Sitting of 8 February 1988

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords]
  Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.
WALES

  Regional Aid
  Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much grant he expects to pay out in (a) regional development grant and (b) regional selective assistance in Wales in 1987–88, 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91.
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): Planned expenditure on the two schemes in Wales is £98 million in 1987–88; £109 million in 1988–89; £94 million in 1989–90; and £89 million in 1990–91. Added to those two schemes is the very substantial increase in expenditure for the Welsh Development Agency—to £113 million gross in 1988–89—and the benefits that will be obtained from the three new regional investment, innovation and business development grants.
  Mr. Morgan: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider making regional selective assistance tax free, which would put it on the same basis and give it the same incentive value as RDG, which is being phased out?
  Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the call of the Confederation of British Industry Wales for a longer period for phasing out RDG, so as not to destroy the incentive for industry to move to Wales?
  Mr. Walker: Taxation is, of course, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, it is very much taken into account when setting the level of RSA grants.
  I considered the CBI Wales proposal, but rejected it because, between now and the end of March, any firm in Wales with a project that might attract RDG could produce it. Indeed, the Welsh Office, through a whole range of agencies, has made great efforts to communicate with Welsh firms to ensure that that happens.
  Mr. Raffan: Will my right hon. Friend suggest to the Opposition that, as part of their "Labour Listens" campaign, they lend an ear—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's question must be related to the main question.
  Mr. Raffan: Will my right hon. Friend remind the Opposition—
  Mr. Speaker: That is no good.
  Mr. Raffan: Is it not the belief of the Welsh Trades Union Congress that the automatic nature of RSG has led to a wasteful allocation? Does it not strongly favour a much greater selectivity to improve the cost-effectiveness of our regional policy?
  Mr. Walker: Certainly the TUC document mentioned that it wished to move towards greater selectivity. However, I am unwilling to make suggestions to the Opposition because I am very happy with the way that they are behaving.
  Mr. Livsey: When the right hon. Gentleman visits Mid-Wales Development tomorrow, will he note that it has benefited considerably from RDG? Is he aware that that organisation is worried about the Government's regional policy? What does he intend to tell it about the Government's regional policy?
  Mr. Walker: I had discussions with the chairman of Mid-Wales Development last week, and he shares our delight about the considerable increase in regional aid for

  3
  Wales. I very much look forward to visiting the organisation tomorrow and seeing Newtown and the activities there.
  Dr. Thomas: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that in the areas recently affected by Dairy Crest closures — at Llangefni in Ynys Mon and Felin Fach, in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) and for Ynys Mein (Mr. Jones)— the full armoury of regional policy will be available to provide alternative employment in those areas?
  Mr. Walker: I can give that assurance because this is an instance of where organisations such as the Welsh Development Agency and Mid Wales Development can move in quickly. I understand that the WDA has today announced a joint programme to find alternative food businesses for Ynys Mon. I have also decided that, under the urban aid programme, I shall proceed with some new workshops in that locality in the near future.
  Mr. Gwilym Jones: When considering regional assistance, what account does my right hon. Friend take of the achievement of private investment, which, in some parts of Wales, has been very successful?
  Mr. Walker: I am delighted to say that as areas of Wales have an expanding economy and prosperity improves it is easier to gear up and get far more private investment. A great deal of investment is taking place in my hon. Friend's constituency.
  Mr. Alan Williams: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind that the increased WDA figure that he pleaded in aid in his opening answer will still be below the level of 1978–79 Government funding? If the Welsh Office is so committed to selective assistance, because that leaves the decisions in the control of the Secretary of State, how does he explain the fact that, since 1978–79, regional selective assistance in Wales has fallen by virtually 50 per cent., giving us a cumulative loss of £330 million, whereas in Scotland it has doubled? The Secretary of State for Scotland has obviously been looking after Scotland's interests far better than the Secretary of State for Wales has been looking after Wales' interests. In the final analysis, on the projections which he has just given of his spending on combined regional grant for the next three or four years, the figure for each year is virtually £100 million less than was being spent in 1978–79.
  Mr. Walker: The right hon. Gentleman suffers because his only source of political originality is a research assistant who finds him a base year on which to connect and reject figures. As I have learnt that technique, I can assure him that when the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs meets later this week I shall project, on a similar basis, all the health figures for the period in which he was in government. It is a bogus method of presenting figures. The Labour party is alone in Wales in regretting the enormous increase in regional aid that will take place.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total of unemployed in Wales in February 1979 and to the latest recorded date in the current year; and what the increase in unemployment represents as a percentage figure.
  Mr. Peter Walker: The seasonally adjusted number of unemployed claimants in Wales in February 1979 and December 1987 were 75,000–6 per cent.—and 140,300 —11·7 per cent. which figure, I am pleased to say, has decreased by 20 per cent. over the past 19 months.
  Mr. Jones: In order further to rebuild the economy on Deeside, will the right hon. Gentleman consider vastly improving road access to the very fine Deeside industrial park? Does he understand that the communities of Shotton and Connah's Quay want to be bypassed by a new crossing of the River Dee so that their lives can be made much better by getting the traffic out of the streets? The great worry of Alyn and Deeside council is that, despite its good plans for jobs, it cannot get hold of the site of the Connah's Quay power station, which is now redundant. Will the right hon. Gentleman discuss these matters when he visits Clywd later this month?
  Mr. Walker: Yes, I shall be happy to discuss any matters when I make that visit. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the appearance of the entrance to the industrial park. It is partly a question of land ownership and current usage there, but I hope that those concerned will have urgent discussions so that the situation can be improved.
  Mr. Foot: Was the right hon. Gentleman aware of the shudder of dismay throughout the coalfields in Wales last week at the fresh or projected redundancies in that industry? Will he tell us whether British Coal consulted him before those announcements were made, and will he confirm that urgent consideration will be given to Abernant colliery and all the other projected rundowns? It is a serious situation and I hope that the Government will not have allowed British Coal to embark on this programme without consulting them first.
  Mr. Walker: As the right hon. Gentleman knows full well, this is a matter for British Coal. I am pleased to say that when I was responsible for these matters, I laid down a new procedure which allows an independent examination of any application. If the mines concerned wish to go through that procedure, they will be able to do so. That procedure is a considerable improvement on that operated in Wales between 1964 and 1970, when 32,000 miners lost their jobs as a result of pit closures.
  Mr. Gwilym Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the steadily falling trend of unemployment, while in perfect contrast to the rising trend of the Labour Government, has still not gone far enough, that we must continue to accord the highest priority to combating unemployment and that this will be best served by a positive approach to the jobs created for industry and the potential for even more jobs in Wales?
  Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. Some staggering achievements are taking place. In the past year a record number of factories led to record inward investment and a record drop in unemployment. I hope that that trend will continue.
  Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that, since his appointment, he seems to have been engaged in spreading synthetic optimism? The reality of the Welsh situation was symbolised by the 2,000 job losses in our coal industry last week. Is there not every sign that job

  5
  prospects for 1988 are worse in Wales than for any other region? In regard to pay levels, we are simply at the bottom of the league.
  Mr. Walker: Prospects for the coming year are better for Wales than for most parts of the country. The facts will show that to be the case. I noticed the hon. Gentleman's jubilation at the announcement that the Trustee Savings Bank is going to Newport and the optimistic and cheerful notice that he put out. I am happy for the Labour party to be the party of pessimism and for the Conservative party to be the party of optimism.

  Heads of the Valleys
  Mr. Rowlands: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he proposes to take in the light of his recent visits to and tours of the Heads of the Valleys communities.
  Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he proposes to take following his recent visit to the Valleys area of South Wales.
  Mr. Peter Walker: My recent visits to the Valleys communities have helped to clarify the shape of the major programme that I am devising.
  Mr. Rowlands: Will the Secretary of State's new Valleys initiative include additional resources for the Health Service in our communities? In particular, will it include sufficient resources to reopen the high-dependence units in St. Tudful's hospital? That hospital was opened only six months ago by the Queen Mother and was shut at the new year as a result of lack of resources. It has resulted in £120,000 worth of extremely good equipment lying idle.
  Mr. Walker: I am having consultations on the initiative with Valley health authorities, and I am looking at the manner in which the particular medical and health problems of the Valleys should be considered in such a programme.
  Mr. Ron Davies: Opposition Members regard the Secretary of State's answer with some scepticism. There are many promises, but not much is delivered. During his visit to the Valleys, did he understand the anger and bitterness at the continued underfunding of the National Health Service? Is he aware that, this week, nursing and ancillary staff at Caerphilly miners' hospital will work for 200 hours on a voluntary unpaid basis to make up one day's shortfall between what the hospital needs and what it gets? In the circumstances, as his Government have been so quick to criticise nurses who withdraw their labour, will he offer his support to the staff at Caerphilly miners' hospital?
  Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman must feel pretty ashamed at asking such a question, when he considers the level of nurses' pay when we came to office and how, during the period of the Labour Government, it went down in real terms. Under our Government it has substantially increased. On the general matter of promises, most of the people whom I met on my visit were delighted at the Valleys factory building programme that was announced during the past week.
  Mr. Rogers: Does the Secretary of State accept that the proposed colliery closures will be a tremendous blow to Valley communities of south Wales? Rather than scoring
  6
  political points, will he address the queston that was asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) about what proposals he had to provide work for those who will be put out of work?
  Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman will know that British Coal has categorically stated that there will not be a single compulsory redundancy.
  Mr. Alan Williams: The Secretary of State said that, as a result of his recent tour, we got the commitment to the Valleys initiative. We welcome that. Will he confirm also that table 2.2 of the public expenditure White Paper clearly shows that the total spend in Wales will fall by £6 million next year and £54 million over the next three years? They are the Government's figures in their own White Paper. As he has told us that his Valleys initiative is included in the diminished figures, will he confirm also that, therefore, instead of extra money being available for it, the initiative is to be wholly funded by cuts in other Welsh programmes? As he does not like my statistics, although they have stood up to close examination somewhat better than his own have, will he publish in Hansard a list of the cuts that will fund his initiative?
  Mr. Walker: I repeat that the right hon. Gentleman should decide to find a new research assistant who will not cause him such political embarrassement. I am delighted to say that once again his figures are incorrect. I have already announced a most enormous increase in regional aid for Wales, which will benefit the Valleys.

  School Meals
  Dr. Marek: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take steps to improve the quality of school meals in Wales; and if' he will make a statement.
  The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): Responsibility for the provision of school meals, including their quality, rests with local education authorities. A recent Government survey indicates that school meals provide adequate amounts of essential nutrients
  Dr. Marek: Nevertheless, is the Minister aware of the research carried out at Darland high school in my constituency into students and children eating junk food and therefore not attaining their full academic potential? Is he concerned at the results of that research? Will he ensure that further research is carried out to confirm or rebut the results of the research at Darland high school and, as this is clearly a serious matter, which cannot be left to local education authorities, will he set in train processes to re-establish nutritional standards at all our schools in Wales?
  Mr. Roberts: Of course I am aware of the experiment carried out at Darland high school in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, which, incidentally, is very well reported in the Lancet of 23 January. The conclusion of that research was that in most cases the average intake of vitamins was close to the recommended daily allowance, although for a minority the intake was low. W e always consider dietary studies of this kind, but whatever school meals are supplied the choice whether to take them lies with the children concerned.
  Mr. Raffan: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Clwyd health authority and Clwyd local education authority on their joint campaign "Healthy

  7
  Eating—the Clwyd Way"? Will he suggest to the Welsh Health Promotion Authority that it takes up this admirable initiative to teach schoolchildren about healthy eating through school meals with the correct foods and at a low price?
  Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend will be interested to know that the preliminary results of a DHSS survey into the diets of schoolchildren in Britain, published in April 1986, showed that school meals provided adequate amounts of all the essential nutrients, although intakes of fat were found to be too high. My hon. Friend is right in saying that all efforts to improve the quality of diet for schoolchildren should be welcomed, including the efforts of Clwyd.

  Trawsfynydd Power Station
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from local residents seeking the abandonment of the experiment being planned for 12 February at Trawsfynydd nuclear power station.
  Mr. Peter Walker: I received a number of representations, from north Wales and elsewhere, expressing concern about the proposed test. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Central Electricity Generating Board has decided to postpone the test.
  Mr. Williams: May I express my relief and delight that the CEGB has decided to postpone the test? However, is the Secretary of State aware of the concern felt by people in that area and all over Wales that the test could still take place and might be carried out in secret, as happened at Hinkley Point in 1965 and again in 1985? Will the Secretary of State seek assurances from the CEGB that the test will not take place — we want it cancelled rather than postponed — and that it will certainly not take place in secret?
  Mr. Walker: I can certainly give an assurance that no such test will take place in secret.
  Dr. Thomas: Has the Secretary of State brought his views on nuclear power with him from his previous incarnation?
  Mr. Walker: Yes. I am aware of the concern and I am also well aware that no such test could take place without the full agreement of the independent Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, which would not agree unless it knew that the test was completely safe.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: If that is the case, why were the people of Cumbria not told that a similar test was to take place at Sellafield?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Unfortunately, that is not part of this question.
  Mr. Roy Hughes: Is the Secretary of State not concerned that the decision to carry out this frightful experiment was made with no proper consultation with the fire service, teachers organisations or farmers unions? In view of the outrage generated, will he accede to the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams), who calls not for postponement, but for the cancellation of the experiment?
  Mr. Walker: It may well be that the communications to those concerned about the nature of the test were not
  8
  sufficient. Therefore, those who wished to put over wholly unfounded propaganda about the lack of safety and the nature of the test succeeded in doing so. I hope that before any such test takes place the CEGB will carefully communicate the basis of the test.

  Gwent
  Mr. Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to improve primary health care in Gwent.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): Primary health care in Gwent, as in other parts of the Principality, will benefit from the implementation of proposals set out in the Government's White Paper entitled "Promoting Better Health".
  Mr. Murphy: Does the Minister agree that there is great unease in Wales about the proposals that are set out in that White Paper? When he and his right hon. Friend begin their survey of Valley health, including the points that the Secretary of State made a few minutes ago, will they ensure that extra resources are given to primary health care in Wales? Will he give an undertaking to the House that there will be more general practitioners, especially in the Valleys of south Wales?
  Mr. Grist: Yes, I think that I can give much of the assurance for which the hon. Gentleman asked. If he reads the White Paper he will see that special attention is to be given to the Valleys and that the number of general practitioners in his constituency has increased by about 10 per cent. under this Government. We look for a further improvement in the years ahead.

  Housing (Multiple Occupation)
  Mr. Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress he has made in his consideration of policy towards houses in multiple occupation.
  Mr. Grist: My consultation with local authorities, fire authorities and other interested bodies is now complete and I have set up a working party with their representatives.
  The consultation showed that local authorities felt inhibited by the mandatory grants for houses in multiple occupations. As a result, the Government intend to make grants to houses of multiple occupation landlords discretionary.
  Mr. Anderson: Do the Government not recognise the facts of the situation — the squalid and dangerous properties and the fire tragedies that have occurred and that the guidance that was promised as long ago as 1980 is still only in draft form? I welcome what the Minister said, so far as it goes, but, because of the facts, should there not now be mandatory powers for local authorities if the Government are serious about the position and about seeking to provide proper protection, at last, for tenants?
  Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman will know of my personal constituency interest in this problem. I think he will understand that in the consultation process local authorities showed that they wished to have flexibility in their responses.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned fire problems, and he will be interested to know, as will other hon. Members,

  9
  that in consultation with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for the Environment, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is considering further guidance to establish a national advisory standard for fire safety measures in houses in multiple occupation.
  Sir Anthony Meyer: Does my hon. Friend accept that there will be a great deal of satisfaction with his original reply and his supplementary answer? However, can he allay my fears that the one contribution that the community charge will make to this problem wil be to encourage owners of houses in multiple occupation to push a number of their tenants out on to the pavement?
  Mr. Grist: I am a little bewildered by that question, because they will pay the collective charge anyway.
  Mr. John: Will the Minister publish the criteria upon which the discretion for grants for houses in multiple occupation will be paid?
  Mr. Grist: Details will be made available in the Housing Bill that we shall promote in the next Session.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest unadjusted figures for unemployment in (a) Newport, (b) Gwent and (c) Wales; and if he will give the equivalent figures for 1979 on the most nearly comparable basis.
  Mr. Peter Walker: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 18 January.
  Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that good communications are vital for attracting new jobs to areas such as Gwent? Does he also appreciate that the Severn bridge has been paid for many times over? If £180 million can be wiped off the Humber bridge debt, surely there is now a strong case for toll-free motoring on the M4, or is the Secretary of State going along with the Secretary of State for Transport, who now seems intent on imposing tolls on so much of our road network?
  Mr. Walker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not like the tolls on the Severn bridge to be increased to the level of those on the Humber bridge, but if he would, he should make that clear. The tolls on the Humber bridge are much higher than those on the Severn bridge. I should add that the tolls on the Severn bridge were imposed during a period of Labour Government and were maintained by the previous Labour Government. Therefore, I find it rather bogus for the Labour party now to say that they should be abolished.
  Mr. Coleman: The Minister will be aware of the blow dealt to my constituency by the announcement of the closure of Abernant colliery, and the considerable unemployment that it will bring if it goes ahead. The NUM has invoked a procedure that will mean a delay of nine months. Will the Minister use those nine months to secure for the Abernant valley alternative and adequate employment?
  Mr. Walker: Certainly. I have already announced a programme of additional factory building and massively increased regional aid that is to take place in the next three years. That will be considerable help in job creation in those areas. I am glad to say that the local authority leaders in those areas very much appreciate that.
  Mr. Ray Powell: Will the Secretary of State take note that earlier today I attended the UK 2,000 celebration in Cardiff, where I was presented by Richard Branson with a certificate from the Community Activities Training Organisation, of which I am chairman. Will he take note that, perhaps because he is a stranger to Wales, he has omitted the whole of the Ogwr borough and the valley from the Valleys initiative? Unemployment in Ogwr has increased from 3–7 per cent. in 1979 to 18.7 per cent. at present. Despite that increase, the Secretary of State and his Department have omitted the Ogwr valley from the Valleys initiative.
  Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman should await the announcement of the areas that are to be designated for the Valleys initiative.
  Sir Raymond Gower: Bearing in mind the comments of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) to the effect that the Severn crossing is a vital lifeline for Welsh industry, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is satisfied with the progress being made to achieve a second crossing? Does he agree that it is most necessary?
  Mr. Walker: Yes. It is important that the second crossing is in place by the mid-1990s. All projections have estimated that it will be in place by then. I am delighted that consultants have been appointed on a contract that has been made aimed at speeding up their decisions and their advice. It is vital for Wales that the Severn crossing is in place in good time.
  Mr. Wigley: Is the Secretary of State aware that the worst unadjusted unemployment figures in Wales last month were for Pwllheli, which has a rate of 24.7 per cent.? Yet Pwllheli is not even a development area. While welcoming the announcement of the reaction to the redundancies at Llangefni, may I ask the Secretary of State to say what steps will be taken by the WDA and by his Department to overcome the regular and cyclical unemployment that exists in places such as Pwllheli?
  Mr. Walker: I am anxious that positive steps are taken in such areas, such as those I have discussed with the WDA and the Mid-Wales Development. A combination of those in the more rural areas of Wales will lead to a range of policies that add to the momentum of new business initiatives.
  Mr. Riddick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that unemployment in Wales could be reduced still further if the NUM were to accept a six-day working week, so that British Coal could proceed with the £90 million investment in the new coal mine at Margam?
  Mr. Walker: I am pleased to say that the announcements made last week by British Coal made it absolutely clear that it was prepared to go ahead with Margam and all the jobs that that would create. It expressed the hope that the NUM will quickly agree to negotiate a six-day working week. If that does not take place there will be a sad and unnecessary loss of jobs to Wales.
  Mr. Flynn: Is the Secretary of State aware of the reported delegation led by the hon. Member for Macclesfied (Mr. Winterton) to the Department of Trade and Industry to plead against the relocation of Government jobs to Wales? What action does he intend

  11
  to take to ensure that the opposite view is presented to the Department of Trade and Industry, so that the jobs are relocated in Wales to give that area a boost in jobs?
  Mr. Walker: Not for the first time, I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). I can say only that we have pointed out the considerable advantages to Wales and to all the people who work there.

  Craft Industry (Report)
  Mr. Alex Carlile: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has received the independent report prepared for his Department on the craft industry; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Peter Walker: I have received the report and will be speedily considering its recommendations with the main bodies involved.
  Mr. Carlile: I am sure that the Secretary of State will accept that there is considerable nervousness throughout the craft industry in Wales about changes that may be made in future. Will he ensure that whatever changes are made, they fit into the marketing calendar in such a way that they do not disrupt the normal pattern of business?
  Mr. Walker: Yes, I shall certainly consider that point. If I may say so, as one of the few people who has read the report, the points made by the hon. and learned Gentleman in his submission to Tony Ball on this were fully considered and are dealt with in the report. I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that my objective is to ensure that the marketing of craft products in Wales is much improved.

  Welsh Arts Council
  Dr. Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairman of the Welsh Arts Council; and what matters were discussed.
  Mr. Wyn Roberts: I met the chairman of the Welsh Arts Council in January, when we discussed a variety of issues relating to the arts in Wales.
  Mr. Thomas: Does the Minister consider that it is an acceptable formulation for arts policy in Wales to be handled by the Arts Council of Great Britain and then by the Welsh Arts Council, rather than that the affairs of the Welsh Arts Council should be handled entirely by his Department, so integrating arts policy with cultural and other aspects of education policy which are already part of his Department's activities?
  Mr. Roberts: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows the position of the Arts Council in Wales, and he will be aware of the considerable liaison between the Welsh Office and the Arts Council. I hope that we both take account of what the other is doing.

  NHS Administrators
  Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what change he expects in the number of National Health Service administrators in Wales over the coming year.
  Mr. Grist: Information from health authorities about projected staffing levels for 1988–89 will not be available until the end of March.
  Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend will remember that eight years ago the Conservative party manifesto promised to reduce the level of administration in the Health Service. Is it not scandalous that the administrative staff in the Health Service in Wales has increased by 14 per cent. since then, at a time when resources are stretched in the NHS?
  Mr. Grist: My hon. Friend should bear in mind that a large proportion of the administrative and clerical staff are involved in the provision of direct patient care. They are, for example, medical secretaries, ward clerks and health education staff. But the proportion of total costs in the Health Service in Wales taken up by management has decreased from 5·2 to 4·2 per cent.
  Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that the increased number of administrators certainly has not done much to cut the waiting time for many services, for example, cervical cancer tests? Some people in Gwynedd have had to wait 10 weeks for the result of a smear test. Surely that is unacceptable. The Welsh Office, as the responsible body for the activities of health authorities, must carry the can for that.
  Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman will know that that was a regrettable lapse of time and that the target time is no more than eight weeks. His question is not in line with the initial question.

  Wales Railway Centre
  Mr. Adley: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on progress at the Wales Railway Centre; and if he has any plans to pay a visit there.
  Mr. Peter Walker: With financial assistance from various public bodies, locomotives have been purchased, and work is under way on site security and other improvements at Bute street, Cardiff. Other commitments mean that I will not be able to visit the centre when the first locomotives are due to arrive later this month, but I hope that a ministerial visit can be made as soon as possible. I am sure we all recognise the contribution that my hon. Friend has made to this project.
  Mr. Adley: In thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, will he, for me, please thank everybody in his Department, the WDA, the South Glamorgan county council, the Welsh Industrial and Maritime museum and all those involved? Is he aware that this is an outstanding example of co-operation between a whole range of public bodies? Can he please assure the House that he will continue to keep a close eye on its progress?
  Mr. Walker: I think that the project will be successful, and I agree that great collaboration took place and brought about its success.
  Mr. Michael: In welcoming the Secretary of State's answer, may I ask him whether he recognises that the centre is located in the area of highest unemployment in the South Glamorgan area, indeed such as to make Pwllheli, which itself has an unacceptable level, seem fairly reasonable? Will he bear that in mind in ensuring that employment opportunities for the people of that locality are concentrated on?
  Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the community charge for caravan sites; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Grist: I have received a number of representations about the application of the standard charge to caravans in Wales. In the light of those representations I have decided that the maximum multiplier for caravans should be set at the same level in Wales as is proposed for England.
  Mr. Bennett: Is my hon. Friend aware that that answer will bring great delight to caravan site owners in Wales, because it will bring them into line with owners in England? As this is the number one industry in Wales, will caravan park owners continue to receive a rebate for collecting money on behalf of local authorities?
  Mr. Grist: It is proposed that they will have a charge that they can make.
  Sir Raymond Gower: Is my hon. Friend aware that the general impact of the proposals will have a devastating effect on all caravan parks? Will he reconsider this matter, because many of the people concerned with the management of the caravan parks are extremely anxious?
  Mr. Grist: I do not believe that my hon. Friend should be so evidently alarmed. The multiplier will be in the hands of the local authority, and if it believes that the tourist potential and importance of caravans in its area are as great as my hon. Friend makes out, it is quite free to levy a multiplier of zero if it so wishes.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Bury
  Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last visited Bury in his official capacity; and if he will make a statement.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John Butcher): I have been asked to reply.
  My right hon. and learned Friend has not paid a visit to Bury in his official capacity, but hopes to visit many of the metropolitan boroughs of Greater Manchester during his period of office.
  Mr. Sumberg: Is the Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend aware that Bury is currently celebrating the 200th anniversary of the birth of one of its most famous sons, Sir Robert Peel? Will my right hon. and learned Friend send a message of good wishes to the people of Bury for the success of those celebrations? Does he agree that the Peelite legacy of social reform and radical Toryism is still alive and well in the modern Conservative party?
  Mr. Butcher: My hon. Friend has a lot in common with Sir Robert Peel—Sir Robert was a redhead, as is my hon. Friend. Of course, my right hon. and learned Friend will send a message of congratulations to the people of Bury, who are celebrating the birth of their favourite son. Any examination of the Tamworth manifesto will show that those same principles are alive and kicking in the present Conservative party.
  Mr. Favell: Will my hon. Friend ask my right hon. and learned Friend to reflect, when he next visits Bury, on the 4,000 job losses from Manchester city council? Many council employees live in Bury. On his way back to the airport or the railway station, will my right hon. and learned Friend call in at Manchester town hall to tell that authority that council overspending invariably ends in tears?
  Mr. Butcher: I am not sure that that is entirely a matter for the Chancellor of the Duchy, whose prime responsibility is for the appointment of magistrates in Bury. However, I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will take careful note of my hon. Friend's comment.
  Mr. Foot: Is it not a fact that the greatest historical achievement of Sir Robert Peel was to split the Tory party from top to bottom? Is it not the case that the miserable squealing lot of today have not the guts to do the same?
  Mr. Butcher: The right hon. Gentleman and you, Mr. Speaker, are great afficionados of political history, and I thought that the House might be interested in the following comment in a biography of Peel that describes the opposition to him:
  "the opposition resorted to all the obstructive devices which the lax rules of the House allowed … . the behaviour of the Commons, never noticeably decorous, rapidly degenerated. Shouting, groaning, hooting, stamping of feet and beating of sticks on the ground, became a regular accompaniment to debate; and it was said that there was one set of opposition MPs who were making a deliberate attempt to 'bellow Peel down'."
  Peel was a brave man and you, Mr. Speaker, probably more than any other person in this House are probably thinking, "plus ca change."

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Redundant Churches
  Mr. Thurnham: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement about the Commissioners' current policy for dealing with redundant churches.
  Mr. Michael Alison (The Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing Church Commissioners): The commissioners' policy is governed by the Pastoral Measure 1983, which provides for the future of a redundant church to be settled by a suitable alternative use: preservation by the redundant churches fund; care and maintenance by the diocesan board of finance on specified terms; or demolition. The Measure lays emphasise on finding a suitable use for the church, if at all possible, and that is what is most commonly achieved.
  Mr. Thurnham: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the need for decisions to be speedy enough to meet the needs of congregations once they have made the difficult decision that a church should go?
  Mr. Alison: The statutory procedures enshrine the right of anyone—the clergy, patrons, local authorities and heritage and environmental groups — to make representations against draft schemes. That consideration determines the speed at which things happen. Much also depends upon the nature of the building. In simple cases, where a building is felt to lack distinction, its future can often be settled relatively quickly in a matter of months.

  15
  In more complex cases, where different views are held about the most suitable use, it may take longer to find the right solution. I fear that Holy Trinity, Bolton is a case in point.
  Mr. Tony Banks: As the right hon. Gentleman is the nearest connection that we have to the Almighty in this place, will he say how it is possible for a house of God to become redundant?
  Mr. Alison: The direct connection is a bipartisan one. I did not understand the exact point of hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, but I should say that the redundant churches fund, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-east (Mr. Thurnham) asked, is responsible for many churches, and many find an alternative use after a reasonable lapse of time.

WALES

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Livsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many out-patients in Wales were on hospital waiting lists in December 1987 for (a) hip replacement operations, and (b) cateract operations; and what were the corresponding figures for December 1986.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): Waiting list information held by the Welsh Office is on the basis of specialties, not individual procedures. In the year to March 1987, in-patient waiting lists in Wales in trauma and orthopaedics and ophthalmology decreased by 0·7 and 10·4 per cent. respectively.
  Mr. Livsey: Is the Minister aware that some of my constituents have been waiting for up to two years for cataract operations? Is that not disgraceful? What will he do about it? Will he allocate more funds for such bread-and-butter operations rather than the high-tech operations?
  Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman will know of the £1 million which was made available in the current year and in the preceding year to help with that problem. He will also know of the extra funding which Powys health authority has used to purchase, for instance, operations at the Agnes Hunt hospital for residents of north Powys. It is now looking for similar places to purchase for residents of south Powys.
  Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my hon. Friend aware of the dependence in north Wales on facilities outside Wales for many operations? Is he aware of the problem at present because of the almost complete closure of the hospital at Gobowen, because of difficulties in the neighbouring health authority? Does he have measures in mind to deal with the problem?
  Mr. Grist: That case is the responsibility of Shropshire health authority and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. But we are keeping an eye on the matter.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of responses to the consultation
  16
  documents on the privatisation of local authority leisure and sport services was in favour of privatisation and what percentage was against.
  Mr. Grist: My right hon. Friend issued a consultation document last September proposing that the management of local authority sport and leisure facilities should be subject to competitive tendering. The responses are being considered and it is hoped to make an announcement soon.
  Mr. Flynn: Is the Minister aware of the magnificent record of Newport and Gwent councils in providing generous leisure services and the fact that they have been especially successful in providing leisure services to disadvantaged groups, including disabled and unemployed people? Is he also aware of the widespread dismay that those universally popular centres are likely to be handed over to people whose motive is not to give the community the leisure services that it desires, but to make money?
  Mr. Grist: I think that the hon. Gentleman is slightly confused. These centres will not be handed over. The intention is that the running of some of them should be put out to tender. The hon. Gentleman should await the final decisions in this matter before he speaks of the disadvantaged groups losing out.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Minister agree that it would be nonsensical even to consider privatising sports centres that are situated on school premises? Does he recognise that in Powys there has been enormous success with local authority-run joint-use facilities, the result of which has been a trebling in the use of those facilities as compared with other areas in which there is no joint use with the local community?
  Mr. Grist: We are giving deep consideration to that matter at the moment. 1 accept the hon. Gentleman's point.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Sir Raymond Gower: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with farming unions in Wales with regard to those sectors of Welsh agriculture most affected by proposed reforms of the common agricultural policy; and if he will make a statement.
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): I and my officials have regular consultations with both the farming unions in Wales on all matters affecting Welsh agriculture.
  Sir Raymond Gower: Does my right hon. Friend recall that when milk quotas were introduced there was a general feeling among farmers that that had been done after inadequate preparation and with inadequate warning? Will he therefore examine the possibility of outlining the effects that will be certain to ensue if changes are now to affect other parts of farm production?
  Mr. Walker: There are certain difficulties about that. The ultimate decisions are taken by the Council of Ministers in Brussels, and we do not know the final terms that will be agreed on any particular topic. Through the Welsh Office we endeavour to have the closest possible communication with the farming unions and all farmers in the Principality.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Library (Purchasing Policy)
  Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will raise with the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) the question of guidance to the Librarian on the purchase for the Library of books which are the subject of court injunctions; and if he will make a statement.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): No, Sir. I am satisfied that the Librarian has available to him any guidance he may wish to seek from the Library Sub-Committee of the Services Committee in carrying out his duties.
  Mr. Dalyell: As the whole point of slapping injunctions on Wright was not about the national security of our country, but about domestic politics and people bugging and burgling their way through London; and as the whole point of slapping an injunction on Cavendish was, again, not about national security but about the smears on Harold Wilson, on Ted Short and on the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), are not those additional reasons why the House of Commons should have injuncted books available and should not have to rely on hon. Members presenting them to the Library? The Library should have the ability to purchase them.
  Mr. Wakeham: Acquisition of books for the Library is a matter for the Librarian and not the Government. The Librarian is responsible to you, Mr. Speaker, and ultimately to the House as a whole. I understand that the Librarian would not seek to purchase or borrow any hook that is the subject of a legal ban on sale or publication.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: If the Librarian would not seek to purchase or borrow any book that was the subject of a ban, why was he willing to accept a copy of "Spycatcher" from me, with my compliments, and place it in the Library?
  Mr. Wakeham: 1 understand that the Librarian was offered a copy by the hon. Gentleman and decided that the proper course was to make it available for reference to hon. Members only. He did that in view of the Government's declaration that, legal claims apart, they would not seek to prohibit the book's circulation or import into this country.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that when a book of considerable public interest is being debated on an almost daily basis, and can be bought across the counter in Camden Passage, for example—I saw it there a couple of weeks ago — it is nonsense that it should not be available in the Library?
  Mr. Wakeham: I repeat that the acquisition of books for the Library is not a matter for the Government, but for the Librarian—and ultimately, for Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend accept from me that many Conservative Members would find it deeply distasteful if such a book as "Spycatcher" were bought at public expense and placed in the Library of the House?
  Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the strength of what my hon. Friend has said.
  Mr. Skinner: It seems to me that there is more freedom in the Library than under this Government,despite the fact that the Government—and the right hon. Gentleman—were elected on the basis of freedom. We never stopped hearing about it in 1979, 1983 and 1987. The Prime Minister rabbited on about freedom, yet the Government do not even have the guts to authorise a book being placed in the Library for everyone to read.
  Mr. Wakeham: I do not think the hon. Gentleman could have been listening carefully. I said that it is not a question of the Government authorising anything.

WALES

  Hospital Beds (Occupancy)
  Mr. Coleman: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the percentage of bed occupancy in Welsh hospitals in January 1979; and what was the position in January.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): The information is not availabl:! for the dates requested, as bed use data are collected quarterly. The figures for the quarters ended 31 March 1979 and 31 March 1987 — the latest date for which information is available—were 78 and 79 per cent. respectively.
  Mr. Coleman: Does the Minister agree with the quotation:
  "The health of the people is the highest law"?
  If the hon. Gentleman does agree, does he also agree that the modernisation and building of hospitals would assist with bed occupancy? Will he instruct those who plan hospital building services that they should take account of the environmental factors just as much as of economic and accountancy matters?
  Mr. Grist: The matter that those people should take into account first and foremost is the provision of health care for patients.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will my hon. Friend take into account the enormous disparities between different districts in Wales as to the proportion of money that is spent by those authorities and the return that they get on that money, and make sure that the best authorities' practice is copied by those with the worst practice?
  Mr. Grist: It is our intention that authorities that are less efficient should follow the most efficient. My hon. Friend will be aware that capital and revenue finances are being equated throughout the Principality, to the advantage of his own health authority.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he proposes to take to encourage the development of home-grown manufacturing industry (a) in Wales and (b) in Cardiff, in respect both of new starts and of expansion by existing firms; and what targets he has set for each of the next five years.
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): I announced on 13 January my new programme of support for industry in Wales. It included a very large increase in the funds available and the introduction of a number of new initiatives and grant schemes, all of which are

  19
  available to indigenous Welsh industry. I am confident that the programme will have a major impact on the development of industry and business in Wales as a whole and in Cardiff as a major industrial and commercial centre in the Principality.
  Mr. Michael: Will the Secretary of State ensure that the initiative to which he referred is complementary to rather than competitive with locally based initiatives, which have had such a success over recent years? Does he accept that locally based initiatives have proved successful and that the efforts by individuals and groups in small initiatives are deserving of nurture and assistance?
  Mr. Walker: Yes, I do. When, recently, I saw the enterprise centre with the hon. Gentleman, I thought that that was a classic example of that initiative being put into practice, with considerable impact. One or two of the biggest successes that we have had recently in inward investment have been due to the combination of local and central Government initiatives, so I intend to do what the hon. Gentleman says.

  Health Authorities (Funding)
  Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has received concerning the levels of funding of the Welsh health authorities; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Peter Walker: I and other Ministers have had meetings with health authority chairmen, Gwynedd Members of Parliament and Welsh Labour Members of Parliament and with the Minister of State. We have also met a deputation of members of Gwynedd health authority. On those occasions, along with other matters, the funding of health authorities was discussed. I have also received a number of letters from various organisations and members of the public commenting on the funding of health authorities.
  Mr. Wigley: Does the Secretary of State accept that much of the concern about the closure of small hospitals in Gwynedd and elsewhere has arisen because of the lack of capital for building new, modern community hospitals, and that were those hospitals available there would be much less feeling about some of the changes that are now being proposed? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to consider proposals from Gwynedd health authority for such a capital programme, to bring community hospitals into the 21st century?
  Mr. Walker: I have to consider any proposals made by any health authority, on any topic. With regard to the capital programmes, this year district health authorities
  20
  received £24–5 million capital funding for their discretionary use, an increase of 14 per cent. on 1986–87. The allocation for 1988–89 will be £29.5 million, an increase of nearly 21 per cent. over 1987–88.

  Severn Crossing
  Mr. Gwilym Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on recent progress in planning for a second Severn crossing.
  Mr. Peter Walker: The consultants for the project, W. S. Atkins and Maunsell, are making good progress, and commencing on 9 February exhibitions showing plans of the route of the crossing will be held at various venues on both sides of the Severn estuary. The Government remain confident that the crossing can be provided by the mid-1990s.
  Mr. Jones: I am pleased to hear my right hon. Friend's commitment to the earliest completion of the second crossing, but may I urge him to give the earnest consideration to exhibiting the proposals in Cardiff, as is presently being done in the Chepstow area, because they are of at least as much interest to the people of Cardiff and the many commercial organisations that are centred in the capital city?
  Mr. Walker: Yes. That is a perfectly good, positive suggestion, which I shall take up.

  British Coal
  Mr. Ray Powell: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairman of British Coal; and what subjects were discussed.
  Mr. Peter Walker: I met the deputy chairman of British Coal on 21 January. We discussed a range of issues affecting the south Wales coal industry.
  Mr. Powell: Did the Secretary of State discuss the new mine at Margam? It is an issue that Labour Members have championed since 1979. In my area alone, 4,500 miners are out of work as a result of the pit closures that have taken place since 1979. The provision of 800 jobs in Margam would be ideal for those people, and I ask the Secretary of State to take action to get that mine started.
  Mr. Walker: One of the matters that I discussed with the deputy chairman of British Coal was whether British Coal still wanted to proceed with Margam, as there had been speculation that it did not want to do so. He confirmed that it wished to proceed with Margam. It hopes that agreement will be reached with the unions for six-day working, in which case it would be a viable proposition. I very much hope that those negotiations will take place and that they will be successful.

Air Traffic (Air Misses)
3.30 pm
Mr. Terry Dicks(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the near miss that took place on Saturday between a British Airways Tristar and a Bulgarian airliner.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): There was an air miss between a British Airways and a Bulgarian airliner on Saturday 6 February over Kent. The Civil Aviation Authority is investigating this incident. In view of the seriousness of the matter, my chief inspector of accidents has also begun an inspector's investigation. I can assure the House that the inspector's report will be published.
Mr. Dicks: I thank my right hon. Friend for that statement. I am grateful for the fact that he has taken the unusual precaution of involving the air accident investigation branch in the matter. Will he ensure that there is a speedy outcome to the inquiry in order to allay public concern about safety in the skies?
Mr. Channon: We shall try to make the report as quick as possible. Evidence must be taken from a number of people—it cannot be done in two minutes. We shall try to make it as quick as possible, and it will be available for all to read. If the House wants copies placed in the Library, I shall be glad to arrange that.
Mr. David Steel: Does the Secretary of State recall that in a speech last October I raised this matter because of my concern, as a regular user of the air space, about growing air traffic control delays, and that he accused me of irresponsible scaremongering? Will he withdraw that accusation and pay serious attention to the growing anxiety about the number of air traffic controllers who have left the service recently, and to the problems over the transition to new technology? Will he take on board the suggestion of the American Federal Aviation Administration that anti-collision warning devicies should be fitted in cockpits?
Mr. Channon: Anti-collision warning devices are being investigated, and I hope that during the course of the year decisions will be arrived at. It is important to have an international agreement on the matter, otherwise there will be a ridiculous state of affairs.
With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I cannot withdraw what I said about his remarks last October, which were extremely unfair and unreasonable. I hope the House understands that the number of commercial aircraft involved in air misses in this country fell from 45 in 1977 to 16 in 1986, despite a large increase in traffic over the same period. The provisional number for the first four months of 1987 is four.
Mr. Norman Tebbit: Will my right hon. Friend not merely refuse to withdraw what he said about irresponsible scaremongering, but repeat it in spades today? Will he further undertake that the inquiry into this extremely unusual occurrence, and into an extremely well-run air traffic control system, will not be unduly hastened by irresponsible scaremongering demands, but will be thorough and clear? I congratulate my right hon. Friend on saying that he will publish the report in full as soon as it is available.
Mr. Channon: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. I can give him the undertaking that he asked for in the last part of his question. It will be a full, clear and throrough report, and it will be published in full. This is a very unusual step to take, and I hope the House appreciates that I am taking this matter extremely seriously. The House must understand that this is an exceptional measure to take, but it is worth it in the circumstances.
As to the first part of my right hon. Friend's question, I adopt the formula that he used.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Secretary of State agree that there is an anomaly in all these matters, in that the body set up to operate air traffic control — National Air Traffic Control Services — is responsible to the Civil Aviation Authority, which is responsible for making judgments in these matters? Is it not time to re-examine the basic legislation so that the confidence that the public and the House wish to have can be demonstrated?
Mr. Channon: I do not see any need to change the legislation at present. The duties are absolutely clear. The CAA is responsible for aviation safety. As the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, National Air Traffic Control Services is responsible jointly to the CAA and to the Ministry of Defence, but responsibility for aviation safety rests with the CAA. I am concerned that the highest standards should be applied by the CAA in carrying out that function. The figures that I have given for the past few years, which show a considerable reduction in the number of air misses despite an enormous increase in traffic, lead one to believe that that responsibility has been carried out well. However, let us see how the inquiry reports—I rule out nothing at this stage.
Mr. Terence L. Higgins: Is not the risk of such incidents increased by traffic congestion on existing routes across the English Channel? Will my right hon. Friend therefore consider additional routes? In particular, will he consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to see whether the considerable restrictions currently placed on cross-Channel routes can be removed?
Mr. Channon: I do not think that the CAA takes the view that air space capacity in this country is overstretched. Nevertheless, I will consider the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), who, I know, has a particular constituency point in mind.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is the Secretary of State aware that the air traffic controllers have expressed great concern to the CAA about staff shortages? As a concrete example, will he consider why just one air traffic controller at Edinburgh airport is expected to deal with, on average, 24 incoming flights between 10 pm and 7 am'' What happens if that one man is suddenly taken ill? Is it satisfactory that at a major airport such as Edinburgh one person must carry that responsibility for nine hours without even being able to go for a cup of tea?
Mr. Channon: I think that that goes a little wide of the question, but negotiations are taking place between the CAA and the trade unions on the subject of working practices for shift-working staff in the National Air Traffic Control Services. I am extremely concerned that all who are involved in this very important work should feel that

23
their worries and grievances are carefully considered. I believe that that is happening. I am sure the House will agree that in general the work of the air traffic controllers of this country has been superb.
Mr. Kenneth Warren: As the incident took place on the border of my constituency and that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), we are greatly concerned about the situation in the future. Is my right hon. Friend aware that I thoroughly endorse the sense of proportion that he has shown, as this is just one incident in an outstanding record by air traffic controllers and by pilots flying over this country? Although we wish to ensure that the report is made public, I hope that that sense of proportion will be maintained in relation to the high standards of safety, on which there is no compromise.
Mr. Channon: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a valid point with which I entirely agree. I have discussed the matter with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). He was most anxious that the results of any investigation should be published, and I have managed to satisfy that wish, too.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: Is the Minister aware that if the EDRP project—the European demonstration reprocessing plant—goes ahead, there will be a further 200 flights per year carrying plutonium from France to Dounreay, involving a double risk from nuclear waste and additional flights? If he wishes to increase public safety, he should help to stop that project. If it goes ahead, what guarantees can he give?
Mr. Channon: That is an entirely separate matter. As I have already said, responsibility for aviation safety—the only part of the hon. Gentleman's question that is relevant to my Department—rests with the CAA, which will obviously take great care to ensure that all flights are safe. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise specific points, such as that which he mentioned today, perhaps he will get in touch with the chairman of the CAA.
Mr. Robert McCrindle: I heard what my right hon. Friend said about the statistics on near misses, but is it not a fact that the incident over the weekend was only one in a sequence, and that that has brought some justifiable concern among the public? I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's decision to set up a separate inquiry. I suggest that until public concern can be allayed any future near miss incident be subjected to the same procedure.
Mr. Channon: I am sure my hon. Friend is aware that, in the various categories of near misses, the ones that are most worrying to the public are those where there is a definite, or possible, risk, rather than those in which it is later discovered that there was no risk whatsoever. As I have told the House, there has been a massive reduction in serious incidents over the years. I hope that that trend is continuing. I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend said about the general question of near misses. I have told the House that this is a serious matter, and that is why I have taken this unusual course today.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Secretary of State take it from me that it does not help to allay public anxiety about near misses if he continually says that it is scaremongering if people raise serious issues about air traffic safety and air traffic control? Is it not the case that this matter is so serious that he has taken this unusual step?
Is not the fact that the CAA is investing more money in equipment a vindication of claims that the existing equipment is not up to scratch to face the future? Will the Secretary of State take up the air traffic controllers' offer to discuss matters with him and the CAA, as it is clear that there is concern about the number of air traffic controllers on duty and the amount of work that they have to do in the time available? In addition to publishing his inspectors' report, a proposal which I welcome, will the Secretary of State publish the CAA report? Will he make sure that these matters are published swiftly? What guarantee has he that we can get access to the foreign pilots, who may not be available to give their evidence direct?
Mr. Channon: That is something that my air accident investigation branch will have to pursue. I see no reason to assume that that is at all likely.
As to the question of equipment and investment by the CAA, we are appraising a particular scheme. We have authorised massive investment by the CAA. Aviation safety is a paramount objective, and I shall go on authorising sensible investment in order to improve the situation still further. That is the crucial point.
As to "irresponsible scaremongering" I have not accused the hon. Gentleman of that. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to read the speech of the right hon. Member the leader of the Liberal party to see whether he agrees with me or not. I did not raise that matter this afternoon, the right hon. Gentleman did, and I had hoped that it was an incident long since forgotten.
This was a serious incident, which is why it is right that the public should have the full facts placed in front of them. The air accident investigation report will provide a useful public service. We shall have to wait and see what it says, and if it does allay public anxiety, as I hope it will, that will be good. If there are reasons for public anxiety, they must be tackled and dealt with.
Mr. Allan Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No, I will take points of order afterwards.
Mr. Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Private notice questions are an extension of Question Time. We will take points of order at the proper time.
Mr. Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No, I am not taking it now. The hon. Gentleman can raise his point of order at the proper time.
Mr. Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a Front-Bench spokesman. He knows that we take points of order at the proper time, and today that is after the Standing Order No. 20 application.

