that possibly this is more so in Scotland than in England but too many people with mental disabilities can be kept in institutions when, if there were real community care, they could live in their own homes and be cared for in day centres of different kinds. In the area in which I live, in the Borders, I managed about 15 years ago to start a day centre for handicapped people of all kinds. There was great opposition, I may say, from the locality because they said that it was going to cost too much money. Actually, compared to what it would cost today, it cost very little.
It has been an enormous success. From all over the county, buses run to this centre at Hawick (which is where it is) every day and it has made all the difference to the handicapped people. This could be repeated very easily in many areas. I dare say that it has been. But I happen to know about this one because I was responsible for starting it. During all those years that I was chairman of the committee my great desire was to keep people in their homes but, during the daytime enable them to go to the centre—in the case of the
1230
disabled, this centre; and in the case of old people, an old people's centre—which meant that they could live at home, be with their families; but in the daytime they were elsewhere and were looked after in the community. This was an enormous success.
One of the things which pleases me very much about this Bill is that it recommends that kind of treatment. I think that that is something which would make a tremendous difference to handicapped people and also to the community. In Scotland, again if I may say so, it is essential for the Secretary of State to know and to be able to intervene if, in the efforts to get co-operation from all these many different interests, there are disagreements. Of course, there will be disagreements. We all know that. It happens always in any community. At times, you have to be quite certain that someone has the authority to bring the people together and to see that the work is carried out.
In Scotland I think that it should be the Secretary of State, and I hope very much that this will be organised through the Bill. All this is covered in Part III of the Bill. I hope that this will be implemented. Part III is the Scottish section of the Bill. There is much more that I could say but it is late and there are a number of speakers. We are going to discuss in the Committee stages other suggestions, some of which the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has already suggested.
I hope that the Government will give time for the passage of this Bill, that we shall be able to discuss it, and that before too long this Bill will be on the statute book. It will be a great step forward in the whole organisation of the community, bringing in the disabled people just like any other of us in getting all the opportunities that we all share because we are fortunate enough not to be handicapped. I strongly support the Bill.
9.18 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I, too, should like to congratulate the noble Baroness on agreeing to sponsor this Bill through your Lordships' House and on the very full and comprehensive outline that she has given us of the provisions of the Bill. I should like to join her, too, in congratulating all those responsible both in government and in opposition for the passage of the Bill through another place—not an easy feat. The sponsor in another place, Mr. Tom Clarke, and his advisers, Mr. Peter Mitchell and Mr. John Healey, together with members and officers of the all-party Disablement Group aided by voluntary organisations, many of them—organisations like the Spastics Society, MENCAP, RADAR, the Forum on Disability in Glasgow and many others—all played a part in achieving what to me, at any rate, is a real and quite unique Bill and in getting it through the other place. I hope that we shall be able to assist in the process of aiding it on to the statute book.
The noble Baroness has outlined the Bill, as I have said, and her reservations. I agree with almost everything that she said in that respect, so I can be mercifully brief and concentrate on one or two points that are of particular interest to me. As I read it, the main purpose of the Bill is to improve the services received by disabled people, not necessarily by the direct provision of more resources but by ensuring that

1231
existing resources are exploited to the full. The Bill aims to achieve this by giving disabled people a far greater say in the assessment of their needs and of what is provided for them.
In my view, Clauses 1 and 7 probably represent the biggest advance in this connection. I have been connected with disabled people and their organisations for something over 35 years now, and while I, and many others like me—for instance, quite a number of your Lordships have much more experience than I have in this field—have tried our best, over and over again, to understand and articulate the needs of disabled and handicapped people, we could never hope fully to understand the multifarious problems that they and their families face day in and day out.
I know only too well what frustrations this has caused among disabled people, even when they felt they were trying to get something to which they were entitled but which seemed to be just beyond their grasp. There was something missing; there was a power or a duty that was not there; or they did not have enough personal access to the kind of bodies and committees that they felt could really help them. So I was made aware many years ago of the need for something more; something with the weight of statute law behind it; something like this Bill, which has come along in the nick of time.
Many of my disabled friends have said that they are sick and tired of being done unto; of waiting outside in the corridor while their case was argued, albeit with the best will in the world, by people like me. Now, under this Bill, they have to be consulted about all issues affecting them, either personally or by their own representative. This, I consider, is the major breakthrough in affairs affecting handicapped and disabled people since the 1944 Act. It certainly takes them a great step forward, and if for no other reason I think I would be keen to support the Bill almost as it stands—and I emphasise the word "almost". But certainly that step in itself is, to me, a tremendous achievement. Of course, as the noble Baroness said, there is room for improvement, and perhaps in Committee we shall be able to improve the Bill. But the basic framework is there in those two clauses that I have mentioned, and I welcome them.
The noble Baroness mentioned Clauses 3 and 4, and I certainly look to the new procedures of assessment for those needing special education and long-stay mental handicap hospitals to help two forgotten groups of people. First, there are the young disabled school-leavers, and noble Lords and Baronesses will remember the short debate that we had only a few weeks ago, when we discussed the problems affecting young school-leavers when they leave special education schools. Secondly, there are the people being discharged from institutional care into the community. The statement mentioned in the Bill would form a vital part of a planned programme of individual care. During that short debate I gave some examples that I had received from the Spastics Society, and if I had time I could give many more similar examples where Clauses 3 and 4 will be of immense value.
1232
I should like to ask the noble Baroness who is to reply for the Government whether she is yet in a position to tell us what technical changes there will be. It always worries me when I hear about technical changes. Does that mean dropping out a clause or putting in a new paragraph? How technical are these changes to be, and what technical changes might be made at Committee stage? Has the noble Baroness any inkling of what they may be?
I want also to mention Clause 5 and the question of carers, which the noble Baroness mentioned as being one of the other vital issues dealt with in the Bill. We all know from previous debates on social services about the invaluable service that is rendered by carers. We shall certainly hear more about this issue as the recent judgment in the European Court, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, proceeds in discussion and becomes finalised.
I imagine that other noble Lords will have received, as I did, some literature from the Alzheimer's Disease Society. I can do no better than to quote the Society's views in its letter to me because they so coincide with my own. I hope that other noble Lords may be prepared to consider these views between now and Committee stage. I quote:
"The Alzheimer's Disease Society aims to support the estimated three to four million people suffering from Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia and their carers. The carers, numbering at least another three to four million, have to operate on a 24-hour-a-day basis broken only by intermittent bouts of sleep. Most carers wish to carry on caring for as long as they are able. There comes a point, however, where the strain of so doing becomes unbearable and help is sought from the statutory services. But even with domiciliary and day and respite care support available the time comes for many where residential care for the sufferer is the only means of averting a breakdown for the carer, and for this reason we consider that the original Clause 5 of the Disabled Persons Bill, which placed an obligation on local authorities to carry out an assessment of a carer's ability to go on caring when requested to do so by the carer, is the very least that can be asked if carers are to hope to secure access to services when they need them".
I fully concur with the views expressed by the society. It would obviously like the original clause restored. I shall come back to that in a moment.
Before I finish I want to mention briefly two other points that troubled me as I tried to keep in touch with the proceedings in the other place. Noble Lords will probably agree with me that the changes were fairly rapid—a little too rapid for us perhaps to keep up with all the time—and changes occurred right up to the last minute. Before the publication of the Bill and its arrival here there were changes. I understand that changes are still taking place, and so it has been a little difficult to keep up all the time with what has been happening.
I should like to express some qualms about some of the things I have read. I shall mention only two. First, the Minister of Health said on 11th April, at col. 543 of Hansard:
"The Bill has to go to another place. If the other place and those responsible for the Bill there have the same skill, moderation, realism, patience and consideration which the honourable Gentleman has shown I see no reason why the Bill should not become law and receive Royal Assent".
I can of course agree that the sponsor of the Bill in another place has all of those qualities, but I think we should resent the fact that the Minister seems to be putting some kind of condition on how we discuss it.