Ford Dispute
3.43 pm
Mr. Michael Meacher(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the Ford dispute.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): The House will be aware that a dispute is currently taking place at the Ford motor company. The resolution of the dispute is a matter for the company, its employees and their union representative.
Mr. Meacher: Is the Secretary of State aware, first, that this dispute would now be settled if the Government's antiunion laws had not required a final ballot? Is he aware that "ballotitis" can block solutions which would otherwise have been achieved by patient, work place negotiations?
On the substantive issue of pay, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the company is now forecasting a 10 per cent. increase in productivity this year? Is it not therefore reasonable that Ford workers should participate fully in the benefits of their own efficiency?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the paintshop and assembly workers, who comprise the majority of Ford workers, have had a real pay increase of only 3 per cent. since 1979, when average real earnings in industry as a whole have risen by 18 per cent.? Is he further aware that, by contrast, in 1986 — the last year for which information is available—Ford directors paid themselves a 19 per cent. increase, the Ford chairman had a 41 per cent. increase over the two years before that, and Ford shareholders had a rise of 206 per cent.?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that average earnings at Ford, currently £193 a week, are far below the national male average wage of more than £224 a week? Is he also aware that Ford's latest offer would lead to falling unit labour costs, so that the deal would be self-financing? Clearly, there is more money available.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that productivity at Ford is now rising very fast—it was 8 per cent. over the past two years—and would fully cover the extra costs of the deal? Does he accept, therefore, that the Ford workers' claim is far from excessive, and that the 7 per cent. pay offer means that, compared with directors and shareholders, they are not being offered a fair share in the company's rising prosperity?
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether there have been any Government communications with the Ford motor company, telling it not to budge? Will he now use his influence urgently to get both sides back into negotiations? Does he accept that passively to allow this strike to proceed would be the biggest abdication of responsibility on the industrial scene for many years?
Mr. Fowler: I wish again to emphasise that there is no ministerial responsibility in this dispute. The responsibility lies with the company, the employees and the unions. Individual pay negotiations are matters for the parties concerned.
The hon. Gentleman's point about industrial relations ballots is, quite frankly, absurd. A ballot gives immunity if strike action is taken; there is no compulsion to take strike action following a ballot. Indeed, in this instance, the national union negotiators recommended acceptance of the revised offer.
26
The one matter about which we can be absolutely clear is that the public do not want a return to the days bequeathed to us by the last Labour Government.
Mr. Robin Squire: Will my right hon. Friend accept from me, as someone who represents many Ford workers at Dagenham, that the position outlined by the Government is absolutely right? There has been a welcome increase in productivity during the past 10 years, but even now Ford lags behind equivalent works in Europe. Will not the consequences of the dispute be, sadly, the loss of both money and work for this country? Component manufacturers will also be affected and our country's competitiveness will be damaged.
Mr. Fowler: I very much hope that all the parties involved will take account of what my hon. Friend has said. I repeat that I do not believe that it is either sensible or helpful for me to intervene.
Mr. David Alton: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the only way that the antediluvian practices of confrontation can be put behind us is by having more democratic practices in companies such as Ford, where workers really can have a share in any increased profits? Does he realise that that is the only way to put the days of the cloth cap behind us?
Mr. Fowler: The dispute is entirely a matter for Ford, the employees, the unions and the negotiators.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is sad to see us going back to the times when Ford workers were more concerned with exporting their jobs than exporting cars?
Mr. Fowler: There is, of course, always that risk. Industrial disputes destroy jobs. We all know the consequences of strikes, but, as this is the first day of the dispute, it is too early to make assessments.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Is it not clear that the Government insisted that there should be a ballot before workers took action? The workers have had two ballots and have decided to take action. [Interruption.] Conservative Members have always insisted that it should be placed in the hands of the workers and not of the trade union bureaucrats. As the workers have said that they do not even like the settlement put forward by the trade union leadership and are not prepared to accept it, why do the Government complain? This is the action of the workers themselves and I support them in their struggle.
Mr. Fowler: The responsibility for industrial action lies entirely with those people taking industrial action. The first ballot gave immunity if strike action was taken, There was no compulsion to take such strike action and the national union negotiators recommended the acceptance of the revised offer. The second ballot is entirely unaffected by industrial relations law. To do this by plants, which was the previous way, is a very precarious arrangement for deciding these things.
Mr. David Madel: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Ford was right to try for a three-year wage deal and that other motor manufacturers would be right to try for that too, because it brings a period of stability? Further, it ought to be easier to achieve because of low inflation. As the Government are an employer, should we not all move towards three-year wage deals?
Mr. Fowler: We must aim for more flexibility in these arrangements, but it is a matter for the parties concerned. Ford should aim for the stability to which my hon. Friend refers, as should any other company.
Mr. Tony Banks: Does the Secretary of State accept that it is perfectly reasonable for a group of workers, who have done so much to increase productivity at Ford and the total profits of Ford worldwide, by the contribution from the United Kingdom, to press for a fair share of the profits? I do not see why Conservative Members should disagree with that.
Mr. Fowler: I hope that those who take that view will also take into account the likely profits over the next few years and the impact of industrial disputes on those profits.
Mr. Ian Gow: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, on previous occasions, when hon. Members on both sides of the House have attempted to put questions to the Prime Minister, for which she has no ministerial responsibility, those questions have been disallowed? Is my right hon. Friend not astonished that he should be answering a question today for which he has no ministerial responsibility?
Mr. Fowler: I have said that I have no ministerial responsibility for this, but the rest of the question is not a matter for me.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that this is like a rerun of a 10-year-old film? In 1978, the Ford workers were after 17 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman and his hon Friends, headed by the Prime Minister who was then Leader of the Opposition, tabled a motion. The Ford workers ought to get 17 per cent. now. The Secretary of State says that it has nothing to do with the Government, but they have already put up the bank rate by 0.5 per cent. and the chances are that it will go up even more if the Ford strike lasts seven weeks, as it did in 1978.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Briefly.
Mr. Skinner: The stock exchange has lost 40 points today. It has much to do with the Government. They were responsible way back.
Mr. Fowler: The comparison with 1978 is absurd, for the reason that, in 1978, we saw total chaos, with unions attacking the last Labour Government's pay policy. One thing that we have learned, and that the public will want, is not to go back to the days of 1978 and, indeed, the days of the last Labour Government.
Mr. David Sumberg: Is it not ridiculous for Opposition Members to raise the matter in the fond hope that the era of beer and sandwiches will return to my right hon. Friend's Department? Would not Opposition Members be far better employed in condemning the strike and using what little influence they have in trying to get the work force back on the job?
Mr. Fowler: As my hon. Friend said, they would be far better involved in trying to reach some sensible conclusion to the dispute.

War Crimes
3.55 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about war crimes committed during the second world war.
The House will be aware of recent allegations that suspected war criminals have found haven in this country. Lists of names have been sent to us by the Simon Wiesenthal Centre and others. Inquiries conducted by my Department suggested that some of the people named are still living in this country, and we undertook to consider what action, if any, should be taken.
The legal position is as follows. We would normally deal with alleged crimes in foreign countries by way of extradition. However, all the cases in question relate to crimes committed in territories now controlled by the Soviet Union, with whom we have no extradition treaty. Nor do the courts in the United Kingdom at present have jurisdiction to try offences of murder and manslaughter committed abroad when the accused was not a British citizen at the time of the offence. If we were to prosecute in these cases we should need to legislate to extend the jurisdiction of our courts.
The passage of time does not lessen the horror with which we now read about wartime atrocities, but it does inevitably complicate the investigation of any allegations that might be made.
I decided that it was impossible to take this issue forward without a better idea of what evidence existed. I asked the Simon Wiesenthal Centre to provide evidence to substantiate the allegations. In July of last year the centre provided us with a large quantity of documentary material. This material contained serious allegations against a number of people. It was carefully considered within Government. Our conclusion was that, as it stood, the material would not be sufficient to support a criminal prosecution, even if there were jurisdiction.
In the circumstances, it is clear that further work has to be done. I have therefore decided to appoint an independent inquiry to examine material relating to the allegations, to conduct interviews — possibly including interviews in the Soviet Union—and to consider the likely value of the evidence that could become available to United Kingdom court proceedings. In the light of its assessment, the inquiry team will advise whether the law should be amended to take jurisdiction over crimes allegedly committed overseas by persons now resident in this country.
In the event of such a change it would, of course, be for the prosecuting authorities to decide, after such investigations as they may think necessary, whether any action should be taken in individual cases. I have placed the inquiry's full terms of reference in the Library. I am grateful that Sir Thomas Hetherington, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, and Mr. William Chalmers, the former Crown Agent in Scotland, have agreed to undertake the inquiry.
All of us who have considered these matters recognise that they are intensely difficult. The allegations are serious and must be pursued, but I do not believe that the material now before us would justify me in proposing to Parliament a change in the law. The inquiry that I have announced will enable us all to form a clearer view of the weight to be

29
given to the allegations, and will enable us to determine whether it would be right to propose a change in the law to extend the jurisdiction of the courts.
Mr. Roy Hattersley: I offer the Home Secretary our general support for what he has proposed. He is right to emphasise that the passage of time does not lessen the horror of wartime atrocities, but he is equally right to say, or to imply, that the passage of almost half a century raises problems of principle and of practice which clearly require him and the Government to proceed with care.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman three specific questions and make it clear that they do not in any way imply that we disagree with the general course of action that he has proposed. First, will the Home Secretary explicitly confirm that the only option that he is considering is prosecution in British courts, not extradition?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman explain the rules of evidence under which statements to the inquiry are to be made, because, presumably, some of the people who make statements may—at least in theory—eventually be subject to prosecution? Thirdly, will the right hon. Gentleman give us at least a tentative assessment of how long he expects the inquiry to take?
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's general support. Normally, for crimes committed abroad, the remedy that we would seek to apply would be that of extradition. However, as the right hon. Gentleman implies, there would be great difficulties in this case, as we have no extradition arrangements with the Soviet Union, as the crimes alleged were committed in territory over which the Soviet Union now has control and as no other country appears to have a standing in this matter. That is why we have taken this course of action. This is not a statutory inquiry or an inquiry in which rules of evidence apply. It is an inquiry outside the ordinary process of investigation to allow the Government and Parliament to decide whether there is a case strong enough to justify changing the law. The inquiry will start reasonably soon and, although it is for the inquirers to decide—I have not fixed a strict time limit—I think that it will take them about a year.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a bad decision and is likely to lead to what others would call a witch-hunt? Is he aware that British courts have never sought to try alleged crimes committed long ago by foreigners in foreign countries, for the very good reason that such evidence would be inadmissible by ordinary standards? Therefore, is it not very wrong for the Government to attempt to make special arrangements for a special class of people accused of having committed offences a long time ago, which the British people would far rather not pursue? Is my right hon. Friend not surrendering to a lobby whose main motivations are hatred and revenge?
Mr. Hurd: I do not think that my hon. Friend's last point is fair. However, I am aware of his general approach, with which I know many people agree. I do not believe that with the present state of our information I would be justified in coming to the House to propose a change in the law to assert jurisdiction. However, I would say to my hon. Friend that very serious allegations have been made. Although the passage of time makes it more difficult to
30
deal with those allegations, many people would not be at all happy if we followed a quite different course from that followed by Australia and Canada, for example, and said, "We really cannot be bothered to find out any more about it."
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is the Home Secretary aware that the all-party group on war crimes, of which I am chairman, will welcome his statement? May I take this opportunity publicly to thank him and his Department for the help that they have given us during the past year?
Will the information that is coming in about the murder of RAF aircrew in prisoner-of-war camps and the murder of Marine commandoes be considered relevant, or will it be missed out from the terms of reference?
On paragraph 3 of the terms of reference—the right hon. Gentleman mentioned Australia and Canada—will he point out to the two distinguished members of the committee that it would be worthwhile visiting Canada and Australia because they have done a great deal of work on this matter in the past year? Will the report be published, and will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the final decision on the changes will be for him and for the House?
Mr. Hurd: The terms of reference, which are being placed in the Library, ask the inquirers
"to obtain and examine relevant material … relating to allegations that persons who are now British citizens or resident in the United Kingdom committed war crimes during the Second World War".
There follows a definition of what that means. It would be open to the inquirers to visit Australia or Canada, although they could probably obtain the information that they needed without doing so. I think that their main job —although it is for them to say—is to get to grips with the allegations that have been made.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the report would be published. That rather depends on the detail that it goes into. As my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) pointed out, there might be relationship with possible further proceedings. Therefore, I should not like to guarantee that. The whole purpose of the exercise is to enable not just the Government but the House to reach an informed conclusion.
Mr. John Wheeler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many will welcome the course of action that he has proposed to the House today, not least because of the horrific nature of the allegations and because persons resident in the United Kingdom may be associated with those allegations? Will he confirm that the two distinguised gentlemen who are to carry out the inquiry will not be inhibited from going anywhere in the world to test the evidence for the allegations and interview witnesses?
Mr. Hurd: They wil not be inibited by me, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. As he knows, given that serious allegations have been made, we have been caught in something of a vicious circle. We cannot learn more about the allegations through the ordinary processes of investigation, because we have no jurisdiction, but I do not think that I can justify taking that jurisdiction until we know more. The purpose of this proposal is to break out of that vicious circle.
Dr. David Owen: I welcome the decision to have this rather unusual form of inquiry. Will the Home Secretary tell us whether it is possible to extend such an inquiry to cover the case of the former Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr. Kurt Waldheim, which is a matter of great concern in this country? It is patently obvious that Mr. Waldheim lied about his involvement with SS commandoes.—[Interuptioni This is a matter that I believe should be looked into. We are talking about the person appointed Secretary General of the United Nations—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is rather wide of today's statement.
Dr. Owen: Would the Home Secretary be prepared to consider finding some way in which the British interest in the allegations associated with Mr. Kurt Waldheim could be inquired into?
Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman knows better than to suppose that that is a matter for me or or the inquiry.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Will my right hon. Friend accept the thanks of all of us for his genuine concern and determination to ensure that this matter comes to a reasonable conclusion? However, does he agree that time is of the essence, and that as long as we will not amend the law to provide the procedures other countries will not provide us with the necessary evidence? Does he agree also that while we say that we will not amend the law until we have that evidence we are locked into a completely unproductive spiral that will gladden the hearts of Nazi sympathisers everywhere?
Mr. Hurd: I very much hope that we have found a way of breaking out of the spiral and that all those who may have evidence that is relevant will co-operate with the inquiry so that at the end of the day— I hope that that will not be too far distant — the Government and Parliament will be able to decide whether to make the very serious decision to extend our jurisdiction.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Does the Home Secretary accept that that is precisely why we welcome the inquiry? However, it is important that the timing should not be such that the inquiry is allowed more than the reasonable time that it will need to get information. Would it not be possible for us to examine the question of jurisdiction and of changes in the law while the inquiry is taking place? If there were a second period, after the completion of the inquiry, we could be talking about a time span of two years. Given the number of years that have already passed, is that not too long?
Mr. Hurd: I examined that possibility carefully, but I concluded that I simply did not have thc wherewithal-and that the House would not have the wherewithal—to make an informed decision on a matter of' very great importance about which many hon. Members would have misgivings, as has become clear from some of our exchanges today.
Mr. John Gorst: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although it is welcome that there should be a legal structure to deal with cases that took place in the past, it is also highly desirable that we should have legal powers to deal with such matters should anything unfortunately arise in the future? Can my right hon. Friend tell us the number of names on the list that might give rise to action in the future?
Mr. Hurd: There were 17 names on the Simon Wiesenthal list. We believe that 10 may be alive in the United Kingdom. There were 34 names on a list provided through Scottish Television plc, of which we think that seven may be alive in the United Kingdom.
The British courts have jurisdiction over British citizens who have committed manslaughter or murder abroad, but do not have jurisdiction over people who may now be British citizens, or who may now live here and have done so for some time, if the allegations relate to events before they became British citizens or before they came to live here.
Mr. Alex Carlile: I welcome the Home Secretary's announcement that there is to be an evidential inquiry into these cases, but does he accept that it is rather odd to say that a decision on the jurisdiction principle will be made only when the evidence against individuals is assessed? Will he assure the House that if the inquiry shows that the normal DPP criteria apply and that there is more than a 50 per cent. prospect of success in any prosecution, he will personally support jurisdictional changes?
Mr. Hurd: The first thing is for the House to judge, on the basis of the report, the wide question whether it wishes to change the law. As I have said—
Mr. Carlile: It is the right hon. Gentleman's decision.
Mr. Hurd: It is not my decision. It would be a decision for the House. I do not think that that matter is at all straightforward, for the reasons that I have often given. Therefore, it is for the House to decide, when we are more fully informed.
As I said in my statement, there must be a clear distinction between any decision to change the law, which is a matter for Parliament, and any decision by the prosecuting authorities to prosecute in a particular case.
Mr. Tony Marlow: May I caution my right hon. Friend to remember that, while those who have been active in this issue have been jumping up to praise him today, a large number of his hon. Friends will be deeply suspicious of and concerned about such retrospective legislation? Will my right hon. Friend tell the House how far such retrospective legislation would go? Would we, for example, find ourselves prosecuting the Israeli soldier who savagely beat to death a 15-year-old Palestinian boy if that soldier later came to stay in this country?
Mr. Hurd: The answer to the second question is clearly no. My hon. Friend is leaping ahead a long way. I am not proposing any legislation, retrospective or otherwise.
Mr. Greville Janner: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that I, and, I believe, most other hon. Members, not only appreciate his own determination to see that justice is done and that evil monsters who may he among us are prosecuted, but totally reject what lay behind the odious question from his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow)? Does the Secretary of State not understand that some of us are deeply anxious about the consignment of urgent and anguished questions to a committee, however distinguished, because the distance between a committee and a pigeon hole is sometimes very short? Is he not able to give us some indication that we may have at least an interim report and statement before the summer recess? Could he,

33
at least, assure the House that a report will be made about what is happening? Why has he omitted from his legal possibilities that which lies in his hands, namely, the stripping of British citizenship from people who obtained it by fraud, when it is in the common interest and the public good so to do?
Mr. Hurd: The hon. and learned Gentleman, whose zeal in such matters is well known, rather underestimates the seriousness of the problem. He was unfair to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). What lay behind my hon. Friend's question—not his second supplementary question, but his first—was a perfectly reasonable concern about the issues involved. I do not think that this is a matter on which interim statements or reports would make a great deal of sense.
The question of depriving someone of British citizenship is, of course, open, but it does not meet the point, one way or the other. I certainly do not exclude it as a possible measure, although it would not really satisfy anybody.
Mr. Rupert Allason: I join other right hon. and hon. Members in welcoming today's announcement, but may I offer a word of caution on two issues? One is the time scale. One wonders whether an inquiry lasting a year will merely put the whole issue on the back burner for another 12 months and, thereafter, when the committee reports, the matter will go into the pigeon hole that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) suggested.
My second word of caution relates to my right hon. Friend's apparent reluctance to guarantee publication of the document when it is finally produced. One of the difficulties that has faced the all-party war crimes group is that a document that was shelved in 1948 has only recently come to light. We do not want that to happen again.
Mr. Hurd: Everyone is advising me to be cautious. I do not think that 1 need that advice, because I think that I have been very cautious, and with good reason.
I understand my hon. Friend's point about publication, but he will understand that I do not know how the inquirers will frame their report or how much detail they will want to go into. Obviously, there is a connection between the amount of detail in the report and possible later proceedings. That is why I cannot give an absolute guarantee this afternoon about publication. The whole point of the exercise is to enable the House in particular, Parliament in general, and the public, to come to a more reasoned and informed view than they can at the moment.
Mr. Stuart Bell: I am sure that the Home Secretary will welcome the support of the Opposition in saying that murder, genocide and manslaugher have no statute of limitations against them. Therefore, we welcome his statement. We also welcome the fact that he is preparing to change the law of the land to accommodate a trial, should that be necessary. However, will he answer the two specific questions that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) asked about the rules of evidence at the inquiry? Will there be rules of evidence at the inquiry, and, if so, how will they apply? Will statements made to the
34
inquiry be admissible in evidence? Will the right hon. Gentleman not exclude extradition where that might be feasible?
Mr. Hurd: I should correct the hon. Gentleman. I am not preparing to change the law of the land. I am setting up an inquiry to see whether those who have greater access to the facts than any of us have at the moment would feel, on the basis of that inquiry, that there is a case for changing the law of the land. This is not a judicial inquiry or evidential in that sense. Therefore, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's second point arises.
The hon. Gentleman's third point was about extradition. I have explained the difficulties. Choosing my words with care, I do not think that it would be suitable to arrange for extradition to the Soviet Union in these respects. Neither Israel nor West Germany, nor other countries which have been mentioned from time to time in this context, seems to fit the case.
Mr. Toby Jesse!: Following the reference to witch-hunting by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), is my right hon. Friend aware that whatever else witches might or might not have done they did not murder 6 million people? Will my right hon. Friend remind the House that we are talking not about one murder, six, 600 or 6,000 murders, but about 6 million cold-blooded murders of men and women, including about 1 million children?
Mr. Hurd: It is because of the intensity and enormity of the total war crimes that they continue to arouse this kind of response, which is entirely understandable. That is a reason for not saying, "It is all too difficult. We must forget and do nothing about it." Equally, my hon. Friend will recognise the difficulties of changing the law in this regard, which is why we need to proceed steadily.
Mr. David Winnick: Why should it be considered by some of the right hon. Gentleman's critics to be a matter of revenge that those who are alleged to have been responsible for some of the worst crimes and atrocities ever committed should be brought to justice? Surely it is justice, not revenge, that we are concerned about. Does the Home Secretary agree that the serious allegations made against individuals who are now living in Britain, the allegations against the President of Austria and the one or two other cases that have come to light illustrate that what the allies did not do at the end of the last war, but what they promised to do when the extermination policy was being carried out, was to carry out a de-Nazification policy which would have meant that those who were responsible for the crimes to which I have just referred, as have some Conservative Members, would have been brought to justice much sooner? They should have been brought to justice much sooner. Indeed, that should have happened during the first few years after the war against Hitler had ended.
Mr. Hurd: I do not want to go into that. That is raking over history. We are concerned with a number of serious allegations against a small number of people who have been living in Britain for some time. In deciding whether to change our law, an important aspect is that we are dealing with very serious allegations.
Mr. Tom Sackville: Does my right hon. Friend agree that before contemplating changing our law we should hesitate to pursue cases for which a large part

35
of the evidence will necessarily come from a doubtful source, namely, the Soviet Union, whose judicial and human rights record must be viewed with the strictest reservations?
Mr. Hurd: That is why I made specific reference to the inquirers getting to grips with the evidence in the Soviet Union. They will want to assess that evidence.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the Home Secretary accept that those hon. Members who have had constituency cases and have discussed those cases with Mr. William Chalmers, as the Crown Agent, have the highest regard for his intelligence and integrity? How on earth will he set about disentangling such immensely complicated matters? One case, highlighted by Scottish Television, meant disentangling events in Riga in 1944. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Polish 1st Armoured Division, many of whose members settled in my constituency, there were Latvian, Ukrainian and Polish groups? The complexities of the internecine strife that took place nearly half a century ago are enormously difficult to disentangle.
What facilities is Mr. Chalmers to have? Is he to go to the Balkan republics with interpreters? Will the Russians co-operate, and who exactly will he see? What is the Russian view of all this?
Mr. Hurd: The professed view of the Soviet Union has been that throughout it has been as anxious as anyone to establish the facts and to bring to justice people who are alleged to have committed serious crimes. There is no question about the principle. The inquirers will find out for themselves how it will work in practice. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right in saying that the job of disentangling such a mass of information that is now so old will be extremely difficult. They will have to establish whether they think an inquiry is feasible. They will have to report to us so that we can judge whether the prospect of and the need for an inquiry would justify a change in the law.
Mr. Barry Porter: May I pursue the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile)? If the inquirers produce evidence that will create the probability of convictions in
36
a British court—I share the reservations about whether that will be possible—why has my right hon. Friend not undertaken to bring legislation before the House to give the courts jurisdiction? If he is not prepared to give such an undertaking, what is the point of an inquiry in the first place?
Mr. Hurd: At the moment I do not have the wherewithal to persuade the House that it would be right to change the law. When the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, in response to my invitation, provided further material in July last year, we sent it to the prosecuting authorities, who examined it and came to the conclusion that they could not proceed any further because they did not have the jurisdiction, and that the material would not be sufficient to support a criminal prosecution. That is why we need to learn more and to set up an inquiry to establish whether there is a case for changing the law. After that it would be a separate matter, not for the House, but for the prosecuting authorities, to decide whether to bring prosecutions in individual cases.
Mr. Frank Cook: The Home Secretary said that 17 individuals could possibly be subject to that evidential inquiry. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed anxiety that the inquiry will be a pigeon-hole operation. The Home Secretary denies that, but what means of monitoring the movement of those 17 individuals are to be employed in case the birds fly the coop and establish themselves in someone else's pigeon hole in the meantime?
Mr. Hurd: There are no grounds or scope for doing that.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Is there not a dilemma, in that if the House is to make up its mind about the inquiry, the report must be published in full? If it is published in full and someone is prosecuted, the person accused would be able to argue that the publication of the report had prejudiced his fair trial.
Mr. Hurd: I have made that point twice in less elegant language. My hon. Friend will have to leave the matter to me. He will be able to twist my tail about it later. It may well be difficult to decide how much should be published. It may well be that the inquirers will produce their report in a form that can be published.

British Petroleum plc
4.25 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the need for action to prevent further purchase of shares by the Kuwaitis in BP, Britain's largest oil producer."
The matter is urgent because the British Government are standing idly by while Arabs buy up Britain's oil industry and North sea operations. The Arabs, by close of play on Friday, owned nearly 20 per cent. of BP. To avoid generating public hostility they have been busily buying BP shares through London broking houses. The Government should act urgently to prevent the sell-out of Britain's interests. We need action now because the undertaking given by the Kuwaiti investment authorities that they have no ambition to control BP has not prevented them from approaching the figure of 30 per cent. of the shares when a full bid would be triggered.
The OFT has not acted because it is powerless to do so. The matter is important because the Government's negligence in allowing that development to take place should be exposed. The Government created the special conditions in which an increasingly unnecessary privatisation on the back of a collapsing stock market could be used by the Kuwaitis to pick up Britain's oil assets on the cheap. Furthermore, the Government have been prepared to stand idly by and allow City underwriters to offload their BP stocks on to the Kuwaitis, enabling the Government to avoid the embarrassment of having to buy back shares under the infamous Lawson agreement.
If the Kuwaitis had not bought the shares, the Government now would be making excuses for a failed privatisation. In effect, they have used the Kuwaitis to save their political skin. The matter is specific because the Government should be required to give a clear statement as to why Britain's national interests are to be sold.
The other week, Britoil was calling for a white knight to save them from the predatory actions of BP. Today, I am asking the Government to act as a white knight to save BP from the predatory actions of the Kuwaitis.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"further purchases of shares in BP by the Kuwaiti Investment Office."
I have listened with care to what the hon. Member has said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised can be considered under Standing Order No. 20. I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

Air Traffic (Air Misses)
4.28 pm
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"Issues arising from the statement by the Secretary of State for Transport today about air misses."
I could not give you notice, Mr. Speaker, before you took the Chair today, because I did not know what was going to be in the statement.
I regard the serious air miss as an event which would have resulted in a collision had at least one pilot not taken avoiding action without the instructions to do the same from air traffic control. Today the Secretary of State for Transport gave the House only the number of serious air misses without giving the number of passengers exposed to risk in each event. The true measure of danger surely should be a compound of the number of serious air misses, as I define them, coupled with the number of passengers and crew put at risk in each event.
As time passes the size of aircraft is increasing and so is the number of passengers in many cases carried in them, even if the load factor is not. Therefore, it is not adequate to be complacent because the number of events of serious air misses may reduce, if the total number of passengers at risk on the formula which I have described is either static or increasing. It is that which needs to be examined. Had the British Airways pilot not taken avoiding action uninstructed by air traffic control, there would have been the greatest number of passengers killed in British air space ever.
Finally, the Secretary of State did not say that the inquiry has power to compel evidence on oath or affirmation from the Maley pilot who was within British air space then, but probably will not be when the inquiry takes place.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the issues arising from the statement by the Secretary of State for Transport about air misses."
Again, I have listened with concern to what the hon. Member has said, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. I hope that he will find other opportunities to raise this matter in the House.

Orders of the Day
  Employment Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Employment Bill
    New Clause 3

      ASSISTANCE BY THE COMMISSIONER IN ACTIONS AGAINST EMPLOYERS
      `Provisions analogous to those made by section 19 of this Act (Assistance by the Commissioner) shall apply to—

      (a) proceedings in an industrial tribunal brought by a union member against his employer under section 58 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 as amended (complaint by an employee of unfair dismissal by reason of trade union membership, activities or non-membership); and

      (b) proceedings in an industrial tribunal brought by a union member against his employer under section 23 of the said Act of 1978 as amended (complaint by an employee of action short of dismissal by his employer for the purpose of deterring him from becoming a union member or taking part in trade union activities or in order to compel him to remain or become a union member, or for the purpose of penalising him for doing one of the above or for non-membership of a union).'.—[Mr. Meacher.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.31 pm
      Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The new clause relates to the new so-called commissioner for trade union members and it aims to provide a right to assist union members to enforce certain rights against employers, in a Bill which is drafted to limit the target to trade unions.
      Obviously, the title of commissioner for the rights of trade union members is a misnomer if the commissioner exists solely for the purpose of enforcing rights against trade unions. By itself that role would scarcely provide the commissioner with even a part-time job. In Committee we argued that if the evidence of union abuse was as extensive as the Government's paranoia would suggest, union members would be beating down the Certification Officer's doors with complaints. As it is, we read with a slight sense of anti-climax in paragraph 6 of the Green Paper that the total number of cases since 1984 in which the Certification Officer has issued a decision is a mere 19. The total number of cases in which unions have been found not to have met their statutory duties is precisely 10. If the Certification Officer has not been beating back hordes of vexatious litigants, or any litigants, the courts, which are the second avenue of redress, have been even less overburdened. Paragraph 6 of the Green Paper admits that not a single union member has sought a declaration or enforcement order from the courts. That compares—this is the whole purpose of our amendment—with the 30,000 complaints of unfair dismissal made every year against employers, one tenth or 3,000 a year of which are upheld by tribunals.
      If the Government are genuinely solicitous about the rights of trade union members, why will they not extend the powers of the commissioner to help union members enforce their rights against employers? Is not the right not to be unfairly dismissed extremely important? Why should
      40
      the commissioner not help a trade union member enforce what is perhaps the most basic employment right of all: the right to uphold the contract of employment under which the employee earns a living? What about the collective rights to consultation and information about redundancies or proposed takeovers, and the job losses that might be involved? What about the right to be a member of a union in the first place? What about the right to have recognition of a trade union representative to look after the interests of trade union members in respect of health and safety? It is well known that many employers ignore their statutory responsibilities in that area, which is a major reason why in recent years there has been an increase in serious injuries at the work place.
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: For example, King's Cross.
      Mr. Meacher: King's Cross is certainly one example and there are many others in the construction industry and in many areas of manufacturing.
      Perhaps the commissioner could have played a useful role in supporting court action over GCHQ. What better example could there be of the need for a commissioner to protect trade unionists against their employer? There could not be a better case for the involvement of the commissioner than when the Government, as the employer at GCHQ, sought abitrarily and unilaterally to remove the right of employees to be a member of a union. From the Carlton club memoirs it seems that the Government may intend to consider some sort of unilateral removal of trade union rights in respect of union members in the National Health Service.
      Mr. Bob Clay: Does my hon. Friend agree that the commissioner could have assisted trade union members or their families who died as a result of the sinking of the Herald of Free Enterprise, which was owned by P and 0? Is it not interesting to note what difficulties those people have had, while P and 0 can snap its fingers every five minutes and summon judges to slap injunctions here, there and everywhere against the National Union of Seamen.
      Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. P and 0, which is held responsible for the Zeebrugge disaster, with the loss of nearly 190 lives, is now in dispute with the seamen, insisting on changes in working conditions which, I understood, include lengthening work shifts by 50 per cent. from 12 to 18 hours, allowing a maximum of five hours which must be taken in two shifts — not as a continuous period — for sleep before the seaman must start another shift. In other words, P and 0 is using Tory anti-union laws to enforce changes in working practice which put at risk the health and safety of seamen. It is precisely in that area that workers need the support of a commissioner against such aggressive and perhaps hazardous demands of employers. Anyone who is relatively unbiased cannot but conclude that the Government's concern for the rights of trade union members is just a little selective.
      In our first sitting in Committee we moved an amendment to clause 1 to make it unlawful for employers to interfere with ballots on industrial disputes. The Government refused to accept it, showing, as they did so often in Committee, where their true interests lie. If such

      41
      an amendment succeeds in another place— I certainly hope that it will—surely the commissioner should help to enforce that right.
      Clause 6 gives union members full access to all union accounting records. Why should we not have a right of access for all union members to the accounting records of their employer? Surely the commissioner should help to enforce that right. If the Government are really concerned about the rights of trade union members they should realise that union members would be much more interested in that information.
      Clause 15 concerns the improper conduct of union ballots on political funds. We believe that the commissioner should play a role in ensuring that companies ballot their shareholders before forking out vast sums to the Tory party or some shady group of industrial spies such as the Economic League. There are many other examples that I could give.
      Mr. David Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that the lack of response in Committee from Conservative Members was because, in the main, those Conservative Members who are involved with a company do their utmost to ensure that either there is no trade union in that company or, if there is one, to try to minimise its activities? Time and time again one comes across Conservative Members with vast interests in the City and elsewhere and it is clear that there is no trade union organisation in the places where they have a substantial commercial interest.
      Mr. Meacher: It is difficult to make an assessment of the attitude of the Conservative Members on the Committee because they sat there like a lot of sitting ducks and never said anything. They virtually never contributed to the debate except to stick up their hands when the Whip snapped his finger.
      I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is right in his general presumption that the attitude of the Government is that they would, first of all, prefer to reduce the number and effectiveness of trade unions—this is the fourth Bill in eight years to try to do so. If they have to put up with trade unions they are seeking to institute a new commissioner. They have the gall to describe the commissioner as
      "the Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members"
      but that commissioner is a commissar whose purpose is to reduce the power and effectiveness of the trade union as an effective organisation for working people. No doubt the commissar will aid and abet organisations such as the Freedom Association to take out actions against union members and to do as much damage as possible.
      Mr. Frank Haynes: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if such a commissar for trade unions is introduced, his first case should be British Coal? British Coal is denying members of the National Union of Mineworkers in Nottinghamshire the right to vote on pit premises like anybody else in the coal industry. Elsewhere British Coal has provided the facilities for that voting, but NUM members in Nottinghamshire were denied those facilities. Why should British Coal interfere with trade union ballots?
      Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend eloquently makes the precise point that I made a few moments ago.
      One of the objectives of the amendment that we moved in Committee was precisely that employers should not
      42
      have the right to interfere in industrial dispute ballots or any other union ballot. In recent weeks, British Coal, to name one employer, has certainly interfered in respect of miners in Nottinghamshire. British Coal has denied them the right to vote at the workplace and that is just the kind of interference that should be a matter for the commissioner. If the commissioner acted against such interference that would improve the rights of trade union members but, of course, the Government intend no such thing. The Government are concerned not about the rights of trade union members, but about the rights of employers.
      4.45 pm
      We also believe that the commissioner could play a useful role in the jurisdiction of the industrial tribunals. Obviously, we favour the industrial tribunals in principle, but access to them and the speed and exercise of obtaining rights from them is often not what it should he. The tribunals concern equal pay, health and safety at work, sex discrimination, employment protection, race relations, transfer of undertakings as a result of a take-over or merger, and industrial training. They relate to key areas of importance. It is interesting to note that clause 3 is the only clause that gives union members new rights against their union, and the commissioner cannot be involved. It relates to the notorious and iniquitous provision that minorities shall have the right of protection to opt out of majority decisions.
      Mr. Skinner: The "Owen" clause.
      Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend was not on the Committee, but he obviously heard about our description of the clause. With due respect to the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), the clause was known as the "David Owen view of industrial relations—if you cannot win the ballot or the game, walk off with the ball." That is also the way in which the Government believe disputes should be undertaken. The important thing to note is that clause 3 is the only clause wherein such rights are enforced through tribunals rather than through the courts. In Committee we argued that that rather curious omission had been made for a rather subtle political reason.
      Mr. Skinner: Since my hon. Friend mentioned the alliance in a manner of speaking, I wonder whether he can tell me if the commissioner would have any powers to deal with mergers, break-ups and so on, taking into account that the alliance has not got any representatives here again today? I know that it is called the party that dare not speak its name, but it should be present to take part in the debate.
      Mr. Meacher: It is true that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), a member of the so-called alliance— I am not sure what those members now refer to themselves as; they are anything but an alliance—came to part of the first sitting of the Committee—I believe that there were around 25 in all—but, as far as I can recall, never appeared again. Certainly it would be difficult to miss the 22 stone of the hon. Gentleman if he were here. His absence and that of other Members, for whatever reason, illustrates the total lack of interest or concern on the part of the Liberals or that other party with regard to the central issues of employment and industrial relations.
      It is clear that clause 3 is the only clause wherein the rights of trade unionists are enforced through tribunals

      43
      rather than the courts. In Committee we argued that that decision had been made for a certain political reason. Once the Government conceded that the commissioner might have a role to play in the tribunal system as a result of clause 3 it would be impossible for them to resist the conclusion that he might have a role in the jurisdiction of other tribunals. That would involve rights against the employer. That is the key to the argument. However, Ministers hotly denied that, particularly the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, and they argued that the commissioner was concerned with cases of public rights. They claimed that tribunals were all about private grievances.
      The Government also argued that the legal aid system, by which applicants get such a bad deal in comparison to those to be helped by the commissioner, dealt only with private rights. That argument, which was retailed at some length in Committee, is wholly bogus. The Committee rapidly exposed it. Legal aid is available in many cases of judicial review that involves public rights of the first importnce. All the alleged rights that the commissioner will assist in enforcing will contain elements of private grievance. For example, under clause 1, the applicant may be a trade union member claiming that he has been denied his personal right to ballot. However, perhaps that rather technical legal argument is best left to another place.
      Much more important are the moral objections to the Government's position. Do they believe that cases brought by employees against employers raise no moral issues? What about dismissal for trade union membership? What about sex and race discrimination? What about cases where the employer unfairly dismisses workers on the transfer of an undertaking after takeover or merger?
      Even if the Government will not allow the commissioner a role in the industrial tribunal system, he could play a role in enforcing rights against employers in the courts. If the Bill was fair—by that, I mean evenhanded between unions and employers—that is exactly what he would do. That is what the new clause proposes.
      None of us who sat through the dozens of hours in Committee will be in any doubt about the outcome. The Government will have none of this. They have no intention of giving the commissioner any power over employers. They are not truly interested in the rights of trade union members; rather they are interested in the rights of employers, or in tilting the balance in favour of employers and against trade unions. In that battle, it suits Ministers' purposes to use surrogates. It would not pay them to go into the political front line and admit what they are up to. They would rather sit back in their Tothill street staff headquarters and give the hospitality cabinet a bashing while their infantry — the dissident union members whom the Bill is designed to encourage— go over the top.
      But as the Bill ground its weary way through Committee, the Government's true purpose became more evident. Trade union members and the wider public will greet the new commissioner with contempt. His title, "Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members", will pass into the limbo that awaits failed political euphemisms, hotly following the phrase "community charge". "Commissar for Keeping Trade Unions in their Place" would be more apt. Considering the current industrial scene, it does not seem likely that he will succeed in doing that.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): I was unable to convince the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) about many of these matters on previous occasions and, although hope springs eternal, I am not sure whether I can convince him now. But I will do my best.
      The hon. Gentleman used a wide range of examples, but he asked one question which he will concede goes to the heart of the debate: if the Government are prepared to extend powers to the commissioner to help in cases against trade unions, why not extend powers to trade unionists to use against their employers? The question is perfectly fair. The answer amounts to this: as in so many of the areas which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, workers or trade unions already have recourse against their employers, and the main way is through the industrial tribunal. This is neither the time nor the place to set out the history of industrial tribunals, but it is generally recognised that they provide a cheap, efficient and expeditious way for trade union members to air a wide range of grievances against their employers. As for the matters that the hon. Gentleman has in mind in the new clause, often trade union members who are thinking of going to an industrial tribunal might have the assistance of their trade union in doing so.
      This is the key to the entire debate. We wish to set up a commissioner for the rights of trade union members because there is a gap in the present system. A person who wished to exercise the rights given to him under clause 19(7) would not have available to him the remedies that are available to a trade union member who wished to go before an industrial tribunal.
      Mr. Graham Allen: Does the Minister concede that there is a great range of powers in the courts and that the Certification Officer also exists? The Minister's comments are almost an insult to the Certification Office, implying that it could not take on the added responsibilities to which he referred. There is provision, or the law could be so amended, for the office to take on the role that the Minister mentioned, so there must be other reasons for the introduction of this trade union commissar.
      Mr. Nicholls: That point has been made by the hon. Gentleman's colleagues, and I shall certainly answer it later in my speech. If I do not, no doubt the hon. Gentleman will ask me to give way again later.
      The rights with which the trade union commissioner will be helping people start in the High Court, not in the industrial tribunal. I do not wish to shoot down one of the hon. Gentleman's favourite and sincerely held points so glibly, but clause 3 rights are private rights which belong properly within the province of an industrial tribunal. The powers of the trade union commissioner, as set out in subsection (7), are exclusively matters which start from the High Court. Therefore, it is appropriate that the commissioner should give some assistance in respect of them.
      The hon. Member for Oldham, West said that we should not draw a distinction between public and private rights. He said that that might not be a matter for us to clarify today, but that it might be a matter for another place. I like to agree with the hon. Gentleman when I can. I am sure that he is right to say that such considerations

      45
      will exercise the members of another place in detail, but there is no doubt that the legal aid system is designed to take care of the enforcement of private rights. It is not there to take care of the enforcement of public rights. In a previous incarnation, I, with other members of my profession, exercised considerable ingenuity to pretend that what were essentially private rights had a public dimension to them so that one could bring them within the ambit of judicial review. The legal authorities where judicial review seems to be biting on private rights are usually a tribute to the lawyers conducting the case who tried to construct the matter in that way.
      I return to my central point: the commissioner is all about the enforcement of public rights, so analogies with industrial tribunals cannot be appropriate.
      Mr. Meacher: The Under-Secretary has not answered my central point that legal aid is available in many cases of judicial review which involve public ri.21its of the first order. Many of the rights which the commissioner will help to enforce will have elements of private grievance. How can he continue to make the distinction and try to prevent the commissioner from taking on the role in respect of the employer?
      Mr. Nicholls: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I concede that, at first sight, the authorities on judicial review show that it is available only for private matters. But that usually represents a distortion— sometimes a successful distortion—of the law by the lawyers who are trying to assist that person.
      There will he grey areas where matters are finely balanced and where one can argue that one is dealing with a public or a private right. In practice, if it is more private than public, one can tack enough private elements on it to bring oneself under the scope of the law. That is the middle ground. But if one considers the rights that the commissioner might be called upon to enforce, for instance under clauses 1, 6, 9 or 15—hon. Gentlemen may disagree with my opinion—it is highly unlikely that anyone interested in enforcing those sorts of rights would be able to find a sufficiently private element in them to be able to use the legal aid system. So if there is not something like the commissioner, there will be rights without those affected by them being able to have them enforced. That is why we believe it is necessary to have a commissioner.
      I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has always been four square against the Bill in general and its provisions in particular—and against the role of the commissioner. However, even if he is not prepared to accept all the Bill's implications, I hope that he will accept that there is a grey area here. When dealing with rights that are wholly public, the legal aid system cannot possibly be an appropriate vehicle.
      5 pm
      The hon. Member for Oldham, West, gave other examples and talked about some sort of unilateral alteration of the terms and conditions of employment of people employed by P and O. It would he quite inappropriate for me to judge those sorts of matters here and now. One aspect, however, shows why the hon. Gentleman cannot rely on his analogies. If someone's terms and conditions of contract are being unilaterally altered—if he is essentially saying that his contract has been broken—he has his remedies. No doubt he will have assistance from the trade union of which he is a
      46
      member, and he may well be able to bring himself within the scope of legal aid. So in such cases remedies already exist. We say that a commissioner is necessary because, without him, there will be no appropriate mechanism for enforcing these rights.
      I come to the point that the hon. Gentleman made about industrial tribunals and the reason why clause 3 rights will not do. Clause 3 deals with what is essentially a private right, which should not properly fall within the commissioner's scope. It is all too easy to miss the following essential points. The hon. Gentleman and his Friends are convinced that there is something sinister about the trade union commissioner and the role he will play. Two points about that must be made time arid again. First, the commissioner cannot act on his own volition but only if asked to do so by a trade union member. I do not know whether we should call him a black or white knight—he cannot canter around looking for agro. He must be brought in by a trade union member.
      Secondly, except in the single case of the finding of a certification officer, the commissioner has complete discretion about whether to lend his assistance. So the hon. Gentleman's concern about the commissioner going out and looking for trouble, and his—possibly justified— concerns about the tiny minority of vexatious, frivolous people who may try to make trouble for a trade union, can be put aside. The commissioner cannot act unless brought in by a trade union member and that member cannot demand the commissioner's help. The commissioner has the discretion to extend or not to extend his help.
      Mr. Allen: I want to bring the Minister back to the central point of why we need a commissioner, because he has not answered that satisfactorily. The Certification Officer has all the qualities that the Minister has mentioned, with the added advantage of a long tradition of being perceived as relatively neutral. Does the Minister agree, therefore, that the Certification Officer would be the ideal person to whom to extend the powers? That would certainly be preferable to the imposition of a commissioner, which comes with all the rest of the dogma in the Bill. He will not be trusted by the majority of trade unionists, and will be used only by those seeking to cause trouble for trade unions.
      Mr. Nicholls: I concede at once what the hon. Gentleman said is arguable. I appreciate the way in which he put his point. Without being unduly pessimistic, it is safe to say that it was always a reasonable bet that the Labour movement would not be too keen on the commissioner and all his works. One did not have to be a clairvoyant to spot that. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) graciously and fairly paid tribute in Committee to the work done by the Certification Officer and his staff. There is obviously a good working relationship between them and the trade union movement.
      Given the misgivings that some people in the Labour movement would have about the role of the commissioner, would it be a good idea to tack these powers on to the Certification Officer? In one sense it would have been logical and tidy, but it would have driven a wedge—I use the word in a non-pejorative sense— between the trade union movement and the Certification Officer, which would have done no good. So the hon. Gentleman's point is arguable, as is my response to it.
      Ms. Clare Short: The Minister should know that we do not believe the Government's protest that the commissioner is merely to assist trade union members, and I shall explain why not. The Government have run down the wages inspectorate, which is supposed to enforce legal standards in low-paid sectors. They do not care whether the law is enforced in that area. The Health and Safety Executive has too few officials, so there are more and more accidents and deaths in British industry. The Government do not care about that or about the law being broken. Suddenly, however, they can find resources for a new official who can back dissident trade union members who want to cause difficulties for their trade unions in this way, rather than taking up the issues in a democratic way through the movement.
      Mr. Nicholls: I am not sure how far you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will allow me to get away with broadening the debate into one about wages councils or the Health and Safety Executive. In passing, on the subject of the number of fatalities, I ask the hon. Lady to have another look at the figures for industrial fatalities, which are now at an all-time record low.
      Ms. Short: No.
      Mr. Nicholls: The figures speak for themselves. I wonder how far I shall be allowed to go down this road— the hon. Lady can go off and check the rate of industrial fatalities—
      Mr. Meacher rose—
      Mr. Nicholls: I can understand the misgivings of the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends, but I made the point that the commissioner does not act on his own volition and has the discretion about whether to render assistance, and I hoped that that would go a long way to satisfying the hon. Lady's concerns.
      Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend made an important point about the need for protection because of the Government's poor record on health and safety at work—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Perhaps we have gone far enough down that road. New clause 3 deals with proceedings in industrial tribunals, and we should get back to that.
      Mr. Meacher: The Minister said incorrectly that the number of industrial deaths had fallen; it has not. It has been roughly stationary for the past four or five years, and the number of severe accidents and maimings has been rapidly increasing. That would be affected by a commissioner who could take up the lack of the provision of health and safety measures by an employer on behalf of his employees.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's point has nothing to do with clause 3. I hope that both Front Benches will agree to differ and return now to new clause 3.
      Mr. Nicholls: I hear what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I know what is good for me.
      The issue comes down to whether one believes that if these rights exist they should have a proper mechanism for enforcement. We believe that they should, and we have to be able to satisfy the world at large—if not the hon. Member for Oldham, West and his hon. Friends—that
      48
      there is nothing sinister about the role of the commissioner. Given his discretion and the fact that he cannot act of his own volition, I believe that we have got the balance right, and I hope the House will reject the new clause.
      Mr. David Clelland: I should like to preface my remarks by saying that the Government have not produced a shred of evidence that there is a need for the commissioner for the rights of trade union members, whereas there is ample evidence of the need for the protection of the rights of employees. It is obvious to the most casual of observers that the creation of the commissioner is to facilitate deliberately proved actions sometimes by politically motivated organisations such as the Right-wing Freedom Association, and sometimes by employers, against trade unions and their officers.
      An example of what I mean can be found in Sir Ian MacGregor's book, "The Enemies Within", when he refers to the Gulliver concept, wherein his hired agent David Hart was used to organise so-called dissident members of the National Union of Mineworkers to institute waves of legal proceedings against the union because
      "each one of the many actions tied another tiny legal rope around the NUM until it woke up one day and couldn't move."
      The encouragement of such tactics is what the creation of the commissioner is all about. If it is not, we look forward to the Minister telling the House that he can accept new clause 3. The Bill deals with the so-called rights of union members only in so far as they relate to the union. The same members will not be able to avail themselves of the services of the commissioner in relation to any matters connected with their employment or their employer.
      Mr. Allen: Is it not a fact that David Hart performed those duties in a privatised manner, and all that the Government are doing are nationalising the services of Mr. Hart? He may be the first commissioner.
      Mr. Clelland: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point.
      The legal aid that the commissioner will willingly provide for action against the union will not be available to assist in any action against the employer. The resources of the taxpayer, to the tune of some 1·5 million per year, are to be made available to those who wish to take issue with their union, while at the same time the same Government are planning to save about £10 million per year on the legal aid system, which is there to help those who cannot afford the legal costs involved in obtaining justice on a host of infinitely more important, more legitimate and more personal issues.
      The Government's Legal Aid Bill, currently going through its parliamentary processes, is in sharp contrast to the measures proposed in the Employment Bill, and clearly shows the prejudiced nature of the Employment Bill and the Government's determination to pursue their political enemies at the taxpayers' expense, while cutting back on public expenditure for more creditable and essential services, and services in more demand. It is also in sharp contrast to the rights of employees that the Government have whittled away during the past eight years.
      If the Government are really interested in fairness and justice, let Ministers explain why employees' rights have been eroded to such an extent. Let them explain why there is no proposal to give the "commissar for trade union

      49
      harassment" the power to help members unfairly disciplined by their employers. Do not let Ministers tell us that the unions should give legal assistance to such members. We know that they do. That is one of the major benefits of trade union membership. We also know that the Government— by this measure and in every Act concerned with trade unions—have deliberately set out to weaken the ability of trade unions so to do.
      What about those who are not trade union members, those whom the Government have done everything in their power to discourage and dissuade from trade union membership? What about their rights? Who is to assist them if they are unfairly disciplined by their employers? Why should not the commissioner be able to help those people, too, to take action against unfair employers? The reason is that the Bill is not about fairness or justice; it is about encouraging litigation against unions. It is about giving state support to the Gulliver concept, so that unions will be further weakened and unable to give proper representation and protection to their members. The fact that the commissioner for the rights of trade union members will not be empowered to assist those union members against their employers is ample proof of that. However, if further proof is necessary, it lies in the extent to which the proposal goes to see to it that nothing stands in the way of encouraging action against trade unions.
      5.15 pm
      I return to the legal aid system, to compare its provisions with the proposals in the Bill to demonstrate the Governments double standards and hypocrisy. Clause 19(4) states:
      "The matters to which the Commissioner may have regard in determining whether, and to what extent, to grant an application under this section shall include, in particular—
      (a) whether the case raises a question of principle;"
      I should have thought that there was plenty of room for manoeuvre there. Subsection (4)(b) states:
      "whether it is unreasonable, having regard to the complexity of the case, to expect the applicant to deal with the case unaided;"
      Again, that is completely at the discretion of the commissioner. Paragraph (c) states:
      "whether, in the opinion of the Commissioner, the case involves a matter of substantial public interest."
      That is interesting because I can imagine that if a trade union member wanted to take action against the shop steward that would not be particularly interesting to the public, but if he wanted to take action against Arthur Scargill that would be very interesting to the public and the commissioner might think that it was in the public interest.
      I should like to refer to part IV of the legal aid regulations, headed, "Determination of Applications". The regulations make aid conditional and refer to financial eligibility and eligibility on merit. They also refer to
      "Refusal where advantage trivial or proceedings simple".
      The regulations refer to refusal where other facilities are available.
      The regulations on financial eligibility state:

      "(1) Where the assessment officer determines that an applicant has disposable income of an amount which makes him ineligible for legal aid, the [secretary](a) shall refuse the application.

      (2) Where the assessment officer determines that an applicant, having disposable income of an amount which makes him eligible for legal aid, has disposable capital of an amount which renders him liable to be refused legal aid, the [secretary] … shall refuse the application if it appears to [him] … that the probable costs of the applicant in the
      50
      proceedings in respect of which the application was made would not exceed the maximum contribution payable by the applicant under the Act."

      Then the applicant has to satisfy eligibility on merits:
      "Without prejudice to the generality of section 7(5) or (5A) of the Act (which provides that a person shall not be given legal aid unless he has reasonable grounds for taking, defending or being a party to proceedings, and may also be refused legal aid if it appears unreasonable that he should receive it in the particular circumstances of the case), an application for a certificate, shall not be approved except after consideration by the [secretary] … of all questions of fact or law arising out of the action, cause or matter to which the application relates and the circumstances in which it was made."
      The regulation headed:
      "Refusal where advantage trivial or proceedings simple"
      states:
      "Without prejudice to regulations 29 and 33 an application may be refused where it appears … that only a trivial advantage would he gained by the applicant from the proceedings to which the application relates, or that on account of the simple nature of the proceedings a solicitor would not ordinarily be employed."
      Then we come to the regulation headed:
      "Refusal where other rights or facilities available."
      It states:

      " — (1) Without prejudice to regulations 29 an application may be refused where it appears … that the applicant has available rights or facilities making it unnecessary for him to obtain legal aid or has a reasonable expectation of obtaining financial or other help from a body of which he is a member, and has failed to take all reasonable steps to enforce or obtain such rights, facilities or help including permitting the [secretary] … to take those steps on his behalf.

      (2) Where it appears that the applicant has a right to be indemnified against expenses incurred in connection with any proceedings, it shall not, for the purposes of paragraph (1), be deemed a failure to take reasonable steps if he has not taken proceedings to enforce that right, whether for a declaration as to that right or otherwise."

      Therefore, financial aid through the legal aid system is complicated. Legal aid is also means tested to the extent that valuation is made of the capital available to the client as well as of the annual income that is available to him. Nor is it open-ended assistance, unlike that provided by the commissioner for the rights of trade union members. Where a solicitor feels that more advice or assistace would go over the limit already granted, he must not give it without going back to the board. Recipients of legal aid, unlike recipients of aid from the commissioner, must pay a contribution. It is calculated first on the basis of capital. That is not only cash savings but sums that could be borrowed against insurance policies, jewellery, caravans, and so on, but excluding household furniture and the value of an owner-occupied house. The assessment is made by the DHSS. If disposable capital is over £4,850, legal aid will probably be reduced.
      The DHSS also looks at disposable yearly income. It is assessed as weekly household income, net of tax and national insurance, and must include child benefit and family income supplement if applicable. Then reasonable expenses must be deducted—travelling to work, trade union dues and weekly rent or mortgages—and there is a deduction for dependants. For those aged 11 it is £13, for those aged 11–15 it is £19·50, for those aged 16–17 it is £23·40 and for those over 18 it is £30·45. That gives the weekly disposable income, and it is multiplied by 52 to give the yearly income. Over £5,585 is not eligible for legal aid and under £2,325 is eligible. If income is between those two

      51
      figures, £2,325 is deducted from yearly disposable income and the remainder is divided by four to give the maximum contribution out of income.
      It will be easy to be in a position whereby an applicant on family income supplement will have to make a contribution. Only those in receipt of supplementary benefit will not have to make a contribution. No such tests will apply to those seeking help from the commissioner.
      Another interesting comparison between the legal aid system and the operation of the commissioner is malicious representation—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The speech that the hon. Gentleman is making might be more appropriate if the Question before the House were that the clause stand part of the Bill. That is not the Question, nor is it likely to be. The hon. Gentleman should direct his remarks to the new clause, which seeks to extend the provisions of clause 19 to proceedings before an industrial tribunal.
      Mr. Clelland: I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am trying to draw a comparison between the legal aid system and the operation of the commissioner. To some extent, there must be a parallel—the inherent unfairness of what will be provided under the commission compared with the more serious cases under the legal aid system. I am trying to show the need to make the operation of the commissioner fairer by the inclusion of the new clause.
      There are qualifications with regard to certain cases that can be funded under the legal aid system. Aid to pursue cases relating to unfair action by employers through industrial tribunals is such an example. That is the point of new clause 3.
      In contrast, clause 19(7)(e) says:
      "such other proceedings, being proceedings against a trade union, an official of a trade union or the trustees of the property of a trade union, as may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State."
      With regard to the operation of the commissioner, the only qualification is that the Secretary of State will be unable to order assistance in cases against employers. No doubt that is protection against some sudden brainstorm. The commissioner will be almost unfettered in taking any action or pursuing any mischief at the taxpayers' expense, so long as it is in pursuance of a trade union or a trade union official, but not against an employer.
      In Committee we argued strongly that there was no case for the introduction of such a service. Even if the Government came up with the slightest evidence that there was, there is no case for it taking priority over the many injustices in society on which the Government turn their back.
      If, as it would appear, the Government are determined to press ahead with this dogmatic nonsense, the least that they could do would be to give some balance to the service and give equal rights to trade union members pursuing cases of injustice at the hands of their employers.
      I hope that the Minister will be able to say that he will accept new clause 3.
      Mr. Michael Foot: Most hon. Members who listened to the Second Reading debate realised what a disgraceful Bill it was and how it had been
      52
      devised to hit the trade union movement when the Government thought that it was down. That was its sole purpose.
      I recall a precedent for a Government behaving in such a manner. Just after the general strike the Government thought, "We have got them down and we will kick them as hard as we possibly can. We will deprive them of rights that they have held since 1906, or rights that they have held since Disraeli's first trade union legislation. We shall take away those rights, and now that they are down we shall kick and fetter them even more."
      No doubt my hon. Friends strove as hard as possible in Committee to overcome and to expose the difficulties, but the Bill has returned in almost as bad a shape as it was when it went into Committee. The Minister tried to adopt a perfectly reasonable manner when he put his case, but he did not deal with the realities. We are faced—the country should know this—with a bad Bill. It is a vindictive Bill and it will produce bitter reaction throughout the trade union movement. Far from assisting in overcoming industrial disputes or difficulties, it will add greatly to the dangers of industrial disputes over the next four or five years.
      The proposition with regard to a commissioner will add to those difficulties. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) referred to David Hart. His appointment is not a fanciful proposition. Whom will the Government appoint to do the job? Do they think that any reputable trade unionist, or any reputable civil servant, will take the job of commissioner, particularly if they reject the proposition in the new clause, which is making a belated attempt to restore some semblance of balance to the operation that the commissioner will have to undertake? Apparently, even that will be rejected out of hand.
      The commissioner will be established for the purpose of causing trouble for individual trade unions. As soon as the commission is in operation there will be trouble. The Government need not think that the trade union movement will be as fettered as it has been in the past. More serious fetters have been placed on the trade union movement. Over the past five or six years the greatest fetter placed on it has been that of unemployment. It weakens trade unions and prevents them overcoming their difficulties.
      What has always happened in British industrial history when a malicious and vindictive Government, such as this one, have sought to impose legal fetters on trade unions and bind their hands to prevent them from protecting their members is that eventually the trade unions have worked their way out of it and managed, once again, to stand up for their rights.
      Whoever is appointed as commissioner by the Government will be an industrial buffoon. He will be laughed at from one end of the country to the other. The idea that he will be able to assist in dealing with industrial disputes is nonsense.
      Mr. Allen: My right hon. Friend should be informed that in Committee the bets were even between Sir Ian MacGregor, Lord Frank Chapple and John Moore, who came in as a late runner as a possible appointee to the job.
      Mr. Foot: I think that David Hart is the man. He is the most likely appointee. I agree that it will be a strong competition. Perhaps the Government will introduce a

      53
      clause in the House of Lords for the appointment of two or three commissioners—they want the matter covered properly.
      It is especially disgraceful — my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North underlined this fact—that money should be available for such a post when less money is being provided for the essential services that are trying to operate health and safety procedures throughout British industry. It is being done at a time when the number of inspectors is nothing like it should be or what it was when we started the operation. The need for health and safety inspectors is constantly increasing because of the growing mechanisation of British factories and because of the greatly extended health and safety provisions. I do not need to say this in your presence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because nobody played a greater part in passing those procedures, when we had a decent House of Commons, than you did in a previous office.
      We always envisaged that if that task were to be done properly there would have to be a proper provision of assistance and that there would have to be a number of inspectors. There would have to be proper support over an increasing period, because the demand would be increased. Instead, the Government, who have been such skinflints in these matters, are prepared to provide funds for someone to do this squalid little job for them. It is utterly disgraceful and it will never succeed. They have contrived a strike at Ford's which derives essentially from the rigid ballot provisions imposed by the Government. The right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) should get the bill for the £17 million per day that it costs, unless it can be shared properly and fairly among the sycophants who supported him in taking that measure through the House.
      5.30 pm
      The Minister has sought to appear reasonable today. He may also have done so in Committee. In a few years' time, however, every Member who has been associated with the Bill will be utterly ashamed of it. There will have been the first industrial dispute associated with the commissioner's operations. The commissioner may think that he is protecting someone's rights, but his activities will rightly be seen as a deliberate attack by the Government on the trade union movement. The best thing that the Minister could do would be to knock this miserable bit out of the Bill or to accept the new clause. As that would make a mockery of the Government's intentions, I do not suppose they will agree to it. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will consider what will happen to them when the trade union movement recovers its strength and self-reliance and turns to rend those who attacked it in its moment of weakness. When the movement has regained its strength it will deal with those who have introduced squalid, miserable measures such as this.
      Mr. Henry McLeish: I am pleased to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). He has a distinguished record in these matters and speaks with passion of the iniquities and inadequacies of the Bill.
      With regard to the role of the commissioner, I wish briefly to take up some of the points that were raised in Committee but received no response from the Government. This measure is profoundly prejudiced and fundamentally flawed. The provision for the commissioner is merely a further attempt to hogtie the trade union movement under the bogus guise of extending individual
      54
      freedom. It is just one more step down the road towards the strangulation of our trade union movement. The Under-Secretary of State laughs, but that is nothing new—he did the same in Committee.
      New clause 3 seeks to bring some balance to an absurd measure. It is nonsense to suggest that trade union members should have such enormous powers to tackle the trade unions but very little assistance in tackling difficulties caused by employers. The Government's proposal is over the top and has nothing to do with industrial relations. It is political prejudice masquerading as practical policy. We mounted a lengthy attack on these provisions in Committee. Today I shall highlight various key issues to which the Minister has failed to respond, either in Committee or today.
      The Green Paper contained a long section on the benefits of the work of the Certification Officer, but no case was made for a commissioner to handle trade union members' difficulties and especially the interface with the court system. Paragraph 6.9 of the Green Paper gives the game away. It states:
      "However, it has also become apparent that the present arrangements are deficient or inadequate to some extent. The Certification Officer's powers are not comprehensive and the courts are not being used."
      The sole criterion for the Government's proposal is that there is too little court involvement in trade union affairs and the work of the Certification Officer. That shows why the proposal is being introduced and it belies the arguments of fairmindedness, evenhandedness and the extension of individual rights that are constantly pushed down our throats by a Government who daily abuse all those concepts.
      My second point relates to costs. It was argued in Committee that if the commissioner's role was so vital, the £1·2 million or £.1·3 million cost of setting up that office would be justified. Yet when we asked exactly what the commissioner's role was, on no occasion was an answer given. Ministers merely parroted the claim that there was a deficiency and the courts were not being used, so there must be a commissioner to satisfy the Government's prejudices. It is extraordinary that we are expected to accept a proposal involving public expenditure for which no justification has been given.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has said, the Bill is the fourth instalment of the Government's attempt to dismember the trade union movement. Although we disagree with the malice and vindictiveness behind it, we might have expected the Government to produce some reasoned justification for this intrusion into trade union affairs and industrial relations. Sadly, the Government have so little pride in their political craft that they have failed to produce any justification for this unsavoury contribution to the sea of flawed argument represented by the Bill.
      Mr. Allen: I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish). It is also a privilege to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), whose work in this area is well documented and widely respected. As a new Member, I find many unfamiliar things in the Chamber and some that are familiar. One unfamiliar sight is the faces of Back Bench Conservative Members who were on the Standing Committee. For three months, I saw only the piles of correspondence with which they were dealing during the Committee stage rather than the fresh, charming faces

      55
      before us today. It is a delight to see them. It is also a delight to see the Secretary of State, albeit somewhat late—we were used to that in Committee, so, again, it is something familiar to make one feel at home.
      Mr. Don Dixon: Perhaps the Secretary of State has been on the picket line at Ford's.
      Mr. Allen: That may be so. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) may also have been there, as he used to work at Ford's. I picked up that morsel of information on the one occasion when the hon. Gentleman spoke in Committee. Whether the number of industrial disputes at Ford has gone down since the hon. Member came to the House, or whether all these disputes are the result of his absence from Ford, we cannot really say.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot see the relevance of what the hon. Gentleman is saying to the new clause that we are debating. Perhaps he will look at the new clause and direct his remarks to it.
      Mr. Allen: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was referring to the familiar points in this debate. The unfamiliar point about the debate is that there is an SDP-Liberal alliance Member here today. There may even be two. I am trying to be charitable, but on the occasion when the alliance was represented in Committee it may have looked as though there were two of its members present when there was only one. Unfortunately, that was just for two or three hours of one Committee sitting.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I doubt whether the Committee debated new clause 3, and perhaps we ought to be debating it now.
      Mr. Allen: There is little logic in this clause. The powers given to the new trade union harassment officer are powers that could have been made available to the Certification Officer. As I have said, this is a slight upon those who work in the Certification Office, and I have had some dealings with them over a number of years with some tricky and delicate industrial relations matters. The Certification Officer has always proved to be an extremely reliable person in dealing with such queries. Such an office will always be accused of being biased in one way or another, but, in general, the Certification Officer has always proved that that is a worthy office. In my view, and that of many other Members, that office would have been the appropriate place to which to extend these powers. The fact that the Government have chosen to separate the Certification Officer from the new trade union harassment officer demonstrates the dogma that lies behind this clause. They could not bring these powers to bear with the Certification Officer—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been speaking for six minutes. The new clause before the House refers to extending the provisions of clause 19 to
      "proceedings in an industrial tribunal".
      I have yet to hear him comment on that matter, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will address his remarks to that.
      Mr. Allen: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This refers to the assistance by the commissioner. The thrust of my argument is that the commissioner need not be the person who gives this assistance. That power could go to the Certification Officer, were it not for the dogma of the Government.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that that is not contained in the new clause that the House is debating. The new clause contains nothing about transferring to the Certification Officer the responsibilities that are proposed for the commissioner. The hon. Gentleman would do well if he would quickly glance at new clause 3 and address his remarks to it.
      Mr. Allen: The new clause relates to assistance by the commissioner in actions against employers, and those matters were previously dealt with by the Certification Officer. I feel that it would be in order to ask, when talking about this new trade union harassment officer and the commissar who will take on this role, whether we shall be at liberty to hear how this person will be appointed to carry out the duties in the clause. What will the wages of this person be, and what qualifications will he have?
      Mr. Dixon: How will he be appointed?
      Mr. Allen: As my hon. Friend says, how will he be appointed?
      In Committee, we were endlessly told that any person who exercises any responsibility in the trade union movement, even down to giving minor advice at an executive committee meeting, should be elected. There is no provision for that democratic process to be applied to this person. Therefore, it may strike people as being a little humorous that David Hart, or Ian MacGregor, or even John Moore if he falls out of favour, or any number of people, will be put up for this job. The job is completely within the gift of the Secretary of State. He may choose to give away one of these "jobs for the boys" to people such as Ian MacGregor or someone whom he feels deserves a little sinecure.
      5.45 pm
      We also need to be careful about unfair dismissals. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent said earlier that there is little that the trade union commissioner or commisar or harassment officer can do on behalf of a member to secure redress for unfair dismissal. The unfair dismissal that is relevant to this clause is the potential unfair dismissal of, God help him, the trade union commisar. Schedule 1 (2)(3) says:
      "If, when any person ceases to hold office as the Commissioner, the Secretary of State determines that there are special circumstances which make it right that he should receive compensation, there may be paid to him a sum by way of compensation of such amount as may be determined."
      That can be read in two ways. Either the person, being an acolyte of the Secretary of State, could be thrown out on his ear, or he could be the beneficiary of a tremendous golden handshake. However, the clause says nothing about his taking on these other, more important and relevant duties.
      Many of my hon. Friends have referred to the number of cases laid before the Certification Officer. There is not enough for a trade union harassment officer to do unless he goes out on his white charger to try to find work. Nothing in the clause says anything about that. The Certification Officer has had just a handful of cases on such matters as political funds. Those cases could be dealt with by the Certification Officer, and cases arising out of the clause may also be dealt with in that way. Therefore, a new office is undesirable.
      We have heard a lot about performance-related pay from the Government, and I have asked the Minister—

      57
      and I ask him again — whether, if the trade union harassment officer deals with just five or six cases a year, that will affect his pay. Will the Minister undertake to review the value for money that the trade union harassment officer is giving the Government after his first year? The legislation gives the Government the power not to reappoint this trade union harassment officer.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. All this is of great interest to the House, but has nothing to do with the subject under discussion. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will start to address himself to clause 3, or resume his seat.
      Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
      Mr. Allen: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that advice, supported by Conservative Members. It is nice to hear that they are in good voice because we were a little worried that they had nothing to say. These clauses are put forward out of malice. They are yet another attempt to stir the pot—
      Mr. Tony Favell: Would the hon. Gentleman like to remind the House who put forward this new clause?
      Mr. Allen: The new clause relates to the trade union harassment officer. That may not be within the hon. Gentleman's knowledge, but that is what we are talking about. He was not on the Committee, so I understand his lack of knowledge.
      This is another attempt to stir the pot and incite individual dissident trade union members to take action against trade unions. As such, it is undemocratic, it is uncalled for and unnecessary. I hope that we shall throw it out.
      Mr. Haynes rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman intends to address himself to new clause 3.
      Mr. Haynes: I resent that remark, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When you called me, I was about to say that I intended to address myself to clause 19, which deals with assistance by the trade union commissioner—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is just what I feared. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the House is considering new clause 3.
      Mr. Haynes: All I said was that clause 19 deals with assistance by the commissioner. I hope that I shall not say anything that may tempt you to tell me to sit down, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall kick off by saying, in passing, that I notice that not many of the Conservative Members who served in the Committee are on the Benches today. One or two of them were here earlier — the little boys, as I called them in Committee — —[Interruption.] It is true. They have not lived yet. They do not know what life is about; they do not know what work is about; and they certainly do not know what trade unions are about. They are no longer here, they have gone —[Interruption.] They have gone; there are only some of the more elderly Conservative Members on the Benches opposite.
      The Bill is the responsibility of the Secretary of State. I have made a few notes about him. For example, the right hon. Gentleman arrived in the Chamber at 5.37 pm and departed two minutes later. He is not really meeting his responsibility, is he? He has left his junior Ministers to take responsibility for the Bill. My right hon. Friend the
      58
      Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) — he is from that beautiful country of Wales, the Principality —mentioned the junior Minister. I can tell my right hon. Friend that the Under-Secretary is a nice chap — [Interruption.] Yes, he really is a nice chap, but politically he is vicious. There is no doubt about that.
      Ms. Short: He is not nice.
      Mr. Haynes: My hon. Friend wants to jump in and talk about the junior Minister.
      The two junior Ministers are up front today. Of course, they were up front in Committee because the Secretary of State hardly ever attended. From the Conservative point of view they have not done a bad job, but we have done a better job. We did a better job in Committee, we are doing a better job today and we are pulling the Bill to pieces.
      The new clause clearly shows what lies behind the appointment of the commissioner chappie and the sort of assistance that he will give trade unionists. It is a scabs' charter — [Interruption.] I wish that Conservative Members would listen. Some of the young Tories in Committee were given a bit of an education. I am surprised that the more elderly Tories are turning round and gasbagging when they should be listening.
      By talking about the young laddies in Committee, I am reminded of my school days—as I am sure you are, Mr. Deputy Speaker — when little fellows used to sneak around looking at what everybody was doing. It is the same today — little Tory sneaks in trade unions. The Government will give them the opportunity to go to the commissar so that he can really take the trade unions to town. That is what it is all about.
      The Government change the rules and regulations again and again. They have not yet said anything about the national vote at Ford not so many days ago. They keep saying that they want everybody to have ballots. Well, there was a ballot at Ford, a decision was made and it was carried out. I am waiting for the Government to say something—
      Mr. Favell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I came into the Chamber bursting to hear about new clause 3, but so far I have heard about the Ford strike, the youth of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) and even your youth, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May we please return to the new clause?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has a point. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) must address himself much more closely to the provisions of new clause 3.
      Mr. Haynes: That is what I am trying to do. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not need the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) to encourage you. That is just not on. In any case, the hon. Gentleman was not even here at the start of the debate, and he was not a member of the Committee either. He is a new boy to the Bill. He need not tell me when I am out of order; that is the job of the Chair. I respect the Chair at all times.
      There has been massive infiltration of the trade union movement by the Conservative Trade Unionists. That has been the cause of the problems. They have attended branch meetings and stirred up trouble. Now, they can run to the commissar to try to bring the unions into disrepute. That is not on, and the Government jolly well know it.

      59
      When the Opposition return to office, we will know what to do with this legislation—[Interruption.] Oh yes we will. This Government preach freedom, but they have introduced this Bill to take away freedom from the individual. That is what the Bill is all about.
      Mr. Allen: I am sure that my hon. Friend would like to mention that the trade union commissar will not even have to refer any complaints to the trade union involved. Complaints—and they may, of course, be frivolous—will be made to the trade union harassment officer, but there will be absolutely no referral to the trade union in the first instance.
      Mr. Haynes rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Ashfield will not be persuaded to go too far down that road. I remind both him and the House that the new clause under discussion seeks to extend the provisions of clause 19 to proceedings before an industrial tribunal. I hope that the House and the hon. Gentleman will address themselves to that.
      Mr. Haynes: I am going down no road other than the right one, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you asked me to do that. You asked that right at the beginning of my speech. Indeed, you have pulled up hon. Members for going down the wrong road. I shall not allow myself to be persuaded to go down the wrong road by either Conservative Members or my hon. Friends. I intend to stick to the rules, of course — [Interruption.] Hon. Members are trying to put me off because I want to tell the House about the CTU and its massive infiltration of the trade union movement. Its members are stirring up trouble throughout the country, and not just in my industry.
      Before I came here I worked in a heavy industry, so I know what work is all about. I also know what trade unions are about. They look after their members, negotiate with the employers, and do this, that and the other. The employer is not even mentioned in clause 19. My experience of industry was that workers and management worked together and if something went wrong they sat round the table and sorted it out. They did not run down the road to the commissar saying, "That is it. I am not going back to work until you sort things out." That was the last resort if we did not get anywhere with management. There was co-operation from day one. The problems stirred up by the CTU should never have happened, but they were encouraged by the Government to join trade unions and cause trouble.
      The question of cost has been raised. This is interesting. In Committee, a figure of £1·25 million was mentioned as the cost of running the commissioner's office. The Minister does not nod or shake his head in response to say yea or nay. He will probably respond to that point when he rises to the Dispatch Box. If these sneaky trade unionists keep running to and fro between the commissioner and their jobs, it will obviously increase the cost. The more work that the commissioner takes on, the higher will be the cost. As the Government keep reminding us, they were elected to reduce public expenditure. If that expenditure increases, there must be a reason. We want to know how much the Government are prepared to spend on the commissioner and his office.
      6 pm
      Mr. Allen: I hope that my hon. Friend will accept this piece of information. With his usual modesty he has underestimated the financial effects of the measure. The figure for 1988–89 is estimated at £1·5 million, and the figure for each of the following two years is £1,700,000. That relates to the new commissioner for the rights of trade union members to be established and to operate under those clauses. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that.
      Mr. Haynes: That is interesting. It shows that, as time goes on, it will cost more and more. Given that membership of trade unions is dropping, many people will run to the commissioner to complain about various matters in respect of their trade unions. The Government are obviously prepared to set up a scabs' charter.
      Mr. Clelland: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although there is no upper limit in the Bill in respect of the cost of the commissioner to the taxpayer, the Government propose to save £10 million a year on the legal aid system? Surely this again shows the Government's priorities when it comes to justice and fairness.
      Mr. Haynes: That is what Conservatism is all about. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent reminded us about what happened in the early 20th century. The message is coming over to the Labour Benches loud and clear. We shall go back to those days of the early 20th century, when the Government shackled the trade unions. This is what it is all about, yet the Government talk about freedom of the individual.
      Finally, some names have been suggested for appointment as commissioner. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent picked the right one when he suggested David Hart, given the marvellous job that he did for the Government in Nottinghamshire during the miners' dispute. He was running from pit to pit, and from branch to branch, convincing chappies that they should be doing this, that and the other, contrary to what the National Union of Mineworkers had decided. Is it any wonder that we had a dispute?
      Mr. Foot: He was at No. 10 Downing street, too.
      Mr. Haynes: Yes, that is right. He was under instructions from No. 10. I understand that he used to work there. There is a clear connection.
      What experience is required for such a job? Will this commissioner have trade union experience, management experience or financial experience? Will he have anything like CAB experience? We want to know.
      Mr. Clelland: Does my hon. Friend agree that the only qualifications needed are those of an agent provocateur? That is why Mr. David Hart fits the bill so well.
      Mr. Haynes: I take my hon. Friend's point. The Minister must tell the nation that taxpayers' money is being used to appoint this fellow and his staff and to run his office. We want to know how much money will be spent, and how it will be spent. If the Bill is enacted and a commissioner—or, as we like to call him, a commissar—is appointed, he will be a tool of the Government. He will not be a tool of the trade union member. He will be answerable to the Secretary of State.
      The Secretary of State is assuming more powers under the Bill. One of those powers will enable him to control the

      61
      commissioner and to tell him exactly what he is to do. I do not care what the Minister says when he rises to the Dispatch Box. I welcome the Secretary of State back at 6.5 pm. I, my colleagues and people outside the House want to know, before his appointment, what kind of experience the commissioner will have. We may want to play a part. We want to find out exactly what kind of qualifications are needed.
      Mr. Clay: There is a slight difficulty in respect of this clause. I support it, but, given the function that it should perform, it is narrowly drawn. I wish to draw the attention of my Front Bench colleagues to this point and put one or two suggestions to them.
      As I understand it, only an existing trade union member who has been unfairly dismissed by reason of trade union membership or activities can seek the commissar's assistance and go to the tribunal. What about those people who do not get a job in the first place because of their trade union membership? This is a serious new clause to which the Government have not responded in any way.
      I recall last Monday night's "World in Action" programme about the Economic League and the extraordinary situation in which a spy can be involved in a trade union for years, go to meetings and collect names, all of which are used to form employers' blacklists. It is not just the Economic League and Aims of Industry which do that. When an unemployed trade union activist goes to an employer seeking work, the employer can get out his blacklist and say, "We're not having you". As a trade unionist, will that person have the right to go to the commissar? If there was a genuine commissioner for the rights of trades unionists, he would serve no more essential purpose than for people to be able to complain to him that they have been blacklisted for trade union activity. The Bill does not cover that situation. Unfortunately, new clause 3 does not appear to cover it either, although I am sure that that is a technical oversight.
      Mr. Allen: Surely this is the ideal opportunity for the Government to condemn such activity openly from the Dispatch Box.
      Mr. Clay: My hon. Friend is right. If the Government were serious in their wish to assist trade unions, rather than continually to harass them, they would accept this new clause and table amendments to widen the scope of the measure. The Government must explain why there is no legal provision to prevent this practice. Why do the Government shed crocodile tears from time to time in Committee about those people who do not wish to belong to a trade union, yet are happy to reap the benefits of this provision and to insert legal protection and the opportunity to go to the commissioner if things do not go their way? If the Government feel so much sympathy for people in that position, why do they feel no sympathy for people who are hounded out of work and are prevented from working for years—sometimes for the rest of their lives — simply because they have been known as members of trade unions? If the Government had the slightest sincerity, they would do something about that. The clause represents an excellent opportunity to do so.
      It seems also that the clause could be widened to deal with many other matters apart from unfair dismissal. For instance, why not give the so-called commissioner—the commissar — the power to enforce some other trade union rights? It is interesting that, in other parts of the Bill,
      62
      there will be provisions to allow trade unions to be harassed, particularly, I suspect, lay representatives of trade unions, by having to produce seven years of accounting records, down to branch level. That will make the life of the average, decent, hard-working lay trade union officer, such as a branch secretary or branch treasurer, quite impossible. As such onerous obligations are being laid upon them, it is interesting that trade union officials can go to the commissioner to say that they want the right to have time off work—thereby enforcing that part of the employment legislation—so that they can cope with all the additional onerous harassments that the rest of the Bill places on them.
      Obviously, a full-time trade union officer is provided with some facilities by the trade union that he represents, but many lay trade union representatives, such as shop stewards and conveners, have extremely poor facilities. Their employers are so hostile to the existence of trade unions that they make it as difficult as possible for them to carry out their functions. It is about time we had some legislation that obliged employers to provide proper facilities for trade unions in work places. If we had such legislation, new clause 3 could be widened a bit so that if employers fail to provide satisfactory facilities and sufficient time off, which they are obliged to provide, for them to cope with all the onerous, aggressive and malevolent practices that the Bill imposes on them, trade union members could go to the commissioner and ask for assistance. That would be a serious purpose of the Bill. There is no reason why the Government, if they were in the slightest way serious about trade union rights, should not concede all such purposes.
      Mr. Allen: Is that not an even greater reason for a trade union harassment officer, if he is to be the sort of person whom the Government say he should be, to have great experience in the trade union movement, to have a track record and know the ins and outs of the trade union movement, rather than merely act as the acolyte of the Secretary of State in such narrow terms? A broader range of knowledge, which was not evident among Conservative Members in Committee, would give some credibility—not a lot of credibility—to the office.
      Mr. Clay: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. If the Government were serious about a Bill or a clause to assist the rights of trade union members, the person who had the job of carrying it out would, by definition, have had considerable experience of the way in which trade unions operate, and know their ideals, objectives and practices. Of course we know all that is not so, because we have referred to the proposed person not as the commissioner, as the Government do, but as the harassment commisar or the harassment office. As we have said in Committee and in the House, the clause has nothing to do with the rights of trade union members. It is concerned with the rights of mavericks, and is to be manipulated by Conservative organisations, industry, the Economic League, people such as David Hart, who may get the job—that is the irony of it—and by the Freedom Association to harass trade unions.
      Of course, the new clause gives the Government the opportunity to say, "Hold on. You are wrong. We have a little bit of balance, much as we hate and detest trade unions, and wish the Bill to make life as difficult as possible for them. We recognise that some elementary

      63
      philosophical balance is required, and we shall at least make some small gesture towards recognising that if we describe a job as that of a commissioner for trade union rights. We shall at least enable the commissioner occasionally to do some small thing to assist trade union rights." In effect, without clause 3, the commissioner will never do anything to assist any genuine trade union rights. All he will do is harass trade unions.
      I am slightly unhappy about the wording of the clause in respect of non-trade union members. We should talk also about the rights of non-trade union members, but not in the way in which the Government do. I do not refer to people who enjoy the benefits of collective organisation and are quite happy to work in conditions that have been negotiated by trade unions and receive pay, but do not wish to be a member of the club. I refer to people—very often young people, women, ethnic minorities, and those who work for small and often unscrupulous employers—who have never had the opportunity to join a trade union in the first place. If there is a genuine commissioner for trade union rights, such people should have the opportunity to seek advice from the commissioner and, possibly, representation at an industrial tribunal, in the way in which the clause suggests for others, to pursue a case.
      We have had a long debate in Committee and in the House about the comparison between the functions of the commissioner and legal aid. Many valid points have clearly demonstrated the Government's bias. But another point has not been sufficiently stressed. In reality, compared with legal aid applicants, those who complain to the commissioner against a trade union and those who wish to get the commissioner's assistance in harassing a trade union will find it easier to do so than to get legal aid. In respect of legal aid, it is not always entirely clear to people whether they will have to pay something. Not everyone entirely understands that the first brief interview is free. Many people think, "It will take a lot more than that. I shall probably end up paying." It is difficult to work out whether, depending on one's circumstances, one is entitled to legal aid. With the trade union harassment officer, people will know it will not cost them anything. The Government have made sure of that. In a sense, it will be a much more open door.
      We need a representative for workers' rights who will give the kind of assistance that the harassment officer will give mavericks, and who, in the same open way as the commissioner, will assist people who are genuinely concerned about trade union rights.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Bob Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that legal assistance in tribunals was not wished upon trade union members as a result of some quirk on their part? Does my hon. Friend agree that the development of industrial tribunals has meant that, at tribunal after tribunal, employers have employed barristers and solicitors to represent their side? In effect, they have corrupted what was meant to be a largely informal arrangement whereby workers could represent themselves. Employers have so biased, shaped and prejudiced tribunals that workers are now desperately looking around to try to obtain some sort of legal representation.
      Mr. Clay: My hon. Friend has made an extremely valuable point. He reminds me of the debate that is taking place at the moment in which trade union members of tribunals are beginning to say that the whole thing is so rigged now that their job is impossible. They say that it is pathetic to observe the complete imbalance between the barristers and all the rest representing employers on the one hand and trade union officials or lay representatives doing their best—or, on some occasions, a trade union member acting on his own behalf for some reason—on the other. They say that the imbalance is so appalling that they wonder whether it is really worth carrying on with the farce. They wonder whether they should pull out and expose the hypocrisy of the whole process because the bias is so great.
      We have another difficulty with which the commissioner might be able to deal. Those representing employees' interests at a tribunal sometimes have difficulties with their employers—for example, in getting time off work or after they have had time off work. If the Government are serious about trade union rights, they could examine that possibility, and it could perhaps be worked into the new clause.
      I was talking about non-trade union members. If we are to have a commissioner, there is huge scope for him to protect workers' rights. I shall refer to one example, about which I have written to the Minister, to illustrate the sort of work that the commissioner could usefully do, instead of harassing trade unions. Some young people contacted me saying that they had answered an advertisement for a job, in which they thought they would be properly employed. They went along and found out that it was not a proper job but a salesman's job. They were told that they would be paid £120 a week and would start to receive bonuses when they started selling things. They found that they could not sell anything. After a week or two they had not been paid a penny, and the employer said, "Well you had better go on signing on." In fact, they had been told not to sign off the dole in the first place.
      As I have said this outside the House, I am happy to say it inside the House. Effectively, the employer had induced them illegally to claim benefit. The young people came to me because they did not have a commissioner to go to, as they might under new clause 3. I wrote to the Minister saying, "How about giving them an amnesty so that they can provide evidence against this crooked employer?" I asked him at least to agree that they would not be prosecuted because for a week or two they had wrongly claimed benefit. They had not received any other income while they had been claiming benefits, so it was only a technical offence. The Minister replied that he could not give an amnesty.
      It is interesting to note the contrast between the attitude of the Department of Employment to fraudulent employers and its attitude when it is hounding and chasing people who it thinks have illegally claimed social security or unemployment benefit. That is something else with which the commissioner could help trade union members and others.
      Ms. Short: We have touched on this subject before, and I agree with my hon. Friend that it is a growing problem, which affects not just one small group of people in his constituency. It is a growing malpractice among employers, who use the desperation of those on benefit to force them to work illegally and thus trap them. Once they

      65
      are claiming benefit and getting payment from the employer, which they know is illegal, the employer has them trapped. He can threaten to report them if they protest about any injustice at work. I am coming across more and more cases in my constituency; I am sure that the practice is growing.
      Mr. Clay: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is no proper statutory avenue for such people to take. That is why it would be useful to widen the new clause to provide a commissioner to deal with workers' rights—and if ever there was a case of workers' rights being under threat, this is one. Although the Minister told me that the young people could not have an amnesty, one or two of them were courageous enough to put their names to statements.
      I was appalled when the regional fraud officer of the Department of Employment told me that the Department had never managed to produce a successful prosecution against an employer. He said that he knew that the practice went on and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) said, that it is growing, but that in the northern region there had never been a successful prosecution. I am not surprised, because the young people were in a very difficult position. They did not want to go to a solicitor. They did not understand all that. What use would a solicitor have been anyway? They did not have a trade union to protect them. They had come off the dole and gone for a job in desperation. All that they could do was to turn to a local advice centre funded by a hard-pressed local authority that is heavily penalised and then seek the advice of their Member of Parliament.
      That is the sort of case that a commissioner for workers' rights could usefully deal with. He could help people who are told that they cannot join a union or that, if they do, this, that or the other might happen to them. He could help people who have been dismissed for joining a union. He could help those who, when trying to organise a union, are put on impossible shifts so that they cannot talk to other employees. He could help the person who has a known trade union record and is immediately transferred somewhere else to work on his own—the person who is told, "You will have to move to another factory 20 or 30 miles from where you live. There is not a place here for you any longer." When faced with the malpractices that employers get up to, employees could go to the commissioner to seek assistance in court and at tribunals.
      Mr. Allen: Is not my hon. Friend's suggestion completely consistent with what Conservative Members said in Committee? They said that they were not about bashing the trade union movement even though they have tried to create the trade union movement in their own image. Therefore, everything that my hon. Friend suggests should be wholly supported by Conservative Members.
      Mr. Clay: Of course. As I said, if we were seriously talking about the rights of trade unions, the Government would accept that trade unions are best able to judge for themselves the rights that they want. They certainly do want the right to litigate against each other for alleged minor infringements of balloting rules and so on. They want not only to exercise their existing rights under the health and safety legislation but to have more rights under better health and safety legislation. They want the right to organise. They want the right to time off and facilities in the workplace. They want to be able to hold union meetings.
      66
      The question of rights is an interesting one. The Bill is enthusiastic in its assertion that everyone must hold ballots for everything and that there must be postal ballots. However, if the Government were serious about trade union rights, they would insert into the Bill a little clause to say that meetings could be held when required in any work place. It is no good the Government saying that that would be too complicated; one has only to consider what they have done to try to get round alleged selective balloting and the tangle that they got into to over that. It was clear that they did not even understand their own Bill for quite a long time. There is no reason why we should not have a simple provision giving the automatic right to have mass meetings on full pay. The Government allege that they are keen on unions being able to consult their members. Therefore, when a union wants to consult its members, it should be able to have a mass meeting in or out of normal time and paid by the employer. That would be a very good provision. The commissioner could enforce that important aspect of trade union rights under the new clause. Of course, no such rights appear in the Bill, which is about nothing but harassment.
      I hope that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who is chairman of the parliamentary Labour party employment committee, will agree with me that we should develop the ideas in the new clause. We should expand the trade union rights that could be enforced by a genuine commissioner for trade union and workers' rights rather than the disgusting and pathetic harassment commissar whom the Government are appointing.
      Mr. Andrew Welsh: I hope that the Minister will respond to the specific point raised by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) about the alleged activities of the Economic League. It is a matter of basic democracy that citizens should be free from a potential threat to their lives and livelihoods from a secret "big brother" type of activity such as seems to be emerging from that organisation. If true, such activities are causing widespread concern beyond the House. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will address those points.
      Mr. Allen: I thank my hon. colleague for giving way, but I ask him not to raise his hopes too high, as many of the organisations that donate money to keep the Economy League afloat also donate to the Conservative party. I, too, will be interested to see whether the Minister takes the opportunity to condemn from the Dispatch Box the activities of the Economic League. However, I ask my hon. colleague not to hold his breath and wait for that.
      Mr. Welsh: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but my faith in human nature always tries to come through. This matter goes beyond party politics and to the basic democratic rights of citizens to be free from such "big brother" type activities, especially when they affect their lives and livelihoods. I hope that, as requested, the Minister will exercise his mind on that point.
      6.30 pm
      It is significant that opposition to the proposal for a commissioner comes from a wide range of sources. That leads to reasonable questioning of the setting up of the post of commissioner. The new clause is merely an attempt to patch up and improve what is basically a flawed Government proposal. As proposed, the commissioner