1233
Is he saying that we do not have those qualities, or is he saying that if we dare to change it—this is the most important point—if we dare to amend it in a way that he considers not to be in line with those criteria, he will reintroduce the delaying procedures that threatened the Bill at some other stage? Is he saying, as the noble Baroness said in her opening remarks, that if amendments are carried here, the Bill may not get through the other place?
That is what he seems to be saying. It sounds funny at first, but there is a serious implication behind those words. I hope that in her reply the noble Baroness will be able to reassure me that that is not what he meant, that he recognises the revising role of this Chamber, and that we do not need such restrictions put on us. I have certainly accepted that most Members of your Lordships' House are here because they have the very qualities that the Minister mentioned, and they have them to a far greater degree than is perhaps thought to exist in the other place. I should like some assurance that that is not what he is saying and that we can carry on in our normal way to revise, if we think fit, any piece of legislation that comes from the other place.
The other point that I want to raise was again mentioned by the noble Baronesss in her opening speech. In the same issue of Hansard to which I referred earlier, the Minister stated also:
"As I have explained, the Government will make commencement orders to bring into effect those of the Bill's provisions which have significant resource implications when the necessary resources are available".—[col. 542.]
I shall quote also, with the leave of the House, a letter from the Prime Minister to a Member of another place, in which that point was underlined. The Prime Minister wrote:
"The Bill represents an important development of existing provisions for disabled people and as such it has significant cost implications. The Government have made it clear that if the Bill is enacted it would not be possible to make commencement orders to bring into effect the provisions of the Bill which have significant financial implications until such time as the necessary funds could be made available".
Again, there seems to be a hint that the Government might consider a provision as having serious financial implications when this House or the country generally may not consider it to have such implications. As I have already said, I take the view that there are no direct resource implications in the Bill. What we are doing is trying to make fuller use of existing provisions.
I know that great reservations were attached by government spokesmen to the resource implications of the Bill when it was passing through another place. I have maintained throughout that any increase in demand for services as a result of better assessment of need as outlined in the Bill would be a demand to meet needs that already exist. By replacing crisis management, as it has been called, the Bill will help services to become cost-effective and care-effective. Whatever expenditure is incurred—and I hope noble Lords will agree—such expenditure is surely an investment in the lives of disabled people.
I hope that the Government will ensure that the modest resources needed to implement the Bill are made available, and that measures are introduced without unreasonable delay. I hope that we can agree to specify some dates for the enactment of certain
1234
clauses during our discussions on Clause 14. If we can do that, and can consider some of the further points that I and other speakers have mentioned, we shall have a Bill that will make an important difference to the lives of many thousands of disabled and handicapped people and their families.
9.32 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I welcome this Bill most warmly on behalf of my noble friends. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for the very clear and comprehensive explanation of the Bill that she gave the House. I also pay tribute to Mr. Tom Clarke, who piloted the Bill through another place and who was successful there in reconciling different views. Before I say more, I apologise for the fact that I may have to leave the House before the end of this debate because I have to catch a train. I am particularly sorry about that because it will be the first time that I have left early a debate in which I have been speaking.
The Bill is concerned, as we have heard, with services provided to a large extent by local authorities to and for disabled people. The Bill is designed, as the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, said, to ensure that existing resources are used to the best advantage. But it must also involve some additional resources.
When the Bill is on the statute book it will not stand alone. It builds on other Acts affecting the disabled; for example, the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and the Education Act 1981. The Bill deals with representation. We have heard that the disabled person is to have the right to appoint a representative to represent him in connection with social services. That representative is to have the right to all the same information as is available to the disabled person. However, a local authority has the power to withhold that information where it is considered that it would be harmful for the disabled person to disclose it. I understand that it is intended to use that power only in extreme cases. However, if one has a power of that kind there is always the danger that it could be used less discriminatingly eventually, and that must be guarded against.
The Bill deals with assessment procedure, and disabled persons or their representatives can compel reconsideration by the local authority where no services are offered. However, there is no appeal against the nature of the provisions where services are offered, and it might be appropriate to consider such a right in Committee.
The Bill deals with consultation, and I welcome the fact that where persons are appointed to bodies and to committees to represent disabled people they will be appointed after consultation with organisations associated with and representing the disabled.
The Bill deals with crisis prevention. The object is to prevent a crisis arising in the care of a disabled person by anticipating in advance and providing in advance. In that context, as we have heard, it deals with those leaving special education and people leaving hospital. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, pointed out that this latter procedure is restricted to those who have suffered mental disorder or handicap. I wonder whether these procedures should not be extended to all who leave hospital with a new physical impairment.

1235
Where disabled people are living at home and receiving care from another person the local authority must have regard to the ability of that other person to continue to provide care on a regular basis. As I understand it, this is intended to discover, among other things—I repeat, among other things—what the carer needs to enable the disabled person to continue living at home. Perhaps that should be made clearer in the Bill and the carer given the right to ask for an assessment of the disabled person's needs.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, pointed out the importance of carers, and I think we would all agree with that. Incidentally, I am sure that we would feel, too, that as soon as possible it is desirable to have a decent income for carers, including married women, though I realise that that is beyond the scope of this Bill.
I have one question affecting what the noble Baroness said about Scotland. The question is really for the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. Is it the intention of the Government to table an amendment in Committee to make joint planning in Scotland a statutory requirement, as it is in England? When the Bill was considered in another place the Government supported the principles but at Second Reading expressed reservations. There was then discussion in Committee and then consultation between the sponsors of the Bill, the Government, the local authorities and the voluntary organisations connected with the disabled. As a consequence, amendments appeared on Report with general agreement. I imagine that this House will not wish to try to upset that basic agreement, while seeking, nevertheless, to improve on it here and there.
The Government's reservations were, of course, about resources and it is no good laying extra duties on local authorities if the resources to carry them out are not provided. It might be assumed, in view of the agreement reached in another place, that the Government are satisfied about the provision of resources required by the Bill. However, I note that the health Minister, Mr. Barney Hayhoe, said in another place on 11th April, reported in col. 542 of Hansard, that,
"the Government will make commencement orders to bring into effect those of the Bill's provisions which have significant resource implications when the necessary resources are available".
That last phrase has a familiar and ominous ring about it. Which of the Bill's provisions are regarded as having "significant resource implications" and how long are they likely to be delayed?
This is not a major piece of legislation and in many respects it does not go as far as its sponsors would have liked: but it is a useful and important addition to the existing legislation dealing with disabled people, and as such it is to be welcomed.
9.40 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester: My Lords, I should like to give a general welcome to this Bill and I believe that others who might have spoken from this quarter of the House would certainly want to do likewise and indeed to add our tribute to the untiring work of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and to express the
1236
hope that perhaps the passage of this Bill will be a crown to her efforts.
What I want to say now is perhaps mainly, though not exclusively, applicable to mental rather than physical disability. It seems to me that the existence of disability and handicap, whether mental or physical, has engendered a variety of responses from other members of the community. It is perhaps possible to trace the sequence of those responses in different societies. In our earlier debate today on the prevention of disability worldwide we were reminded that in some societies there is still a great deal of indifference and apathy in the face of disabling diseases or mental handicap—what one might call the wrong kind of acceptance.
Then this attitude tends to give way to a more sensitive yet hopeless and inadequate response, which is mainly one of anxiety and fear. It is a fear which isolates and alienates the sufferer. This response avoids accepting realistically the fact that a proportion of the members of any society are bound to be handicapped or disabled, and it prefers to keep them at arm's length, hidden away in institutions or elsewhere.
Though it is now over 20 years ago, I remember vividly the sense of shock when, as a parish priest, I discovered by accident that the middle-aged widow whom I had regularly visited for months, if not for years, was keeping in the house a mentally handicapped daughter who was probably by then in her twenties or even her thirties. Until that moment neither I nor, I believe, any of her neighbours were even aware of the existence of her daughter, who literally never went out of the house.
We might be rash to assume or assert that such a thing could not happen today. I do not know. I know that in the diocese of Gloucester (and no doubt this happens in other dioceses as well), there is a priest who acts for me as chaplain to the mentally handicapped. Certainly he tells me constantly that there is still far too much fear, anxiety and guilt around when dealing with the handicapped in the community. Thankfully, this attitude in turn has been giving way to a much larger and more general compassion, which has now perhaps become the dominant attitude.
However, this Bill leads us further still, for compassion itself can be distancing and even condescending toward those who are its objects. I believe that there are signs in this Bill that we are moving on beyond simple compassion into a positive appreciation of the contribution that people with disabilities and handicaps make to our common life. They are not just people for whom we should feel compassion; they are members of the community in full right.
The occurrence of mental or physical handicap, particularly when congenital or hereditary, will always constitute, I suppose, not only a social problem but a moral and a theological problem as well. Christian theology can never wholly explain, let alone justify, why such things should be. It can, however, affirm God's power to bring creative good out of tragedy and handicap, disability or disaster—to recognise both the contribution which disabled people make to society through their humanity, gifts and personalities and

1237
also the many ways in which their life and presence within the community nourish goodness in others.
It is in that context that I hope that we may read, for example, the provision in the first clause of the Bill for a disabled person to appoint his own representative to take a more active part in assessing his needs, or the reference in Clause 7 to consultation with "organisations of disabled people"—"of" and not "for" disabled people. In this legislation I believe that we are beginning to come to the truth that disabled people are simply people like the rest of us within the community.
Another good principle seems to me to be embodied in the Bill; namely, as other noble Lords have mentioned, that prevention is always better than cure. I refer particularly to the mandatory assessment of the needs of young disabled people leaving special schools and of those leaving mental hospitals after a prolonged period there. That, together with the suggestion in Clause 5 that the burden shouldered by those who care for the disabled at home needs also to be taken into account, represent a hopeful move into the realm of planning to anticipate problems rather than waiting
1238
for them to erupt and then dealing with them as though they were always a crisis.
If, as I am sure many of us hope, this Bill completes its course through the House without damaging amendments, it will represent another step forward in the general movement towards policies of community care. Generally speaking, the Churches are in support of such policies. Of course, as several noble Lords have already asserted, there must be difficulties and no doubt differences of opinion about resources. But may I offer the thought that resources do not have to be drawn so tightly as almost to be identified exclusively with financial resources? There are already enormous resources within the community through voluntary societies—resources of care, love and voluntary service.
I believe it to be true, and I hope that noble Lords will agree, that church-going Christians, along with many other men and women of good will, are time and time again to be found active in the voluntary organisations that work with and among those who, like all of us, are disabled or handicapped one way or another. I wish the Bill every success.
9.48 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I too should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for so clearly introducing the Bill. I should also like to congratulate the Bill's sponsors in another place for so painstakingly bringing it so far. I welcome the Bill in principle. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, who has just spoken, expressed more clearly than I can much of why I do so. It has been a privilege to follow him.
I must remind the House that I am advised by the National Schizophrenia Fellowship. Accordingly, I am particularly interested in how the Bill affects persons who are mentally ill and those who care for them, who are usually the close relatives. I am also concerned with the practical effects that the Bill may have on local authorities. In those connections the Bill seems to have several gaps, and that leads me to a series of questions. I am concerned about the relationship between the authorised representative introduced in Clause 1 and members of the disabled person's family in circumstances where one of the latter has not been appointed in accordance with subsection (8).
For example, does the nearest relative, as defined in the Mental Health Acts, have the right to receive information and see the documents referred to in Clause 1(2), as well as the disabled person and the authorised representative? The nearest relative may well be caring for the disabled person at the time even if the latter, being mentally ill, sometimes resents it. The carer could well be further hampered in a well-nigh impossible task which sadly it too often is, if important information is withheld from him or her. In that general theme, what is the position of the carer with regard to Clause 1(3)?
Moving to Clause 1(7), when the mentally ill person is unable to appoint an authorised representative because of mental incapacity, can the nearest relative appoint himself or herself or, if more suitable, someone else to that position? In connection with those points, the Mental Health Act 1983 provides that any substitution of someone else for the nearest relative has to be authorised by a court. How does that affect the introduction of the authorised representative, because I observe that the Bill has no schedule of repeals or amendment of other legislation? Finally with regard to Clause 1, will my noble friend the Minister explain what she has in mind for the regulations under subsection (6)?
On Clause 2(1), if the local authority does not consider that an occasion has arisen on which it should initiate action as described in the subsection, can the disabled person or his authorised representative or, if different from the latter, the nearest relative call for such action to be initiated?
Clause 4 seems to presume, because in subsection (1)(a) and (b) it calls for consultation between the local authority and other appropriate authority, as defined in subsection (4), that the mentally ill person will go only into authoritative care. What happens when the local authority does not have the facilities to satisfy the assessed needs and the only available care is the person's family? Should they not also be consulted? In
1240
any case, Clause 4 has no obvious conclusion. What is the point in assessing needs if that will not lead to some kind of action?
In regard to Clause 7, the people who have a great deal of special knowledge of the needs of disabled persons are members of their families. May I be reassured that those persons will be considered as appropriate for co-option within the terms of the clause?
Although I have the doubts that I have expressed, I am in sympathy with the Bill's aims, as I said earlier. However, notwithstanding the assurances given by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, when she introduced the Bill, about discussions with local authority organisations, I fear, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, but perhaps like the noble Lord, Lord Banks, that the Bill could put on local authorities yet another large burden for which they are unlikely to be granted adequate resources for some time, whichever government are in power. Councillors, for example, may be under embarrassing pressure to provide caring facilities which could not be immediately obtainable, in the event that an assessment says that such caring facilities should be provided for the patient. I shall be grateful, therefore, if my noble friend the Minister can give some idea of how she sees the problem, and what her thoughts are about when the power in Clause 14(2) might be used from a rather different point of view.
I have provided my noble friend the Minister and the noble Baroness with a summary of my questions. I hope that they will be able to give answers to at least some of them. Depending on those answers, I shall have to consider tabling amendments to tidy up the Bill or at any rate perhaps asking questions again, However, I still hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.
9.55 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should like to give a warm welcome to the Bill, which gives disabled people more control over their lives and should result in a better assessment of their needs and more co-ordinated services. The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, has asked me to say that she, too, welcomes the Bill most warmly.
I add my congratulations to my noble friend for a clear and comprehensive introduction of the Bill. I am very pleased that it is she who is its sponsor. Not only has she done a lot to help disabled people, with her first-hand knowledge of problems, but she has always shown that she cares very much about those who are less mobile and less able to speak for themselves than she herself is.
I think that the Bill will be of particular benefit to those severely and multiply handicapped people who could do with some extra help. Therefore, I very much welcome the right to representation provided by Clause 1. However, I echo my noble friend's hope that the Government will be able to introduce substantive amendments to subsection (9) to provide in statute form the extension of the right to representation in connection with health authority services. Surely this is only logical when we are already allowed the same procedure with social services.

1241
I recognise that in another place the Minister for Health felt that there were problems where health authorities are involved, but that he included the power contained in subsection (9) because he believed that those difficulties could be overcome. The Minister said at col. 519 of the Official Report of 11th April that the intention is to find a route to follow. I very much hope that the correct route will be found in the passage of the Bill through this House.
The principle of "a representative across the board" is, predictably, strongly supported by the voluntary organisations. But the professional bodies, such as the Royal College of Nursing, and some regional health authorities—for example, the North West Thames and North Western Regional Health Authorities—also believe that no distinction should be made between the health authority and social services.
Even the National Association of Health Authorities, in its response to the Government's consultation document on the Bill, said that the NAHA,
"does not support the Government's proposal that the hospital and the family practitioner services shall be excluded from the terms of Clause 1. It considers that special provision in this respect for disabled people would be justified and that any practical problems would be overcome."
I am particularly concerned that those in long-stay mental handicap hospitals will not otherwise have the right to representation. Many people with cerebral palsy are in such hospitals, and they have communication problems. The director of the Spastics Society has commented:
"We believe that these 'forgotten people' must not be denied the rights extended to those who are already in the community."
These are some of the people who are perhaps most in need of help. I hope that the noble Baroness the Minister will be able to ensure that the "forgotten people" are recognised, remembered and given those rights before the Bill leaves this House.
Clause 2 is most welcome in that it gives disabled people much more say in decisions affecting their lives. The British Deaf Association, whose members will probably be the largest single group affected by the provisions for the interpreting and communication services in the Bill in subsection (6), however, has some worries over this subsection. As the subsection stands, the local authority, not the disabled person, determines, first, whether assistance in communication is required; secondly, what services will be provided to facilitate communication; and thirdly, the person who will fill the role of interpreter or facilitator.
This is inconsistent with the rest of the clause and the rest of the Bill, which recognise, first, that services are likely to be more appropriate if the disabled consumer is involved in deciding what the services should be; and, secondly, that disabled people have a right to be involved in decisions about services to be provided for them. It is therefore really only a question of shifting the emphasis on to the disabled person to decide whether assistance in communication is required, what form this assistance will take, and who will do it. I hope very much that the Minister may be able to offer hope of changing the emphasis of this subsection and will bring it into line with the whole
1242
philosophy of the clause and the Bill—the responsibility of the disabled person to make decisions.
I welcome warmly Clauses 3 and 4, dealing with the assessment of people leaving special education and those discharged from hospital, which ensures that the necessary help will be continued at a time of life which, as my noble friend said, can be very difficult. I recognise and appreciate how helpful the Government have been in respect of these clauses.
Along with most noble Lords who have spoken, I wish briefly to mention carers. As my noble friend has said, Clause 5 is a start in that it recognises carers. I appreciate that I am venturing into a sensitive area. I shall leave my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale to deal with the matter further as he has perhaps a more delicate step. I shall leave it to my noble friend to ask the question already touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Banks. I await the answer eagerly.
I should, however, like to add a few words of appreciation for carers, many of them elderly and sometimes stretched almost to breaking point and physically exhausted by caring for a severely physically handicapped person or emotionally drained by caring for someone with, for example, Alzheimer's disease, or some other form of dementia. If the carer cracks up, that means two people out of the community and in hospital.
Once again, I warmly welcome the Bill. I appreciate what the Government achieved on Report in another place. I hope that the Government will be able to make one or two further improvements in this House. I wish the Bill a safe, smooth and speedy passage.
10.2 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), I welcome the Bill and wish it a speedy passage. I wish also to speak about Clause 5, as she did, and to follow the noble Lord, Lord Banks, who mentioned that the Bill was an exercise in crisis prevention. Many people who look after disabled people at home do not realise what a great financial service they are performing for the community. Some of them who look after people with huntington's chorea may not have simply one disabled person in the family to look after; they may have several. The may even themselves be in the early stages of the same disease, knowing that they themselves, shortly, in perhaps a matter of years, will be in the same position as those they are looking after. That must be terrible strain and very depressing.
Should those people who are disabled be given up by their families, they would have to be taken into care. At the moment, the allowances paid by the Government are £180 a week for a disabled person in care. By my reckoning, that is £9,360 a year, not forgetting that a number of instances—not in all—the local authority will provide additional topping up over and above that figure. These sums that I am talking about are minimum sums. Thinking for the moment purely of the financial aspects and the benefit to the community, do not those carers themselves need some form of care?