      67
      will be a figure of possible division and dispute within unions. He could be used by individuals deliberately to disrupt joint action and the overall business of trade unions. Such a situation would not be in anyone's interest. If the Bill remains unamended there is the problem that, instead of producing all the benefits that the Government claim would come from such a post, the commissioner would, on the contrary, himself become the subject of controversy and division, leading to distrust. Indeed, we have heard the beginnings of that in the debate, and if that came to pass it would detract from any case made by the commissioner. Surely the post must be non-political, but there is no guarantee, in any shape or form, in the Bill of such a non-political appointment. The new clause goes at least some way towards giving the commissioner a more balanced role.
      There is also a danger that the new external agency could detract from and harm any new democratic rights given to trade union members. I believe that that is exactly the opposite of what the Government say they are trying to achieve.
      We are entitled to ask what real case was made for extending the role of the Certification Officer. Why did the Government reject that simpler and easier move, which builds on existing institutions, rather than creating instead a whole new system of bureaucracy?
      There are massive inbuilt difficulties in the Government's proposal to which they have not really addressed themselves. The appointment must be fundamentally non-political. It is hard enough for trade unions to swallow the idea of a commissioner, but it would lead to enormous problems if the person appointed were seen to be anti-trade union. We have all heard the beginnings of such feelings towards that person, unless that person is beyond all suspicion. It will be an almost impossible task for anyone appointed to gain the good will and good faith of the trade unions and their members unless that person is seen to be above such suspicions. Given that, how does the Minister intend to proceed in choosing such a "perfect" commissioner? The proposed legislation puts any appointee in an impossible one-sided position unless the commissioner looks at the employers, as this new clause seeks to allow him to do.
      New clause 3 should be supported as a medicine for improving a bad and ill-thought out proposal. I hope that it will be supported.
      Mr. Cryer: I should like to make a few brief comments about the new clause that my hon. Friends have tabled. It is a valuable addition to the debate on the Bill. I do not expect the Government to give it their support because the basic thrust of their legislation is to attack the trade union movement: not to make it more accountable or more democratic, but to smash it. The Government will not succeed, but that is their point and purpose. Therefore, I suspect that any new clause such as this, which seeks to redress the balance which is weighing heavily against trade unionists, will receive short shrift from the Government. I am willing to be proven wrong and if the Minister would like to cut short my remarks by intervening to say that the Government will accept the new clause, I shall welcome that and forgo my few moments of comment.
      On the question of assistance for trade unionists, the new clause simply and modestly —I am surprised that
      68
      my hon. Friends have tabled such a modest new clause and shall discuss its modest nature shortly—attempts to give some sort of advice and guidance to trade union members who are facing the sack or the threat of dismissal because of their trade union activities or their non-membership of a trade union. Again, I shall elaborate on that shortly.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for—
      Mr. Clay: Sunderland, North.
      Mr. Cryer: That's right, for Sunderland, North. I knew that it was somewhere in the north-east region, which has produced many distinguished Socialists, such as my hon. Friend.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) pointed out, the fact is that when trade unionists go to an industrial tribunal, which was intended as an informal discussion and decision on difficulties such as unfair dismissal, referred to in the new clause, they now face the difficulty that they are up against barristers employed by the employers, who can afford the huge and lavish fees that barristers command, or against solicitors, who charge whatever they do charge, but it can amount to several hundred pounds for a tribunal appearance.
      Sometimes, trade unions can provide a legal service but the reality is that with a declining level of employment, trade union membership is declining, as is trade union income, so the sort of service that trade unions would like to provide to a member going to a tribunal is, of necessity, limited. Therefore, trade unionists going before a tribunal find themselves up against paid legal hacks who know the ropes, but they have to present their own case.
      In fact, employers often comment, outrageously, that an unfair dismissal tribunal is an expensive business because they have to hire a solicitor. However, it was not in any way intended that that would be the case. The sort of provision contained in the new clause would enable some guidance to be given by a powerful figure.
      The Government are to appoint the commissioner and he or she will not be receiving supplementary benefit levels. He or she will not be paid at, for example, the level of a caretaker in a state-maintained school. The salary of the commissioner will be in the stratosphere. If the commissioner works part-time, for two or three days per week, that person will receive about £30,000 or £40,000. If the commissioner works full-time, he or she will probably earn £50,000, £60,000 or £70,000 per year. In our society, that sort of money is meant to give status and, therefore, power.
      If a trade unionist goes to the commissioner and obtains advice under the terms of the new clause, that advice alone will assist the trade unionist in arguing his case. If the commissioner says, "I think that you have a very good case", that alone would pre-empt any further action because an employer will accept the position of the commissioner.
      I must make my position clear. I do not think that the commissioner is necessary at all. I think that it is an unfair interference in free-standing organisations that, over the years, by and large, have run their affairs with democracy and fairness. Of course there have been exceptions, but no one in the Conservative party can say that there have been no exceptions to the normal standard of conduct that we expect from members of the Conservative Cabinet, whose conduct has not been unflawed. However, all Conservative

      69
      Cabinets are not to be condemned because one or two Ministers, from time to time, have erred in their public and private behaviour.
      We can say with confidence that the vast majority of trade unions have been conducted honourably and have carried out their duties well, and that there is absolutely no case for the commissioner. He will be a spy for the Government because the commissioner, who we are asking to carry out duties under the new clause and to give balance, will be appointed on the same principle that the Government have appointed every area health authority chair and every chair for every public body on which they can lay their dirty hands.
      They will appoint convinced Tories who will carry out the decisions of the Tory Government, and who will be like puppets pulled by strings from No. 10. If the Government have appointed people who are not Tories to a wide range of positions, let the Minister respond and give us a list of people who have not been carefully politically vetted by the Government. We can assume that the commissioner will not be some wonderful, neutral person who will do his or her job without any prejudice.
      The commissioner will have a set of prejudices. He will go through the usual hypocritical motions that we in Britain are rather too fond of accepting. He or she will say "Of course I shall do my best by both sides, by the employers, and, of course, by the employees." We know, by virtue of the legislation and by virtue of the fact that the Government are the most Right-wing Government ever—
      Mr. Michael Jack: That is why we are so successful.
      Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman says that that is why they are so successful. They are not successful in electoral terms. The Opposition is divided, but that will end. The Government are not successful in economic terms, because in Scotland, where the hon. Gentleman comes from, there are lengthy dole queues. They are not successful in terms of the National Health Service because every other Conservative Member—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been very good up to now in keeping to new clause 3. I hope that he will not allow himself to be detracted from it by sedentary remarks.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Cryer: I was provoked by the intervention of the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack). I should not have allowed myself to be drawn, because I am concerned solely with new clause 3. Before I was rudely provoked, I was saying that the commissioner will not be a paragon of neutral virtue. He or she will be prejudiced, and those prejudices will match the prejudices of the Right-wing Government.
      Therefore, it is important that the Bill should have some balances and checks. After all, we are always told that the British constitution — that vague and amorphous collection of rules—is full of balances and checks so that we maintain glorious neutrality. However, it is not quite like that, and we know it. We are trying to produce constitutional checks in the Bill. My guess is that the Government, in their Right-wing extremism, will not accept new clause 3 because it is a check to bring something to bear on the side of labour.
      70
      New clause 3 seeks to provide a balance between capital and labour. Trade unions are simply bodies of people trying to organise sufficient strength to equal the power of capital. The power of capital can determine the disposition of production factors—the location of the factory, the machinery inside it, the hours of work and the level of wages. The trade union movement attempts simply to equal that power by saying that people, throughout their lives, should try to equate that power and modify those decisions in the interests of the community in the factory, the offices or the shop premises. The new clause is trying to bring something to bear on the side of David against the Goliath of the employers.
      Conservative Members have maintained that trade unions are all-powerful. That simply is not true. It never has been true. It is a myth that British trade unions have been extremely powerful. Since the Conservative Government came to power, with one or two isolated exceptions where we have had minor victories, trade unions have never been able to halt the ruthless programme of closures and the massacre of the British manufacturing industry that has cost 2 million jobs since 1979, mostly in the north of England.
      New clause 3 clearly is necessary to put some weight on the side of those who continually battle, day in and day out, against the onslaught from employers who are confident in their attacks against the trade union movement because the Government are organising it through legislation.
      Mr. Allen: I have been looking at the references in the Bill to remuneration for the trade union harassment officer. The Bill states:
      "There shall be paid to the Commissioner such remuneration and such travelling or other allowance as the Secretary of State may determine … Payments required and made under this paragraph shall be made by the Secretary of State out of money provided by Parliament."
      There is also a lengthy paragraph about the payment of travelling expenses and so on to applicants. It seems that the £20,000, £30,000, £40,000, £60,000 or £70,000 to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) referred may be merely speculation. There is absolutely no ceiling on the expenses and salary for this job.
      Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend has made a point that emphasises the need for new clause 3. We are discussing people who will live in the stratosphere of incomes. Such people will not be aware of or understand the struggle on the shop floor. They will not be aware of the little indignities that people have to suffer. People have to wait outside doors to ask for time to go to meetings or to discuss health and safety at work, as such matters are left to the discretion of employers and not to the employees or workers. They will not have had to face the possibility of dismissal because of trade union activities.
      Lord Wedderburn, an accepted expert on industrial relations and industrial law, has pointed out that people are not normally dismissed for trade union activities. The employer usually waits for something to latch on to in order to get rid of a person for some infringement and not because he is a shop steward. We know who normally heads a list of redundancies — the shop stewards. Employers will say that it is merely chance, but we know that it is part of the intimidation process to stop people participating in trade union activities.

      71
      Recently a relative of mine was asked to work three weekends in a row. When she said, "What about trade union membership?", the managing director said that it would be frowned on. What was she to do? Was she to go against the managing director? What would the consequence of that have been? It would almost certainly have meant that her work would have come under close scrutiny and some opportunity taken to dismiss her, not because she was a trade union member, but for some other entirely spurious reason.
      The new clause would provide guidance and assistance from this highly paid commissioner to people who face double jeopardy. They include sacked miners. Several miners have been picked on viciously and vindictively by the vicious and vindictive management of British Coal. Following the miners' strike, miners found not guilty of any offence were given their cards and sent down the road. They were not re-employed. As they had been to a court and had been found not guilty, that should have been the end of the matter. Equally, if they had been found guilty and punished that should have been the end of the matter. Miners have faced double jeopardy because the NCB, now British Coal, has used that excuse not to allow them to return to work.
      The commissioner under the new clause could put his weight behind those people who were merely carrying out trade union activities. The miners were simply plucked from a picket line by police activists who wanted someone to arrest, and had a charge stuck on them. Even where the charge was not sustained, the miners were dismissed. At present the miners have only the support of the NUM under its president Arthur Scargill who has maintained a principled attitude towards this. With new clause 3 that sort of injustice would at least come a step nearer rectification.
      Mr. Clay: Does my hon. Friend know that on several occasions some Labour Members from the northern region have visited British Coal management in that region about these matters and have drawn attention to the names of sacked miners, who were not only found not guilty in the courts but ordered to be reinstated by industrial tribunals, which British Coal has refused to do? Is he aware that on one such occasion a senior figure in British Coal implied that British Coal understood what was right and wrong better than the courts? In other words, he implied that British Coal felt it was above the courts. When one considers employers like that, does it not make out a case for the tremendously powerful commissioner figure to be directed against such employers, rather than to harass trade unions?
      Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That would fall exactly under new clause 3(a) which deals with any
      "complaint by an employee of unfair dismissal by reason of trade union membership, activities of non-membership."
      Obviously, it would be right to bring in the commissioner on the side of the employee.
      When my hon. Friend made his intervention I was reminded of a note which I have with me. Last night, I was talking to a friend who was telling me about his firm. I shall not mention its name because of the possibility of repercussions. A man has been unemployed for about five years although he is skilled, and we are always told that
      72
      there is a shortage of skilled people. The firm he worked for, machine tool manufacturers, was closed — part of the booming Thatcher economy—and the other people at the firm found jobs, but he did not. Why? Because he was the convener of the shop stewards. This new clause would help such people.
      It angers me because I can see the Ministers sitting ready to bring out the clichés. The Minister will stand up and say, "The Government are concerned about all these things and about innocent parties who happen to be members of a trade union and who for one reason or another or because of the intransigence of their employers, which we do not like, have been unemployed for years." We know that the Government are aiming at that. The consequences flow from their legislation.
      The attacks on the trade union movement which the Government have instituted consistently since 1980 have reduced the power of organised labour, which has never been as great as that of organised capital in our history. The Government have beaten the heads of ordinary working men and women who have nothing more than their labour to offer. They do not have factories, machines or offices. Most of them are lucky if they have half a mortgage for a house, and the houses are not grand detached houses, but ordinary terraced or council houses. Those are the people who will be affected.
      The Government will reject the new clause because they cynically discard the aspirations and hopes of ordinary working people. That is why we shall continue to treat the Government with the contempt that they so richly deserve.
      Mr. Nicholls: I shall try to do justice to the many speeches that we have heard. It says much for the ingenuity of hon. Members that they have been able to have such a wide-ranging debate and yet remain in order.
      The hon. Members for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) and for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) raised particular points about legal aid, some of which I dealt with in my opening remarks. Legal aid certainly is means-tested, and should be, because it is being applied for and, if granted, will be used to obtain private rights and, indeed, possibly monetary compensation, too. If one is talking about a system that should be made available to obtain public rights, obviously means-testing would not be appropriate.
      The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) treated us to a display which we all richly enjoyed. He had some particular suggestions about whom we might appoint as the trade union commissioner, and that was taken up by other hon. Gentlemen. I am not entirely sure what they want me to make of those recommendations. Perhaps I should not speculate at this stage. The essence of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was that he regarded the legislation as being motivated by sentiments which were both bad and vindictive. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment cannot be accused of being bad and vindictive, and whatever sinister suspicions the right hon. Gentleman may harbour about me, in no sense can I be said to be the author of the legislation. In all seriousness, I cannot accept the idea that we are bad and vindictive.
      The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) quoted from paragraph 6(9) of the Green Paper with some idea that he might embarrass us. If time permitted I would read the rest of that paragraph, because it points out why it is necessary to have a trade union commissioner. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) made a

      73
      number of points which amounted to the fact that he was convinced that the trade union commissioner would be a commissar for trade union harassment. He repeated that on a number of occasions. However, the fact that the commissioner cannot act on his own volition and has discretion whether or not to take up cases referred to him should be a safeguard.
      7 pm
      The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) shared a doubt expressed by the hon. Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) regarding the political impartiality of the trades union commissioner. It was suggested that it might be a Tory appointment. I do not believe that it would be appropriate to go round prying into the political allegiances or otherwise of anyone who accepted any form of public office. Unless statute provides, no statutory authority can be directed by a Minister of the Crown and that is the best safeguard against any political partiality.
      The hon. Member for Ashfield was also concerned about Conservative Trade Unionists infiltration. I can only believe that he has such a concern because he believes that it is impossible for Conservatives to be members of a trades union, and that is a bizarre idea to hold. However, I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman for concluding his remarks by describing me as "politically vicious". Listening to his other remarks I was afraid he might cut short a political career before it had started. Although he believes that I am personally nice, I thank him for describing me as "politically vicious". However, I must formally deny that I am politically vicious, but I certainly would not deny his other claim.
      The hon. Member for Sunderland, North spoke of blacklisting or the right not to employ people because they are trade unionists. Obviously there is a distinction to be made between dismissing people for trade union activity and trying to dress it up as something else. There is no doubt where we all stand. One cannot be dismissed for trade union activities. The only fetters that we put on the right of an employer to discriminate against somebody, even before he has employed him, are based on either sex or race. We regard that as correct. However, for the reasons that I stated in Committee, possibly as compulsively as I do now, we do not believe that an employer should be fettered if he decides to employ someone because he is or is not a member of a trade union.
      In the end one must return to the words of the new clause and see what it hopes to address. We believe that there is a fatal underlying fallacy throughout the new clause in so far as it tries to equate the legal aid system with the assistance provided by the commissioner. For all the reasons that I have tried to lay before the House, we cannot regard that approach as valid. Therefore, we urge the House to reject the new clause.
      Mr. Meacher: With the leave of the House, I will reply to the debate.
      A number of my hon. Friends have referred to the Minister as being conciliatory and congenial. I believe that they were rather generous, especially having listened to his rather discursive and dismissive remarks, which in no way sought to answer the major points that have been made by my hon. Friends.
      I listened with great care to the Under-Secretary, but he has put forward only three arguments in defence of the Government's position. The first was that, despite the
      74
      existence of the courts and the Certification Officer, trade unionists need the commissioner to assist them in actions against trade unions while industrial tribunals are already available for actions against the employer. The Minister also said that industrial tribunals were expeditious and helpful, but the fact is that there are considerable delays. Indeed, in their White Paper on reducing the barriers to business the Government are proposing a £25 access fee.
      The Minister has not answered the key point. Indeed, there is no answer. If trade union members have access to a Certification Officer and the courts, but still need the commissioner, surely trade union members who have access to industrial tribunals also need the commissioner in respect of actions against the employer. That is our central argument.
      Secondly, the Under-Secretary said that the commissioner cannot look for trouble, but that is a disingenuous statement if ever there was one. The clauses are drafted as positive encouragement to litigation rather than to conciliation. I draw the attention of the House to the tell-tale phrase in paragraph 6 of the Green Paper:
      "the courts are not being used."
      No doubt that was written by the last civil servant at the Department of Employment with a grasp of reality, the last man in a universe of Ionesco's rhinos frantically signalling the Government's real intentions to the outside world. If we had some truth and honesty from Ministers when they come to the Dispatch Box they would say that trade union members are not using the courts against their unions and that, of course, there is much abuse. There may not be any evidence of it, but the Government know about it because they read about it every day in the Daily Mail. The Government's view is, "The courts have got to be used and we will jolly well make sure that they are." That is the role of the commissioner.
      The third argument advanced by the Minister was that the commissioner would use discretion on whether to take up issues. That may be true, but I believe that the Minister will forgive us if, taking account of the Government's hostility towards trade unions and given that the Government will exercise the same kind of partisan patronage in making the appointment, we believe that the commissioner will exercise a malevolent discretion against trade unions. Indeed, my hon. Friends have repeatedly referred to the appointment and one described the commissioner as the nationalisation of the privatisation role of that agent provocateur, David Hart. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that we suppose that the commissioner will exercise such malevolent discretion.
      The true grievances of the trade union members are not against their unions. That is why they do not use the Certification Officer or the courts. Their real grievances are in respect of employers and concern the lack of consultation and information over unfair dismissals — 30,000 cases every year are heard and one tenth are upheld by the tribunals. They concern health and safety matters. There has been a major reduction in the number of health and safety inspectors and a consequential rise in the serious maiming of many workers. Trade union members have grievances about the illegally low wages — below what is agreed by the wages inspectorate—that are paid by employers. They have grievances about the right to trade union membership in the first place, as instanced at GCHQ.
      None of those issues will be within the purview of the commissioner as drafted in the Bill. This is a dissident's

      75
      charter and that is what the Government want. We are opposed to that, and for that reason we propose to push the new clause to a vote.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 198, Noes 243.

      Division No. 168]

      [7.7 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Allen, Graham

      Foster, Derek

      Alton, David

      Foulkes, George

      Anderson, Donald

      Fyfe, Mrs Maria

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Galbraith, Samuel

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      George, Bruce

      Ashton, Joe

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Gordon, Ms Mildred

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Graham, Thomas

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Barron, Kevin

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Battle, John

      Grocott, Bruce

      Beckett, Margaret

      Hardy, Peter

      Beggs, Roy

      Haynes, Frank

      Bell, Stuart

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Heffer, Eric S.

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

      Henderson, Douglas

      Bermlngham, Gerald

      Hinchliffe, David

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Boateng, Paul

      Holland, Stuart

      Boyes, Roland

      Home Robertson, John

      Bradley, Keith

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Howells, Geraint

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Buchan, Norman

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Buckley, George

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Caborn, Richard

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Illsley, Eric

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Ingram, Adam

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Janner, Greville

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      John, Brynmor

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Clay, Bob

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Clelland, David

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Cohen, Harry

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Coleman, Donald

      Lambie, David

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Lamond, James

      Corbett, Robin

      Leighton, Ron

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

      Cousins, Jim

      Lewis, Terry

      Cox, Tom

      Litherland, Robert

      Crowther, Stan

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Cryer, Bob

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Cummings, J.

      McAllion, John

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      McAvoy, Tom

      Cunningham, Dr John

      McCartney, Ian

      Dalyell, Tam

      McCrea, Rev William

      Darling, Alastair

      Macdonald, Calum

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      McFall, John

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Dewar, Donald

      McKelvey, William

      Dixon, Don

      McLeish, Henry

      Dobson, Frank

      McNamara, Kevin

      Doran, Frank

      McTaggart, Bob

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Madden, Max

      Dunnachie, James

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Marek, Dr John

      Eadie, Alexander

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Martlew, Eric

      Fearn, Ronald

      Maxton, John

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Meacher, Michael

      Flannery, Martin

      Michael, Alun

      Flynn, Paul

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      76

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Short, Clare

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Skinner, Dennis

      Morley, Elliott

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

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

      Mowlam, Marjorie

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

      Mullin, Chris

      Snape, Peter

      Murphy, Paul

      Steinberg, Gerald

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Stott, Roger

      O'Brien, William

      Strang, Gavin

      O'Neill, Martin

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Parry, Robert

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Patchett, Terry

      Turner, Dennis

      Pendry, Tom

      Wall, Pat

      Pike, Peter

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      Prescott, John

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Radice, Giles

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Redmond, Martin

      Welsh, Michael (Doncasfer N)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Reid, John

      Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Wilson, Brian

      Robertson, George

      Winnick, David

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Rogers, Allan

      Worthington, Anthony

      Rooker, Jeff

      Wray, James

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Mr. Frank Cook and

      Sheerman, Barry

      Mrs. Llin Golding.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Alexander, Richard

      Chope, Christopher

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Allason, Rupert

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Amos, Alan

      Cope, John

      Arbuthnot, James

      Couchman, James

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Cran, James

      Ashby, David

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Atkins, Robert

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Atkinson, David

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Baldry, Tony

      Durant, Tony

      Batiste, Spencer

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Bellingham, Henry

      Favell, Tony

      Bendall, Vivian

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Benyon, W.

      Gale, Roger

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Gill, Christopher

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Gorst, John

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Gow, Ian

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Boswell, Tim

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Greenway, John (Rydale)

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Gregory, Conal

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Bowis, John

      Grist, Ian

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Ground, Patrick

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Grylls, Michael

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Brazier, Julian

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Bright, Graham

      Hannam, John

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Harris, David

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Burns, Simon

      Hayes, Jerry

      Butterfill, John

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hayward, Robert

      Carttiss, Michael

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Cash, William

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      77

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Price, Sir David

      Hill, James

      Raffan, Keith

      Hind, Kenneth

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Redwood, John

      Holt, Richard

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Howard, Michael

      Riddick, Graham

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Rost, Peter

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Rowe, Andrew

      Irvine, Michael

      Ryder, Richard

      Jack, Michael

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Jackson, Robert

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Janman, Timothy

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Key, Robert

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Knapman, Roger

      Shersby, Michael

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Knowles, Michael

      Speed, Keith

      Knox, David

      Speller, Tony

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Lang, Ian

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Latham, Michael

      Squire, Robin

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Steen, Anthony

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Stern, Michael

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Stevens, Lewis

      Lightbown, David

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Lilley, Peter

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

      Lord, Michael

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Sumberg, David

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Summerson, Hugo

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Maclean, David

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Madel, David

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Mans, Keith

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Marland, Paul

      Thurnham, Peter

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Tracey, Richard

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Tredinnick, David

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Mills, Iain

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Moate, Roger

      Walden, George

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

      Waller, Gary

      Moss, Malcolm

      Ward, John

      Mudd, David

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Neale, Gerrard

      Warren, Kenneth

      Nelson, Anthony

      Watts, John

      Neubert, Michael

      Wells, Bowen

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Wheeler, John

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Whitney, Ray

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Widdecombe, Miss Ann

      Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Onslovv, Rt Hon Cranley

      Wilshire, David

      Paice, James

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Patnick, Irvine

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Patten, Chris (Bath)

      Wood, Timothy

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Woodcock, Mike

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Portillo, Michael

      Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Mr. Alan Howarth.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 1

      RIGHT TO A BALLOT BEFORE INDUSTRIAL ACTION
      Mr. Nicholls: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 4, leave out 'as it' and insert
      `imposing requirements on the union as the court'.
      The Opposition expressed concern in Committee that, under clause 1, a trade union member might be ordered to perform his contract of employment. Further consideration has suggested that there is a remote possibility that the clause would be interpreted in that way. The amendment will ensure that it cannot be. I hope, therefore, that it will commend itself to the Opposition and the House.
      Mr. Gavin Strang: As the Minister said, the amendment was tabled in response to our complaints in Committee that the original form of clause 1 would allow a court to take any action it considered appropriate to prevent or reverse an act or authorisation by a union in connection with unlawful industrial action, which might have included an order against an individual or a group wholly independent of the union in question. For example, if an independent newspaper or magazine supports an industrial dispute and reproduces an authorisation by a union of that dispute which is subsequently ruled unlawful, action might be taken against the publication. The original form of the clause was so badly drafted and so draconian that even the Government could not defend it. The amendment in no way deals with our central concern about the clause—that it will sanction unjustified and damaging action against a union by a dissident member—but it at least removes the danger to third parties.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 3

      RIGHT NOT TO BE UNJUSTIFIABLY DISCIPLINED
      Mr. Strang: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 4, line 40, leave out clauses 3 to 5.
      We are now coming to the heart of the Bill. As we have made clear throughout our deliberations, the Bill is an outrage. It is an extreme measure designed to weaken and undermine the role of trade unions in our society. This part of the Bill will deny unions the legal right to discipline members who fail to comply with action advocated by the union. That is especially outrageous, and has been the focus of much critical comment from a whole range of organisations, most of which are usually aligned with the Government on political matters.
      It was interesting last week to hear leading figures in industry interviewed on the Government's legislation, against a background of industrial disputes, arguing that the Government had tipped the balance too far in the direction of employers. Of course, we have been arguing that ever since the Government introduced their first Bill against the trade unions. It is significant that last week Sir John Harvey-Jones, the recently retired chairman of ICI, said, when interviewed on the BBC, that the Government had tipped the scales too far against the trade unions. He went so far as to suggest that some of the industrial disruption that we are now experiencing was a backlash reaction to such legislation.

      79
      The basis of the Government's justification for the legislation is that—to use the Ministers' phrase—they are giving the trade unions back to their members. Part of the argument is that trade unions are responsible for industrial disputes, and strikes can somehow be solved by preventing trade union leaders, officials or elected officers urging workers to come out on strike. If there was ever a time when that argument can be shown to be utterly fallacious, it is now.
      Is it seriously being suggested that the disruption in the National Health Service is a consequence of trade unions urging their members to come out on strike against their will? Far from it. The role of the trade unions in the Health Service is to persuade Health Service workers that no one's life should be put at risk by their action. The role of the trade union officials in the industrial action in the Health Service is that of seeking to minimise the hardship arising from the action, while recognising and supporting the strength of feeling of workers—of nurses and ancilliary workers alike.
      Is it seriously suggested that those in the seamen's dispute are taking action because they have been urged to do so by militant trade union officials? The opposite is true. The national and local leaders of the union have been pleading with those workers to resume working, and the fact that some ferries are still not sailing is a measure of the strength of feeling of the union members, despite exhortations from the National Union of Seamen to resume working. In that dispute as well as the Health Service dispute, we have a clear demonstration that the idea that, it is the trade union leaders who are pulling people out on strike and causing disruption against the will of the members, is nonsense.
      7.30 pm
      The Ford dispute has been the subject of comment during the debate. Is it seriously suggested that in the strike the trade union leadership and officials are urging the Ford workers to take action against their better judgment? Far from it. In fact, the strike reflects the strength of feeling in the Ford work force against the final amended offer. As I think the Secretary of State himself said in the exchanges earlier this afternoon, in that dispute the trade union negotiators recommended the amended offer to the work force.
      Therefore, the idea that somehow we need the legislation because the trade unions are causing disruption is nonsense. As we said repeatedly in Committee, trade union officials spend 90 per cent. of their time avoiding and settling disputes. When there is industrial action, almost invariably it reflects the strength of feeling of the workers. After all, it is the workers, not the trade union officials, nor the owners or managers of the company, who suffer and lose their earnings in an industrial dispute. So I take it that we shall hear no more of the nonsense that somehow it has been necessary to introduce the legislation to give the trade unions back to their members because trade unions are not representative of their members.
      The measure is extreme. It is a reflection of how extreme it is that so many organisations came out against it during consultation on the Green Paper. Let me remind the House of some of the comments by those
      80
      organisations. The Industrial Society, referring to what has loosely and rather inaccurately been called the right to go to work despite a strike call, stated:
      "We are very concerned that if the individual union member has a legal right to circumvent a properly taken majority decision and thus may be held to have no responsibility towards his/her union, there will be no reason why anyone should take the balloting process seriously. The likely consequence is that the value of the beneficial measures already introduced will be lost."
      The Institute of Personnel Management states:
      "The Green Paper appears not to accept that a trade union (when properly run) is a body, which, no less than a commercial organisation, disciplines people behind a legitimate purpose. The use of the law to deny such a body any opportunity to discipline members when they infringe rules which go to the heart of the contract between the union and its members, is coming close to denying the body any legal standing. This is a far cry from action to ensure that trade unions are democratically-run."
      Finally—there has been frequent reference to this—even the Confederation of British Industry has come out against elements of clauses 3, 4 and 5. It states:
      "The principal argument against the proposal is that it could undermine the balloting process itself, so productively encouraged by the 1984 Trade Union Act insofar as it was seen to provide a form of statutory protection for those refusing to be bound by the results of such a ballot. It is a measure of the importance that employers attach to the proper pursuit of balloting procedures that the CBI believes it would be right, for the time being at least, to take this proposal no further."
      The proposal is patently unjust. How far can one seek to undermine the role of the trade unions? How far can one tip the scale against them? When there is a proper ballot on industrial action and an overwhelming majority vote for it, the trade union calls its members out on strike or to take some form of industrial action, such as an overtime ban. If some members of the trade union refuse to comply with that call, it is fundamental that those individuals should be subject to the discipline of the trade union. As the organisations that I quoted have argued, it undermines the democratic process and weakens the principle of balloting to which the Government are so attached to say that, even when there is a ballot, that ballot will not give the trade union the authority to discipline its members for breaching the call for industrial action. Therefore, we submit, as do the Freedom Association and a range of organisations, that the proposal is fundamentally antidemocratic.
      It is important to understand that we cannot legislate on how trade unions and their members feel during an industrial dispute. Let us take the Ford dispute as an example. Of course, we all hope that it will be settled soon because of the damaging consequences to our economy if it continues. But is anyone suggesting that in a dispute, when individuals breach an official decision which has been properly reached to call a strike, that that will not cause resentment on the part of the vast majority of workers who are complying with the strike decision? Of course, it will provoke tremendous strength of feeling, and tremendous anger and bitterness can be generated. It is understandable, especially if there is a prolonged strike and trade unionists and families are suffering in the struggle, and see their efforts being undermined by individual trade union members, who will eventually benefit from any settlement that the trade union achieves. Those individuals might help to prolong the strike unnecessarily.

      81
      Of course, trade unionists are outraged in such a situation. The benefit of the right of the trade union to discipline its members is that in those circumstances the workers can say to themselves, "At least we know that when the strike is over those individuals who are members of our trade union and have failed to comply with our collective action will be called to book." That has a positive effect. It means that people are less likely to take the law into their own hands. That is one of the reasons why industrial disputes in this country are, in general, conducted on a much more orderly and disciplined basis than in many countries — not only Europe, but, on occasions, the United States. It is because there is that discipline, and because the trade union can, in the main, control its members. It is because, when the decision is taken, the members know that if people undermine the collective decision of the trade union there is a proper, orderly procedure whereby those individuals will eventually be disciplined. The removal of that sanction will, in many cases, encourage individuals, wrongly, to take the law into their own hands. It will create more anarchy, disruption and, dare I say it, possibly more violence on the picket lines when there is a prolonged industrial dispute.
      One must also consider the authority of the trade union movement. I quoted the CBI. It goes without saying that the TUC and the trade unions are against the proposals. That is why we seek in the amendment to delete them from the Bill. Hon. Members must ponder this question: why are so many of the employers' organisations against this proposal? I have already given one of the arguments. Another was probably put best by the Engineering Employers Federation, which said:
      "It is thus possible that the respect and importance now accorded to the pre-strike ballot will be diminished by this proposal."
      That is the point that I made earlier. The federation continues:
      "There are also grounds for believing that another consequence could be generally to undermine the authority of officials of unions whose responsibility it is to secure the compliance of their members with the provisions of collective agreements. This would be particularly disadvantageous in certain industries (for example, Engineering Construction) where the authority of full-time union officials may quite commonly need to be exercised in order to prevent unconstitutional action on sites where employees of many different employers, in membership of several different unions, are working closely together."
      That makes the point very effectively.
      Whatever regret we may have about the current dispute at Ford, I should have thought that hon. Members would want the dispute to be conducted in a disciplined and orderly manner. We want the dispute settled as soon as possible. I should have thought that an orderly dispute ending with a settlement between trade unions and their members would be in the interests of all concerned.
      The problem with the Government's proposal for employers—and our opposition to it goes much wider than this—is that the prospect of conducting disputes in an orderly manner, for a range of industries, will be undermined by this extreme and excessive element of the legislation.
      There is no question but that, in the main, trade unions and their officials work to avoid disputes. When disputes arise, it is their role to settle them. Inevitably, there is conflict between capital and labour. In those circumstances, there are occasions when it is necessary for
      82
      workers to act collectively and to withdraw their labour to secure a fair outcome in relation to the profits and wealth that their efforts create for the company.
      In a case such as Ford, workers and management have a common interest in the firm succeeding, making a profit, investing, providing employment and making its contribution to the local economy. The role of the trade unions is to ensure that their members receive a fair deal, and to sustain and encourage the development of the industry so that it will continue to maintain employment and raise the living standards of their workers in the future.
      This is an extreme and obnoxious measure in an extreme and obnoxious Bill. We debated it at length in Committee — we make no apology for that — and the Government have tabled some amendments, which we shall deal with later. The purpose of the new clause is to put on record our complete opposition to this part of the legislation and to appeal to the Government, at this stage of their deliberations, to think again about this outrageous measure, to recognise how indefensible their position is against the background of the current industrial action and to withdraw their clauses.
      The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler)rose—
      Mr. Foot: I am sorry if I interrupted the Secretary of State as he was about to withdraw his proposals. If that was his intention, I shall happily give way.
      I should like to make one or two points to the Secretary of State, as he is in charge of the Department of Employment. One of the worst aspects of the legislation that the right hon. Gentleman is introducing is the further injury that it causes to the reputation of the Department of Employment in the industrial world.
      The Department of Employment used to be withdrawn, to some degree, from some of the other aspects of Government action. In the old days, the Ministry of Labour sought to keep the powers of arbitration and conciliation separate from other Government action. In some respects, it was regarded as a body removed from Government pressure and influence. It did not always take the Government view in these matters. For a considerable period, the Ministry of Labour and the old Department of Employment had power to arbitrate in and deal with industrial disputes.
      This part of the Bill is the most offensive of the measures that the Government have taken. The previous measures that they took have gradually reduced any claim that the Department of Employment can approach these matters in an impartial or objective spirit.
      7.45 pm
      Some parts of the old Department of Employment were rightly taken away and given to ACAS and other institutions; different forms of institutions were established to take over the functions of the Ministry of Labour. As I was responsible for some of these transfers, I think that it was a perfectly proper course to take. It was highly desirable that the Department of Employment retained the ability to intervene in disputes. However, if the Department was to be successful in that it had to be intervention that would be considered as the Government intervening not in their own interests but to achieve industrial peace.

      83
      That reputation has been cast aside by the Government. This measure is the final act. It has shown the violent prejudice in the Department against retaining its old reputation.
      It is ironic that this miserable measure has been brought before the House on the day of the Ford strike. It underlines the absurdity of the way in which the Government have gone about these matters. I shall consider later how the Ford strike would be affected if this legislation were in operation. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) has already raised that important matter, which will affect strikes in the future. The consequences of the Government's proposals are very serious.
      The Government are faced with an industrial dispute of major proportions. The loss to Ford is reckoned to be about £17 million a day. If the dispute continues, it will be a serious matter not only for Ford and its workers but for our industrial position. It will have consequences for Britain's trade, and all those matters will develop in the next two or three weeks if the dispute continues. The last strike at Ford went on for nine weeks and was an immensely costly affair.
      At the beginning of the proceedings, the Secretary of State said that the strike was nothing to do with him. He said that the Department of Employment has no interest in the matter, and that it had nothing to propose to avoid the catastrophe of the strike going ahead.
      If the Bill were in operation, it would be even more difficult for the Department to say that it would not intervene. It is a scandal for the Government to talk in such terms to the House. But we have only to remember the way in which Ministers spoke to the House during the coal strike. They claimed that the Department of Employment would not intervene in any of the negotiations, in what was happening on the picket lines or on the allegations of violence. The Prime Minister made the same claim that the Government's new method of dealing with industrial disputes was not to intervene at all, but the truth tumbled out during the general election campaign when she boasted on television about how long and skilfully the Government had fought the miners.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I hesitate to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but his remarks are very wide of the amendment.
      Mr. Foot: If you will allow me just a moment or two more, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will clinch the matter for all concerned. My point is entirely relevant to the way in which industrial disputes will be still further exacerbated if this measure goes through. I believe that the Bill will lead to the breakdown of industrial discipline, as I shall illustrate directly.
      I was comparing what the Minister is proposing here with what he said earlier about the industrial dispute that is currently in all our minds. The Minister claims that the Department has nothing to do with such disputes and would not think of intervening. That is a policy of abdication, but I do not believe that his statement is true. The Minister has undoubtedly discussed the matter in his committees and with the Prime Minister and others in exactly the same way as happened during the miners' strike; all the Government's claims about nonintervention were utterly disproved just a few months
      84
      later. I believe that their current claims will be disproved later today. It was especially ill advised of the Minister to claim that he had no role to play in the Ford dispute when he intended later the same day to try to carry through the proposals before us.
      Let us consider what would be the position at Ford's if the proposal were already in operation. Suppose the union had gone through all the ballots and legal procedures prescribed by the Government and come out on strike. If a few members decided to break the strike and return to work, under the present law the union would have power to seek to persuade those members to back their colleagues and sustain the strike. Under the Government's proposal, although the strike was backed by a ballot, any form of discipline by the union would be undermined. Presumably that is the Government's aim. It would be a travesty of everything that we have ever learnt about how to conduct industrial relations if, when a union has taken every legal precaution to ensure that the action has full backing and has followed all the Government's prescribed balloting procedures, the Government seek to introduce a further measure to incite a few members to render the whole action nugatory. That is a recipe for hopeless anarchy. It is the more disgraceful that such a proposition should come from the Department of Employment, which should have at its fingertips and in its records all the evidence to show how monstrous would be the consequences of such a measure.
      The evidence of the Industrial Society has already been quoted from the Opposition Front Bench. No one could claim that that body is arguing the case in some obstreperous way. The TUC disagrees with many of its views. Nevertheless, the Industrial Society has a long record of seeking to achieve a sensible outcome in industrial relations. The society's view of the Government's action is as relevant now as it was when the Green Paper was published. At that time, the Industrial Society said:
      "The most significant proposal, however, in the entire Green Paper, concerns the right for an individual to work after a majority balloted decision to strike."
      That brings us back to the current Ford strike. The society continues:
      "Whatever the Government's own motivation, this will undoubtedly be interpreted by trade unions as prejudicing their basic role, which is to negotiate acceptable terms and conditions on behalf of all their members. This does involve, from time to time, sanctions on the employer. We are very concerned that if the individual union member has a legal right to circumvent a properly taken majority decision and thus may be held to have no responsibility towards his/her union, there will be no reason why anyone should take the balloting process seriously. The likely consequence is that the value of the beneficial measures already introduced will be lost."
      Some of us disagree about the so-called beneficial aspects of previous legislation, but the Industrial Society supported the Government in some of those measures. The logic of its argument in relation to this measure, however, is overwhelming. If the Government force this proposal through, they will injure the whole balloting process and undermine its authority.
      What would happen in a case such as the Ford dispute if the Government's proposals were implemented? The union having balloted strongly for a strike, a tiny minority would be able to say that they have the Government on their side in undermining the whole process. The result will be anarchy from the outset. The Government clearly wish

      85
      to undermine all forms of effective trade unionism, but the result will he to create chaos in industrial relations throughout the country. That is not just the view of the Opposition. It is shared by almost all the bodies that have studied the Government's proposals, including the Industrial Society, the Confederation of British Industry and originally even the Conservative Trade Unionists, if such a laughable group still exists. The message from all of them was, "It is madness—for heaven's sake don't do it."
      It is especially regrettable and deplorable—they are mild words in the circumstances—that the Department of Employment should throw away its authority in this way. We should be re-establishing the authority of conciliation and arbitration and the idea that there are impartial people to whom one can appeal. Most industrial disputes are a clash not between right and wrong but between two rights or the result of the kind of arguments that have occurred at Ford's, between the bulk of the membership and union leaders whom the Government, through previous legislation, have deprived of the right to negotiate effectively. The Government now seek to carry the process still further.
      Any Minister at the Department of Employment who seeks to push a measure of this nature against all the recommendations of every sector of industry does not deserve the power to intervene in any future dispute. The Minister said that he had no interest in intervening in the Ford dispute, but if the action continues and the country loses thousands of millions of pounds there will have to be some intervention.
      It is shameful and shocking that, almost for the first time in history, a Minister at the Department of Employment will have thrown away any authority whatever to intervene in such matters, and to try to restore industrial peace. I hope that even at this thirteenth hour the Minister will think again and withdraw these wretched proposals.
      8 pm
      Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend the Minister for Employment will wind up the debate, but I wish to respond directly to what the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) said, particularly about the tradition of the Ministry of Labour and the Department of Employment. I do not believe that any law can eliminate disputes, but it is worth pointing out that the last three years have seen fewer strikes than at any stage since the war, and fewer days have been lost through strikes in the past two or three years than at any stage in the past 20 years. Before the right hon. Gentleman talks about traditions, it is worth remembering the record of the past few years.
      However distinguished a predecessor of mine the right hon. Gentleman may have been, I am not inclined to take lectures about this from him, particularly given his prominent part in a Government who presided over the worst industrial anarchy we have seen, in 1978. No one is claiming that the industrial relations position has been transformed by trade union law alone, but little would have been achieved without that reform, and the Government have tackled that issue. Over the past few years we have seen the success of that approach and we have seen the basic support for it given by the British people, with the exception of a few Labour Members.
      Mr. Cryer: Have not the Government statistics for loss of working days as a result of industrial disputes been slightly changed? For example, in the Silentnight strike in Yorkshire, when the strikers were sacked after a few weeks, they no longer appeared in the statistics for strike action, even though their strike lasted a further 12 months. They would not have appeared in the statistics even if their jobs had been returned.
      Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is clutching at straws. Any objective observer with whom the hon. Gentleman would like to get in touch—for example, the Industrial Society — will tell him that strikes have markedly decreased, not just compared with the past few years but in the period since the war, and days lost have gone down as well. The public will not be much impressed by what the hon. Gentleman has said because they remember the position from which we have recovered, and what the position has been over the past year.
      Clause 3 establishes a right for union members not to be unjustifiably disciplined by the union, and specifies the conduct for which discipline is unjustifiable. Clause 4 establishes procedures in which union members may present complaints to tribunals that they have been unjustifiably disciplined and empowers the tribunal to make a declaration where it finds a complaint well founded. Clause 5 sets out procedures under which a union member whose complaint of unjustifiable discipline to an industrial tribunal has been declared well founded may apply for a reward or compensation.
      In resisting the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), who quite fairly said that this was debated at great length in Committee, I make one fundamental point. The proposal was set out fully in the Green Paper published last February. It then became a specific election pledge and was contained in our election manifesto. There was no question of keeping this proposal hidden. We set it out to the public. In paragraph 2.10 of the Green Paper we said clearly:
      "The right of the individual to choose to go to work despite a call to take industrial action is an essential freedom."
      In 2.13, we said:
      "Unions have not been slow to enforce their powers over dissenting minorities."
      We went on to give examples of that. We have been clear and explicit on our intentions. We set them out clearly in our election manifesto to the British public and Labour Members know the result of that election.
      Mr. Allen: Is the Minister telling us that he has been clear and open about this matter? I cannot remember the exact words of the manifesto, but as I recall it referred only to strikes. It did not refer to industrial action. The scope of clause 3 is virtually unlimited. The Secretary of State may be able to massage unemployment figures, but he should not massage his party's manifesto.
      Mr. Fowler: I agree that clause 3 does not apply only to industrial action. However, in essence it applies to industrial action, and the manifesto explicitly said:
      "We will introduce legislation to … protect individual members from disciplinary action if they refuse to join a strike they disagree with".
      As I understood the first two speeches made about the amendment, precisely that point is being opposed. I make no complaint about that, but we should not confuse ourselves by saying that that is not the essence of the debate.

      87
      Although unions are in general protected against the legal consequences of inducing employees to break their contracts to the employer, the individual trade union member has no such protection. The union member then has a number of obligations. He has an obligation to his trade union—no one disputes that—but he also has an obligation to his employer under his contract of employment and wider obligations to the community and, more particularly, to his family. These separate duties and obligations can pull an individual in different directions. Our view is that he should not be influenced in coming to a decision by fear of disciplinary action taken against him by the trade union.
      We are not talking just about the beginning of a strike. An individual trade union member may have gone along with a majority decision and gone out on strike. Suppose that the strike goes on for two or three weeks, or even longer, and the employer makes a new offer. The union executive, for reasons of its own, may decide to continue the dispute. The individual member, and perhaps some others, may decide that the offer is fair and reasonable. The Opposition are suggesting that in those circumstances those union members who vote with their feet and go back to work should be subject to the discipline of the trade union. In Committee, we rejected that proposition.
      One reason for that rejection has been the willingness of unions to take disciplinary action. We are not talking about a theoretical danger. The Green Paper listed a number of examples of large-scale disciplinary action by unions — for example, the National Union of Railwaymen disciplined some 12,000 members, and the National Communications Union is reported to have expelled 1,000 members and to be considering disciplinary action against others. There was also disciplinary action after the miners' strike. There are long and well-documented cases of disciplinary action being taken.
      To take up the complaint of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), it is true that this clause is designed to protect those who seek to expose wrong doing by their unions. Once again, I can easily cite cases. In May 1984, four members of SOGAT wrote to their union's general secretary-elect alleging serious financial and administrative irregularities at their local branch. They were told to make their complaints through the usual channels. Their correspondence was forwarded to their branch secretary, despite the fact that he was the subject of their allegations. An investigation was held at branch level, which resulted in two of those members being immediately demoted and, subsequently, all four were dismissed.
      Despite an appeal and considerable local support, including a petition with more than 2,000 signatures, the national executive committee confirmed the dismissals. At least one of the members involved had been a trade unionist for 30 years. The clause does, indeed, go beyond strike action and is intended to meet the case that I have just cited.
      Throughout the Committee stage Opposition Members consistently said that a member who found himself in such circumstances should leave the union—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, certainly that was one of the arguments deployed in Committee. It is a surprising argument that union members who find themselves just once in disagreement with their unions should voluntarily
      88
      withdraw. Even if unions could withstand such a voluntary outflow, it would not justify forcibly expelling members who disagreed with them. That would leave the union movement manned either by yes men or by those too scared to stand up for their views.
      We would all agree that the small minority of members who consistently find themselves opposed to the majority view have no long-term future in their unions. However, it is strange to argue that a union should make an issue of every disagreement, even when an individual member has a long history of loyal and active service to the union. Nevertheless, that has been the thrust of the cases that I have cited.
      Mr. Allen: The right hon. Gentleman said that in Committee the Opposition said that union members had the option to leave their unions, and that they should do that. To my knowledge, no one said that—other than Conservative Members who tried to claim that we had said it, which we consistently denied. Will the Minister now correct himself?
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Fowler: I shall not correct myself, but rather I shall ask my hon. Friend the Minister to quote the relevant lines from Hansard when he replies to the debate. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will then realise that his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who led the Opposition in Committee, adduced precisely that argument.
      It cannot be right for participation in industrial action to be an obligation enforceable by a union. Some unions resolve not to strike, and many do not strike. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East mentioned international comparisons, but in many—probably most—countries, unions operate quite effectively without forcing their members to strike.
      Mr. Ron Leighton: This is an important point. Do the Government think that unions should be coherent and disciplined bodies? Let us consider the current dispute of the National Union of Seamen. Mr. McCluskie has given certain undertakings to the court. The judge said something like, "You must ensure that those undertakings are carried out, because if you do not, when you come back to court on Tuesday, watch out". The judge was telling Mr. McCluskie to exercise discipline in his union. He told him to get his men back to work, or the whole might of the judiciary would fall upon him and the union's funds would be sequestrated. The judge was effectively saying, "There must be discipline in your union or else."
      What do the Government want? Do they want the unions to be coherent and disciplined, or are they saying, "It doesn't matter — whatever the vote, do what you like"? The union official may say one thing, but the members can do something else. Do the Government want coherence and discipline or do they want laissez-faire?
      Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman knows the answer to that question. I will not discuss the detail of the NUS case because it is still before the court—[Interruption.] Now hang on, just hang on. The case is before the court, because, for example, one point at issue is that there was no secret ballot. When the hon. Gentleman talks about discipline, he should also deal with the problem of unions

      89
      not seeking to meet the conditions laid down in law. For him to talk about discipline in that light is somewhat fanciful.
      I agree with the hon. Gentleman that unions are coherent and important organisations. Indeed, throughout our long debates we have maintained that to compare trade unions with social or golf clubs is nonsensical. Trade unions are powerful institutions which have a powerful impact and effect on the working lives of their members. That is why the clause is justified. In the end, it comes down to a fundamental issue of belief. As our manifesto made clear, we place the highest priority on the freedom of the individual to decide for himself.
      Opposition Members have said more than once that a ballot before industrial action resolves the conflict of loyalities and obligations that individuals may face. The Government reject the proposition that when the majority put their pay claim above the survival of a firm, the interests of patients or the welfare of families, the individual member is obliged to do the same. Trade union members are free adults and we intend that they be treated as such.
      The Bill fulfils our promises and extends the freedom of the individual. That is why we reject the proposition of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East.
      Mr. Winnick: My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) opened his remarks by saying that he thought that the Secretary of State was going to withdraw this part of the Bill. My right hon. Friend has a far more optimistic view of human nature than I have. The Secretary of State may not believe in this measure, but he knows that he is a member of a Cabinet dominated by someone who is a malicious opponent of trade unionism. If we wanted any evidence of that, we have only to consider the case of GCHQ to see how the Government took away the democratic rights of people working there to belong to a trade union. That illustrates only too well what the Government would like to see elsewhere, but, fortunately, they have not had the courage to put forward such proposals.
      This part of the Bill is very offensive. It is intended to do away with the right of a trade union to take any kind of disciplinary action when an industrial dispute has occurred and where a ballot has decided that such a dispute should take place. To justify this, the Secretary of State gave us an example in which a dispute had been going on for a few weeks, or a couple of months, and the executive had decided to keep that dispute going. The workers, the trade union members, decided to go back and vote with their feet. However, the Secretary of State's example did not deal with the case which my hon. Friends have developed and with which I want to deal, where there is no dispute to start with, a ballot takes place, there is a clear majority in favour of industrial action and a dispute then begins. Is the Secretary of State telling the House that, in that situation, the union has no responsibility and no role to play in taking action against those who decide to work, regardless of the ballot?
      That is why Opposition Members consider this measure to be so offensive. It is difficult to imagine any professional organisation, whether of lawyers or solicitors, not having some kind of disciplinary code. Every professional organisation has some kind of code to protect itself and its membership. Why should trade unions be denied this basic right?
      90
      We can only conclude that the Government have a malicious intent against trade unions. They say that they do not like strikes, but industrial disputes occur. One of the differences between a dictatorship and a free society is that in the latter working people can take strike action. As we know, people do not take strike action lightly They do so after they have concluded that there is no other way of settling matters. As a democrat and someone who believes in the right of working people to take such action, I believe that it is far better that working people can do this in a free society rather than have to live under a dictatorship, whether Communist or not.
      I am a national officer of my trade union. At a recent meeting of my executive we had to decide what action should be taken against a few members who decided to go into work when, after a ballot, there had been a majority vote for industrial action. My union does not need any lectures from the Government about ballots. We have taken the view that members should be balloted before industrial action takes place. This is how the union decided to proceed democratically at its annual policy-making conference long before I became involved. The executive council did not initiate the action against those who happened to work during that industrial dispute. It arose because those taking industrial action, and as a result won their case, felt very bitterly towards the few individuals who worked. They wrote to the official, who wrote to the executive council, requesting that action be taken.
      The Secretary of State said today that the executive of my union should have no role to play in such cases. I find that very difficult to understand or to justify. I also take the view that, if this measure remains in the Bill, it will undoubtedly cause immense bitterness in the work force.
      I can visualise a situation in which an industrial dispute has taken place and ended. When the large majority of people who have not worked during the dispute return, they will feel very bitter towards those who have worked. They will feel even more bitter if, as a result of strike action, they have won the point, whether it concerns conditions or pay.
      Whether we are discussing the Ford dispute, or any other dispute in the future, no legislation can take away the feeling of bitterness and hostility that undoubtedly arises when a strike has ended and the people concerned decide that some action should be taken against those who blacklegged during the strike. Therefore, it is perfectly understandable that there should be such a feeling of opposition and hostility to these proposals.
      Despite the Secretary of State's comments about the rights of working people, when the Governments took office nine years ago they decided that they would do what they could, by legislation, to undermine the rights of trade unions. As in the case of GCHQ, they took away the right of people to belong to a trade union — something unheard of in a democracy. Although the Government would like to take such action in the public services, for example, they have decided not to do so, at least for the moment. They have undoubtedly undermined and eroded the rights of the trade unions. Whatever success the Government may have as a result of their majority in the House, when a different Administration come into office, all these offensive powers and obnoxious actions that have been taken against trade unions will be removed.
      When I was away from the House during the 1970s, I well remember being told that the changes brought in at that time by the Government led by the right hon. Member

      91
      for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) would be permanent features on the statute book. We were told that no future Government would ever change that. Yet what happened? When my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent became Secretary of State for Employment, it all changed. I assure the Secretary of State that, however much Conservative Members may state that Conservative legislation will remain a permanent feature on the statute book, it will change.
      Whenever action has been taken against trade unions, not only in the 1970s, but many years before the beginning of this century, the trade unions have won the point. They will do so again. The right of working people to belong to trade unions and of those unions to regulate their affairs without undue state interference will remain. People will not be denied the right to take action against those who have defied the majority in a ballot. If the Bill is enacted, that right will be taken away. I look forward to the day when there will be a different Government and different legislation will be proposed.
      Mrs. Llin Golding: These clauses have been drafted by interferers who know little about trade unions and care little about democracy. They have been drafted by people who wish to interfere in the running of trade unions, when it makes sense to anyone who knows anything about unions that the rules governing members of trade unions should be left to the union members.
      Why should trade unions have such laws imposed upon them by the Tory Government? Do the Goverment have any proposals to bring in laws to control the professions? In which professions is the right to expel controlled by laws such as are proposed in the Bill? Is that right controlled in the medical profession, the legal profession or in the City? The Government's answer to controlling fraud in the City has not been the type of control and restriction that will be imposed by the Bill. Did they bring in a Bill to introduce rules and regulations to control the stock exchange? No, they did not. They produced the Criminal Justice Bill to prosecute those who carry out illegal practices, not to prevent them.
      8.30 pm
      The Government say that unions are too powerful. What about the stock exchange? It has enormous powers, but it is not controlled in such a way. We do not need to ask why it is not to be controlled. What about political parties' powers? The Tory party is not prevented by law from expelling people. Its members are not controlled by such laws. Yet the Tory party has enormous powers. Its members are allowed to decide what to do with regard to internal discipline. How can anyone run an organisation without its members having the democratic right to decide rules governing membership?
      The clauses will not give the Government what they want. If members do not have to face up to the problems and the sacrifices that they will have to make if they vote for a strike, are they not more likely to vote to strike or even to abstain? Whichever way they vote, they will not have to take responsibility for their actions. They can vote to strike and then go to work. How does that make any sense to anyone? What use is that to an employer? It can be an embarrassment to the employer if a few members return to work after a ballot for a strike.
      92
      Recent strikes have destroyed the myth that trade union officers cause strikes. It is the members who decide to strike when they do not like what is on offer. If a union cannot control discipline, its members will take the law into their own hands.
      Does the Minister not recognise the bitterness that is felt by union members who democratically strike and, after weeks of sacrifice, go back to work and see other union members who have not gone on strike but who have picked up money and enjoyed improved conditions? Where is the democracy and fairness in that?
      If members are told that the results of ballots do not count, those who do not want to return to work will use that argument, and a return to work will be jeopardised. Union members should be disciplined by the rules and procedures of their unions. Such rules and regulations should be democratically decided within a union. Union members should not be disciplined by unjust and unnecessary laws. The Government should accept that fact and withdraw the clauses.
      Mr. Allen: The amendment has a far wider significance than its effect merely on the Employment Bill. Without overstating the case one iota, we are seeing a fundamental attack upon democracy. A central tenet of our democracy has always been that, whatever one's own view, if a majority freely accept a certain course of action, we should all follow such a course. In all parties throughout all societies, that has been a fundamental rule of democracy. [Interruption.] As Conservative Members say from a sedentary position, it may not apply to the Conservative party or particularly to the Cabinet, but, none the less, the matter overrides even the petty party politics of the Conservative party.
      Rev. William McCrae: The hon. Gentleman's argument seems strange. He is in support of a majority view, irrespective of whether one agrees with it. Hon. Members from Ulster have been pleading with the House to do that for a long time, yet the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have always voted against it. That is sheer hypocrisy.
      Mr. Allen: I am grateful for that intervention. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will make his own contribution a little later.
      The clause represents the lowest water-mark of democracy in the eight years of the Government. Short of the abolition of elections, I fail to see how much further they could possibly sink.
      The Secretary of State referred to two key ways in which the amendment can be justified. His first point was that it appeared in the Conservative party's manifesto. I corrected him at the time, and I correct him again. The proposal which was referred to in the Conservative party manifesto applied only to situations in which strikes take place. It did not refer to the wide-ranging extension to industrial action as a whole which, on occasions, can amount to trivial matters rather than major industrial disputes and strikes to which the Conservative party manifesto alluded. I hope that the Secretary of State will forgive me for correcting him about the contents of his party's manifesto, which I would have thought that he would know better than I do.
      The second major plank of the Secretary of State's approach related to consultations. I am glad that the Secretary of State raised the matter. He will have a hard

      93
      job to find more than a handful of organisations, secret societies or individuals who have come out above the parapet to support the clauses. On the contrary, if we weigh the evidence, we shall find masses of organisations — some peculiar, some hardly about to bring in the Socialist millenium — such as the Freedom Association and other organisations that have consistently supported our view about various clauses in the Bill, and clause 3 in particular.
      This has quite rightly been dubbed the scabs' charter because of its basic anti-democratic nature and the way in which it has been put forward in Committee and the House. I am sure you will correct me if I stray from the topic, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the names of those Conservative Members who voted for the clause, without even listening to the debate and without even being present for much of the debate, will live on the record for a long time. They have voted away a fundamental tenet of our social democracy—with a small "S" and a small "D", I hasten to add—and our trade union democracy. The people will bear a heavy burden.
      Another aspect that surprised me, particularly as a new hon. Member, was the Government's reluctance even to entertain the arguments. As someone who had watched the proceedings of the House from outside, I assumed that, in Committee, the Government would not, of course, accept major fundamental changes to their Bill but would listen to arguments and would change aspects of the Bill in regard to which serious problems were pointed out by the Opposition. Not in the least. Above all, the clause demonstrates the way in which the steamroller pushed the Bill through Committee. It is a poor day for us. The attack on the fundamental principle of democracy was well summed up by the TUC in its guide to the Employment Bill. It states:
      "When people are part of a voluntary association like unions there must be an obligation on them to accept and act on majority decisions."
      Clause 3 institutes the contracting-out of democracy. That is novel and not to be welcomed.
      Above all, we shall see that the clause, as well as being philosophically anti-democratic, produces many significant local effects. We shall see a breakdown in local industrial relations of the sort that gave rise to Donovan and others back in the 1960s. An employer can pay a strike-breaker and that strike-breaker cannot be disciplined, whatever action he may take against his colleagues at work. That is an absolute incitement to certain of the new brave wave of entrepreneurs created by the Government to break the law as well as breaking a few skulls along the way.
      Another thing that emerged in Committee was that the Government are not in touch. They lack connection with the way in which the shop floor really works. A number of my hon. Friends attempted to bring Conservative Members back into touch with industrial relations as they are really practised. I shall quote again from industrial officers of the major trade unions. In Committee, I quoted from Mr. Keith Moore, an officer of GMB. He is by no means a revolutionary. He wants to get his work done. He goes to work every day and spends most of his time settling disputes. He does not really live up to the mythical picture that the Government paint of a man who spends 90 per cent. of his time creating disputes and discord. He said:
      "Basically, I believe that this Bill will be a charter for anarchy as far as industrial relations are concerned and many employers must indeed be wringing their hands in despair at
      94
      what is being proposed. In the main, there has been discipline within the trade union ranks in industry. This Bill will destroy such discipline. It's ridiculous and defies democracy that, where there's been a ballot for industrial action and the majority of those participating have voted in favour then to give the people in the minority the legal right to protection is ludicrous and does nothing for industrial relations."
      That is the voice of someone who deals with industrial relations every single day of his working life. However, the Government would not listen to that or to other arguments advanced by Opposition Members.
      The Bill goes even further than that. We have heard about the sanctity of the contract with an employer. What about the contract with the trade union, which has been freely entered into? The Bill overrides that contract. As well as re-writing the rule books of trade unions, the Bill overrides the contract of association that trade unions have with their members. It is overridden not just by another contract but by something of a lesser status—an agreement. As we discovered when we pressed the Government on this in Committee, an agreement need not even be what we term a binding agreement. It may be something that two people reach over a drink in the pub. That shows how serious the change is.
      The Government have allegedly fought hard to introduce secret ballots where they did not exist before. However, unfortunately it seems that the clause throws away the idea of secret ballots on the ground of political expediency. The Government are not only moving the goal posts; they are starting to play a different game.
      8.45 pm
      The Secretary of State referred to all the cases of people who have been disciplined. In Committee, we tried hard to get the cases listed. We left it for a week and came back after the weekend and asked, "Where are the cases?" At least the Minister has come up with a case tonight and I would celebrate that with my hon. Friends. We have got the case, lads. We have done it. It has taken us three months, but we should be very grateful that the Secretary of State has come up with one case. All the thousands of cases, of which we have been able to find only one, are intended to replace and undermine the current disciplinary procedures of trade unions. It is important to place on record what those disciplinary procedures are.
      In modern trade unionism, discipline and expulsion are governed by the rule book. They do not drop out of thin air or arise from an Act suddenly appearing on the statute book. They are worked at, honed and polished within the trade union's rules. Year by year in annual conferences, and month by month at meetings of union executives, those rules are polished to meet the members' needs. If Conservative Members feel that that is not enough, there is always recourse to natural justice and law. The rules always state the penalties to be applied, although under the Bill the right to appeal has been changed so that members will have only six months to submit their appeal in certain cases. Trade union members have recourse through their own organisations. As many of my hon. Friends and I said in Committee, we do not need lectures on democracy from a Government whose predecessors denied the vote to working people for 100 years. We are only now celebrating the 70th anniversary of women over 30 having the vote. The Government are not in a strong position to start lecturing the labour movement on who should have the vote, when and how.
      There are clear motives behind the Bill, which has little to do with improving industrial relations. One obvious

      95
      motive is to try to confuse and muddy the legal processes so that all members of trade unions feel insecure. They will always feel that a legal threat may be brought down upon their heads. The Government have fundamentally misunderstood the situation if they believe that such a threat will fatally undermine the trade union movement. Conservative Members do not understand how trade unions work. Conservative Members' view is based on individual rights—many of which they freely enjoy—as opposed to collective rights, which are the fundamental pillars of supporting trade unionism.
      The Bill is not about the average trade unionist. It is not about the person who needs to organise to protect himself at work, to improve his conditions and wages and to make a better life for himself and his family. Clauses 3, 4 and 5 are about one thing alone. They are intended to assist that small minority of trade unionists—0·1 per cent. or 0·01 per cent.—who wish to take action—often vexatious action — against their trade union. It is not about the 99·9 per cent. of trade unionists who work within their trade union and develop it. It is merely for those who would thwart the democratic wish of their colleagues and organise a return to work which would otherwise be unlikely. The Bill substitutes the rule of the very small minority for the genuinely agreed democratic decision reached after a secret ballot.
      In Committee, we had a long argument about the contract between employer and employee and the contract between a trade union member and his trade union. That argument needs to be aired again. When there is a conflict between the contracts, it can be resolved under the trade union's own rules, through the process of a ballot. The reconciliation that takes place at a ballot means that there is legitimacy in sinking the differences that existed prior to the ballot. Everyone then becomes united behind that ballot. I hope that my hon. Friends will take that argument up tonight.
      Another case mentioned in Committee related to the National Union of Railwaymen. I know that some of my hon. Friends want to refer to it later. All that I would say is that it raised a great problem involving, according to the Green Paper, 120,000 railwaymen. As I understand it, a magnification of 10 times occurred in that Green Paper. It was, of course, a minor error that put just another 100,000 railwaymen into the equation. However, we should not let the facts get in the way of a good story and it certainly did not inhibit Conservative Members in Committee.
      Another aspect that needs to be touched on is the question of intimidation. We are told of many people who have been intimidated to return to work and to do this, that and the other by the trade unions. However, the real intimidation and the coercion in our society is practised not by the unions on their members, but by capital on individual trade unionists and their families, and on individual trade unions. People are put into a position such that they cannot exercise the rights that they have at present because of fear that they and their families will suffer. As an active trade unionist such a person may be sacked and have next to no chance of getting his job back and being reinstated. Time and time again in Committee, the Government were pressed to include provisions in the
      96
      Bill that would bring into force some sort of justice for reinstatement at industrial tribunals. Of course, that was quickly passed over.
      The other myth that was blown around in Committee was the sacrosanct nature of the ballot—the jewel in the trade union reform crown that has been put forward by this Conservative Government. Although we need no lectures from Conservative Members, the Conservative party would do well to look to itself before starting to tell other people how to conduct their affairs in view of the lack of democracy in that party.
      The great problem about ballots for the Government is that ballots were the be-all and end-all which would allegedly give the trade unions back to their members. However, with the ballots the trade unions and trade unionists have defeated the Government. I give just one example of the political fund ballots. Forty trade unions held compulsory national ballots and 40 separate national ballots each recorded a victory for the trade union concerned and its members in retaining the political funds. Indeed, another seven or eight trade unions have now established political funds.
      It may well be that the Government's reason for undermining that concept of democracy is because it simply has not delivered for the Government. In their ruthless way, if something has not delivered they chuck it out and try something else. If the Government cannot get a majority they say, "Let us break it down even further and wheedle away at the trade unions through individuals." They do so through a few dissident members and through a few people funded by the likes of David Hart and the Freedom Association. That is another way in which the Government attack the trade union movement.
      The more law, routine and regulation that exists, the more we get what my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) referred to as "the Gulliver syndrome". Every little rope may not be as much in itself but it is "salami tactics" under another name. However, it may well tie down the sleeping giant. In my view, the rope that they have tied on this occasion has been tied round a vital organ of Gulliver and the tears will come to the eyes of the trade union movement, but that does not mean that the sleeping giant cannot rise.
      Mr. Cryer: Will my hon. Friend comment briefly on the fact that the Government always seem to be opposed to more legislation when it comes to, say, small businesses, but are prepared to heap it on the trade unions? That is a curious set of double standards.
      Mr. Allen: I would need at least another 20 years in this place before I could find the oratorical brilliance even to answer my hon. Friend's clear question, but perhaps the Secretary of State will pick up that point with his usual aplomb.
      Another aspect that needs to be brought out is the support that there has been for this "abolition of democracy" clause within the trade union movement. Some peculiar people with whom, perhaps, I would not have associated the word "democracy" have attempted to pressure the Government to see sense on this issue and to get them to ditch their dogma in favour of something more workable. I said earlier that I would quote another trade union officer and I should add that I do not include Fred Childs who works for the GMB in Hull in that description

      97
      of "peculiar". He is a man who could hardly be described as a militant Socialist. He earns his daily bread at the coal face of industrial relations. He wrote to me, stating:
      "Individual strike breakers given the right of protection if they disobey a democratic decision of the members after a secret ballot makes a complete mockery of the need to hold such a ballot."
      He underlined the word "need", and continued:
      "It will lead to even worse industrial relations on the shop floor and I can see an increase in unofficial industrial action taking place."
      Those are similar terms to the words I quoted earlier from one of his colleagues. From their independent and different geographical standpoints, both can see the effect of the legislation. Those men are mainstream, sensible practitioners of industrial relations.
      However, some weird people support the case against the clause, notably David Shiels, the vice-chairman of the Conservative Trade Unionists. I do not know how many votes he received; he might have won by a considerable margin. It was probably three votes to one or something like that. However, the best of luck to him because he had a nice job as vice-chairman of the CTU. He has said that if the Government made trade unions alone among voluntary bodies incapable of disciplining their members, they would look "decidedly silly". It may be too late to prevent the Government looking silly on this issue. However, I hope that even they will listen to their cohorts in the Conservative Trade Unionists, if they will not listen to anyone else.
      Another surprising ally in this came in Mr. Murdoch's latest edition of The Sunday Times, which made its position clear in an editorial. I shall wash my mouth out with soap and water after quoting from it. It stated:
      "We are also unimpressed with the government's case for legislation to prohibit trade unions from taking disciplinary action against members who refuse to abide by the majority decision in a secret ballot. Minority groups of union members must never be denied the right to cross the picket lines in defiance of a majority strike decision; that is their choice, and they should be free to do so. But they must be prepared to take the consequences so far as their union membership is concerned, either by being fined or expelled. We cannot have democracy 'up to a point' in the workplace. Mr. Norman Fowler's new employment bill will insist on secret ballots, which is right. It must also respect the right of unions to act in defence of those ballots. To argue otherwise is perverse and self-defeating."
      That is the successor to Labour Weekly, The Sunday Times.
      9 pm
      I will finish my list of quotations with another great socialist radical of the generation, Peregrine Worsthorne. He said that the Government will be wrong-footed
      "if it presses on with the clause in its new Employment Bill which stops unions expelling members who blackleg even if after a ballot has found in favour of a strike. In the old days trade unions had too much power over their members, and were free to act like tyrants. But if the Government's new bill goes through, they will have been emasculated. Of course, it was right to liberate trade union members from the obligation to strike when no ballot had been called. But to liberate them from that obligation even when a ballot has been called is plainly wrong and will be seen to be wrong by all but bigots."
      That was Peregrine Worsthorne. I would hardly choose him as one of the most ardent supporters of Opposition Members or necessarily of the concept of democracy.
      My final point relates to the way in which the clause would affect not merely those who were previous targets such as senior trade unionists, general secretaries and national officers. It could unwittingly affect ordinary
      98
      members of trade unions. I refer in particular to clause 3 in which no discipline is allowed for those who are involved in mischievous actions.
      A member can actually put forward that another member was "proposing to contravene" the rules of the union — not "contravening" the rules, but simply proposing to do so. That charge could be made against an officer of the union, or against an ordinary member of that trade union. In other words, the clause will apply to the volunteer, the person on whom the trade union movement was built. The trades union movement is not Ron Todd, John Edmonds or Rodney Bickerstaffe; it is the individual members, the people who have of their own volition put time aside without pay to make the union work, to defend their colleagues at work and to develop a sense of solidarity and to confront the management which often has the power to reduce the earning ability of those individuals and make life hard for them. Those volunteers will suffer, not the trade union officers or the full-time trade union officials. I would not wish such sanctions to apply to trade union officers and full-time officials. None the less, if they have to be applied, it is better than they should be applied to them rather than purely to the volunteers.
      The provisions will be able to apply to individual trade union members and volunteers whose connection with the trade unions may be tenuous. It may be that Charlie joins the trade union and after a couple of weeks, because he seems to be keen, he is pushed forward and made a representative because nobody else wants the job. He is a young lad who wants to get on in the trade union, so they put him up in the firing line. He knows nothing about the way it may work or about the consequences of possible action taken against him. Such people may he shop stewards, branch secretaries or branch officers, they may only make up the numbers on a local committee, but they will be hit by the full force of clause 3(3)(c) as if they were general secretaries wth 40 years' experience in the movement. That is not the way we should go about things.
      The crime can often be no more than "proposing to contravene the rules"—not actually contravening them. I would be very surprised if all hon. Members here tonight have not proposed contravening a number of issues in the Tea Room or the Corridor. People could be chatting over a cup of tea in the works canteen, and say that they would like to do something to someone. As I said in Committee, that would certainly apply to those Conservative Members who say that they would like to get their hands around the neck of the Prime Minister. That is where it should rest.
      Mr. Clelland: Round the Prime Minister's neck?
      Mr. Allen: Yes, most appropriately.
      Finally—
      Mr. Frank Cook: Do hon. Gentlemen want to intervene?
      Mr. Allen: I ask my hon. Friend not to encourage hon. Members to intervene. For three months in Committee they had great difficulty in standing up and I should hate a maiden speech to be made on the Floor of the House. If Conservative Members wish to intervene, I should be more than happy to give way. In Committee the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) was present for only one speech, but it lasted longer than the sum total of Back Bench speeches from Conservative Members.

      99
      The Law Society has made its view on this clause clear. It stated:
      "we are concerned that serious problems of evidence may arise on either or both sides in any dispute. We particularly have this in mind in clause 3(3)(c)."
      It is appropriate for the Law Society to point that out to Conservative Members.
      Of all the clauses this one has the most fundamental effect on our democracy. It robs democracy of the idea that a decision by the majority after a proper series of discussions and a secret ballot should be adhered to. This is a charter for those who wish to break the trade union movement, for those who lose in ballots and employers who will not abide by democratically agreed decisions. I hope that the House will vote against it tonight and that throughout the country it will be exposed for its fundamental attack on our democracy.
      Mr. Heffer: These three clauses are nothing but the essence of a scabs' charter. Those of us who have spent our lives in the trade union movement know that workers do not go on strike at the drop of a hat, but think long and hard about it. They have lengthy debates and discussions, and even when they go on strike they are unhappy because they lose money, find tensions developing in their families and experience all sorts of pressures.
      The Government's idea that workers are always willing to walk out at any moment so legislation is needed to prevent that is wrong. That was the basis of their argument for legislation. They said, "We must stop the growth of unofficial disputes. Before a strike there must be a secret ballot in which all workers vote. Then we shall find that the mass of workers will not want to go on strike."
      Mr. Skinner: Has my hon. Friend ever considered during our debates on industrial relations and employment matters the double standard on secret ballots? At the end of this debate we shall vote in what I call the Longbridge fashion. One lot will go into one side and the other into the other — the Aye side and the No side. Instead of having shop stewards on the doorways, we have Government Whips and Opposition Whips. There is no secret ballot for Members of Parliament in this House or the other place. We have strong-arm men and a few women twisting our arms. Hon. Members ask, "Where shall we vote?" and the Whips say, "Vote in that Lobby." Imagine if some Tory Member decided to baulk the Whips tonight and the House applied clauses 3 to 5 to them, all hell would be let loose.
      Mr. Heffer: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I do not think that anybody could put it better or more succinctly.
      The reason why the Government do not want a Longbridge vote for the ordinary worker on the shop floor is that they have the nonsensical idea that if only workers had a secret ballot, the majority of them would never vote for strike action. Of course, they have been proved wrong, not once, but on a number of occasions. At the present time they have been proved wrong by the vote at Ford. The workers had a secret ballot and decided, by an overwhelming majority, that they were prepared to go on strike. There have also been secret ballots by other sections of workers that have proved the Government wrong. As a result, the Government have been forced to say, "It is not working. It is going to our disadvantage because, by majority, the workers have said that they are going to
      100
      make a stand. Therefore, we will change the rules again." When the Government get into difficulty about any issue they constantly move the goalposts and change the rules. Now the Government believe that they must defend the rights of those who do not want to go on strike or who are prepared to break a picket line.
      The Government have said that if a union takes action under its rules to discipline members who have failed to take strike action, perhaps by imposing a mild fine, those members should be compensated. Listening to some Conservative Members one would imagine that such strike-breaking members are hung, drawn and quartered. Unions do nothing of the kind and, in my opinion, they are sometimes too gentle with people who break the rules. Conservative Members have double standards.
      The working people's fight for better conditions, better wages, reduction in hours, decent holidays and so on has been hard and bitter. All the workers' achievements have been got by that struggle. I worked in the shipyards and on construction sites and I never met one employer who came along and said, "Don't worry. Don't do anything and don't have a mass meeting. Don't think in terms of strike action because next week, lads, as we have made so much profit, we are going to give you another shilling an hour, reduce your working hours, give you longer holidays and more days off with more pay." Workers have had to say to their employers, "If you do not do something to improve our conditions we will use the only right we have and refuse to work for you until you do." That is a fundamental right of working people and, step by step, the Government are taking that right away.
      The Government would like to outlaw strikes altogether. They cannot do that at the moment — no doubt one day they will. In the meantime, the Government are seeking to make it as difficult as possible for the trade unions. The Government are faced with the situation where workers have, by an overwhelming majority, taken a decision for strike action. That is not in line with what the Government want, so they are now seeking to bring in legislation that will protect those who are prepared to go to work and to cross the picket lines. It is not just a question of police on the gates, because the Government are now seeking to take further action, even though there has been a secret ballot, to protect those people who scab. If the union takes action against them, there will be compensation for those workers. That is the scabs' charter. The Government are trying to defend people who would undermine the basis of the trade union movement.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend has been a little too fair to the Government. This legislation will allow scabs to operate. It is about the fourth or fifth step that the Government have taken, but the serious step that they want to take has been outlined in the Carlton club document, which states, in relation to the National Health Service, that the Government want to get rid of all trade unions. They want to have a gigantic Royal College of Nursing across the entire trade union movement. They could have 22 Trevor Clays running each trade union. They want no strikes, and the Bill is just another step along that road.
      Mr. Heffer: My hon. Friend is right. From the day they came to office, in employment legislation—that is a misnomer for a start—the Government have taken steps

      101
      to make the position of workers far worse even than that caused by the Industrial Relations Act 1971, which was introduced by the Administration of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). It was positively mild compared with what this Government have done.
      There are not many Conservative Members present in the Chamber, but I pose this question to them: are they willing to accept the ending of democratic practices in the trade union movement? It is only one step away from ending all democratic practices in the country. The Government start by attacking the trade unions, but they will move into other sections of the community and eventually they will say, "We had better not have elections, secret or otherwise, because they are dangerous and they might put in a Government we do not want." I ask Conservative Members who have been or are members of trade unions—
      Mr. Leighton: How many are there?
      Mr. Heffer: There are one or two. Do they agree with this further attack on the democratic rights of trade unionists and ordinary people?
      This is a mockery of what the Government argued. How can they say that it is essential to have a secret ballot and, when the secret ballot goes against them, defend those who want to break the decision of the majority? They are being two-faced. The workers' struggle has been a sort of warfare for better conditions. Sometimes the country has to fight wars, and members of the armed forces who scab in time of war or who run away are disciplined. They must be. One cannot turn and flee in the face of the enemy. But Conservative Members are saying that trade unionists who are engaged in warfare for better conditions, or to defend their conditions, may defect from the ranks—and that is all right with them. The Government say that that is fine; they support such union members and urge them to defect.
      I ask hon. Members to support the amendment, which would delete clauses 3, 4 and 5. That is essential, and if the House does not go along with us, it will be a further sign of the continuing movement towards authoritarian Government in this country.
      Mr. Clelland: My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham. North (Mr. Allen) referred — it seems a long time ago now—to the Donovan report, the Royal Commission on trade unions and employers' associations which met between 1965 and 1968. I have a copy here. It may look a little dog-eared, but that is not because I have just taken it from the dusty shelves of the Library. I bought it when I was a shop steward in 1968. It is probably the most in-depth study of trade unions and employers' associations ever done. It took a
      "considerable volume of written evidence … from Government Departments, the Trades Union Congress, the Confederation of British Industry, numerous trade unions and employers' associations, companies, nationalised industries, organisations connected with industrial relations, individuals having specialist knowledge of the subject, and members of the public. In all some 430 organisations, persons or groups of persons sent us written submissions."
      The commission sat on 58 days for the purpose of taking oral evidence. It conducted
      "interviews on the basis of a series of questionnaires with some 1,400 shop stewards, 200 full-time trade union officers, 500 workers belonging to trade unions, 400 non-union workers, 600 foremen, 300 works managers and 120 personnel officers."
      102
      The commission also conducted research into many other subjects. There were a number of visits to industrial establishments, and the views of management and shop stewards were taken.
      "Members also attended as observers a number of meetings of national joint negotiating bodies, including a Wages Council,"
      and paid visits to Sweden, which I understand the Secretary of State recently visited, and the Federal Republic of Germany.
      So a considerable amount of work was done by the Royal Commission, but it all seems to have fallen on deaf ears, to judge from this Bill, which goes against everything recommended in the report. In particular, clauses 3, 4 and 5 go against what the commission said. The Government pursue the myth that trade union members are some sort of sheep, which is an insult to many men and women who are members of trade unions. The Government think that those members are sheep being herded along by militant trade union officers for their own ends, despite what is happening with the National Union of Seamen, at Ford and in the National Health Service. In the face of all that, the Government still believe they cannot be wrong.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) asked the Secretary of State a question, which he failed to answer, about how clause 3 would affect a dispute such as the one at Ford. The Secretary of State has gone off for dinner now, and is doubtless enjoying brandy and cigars, so perhaps the Minister will reply to the question in his absence. How does the Minister imagine the clause would affect industrial relations in these work places especially in the Ford dispute? Does he not realise the bitterness that would be fuelled if, following a substantial majority in a balllot, some individuals decided to ignore the decision and go to work, no doubt escorted by the police under the powers given them by other legislation such as this? If Ministers cannot see that bitterness and recrimination on an immense scale would follow, they are divorced from reality and are ignoring the lessons of the past.
      At present, the ability of unions to impose some sort of disciplinary action on those who ignore majority decisions is at least a way of stemming such a bitter reaction and taking the steam out of the situation. Following a dispute of that nature, the shop steward would smooth over the trouble. I have experienced that on many occasions. I have told members "Let us calm feelings. The union has invoked disciplinary procedures, and at the end of the day the matter will be resolved." The member would be called upon to explain his action and the others would be assured that some form of discipline could and would be initiated. Such a procedure can take the heat out of things and sometimes violent incidents can be avoided.
      If that safety valve is removed, which is what is proposed in clauses 3 to 5, the Government will blow the lid off everything that has been done to promote good industrial relations over many years. As we have heard, no organisation of any note in industrial relations has a good word for the clauses. Anyone with any knowledge, and certainly any experience, of industrial relations knows the disastrous consequences of such a proposal and what will follow.
      What is the proposal about? The Government have alleged that it is about reducing the number of working days lost through strikes — or so it seems from the Secretary of State's remarks. Apparently, the right hon.

      103
      Gentleman regards the Government's record on working days lost through strikes as good. The point has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) that, like the unemployment figures, the figures for days lost through strikes have also been fiddled and no one can tell what the position is.
      However, if days lost is the important aspect of industrial relations that the Government wish to address, they are responsible for far more days being lost through unemployment than under any other Government in history. Some 1 billion working days per year are lost as a result of unemployment. The Government have presided over many more days being lost through sickness and accidents at work than have ever been lost through strikes, yet what do they do about that? They have reduced the capacity of the safety inspectorate to deal with unsafe practices at work. Worst of all, they have deliberately and calculatedly tightened their icy grip around the National Health Service so that it has reached the crisis point that we are now witnessing. The Government are not interested in the number of days lost through strikes; they are interested in anarchy because they stupidly believe that the proposal will cripple the trade unions.
      The Secretary of State said that the proposal is about essential freedoms, such as the essential freedom for people to go to work, regardless of a democratic decision to strike, in which he or she has freely participated. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) said, that essential freedom extends to all industrial action, whether it is an overtime ban or a work to rule. In a democratic society, complete freedom for every individual is a myth — it is impossible. We run our affairs through collective decision-making. Indeed, as we shall see again soon, the House runs on that very principle. The Government's supporters will troop through the Lobby to vote this squalid measure on to the statute book. That will be an act of the utmost hypocrisy, in that a decision taken in the House to encourage individuals to ignore a democratic majority decision will itself be taken by a majority vote in the House.
      How can any reasonable person who supports this country's democratic traditions, and who supports the House of Commons and its democratic traditions, have any respect for a Government who use that very system to undermine democratic accountability in the work place? A Government who think that they can introduce such a measure and retain respect are doomed to die from an overdose of their own arrogance.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Leighton: I did not intend to participate in the debate, as I was not a member of the Committee but I was provoked by the Secretary of State. Out of courtesy one comes to listen to the Secretary of State and, although I am mild-mannered, I was provoked into making a brief intervention.
      In introducing this fourth piece of legislation on industrial relations the Government have gone a Bill too far. In clause 3 they have gone a clause too far. I do not know of anyone who favours the clause. Can Conservative Members tell me of any reputable body of opinion or of any reputable organisation that is in favour of clause 3? I am anxious to give way to any hon. Member who can tell me of anyone who is in favour of the clause.
      Mr. David Blunkett: The Economic League, I think.
      Mr. Leighton: My hon. Friend is guessing. He is normally expert on these matters.
      Does any hon. Member know of anyone who is in favour of the clause? Are there any Conservative trade unionists who are in favour of it? Does the smiling Whip, the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown), or the other Whip, the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), know of anyone who is in favour of the clause?
      Mr. Andrew Rowe: It would be a serious denial of the position of the listening party if Conservative Members were to pre-empt the many currents of opinion that are flowing from that well-known listening party.
      Mr. Leighton: The hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), for whom I have great admiration, makes a brave effort. I am wondering how convincing he is, but I applaud him for trying to smooth over the fact that nobody is in favour of the clause, except, apparently, Ministers on the Front Bench.
      The clause is misguided, because it undermines ballots. We in the Labour party are in favour of ballots. The trade union movement is in favour of ballots; it lives by ballots. Unlike parliamentarians, who have ballots once every five years, trade unionists have ballots every day on myriad issues.
      Before I entered the House I was an active member of a trade union, in which I occupied a modest elected position. I was elected, as were all my colleagues in what we called the chapels, once every quarter. I and other officials had to be re-elected by a secret workplace ballot — not a postal ballot — every quarter. That was democracy run mad, because those officials had to be reelected before they had taken office and done anything. The unions are run by constant, interminable secret ballots.
      I am in favour of ballots. Every reputable body of opinion—including, primarily, employers—is against the clause, because it undermines ballots.
      It is said that if there is to be an industrial dispute there must be a ballot. If the vote goes against taking action, it must be abided by. If not, by penalty of law, the weight of the state will descend, funds could be sequestrated and one could even go to prison. According to the clause, if the vote goes in favour of industrial action it does not have to be abided by and everyone can do as they like. That surely undermines the principle of the ballot. Why have a ballot at all if no one has to take account of it? [Interruption.] The Government Whip, the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-East, is a very jolly character. It is pleasant to see someone deriving pleasure from these squalid and gruesome proceedings.
      I shall willingly give way if anyone can tell me of a body which does not work on the principle that I have described. As I understand it, in a democracy the minority have to abide by the majority vote. The majority prevail. That is certainly true in this place. I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, would insist on that being so. The same applies to every cricket club, football club, university, company or other organisation. Only the trade unions, by the diktat of this authoritarian and dictatorial Government, are expected to do things differently.