1243
Even if one bounces a rubber ball up and down forever it reaches its own breaking point. Carers are not rubber balls; they are flesh and blood like the rest of us. There may be other strains within their family, apart from the disabled person. There are other members of the family who demand their attention and time. Perhaps they are looking after a disabled husband or child while at the same time, 30 miles away, they have a parent gradually getter older who needs more and more attention as well. Even without the additional strains, looking after one disabled person, where one is never getting a full night's sleep, brings one to the verge of breaking point. If that is allowed to happen—as another noble Lord said, I am afraid I do not remember who it was—one would end up with two people in care: the disabled person and the carer.
Respite care is surely the answer. While the family who are looking after the disabled person go and have a holiday and recover so that they can look after that person for another period of time the disabled person goes into an institution and is looked after for, say, a fortnight. If that is done at the very least, say, a fortnight a year, costing what the Government claim that it costs to look after a disabled person—£180 a week—that is £360 for a fortnight. If one takes that away from the cost that the carer is already saving the community—a minimum of £9,360—that only reduces the saving to £9,000. I have here a letter from one of the Welsh county councils seeking from the organisation for the disabled for which I work funds to take a man suffering from huntington's chorea into a home for a fortnight. The charges in that home are only £85 a week and so the savings may well be more than £9,000.
I think that it is a very short-sighted view on the part of the Treasury—not the noble Baroness's ministry, because I know she would like to do more. I recognise that the noble Baroness is aware of many of the problems. But surely she should take it upon herself to persuade the other Ministers in her ministry to hammer on the Treasury door, to get inside, and to knock some heads together, because the saving to the community would be very considerable. If we do not care for the carers and make certain that that is provided for under Clause 5—I do not think that it is as the Bill is written at the moment; I feel that it needs amending in this respect—we are not doing the right job.
Another point upon which I need elucidation is Clause 6. As I understand the clause, the information to be given to disabled people and their representatives is only on the services available within the local authority's area. But not all local authorities provide all services; some of the services are very specialised. I should have thought that it was essential to have the means to find out and provide information on specialised services anywhere in the country to disabled people and their representatives.
With those remarks I wish this Bill a speedy passage.
10.9 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, at this stage of the evening I shall be very brief, particularly as most of
1244
the points that I was thinking of raising have already been extremely well covered in the speeches made so far. I want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for introducing this important Bill and explaining it so clearly.
I am glad—and I speak especially as chairman of MENCAP—that Parliament is able to have this opportunity to take a really effective step forward to improve the quality of life of some of the most disadvantaged members of the community. I look upon the Bill as a further significant step in seeing that resources for the disabled are used to the best advantage and that disabled people are themselves given a say in the improvement of services available to them. I recall that the International Year of Disabled in 1981 had the aim of, "full participation and equality". Five years later this Bill represents an important move to that end.
It would be wrong not to express appreciation of the Government's attitude to the Bill. Some of us trembled for its progress in another place, and although the Bill as it emerged and is before us today falls short of perfection, it is certainly a good deal better than at one stage I, for one, had feared. For a Private Member's Bill it is a very substantive document, and I am lost in admiration of Mr. Tom Clarke's skill in piloting it through another place.
I am conscious of the shortage of parliamentary time and of the pressure on the legislative programme. I realise that in practice—in full deference to what the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, said a little earlier—there is only limited room for manoeuvre in changing the Bill without putting the whole enterprise in jeopardy. But I hope that the Government who, as has been explained, were still brooding about a number of issues when the Bill left another place, will themselves seek to strengthen and improve it during its passage through this House. We shall be only too glad to help and encourage them in so worthy a purpose.
Mention has already been made in the opening speech of the noble Baroness, and in other speeches, of a number of points of comparative detail which will require to be looked at in Committee. I should like to add my own few words to the points which the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has just been making about the provisions in Clause 5 relating to carers. I have been looking at the Answer given by the noble Baroness the Minister to a Written Question about extending invalid care allowance to all married women in the light of the proceedings going on before the European Court in Luxembourg, I am referring to col. 815 of the Official Report for 8th May. The Answer seems to me to be somewhat Delphic. That is not an adjective that one would normally apply to pronouncements of the noble Baroness. However, it makes a point of referring to the valuable work which the carers do. It is valuable indeed, as has been well illustrated by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and others who spoke earlier.
This group, many of them elderly women with very few resources of their own, make possibly the greatest contribution of all in looking after the disabled in the community; and, as has been said, in so doing they save the Treasury a great deal of money. The cost of state and local authority provision would run into billions of pounds if they all gave up overnight. I hope

1245
therefore that further thought will lead the Government to add to this clause for two reasons: first, to make more specific the purpose of seeing what help the carer needs to enable the disabled person to continue to live in the community; but secondly to enable the carer to ask for an assessment of the needs of a disabled person.
This is a Private Member's Bill but I shall listen with care to whatever the Minister may volunteer about implementation, and particularly the possible timetable for bringing the various provisions into force. I know that this is an issue of the greatest possible interest to all of us this evening. Although, as I understand it, the original hope was that the main objects would be achieved by using existing resources more efficiently, as the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, explained, I go along with those who believe that there can be no blinking the fact that additional resources will have to be found by central and local government if the provisions of the Bill, either in its present form or, as we hope, extended and improved, are to be brought into effect and produce worthwhile results.
I take comfort from the fact that the Government have declared time and again their compassion and deep feeling for disabled people and their families. I feel that they can hardly fail to seize this opportunity to translate those feelings into practical reality and to demonstrate, as I think must now be one of their main objectives, that they are indeed a caring and compassionate Administration.
10.17 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, one of the most encouraging factors about this debate has been the unanimous support from all parts of the House for this Bill. I certainly want to add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for her presentation of it, and for what is going to be quite a difficult task in piloting this Bill through your Lordships' House. I should also like to give my praise to Mr. Tom Clarke, the Member of Parliament who introduced it in another place; to those voluntary organisations who helped and advised him; and also to the Minister of Health, Mr. Barney Hayhoe. It was important that they managed to put together a package, and if any of us try really seriously to destroy that package, the Bill may suffer as a consequence.
I do not take the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, that this is not, if I have his words right, a major piece of legislation. Rather do I go along with the noble Lord, Lord Allen, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester that this is an extremely important piece of legislation. It may not mark the same watershed in services for people with disabilities as the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. I was deeply involved with that Bill but I recognise what its weaknesses were.
It gave disabled people rights but did not do enough to ensure that they were able to obtain those rights. This Bill builds on the experience of the 1970 Act and recognises that in the intervening years disabled people have ceased to be just recipients of services and are demanding their full rights as citizens, as was said by
1246
the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot—full say not only in the provision of those services but in all aspects of the life of the community. They are not now tucked away. They are part of us, and they demand the same rights as we accord to ourselves, and as we should accord to them.
Clause 1 gives disabled people the right to appoint their representatives, and that is a tremendous step forward. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that there seem to be gaps in this that we shall have to deal with in Committee. Perhaps the noble Baroness will make some points which will show the way to tackle those problems. As the clause stands, representatives will only operate in relation to the social services.
The Secretary of State can extend that to the health service and to other local authority services. I certainly hope he will. I think it is absolutely essential that the same opportunities for representation are available in the health service as are available in local authorities. I hope he will not drag his feet about this. The clause builds on the successful work of the Advocacy Alliance, whose main field of operation has been long-stay hospitals. I think that they take some of the same points of view as those presented by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. The key issue in the health and social services is the movement from hospital to community care. To allow representation in one section and not in the other would be absolutely absurd. I am glad that this is the view of most of the health bodies which have responded to the DHSS consultation paper.
There will be difficulties in implementing this clause in relation to people who are incapable of appointing a representative. I know that this is an issue which has been discussed only today at a seminar organised by MIND. I wish I had been able to be there as chairman of MIND to see what conclusions they reached, but we will have details of their conclusions and this may help us in Committee. We shall have full and constructive debates on this. I shall not go further at this stage.
Clause 2 gives disabled people explicit rights to put their views to the social services when their needs are being assessed, to have a written statement on decisions and to ask for a review if they are not happy. As the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said, as drafted the clause restricts these rights in a rather illogical way so that, for example, a person can appeal against non-provision of a service but not under-provision of the same type of service. I understand that the DHSS and local authorities have agreed to widen the clause and we look forward very much to what will come either from the Minister tonight or through amendments at Committee stage.
The clause still, however, does not go as far as I should have liked. I should have liked to see some breach in the compartmentalisation which disabled people have to face; I have in mind, for example, some of the most intractable problems surrounding the question of adapting or rehousing with responsibilities split between district and county councils. As it stands, the written statement encompasses only social service functions. Quite clearly there are problems that go way beyond the health and social services.

1247
This is an issue which arises again on Clause 4, when housing for discharged patients must clearly be on top of the agenda. We cannot have people discharged from long-stay hospitals without proper, good, decent accommodation into which to move, with the sort of community support they will need.
Clause 3 is the first of two clauses which seek to move from what we might call crisis management to crisis prevention. It requires a social service assessment before disabled children leave full-time education. Here again there are still a few details to be sorted out, but I understand that agreement has been reached with all the parties concerned and I look forward to the appropriate amendments coming forward at Committee stage.
Clause 4 seeks to achieve the same result for people who have been treated for mental handicap or mental illness in hospital for at least six months. It is in my view an absolutely key clause of the Bill, since it obliges authorities actually to implement policies to which governments have been paying lip service for years. The clause has been through a number of transformations. Originally it was similar to Clause 3 involving notification by the hospital of the date of discharge and the subsequent social services assessment.
On Report in another place, the Government submitted a new clause which would have changed this solely to notification without any duty on the social services to do anything, a procedure described by the AMA as almost a waste of paper. Mr. Clarke, after agreeing with the local authority associations, proposed an alternative, which is what we see in the Bill now. The hospital managers are required to undertake an assessment in conjunction with the social services. I think that that is a very fair phrase and it means that it will have to be done in conjunction with the social services. The clause was accepted by the Minister, whose main criticism was that the drafting did not place a sufficient duty on the social services to co-operate in the assessment. I think that that was right.
Perhaps I may quote from two paragraphs from Mr. Barney Hayoe in col. 497. He said:
"It is right that social services should contribute to assessments, but hospital authorities with current responsibility for the patient should normally be in the lead."
That was a good statement. Then he said in col. 499:
"It fails to make clear what the extent and duty would be of hospital managers when a local authority failed to participate in the arrangements for an assessment. What will happen if the local authority's social services department is unco-operative? That is not clear in the present formulation. Clearly, hospital authorities have no power to direct local authorities to participate in the assessment of needs".
Quite clearly, this question of the relationship between the health authorities and the social services authorities is going to be central to our discussions in Committee. I must say that I am waiting with great interest to learn from the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, what precise amendments the Government will be suggesting to the Committee. I do not mean that she is going to suggest the precise amendments now, but she may give us some inkling of what will happen.
1248
I think that there should be a general agreement not only in this House but among local and health authorities that current best practice is a multidisciplinary assessment involving both health and social services and possibly other bodies as well—voluntary organisations too. Obviously we want legislation which will require authorities to provide the best possible care for patients but we do not want to tie their hands to a precise formula. Possibly the solution would be to lay separate duties on each authority, health and social service, to assess for their own services but to co-operate with each other when they do so.
Clause 5, the carers' clause, I shall not say much about. It has been touched upon by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, by the noble Lord, Lord Allen, by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), and also by the noble Lords, Lord Mottistone and Lord Stallard. All of them have expressed concern about the carers' clause. My concern goes along with all they have said and I shall not repeat what has been said. It is a problem. We know that we are not going to be able to put into this Bill something with massive resources but I must say that one sometimes feels sad as one hears constant tributes to the noble—and I agree noble—work which is carried out by the carers; but it is accompanied by an almost total lack of action. We have to see in some other way that there really is action in this field.
I should like to record my regret that the clause which would have increased the influence of disabled people when local authorities were drawing up structure plans seems to have disappeared altogether. Given the procedures in the other place, it was inevitable that non-DHSS clauses would receive a rather wooden response from Ministers. It may be that in Committee here we may hear directly from the noble Lord, Lord Elton, to explain the rather negative briefs which I felt that his department had provided in the field that concerned him.
In col. 536 on this notable and historic day, Mr. Tony Newton, the Minister for Social Security, said:
"If it transpires that the attention of planning authorities needs to be directed more closely to the needs of disabled people, that could be done in the form of guidance from the Department of the Environment. I understand that my colleagues there are considering whether such guidance might be helpful."
In my experience, where disabled people have been involved at an early stage great benefits have accrued not only to them but to many other members of the public. I suggest that authoritative guidance, perhaps formulated in conjunction with the Access Committee for England, would be of immense value. I hope that the noble Baroness may be able to up-date the House on the progress her colleagues have made on this issue since 11th April.
I also hope—and this is the last point I want to make—following on from the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Allen, that the noble Baroness may say something about timing, because we do not want to see this House following on from another place, passing the Bill and then waiting for years for something to happen. I see no reason why Clause 5 and Parts II to IV cannot come into force immediately, Clauses 2 and 3 and most of Clause 1 next April and the rest of the Bill the following year. That is the sort of timetable that I should like to set.