      105
      The Government are becoming schizophrenic. That is worrying. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) referred to the Government's attitude to the Ford dispute. In 1979 they said that they were not in favour of an incomes policy and that the Government should not have a view about wage levels—everything should be decided by the free market and independent partners in that market. They said that the Government should keep out of such matters. Now, however, there are daily exhortations from the Secretary of State about wages being too high. The Government must make up their minds where they stand.
      The Government are also becoming schizophrenic about whether trade unions should be coherent bodies. Do the Government want trade unions, operating in the labour market, dealing with industrial relations and negotiating with our great companies, to be coherent and disciplined organisations? Perhaps the Minister will answer that question when he replies to the debate. As I said in my intervention to the Secretary of State, when the general secretary of the National Union of Seamen appeared in the High Court recently he was asked to give an undertaking to call off the industrial action. The judge seemed to think that the undertaking given was not sincere and that the union would simply continue the dispute, so he was very severe on Mr. McCluskie, who was instructed to return to the court the following Tuesday and told that unless he used his best endeavours and exercised his discipline in the union to get the chaps back to work he had better "watch out". That union was expected to act in a disciplined and coherent way. The general secretary was told to enforce his discipline on the members or the union's funds would be taken away. Do the Government want unions to be disciplined and coherent?
      Another example concerns the print unions at Wapping. When the unions were organising nightly demonstrations, the court gave instructions about those demonstrations. When it was felt that some union members were not abiding by those instructions, the court threatened to bankrupt the union. The national executive of the union, without having a ballot, exercised its authority under the rules—and the rules are the free contract between the union and its members, under which discipline is exercised — and obeyed the orders of the court and called off the strike. That is the way the trade union operated its discipline.
      Do the Government want trade unions to have discipline and coherence, or not? They do not know. They are schizophrenic. They want it sometimes, but not at other times. If the discipline is to carry out a dispute, they do not want it. If it is to call off a strike, they insist on it, using the threat of huge penalties and swingeing fines. We should have the truth, and the Government should stop being schizophrenic, because that is not the way to make law. That is not the way to legislate for law that will stick and remain. Clause 3 will not remain. It will not endure, because it is not just and proper.
      When I taxed the Secretary of State about this, he said that when a union calls a dispute a member has obligations to his union, but he also has obligations to other people, such as the employer, and to his contract. That is true, but those workers at Wapping who voted to take industrial action were sacked because they broke their contract. We have to ask whether we have the right to strike. If workers ballot to strike and take strike action but are then sacked and their contract of employment is revoked, we do not
      106
      have the right to strike. We do not have a right to strike set out in a constitution as they do in the continental countries. Britain is the only country in the Western world, as far as I know, that does not have the right to strike written into its law.
      The way to end this conflict of obligations is for the Government to introduce legislation saying that if there is a strike the contract is suspended. That is what happens in the United States of America and every Western European country. The Secretary of State may say that that will encourage strikes, and the Government do not like strikes, but none of us like strikes. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has great experience of strikes and knows that the people who suffer are the trade union members who go on strike. They lose their wages and suffer mental stress, and there is stress on their families. They do not take such action lightly, or very often. The majority of working people have been on strike at the most only once or twice.
      The right to strike is a basic inalienable freedom in any free democratic society. Show me a country without the right to strike and I will point to a dictatorship. Under this Government, we are moving towards that. The Government have no consensus for this legislation and cannot produce a single witness in support of it. This is a clause too far and a Bill too far. It will not stick, and it is the result of a vendetta, vindictiveness and arrogance. It is wrong.
      Ms. Clare Short: We raised this matter in Committee. We suggested to the Government that the Solidarity trade union movement in Poland would not be free to operate in the manner that it wished under British trade union law. The Government said twice that in an unfree society such as that in Poland trade unions are needed, but that in a society like ours, which the Government say is free, we do not need them.
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Leighton: My hon. Friend has made an extremely good point about the Government's double standards. We should be in favour of free, independent trade unions in Poland — as, indeed, the Government are — but we should also be in favour of them in this country. Although the Government are in favour of free, independent trade unions in Poland, in this country they are taking away the rights of trade unions. We want free independent trade unions in every country, but above all in this country, where the trade union movement was born. The Government may think it an alien institution that was invented in Poland, but the Poles are only just beginning to learn about trade unions, and they are learning from us. We invented the trade unions. They are British institutions, native to this country. They will not be destroyed by this Government, and especially not by the Employment Front Bench team.
      The Minister for Employment has some slight responsibility for training programmes. It is about time that Employment Ministers took part in a training programme on industrial relations and trade unions. It is all rather like a pendulum swinging from one extreme to the other. The Government are at the very limit of one extreme with this absurd, ludicrous legislation that no one supports. It is misguided and mistaken and, in the fullness of time, we will get rid of it.
      Mr. Skinner: One or two hon. Members have asked what the Bill is all about, and some of my hon. Friends have made some very good arguments against it. I am waiting to hear one of the Tory Back Benchers have a go. I am sure that they must have something to say. I do not know whether they managed to say anything in Committee — [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That simply proves that, when the Government say they want to guillotine a Bill, there is no truth in their argument that the Opposition have taken up all the time in Committee. This Bill is not guillotined, but Conservative Members still did not say anything in Committee. It blows a hole in the Government's claim that the Opposition deliberately filibuster.
      The Bill is about shifting the balance of power away from working-class people and their families towards the bosses. Since 1979, there have been several Acts dealing with employment issues, every single one of which had within it the idea that the Thatcher Government could say to the nation, "This is an another Act on the statute book that hammers the trade union leaders"—the emphasis is always on the leaders. For the past decade, it has been the classic Conservative belief that if they attacked a few trade union leaders that would gain a few percentage points in suburbia-land—the people with the filofaxes, and the pampas grass in their gardens. The Government tested their argument through MORI and Gallup, which asked, "What do you want?" Sadly, many people in the south of England in particular, but also in other parts to a lesser degree, replied, "Hammer the trade union leaders."
      Most of those people—the yuppies now searching for their Porsches outside the pawnshops — never thought that trade unions were about trade unionists, about men and women belonging to trade unions, yet some of those yuppies perhaps come from working class families.
      Those people bought this silly notion. The Prime Minister's crown princes will grovel at her feet and will probably do so again tomorrow when there is a vote on the televising of proceedings in this place. They will scamper into the Lobby after her. I bet the shop stewards will be on the door saying, "Get 'em in." They will be running, saying, "Where has she gone?" Let us suppose that one of them says, "I'm not going into that Lobby. I believe in televising Parliament. I'm going to invoke clauses 3 to 5 of the Employment Bill. I'm going to opt out." What chance has he or she of getting promotion? He or she will not even get a bag-carrier's job, let alone a post as an unpaid, grovelling parliamentary private secretary. That is the way they operate.
      At the beginning of this Session, in the afterglow of victory, I have no doubt that, when it came to proposing legislation, the Prime Minister said, "We must have an Education Bill." The Secretary of State for Education probably said, "Oh, yes, we shall have to have one of those. I wasn't very happy about it during the election campaign, but I'll settle for it now that I've got the job. It may enable me to perform at the Dispatch Box and get a few votes when you've gone, Prime Minister." The Prime Minister probably said, "We shall have to have a poll tax Bill. You had better get that ready because it will give me £2,000 in my pocket. I want a poll tax Bill now. Get it on the statute book."
      Then somebody would say, "We must have an Employment Bill." Somebody new to the Cabinet may ask, "Why? Do we need one? We have the trade unions tied up," to which the reply would be, "It's good
      108
      propaganda to have a trade union bill, if not two, in every Session because it shows that we are attacking the workers and, particularly, trade union bosses. We want there to be a configuration in the minds of people who drift between the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), who leads the party that dares not speak its name, as that might just swing the vote."
      Then someone in the Cabinet says, "What shall we put in the Bill? I've a good idea. What about making them have ballots?" Someone else will reply, "We've done that. Didn't you know?", to which the reply will be, "I went through the Lobby without thinking." Someone else will say, "We must have another one. It must have something to do with ballots because we are handing back the unions to the members."
      The Ford workers have found that out in the last fortnight. Thirty-two thousand of them have had a taste of it and said, "Well, the Prime Minister said we've got to hand the unions back to the members. We've got'em and I'm not bothered about what Mick Murphy says." The Bill would tie Mick Murphy to the floor and release the members. This Bill is another attempt at being macho. This will show the yuppies that the Government are still in pursuit of the trade unions.
      Clauses 3 to 5 make nonsense of democracy. On the "World at One" programme on the radio last week, I heard a discussion that I thought I would never hear in Thatcher-land. Three or four pundits were taking part, whom one would normally expect to agree with everything that the Tory Government want. One said, "This is an Employment Bill too many." I thought, "Well, has he switched? Has he been to one of our listening campaigns?" One never knows. There are all sorts going, so they tell me—the chamber of commerce and the Police Federation. They are writing the Labour manifesto. Others are now joining in. They are from establishment-type institutions. They have all the answers. They take them to "World at One". They throw in a Member of Parliament now and then just to liven it up, or to damp it down, as the case may be. Without exception, using long words, all have come to the same result and have said, "They have gone too far."
      Of course, Governments can overreach themselves. This Government are doing it in many respects. They have done so with the Education Reform Bill, the poll tax Bill, and with this Bill. They are saying to the people, "Oh yes, we believe in democracy," but if two or three people do not accept the majority view, they will invoke the "David Owen" clause, the one whereby one does not accept the result of a ballot and one does as one likes.
      Tory Members have jeered at the Liberals and the SDP over the course of the past few months. Of course they can jeer. They have not accepted the results of the ballot. Yet the same people will march through the Lobby tonight, following the Secretary of State for Employment and the rest of the Cabinet, to vote for clauses 3 to 5, which will license people to say, "The ballot? Get stuffed."
      The Bill is part of the propaganda and machinery to dismantle Socialism. We cannot draw any other conclusion. Some time ago, the Prime Minister said that she wanted to see the end of Socialism. She actually believes that. It is nonsensical to say it. She is supposed to be bright, but she actually believes that she can dismantle a philosophy by passing Bills in the House of Commons. It is another step, she hopes—in my view, it will not

      109
      work—towards Victoriana, to impose a type of upstairs-downstairs mentality on anybody who works in the House of Commons. I refer to those who clock on and clock off. They know only too well about the upstairs-downstairs mentality in here. We saw recent evidence of cases in which that attitude was imposed upon workers in the building. I suppose that the Governent are trying it out, ready to impose it on many others.
      I said earlier that the matter is all about shifting the balance of power towards bosses. We shall see more of that in the 15 March Budget. If the Bill is passed, it will result in many people outside realising at long last just how vicious and vindictive the Tory Government can be. Just imagine somebody going along to next Thursday morning's Cabinet meeting and saying, "I do not think that I like what you have just said. I am not going along with it." The Government will say. "We have just had a majority vote." They do not have votes, they have what is called a collection of voices. The Prime Minister will say, "What did you say?" He will say, "Well, I was just thinking that I do not quite like it." He would be sacked. The Government would do what they are telling trade unionists to do as a result of a ballot. It is the same principle. They want the jam, the cake, the bread and all the rest of it rolled into one.
      Universities were mentioned earlier. It crossed my mind that they recently held a big ballot at Oxford. They all went up in those gowns and kinky clothes to vote. There was an ex-Prime Minister and Lord Jenkins—that bloke who tried to take my seat one day; I told him, "We've had a ballot for that seat and I have won." They had a vote at Oxford and Lord Jenkins won—
      It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Employment Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. — [Mr. Durant .]

  Employment Bill
  As amended, again considered.
  Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
  Mr. Skinner: You see, Mr. Speaker, we have just had a vote. The majority won. What would you say, Mr. Speaker, if I said, "I'm not having it." I would be out. The House will see what I mean. My shoulders are big enough to bear it. I would be off; I would not argue, although as we both know, Mr. Speaker, we might occasionally argue about technicalities and the fine print.
  The House can just imagine the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) saying when Lord Jenkins won, "I'm not having it. I'm going to invoke clauses 3 to 5 of the new Employment Bill. I'm not going to allow him to have the job." That makes nonsense of what the Government are doing.
  I call these the "Peter Wright" clauses, because the same argument applies. In that case, we have a bevy of spies. They all agree to keep their mouths shut but when they get their pensions, Peter Wright comes along and says, "I'm not bothered about that. I'm doing my own thing. I'm going to make some money on the side." The principle established in clauses 3 to 5 will give licence to all those lawyers who are in a closed shop. They all have to join, although the lawyers' union is a different union altogether.
  110
  The House can just imagine what will happen. Some bright-eyed lawyer will come along and say, "I'm not going along with that lot." The clauses open a big door.
  On Thursday, the Prime Minister celebrates 13 years as leader of the Tory party. She became leader on 11 February 1975. She got the job because there was a vote and she won. The previous Prime Minister was caught napping and one or two Conservatives thought, "We will give her a vote or two." Most people said, "They only tried to frighten Heath." I say that in parenthesis, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister won. That is what democracy means. The Tory party and other institutions are allowed all these democratic trappings, but it is a different ball game for trade unions. They are told, "You can have your vote but woe betide the winners if they do not act to suit the Tory party." That is the truth of it. The Government say to the bosses, "It is all right. We have a different method of balloting. Don't worry."
  Just imagine someone turning up and being paid to invoke the clauses. It would not be for the first time. One has only to listen to some of the things that we have heard over the years from the Economic League and other organisations. People have been implanted into areas where there has been industrial ferment and strikes. Many of us thought that that happened during the miners' strike. Under the new system one would certainly not need many such people to wreck the whole of industrial relations in Britain. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) said, those scabs — they could be saboteurs if they were paid — would be completely protected by the law under this undemocratic system.
  I went to Manchester a few weeks ago to see some trade unionists and to speak at their anniversary rally. They were employed by Senior Colman and had been on strike for 12 months. Some of my hon. Friends know about the case. Those men got done—not for taking part in a ballot, but because they could not fill in their timesheets properly, according to the gaffers. They got sacked because they did not fill in their timesheets. Imagine if that applied in here. I told them "They don't have timesheets in the House of Commons. In the House of Lords, they just nod to the bod, get their names in the book, call for a drink at the bar and go, getting £100 per day tax-free."
  When I saw those 31 men and women who were still on strike after 12 months I could see all the Employment Bills in front of my eyes, and here is another to stoke up some Senior Colman-type industrial disputes, to start another Silentnight, to attack many of the low-paid workers, many of whom, after a lifetime of never having been on strike, finally have to take up the cudgels because the freedom to strike, to withdraw their labour, is the only freedom that the trade unions have. However, having had a democratic vote they are being told, "Not only will your funds be sequestrated if there is secondary action, but people can now usurp your authority by taking you to the courts." Who elected the judges? Of course, they did not have a vote. They did not have to run into that problem.
  I can see a lot of difficulties ahead, yet I am an optimist. To be a Socialist, one always has to be optimistic. In this deceitful, vindictive legislation I can see the seeds of a revival among many of our people. It will not only be the blue and white-collar workers, the nurses and others who have taken industrial action recently, who will spot just what is happening now in this so-called "mother of Parliaments." The Tory Government are now trampling on freedoms in such a way as to say, "We treat you

  111
  working people with so much contempt that you can have a ballot but we shall give the rights to the people who have been defeated." That is contempt, but the Government will see to it. It may take a while; it may need a few more policy reviews and a bit more listening, but it will happen.
  We are now reaching the point where, such is the nature of industrial relations in Britain today, exemplified by the Bill, that I almost thought that I could hear the siren calls from the Tory Benches when the nurses and ancillary workers went on strike last week. I was getting ready to hear the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and his mates talking about the nurses as the enemy within. That will come. However, because it will come, people will not stand for it.
  As those people who have commented on the Bill and are not Socialists, not even trade unionists, have said, it is one Bill too many. One of my hon. Friends has referred to the Industrial Relations Act 1971, which flew in the face of the Donovan Commission report, which had been published some time before. People said then that it was not fair. The result was that the then Tory Prime Minister had to come to the House to say, and I paraphrase, "I have put the Industrial Relations Act on the back boiler".
  We shall vote against the Bill in the knowledge that a lot of people believe that the cause that we are fighting is correct. The very idea that in a democractic country one can have a democratic ballot between trade unionists but because they are trade unionists no notice will be taken of it, is why we shall win in the end.
  Mr. Cryer: I hesitate to follow such a powerful exposition of the tortuous nature of the Bill. [Interruption.] The more that Conservative Members suggested that I should not, the longer I will take to expound the case in detail, because they need some time to be educated.
  Clauses 3 to 5 are designed to wreck the democratic provisions that the Government are imposing on ordinary workers. I thought that it might be useful to remind the House of the wage levels about which we are talking. The Low Pay Unit has done a survey in west Yorkshire and Humberside specifically about the wages of the people who want to negotiate decent terms and conditions, and the low wages that are paid to young workers.
  A 20-year-old working full-time on a construction site earns £1·30 an hour. An under 21-year-old is paid £28 a week for working full-time in an estate agents' office. A 20-year-old is paid £60 to work more than 40 hours a week doing motor repairs. An under 21-year-old is paid £52 to work 37½ hours a week in a hydraulics warehouse. An under 21-year-old is paid £1·50 an hour to work in double glazing assembly. An under 21-year-old girl is paid £38 to work 44 hours a week in a stables. A 17-year-old hairdresser, a second-year trainee, is paid 85p an hour. Those wages were paid in 1987.
  Conservative Members are trying to wreck the development of trade union membership and the negotiating rights for people earning 85p per hour. That is scandalous when Conservative Members are getting £22,000 a year as Members of Parliament, but most of them are also lining their pockets through parliamentary adviserships and directorships. Some of them are knee-deep in such work, yet they will vote in the Lobby tonight for a Bill to stop trade unions organising themselves and,
  112
  after a ballot when a majority has decided to take strike action, applying some rules that have stood the test of time and have been applied fairly over the years. They are saying that if somebody does not support strike action and goes through a picket line, or does not take part in a strike, trade unions can say, "We have taken a majority decision and we will make you subject to our rules." However, they will then be subject to the compensation provisions in clauses 3 to 7. Moreover, that compensation will be taken from the trade unions' funds. It is another attack on trade union finances.
  Therefore is it not unreasonable that we should examine the matter in some detail because when the Secretary of State was defending clauses 3 to 5 against the Opposition amendment which is very reasonable he said that as a result of the legislation of Conservative Governments, industrial relations in Britain had actually improved. I intervened and said that perhaps the statistics were being fiddled again. The statistics are being fiddled in a way that I shall explain to the House.
  The legislation will not improve industrial relations. It will make them worse. That was a characteristic of past legislation. The Government claimed that fewer days have been lost through strike action. The truth is that days are not counted when workers who go out on strike are subsequently sacked, even if at the end of the period those workers are reinstated. The days when they are out on strike, but which the employer counts as days when they are sacked, are not included in that total.
  10.15 pm
  I shall give the House an example of the way in which the statistics which are used to justify these three clauses have been fiddled. In west Yorkshire there was a two-year strike at Silentnight bedding manufacturers, the chairman of which has an abiding hatred and detestation of trade unions which equals that of the Government and would have made Adolf Hitler proud. He negotiated with the Furniture, Timber and Allied Trades Union and they reached an agreement. In justifying these three clauses the Secretary of State said that trade unions have not been concerned about creating redundancies through high wages, but this example refutes that. The Silentnight workers said, "We won't accept a wage increase providing you don't make anyone redundant and we shall have the arrangement for a minimum of six months. We shall waive a national agreement." The workers undertook their side of the bargain, but after two months the management sacked 40, in breach of the agreement. The workers took a ballot and in both factories there was a clear majority for strike action.
  These people were not high wage earners; they were relatively low wage earners. The Clarke family had been sucking the firm dry by taking a huge proportion of the profits. One third of what they took would have paid the claim for a full 12 months. That is a clear example of a parasitic employer sucking money from the firm for himself and his family and depriving workers of a decent wage.
  The workers went on strike and were sacked after three months, but they stayed out for nearly two years. Of those 24 months only three were counted as strike action. Nevertheless, it remained one of the longest, most bitter disputes that west Yorkshire has seen. By manipulating the statistics the Secretary of State is claiming that industrial relations have improved. That is absolute nonsense.

  113
  Under clause 3 any worker at Silentnight who voted for strike action, walked through the gates to help the employer defeat the trade unions and was then subject to disciplinary action, could claim compensation from the union that took the majority decision. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) so graphically and powerfully explained, it is against every basic tenet of democracy which hon. Members, the Cabinet and Conservative Members are supposed to uphold. There is not one other example—I shall be interested to hear the Minister produce another example, if he can—of where, when a majority takes a decision, a minority is not only exempt from that decision, but can claim compensation.
  If the Minister says that trade unions have not applied the rules fairly—indeed, the Secretary of State gave one illustration—I am sure that hon. Members will agree that one example as a reason for legislation is a poor basis. If one used such a basis to legislate on the Cabinet, legislation would be introduced to stop Cabinet members committing adultery. The Government have not done so, but that is one powerful example—it rocked the nation—and is more important than the example the Secretary of State gave about one trade union.
  If such a rule is good enough for trade unions which represent 9 million people, why is it not good enough for a handful of people in the Cabinet? Adultery is one example of something that must be stopped, so presumably legislation must be passed. The majority of the Cabinet must surely believe that, for the majority of the time, most of them behave with a certain moral standing in their private lives, but it is their public lives that worry me. Their public lives are disgraceful and are prime examples of degradation.
  For years the trade unions have, with one or two hiccups, been managed well and run democratically. The notion that the one example that the Secretary of State has quoted is a justification for the vicious measure is wrong. It is a justification for every saboteur and every agent provocateur that the Tories can dig up. It is the encapsulation of the man who, in the 1960s, brought Chrysler to a halt. He was a member of a trade union, but all of a sudden he said that he had to resign from the closed shop. He had to resign because he said he was hearing the voice of God. God was telling him to leave the trade union. Some of us believe that he was either a schizophrenic, or, more likely, the voice of God was coming to him from the CBI, the Engineering Employers Federation or the Tory party.
  Mr. Skinner: Or Anderton.
  Mr. Cryer: Yes indeed, they may have been communicating together. Perhaps they were members of the same church — the Methodists, the Church of England or whatever it was at that time. Certainly they were moved in the same way. If someone says they are hearing voices it is difficult to disprove that. Most people put it down to sheer pretence, mischief or a mental breakdown. However, under this legislation every knave or saboteur has the opportunity of legal backing. That is the purpose of the Bill.
  The Government's political philosophy and standards are much the same—they will not like this—as those displayed in Germany under Hitler before the war. That is true in every aspect, from privatisation and their concern for small shopkeepers — that is an alleged concern
  114
  because it is not put into much practice because they are paid more by the multinationals and they call the tune—to their vicious attacks on the trade union movement. The cumulative effect of legislation from 1980 has been to ensnare and encircle ordinary men and women in a wreath of legislation to curb their activities.
  The reality is that—I have said this before but it is worth repeating again and again—more days are lost each year through industrial injury than through strikes. That is based on the Government's statistics and, if that is so, why are the Government doing nothing about health and safety at work? They are not doing very much, apart from trying to water down standards.
  There have been some graphic illustrations of Government cuts in public standards having tragic consequences. King's Cross is a by-word for cuts in staff. They have all been replaced now, but it is a bit late for the 50 people who were trapped when the fire swept through King's Cross. No one can deny the facts. The answers to parliamentary questions that I have asked show that there were cuts in health and safety standards on the London underground, and they were brought into the open by a chance fire.
  In all those areas, the Government could use their time to improve standards of health and safety at work. If they did that, they might achieve the Valhalla for which they constantly seek, with the Opposition agreeing to improved standards of health and safety at work and tighter controls on asbestos. Despite their claims, they have been a hit lax about asbestos. There are still cowboy operators around. No qualifications are needed to get a licence to remove asbestos in our schools, houses, hospitals and factories.
  Mr. Skinner: They do not have a ballot for that.
  Mr. Cryer: That is right. The cowboys simply write to the Health and Safety Executive, obtain a licence and they are in work.
  The Minister has the opportunity to accept the amendment, which proposes to delete clauses 3, 4 and 5, and make the Bill a little better. They should remove this extraordinary corruption of democracy. One ray of hope is that the Bill's ideology is so corrupt as to show the Government beginning to curl at the edges. They are becoming overweening and arrogant, and their supporters are beginning to find it difficult to justify their employment legislation. The Bill is the beginning of their undoing. Their arrogance has made them think less and produce more of such ugly Bills.
  I do not wish to detain the House for much longer, especially after the powerful contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover, so I shall make this my last point. It is ironic that, when trade unionists apply the rules that have been approved democratically by the ballot procedure and a complainant then seeks compensation under clause 3(4)(b), the compensation must be paid from trade union funds. That is a further punishment on trade unions, which are already heavily pressed by the Government's economic policies. The Government's economic and social policies have destroyed 2 million jobs and are designed to subdue the work force and make people more complacent. Many of the people who lost their jobs were trade union members, but they no longer pay trade union subscriptions. As a result, the unions were hard-pressed for cash. The Bill is another attack on their

  115
  funds and is an encouragement to someone who may be a bit short of cash after a dispute to take his union to court in the hope of getting a little money back.
  This is a scab's charter. It is designed to encourage disaffection in the trade union movement and to encourage the saboteur. Trade unions' funds, as well as the cohesive organisation of the movement, are being attacked. This legislation finally demonstrates that old truisms still hold sway. The trade unions represent ordinary working men and women struggling to make a decent living and obtain decent standards in their environment and their working conditions and the Government represent the owners of capital trying to stop workers combining in trade unions.
  The Government have not succeeded in the past, and they are not succeeding now. The Government's policies are so appalling that they have brought out on to the streets people who have never taken industrial action before. They have produced a solid mass of trade union legislation since 1980, and they have brought the angels out—men and women who agonised for months and who could see their rotten conditions, and, more important, the conditions for their patients deteriorating because of the Government's shoddy policies of deliberately running down the National Health Service so that they could argue that only private money could rescue it.
  There is always hope. There is hope in the Ford workers heeding what the Prime Minister said in 1978, when she saw a political opportunity and took it. The Ford workers, the nurses and workers in all walks of life will not be suppressed. There have been too many years of organisation, aspirations and democracy for this sort of shoddy legislation to be imposed on workers.
  10.30 pm
  The Minister for Employment (Mr. John Cope): My right hon. Friend set out the basic arguments for these clauses once again about two or three hours ago. I shall now try to respond to some of the points that have been made in the debate since then.
  It is clear that strong views are held about our proposals, and that neither those views nor the arguments advanced in support of them have changed in the course of our discussions since Second Reading, or before. Quite a few Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), seemed to think that this would be the end of trade unionism as it is known today. I can assure the hon. Member for Newham, North-East that we are not out to destroy the trade unions, but are out to give a small piece of extra freedom to individual members of unions.
  My right hon. Friend was pressed to give examples of unions disciplining their members. Some examples were given in the Green Paper some time ago. In recent months, even while we have been discussing the Bill, there have been the examples of the National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers expelling 500 members, and the National Communications Union is reported as having expelled a great many more than that.
  Almost no Opposition Member has picked up my right hon. Friend's point about the effect of ballots when there are subsequent changes in offers as a result of discussions,
  116
  as frequently happens, and about whether a ballot should be binding in those circumstances. Whatever view one takes of the proposals, it is an odd doctrine to suggest that taking action—whether by striking or some other means — should bind a trade unionist, even after there has been a further offer, or perhaps several offers before or after the action started, and sometimes both.
  The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) seemed to agree a little with that point, although he might have gone along with it only for the purposes of argument, but I do not think that he would be happy with the clause even if it applied only where there was no change in an offer between a ballot and the members' decision to return to work, or to withdraw from the action. There is an important point there, which should be taken into account by Opposition Members and those who comment on those matters.
  As some other hon. Members have said, I accept that, particularly when there is a strike but also when there is other industrial action, feelings often run high. Feelings have run high this evening. Some individuals might want to take it out on those who have not supported the action or who have withdrawn their support at some stage during the action. It has been argued tonight, as it has been before, that one of the effects of the unions exerting disciplinary pressure is somehow to draw the sting of those high feelings. I believe that union disciplinary proceedings also give credence to those who try to exert other pressure on those who have withdrawn from a strike or did not support it in the first place. That can work in one way, and sometimes it can work in another, often in the same dispute.
  Mr. Allen: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Cope: No. It has been a long debate, and the hon. Gentleman made a long speech.
  The central point is the clash of obligations for someone who is faced with a strike call — the clash between his obligations to his union, which we recognise, and his obligations to his contract of employment, his family, the customers of the company, and, indeed the strength of the company itself, or whoever his employer is. The Bill does not choose for the trade union member which of those obligations he should honour. It gives him the opportunity to choose for himself. In the past the Labour party has given at best half-hearted support to ballots, but now Labour Members talk as if they were the staunchest defenders of ballots that there had ever been.
  My right hon. Friend was asked when Opposition Members had said that those who disagreed with unions should leave them. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) said that nobody in Committee had ever argued that point. In Committee the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said:
  "Of course they have other obligations, and if they find membership of a trade union so damaging to those other obligations, they can leave the union."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 19 November 1987; c. 110.]
  On another occasion the hon. Gentleman returned to the subject and said:
  "If a person objects profoundly to what the union is doing, his answer is to withdraw from membership of it."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 24 November 1987; c. 113–14.]
  So that argument was used, and not only by the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Martin Redmond: The Minister has accused Labour Members of being reluctant to accept

  117
  ballots. Given that in ballots the majority rule the day, why do the Government now propose legislation that will seek to destroy majority decisions in a secret ballot? Will the Minister comment on the Prime Minister's quotation from St. Francis of Assisi in 1979, which conveys the sentiment that where there is discord he shall bring harmony? I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is acquainted with that. Perhaps he will relate that to the industrial action by the nurses for the first time ever — —[Interruption.] — and perhaps the Secretary of State will keep quiet or go outside the Chamber where he has been for most of the evening.
  Mr. Cope: With regard to discord, we have already discussed the figures for strikes, days lost and the way in which the numbers have fallen. Whatever nitpicking takes place about those figures, the trend is perfectly clear.
  With regard to the general argument for the clause, I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was present when my right hon. Friend set out the argument for the clause, but he did so very clearly.
  Labour Members want those who disagree with unions to leave them or for them to be driven out. They want the membership of unions to be constantly distilled. They go on about the rights of employees to belong to a union. The clause protects a person's right to remain a member even when he or she disagrees with the union on a matter. Labour Members reject that right.
  These clauses are not the end of trade unionism as we know it. They are an importat piece of extra freedom for individual members of a union.
  Mr. Strang: I am glad that the House has taken time to debate this amendment fully. These clauses are among the most indefensible that have ever appeared in a Bill before the House. It is a measure of how extreme and indefensible they are that so many organisations, which normally agree with the Government, including employers' organisations, have attacked them for being extreme and for undermining the democratic process.
  As Labour Members have repeatedly said, the Government have been motivated, in the Bill and in the three previous Acts affecting trade unions, by the fundamental objective of undermining the bargaining power, strength and role of trade unions in our society.
  The Minister acknowledged that feelings run high in these matters. That is true, but there is no doubt in our mind, or in those or many employers, including the Engineering Employers Federation, that, far from reducing anarchy and indiscipline during industrial disputes, these clauses will make matters worse.
  It is hypocritical for the Government to talk about the need to protect workers who are on strike but who feel that if they do not return to work they will lose their employment, because in the Employment Act 1982 the Government created a position whereby workers dismissed while taking part in industrial action were collectively re-engaged three months later. That legislation enables an employer to practise discrimination against strikers and dismiss them.
  We have heard no justification for this draconian set of clauses. This measure is not only damaging to good trade unionism but will have an adverse effect on industrial relations in this country. I have no doubt that it will be repealed—the sooner the better.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 200, Noes 246.

  Division No. 169]

  [10.45 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Gordon, Ms Mildred

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Allen, Graham

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Anderson, Donald

  Grocott, Bruce

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Hardy, Peter

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Haynes, Frank

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Ashton, Joe

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Henderson, Douglas

  Barron, Kevin

  Hinchliffe, David

  Battle, John

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Holland, Stuart

  Beggs, Roy

  Home Robertson, John

  Bell, Stuart

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Howells, Geraint

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Blunkett, David

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Boateng, Paul

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Boyes, Roland

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Bradley, Keith

  Illsley, Eric

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Ingram, Adam

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Janner, Greville

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  John, Brynmor

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Buchan, Norman

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Buckley, George

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Caborn, Richard

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Callaghan, Jim

  Lambie, David

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Lamond, James

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Leighton, Ron

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Lewis, Terry

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Litherland, Robert

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Clay, Bob

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Clelland, David

  McAllion, John

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  McAvoy, Tom

  Cohen, Harry

  McCartney, Ian

  Coleman, Donald

  Macdonald, Calum

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  McFall, John

  Corbett, Robin

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  McKelvey, William

  Cousins, Jim

  McLeish, Henry

  Cox, Tom

  McNamara, Kevin

  Crowther, Stan

  McTaggart, Bob

  Cryer, Bob

  Madden, Max

  Cummings, J.

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Marek, Dr John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Darling, Alastair

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Martlew, Eric

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Maxton, John

  Dewar, Donald

  Meacher, Michael

  Dixon, Don

  Meale, Alan

  Dobson, Frank

  Michael, Alun

  Doran, Frank

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Dunnachie, James

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Fatchett, Derek

  Morley, Elliott

  Faulds, Andrew

  Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

  Fearn, Ronald

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Mullin, Chris

  Flannery, Martin

  Murphy, Paul

  Flynn, Paul

  Nellist, Dave

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Foster, Derek

  O'Brien, William

  Foulkes, George

  O'Neill, Martin

  Fyfe, Mrs Maria

  Parry, Robert

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Patchett, Terry

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Pendry, Tom

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Pike, Peter

  George, Bruce

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Prescott, John

  119

  Primarolo, Ms Dawn

  Snape, Peter

  Radice, Giles

  Steinberg, Gerald

  Redmond, Martin

  Stott, Roger

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Strang, Gavin

  Reid, John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Turner, Dennis

  Robertson, George

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Rogers, Allan

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Rowlands, Ted

  Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Salmond, Alex

  Wilson, Brian

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Winnick, David

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Worthington, Anthony

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Wray, James

  Short, Clare

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

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

  Mrs. Llin Golding and

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

  Mr. Frank Cook.

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Couchman, James

  Alexander, Richard

  Cran, James

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Allason, Rupert

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Amos, Alan

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Arbuthnot, James

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Dover, Den

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Durant, Tony

  Ashby, David

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Atkins, Robert

  Favell, Tony

  Atkinson, David

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Baldry, Tony

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Gale, Roger

  Batiste, Spencer

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Gill, Christopher

  Bellingham, Henry

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bendall, Vivian

  Gow, Ian

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Benyon, W.

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Greenway, John (Rydale)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Gregory, Conal

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Grist, Ian

  Boswell, Tim

  Ground, Patrick

  Bottomley, Peter

  Grylls, Michael

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Hannam, John

  Bowis, John

  Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Harris, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Hayes, Jerry

  Bright, Graham

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Hayward, Robert

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hind, Kenneth

  Burns, Simon

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Burt, Alistair

  Holt, Richard

  Butterfill, John

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Howard, Michael

  Carrington, Matthew

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Cash, William

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Cope, John

  Hunter, Andrew

  120

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Irvine, Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Jack, Michael

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Jackson, Robert

  Rost, Peter

  Janman, Timothy

  Rowe, Andrew

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Ryder, Richard

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Key, Robert

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knapman, Roger

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Knowles, Michael

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Knox, David

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shersby, Michael

  Lang, Ian

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Latham, Michael

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Speed, Keith

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Speller, Tony

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Lilley, Peter

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Squire, Robin

  Lord, Michael

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Steen, Anthony

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Stern, Michael

  McCrindle, Robert

  Stevens, Lewis

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Maclean, David

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Stokes, John

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Madel, David

  Sumberg, David

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Summerson, Hugo

  Malins, Humfrey

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mans, Keith

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Marland, Paul

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mills, Iain

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Tracey, Richard

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Tredinnick, David

  Moate, Roger

  Trippier, David

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Moss, Malcolm

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Neale, Gerrard

  Walden, George

  Nelson, Anthony

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Neubert, Michael

  Waller, Gary

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Ward, John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Watts, John

  Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

  Wells, Bowen

  Paice, James

  Wheeler, John

  Patnick, Irvine

  Whitney, Ray

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Wilshire, David

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Portillo, Michael

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Price, Sir David

  Wood, Timothy

  Raffan, Keith

  Woodcock, Mike

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Redwood, John

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Riddick, Graham

  Mr. Alan Howarth.

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Question accordingly negatived

Employment Bill
Mr. Nicholls: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 4, line 45, leave out 'any of.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this we may discuss Government amendments Nos. 4 to 6 and 21.
Mr. Nicholls: The amendments address two concerns raised by the Opposition in Committee. First, they ensure that disciplining, in the context of maintaining professional standards, will not be unjustified and, secondly, they remove potential from disciplining in respect of assertions made in bad faith. I hope that they will be welcomed by the House.
Mr. Strang: I shall not detain the Committee, but it would be helpful if the Minister could clarify amendments Nos. 5 and 6. I understand that they are intended as concessions to points raised by Opposition Members in Committee.
The purpose of amendment No. 5 appears to be that, where an individual member is disciplined for an action independent of a dispute—in other words, an action for which he would be disciplined even if there were no dispute—that would not be covered by clause 3. For example, in Committee we discussed the possibility of a trade union disciplining an individual member who took action contrary to health and safety considerations. Another example related to whether the clause would prevent the Royal College of Nursing from disciplining a member who took action incompatible with its code of practice.
Amendment No. 6 goes some way towards meeting the Government's undertaking on what the Opposition called the libel charter — where an individual member could libel an official, but it would not be possible for the trade union to discipline him. However, it does not go far enough. Someone may make a libellous statement, which, indeed, is determined by a court to be libellous, but it will not necessarily be covered by amendment No. 6, which states that for a statement to be excluded from the requirements of clause 3 an individual must have acted
"either in the belief that it was false or otherwise in bad faith".
If the matter ever got to court and the person were disciplined, the trade union would have to show that the member made the statement in the belief that it was false or had otherwise acted in bad faith. That is difficult to prove.
If my understanding of the clause is correct, the Minister will probably find that the amendment is discussed again in another place. It is not a satisfactory way of meeting the Government's undertaking in Committee.
11 pm
Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman asked me to compare amendments Nos. 5 and 6. I shall compare amendments Nos. 3 and 5 on the one hand and amendment No. 4 on the other hand. Amendment No. 4 would only have protected disciplining to maintain professional standards outside a strike context. One could have put an argument for doing that. The hon. Gentleman quite properly said that that would have gone far enough.
The conjunction of amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5 together is such that, if it is a matter of maintaining
122
professional standards, disciplining can take place. The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to refer to the Committee debate. If what a union does is incidental to a strike or industrial action—if it is almost coincidental to it —and if it could show that it would have disciplined for that sort of matter anyway, it will be able to do so.
The example that we discussed in Committee was helpful. We discussed what would happen in a nursing home if nurses acted in an unprofessional manner by over-administering sedation. Obviously, in such a situation, a union will be able to show quite straightforwardly that it will always discipline for that matter, and that therefore, to that extent, it is almost coincidental to a strike. In such a situation, the clause will be everything that the hon. Gentleman would hope that it might be.
Amendment No. 6 addresses a specific concern. The hon. Gentleman will have opened his remarks on the basis that he thoroughly dislikes the whole clause and the Bill. The point that concerned him and other Opposition Members was that it will become a libellers' charter and that people could say anything that they want in the most bad faith and in the most malicious way. We believe that, as drafted, amendment No. 6 takes account of that.
When I was considering the amendment, the only thing that I could find about it which I suspect will not be entirely to the hon. Gentleman's liking was simply that it would be the case that, if an allegation were made in bad faith but was nevertheless true, that situation also would lie outside it. That is almost an exercise in logic. The hon. Gentleman would scratch his chin at it, but he would agree that it, at the end of the day, the assertion turned out to be true, even if it were made in bad faith, it would have to be exempt.
Subject to that rather narrow point, we certainly believe that it would answer everything that the Opposition want. I take the hon. Gentleman's point. If he is not entirely satisfied with it, I imagine that it will be discussed again in another place. I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will feel that, if not exactly what he wants, it is pretty close to it.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 4 in page 5, line 8, leave out from `(b)' to `by' in line 9 and insert—
'it consists in a failure to contravene, for any purpose connected with any such strike or other industrial action, any requirement imposed on that individual'.
No. 5, in page 5, line 37, at end insert—
`but an act, omission or statement by any individual does not fall within this subsection by reason of its being comprised in conduct falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (g) above if it is shown that that act, omission, or statement is one in respect of which individuals would be disciplined by the union irrespective of whether their acts, omissions or statements were in connection with conduct falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (f) above.'.
No. 6, in page 5, line 37, at end insert—
`() An individual who has been disciplined by a trade union shall not be treated for the purposes of this section and sections 4 and 5 below as having been unjustifiably disciplined if it is shown—

(a) that the reason or one of the reasons for disciplining him was that he made any such assertion as is mentioned in subsection (3)(c) above or encouraged or assisted any other person to make or to attempt to vindicate any such assertion;

(b) that that assertion was false and that, in making it or, as the case may be, in encouraging or assisting any other person to make or to attempt to vindicate it, that individual acted either in the belief that it was false or otherwise in bad fait; and

123

(c) that there was no other reason for disciplining him or that the only other reasons were reasons in respect of which he does not fall to be treated for those purposes as having been unjustifiably disciplined.'.—[Mr. Nicholls.]

Employment Bill
  Clause 7

    RIGHT TO REQUIRE EMPLOYER TO STOP DEDUCTIONS OF UNION SUBSCRIPTIONS
    Mr. Nicholls: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 11, line 19, leave out from 'that' to'; or' in line 20 and insert
    'there has been or will be, as from a particular date, such a termination of his membership of any trade union as is within the knowledge of the union'.
    The amendment addresses itself to the concern expressed by Opposition Members in Committee that clause 7(1)(a) as drafted would place no obligation on a trade union member to tell his union of his intention to leave. The amendment provides that a trade union member has to certify to his employer that the termination of his membership is known to the trade union. I commend the amendment to the House.
    Mr. Strang: We accept that the amendment constitutes an advance and we have nothing further to say on it.
    Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 12

    EXTENSION TO NON-VOTING POSITIONS OF DUTY TO HOLD ELECTIONS
    Mr. Strang: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 14, leave out from beginning of line 41 to end of line 32 on page 15 and insert—
    '(1) After subsection (6) of section 1 of the 1984 Act (duty to hold election of voting members of a trade union's principal executive committee) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
    "(6A) Notwithstanding anything in the rules or practice of any trade union, the person who holds the position of president of the union, or in the case of a union with no such position, any equivalent position, shall (if the rules do not otherwise provide for him to be a voting member of the union's principal executive committee) be deemed for the purposes of this section to be a voting member of the committee.
    (6B) Notwithstanding anything in the rules or practice of any trade union, the person who holds the position of general secretary of the union, or in the case of a union with no such position, the position in the union which is the equivalent, or nearest equivalent, to that of general secretary, shall (if the rules do not otherwise provide for him to be a voting member of the union's principal executive committee) be deemed for the purposes of this section to be a voting member of the committee except where the post of general secretary (or nearest equivalent) is subject to appointment by the union and the rules and practice do not allow him to vote on the principal executive committee."'
    The amendment deals with an important part of the Bill. The House will be aware that in the Employment Act 1984 the Government required trade unions to elect members of their principal executive committee who had a vote on that committee. At the outset, let me say that Opposition Members oppose such interference in the affairs of trade unions. Trade unions' rules have evolved organically over many years and usually relate to their
    124
    history and interests. Such rules provide the best way for the trade unions to conduct their affairs. We also believe that it is fundamental to our democracy that trade unions should be independent of Government interference and that it is an affront to the basis of independent trade unionism that the Government should seek to legislate on internal matters such as this.
    However, the 1984 Act is on the statute book and at least it is has clarity: either a person has a vote on the executive committees or he does not. If he has a vote on the executive, he must be elected by the members, and if he does not, that requirement does not apply. Hon. Members will recall that the NUM amended its rules to comply with that requirement when it removed the voting rights of its president and general secretary. Subsequently, the NUM held an election and elected its president.
    The important point is that clause 12 as drafted is utterly impracticable, and although the Minister sought to play down the draconian nature of the clause in relation to the officials who would have to be elected, his answers were not satisfactory. I draw attention to the provision that refers to any official who may attend the principal executive committee or who attends
    "for the purpose of providing the committee with factual information or with technical or professional advice with respect to matters incidental to the carrying out by the committee of its functions."
    We welcomed the assurance that the Minister gave in Committee that if individual officials attended the executive by invitation they would not be required to be elected by the members. However, we cannot rely on the Minister's statement. The whole area is still ambiguous. Many trade unions simply do not know whether officials, such as national officers covering particular sections of the union, will or will not have to be elected as a consequence of the clause. That is wholly unsatisfactory and we believe that the Government should clear that up and amend the Bill.
    My second point relates to the giving of professional and technical advice on matters incidental to the carrying out of a union's functions. What emerged in Committee—it was quite remarkable—was that if an official who was normally there to give highly technical advice, possibly even on legal matters, strayed into giving advice that went beyond that, that official, whether he was called the legal officer or the administrative officer, would put himself in a position where he would have to be elected to hold that office in the union. That is what was said in Committee by the Minister when we drew an analogy between a legal officer in, for example, a trade union and a legal officer in a local authority. Therefore, to us that area of clause 12 is still ambiguous and it is unacceptable that it should go on the statute book in that form.
    The other element of clause 12, which is an amendment to the 1984 Act, is the requirement that presidents and general secretaries will have to stand for regular election even if they do not have a vote on the executive committee. That is an outrageous interference in the internal matters of trade unions. As I said on Second Reading, several trade unions—I take as an example the National and Local Government Officers Association because it is a large trade union and organises the staff in local authorities—have decided that the general secretary will be appointed. NALGO's general secretary does not have a vote on the principal executive committee. In that union there is a clear relationship between the elected members of the

    125
    executive, who are lay members, ordinary trade unionists, who work in the various sectors of local government—the gas industry or whatever—run the union, determine its policy and are in control, and the general secretary and the other officials who are appointed, have no vote and are answerable to them.
    I do not submit that that is the only model that should apply to the trade unions, or that is the best model. However, it is outrageous that the Government should seek to pass a law that will make it illegal for a trade union such as NALGO to continue that reasonable structure which, as we have said, is mirrored in, for example, local authorities themselves. To give another example in which the position is quite clear, the same applies to the National Union of Public Employees, in which the general secretary is appointed and is answerable to the executive, which comprises lay members of the union who are regularly elected, as executives of trade unions generally are.
    Although we are opposed to the whole imposition in principle, in amendment No. 8 we have done something reasonable and ingenious against the background of the Government's approach. We have said, "All right, we will accept the principle that where the official has a vote on the executive committee — that is the principle in the 1984 Act—he must be elected." That is the first point that we have conceded to the Government.
    Secondly, we have said, "As far as presidents are concerned, we will concede that point to the Government." In any case, presidents are often lay members of the union. In relation to presidents we are saying, "We concede the point in the Bill that the president would have to be elected regardless of whether he has a vote on the executive." Surely to goodness the Government could at least allow trade unions that choose to appoint their general secretary, who does not have a vote on the executive, to continue to do so. It is an outrage that the Government will debar trade unions from appointing a general secretary who could be treated as a chief executive. After all, general secretaries have different roles in different unions.
    This is a modest and reasonable amendment, in that it accepts what has already gone before in the 1984 Act, and goes further in that it will require the general secretary, to avoid having to be re-elected, not to have a vote on the executive committee. It also leaves the position as it stands in the Bill as it relates to the president.
    That is why I hope that the Government will look carefully at the amendment. If they are not prepared to accept it tonight, they should at least be prepared to look again at the clause when the Bill is in the other place, because, quite simply, it is an insult to the intelligence of the House for the Government to suggest that such interference in the internal affairs of trade unions will influence the general conduct of industrial relations or somehow make trade unions more democratic.
    That is nonsense. There is nothing undemocratic about a trade union electing lay members to run the union and enabling those elected members to appoint a chief executive or general secretary who is answerable to them.
    11 15 pm
    Mr. Winnick: Clause 12 is another piece of sheer nonsense and impertinence and an interference in the running of trade unions.
    I speak from some experience as I have been involved for more than 30 years in a white collar trade union. I am
    126
    a national officer of that organisation. Since that organisation came into being in 1890, the general secretary has always been appointed by the lay executive. The general secretary is regarded as the most senior administrative official. At no time has the person who has held the office of general secretary had a vote. That would have been inconceivable. The lay executive holds the authority in the union, and the general secretary, as a servant of the executive, is answerable to that body.
    Because we are a democratic union, as are all trade unions, we decide our rules, regulations and policy at our annual conference. Every five years, at what we call the rules revision conference, which is part of our annual conference, we discuss changing and amending the rules. It is ironic that from time to time there have been suggestions that the general secretary should be elected. That inspiration has come from the ultra-Left, from those who would regard me as a timid reformist. The few revolutionaries in our number have gone to the rostrum and said that everyone should be elected, including the general secretary.
    In the past few years, I have been the spokesman for the executive, and I have had to argue the case against that— without too much difficulty. I have never had any doubts that the conference would retain the position that it has held for many years. That is the position in my union.
    Thus there is an alliance between those who could be described as revolutionaries and Conservative Thatcherites who believe that the position of general secretary should be subject to election. I argue as a democrat that each trade union should be able to decide for itself.
    Some unions have always elected their general secretaries. In some trade unions the general secretary has a vote. However, in other unions such as in NALGO, in my union—APEX — in ASTMS and others, that has never been the case. Indeed, in my union, if the general secretary had the vote, there would have been a very strong case, which I would have supported, for that general secretary being elected. However, since he has never had the vote, and since it was inconceivable that he should have a vote on the executive, the large majority of the union never considered it appropriate that that position should he subject to election.
    Apart from the general secretary, other people attend executive meetings. Despite the qualifications in clause 12, there may be court cases in which it is argued that somebody who is not a general secretary but who attends all or some meetings of the executive should be subject to election under clause 12. All kinds of complications and anomalies could arise.
    Trade unions such as mine, which has always been run along democratic lines, are being lectured by a political party that is the least democratic that one could imagine. Sometimes I wonder which is the least democratic: the Communist party in the Soviet Union or the Conservative party in this country. The chairman of the Conservative party is not elected.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) referred to the fact that the Prime Minister was elected as leader of the Tory party in 1975. That is correct; I cannot dispute it. However, until 1965 the leader of the Tory party was not elected. It was only the late Mr. lain Macleod and Mr. Humphry Berkeley — who is not "late"—who argued convincingly that the Conservative