1249
The only complicated matters are setting up procedures for authorising representatives for people who are legally incompetent and preparing the ground for joint assessments of people coming out of hospital. As requested by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, I hope that the noble Baroness the Minister can give some fairly precise indication of the Government's thinking on timing, though I appreciate that discussions with the authorities will be continuing during the process of this Bill through your Lordships' House.
I want to give the Bill every possible support and to assure those on all sides of the House that these Benches will seek very positively to see that what I think is a very important initiative, and this agreement which was hammered out in another place, are carried through into reality and into practice, ensuring that so many disabled people are able, by joint planning and with their own consultation and their own representatives, to be settled effectively and properly as full citizens in the community.
10.32 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, perhaps I may first add my congratulations to those that others have offered to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, on so eloquently bringing this Bill before us today. This Bill certainly represents a very important development of the legislative structure within which services are provided for disabled people and we are indeed grateful to her.
The Government have made it clear throughout that we endorsed the principles that the Bill seeks to enshrine. But we were concerned that in the form that it was originally introduced in another place it would have imposed inflexible, impracticable and bureaucratic burdens on local authorities. The Government consulted widely on proposals for amending the Bill to produce more workable measures, and substantial amendments were subsequently tabled. After a certain amount of what I can best describe as constructive give and take between the Government and the Bill's sponsors, the Bill in its present form emerged from another place. I think we have now got what is basically a most worthwhile Bill, although, in our view, as I shall outline briefly in a moment, some bits of it still need a bit of further refining and tidying up.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, referred in her opening speech to the most important changes envisaged, as discussed between the DHSS and those advising the Bill's sponsors. May I assure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, that we have no intention of any radical rewriting. I should like to make one other brief introductory comment. I should like to say that I particularly enjoyed listening to the speech of my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood. Her foresight and her own hard work have resulted in so much help being offered to so many people in Scotland.
Before I talk briefly about some of the individual provisions of the Bill, I should like to touch on the subject of costs. The Bill represents a substantial
1250
development of services for disabled people. As such, it has been clear from the outset that it would have substantial resource implications for local authorities. The additional costs would reflect not only the new administrative procedures which the Bill would require local authorities to undertake, but there would also be the cost of meeting the need for additional services which those new procedures—specifically for assessment and for representation of disabled people—would bring to light. It is this latter element which would be the most significant element. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Allen, thought that my reply was Delphic. I am afraid that I cannot even claim to be a Vestal Virgin; therefore I have nothing to add.
What the cost of the Bill would be cannot at this stage be stated at all exactly. We asked the local authority associations to estimate the costs of the Bill if it were amended on the basis of the proposals set out in the consultation paper issued by the Government in February. The answer they came up with was a minimum of £100 million in a full year, though it is clear that it would take at least a year or two after implementation for the costs to build up to that level. We now need to take into account the fact that the Bill in its present form does not in some respects reflect the proposals in the Government's consultation paper. It seems likely—and I must make it clear that we are still discussing this with the local authority associations and others—that Clause 4 at any rate (on the assessment of the needs of people discharged from long-stay psychiatric hospitals) could be significantly more expensive in its present form than if the amendment originally proposed by the Government had been adopted.
The upshot of all this is that, as Government Ministers have made quite clear in another place, it will not be possible, if the Bill reaches the statute book, to make commencement orders bringing into effect those parts of the Bill that have significant resource implications until such time as the necessary resources can be made available. But do not despair, my Lords: what I have said does not mean that parts of the Bill could not be implemented reasonably quickly after the Bill is enacted. I should hope it would be possible to implement those parts of the Bill which do not carry significant resource implications not too many months after Royal Assent. I should hope, for example, that Clause 3 (disabled school leavers), Clause 5 (carers), Clause 6 (information), Clause 7 (co-option of disabled people to committees etc.) and Clause 8 (reports to Parliament) could be implemented on that sort of timescale.
However, I must say in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Banks—and I understand his absence—that Clause 1 (on representatives) where in any case there will be regulations that will need to be the subject of further consultation before they are made, Clause 2 (on assessment) and possibly Clause 4 (people discharged from long-stay psychiatric hospitals) will have to await the availability of the necessary resources. I hope this also answers a specific point raised by my noble friend Lord Mottistone.
I should like to make some comments from the Government's point of view on some of the more important provisions of the Bill. I first of all turn to Clause 1, on representation of disabled people. This is

1251
a very important step forward. For the first time disabled people are given the right to appoint people to represent them in connection with the provision of services by local authority social services departments. As some of your Lordships may be aware, the department has been funding a pilot scheme for the provision of advocates for disabled people, run by the Advocacy Alliance. I hope it will be possible to build upon the experience of that scheme in developing statutory arrangements under this clause of the Bill.
I now turn to Clause 2, on assessment of need. This again represents an important development. For the first time disabled people are to be given, as of right, the opportunity to make representations about their need for social services as they perceive them to be and, arguably more importantly, to receive a written explanation outlining the services to be provided and make further representations if they are unhappy with the outcome. The clause also requires local authorities to provide interpretation services to disabled people or their representatives who are unable to communicate normally because of disability. Following discussions with the Bill's sponsors we have it in mind to bring forward some relatively minor improvements to the clause, to improve the way it works. I am confident that those measures will command the support of the House.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone asked whether a disabled person or someone acting for him could call for the local authority to consider the needs of a disabled person if the local authority had shown unwillingness to do so off its own bat. The clause does not make specific provision for that, but the question of whether clarification of the local authority's duties in that respect is requested is one that we are looking at anyway at the request of the Bill's sponsors. If we conclude that it is necessary or appropriate to do so, we shall bring forward an amendment at a later stage.
The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) asked, in regard to Clause 2(6), whether more weight could be given to the disabled person's views in deciding whether interpretation of services is needed. We shall certainly consider that point. On the face of it a local authority must take the final decision as to what is needed in the way of interpretation of services to enable it to discharge its functions. I certainly take the point that the views of the disabled person should be given weight.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, asked for an assurance that the right will be extended to allow rights of representation against under-provision as well as non-provision, and I can give such an assurance.
Clause 3 deals with young disabled people leaving education. It puts a duty on the local authority to assess the young person's needs for social services at what is generally recognised to be a particularly significant milestone in his or her life. The provisions of the clause go beyond the proposals in the Government's consultative paper issued in February. However, having considered the views of the local authority associations and others, we now accept that the clause in its present form is an improvement on our original proposals. Again, we shall be bringing forward some minor tidying up arrangements which I do not expect the House will find in any way controversial.
1252
I anticipate, however, that we shall need to give careful consideration in Committee to Clause 4, on long-stay patients discharged from psychiatric hospitals. That again goes beyond the Government's proposed amendment to the original Bill, which envisaged only a requirement on hospital managers to notify the social services department in the area to which the patient was likely to be discharged. We now have a provision requiring the hospital managers to "make arrangements" for the needs of the patient for social services to be assessed before he or she is discharged. The overall intention here is one which we wholeheartedly support.
On the other hand, the clause as it stands does not seem to be at all clear as to what would be the precise responsibilities in the assessment process of the hospital managers and the social services department (or, in some cases, departments) concerned. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, I am unwilling to go into that rather complicated area in any more detail, as we are still studying the implications of the clause—including, as I said earlier, the resource implications—in consultation with the Bill's sponsors and others. But, as I said, we shall certainly need to spend some time on this clause in Committee.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone asked whether the disabled person's family would be involved in the assessment process. I agree that as a matter of good practice that would indeed be highly desirable. I am not convinced however that it would be practicable to make it a statutory requirement. I have a feeling that it would not be desirable to cover matters of professional practice of this sort in legislation. However, I shall study most carefully what my noble friend said.
My noble friend also wondered what was the point of assessing needs if this would not lead to some kind of action. I believe that in practice an assessment would lead to action in virtually every case if unmet needs were disclosed. The identification of those needs would necessarily act as a trigger for the exercise of the authority's existing powers (and, indeed, in some cases duties) under the relevant legislation.
Clause 5 puts a duty on local authorities to take carers' abilities into account when considering whether services need to be provided for a disabled person. This provision has rightly attracted a lot of attention and was the subject of much discussion in another place. On that occasion my honourable friend the Minister for the disabled, in proposing the government new clause which has now been incorporated in the Bill, undertook that the Government would consider carefully whether further amendments needed to be brought forward in this House to clarify the purpose of this clause. We have indeed given further consideration to this point, and have had further discussions with the Bill's sponsors. We remain unpersuaded that further amendments are necessary or desirable, but we will of course carefully consider the points which have been put forward today.
The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) spoke most movingly about the role of carers, as did other noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Swinfen asked about the implications of Clause 5 for respite care—providing care for the disabled person while