    127
    party ought to change its ways. It was not until just over 20 years ago that the Conservative party decided to elect its leader, yet it is lecturing us about what the trade unions should do.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Is it not possible to take that point further? The prime qualification for getting the job of chairman of the Conservative party in Scotland is not to be able to get elected anywhere else. The chief executive got the job only because he was defeated when he stood for re-election to this House. The chairman of the Conservative party in Scotland is a member of the other place, because he could not even get a candidature.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be unwise to go down that road.
    Mr. Winnick: No, it would not be wise. Since I always take the advice of the Chair I should not dream of going down that road. However, I think that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) has made a valid point.
    It is not being suggested that town clerks should be elected, yet the chief executive of a local authority is in precisely the same position as the general secretary of a trade union, because he is not a voting member of the executive. That is another illustration of a totally nondemocratic political party with a vast Commons majority dictating to trade unions that need no lectures in democracy from the Conservative party.
    Mr. Allen: It is difficult to understand why a debate such as this is taking place. It was not until 1984 that intervention in the election of trade union executives was put on the statute book. However, we have almost become adjusted to the idea that we should argue about interference in the election of trade union executives rather than about the fact that we should be completely opposed to such interference.
    The Trade Union Act 1984 stated that members of trade union executives should be elected every five years. We are now discussing a further rule change. There are 57 trade unions with over 10 million members affiliated to the TUC, and 48 of those unions will have to change their rules because of this latest Government imposition. One trade unionist out of 10 million will be able to take a trade union to court, assisted by the trade union harassment officer. He will be able to bring the whole process to a grinding halt, with financial assistance from the state. He will be able to hold his trade union over a barrel.
    Trade union structures are to be completely overriden. Therefore, it is worth saying again that a great variety of trade unions, trade union procedures and trade union democracy has evolved over many years. To seek to impose one blueprint or plan on them is idiocy in the extreme. Unions have developed those procedures because they meet their needs democratically.
    Some unions may wish to have a regional base to their elections because it is the most appropriate way to represent their members. That is not permitted under the 1984 Act. Other unions may want a powerful general secretary who has the authority of a direct election. Others, again, may feel that the role of a general secretary is more like that of a civil servant and that he should do what he is told by the union executive. Each union has
    128
    developed its mechanism to suit its needs and industry. In this Bill the Government are imposing a blueprint which will sit idly on many trade unions.
    Some trade unions feel that an appointed general secretary acts as a buffer to the immediate considerations that are necessary in an election. They perhaps take a longer, more objective view. We may or may not agree with that but it is the right of trade union members to make that decision for themselves. The legislation is removing that power from them.
    One such example is NUPE. Its view is:
    "Experience in unions where the General Secretary is required to stand for re-election at regular intervals suggests that there is a constant temptation to satisfy the wishes of active members, often at the expense of long term policy objectives, in order to assist their re-election."
    We may not agree with that, but it is entirely consistent with NUPE which discusses its procedures every year at its conferences and executive meetings. It should decide for itself that that is the best way for it to pursue its objectives as a trade union.
    The other argument is that this should be called the Scargill clause because of the Prime Minister being kept awake at night wondering how much more she can wring out of the Scargill factor and crucify the NUM, and deciding to pursue this objective because of one individual—
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: And ballot-rigging in the NUM.
    Hon. Members: Withdraw.
    Mr. Allen: I did not catch that comment.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I shall repeat it. I said, "And ballot-rigging in the NUM."
    Mr. Allen: The hon. Lady, like many Conservative Members, is quick to use that phrase but slow to produce the evidence. If she has evidence of ballot-rigging in the Conservative party or a trade union, she should bring it to the notice of the appropriate authorities.
    Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is customary, when hon, Members have evidence, to lay it on the table. That has been the precedent for many years. If the hon. Lady has any evidence to back her scurrilous, inaccurate and erroneous allegation she should lay it on the Table.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members are free to express themselves as they wish, in accordance with our Standing Orders.
    Mr. Allen: Direct elections may well provide greater strength and direct authority to particular general secretaries in unions. Some unions have deliberately chosen to have a weak general secretary because they feel that the executive, itself directly elected, should have the power and authority. For that reason they may wish their general secretary to be more of a civil servant. Under this legislation many unions will be forced to employ and elect a more powerful general secretary against their wishes.
    Another union, the CMA — the Communication Managers Association — currently has three paid officers, a general secretary, who acts as chief executive, a deputy general secretary and an assistant secretary. Those people are now faced with a choice. Either they opt out of their national executive almost completely or they stand for election and assume a far greater significance

    129
    within the structure of their trade union than has hitherto been the case. It should be for the union to decide that. We are seeing here something that we would not tolerate in any other sphere of social or political activity.
    11.30 pm
    In local government it would be absolute nonsense if the chief executive of a local authority put himself up for election each year or every other year and began to challenge the directly elected councillors and their political authority.
    Similarly, perhaps the people who have written the speeches of the Secretary of State and the junior Ministers throughout the Committee — perhaps they are more powerful than the Secretary of State—should be put up for direct election.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I would ask the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) not to read newspapers in the House.
    Mr. Haynes: Hang him upside down.
    Mr. Allen: I do not know whether the fact that the hon. Gentleman was reading the Conservative party newspaper is a great compliment or a great insult.
    The Secretary of State may well feel that it would be inappropriate for his permanent secretary or for the deputies to the permanent secretary to be directly elected. That is the system that is to be imposed on 48 trade unions whether they like it or not. That sits ill on the Bill.
    The National Union of Insurance Workers has also been placed in difficulty. Given the time, I am drawing on just a few examples, but there are examples right the way down the list of TUC affiliates. I received a letter from Mr. Mortlock, the secretarial and research assistant of the National Union of Insurance Workers, who says:
    "In February 1987 a new National Officer was appointed. The position had been widly advertised and attracted some 39 applicants, many of a very high standard. Had the appointment been subject to election it is inconceivable that a sensible choice could have been made from such a large selection."
    We may have views on whether that is right or wrong, but the trade union took that decision. Yet that trade union is now to have a system imposed upon it that does not suit it and may not meet its needs.
    The Law Society was a very useful source of information throughout the Committee stage and it raised another point that we took up strongly. A number of officers currently attend a national executive committee and speak and offer a view. Their unions will now have to decide whether those people, because they appear at the national executive, have to go out for a full ballot. That has caused grave concern throughout all trade unions and that is the object of the clause.
    The clause seeks to sow confusion and turn active trade unionists into returning officers. Therefore, instead of looking after the conditions of their members and their health and safety, those trade unionists are forever filling out ballot forms and producing ever more convoluted efforts to meet the Government's requirements.
    The Law Society expressed great concern that union legal officers might have to be put out for a national ballot. On clause 12(1)(b), the society says:
    "we fear that it might be possible for a union's legal adviser to be considered to be giving advice to the Principal Executive Committee which is more than 'incidental' to the carrying out of its function and accordingly he would be caught by the provision requiring election."
    130
    I underline the fact that the trade union harassment officer — the trade union commissar — who has been appointed by the Government will do the dirty work of enforcing many of the provisions, will be there sitting on the back of every union executive committee, waiting for a slip-up and the opportunity to fund a vexatious litigant to ensure that the union toes the line.
    Mr. Clelland: And who elects him?
    Mr. Allen: No one puts that post out to national ballot. Exactly the opposite. That person must justify his existence by looking for cases. If there are only four or five cases a year, and the post will cost £1·5 million a year, there might be a Rayner review after a year and the post will be wound up. He will have to be cost-effective, so he will look for dissidents in the trade union movement.
    The General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union has highlighted another difficulty. It is extremely worried about the effect on its executive because of the many people who attend its executive meetings and who may be trapped by the clause. How many of the following officers will have to submit themselves to national ballot: one national executive officer, one principal national officer, 10 national officers related to various industrial groups, three financial assistants, one research director, one head of communications, one personnel manager, one director of education, one legal officer, one health and safety officer, one pensions officer, and occasionally regional secretaries who are called in to discuss specific matters — Northern Ireland was one example?
    More than 30 officers give occasional, frequent or regular advice to the national executive of the GMBATU. There is no assurance that any of them would escape the clause. In his letter to me, the Minister said:
    "I can say I should be very surprised if they were to be caught by the new subsection … As you are aware if a particular case was disputed then ultimately, of course, it would be for the courts to decide the issue."
    We all know who will come to the aid of litigious members in the courts — the trade union commissar whose appointment the House approved this evening.
    That is another gross interference with the national executives of our trade unions. They have a marvellous tradition of democratic accountability that they have developed themselves, and they should be left alone to pursue that course. Conservative Members of Parliament should be the last people to lecture the trade unions on democracy.
    Mr. Foot: It is outrageous that the House of Commons should devote its time to discussing this proposition. The more one hears about the Bill, the more insolent it seems that the Government should have dared to introduce it. It has been examined in Committee, and one would have thought that the Government might have shown a little grace and intelligence and given way to some of the representations that were made by my hon. Friends. But it is outrageous for them to continue, right up to Report stage, demanding that the House should lay down the detailed provisions for elections in trade unions. The Government should spend their time on a whole series of other matters. A Government who, as my hon. Friends have said, have few claims to democracy in many of their appointments, should not come forward with such a proposition.

    131
    Most unions have grown up and shaped and developed their forms of elections and the distribution of power between elected and non-elected officials in their organisations through their traditions. One might have thought that the Conservative party would have respected the traditions of organisations that go back for more than 100 years, and have been developing and shaping their organisations to suit their members throughout that time. But now this anti-trade union Government come along and demand that the unions adopt the uniform pattern that they want to enforce, with no exceptions. All unions must conform, and the Government do not give a fig for their traditions, preferring to force them to do things in the Government's way.
    This is a disgusting piece of legislation. The previous measures, as my hon. Friends — especially my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who made a wonderful speech — said, were an insult to our democracy. This Bill is an insult to the intelligence of the House of Commons. I am sorry for the Minister, who has been left alone on the burning deck to defend this ridiculous proposal.
    I hope that the Government will take the opportunity offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), and accept his amendment gracefully. If they determine to go ahead without it, I look to the other place— I do not often look for intelligence there—for rescue from what is probably the most mean, petty, miserable, squalid little proposition yet put forward by this wretched Government. I hope that the House of Lords will throw it out, even if there are not enough independent Conservative Members in this House to do so tonight.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The clause raises several points that were brought home to me when I consulted some of the employers' organisations when the White Paper that preceded the Bill came out. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and other hon. Members said that employers were not sure whether the Government were right. They had supported the previous legislation, and felt that there was a case for the Government to step in and give the unions back to their members, but they were worried that, by going into such detail, the legislation, far from improving the relationship between management and employees, would aggravate it.
    The provision on presidents was referred to earlier as the Scargill clause. I agree that some union practices, of which his was the most blatant example, are indefensible. I do not dispute the sincerity of people working in the trade union movement, but to listen to the impassioned speeches of some Labour Members, one would be forgiven for thinking that there had never been anything wrong with the British trade union movement, and that it had always acted in the best interests of the workers it sought to represent and of the wider community.
    It is a legitimate concern of Government to establish a balance, but the employers' organisations were concerned that if this type of legislative detail was produced by the Government, they could hardly argue if different Governments in the future produced different forms of legislation on, for example—as I might wish—building participation and workers' rights into the system. Such organisations do not want such a detailed code imposed on them. They want to be given the freedom to work out
    132
    for themselves how best to involve their employees in the decision-making process. If that is the view of the employers, and the Government seek to represent the employers, it is humbug to try to argue the merits of democracy on one side but the need not to intervene in detail on behalf of the other side.
    Having listened to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) I should like to examine the details of the Labour amendment. As I understood it, the hon. Gentleman said that the position of president — the Scargill example — was conceded. His amendment proposes that a president should be treated as a voting member, and should be elected, but that that should not be the case for general secretaries who may be appointed by the executive. I agree very much with that point and the arguments that have been pressed by other hon. Members, but I am slightly concerned that the amendment might go a little too far the other way.
    The argument is clear. The executive is elected and chooses to appoint a general secretary as the chief executive of the union. It is therefore not appropriate that the person appointed by the elected executive should have to be elected. That seems to be reasonable. The problem is that, because no time scale is set, it appears that a general secretary would be appointed without term, for a 10-year term, or for life under the Labour party's proposals.
    As we have seen in the past, in those circumstances a general secretary can achieve an extremely powerful position in that union. If there is no provision for review, re-election or reappointment, that general secretary might effectively be in a more powerful position than the members of the executive, who are elected, depending to some extent on the terms of his original appointment.
    11.45 pm
    Mr. Winnick: While I see the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to develop, surely the same could apply to a permanent civil servant who holds a senior position. The permanent secretary to a Ministry could influence his Minister. In that case it is the fault of the Minister, who is not strong-willed enough to resist the pressures. It is the same with a trade union. If the lay executive is doing the job to which it was elected, it will ensure that the general secretary is answerable to that executive. It will not allow itself to be dictated to by any individual who has been appointed by it.
    Mr. Bruce: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, which I am trying to probe. It is a matter of concern to me that, unintentionally, we might raise the role of the general secretary to a higher level.
    I take the point that a democratically elected executive, which is subject to review every five years, should be strong enough to take appropriate action, but given that all the members of the executive are up for re-election every five years, there is a case for suggesting that the general secretary should similarly be reappointed every five years. I should prefer that, and it seems reasonable.
    I accept the force of the argument of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) that it is incredible that we are debating the detailed mechanisms of trade unions when in all sorts of other areas the Government are constantly lecturing hon. Members on both sides of the House about the need not to have such legalistic meddling by central Government. It seems that a double standard is being applied.

    133
    The Government are entering an area where they are interfering in details, the consequences of which are so detailed that they cannot be predicted. We have had the example of the Ford ballot. That may be fair, and the Government may sit back and say, "Well, we asked for democracy and we got democracy." But it is ironic that under systems that have been previously worked out, Ford workers might not now be on strike. The consequences of the Government's own legislation have accelerated a full-scale national strike.
    One of the dangers of meddling in such detail is that the consequences cannot be predicted. While I can look at the matter objectively and say, "If we are to legislate for arrangements in trade unions, let us do it consistently," I accept the argument that we should not do it.
    I predict that the Bill will do more harm than good to industrial relations. Having started out on a course that was popular, and in which in many respects they were right, the Government are going too far down the wrong road. They will do damage where previously they might have done some good.
    Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) made it abundantly clear that he did not like this clause. He felt that it was an outrageous interference. He said that he had tried to introduce amendments, which, while dealing with matters of which he did not approve, nevertheless tried to live within the clause. That was certainly the way in which we took his amendment, and I must disappoint him by saying that we cannot accept it. However, I concede that it was a constructive attempt to deal with something that he does not like.
    With regard to the 1984 legislation, the principle that guided the Government was that those holding the most senior positions in the trade union movement should be responsive to their unions. We felt it appropriate that they should stand for election, and one can take a view of whether the process of election is a good way of making people accountable to those whom they choose to serve. That argument has raged during the debate, and I am sure that it did in 1984.
    The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East reminded us that the argument has moved on because other developments have made it possible for people to play a key role and have a major say in the affairs of a union, while at the same time not having a vote. The hon. Gentleman said, as did some of his hon. Friends, that there are examples of union leaders laying down their vote. I do not think that anyone would suggest for one moment that their influence within the union has diminished.
    If one accepts—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East certainly does not—that the 1984 legislation was right, in the light of developments it seems to us that the legislation should be uplifted.
    One aspect of the clause that has caused concern—particularly to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), but I am not sure whether he was concerned that the legislation is vague or far-reaching — was the idea that under what will be section 6A(b) the requirement will extend to people who,
    "under the rules or practice of the union, attend and speak at some or all of the meetings of that committee otherwise than for the purpose of providing the committee with factual information or with technical or professional advice with respect to matters incidental to the carrying out by the committee of its functions."
    134
    On a number of occasions in Committee I was accused of framing or lending my support to legislation that lawyers will have a jolly time interpreting for people. Some legislation is easier than ot`hers but that provision is perfectly plain. One may not agree with the principle that it enshrines, but the words that it uses are as plain as one could expect to find on a statute. If one is playing a part in the deliberations of a trade union — not giving the information that a lawyer might, that it can go away, chew over and decide policy in respect of, but taking part in the policy-making process of a trade union—we say that it is right, as it was in 1984, that a person in that, position should be subject to election.
    Mr. Allen: If the system is so good that it must be applied to trade unions, to what other organisations does the Minister suggest it should be applied?
    Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman may have noticed that I was addressing his hon. Friend's comments one after the other, but if he wants to jump the queue I shall allow him to do so.
    The hon. Gentleman is trying to make the point that he has made a number of times in Committee. He may feel, on reflection, that it is not a terribly good one, but it is that, if it is good enough for the trade union movement, why is it not good enough for the Conservative party? All that I would say, without a trace of irony, is that if the hon. Gentleman cannot tell the difference between a trade union and a political party, I feel for him. There is a difference, which is apparent to his hon. Friends —[Interruption.] The ripples of laughter that greeted that statement suggest that his hon. Friends realise that fact. The hon. Gentleman should be able to understand the difference between the two.
    The hon. Member for Walsall, North was concerned that the legislation might not be clear enough in respect of people turning up at meetings. I believe that the provision is as clear as it can be and enshrines the principle that a person taking part in policy-making decisions should be prepared to stand for election.
    The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) made the point in a number of ways that it would be implausible for the chief executive—a mere appointee—to be required to run for election. He suggested that on that basis a permanent secretary might also be expected to run for election. If the hon. Gentleman's logic were correct, which it is not, it would suggest that all trade union appointees spend their time scratching away with their quills in the back room, never seeing the light of day.
    No doubt there are some who fit that description, but some appointed general secretaries have the highest profile in their unions and play a crucial part in directing policy. I see that the hon. Gentleman agrees with that, even though some of his hon. Friends do not, so he will appreciate at once that the mere fact of being an appointee does not mean that the person concerned can be compared with a mere chief executive or a mere permanent secretary. Again, the hon. Gentleman has pushed the analogy too far.
    Mr. Allen: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Nicholls: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman so often in the past few weeks that I may as well allow him one last crack of the whip.
    Mr. Allen: If the Minister is not prepared to concede that permanent secretaries should be elected, surely the

    135
    person who sits in at Cabinet meetings, and gives far more than factual and technical advice — the Cabinet Secretary, formerly Sir Robert Armstrong—would be a prime candidate.
    Mr. Nicholls: If one thing unites the hon. Gentleman and myself, it is the fact that neither of us has any experience of Cabinet government. However, if he discusses the subject with those of his right hon. and hon. Friends who are old enough to remember proceedings in the Labour Cabinet, he will appreciate that the Cabinet Secretary's role does not fit the analogy that he seeks to make.
    It is always a pleasure to reply to a debate in which the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) has participated, as he speaks from a vast range of experience. His speech on this occasion seemed to centre around the proposition that the Government's proposals were outrageous and disgusting, and similar hyperbole. To Conservative Members, it is curious to hear the right hon. Gentleman describe in those terms the extension of the democratic process of election. One may argue about whether it is a good idea in the circumstances, but to describe a provision enabling people to vote for those who are to lead their union as an outrageous proposition sounded very much like a voice from the past. Without wishing to be unnecessarily cruel to the right hon. Gentleman, it did not even sound like a voice from the recent past.
    Mr. Cryer: If the Minister is so dedicated to the spread of elections, why not start by having the chairman of the Conservative party elected?
    Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman obviously was not all there a few moments ago when I replied to that point as expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Notthingham, North. If the hon. Gentleman cannot see the difference between a trade union and a political party, it would take someone with vastly greater powers of persuasion than mine to make any dent in his view.
    My final point should unite the whole House. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) sounded at first as though he was about to agree with the Government, then as though he was about to agree with the Labour party and in the end as though he did not even agree with himself. That is the kind of leadership that one expects from the element that he represents and was no doubt only to be expected, bearing in mind that the hon. Gentleman is here partly in the place of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith).
    In conclusion, this is one of those issues on which one has to make up one's mind on a point of principle and decide where one stands. On that basis, I am afraid that the House will have to divide to decide where it stands.
    12 midnight
    Mr. Strang: The Minister's reply is unacceptable, and in some respects a step back from what was said in Committee. The trade unions are democratic, independent organisations, and that is the way that it should be in our society. It is a monstrous intrusion in their internal affairs to seek to lay down a particular pattern of their officers.
    New section 6A(b) is not clear and there is no doubt — this, again, came out clearly in Committee — that
    136
    many trade unions genuinely do not know which officers are covered by it and which are not. It is not simply a question whether they intend to participate in the committee. The wording is much more complicated than that. For those reasons, I ask my hon. Friends to vote for the amendment. Clause 12 is an outrageous and unjustified imposition on any trade union, and it should never have come before us.
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 187, Noes 246.

    Division No. 170]

    [12 midnight

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Foster, Derek

    Allen, Graham

    Foulkes, George

    Anderson, Donald

    Fyfe, Mrs Maria

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Armstrong, Ms Hilary

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    George, Bruce

    Ashton, Joe

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Barron, Kevin

    Gordon, Ms Mildred

    Battle, John

    Graham, Thomas

    Beckett, Margaret

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Beggs, Roy

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Bell, Stuart

    Grocott, Bruce

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Hardy, Peter

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Haynes, Frank

    Blunkett, David

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Boateng, Paul

    Henderson, Douglas

    Boyes, Roland

    Hinchliffe, David

    Bradley, Keith

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Holland, Stuart

    Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

    Home Robertson, John

    Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Buchan, Norman

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Buckley, George

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Caborn, Richard

    Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

    Callaghan, Jim

    Illsley, Eric

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Ingram, Adam

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Janner, Greville

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    John, Brynmor

    Canavan, Dennis

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Lambie, David

    Clay, Bob

    Lamond, James

    Clelland, David

    Leighton, Ron

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

    Cohen, Harry

    Lewis, Terry

    Coleman, Donald

    Litherland, Robert

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Livingstone, Ken

    Corbett, Robin

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Cousins, Jim

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Cox, Tom

    McAllion, John

    Crowther, Stan

    McAvoy, Tom

    Cryer, Bob

    McCartney, Ian

    Cummings, J.

    Macdonald, Calum

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    McFall, John

    Dalyell, Tam

    McKay, Allen (Penistone)

    Darling, Alastair

    McKelvey, William

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    McLeish, Henry

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Dewar, Donald

    McTaggart, Bob

    Dixon, Don

    Madden, Max

    Dobson, Frank

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Doran, Frank

    Marek, Dr John

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Dunnachie, James

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Eadie, Alexander

    Martlew, Eric

    Fatchett, Derek

    Maxton, John

    Faulds, Andrew

    Meacher, Michael

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Meale, Alan

    Flannery, Martin

    Michael, Alun

    Flynn, Paul

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    137

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Sheerman, Barry

    Morley, Elliott

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Short, Clare

    Mullin, Chris

    Skinner, Dennis

    Murphy, Paul

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Nellist, Dave

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

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

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

    O'Brien, William

    Snape, Peter

    O'Neill, Martin

    Steinberg, Gerald

    Parry, Robert

    Stott, Roger

    Patchett, Terry

    Strang, Gavin

    Pendry, Tom

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Pike, Peter

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Turner, Dennis

    Prescott, John

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Primarolo, Ms Dawn

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Radice, Giles

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Redmond, Martin

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Reid, John

    Wilson, Brian

    Richardson, Ms Jo

    Winnick, David

    Robertson, George

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Worthington, Anthony

    Rogers, Allan

    Wray, James

    Rooker, Jeff

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Ruddock, Ms Joan

    Mr. Frank Cook and

    Salmond, Alex

    Mr. Allen Adams.

    NOES

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Cash, William

    Alexander, Richard

    Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Allason, Rupert

    Cope, John

    Amos, Alan

    Couchman, James

    Arbuthnot, James

    Cran, James

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Ashby, David

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Dover, Den

    Atkins, Robert

    Durant, Tony

    Atkinson, David

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Baldry, Tony

    Favell, Tony

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Bellingham, Henry

    Gale, Roger

    Bendall, Vivian

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Gill, Christopher

    Benyon, W.

    Gow, Ian

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Gregory, Conal

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

    Boswell, Tim

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Bottomley, Peter

    Grist, Ian

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Ground, Patrick

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Grylls, Michael

    Bowis, John

    Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Hannam, John

    Brazier, Julian

    Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

    Bright, Graham

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

    Harris, David

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    Hayes, Jerry

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Hayward, Robert

    Burns, Simon

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Burt, Alistair

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Butterfill, John

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hind, Kenneth

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    138

    Holt, Richard

    Redwood, John

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Renton, Tim

    Howard, Michael

    Rhodes James, Robert

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

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Riddick, Graham

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Rost, Peter

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Rowe, Andrew

    Hunter, Andrew

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Ryder, Richard

    Irvine, Michael

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Jack, Michael

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Jackson, Robert

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Janman, Timothy

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Key, Robert

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Knapman, Roger

    Shersby, Michael

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Knowles, Michael

    Speed, Keith

    Knox, David

    Speller, Tony

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Lang, Ian

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Latham, Michael

    Squire, Robin

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Steen, Anthony

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Stern, Michael

    Lightbown, David

    Stevens, Lewis

    Lilley, Peter

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

    Lord, Michael

    Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

    Luce, Rt Hon Richard

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Lyell, Sir Nicholas

    Sumberg, David

    McCrindle, Robert

    Summerson, Hugo

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Madel, David

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Malins, Humfrey

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Mans, Keith

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Marland, Paul

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Thurnham, Peter

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Tracey, Richard

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Tredinnick, David

    Mills, Iain

    Trippier, David

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Moate, Roger

    Walden, George

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

    Waller, Gary

    Moss, Malcolm

    Ward, John

    Neale, Gerrard

    Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Warren, Kenneth

    Neubert, Michael

    Watts, John

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Wells, Bowen

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Wheeler, John

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Whitney, Ray

    Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

    Widdecombe, Miss Ann

    Page, Richard

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Paice, James

    Wilshire, David

    Patnick, Irvine

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Patten, Chris (Bath)

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Wolfson, Mark

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Wood, Timothy

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Woodcock, Mike

    Portillo, Michael

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Price, Sir David

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Raffan, Keith

    Mr. Stephen Dorrell and

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Mr. David Maclean

    the person attempting to purchase a weapon or weapons is not
    Question accordingly negatived.
    Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.—[Mr. Ryder.]
    Bill to be further considered this day.

Police, Fire and Civil Defence Authorities
12.12 am
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I beg to move,
That the draft Local Government Act 1985 (Police and Fire and Civil Defence Authorities) Precepts Limitation Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 28th January, be approved.
The draft order sets the maximum precepts that can be levied for the financial year 1988–89 by the joint police and joint fire and civil defence authorities with whom it has not been possible to come to an agreement over their precepts. Hon. Members with long memories will recall that a similar order was made for 1986–87. It was then debated at some considerable length.
I hope that the House will not think that it is necessary to debate this order at quite such length. We were spared that task for the current financial year by the provisions of the Local Government Finance Act 1987, which determined the expenditure levels for the authorities and their precepts by reference to a formula. In total, the expenditure levels for the police authorities for 1988–89, at £421 million, represent a 6·2 per cent. increase over the levels that were set by the formula for 1987–88. The corresponding figure for the fire and civil defence authorities is £371 million—a 5·1 per cent. increase over the figure for 1987–88.
Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: During the next few minutes, will my hon. Friend explain to the House and to the ratepayers of West Yorkshire why those ratepayers have to pay so much more than the rest of the country for their fire authority? In West Yorkshire the budget met by grant is 26·98 per cent., whereas on Merseyside it is 58·27 per cent. I have great difficulty explaining that to my constituents and it would help if my hon. Friend could explain it to me.
Mr. Patten: Perhaps I may pick up that point now to save my hon. Friend from having to listen to the whole of my speech. The position in West Yorkshire arises because under the present system authorities' grant settlement depends on their grant-related expenditure assessment, their rateable value resources and their expenditure. That is why the West Yorkshire fire and civil defence authority's grant entitlement next year is different from that for 1987–88. The difference is equal to about £1·4 million—the equivalent of a 0·6p rate.
Mr. William O'Brien: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Patten: Indeed. West Yorkshire is here in force.
Mr. O'Brien: Will the Minister take it from me that West Yorkshire receives the lowest grant per head of population and has to levy the highest precept of any county? There is a substantial problem with West Yorkshire and I hope that the Minister will give the matter special consideration.
Mr. Patten: Of course I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and this is the last occasion on which we shall debate an order such as this. The hon. Gentleman's point, to which we listened carefully, points to his need to support the Local Government Bill, which will enable us to sort out many of the problems surrounding the relationship between grant-related

141
expenditure and expenditure levels, and I look for the hon. Gentleman's support in future years. As hon. Members may be aware—
Mr. Derek Fatchett: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Patten: Yes, indeed. There is no need to point.
Mr. Fatchett: I only pointed because the Minister seemed lost in his brief and I thought that it might be useful to remind him that the House was still sitting.
Will the hon. Gentleman respond to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) that the difficulty relates to this year rather than to subsequent years? It does not relate to the Local Government Bill. What does the Minister propose to do for West Yorkshire this year, because it is this year that is crucial to the ratepayers of West Yorkshire and to the service that is provided?
Mr. Patten: I shall forgive the hon. Gentleman for his personal remarks; I do not hold any personal animosity against him. I can tell him exactly what we are doing this year. The maximum precept this year, which is 15·72p, will allow for an increase of some 7·7 per cent. over West Yorkshire's expected expenditure for 1987–88. We think that that is a reasonable level of provision. As hon. Members may expect, there are variations in the percentage—
Mr. Robin Corbett: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Patten: West Yorkshire is exciting a lot of interest.
Mr. Corbett: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett). He prayed in aid the 15·72p precept. Is not that a cut of nearly 20 per cent. in the figure for the current year?
Mr. Patten: No, Sir. In no way is it a cut. Between 1986–87 and 1988–89 there has been an overall increase of 22·1 per cent. in the levels of expenditure allowable. That is a substantial increase in public expenditure by anyone's standards and the authority should be able to manage within that provision.
Mr. Ian McCartney rose—
Mr. Patten: Well, I should like to make a little progress—
Several Hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. One at a time. The Minister has the Floor at the moment.
Mr. Patten: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) first.
Mr. McCartney: I thank the Minister for giving way. He has been rather economical with the truth. Since 1986 the Association of Metropolitan Authorities has been trying to resolve the problems of the financing of West Yorkshire. The reality is that this year, for example, Merseyside, which is commensurate with West Yorkshire, has a percentage of GREA over maximum expenditure limits of 94·1 per cent, while West Yorkshire's is 72·7 per cent. and Merseyside's maximum precept is 8·22p while West Yorkshire's is 13·41p. Can the Minister explain why
142
it has taken since June 1986 until last Monday for the Minister to meet the AMA to consider that matter and why, when he was meeting that body, he had already made the decision in relation to West Yorkshire?
Mr. Patten: When the delegation met my noble Friend Lord Ferrers in another place, they were able to have a full discussion about the recommendations made by the AMA. The hon. Gentleman cannot fly in the face of the fact that there is a 22·1 per cent. increase in the level of expenditure but in 1986–87—[Interruption.]
Mrs. Peacock: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Patten: Yes, but I am trying to finish my sentence.—and the proposed amount for 1988–89 as listed in the order itself — [Interruption.] —I give way to my hon. Friend.
Mrs. Peacock: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way yet again. My concern is not about the increase in expenditure but about what the Government are going to do about the grant. It is the basic grant that is the problem and not the increase in expenditure.
Mr. Patten: That is not a matter for me but for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. —[Interruption.] That is a matter of fact.
As hon. Members are aware, there are considerable variations in the percentage increases for each authority.
Sir Giles Shaw: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the robust and wholly technically correct way in which he is seeking to defend the position. However, is he not aware that in relation to the fire precept and the fire expenditure in West Yorkshire there has been a longstanding disagreement between my hon. Friend's Department and the local fire authority? If it was purely a matter for our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, would my hon. Friend be prepared to advise our right hon. Friend on what he would wish to see for the fire expenditure— [Interruption.] — because this is a crucial issue?
Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) was the Minister of State, Home Office who made a most moving and passionate speech in favour of similar provisions in 1986, which I have read and reread carefully. I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that this is an issue for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. However, my right hon. Friend has authorised me to say that he is always prepared to consider methodological suggestions about changes to the grant-related expenditure for West Yorkshire in this respect at any time.
Indeed, there is a forum—the grants working group of the consultative council on local government finance —where proposals for changes can be tabled either by a local authority or by the Department of the Environment. The intention is that the development work on the fire grant-related expenditure assessment should he taken forward in the coming months. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey regards that as an adequate answer to his direct question—[Interruption.] Does he not?
Sir Giles Shaw: My hon. Friend made a perfectly adequate suggestion. It is therefore up to those in West Yorkshire who wish to argue that case, to use it on the

143
understanding of my hon. Friend's suggestion that there is room for discussion of the principle of grant-related expenditure within that forum.
Mr. Patten: I agree with all that my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey has said.
Mr. Irvine Patnick: I have heard enough about West Yorkshire. I should like to deal with South Yorkshire. We have only a small pot of gold, but it is £500,000 light. It seems to have been lost between the Department of the Environment and the Home Office. Will my hon. Friend explain where that money has gone, or if it was ever there?
Mr. Patten: Indeed, it would have been extremely careless of us to have mislaid £500,000. Even by my standards that is more than small change—
Mr. McCartney: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Patten: May I answer my hon. Friend's question before giving way?
The expenditure implied by the 1988–89 precept for South Yorkshire is 6 per cent. more than this year's expenditure. That represents a hefty 19 per cent. increase over the past two years. Those increases are significantly more than the level of inflation. That certainly will allow for service development in South Yorkshire to continue.
I shall give way for the second and last time to the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). I am sure that he will understand that I am anxious to make some progress.
Mr. McCartney: Is the Minister aware that Lord Ferrers had a meeting about South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire and Merseyside last week, and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment pulled out at the last moment for the second time? Apologies had to be made for the fact that he was not there to put the case for the Department of the Environment.
Has not the Home Office been smoked out by the Department of the Environment? The promises to sort out this matter in regard to Yorkshire have not been kept. The Department of the Environment is turning the screw. The position is unacceptable and that is why the Minister did not attend the meeting with Lord Ferrers last week.
Mr. Patten: That is not true. The Home Office and the Department of the Environment speak with one voice on these issues. The amounts of money that are available are reflected in the order, to which I shall make another attempt to return.
Mr. Peter Hardy: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have two points of order and the first is—
Madam Deputy Speaker: I shall take them one at a time.
Mr. Hardy: From the start of the debate it has been obvious that there is considerable confusion and concern on both sides of the House. One and a half hours is grossly inadequate to protect the interests of the House and the various regions of Britain represented in the debate. Secondly, despite the claims that Ministers at the Home Office and the Department of the Environment speak with one voice, the element of confusion in South Yorkshire,
144
and presumably, elsewhere suggests that the appropriate Minister from the Department of the Environment should be present to provide information that many hon. Members have sought already, and which other hon. Members certainly will be seeking.
Madam Deputy Speaker: In answer to the first point of order, the time allocated for this measure has nothing to do with the Chair. In reply to the second point of order, I very much regret the fact that there is confusion among hon. Members from Yorkshire, as I, too, come from Yorkshire. Perhaps we can now get on.
Mr. Patten: I entirely agree. I intend to follow your injunction, Madam Deputy Speaker, and get on with it.
As hon. Members may expect, there are variations in the percentage increases for each authority. We should expect that, as they reflect their particular circumstances. However, we are satisfied that, making proper allowance for efficiency, the expenditure levels for each of the police authorities will enable them to maintain and improve present levels of service. That also applies to the fire and civil defence authorities.
Having determined the expenditure levels, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has set maximum precepts. These are derived from the expenditure levels that have been decided upon, together with the authorities' entitlement to block grant under the rate support grant settlement for 1988–89 and the rateable values for each area. My right hon. Friend notified all the authorities in December of the maximum precepts that he was about to set. The authorities were given until the middle of January to let my right hon. Friend know whether they accepted the proposed maxima.
Mr. Tony Favell: Many Conservative Members will be appalled to hear that there has been an increase in expenditure of 22 per cent. over the last two years. Is it not time that we refreshed our memories about section 42 of the Local Government Act 1985? It allowed the Secretary of State to return the functions to the metropolitan boroughs and to abolish the fire, police and transport authorities that are turning themselves into mini-empires. They are not far short of the mini-empires that the metropolitan county councils became. Will my hon. Friend remind our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment of that fact?
Mr. Patten: I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said. I shall draw his trenchant remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
I should emphasise that we are not specifying what should be the precept—only the maximum amount that an authority can levy. They are able — indeed, some authorities have done so—to precept at a considerably lower level than the maximum because they have made efficiency gains that permit them to so to do. Thereafter, the authority is free to determine how to spend the money at its disposal. The precept simply limits the amount that can be raised from the ratepayer. Of the 13 authorities, six —Merseyside and South Yorkshire police and Greater Manchester, Tyne and Wear, West Midlands and London fire and civil defence—accepted the proposed maxima. We have welcomed that fact.
Mr. Bob Cryer: The Minister can see that there are very strong feelings on both sides of the

145
House. The West Yorkshire fire authority has made it clear that the precept will not allow it to maintain the standards of service that the Home Office lays down and that some areas of West Yorkshire cannot meet those criteria.
Mr. Patten: I made it clear in my response to the two interventions by my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) that considerably increased amounts of money are available. Exactly the same accusations about the end of the world coming shortly to the fire service were made in the 1986 debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey, who was then Minister of State, Home Office, made it clear that in his view the provision would be more than adequate. The levels of service in West Yorkshire have improved during the last two years. My hon. Friend's prediction, made with characteristic foresight, can be banked upon completely. There is no evidence for what the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) says.
The remaining seven authorities with which we are concerned did not accept the proposed maxima and presented arguments about the levels of their precepts. Those arguments have been expressed during this debate. Four of the authorities requested meetings. That meeting took place with Lord Ferrers, at which they expressed their anxieties about the level of the precept. Some of the authorities at that meeting had sent deputations earlier in support of their redetermination applications.
My right hon. Friend was not persuaded that there was sufficient grounds for increasing the maximum precepts for five of them. However, he was satisfied that two authorities, Northumbria police and Merseyside fire, required an increase in the precept. Unfortunately, the two authorities felt unable to accept the increased maximum and together with the five authorities they are included in the schedule to the order, which I commend to the House.
12.35 am
Mr. Robin Corbett: With so many of the Minister's hon. Friends at his throat, he will not be surprised if my right hon. and hon. Friends want to take part in the exercise.
The order and, indeed, the Minister's speech demonstrate the Government's bogus claims that the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils would make police, fire and civil defence authorities more autonomous. Quite the reverse has happened and the noose of central Government and Whitehall has tightened around their necks. Now it is the Home Secretary, aided and abetted by the Secretary of State for the Environment through the grant-related expenditure assessments, who in reality determines the levels of police cover and how public safety is safeguarded through the fire and civil defence authorities.
The Government determine the number of pairs of boots that police officers wear on the streets and the number of fire engines and fire officers, not against proven need, but against cash limits. That is the point and there is no good the Minister saying that that is not true because he is deciding half of it and his right hon. Friend at the Department of the Environment is deciding the other half.
Right around the police, fire and civil defence authorities there are complaints because, although there are increases of between 2·7 per cent. and 10·4 per cent. in spending levels, they mask substantial differences in what
146
authorities can levy. The Greater Manchester police authority, for example, has a cut of 13·9 per cent., Northumbria police authority a cut of 2 per cent. and the West Yorkshire police authority a cut of 19·3 per cent.
Can the Minister assure the House that those differences, especially where there are cuts, are because the crime rate has fallen so dramatically that less now needs to be spent on preventing and detecting crime? He need not answer that, because he knows, as well as I do, that under this Government inexorably year on year the crime rate not only in the capital but throughout the country has increased. Yet this is the period in which the Government choose to say to police authorities, "We know best. You cannot spend what you locally decide needs to be spent to give proper defence to people on the streets and in their homes."
Councillor Keith Wilson, chairman of West Yorkshire police authority says:
"the present precept reduction in 1988–89 can only be achieved by utilising a substantial proportion of the West Yorkshire Police Authority's balances, thereby jeopardising the development of the service for which the Home Secretary himself is pressing."
The Minister cannot have it both ways. He makes requests of police authorities to improve their service and they want to do that in the interests of the people whom they serve, but the Minister, aided by the Department of the Environment, denies them the cash resources with which to do it.
Councillor George Gill, chairman of the Northumbria police authority, says that the cash it is allowed to spend
"falls short of the amount that the police authority consider necessary for the chief constable to provide an adequate and efficient level of policing."
Will the Minister stand at the Dispatch Box and say that he knows better than the chief constable? I hope that he will not dare. They are dangerous words and again demonstrate the hollowness of the Government's repeated claims to provide all the resources needed to combat rising crime.
The West Midlands police authority has had a 10 per cent. increase in what it can spend and its precept has risen by 14·5 per cent. How has that good news gone down with the chief constable and that police authority? The police authority states that the spend
"does not cover existing approved policies and will require a cut-back of some £1·37 million in gross expenditure terms in 1988–89 which will involve deferring such schemes, undertaken at the behest of the Home Office, as the introduction of administrative support units, the crime information system and the civilianisation programme."
There is not much joy in that, especially as what the authority is allowed to spend takes no account of its outstanding request for an extra 350 police officers and 25 traffic wardens. That information must be set against the background of an alarming rise of 109 per cent. in reported crime in Birmingham and the west midlands between 1975 and 1986, with a 276 per cent. rise in robberies, a 100 per cent. rise in woundings and a 147 per cent. rise in burglaries. However, the Minister stands at the Dispatch Box and says that he and his right hon. Friend know better than the West Midlands police authority.
Why does the Minister deny to that and other police authorities the cash to pay for increases in manpower that their experience, knowledge and sense tell them are needed if our streets and homes are to be made safe again? How

147
is it that Government and Whitehall know best? They do not, but they override those who do and they are seemingly careless about the consequences.
Ministers have been all too eager to chastise Labour-elected councils that have sometimes appeared unfriendly towards the police. Now it is the Goverment who are antipolice by denying the manpower and resources that the police authorities need if they are to stand even a slight chance of reducing the crime wave.
In London in the past three years the London Boroughs Association, the Association of London Authorities and the Outer London Districts Metropolitan Police Consultative Association have jointly, in spite of political differences, criticised the Government for underfunding and for the way in which the precept is calculated and its size.
The mysteries of the police precept are compounded by those for the fire and civil defence authorities. I understand that one of the bases on which the precepts are calculated is population — of course, other factors are also taken into account. Can the Minister tell the House why it is claimed that West Yorkshire can get by on a precept of £3·88 per head of population while South Yorkshire has £5·51, Tyne and Wear £7·57 and Merseyside £11·38? What is the explanation for such wide disparities of treatment? One might have thought that the West Midlands, which is given £4·81 per head of the population might, as the largest fire and civil defence authority outside of London, needed more than South Yorkshire. But it is not need that comes into the reckoning. The cash limits override the need and proper levels of public safety.
After the horrors of the King's Cross fire, Zeebrugge and other events, Ministers cannot get to the Dispatch Box quickly enough to praise the bravery and skill of the fire service. However, in reality, that service is all too often run on a shoe string.
The Labour party believes that decisions about local police, fire and civil defence services are best taken locally, preferably by councillors accountable to those who elected them. The Government claim the same of the poll tax, but given the chance to put their claim into practice for the fire, police and civil defence services, they do exactly the opposite.
Mr. John Patten: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that a future Labour Government would give central Government to local authorities without any control, so that they could spend what they wanted?
Mr. Corbett: I understand why the Minister jibs at what I am saying, because for the past eight or nine years he and his right hon. Friends, including the Prime Minister, have said, "If we need more resources to combat crime, they will be made available." The Prime Minister loses no time going on radio and television to say that, but when it comes to orders like this one, the Government scrimshank.
Mr. Patten: Answer my question.
Mr. Corbett: It is not for me to answer the Minister's question. We are debating an order laid by the Government. The incoming Labour Government will ensure that police, fire and civil defence authorities get the money that they need to provide proper public safety in their areas. That is more than the Minister can say.
Mr. Hugo Summerson: Will the next Labour Government also ensure that all Labour-controlled authorities support neighbourhood watch?
Mr. Corbett: If the hon. Gentleman can give me an example of a Labour-controlled authority that does not now support neighbourhood watch schemes, I should be interested to hear from him. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Manchester?"] That is not true of Manchester; I said "now". In the west midlands, Labour authorities, like all other authorities in the area, wholly support such schemes. The hon. Gentleman had better be careful about this.
Neighbourhood watch schemes have consequences in terms of police manpower. Unless the chief constable in the west midlands gets the 350 extra officers whom he needs this year, the neighbourhood watch schemes in that area will be no more than signs on lamp posts because there will not be enough policemen to make them effective.
In many areas of England and Wales, fire authorities must make cuts in manpower and cover, equipment is taking longer to replace and the purchase of modern, lifesaving equipment is being delayed. If that is worrying enough in the context of the usual, although serious, run of fires in homes and industry, how much more important is it in the context of the Government's so-called civil defence policies? They are not even prepared properly to fund that sham.
People demand and expect adequate public safety cover from our police, fire and civil defence authorities. The Government have made too many police forces unable to provide the service that they wish to provide, and that they know needs to be provided. People have a right to a direct say in the services that are needed for the areas in which they live. The Government deny both to local people, and that is why the Opposition will vote against the order.
12.49 am
Mr. Tony Favell: A moment ago I drew to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister the provisions of section 42 of the Local Government Act 1985, which allows the Secretary of State for the Environment to reorganise the fire and police authorities after consultation. It is now two years since the abolition of the metropolitan counties, and I suggest that the time has now come for the Secretary of State to consult and decide whether it is necessary to continue those authorities in their present forms.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) will recall that, during the proceedings of the Committee that debated the abolition of the metropolitan counties, many hon. Members were concerned about the continuity of the police and fire authorities. Many members of the Committee suggested that the time had come to sweep away those authorities and return their functions to the metropolitan borough councils that had constituted the metropolitan counties.
My constituency has little in common with Bolton, Bury, Oldham or Rochdale: far better to return the police and the fire brigades to the communities they serve. The only connection that my constituency has with police headquarters at Salford is the telephone exchange. Every telephone call goes through Salford, returns to Stockport and gets lost on the way. It would be far better if everything went directly to the police who serve the community; the same is true of the fire brigade.
We have heard about a 20 per cent. increase over the past two years. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can