1253
carers have a well-earned rest. Local authorities can, and of course already do, provide such care under existing legislation and the Bill would not impose any new powers or duties in this respect. What the Bill does is require the local authority to have regard to the ability of the carer to continue to provide regular care when it looks at the disabled person's need for services.
Clauses 1 to 5 represent the meat of this Bill. The remainder of the Bill contains a number of useful minor improvements in provisions for disabled people which the Government generally welcome. The only clause to which at present we are minded to suggest substantive amendments is Clause 11, on co-operation in planning in Scotland. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland undertook in another place that an amendment would be introduced to meet the concerns of the Bill's sponsors by giving statutory powers to the Secretary of State to prescribe for joint planning committees and their activities for use if the present administrative arrangements should prove to be unsatisfactory after a fair trial.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked about joint planning in Scotland and whether it would be put on a statutory basis as it is in England. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State's undertaking was to introduce a reserve power in support of the administrative arrangements. The precise formulation of that power is still under consideration by Scottish Ministers. He also undertook to seek an amendment to the Bill's Long Title to enable services for elderly people to be covered in this context. We also intend to introduce a clause that would apply the principles of Clause 3 of the Bill concerning children with special educational needs to the particular circumstances that apply in Scotland.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen asked whether local authorities should not have the duty to get specialised information from whatever source, not just information in their possession. We considered this point at an earlier stage but decided that it would put an unreasonable and unenforceable burden on local authorities. I agree that they ought to provide this sort of information, but it would be wrong to put them under a statutory obligation to do so.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone raised a point on Clause 7 which deals with the appointment to various committees and other bodies of people with special knowledge of the needs of disabled persons. I can assure him that the clause will in no way preclude relatives of disabled people being appointed to such bodies. What it will do is ensure that before such appointments are made there shall, in appropriate cases, be consultation with organisations directly representing disabled people themselves.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester mentioned the use of the word "of" in Clause 7. Personally I could not agree with him more, but I am no parliamentary draftsman.
I should like to conclude my remarks by once again congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, on sponsoring this important Bill and by expressing the hope that the House will agree that it should be given a Second Reading. I wish the Bill an easy and speedy passage through this House. I am quite sure that,
1254
subject to minor amendments on the lines which I have suggested, this Bill is potentially a very important milestone on the road toward better services for disabled people, which is a goal that we all share.
10.50 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, the lights are dim, the hour is late and there is another important debate to follow. I shall be very brief.
We have had a very full and constructive debate and I am most grateful to all the noble Lords and Baronesses who have taken part. Though the Bill is a modest measure in terms of direct resource implications, it represents a change of direction in society's approach to people with disabilities, the significance of which will be demonstrated in the coming years. I should like to congratulate all the speakers who have made such valuable and knowledgeable points.
I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, the Minister, for her very helpful and constructive speech on behalf of the Government. I think it right to put on record the immense help that the sponsors of this Bill have had from the Government and their officials not only in the Department of Health and Social Security but also in the Department of Education and the Scottish Office. I should also like to pay tribute to the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Association of County Councils and the National Association of Health Authorities for their invaluable and essential contributions in forging a Bill on which there is now universal agreement and which we can therefore be confident will be implemented with enthusiasm by local and health authorities throughout the country.
I should like to give a special word of thanks to Mr. Peter Mitchell of the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation and to Mr. John Healey of MIND who have worked extremely hard and have been most helpful. Much work goes on behind the scenes with a Bill such as this. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if at this late hour I do not comment on all the detailed points that have been made in the debate. The Chief Whip would be furious, I know. However, I can assure your Lordships that they will all be carefully considered and can be debated further in Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, expressed some of the concerns put to him by the National Schizophrenia Fellowship. Although the Bill is primarily concerned with giving a greater say to disabled people themselves, the position of those who care for them in the community is very much a concern of the sponsors. In relation to Clause 1, the Minister for Health in another place said that the position of the family would be considered in the regulations, and I am sure that the fellowship will be invited by the department to give its views at that stage.
The only other clause on which I wish to comment is Clause 4. I hope that we can achieve a satisfactory outcome at the Committee stage. It is most important. I also hope, as the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, suggested, that the noble Baroness will hammer hard

1255
at the Treasury's coffers. She understands the problems; she is, I feel, one of us who care. I hope that your Lordships will now give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Hong Kong: Vietnamese Refugees
10.55 p.m.
Lord Chitnis Lord Chitnis rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to improve the present living conditions and resettlement prospects of Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I am aware that at this hour I should not assume your Lordships' formal consent. However, I tabled this Question after a visit to Hong Kong in February as chairman of Refugee Action, together with the director of that organisation and a Vietnamese-speaking member of its council. Refugee Action is one of the two main organisations in this country which has the problem of resettling Vietnamese refugees who come here, and we felt that it would be useful to go to Hong Kong to see the conditions from which they were coming, the better to be able to understand their problems when they arrive here.
What we found was a complicated problem which the Hong Kong authorities have laboured manfully to deal with over the past years since it started, the root of which I realise the Government can do little about. The root of the problem of the Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong is the conditions in Vietnam itself. Were those conditions different, there would not be a problem. But in Vietnam at the present moment there is harassment of religion, there are political education camps in which some people spend many years, there is compulsory military service for a very nasty war, there are food shortages, and there is malnutrition.
None of your Lordships would happily live in Vietnam. Indeed, Her Majesty's Government I think agree with me on this point, in that they said in their reply to the Home Affairs Committee of another place that people would continue to leave Vietnam as long as conditions there continued to be intolerable, which was the word that they used. I think that the people who manage to escape from the country deserve every sympathy and consideration.
What happens to them when they enter British waters? After a dangerous and difficult journey in normally inadequate craft over the South China Sea, they are not even allowed to land in Hong Kong. They are taken to a pontoon in the harbour and there they are given what I can only describe as "a verbal going over". During the two weeks that we were in Hong Kong no boat happened to arrive, and so I cannot claim to have seen the process myself, but I have had it described to me by the Hong Kong authorities and I have seen some of the briefing material that is given to those who talk to the refugees.
Certainly the process is enormously effective in the sense that, after that tremendously dangerous journey
1256
on which some of the people concerned died following enormous deprivation, nearly half of the 2,000 people who arrived in Hong Kong in 1985 and who were subjected to that process decided that they would sail on. The Hong Kong Government refuel their boats, they equip them with food and water, and they are sent out to sea again. As I understand it, no record is kept of them other than their numbers, and nobody knows what other landfall they reach. It is a reasonably fair assumption that some of them die. I think that perhaps the claim of the Hong Kong authorities in the material which they issue and which was referred to by the Minister in another place last week, that no refugee has ever been refused political asylum, rings a little hollow.
What happens to those who stay? The new arrivals are now put into closed camps. I hope that tonight the Minister will not spend time defending the closed camp policy. Although it is arguable whether it was necessary and is effective, I do not intend to argue that point tonight. The figures of refugees coming into Hong Kong were falling anyway, before the policy was introduced. It is a matter of fact that over the past several years not one refugee has gone missing from an open or a closed camp. If it is said that public opinion in Hong Kong insists that the camps be closed, I do not believe that the Government should bow to that pressure. During my time in Hong Kong I found an enormous degree of sympathy for the refugees among the population.
I accept that the Government have decided that the closed camps are here to stay, but if that is so, one must next consider what the conditions in the closed camps should be. The present system is that the camps are run by the correctional services department of the Hong Kong Government—what we would call the Prison Department. Because they are run by people who were trained to run prisons the camps are run as prisons. The camps are full of prison staff who call the people within them by their numbers rather than their names. There are very many of them and there is the whole atmosphere of a prison institution in the camps.
It seems to me that there are two possible remedies to the problem which I think is undesirable, both of which have the merit, apart from anything else, of saving money. First, there are voluntary organisations working in the camps at the moment. They are doing splendid work, but they are doing particular work. The Save the Children Fund, or whichever organisation it may be, will run the school or the workshop. Is there any reason why instead of the Prison Department handling the camp administration—while it may control the camp perimeters—within the camps the administration could not be carried out by the voluntary organisations? I know that many of them are prepared to fulfil that task, and were they to do so, it would civilianise the administration, get the prison officers out of the camps, and make for a much more relaxed atmosphere within them.
There is an even more adventurous solution which is—again, I do not argue that the prison officers should not guard the camp perimeters—that the administration within the camps could be given to the refugees. There are closed camps in other parts of South-East Asia where within the perimeter the refugees run their own affairs.
I recognise that the result of that would be that the buildings they are in would be slightly less clean and spick and span than the correctional services department in Hong Kong would like them to be, but it would mean that people who at present are being reduced to mere numbers in an institution would have some kind of control over their own lives and, more to the point, would be better equipped to face life outside the camps when eventually they are resettled. That, of course, is the main point. If those refugees could be swiftly resettled, conditions within the camps would be considerably less important.
The United Kingdom is taking some 50 refugees a month during 1986 as part of an agreed family reunion programme. The Government said recently that they would relax the criteria for the family reunion programme and would not insist on the rigid and close degrees of relationship which had sometimes operated. In view of my experience of the administration of that programme I hope that the Government can confirm that that remains their policy.
The main point is that before I went to Hong Kong, and while I was in Hong Kong, I talked to representatives of the other settlement countries—the Canadians, the Australians and the Americans—and I am convinced that they would do a great deal to solve the problem if the British Government would do a little more than they are doing.
I believe, for example, that if the Government were to agree that the present flow into this country of 500 a year could be continued into 1987 and 1988, the other settlement countries would do even more than they are doing to make a big dent in the problem. Is there any chance of that happening?
I wish to ask one question. Will the Government exempt the refugees from the new supplementary benefit regulations which are currently before us? The proposed changes in the single payment regulations will make the resettlement of those refugees in this country much more difficult than it need be. The regulations are reasonably drawn up with the British population in mind.
The refugees coming into that situation have very particular problems. It would surely be possible to exempt them from this.
The world is full of problems. By the standards of famine in Africa or the number of refugees from Afghanistan and Pakistan and so on the problem of the 9,500 Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong is a tiny one. But this is a situation where an act of will by Her Majesty's Government on the sort of matters about which I have spoken could make a very great difference to one little problem in a small part of the world. I very much hope for a positive response.
11.6 p.m.
Lord MacLehose of Beoch: My Lords, while I do not wish to detain your Lordships long at this late hour, I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, for tabling the Question and speaking to it so forcefully. I am also very glad that he is personally taking an interest in the problem. I have the most vivid recollection
1258
of the beginning of this problem with people arriving in very great numbers, not knowing how many were coming and wondering whether the crowded city would be swamped by the potential numbers from Vietnam. I remember extremely well how staunch the Hong Kong public were in those days and how magnificently the public services coped with this invasion that just could not be turned away.
I listened with great interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, had to say about what was going on in Hong Kong and about what should be done for the refugees. I have also read a recent report by the Oxfam working party that came out at much the same time that the Question was tabled. As I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, and the Oxfam working party have much the same things to say. They do not question the basic policies of the Hong Kong Government, but they have criticism of administrative practice and recommendations for change. I cannot comment on that. It is over four years since I was in Hong Kong, and the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, has been there quite recently.
However. I would record a gentle plea to be guided in this by the Hong Kong Government. The public is humane, the Oxfam report was largely drafted by Hong Kong people, and the record of the territory is exemplary in Asia; so I suggest no exhortation. However, if something practical can be offered, I am sure that would be a very different matter.
I have a few questions to ask. The first stems from the fact that Hong Kong never had a fair share of the resettlement places on offer. I made this point as forcefully as I could to the Geneva conference in 1979, obviously without effect, because I notice that the Oxfam report says that this remains the situation—28 per cent. of the problem, and a very small share of the solution. First, can anything be done to improve Hong Kong's share of the places offered, whether by representations to other host countries or by the United Kingdom leading the way, as the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, has said?
Secondly, is there a prospect of repatriating to Vietnam any refugees who now wish to go? I listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, said about conditions in Vietnam, but the fact is that some have been able to return; I think that the Oxfam report said at least 25.
The report also made a point that I have heard from others; namely, that while the early refugees were genuine refugees—that is to say, people in danger of life or liberty because of their race, religion or political beliefs—more recently the emigration has been stimulated more by accounts from relations and friends abroad of the much better conditions that they can get abroad as against in Vietnam. This is a slightly different situation. I was ambassador in Vietnam at one time. It is a harsh country, I know. I wonder whether the Minister would agree that if any wish to go back, their repatriation would be a desirable objective. I believe that this problem is best dealt with by slow and steady erosion, not by some dramatic terminal gesture. The latter might only touch off a further stream of emigration. After all, the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, mentioned that there were only 9,000 and how small that number is. Yes, but how many millions

1259
of people are there in Vietnam? The last thing that one wants to do is to suggest to them that they have only to come somewhere else and their problems will be solved. The world will not solve them. That has been proved.
If a policy of erosion is to be followed, this requires a steady net offtake. My last question is therefore to ask whether the Government can do more to improve and continue the rate of resettlement. That is all that I have to say. I hope, however, that the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, will persevere in his interest in the problem, because it can be rather forgotten in this country. It is very real in Hong Kong, to the Vietnamese refugees, of course, but also to the government and people who have borne this burden all these years.
11.12 p.m.
Lord Oram: My Lords, whenever the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, speaks in this House he does so on the basis of expert knowledge and sincere dedication to the causes that he espouses, and never more so than on this occasion when he has raised the question of the Vietnamese refugees. The noble Lord has raised this subject in his capacity as chairman of Refugee Action, following, as he has explained, an intensive study of the problem on the spot a few weeks ago. My own knowledge of the problem is not a direct one. It is derived from my reading of the report of the Home Affairs Committee of another place, the Government's reply to that report, and, most useful of all, the report of the delegation that the noble Lord led to Hong Kong. It is indeed a formidable document.
The first two documents necessarily deal with the major policy questions and with the recommendations from the Home Affairs Committee for the solution of the refugee problem. What distinguishes the report of the noble Lord and his colleagues is that from its pages one not only derives a view of those major issues and what should be done about them, but one gets also a vivid series of intimate details of life in the camps, both those that are closed and those that are open. It is typical of the report and indeed of the noble Lord's speech that although they are highly critical, and rightly critical, of the conditions they saw, they acknowledge that it is a most complex situation and that the authorities are wrestling with most difficult circumstances. Throughout the report, which I have read with care, it is clear that the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, and his colleagues have endeavoured to be objective and fair in their assessment of the situation. It seems to me all the more important therefore that the Government, and indeed the Hong Kong Government, should examine carefully every sentence in this report and ask what can be done to alleviate the conditions which are described in it.
There are two parts to the noble Lord's Question this evening. One part concerns living conditions of the refugees and asks what can be done to improve those conditions. The other part of the Question concerns the prospects of resettlement of the refugees. I suggest that even if the Government have good reasons, which we shall no doubt hear from the noble Baroness, for not accepting the main recommendations either of the Select Committee or of the
1260
delegation of the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, in respect of resettlement prospects, there is a very great deal that can be done on the basis of what they have described, and a great deal that ought to be done, to improve the living conditions, particularly in the closed camps. The picture which emerges is indeed that of a bleak existence going on year after year for those who have been living in these camps simply because they cannot satisfy the complex criteria which determine their prospects of resettlement.
The monotony of their lives comes through from this report, the almost complete lack of recreational or educational facilities in many cases, and the frequent problems arising from the lack of interpreters leading very often to misunderstandings, are factors which could surely be alleviated even if the major problems of resettlement policy cannot be overcome.
However, I am not satisfied that it is impossible to overcome those major problems. We can acknowledge that the Government have accepted the first of the recommendations of the Select Committee; namely, that there should be a relaxation of the criteria governing family connections. Like the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, I hope that the Minister when she comes to reply can give a satisfactory report on the numbers who are being admitted to Britain as a result of that relaxation: and the assurance that was asked for by the noble Lord that that relaxed policy can be continued beyond this year.
I hope too that careful note will be taken of the instances reported by the delegation on hard cases of refusal of admission through misunderstandings. May I quote from page 5 of the report with regard to one particular case although it is said that there are other cases of this kind. The report says:
"We were introduced to a man who had not been settled because he was deemed to have rejected a British offer. In fact he had merely overslept on the morning of his interview. There was a cross against his name on the British list with no explanation. This meant that no other country would consider him."
There are other hardship cases of that kind. Surely it is at least possible to accept the recommendation of the noble Lord and his colleagues that Britain should review these 200 cases—or a number of that order—of refusals which put a stop on their being considered by other receiving countries.
May I make two points in connection with the Home Affairs Committee of another place? The first is the recommendation that the closed camps should be abolished. The committee reported that many of those in open camps secure employment and become pretty independent and almost resettled in Hong Kong itself. That is surely a strong argument for enabling those who are at present in enclosed camps to have a similar freedom.
I know the arguments on the other side, and the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, has put them forward. The arguments are that the closed camps were necessary as a so-called humane deterrent to prevent a further influx of refugees, and that abolishing the closed camps would give preferential treatment to Vietnamese refugees as against those Chinese who come illegally from the mainland. There may be some validity in both those arguments, but surely it is a matter of judgment as between opposing arguments. It

1261
is not a black and white situation. I am by no means convinced that the Government have reached a balanced conclusion on that particular matter.
My second point in relation to the report of the Home Affairs Committee is again one that was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, in his speech—namely, if the British Government can reconsider their position, they will provide a good example to other receiving countries, particularly Australia, the United States and Canada. As Britain has clearly the major constitutional obligation because Hong Kong is a British colony, it seems to me understandable that those other receiving countries should expect us to give the lead.
I support the view that has been put forward that a more generous attitude by our Government would enable the others to relax their conditions as well. I hope that when the noble Baroness comes to reply she will give some attention to those points. They are not my points, but points which are raised in the report of the Home Affairs Committee.
In conclusion, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, would agree with me in saying that we recognise how difficult the whole problem is and that the Government have not been entirely unsympathetic in seeking a solution to the problem. As I have suggested, all along the line it is a matter of judgment. We feel that so far the Government's judgment has erred on the side of caution and restriction, and that there is room for still further relaxation in the numbers who can be admitted. We hope that we shall hear from the Minister when she replies that the Government can now review the situation and take some further steps forward to a solution of what, after all, is a very tragic human problem.
11.24 p. m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, for tabling this Unstarred Question and it is a matter of regret that it should come on at so late an hour. The noble Lord is right to draw attention to the problems which have been caused by the enormous exodus of refugees from Vietnam in recent years. I do not think we need to be ashamed of the part we have played in the efforts to solve this problem: most of the burden has, of course, fallen on the authorities and people of Hong Kong.
The problem is still acute. Hong Kong still has more boat refugees than anywhere else in South-East Asia. But we are making steady progress towards a lasting solution: the permanent resettlement of refugees. The number of Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong was over 50,000 in 1979. It dropped rapidly to under 13,000 by the end of 1981, and more gradually since then to just under 9,000 at present. We shall continue to do all we can to help these unfortunate people to find a secure future, and to make sure that the conditions in which they live are as humane as possible. The Government very much hope that the resettlement of all Vietnamese refugees can be completed as early as possible.
Perhaps some figures would illustrate the present position in Hong Kong. On 5th May there were 8,661 Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong, 4,005 in open centres and 4,629 in closed centres. In the past year the refugee population has fallen by 2,542. Since 1st
1262
January 1,451 refugees have departed Hong Kong for resettlement compared with 1,135 in 1985. This is a result of increases in the numbers taken by the United Kingdom and other countries, to which I shall refer in more detail. Five hundred and twenty-five refugees have arrived in the same period, against 314 in 1985.
All those noble Lords who have spoken in this debate this evening have asked about what the United Kingdom has done. Since 1975 the United Kingdom has resettled some 12,500 Vietnamese refugees from Hong Kong. A White Paper published last September in response to the report of the Home Affairs Committee, entitled Refugees and Asylum with Special Reference to the Vietnamese announced the Government's agreement, in accordance with the committee's recommendation, to accept some 500 Vietnamese refugees, about 420 of them in Hong Kong, under relaxed immigration criteria for family reunion. The Government also agreed to consider accepting further limited numbers from Hong Kung in the future.
So far, 250 refugees have been resettled in the United Kingdom out of the 420 from Hong Kong whom we expect to qualify under those relaxed criteria. This programme is proceeding satisfactorily at the rate of about 40 people per month, thanks to excellent co-operation between officials in Hong Kong and the United Kingdom and the voluntary agencies.
In line with a recommendation of the Home Affairs Committee we are making major efforts to persuade other countries to take additional refugees from Hong Kong to maximise the effect of the decisions to resettle further numbers of refugees in the United Kingdom. The noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, made the point that Hong Kong never had a fair share of the places that were on offer, and asked whether this could be improved and whether we could do more to stimulate resettlement—a point that the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, made in his opening remarks. I can assure both noble Lords and the noble Lord, Lord Oram, that we have raised the matter with Ministers in other countries, and this has been supported by regular representations by our diplomatic missions. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees accords priority to the resettlement of refugees from Hong Kong, and has taken up the matter with many governments who seek his advice when allocating their refugee resettlement quotas.
I am glad to be able to say that so far Australia has agreed to accept a further 200 refugees, Canada 50, Finland 70, the Netherlands 80, New Zealand 10 and Sweden 100. The United States, which resettles more Indo-Chinese refugees than any other country, is currently accepting refugees at an annual rate of some 1,800, 200 more than the previous year's ceiling. This is a most encouraging initial response to our diplomatic campaign. We are grateful to all those countries for their efforts to help Hong Kong. Several other countries are likely to respond favourably. We are continuing to press the rest for a similar response.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, and the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, asked me about further resettlement in the United Kingdom, and indeed the report of the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, recommends that we should accept 40 refugees per month after the

1263
commitment to family reunions is fulfilled. I have to tell the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, that our priority task for the moment must be to complete the resettlement of the 500 refugees whom we have already agreed to accept. Whether we might be able in future to take further refugees from Hong Kong will be decided in the light of the willingness shown by other resettlement countries to respond to Hong Kong's needs and all the other circumstances at the time.
We are studying the report of the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, carefully. We share a common aim—that is, to see a permanent solution to the problem of the refugees in Hong Kong and one which is in the refugees' best interests. The noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, made a number of criticisms of the present circumstances in Hong Kong and I should like to take these points as he has given them and see whether I can give an assurance about them.
The first was a criticism of refugees arriving in Hong Kong. I think his words were that they were given a verbal "going over". Refugees reaching Hong Kong are advised on entry into Hong Kong waters that if they wish to land they will be allowed to do so and will be accommodated in a closed camp until they are resettled overseas. Almost 11,000 of the 13,000 reaching Hong Kong since the closed camps were introduced elected to stay, indicating that a majority regard these camps as preferable to the alternative of sailing somewhere elsewhere, generally towards Taiwan or the Philippines where camps similar to Hong Kong's closed centres exist. Those who wish to sail on may request to have their boats repaired and re-victualled by the Hong Kong Government at its own expense.
The noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, also criticised the role of the Correctional Services Department. The Hong Kong Government consider the Correctional Services Department to be the service best suited in Hong Kong to perform the difficult task of running the closed centres. The CSD administers a variety of institutions, not just prisons, for example, training centres for young offenders—and most CSD staff working in the closed centres are recruited for this task and are not trained prison officers. Indeed, many have social welfare qualifications.
The record of past continuing disturbances in the open centres, which are run by voluntary agencies, leads the Hong Kong Government to believe that closed centres need to be managed by an experienced and disciplined service such as the CSD. When Mr Hartley, until recently the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, visited the closed camps last May he commented that they were well run, and in particular he praised the efforts of the CSD's staff.
The noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, also commented that the refugees ought to be able to play a more meaningful part in the running of the camps. In each closed centre there is a refugees' management committee, with two representatives elected from each dormitory. They meet the Correctional Services Department senior staff daily and participate in all major decisions. They also meet regularly with representatives of the voluntary agencies, and are encouraged to participate in centre management. I have to say, however, that the response is poor.
1264
The noble Lord, Lord Oram, also criticised the camp administration, and I can say that the daily affairs of each centre are run in close consultation with individual centre committees composed of elected representatives from each hut. However, attempts by both the Hong Kong Government and voluntary agencies to involve the refugees in activities other than those which they perceive clearly to help their chances of resettlement sadly often bear little fruit. The committees are constantly encouraged to play a greater role in the life of the closed centres; but the difficulty is that the better-educated refugees, who are willing to participate in management, are generally those who are accepted for resettlement. Those left behind are often unwilling to participate in the management of the closed centres. The work done by voluntary agencies in the refugee camps in Hong Kong is of great importance and I should like to pay tribute to the commitment and compassion of the people involved who give frequently of their time in a multitude of ways.
The noble Lord, Lord Oram, also commented on the recommendation that the closed camps be abolished.
We have always made it clear that the policy is not intended to be a permanent measure: if the flow of illegal departures from Vietnam were to be reduced to a trickle, such deterrent measures would no longer be necessary. We should be ready to discontinue the policy at once if circumstances permitted. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, knows, and as he said in his opening remarks, large numbers of Vietnamese will continue to attempt to leave so long as the social and economic conditions imposed by the Hanoi Government make life within Vietnam intolerable. Without some policy of deterrence—and the closed camps policy is the only humane one open to us—Hong Kong will continue to be viewed as a convenient gateway to the rest of the free world.
The noble Lord, Lord Oram, also commented on particular hardship cases. I can say to him that I shall draw this particular point to the notice of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, also asked about the possible repatriation of refugees to Vietnam. I understand that there has been a small number of voluntary repatriations—approximately 20 out of 100,000. Of course they are free to return if they so wish.
I should like also to say to the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, that we are of course studying the report which has just been published by the Hong Kong Oxfam group under the title Hong Kong Cares for Vietnamese Refugees, but we have only just received it; and we are studying the report of the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis.
In closing, I should like to express the Government's admiration for the quite remarkable efforts made by Hong Kong in caring for over 110,000 Vietnamese refugees since 1975. No refugee has ever been turned away. Hong Kong is the only place of first asylum in South-East Asia to introduce a policy of local resettlement. It has absorbed some 500 refugees from the camps and has in fact resettled a total of 14,500 Indo-Chinese displaced persons since 1975. In the light of a recommendation by the Home Affairs Committee, Hong Kong has agreed to resettle up to

1265
250 more ethnic Chinese refugees from the camps in Hong Kong. This is a courageous measure given the difficulties that I have mentioned for Hong Kong in being seen to give Vietnamese refugees better treatment than illegal immigrants from China. Hong Kong is the only place of first asylum in the region to contribute towards the upkeep of its refugees. Last year it gave 100 million Hong Kong dollars—two thirds of the money spent on refugees in Hong Kong—and that came from the Hong Kong Government itself.
The noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, asked me about the new social security regulations. I must say that I think I had better write to him on that point because it is one that is new to me. In the words of Mr Poul Hartling, the last UN High Commissioner for Refugees, at a press conference in Hong Kong a year ago:
"We are very grateful to Hong Kong—to the authorities, the Government here and to the people—because Hong Kong has given asylum and never, never refused to give asylum to refugees coming here and never forced them back against their will, and has treated them well, but of course, they would like as we would like to see a solution, a durable solution, for these refugees."
I think that those are good words on which to end what I think has been a short but very useful debate.

South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Bill
Committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes before midnight.

  EUROPEAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUND: ELIGIBILITY FOR AID
  EUROPEAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUND: ELIGIBILITY FOR AID
  CAP AND EMPLOYMENT IN RURAL AREAS
  CAP AND EMPLOYMENT IN RURAL AREAS
  NUCLEAR TEST BAN: NEGOTIATIONS
  NUCLEAR TEST BAN: NEGOTIATIONS
  BUDGET PROPOSALS: CHARITIES
  BUDGET PROPOSALS: CHARITIES