149
tell us what the increases over the past three years—since the abolition of the metropolitan counties—have been.
Mr. Dennis Turner rose—
Mr. Favell: Over the past three or four days, the Government have had the good sense to see that ILEA should be abolished. ILEA is not dissimilar to the fire and police authorities. Let us sweep them away now and return them to the communities that they serve.
12.52 am
Mr. Allen McKay: I want briefly to discuss the South Yorkshire fire service, which the Minister knows well. I also want to correct one or two things that he said.
The Minister said that the Home Office and the Department of the Environment speak with one voice, but it appears that the voice is that of the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Minister talks like him when discussing facts and figures, but whatever facts or figures he reels out will not make up for the lack of fire cover in South and West Yorkshire.
The Minister's talk about using balances is ironic. Not so long ago, after the severe damage caused by the gales, the Secretary of State for the Environment took authorities to task for not having balances with which to cope with emergencies. Yet that is how the fire services use their balances—for contingencies. If two machines come off the road, the balances are there to be used to put them right.
It is now three years since we tried to convince the Government of the growing crisis in the South Yorkshire fire service. Statistics are of no use; the facts are there to be seen. South Yorkshire is already below the manpower requirements asked for by the Home Office. According to the standards recently laid down by the Home Office, the area needs 1,114 men, but the service does not have them. So the Minister, through the precept, is saying that it will have still fewer men, because the authority will not be able to replace losses incurred through natural wastage over the coming months. This precept will mean its having only 1,000 men, and that will mean that stations will close. They cannot be kept open without men to operate them.
Mr. Kevin Barron: My hon. Friend's constituency is in South Yorkshire and is similar to mine. Does he share my concern that every six or 12 months there has been a squeeze on rural part-time staff at fire stations, such as in Kiveton Park in my constituency? The stations are constantly under threat. Anyone who has any sense of geography will realise that if they are taken away, fire tenders will have to travel miles through country lanes to reach the villages that now have stations. People are deeply concerned about the threat to the South Yorkshire fire service.
Mr. McKay: Ministers do not understand that sometimes four tenders are needed on the first call-out. Each area has a set number of machines that must turn out. When the machines go out, they have, not six, not five and sometimes not four, but three men. That is dangerous, because the machines are not adequately manned.
Because of the lack of finance, 27 people who have been recruited, and who are waiting to take over as a result of natural wastage, cannot be trained as there is no money
150
to put them through the training school. If there was, the training personnel would not be there to train them, because they have to make up for the manpower loss in stations that are already undermanned.
The appliance turnout time is extended. I do not know whether the Minister realises what that means. At Hood Green, a house was completely gutted in four minutes. That is the maximum turnout time for such a house. For polyurethane, which I understand we are getting rid of, the turnout time is six minutes. If those turnout times are increased, one is increasing, not the danger to property, but the danger to life. That is what the fire service is all about.
The firemen are excellent. They could not be matched anywhere in the world, but there will come a time when they will say, "What is it all about? What have we done to deserve this? Our training and manpower are going through the roof." What about the fire service inspections? In South Yorkshire, fire service certificates are not being given out because those inspections are not being done. Those who carry out the inspections have to man the machines. That is what is happening in South Yorkshire, and it is time that the Minister realised it.
Mr. John Patten: I am listening with great care to what the hon. Gentleman is saying, because he speaks with greater knowledge of South Yorkshire than I have. He will appreciate that. Does he agree that the substantial increase of just under 20 per cent. in expenditure over the past two years can in no way be represented as a cut or diminution of service available to South Yorkshire? That is flying in the face of reality.
Mr. McKay: It is not flying in the face of reality. The Minister should forget his facts and figures, come to South Yorkshire with someone from the Department of the Environment, and look at the books and the stations. If they think that they can do better, they should advise on how it should be done. If they do not think so, they should put on the table the money that should be there.
Mr. Patten: Let me respond to the hon. Gentleman immediately. I am sure that my noble Friend Lord Ferrers, who has ministerial responsibility for the fire service, will be delighted to work with the South Yorkshire board to try to find ways in which greater efficiency in the service could contribute to available fire cover in the area. It is not just a matter of additional money: it is a matter of making the best possible use of the money that is available. The hon. Gentleman has not mentioned that.
Mr. McKay: I was a member of the West Riding fire service for about 14 years, as a retained fireman. I know the area, the turnout, and the number of machines that are needed. Believe me, the Government are undermanning an excellent fire service. All that I am saying to the Minister is: come and look, open the books examine them and advise. If an improvement can be made, let us know about it.
I should like to talk about the £440,000 grant, which was in two phases, for 1986–87 and 1987–88. The 1986–87 part was taken into consideration. The other part has never appeared. The South Yorkshire authority could not take into consideration the money that it had been told was available. It knew about it only when it came down to see Lord Ferrers.
The authority examined the matter and told the Department of the Environment that it could not accept

151
that the money had been available. The DOE said that the authority had received about £150,000, when it had not. However, even if that money had been available, and even if the authority had used the £900,000 in reserve, it would still not be manned to the levels that the Home Office has laid down. We are asking the Minister to come and see for himself and sort the problem out.
Nobody wants there to be a major fire, and nobody wants there to be a loss of property or loss of life, but if that happens the buck will stop with the Government, not with the South Yorkshire fire service.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay), but this is a very short debate, so very short speeches might be appropriate.
1 am
Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that since 1983 I have made persistent and consistent representations to his right hon. Friend about the level of grant to West Yorkshire.
I recognise that the professional assessment made by Her Majesty's inspector is independent of the Minister and of the fire authority and that the inspector is satisfied with the level of cover in the area.
Fire cover, rightly, is an emotive issue. In west Yorkshire there are many textile mills, the floors of which are steeped in centuries of oils. It is essential that my constituents, and others in west Yorkshire, are satisfied that the level of cover is as the inspector says. To reduce the unease, it would be helpful if my hon. Friend the Minister would persuade my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that the level of grant now available is not as satisfactory as the level of precept that my hon. Friend has announced. Representations to my hon. Friend have proved successful, but can we hope that representations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be as successful? We might then obtain necessary changes to the grant, which many other hon. Members would support.
1.2 am
Mr. Jack Thompson: The debate began with a quick tour of the west midlands and up through west and south Yorkshire. I should like to take the House's attention a little further north, to the area of Tyne and Wear and Northumbria, which is covered by the Northumbria police authority.
In some ways, it is unique in that it covers a shire county and what was a metropolitan county. It covers the low population areas of north and west Northumberland and the inner-city areas, with all their associated problems, of Tyneside and Wearside.
The authority was established in 1974, and at one time I had the honour of being a member of it. Since that time, it has faced severe problems, principally because of the mixed environment of the area.
I remember, as a representative of the police authority from Northumberland, that I and my colleagues from the shire county constantly brought the attention of the authority to the problems faced in the urban south-east and rural part of the county.
152
We recognised that the problems that the chief constable faced in the inner cities of Tyneside and Wearside were far more difficult to cope with than those in the rural parts. Therefore, we had to accept that manpower had to be redeployed from the rural and urban parts of the authority to the inner cities. It caused severe problems in those areas. It meant that in the rural areas one police constable covered up to 200 sq miles, but when he was redeployed in the more central parts of the police authority area, the other police officers in the area had 400 or 500 sq miles to cover. This was and still is a constant problem.
Ministers consistently stress the need for efficiency. I took part in reviews when I was a member of the authority and they have continued almost yearly since then. There is a review each time the budget is drawn up, and the authority is highly efficient. All credit is due to the chief constable, the officers and the authority for the way in which the service has been run. Like other metropolitan authorities, however, we have suffered as a result of the change in grant-related expenditure allocation last year. The basic problem is that the change was based on police establishment rather than on recognised need. As expected, the proposed maximum precept level of 13·92p effectively reduced the budget by about 10 per cent. Like other authorities, the Northumberland authority made representations to the Home Office. The result was an increase of 0·48p, which brought the precept up to 14·4p for 1988–89, but it did not match the modest requirements of the authority. A realistic increase would have been 1p. In cash terms, the figure was £700,000.
The problems faced by the Northumberland authority are probably greater than those in some metropolitan authorities. It has had a consistently higher percentage of retirements, particularly due to ill health. The figure has doubled since 1982, and that pattern is expected to continue. The number of serious offences per officer is 46·9 — that is 50 per cent. higher than the Metropolitan police in London whose problems are rightly emphasised—and well above that for Greater Manchester, which is the next highest at 43·6. That workload is probably a major factor in the high rate of ill health retirement. Loyalty is certainly not in question as next year a substantial number of those seeking retirement next year will have more than 25 or even 30 years' service.
Mr. John Patten: The expenditure levels take into account additional needs caused by high levels of early retirements and pension requirements.
Mr. Thompson: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention, but no one can predict the number of ill-health retirements, although the heavy work load increases the likelihood of such retirements. As a result, pension payments are between £3,500,000 and £4 million per year and are expected to rise to £4,250,000.
Mr. Patten indicated assent.
Mr. Thompson: The Minister nods, so my figures must be right. They are of course, linked with the increased police pay settlements, so the problem will get worse year by year.
In the 1988–89 projections, no provision was made for expenditure on new initiatives—a proposition that was given up by the authority almost immediately. However, there was a recognition of the need for 529 new officers in

153
the service. A bid for a further 80 was submitted in April 1987, but, as yet, there has been no response—perhaps the Minister can give me one tonight. In the meantime, the crime figures in our police authority continue to rise, as they do everywhere else, and that is an increasing concern of the population.
The police authority has assessed its requirements for 1988–89, to provide the present level of the service as a minimum, at £51·75 million. That allows for existing commitments, anticipated pay awards and price increases. The Minister spoke about using reserves, but the authority will have none by the beginning of next year. It has £700,000 in balances, which will be gobbled up in paying for pensions.
The authority is in a serious situation, and many of these elements have been ignored by the Home Office in arriving at the assessments. People in Northumbria, like people everywhere, deserve proper police protection, and many in my constituency feel that they are not getting that. The sad thing is that they tend to blame the police constable on the beat, the sergeant, the inspector or even the chief constable, and, eventually, the police authority, when they become aware that there is one running the police affairs, when the blame lies with the Home Office.
1.11 am
Mr. Irvine Patnick: I agree with the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay), although 1 shall not go for the throat of my hon. Friend the Minister. An argument is being waged between the Home Office and the Department of the Environment about £500,000. One says that South Yorkshire fire service has the money, and the other says that it is sure that it has, but neither of them can find the money. The situation is not as grim as the hon. Gentleman tried to make out. Damnation and fire are not surging through all of South Yorkshire, but cash is needed. There is a shortfall of £500,000. Thanks to the water authority, which has great powers on maintenance, £200,000 of that has been found, so the shortfall now is £300,000.
My argument is not about how the fire brigade operates in South Yorkshire, or about how good it is, because the capital fund allowed for South Yorkshire is quite good. The problem arises solely from the discrepancy of £500,000. I should welcome an opportunity to come to a meeting with representatives from the two Departments to see whether this can be sorted out and ways found to retrieve the £300,000, which should leave South Yorkshire with a fire brigade of which it can be proud.
1.13 am
Mr. John Battle: The Minister has not given a satisfactory answer to West Yorkshire. Why must our ratepayers be obliged to pay almost twice as much as people in other comparable authorities for a broadly similar level of service, not only this year but in the year before and the year before that? As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) said, both the Home Secretary and the Home Office seem unwilling to acknowledge that, in our case, the police authority's reasonable request for a small increase in precept—to 16·5p—to preserve a realistic balance, cannot be met, in view of the circumstances. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says about the request for the authorities to be cut, if not abolished. What is the strategy
154
for the next few years, and what are the Government's hopes and intentions? I hope that he will come clean tonight.
There is an underlying political strategy. The Government, through the Home Office and the Department of the Environment, are setting up local authorities in a cynical, political budget manoevre. They want to demonstrate that for the three years of rate capping, the precept was reduced each year. Then, as the authorities are released from that constraint in 1989–90, those reductions will mean that they have to increase their precepts substantially, which will be a massive burden on their ratepayers. They will have to pay the price at a politically sensitive time as we go into the next general election. Service levels can be maintained only by increasing the precept at this stage, or ratepayers will have to pay the price in future.
If the Minister holds his ground and says that he cannot increase the precept, will he tell us what he expects to be the future levels of services in those authorities?
1.16 am
Dr. John G. Blackburn: So many hon. Members want to contribute to the debate that I shall be brief—
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Where are the Liberals?
Dr. Blackburn: Their policy ends at 10 o'clock.
Although the debate has been centred on Yorkshire, there is a serious problem in the west midlands. Like all hon. Members who serve constituencies there, I have a responsibility to say a few words, especially about the precept for the police authority.
It is almost immoral for the Home Secretary to determine that there should be an inquiry into the Birmingham pub bombings, and then to invite the West Midlands police authority to pick up the bill for £600,000. I know that part of that sum is still under debate, and the problem may well be resolved. However, it is unfair of the Secretary of State to order an inquiry and then expect the police authority to pick up the bill.
When reading the chief constable's annual report,, I was horrified to note that 1,100 police officers in the west midlands had been wounded or assaulted during the past year, resulting in the loss of 7,000 days of police duty. The Home Secretary should address himself to such facts, and ensure that we obtain value for money and that we protect the police service.
I unashamedly tell the House that, for the past eight years, I have had the privilege of being the parliamentary adviser to 90,000 members of the National Association of Retired Police Officers. The Home Office should not point a finger and claim that the problems have arisen because so many police officers have retired. No one in society pays more for his pension than a serving police officer. The way that the matter was handled bordered on the disgraceful. In August 1982, by statutory instrument and without debate, and when the House was in recess, the pension levels were increased from 7 per cent. to 11 per cent. for male officers, and up to 7 per cent. for female officers.
I do not want to hear any arguments about pensions. They are well paid for and well supplied. The Minister must leave an avenue open to review responsible, reasoned argument that is based on fact. I hope that he will give such an assurance to the House.
1.19 am
Mr. Ian McCartney: At 7 o'clock in the morning of 13 July last year, the Under-Secretary of State, the then Labour spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) and I were the only people in the House debating the issue. It took from 13 July until last Monday for the Home Office to respond and to meet to discuss the discrepancies between the maximum expenditure limits set by the Home Office and the grant-related expenditure assessments set by the Department of the Environment. The Home Office has lost out in the battle between the two Departments on the issue. All through the summer, meetings between the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Departments were cancelled and were agreed only at the last minute following the King's Cross disaster. This was because the Department of the Environment has been intransigent and has not made the necessary changes that the Minister knows are necessary to get rid of such discrepancies.
The precept is the difference between what the Home Office says that fire authorities need to provide the services set down by its own inspectorate and what the Department of the Environment is prepared to give in grant-related expenditure assessments. That is the reality. Tragically—it has not been debated so far—in London, not a single penny will go to the fire authority in the nation's capital. Because of that, 800 firemen's jobs are at risk, months after the King's Cross fire disaster. That is the reality of the terrible decision that will be made tonight and of the Home Secretary giving in to the Secretary of State for the Environment.
It is no good Conservative Members parroting on to the local press. They have had all summer to get the Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment to change his mind. They have done nothing. They come to the Chamber tonight to try to give some support. It is too late. The decisions have been made. If they are honest, the only thing that they can do is to go into the Lobby and vote against the proposal.
The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) made two remarks. It is a pity that he does not communicate with the fire and civil defence authority in Greater Manchester. The changes in communications at fire service and police service headquarters in Greater Manchester were done at their request and with 100 per cent. Home Office funding. The Home Office is so pleased with the savings that have been made by both authorities that, on a regular basis, the fire and police authorities receive requests from other authorities to show them through their facilities. Authorities in Manchester are saving ratepayers' resources.
Stockport borough council's three representatives on the fire authority agreed with the fire authority and voted for the resolution that maximum expenditure limits as affected by GREA are wrong and impose an unnecessary burden on ratepayers and distort what is required. If the hon. Gentleman cannot support his local authority and local ratepayers, he should not be here. Maybe after the general election he will not be.
There is no evidence that the Home Office can produce to show — in accepting the Department of the Environment's analysis of places such as west Yorkshire, whose precept has been doubled—that there is anything
156
like a doubling of services to ratepayers. Millions of pounds are being siphoned from ratepayers as a consequence of the decision.
It is also true that Merseyside in the north-west will be substantially short of what is required. Already, there are discussions about whether there will be job losses for front-line fire-fighters. The Home Office sets the number of front-line fire-fighters, the level of expenditure for firefighters, the number of fire stations in each fire authority area and the ridership factor. Such matters have been determined not by the fire authority but by the Home Office.
They are monitored by the Home Office's inspectorate. It is on the basis of monitoring exercises that the Home Office sets the maximum expenditure limit. If the Home Secretary is not prepared to include those figures in the order, it means that he is not prepared to back his own Department, which set out the expenditure required in West Yorkshire, Greater Manchester, Merseyside and London. Because of the vagaries of the grant-related expenditure assessment, made by a Department that is not responsible for fire services in the United Kingdom, the authorities and their ratepayers will suffer. They will face both an increase in precept and a reduction in services. That is totally unacceptable.
The King's Cross inquiry is already discussing a clear link between the cut in investment and the provision of fire services. It is astonishing that no London Conservative Member has been prepared to put the case that if the order is passed, not a penny of Government grant will be made available to the capital of the United Kingdom for its fire authority.
If the Home Office has said that this year £370,608,000 is necessary to run the basic fire services in the United Kingdom, why do Conservative Members support the figure of £315,073,000 produced by the Department of the Environment? That represents a cut in grant of nearly £58 million, simply because the Home Secretary could not stand up for the fire authorities. I ask Conservative Members to go into the Lobby to vote this disgraceful decision down.
1.26 am
Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: I should like to add my voice to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) and other hon. Members who asked for a more liberal allowance —more liberalisation, if we have to use the word after 10 o'clock—to be made in the precept. I have been along with other hon. Members to see Ministers at the Home Office and have made representations. I have used the summer in trying to argue the case, as a previous speaker advised.
I have already instanced the extreme rise in crime in the centre of the land—the west midlands—and I shall not go over the figures again. They are well known. Therefore, I shall only repeat the words of the chief constable, who feels that policing is almost impossible if the precept is kept down to its present level. Even if £2·4 million from the balances is used in the west midlands, a precept of 14·36p will be required. Even if the police live off capital to that extent, leaving only £1·8 million in the kitty for real emergencies, they will still be well adrift on the figures. They still await the 350 extra officers and civilian personnel whom they need.

157
It is true that the situation in the west midlands is unique. We are an inland port and an area of immigration with relentless drug-related crime causing more and more resort to the knife and other weapons. It is no good Home Office Ministers simply ignoring those factors and adopting an arbitrary figure without explaining why. My conscience demands that I speak. I cannot remain silent.
There are many pressing matters. The increased demands caused by community watch, the Firearms Act 1982, the pub bombings, drug-related crimes and the repercussions of the Handsworth riots are such that, quite frankly, this precept restriction is out of order and I ask my hon. Friend and the Home Office to think again.
1.30 am
Mr. Bruce George: The mysteries and intricacies of central Government funding, local government and the police authorities are often beyond the likes of myself and, one suspects, people who are allegedly financially competent. However, although our constituents may not always understand the intricacies, they will see the end product and it is that which they will judge, not the clever words that may claim how much more money is being spent when, in reality, the quality of service is being impaired.
What is readily understandable to my constituents and, I suspect, to the constituents of many hon. Members who are present, is that when one telephones the police, they may not come, or if they come, they come late. The detection rate of the police is, regrettably, very low. Shopkeepers will tell us that they are finding it difficult or impossible to get insurance cover because their shops have been damaged so often that no insurance company will insure them. It is horrendous to discover how few police officers are on duty at some times of the day and night.
When hon. Members look round their own towns and cities, they are more likely to find a Securicor vehicle than a police vehicle because the vacuum that has been left by the Government is being filled by non-accountable private security companies. That is taking us back to the 19th century, prior to the establishment of the modern police system. That is the end product. One finds blocks of council flats being guarded by security officers. I am talking not about Park lane flats but about ordinary council flats. Such is the growth in crime.
It is difficult for me to talk about the growth in crime without being accused of sensationalising, but that growth is obvious to most of us here. The word consensus has almost left the English vocabulary but if there is a near consensus, surely it is that most areas are underpoliced. While one can make political capital out of the position, I make the point that this is not exclusively a political issue. It affects us all because in one way or another we are the guardians of the public interest; it is our job to reflect public anxiety.
A few months ago many Members of Parliament, representing the west midlands area attended a meeting in the House, at which we met the chairmen of the police consultative committees—bodies that were set up by the Government to reflect public opinion. They did so and expressed, rationally, the alarming developments of crime in their own areas.
My own town took about 1,000 years to reach the level of recorded crime that was reached in 1979, but in a few years that figure has doubled from 11,000 to 22,000 recorded crimes. At the same time, the number of police
158
officers has risen fractionally, by 23, but the amount of overtime worked has fallen dramatically and considerably. I would argue that there are now fewer police officers on duty in the town of Walsall than there were a few years ago while, as has been said, the police are now faced with problems that they were not facing several years ago, such as drug-related offences, terrorism and football hooliganism, and as another hon. Member has said, crime watch schemes impose additional demands and problems.
When the West Midlands Police authority asked the Government for additional resources, it was given the cold shoulder. The West Midlands authority asked for £95·481 million to allow for a reasonable increase of 350 police officers and 150 civilians. That is equivalent to a 14·87p increase in precept terms. The Secretary of State for the Home Department imposed a limit of £93·4 million. That does not cover even existing commitments.
The Home Office has been twisting the arms of police authorities to make them more efficient. In my constituency the establishment of administrative support units, the use of computers to greater effect and greater civilianisation have all been to the liking of the Home Office. The consequences of the cut imposed on the West Midlands police authority are that from next year the administrative support unit concept will come to an end, as will the computerisation and the civilianisation programmes.
Mr. Turner: How could my hon. Friend reconcile what he said about Government policy towards the west midlands in regard to the precept, when the most recently recorded figures for Wolverhampton show the highest number of crimes committed in the history of that area? Does my hon. Friend agree that when the party in Government is supposed to be the party of law and order, those figures are a disgrace? Government policy is a betrayal of the people whom I represent in Wolverhampton in the way in which they have treated us in the precept that we are debating.
Mr. George: The picture that my hon. Friend has painted of his part of the west midlands is replicated throughout Britain. When an authority seeks to be prudent and to build up adequate reserves, it is punished. The West Midlands police authority has been landed with a large bill for the Birmingham pub bombings inquiry and has been lumbered with compensation payments amounting to £1 million in respect of the Handsworth riots three years ago. There are additional demands based on incidents such as those that occurred in my hon. Friend's town a couple of years ago. When there are reserves, they can be dissipated very swiftly.
This is not a partisan point, but the Government must recognise that more police officers are required. I understand that only a few hundred extra officers have been appointed. Many authorities will be putting a strong case for the majority of those police officers. The economy is now booming. If people were asked whether they would prefer a small income tax cut or feel more secure in their homes, I suggest that the vast majority would prefer the latter, at least in the area that I represent, and perhaps in the constituencies of other hon. Members.
I am asking Ministers for more police officers in our constituencies. The Government will be judged by their failure to react adequately to the growth in crime. I hope that Conservative Members will not simply exercise their

159
consciences, but will translate that exercise into voting with us in the Lobby. Otherwise, their constituents will be rushing to them and asking for more police officers. If they read their local papers, Conservative Members will make the appropriate judgment.
1.39 am
Mr. Roland Boyes: When constituents come to my surgeries they ask for more policemen so that they can walk safely on the streets at night. Small shopkeepers ask for more protection for their property. They know full well that they are not being provided with that protection because there are not enough policemen. They also know that the result of this debate will be even fewer policemen. They understand, however, which party has spoken up on their behalf.
The Minister speaks with a forked tongue. Tonight he is supporting a charter for increased crime in the areas that I represent. The situation in the Northumbria police authority will grow worse. The number of reported crimes per police officer is greater in Northumbria than anywhere else. It is 50 per cent. above the comparative number in the Metropolitan police area.
Northumbria needs an additional 1,700 police officers. If one uses as a measure the number of serious offences recorded by each police officer, Northumbria needs 800 more police officers. Northumbria has carried out an important exercise that shows that it cannot manage without an additional 529 police officers. The Minister will be unable to satisfy that demand if expenditure levels remain as they are now.
My constituents will understand that this debate has resulted in their being given not more but less protection. When they come to my surgeries they will be told why. Unless Conservative Members join us in the Lobby and vote against the order, their words will be shown to have been meaningless.
1.41 am
Mr. Peter Hardy: The Home Office says that South Yorkshire needs 1,114 full-time firemen. Has the Minister any evidence to suggest that the Home Office is wrong? If he accepts that the Home Office is right, will he not assure us that South Yorkshire will have enough money to employ that number of full-time firemen and the appliances they need so that they are able to do their job on a full-time and professional basis? The House is entitled to an answer to that simple question.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 144, Noes 61.

Division No. 171]

[1.45 am

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Boswell, Tim

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Bottomley, Peter

Allason, Rupert

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Amos, Alan

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Arbuthnot, James

Bowis, John

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Brazier, Julian

Ashby, David

Bright, Graham

Atkinson, David

Burns, Simon

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Burt, Alistair

Baldry, Tony

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Batiste, Spencer

Carrington, Matthew

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Carttiss, Michael

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Cash, William

160

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Moss, Malcolm

Couchman, James

Neubert, Michael

Cran, James

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Nicholls, Patrick

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Dover, Den

Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

Durant, Tony

Page, Richard

Emery, Sir Peter

Paice, James

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Patnick, Irvine

Favell, Tony

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Gill, Christopher

Porter, David (Waveney)

Gow, Ian

Portillo, Michael

Greenway, John (Rydale)

Powell, William (Corby)

Gregory, Conal

Raffan, Keith

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Redwood, John

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Riddick, Graham

Harris, David

Rowe, Andrew

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Ryder, Richard

Hay ward, Robert

Sackville, Hon Tom

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Hind, Kenneth

Shaw, David (Dover)

Holt, Richard

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Speed, Keith

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Speller, Tony

Hunter, Andrew

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Irvine, Michael

Stern, Michael

Jack, Michael

Stevens, Lewis

Janman, Timothy

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Summerson, Hugo

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Knapman, Roger

Temple-Morris, Peter

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Knowles, Michael

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Latham, Michael

Thurnham, Peter

Lawrence, Ivan

Twinn, Dr Ian

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Walden, George

Lightbown, David

Waller, Gary

Lilley, Peter

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Warren, Kenneth

Lord, Michael

Watts, John

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Wells, Bowen

Maclean, David

Wheeler, John

Malins, Humfrey

Widdecombe, Miss Ann

Mans, Keith

Wilshire, David

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Maude, Hon Francis

Winterton, Nicholas

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Wood, Timothy

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Mills, Iain

Tellers for the Ayes:

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Mr. Alan Howarth and

Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

NOES

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Dewar, Donald

Barron, Kevin

Dixon, Don

Battle, John

Fatchett, Derek

Boyes, Roland

George, Bruce

Bradley, Keith

Golding, Mrs Llin

Buckley, George

Hardy, Peter

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Henderson, Douglas

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Illsley, Eric

Clay, Bob

Leadbitter, Ted

Clelland, David

Lewis, Terry

Cohen, Harry

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Corbett, Robin

McAvoy, Tom

Cryer, Bob

McCartney, Ian

Cummings, J.

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Madden, Max

161

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Rogers, Allan

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Short, Clare

Martlew, Eric

Skinner, Dennis

Meale, Alan

Snape, Peter

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Strang, Gavin

Mowlam, Marjorie

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Nellist, Dave

Turner, Dennis

O'Brien, William

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

O'Neill, Martin

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Parry, Robert

Wray, James

Patchett, Terry

Pike, Peter

Tellers for the Noes:

Prescott John

Mr. Frank Haynes and

Primarolo, Ms Dawn

Mr. Ray Powell.

Redmond, Martin

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Local Government Act 1985 (Police and Fire and Civil Defence Authorities) Precepts Limitation Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 28th January, be approved.

Police, Fire and Civil Defence Authorities

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made,
  That, at the sitting on Tuesday, 9th February notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1)(b) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), Mr. Speaker shall put the Questions on the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Channon relating to Local Government not later than one and a half hours after the first of them has been entered upon.—[Mr. Maclean.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

PETITION

  Motorway Service Area, Hollingbourne
  1.53 am
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: On the day that sees the commencement of the relative planning appeal, I rise to present a petition in the name of Michael Nightingale of Wormshill and 842 others from the villages of Hollingbourne, Wormshill, Frinsted, Hucking and Bicknor in my constituency and from the village of Leeds in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), who is also present, against the development of a motorway service area on the edge of an area of outstanding natural beauty at Hollingbourne, adjacent to junction 8 of the M20.
  To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Jim Cormack
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Maclean.]
1.54 am
Mr. Frank Cook: It is a pity that this matter should be restrained by the time afforded to an Adjournment debate, because its ramifications would justify a three-hour debate. It is the case of Mr. Jim Cormack and his service to the country in exposing a fraud of gigantic proportions in the misappropriation of diesel fuel at Faslane nuclear base in Scotland.
On 6 October 1983, Mr. Cormack went, on the instructions of his employers, to Faslane to pick up a load of sullage. Sullage is waste oil that has been contaminated in some way. In addition to his wages and allowances, Mr. Cormack was to receive a £10 kickback for the job. On loading his tanker in Faslane—he was allowed to enter without any security check and without showing any documents—he discovered that what was going into his tank was not sullage but white diesel with a little water added.
Mr. Cormack was allowed to leave the base without excise documents, without a security check and without certificates to the effect that he was carrying a hazardous cargo. He was required to take the load to Potters Oils in Derbyshire, which turned out to be a derelict yard. On the way, he spoke to other drivers who knew of the practice of collecting oil from Faslane and, becoming suspicious, he decided—in a somewhat foolhardy way—to institute his own investigation. Without reporting the matter to the Ministry of Defence police, because he thought that they must be involved in the fraud, he set out to investigate it himself by making inquiries of other transport undertakings and their drivers. He then reported the matter to the civil police.
The upshot of the inquiries that resulted from his blowing the whistle—his words, not mine — was that several people spent periods in gaol and several hundred thousands pounds were repaid to the Government in compensation for the money that was fraudulently taken from the taxpayer. The prosecutions that resulted from the inquiries were instigated almost piecemeal—one here, one there and one in another place — and were the subject of a High Court injunction which was lifted only on 1 December last year. It was imposed in November 1986 in the Supreme Court by Judge Lord Morrison under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. That meant that reporting of the incidents has been restricted, and the entire case has received little publicity.
I brought the matter to the attention of the Minister on 20 June last year, and the Minister informed me that he was aware of Mr. Cormack's role in the matter arid that it had not been overlooked. On 3 September last year, the Minister clarified that by saying that he had been referring to the fact that Mr. Cormack's role as an informant in the matter had not been overlooked.
Shortly after this assurance from the Minister I received the following letter from Mr. Cormack on 10 October:
"I now find myself in a desperate situation regarding paying my way out of Government supplements … my search for work as a HGV tanker driver has proved to be nil. I have been offered a job in Germany, and due to my situation, must take the opportunity up. I feel more bitter now that I am forced, in order to pay my way, to work for a

163
country that lost the war! I now wish that I had not brought the Faslane rip-off to light, but that is something I have to live with."
So, Cormack claims that as a direct result of having brought the matter to light, he lost his job, his house worth £48,000—his business, and his wife. His sons now live apart from him. He cannot work because he has been identified as the whistle-blower.
Mr. Cormack's hardship has caused several people to write to him expressing sympathy when his case finally came to light in the press. He received one from a Mrs. McLevey from Paisley;
"Dear Mr. Cormack,
I read your story … and felt I had to write to you. I'm not in the habit of writing to strangers but I feel you have had such a rotten deal and I wanted to thank you for being honest and for standing up to be counted. Please don't feel bitter. I am sure a person of your integrity will find a job soon … You did the right thing by the millions of ordinary taxpayers in this country. What sort of country would this be if we all had little swindles like this on the side? So thank you again from my family. I wish I could enclose more."
That refers to the £2 that the lady enclosed with her letter as a gesture to compensate Mr. Cormack for the service he had done the country.
Shortly after this, I received a letter from the Minister telling me that the outstanding case that had been holding up the release of the High Court injunction had been concluded shortly before, and that active consideration was therefore being given to Mr. Cormack's contribution, in line with agreed policy. Since then, I, too, have received correspondence. I offer one example, as a bona fide of that. It comes from Mrs. Elsmore, of Boon Hill, Stoke-on-Trent, who urges me
"to press the Ministry of Defence for proper payment to this man who saved them a fortune."
That fortune has been estimated by one national newspaper at £6 million, and by Procurement Weekly and the purchasing supply management at a figure as high as £10 million.
On 11 January I received a letter from the Minister telling me that he was pleased to inform me that a payment of £1,000 had been authorised by his Department and that a payable order had been posted to Mr. Cormack. On the same day, I got this letter from Mr. Cormack:
"You have to be in my situation to understand the misery it is causing me, not just losing my £200-£300 a week job, but my detached house, the break-up with my wife after 23 years of marriage, through rows over losing my job and reporting Faslane. She was right, I should have kept my mouth shut and minded my own business and let it go on and it would have gone on probably for another 10 years … I did not just inform on the matter, I investigated it at the Faslane base and could have reported it there and then to the MOD at the gate house, but I knew they had to be involved as well because the procedure was all wrong. So I carried on to where I had to deliver, staying overnight en route, at South Wood services on the M6, where I knew other drivers of the company I was delivering too would be staying. I was investigating there, talking to the drivers of Potters' Oils, where I was to deliver. They knew what was going on, but kept it quiet, because they had their own fiddles going on as well … Put it this way Frank. I put the whole bloody situation on a plate for the police and MOD, how it was done and where it was being done. I even worked out the cost of that one job, and it was over a million pounds. I even told them how many tankers would be there the next day. The other companies that were rounded up was a result of me reporting it in the first place … It is over four years now. I have just received a cheque from the MOD for £1,000 which is enclosed and would have you return it to the MOD, as it is like putting the boot in when
164
you are down; most of all an insult … It would not even pay my costs to go to tribunal … The cheque arrived on its own, no statement for what is was for, and most of all no letter of thank you."
He continues:
"That hurts. I can't live like I used to. I just exist."
I could go on at great length. I have many more details, but I realise that I must give the Minister the opportunity to reply. I gave him warning of what I would say. Let me summarise. I should like to know whether the £1,000 that was offered to Mr. Cormack as reward for that multimillion pound exposé came out of any police snouts' purse, whether it came out of their normal informants' fund, because it seems so paltry. If so, how many policemen received a commendation or perhaps promotion on the strength of the prosecution? I hope that to hear an assurance that the Faslane investigation has cleaned out that nest of vipers because they cannot have been only the civilian personnel who were involved. Mr. Cormack had to pass armed commandos who were guarding that establishment. As he managed to do so without any sort of pass or documentation, we need that assurance. I hope to hear an assurance from the Minister that steps have been taken to ensure that other military establishments have been cleared and vetted, and are not operating a similar fiddle.
I have the £1,000 cheque in my custody, under lock and key. I do not want to give it back to the MOD, but I appeal to the Minister, in view of the hardship that Mr. Cormack has suffered as a direct result of his service to his country. He did not have to do it. He did not have to put his frogman suit on, swim up the Clyde to the Faslane base in the middle of the night, walk around for 20 minutes, swim back out to his Caravette, telephone the police and tell them. He did it simply because he wanted to prove to himself how bad the security arrangements were.
I should like to hear from the Minister that there is a prospect that Mr. Cormack's service and foolhardy dedication to his own public spirit and the penalty that he has imposed upon himself by trying to serve his country might receive better recognition.
2.8 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) for raising this subject because it gives me an opportunity to express in the House my appreciation and that of my Department of Mr. Cormack's action. I hope that that can be passed on by the hon. Gentleman.
It may be helpful if I begin by sketching out more fully some of the background to this particularly complicated case and outline some of the measures that we are taking to ensure that this type of incident will not occur again. I hope that during my remarks I shall be able to satisfy the concern that the hon. Gentleman has expressed on that point.
As a result of extensive Ministry of Defence police investigations into what proved to be an extremely complex case, it has been established that during the period from January 1981 to November 1983, 1 million gallons of misappropriated fuel were illegally removed from the Clyde submarine base at Faslane.
The losses of fuel were possible only because of the unique position then existing at the Clyde submarine base with regard to the disposal of "sullage". In brief, sullage

165
is dirty oil and tank washings—a mixture of oil, water and acids— that have to be removed from submarines and ships. Unlike other bases, where there are dedicated reception and treatment facilities for sullage handling, sullage at the Clyde submarine base used to be disposed of by commercial contractors. Collusion was, therefore, possible between the contractors and the Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service employees involved with the physical handling, collection and disposal of the sullage. That explains why they, and not others at the base, were involved in the incident. The practice at that time was for the sullage to be accumulated into a dedicated Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service barge and, after a period to allow the oil to settle, to be removed by commercial road tankers called by one of the RMAS staff involved.
In all, only seven RMAS personnel were involved in this case. One of these men died of natural causes shortly after the discovery of the theft. The rest were charged with corruption, and one also with theft, under section 1(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906. In June 1987, four were sentenced to terms ranging from between three and 12 months. Sentencing of the remaining two has been deferred until June 1988—in effect, under Scottish law, a suspended sentence.
As a result of those court cases, it has been established that inducements were paid by certain contractors to those RMAS personnel in return for fortifying the sullage with good quality fuel, for allowing the unauthorised removal of sullage, and for removing part or all of the water content so that the proportion of recoverable oil was increased. I should stress that not all those men were involved to the same extent.
The contractors involved were prosecuted and sentenced. In all, 14 people were convicted. In addition, disciplinary proceedings are under way against two senior staff who had supervisory responsibilities at the base.
Since the theft was brought to light, steps have been taken to tighten procedures for the disposal of sullage to prevent any repetition. Once the theft had been discovered, the senior officer responsible for logistic matters at the Faslane base assumed full control for the disposal of sullage, and the use of contractors ceased. All accumulations of sullage are now transferred to a mobile barge and landed ashore outside the base through the oil fuel depot at Garelochhead for disposal under strict Ministry of Defence control.
Extensive internal investigations have been carried out and, where necessary, appropriate remedial action has been taken or is in hand. Accounting procedures have been tightened. The lessons learnt have also been read across to other bases, and to the other two services.
Security at the base has also been reviewed since the theft. There was no evidence of inadequate security: indeed, comprehensive security instructions were in force at the time of the theft.
I should like to turn now to the important part played by Mr. Cormack in assisting the Ministry of Defence police in this case.
The information supplied by Mr. Cormack first came to the attention of the Ministry of Defence police on 8 October 1983, via the Scottish crime squad. This report was initially addressed to the regional fraud squad, which was involved throughout, and gave a detailed account of how sullage was removed from the base.
At the time, Mr. Cormack told investigating officers that, although he would he prepared to speak to either
166
police or Customs and Excise officials to substantiate the information that he had provided, and to enable prosecution for what he considered illegal acts to proceed, he would not be willing to give evidence, as he felt that he might, as a result, lose his job and be "blacked" from employment with any other transport firm.
Consequently, Mr. Cormack's identity was not revealed, nor was he a witness during the subsequent court proceedings. His involvement became public only when he approached the hon. Gentleman and made a statement to the News on Sunday on 2 August 1987, some considerable time after the original events.
Mr. Cormack then, after this long interval, made contact again with the Ministry of Defence police. He was subsequently interviewed, and it became clear that his intention was to seek financial reward. Mr. Cormack was informed of the progress of the case Mr. Cormack then, after this long interval, made contact again with the Ministry of Defence police. He was subsequently interviewed, and it became clear that his intention was to seek financial reward. Mr. Cormack was informed of the progress of the case and reassured that his involvement had not been overlooked.
Mr. Frank Cook: Information about Cormack's involvement came out because of leaks from the Scottish court cases and was known throughout the haulage industry long before the article in News on Sunday.
Mr. Sainsbury: I believe I am right in saying that the public appearance of the information in the press dates only from the time that I mentioned.
The very thorough police investigation was completed in April 1985 and was referred to the procurator fiscal. The court proceedings, which involved five separate trials, commenced in December 1986 and lasted until November 1987. The decision to go to separate trials was made by the Scottish Office. During the first trial the presiding judge, Lord Morrison, imposed a reporting restriction, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, for one year because of the other four related cases, allowing the media to report only the result of that particular case. At each subsequent hearing the presiding judge referred to and endorsed that restriction.
The hon. Member for Stockton, North wrote on 20 June 1987 to the Cleveland constabulary, requesting a report of its investigation. Since the matter was being investigated by the Ministry of Defence police, in cooperation with regional and Scottish crime squads, his letter was passed to the Ministry of Defence police headquarters, and I replied, as the hon. Gentleman said, on 22 July. At that stage I was able to say only that Mr. Cormack's part in the matter had not been forgotten. As I have already said, the hearings in the High Court in Edinburgh had not then been completed. A further defendant had been indicted to appear in September or October, and, because of the number of individuals involved and the related nature of the evidence, the judge had placed a restriction on the release of information bearing on the case. In the event, the last defendant was not sentenced until 3 November and reporting restrictions remained in force until 31 December.
Upon the successful conclusion of these proceedings, I advised the hon. Member that recognition of Mr. Cormack's assistance was being actively considered in the light of Ministry of Defence police policy. As the hon. Gentleman said, Mr. Cormack was awarded the sum of £1,000 in recognition of the information that he had volunteered, which, together with subsequent police investigations, enabled successful prosecutions to be brought. Payment was made, as requested, by personal cheque.

167
The Ministry of Defence recognises that informants can play an important role in assisting the Ministry of Defence police in criminal investigations. We therefore have a policy whereby, in common with other United Kingdom police forces, provision is available for discretionary payments to be made for information given to the police. As with the Home Office police forces, these payments are a police operational matter, ultimately at the discretion of the chief constable. These payments can be initiated only by the police themselves. So far as I am aware, the only significant difference which distinguishes our policy from that of Home Office police forces is that, because Government funds are used, the administrative arrangements within the Ministry of Defence require the Ministry of Defence police to seek approval for each payment.
I stress that such payments are for information given to the police. They are not rewards, in that they are not payments offered in advance for information leading to the conviction of those involved in a particular crime or to the recovery of specified stolen property. They are a recognition of particular help given to the police and are therefore not related to the value of the goods stolen or recovered. The informant will usually not wish to be identified with the information that he has given, and that
168
was so in this case. To protect the individual, both the policy and its application are normally treated as confidential.
The police request for approval of a payment for information is usually not made until the judicial procedure has been completed. This accounts for the considerable lapse of time in Mr. Cormack's case. As a result of the information that he gave, a police investigation was undertaken which took 18 months to complete. The last of the resulting trials was not completed until November 1987.
It is particularly important to distinguish between payments for information and rewards of the nature that I have described. Mr. Cormack gave the police valuable information, and by doing so he became eligible for consideration for a discretionary award from, and on behalf of, the police for that act. It might be expected that a law-abiding member of the public coming across evidence of a criminal act would tell the police without any thought of receiving a payment for doing so. In this matter, Mr. Cormack has acted as a public-spirited citizen. The £1,000 that he has received is simply a recognition of that fact. We are grateful for what he did.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Two o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Buses (Revenue Support)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list information available to him on the savings that have accrued from the changes in revenue support for bus transport since the Transport Act 1985 in(a) Shropshire county council and (b) Berkshire county council.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The two councils have reported spending on passenger transport revenue support as follows:

  £ million

  Shropshire

  Berkshire

  1985–86

  0·787

  1·613

  1986–87

  0·837

  1·340

  1987–88 (Budget)

  0·880

  1·083

  Pin-ups
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will issue instructions for the removal of all offensive pin-ups in all his departmental premises.

  £ million

  Route

  Title

  Works cost estimate

  Forecast expenditure in 1988–89

  (A) Schemes for which statutory procedures have been completed

  M5

  Widening—Catshill to Lydiate Ash

  22

  9

  M20

  Maidstone to Ashford (two contracts)

  62

  17

  M40

  Gaydon Bypass

  28

  11

  M62

  Eastbound Climbing Lane J21–22

  3

  3

  M62

  Westbound Climbing Lane J24–25

  2

  2

  A1

  Dishforth Interchange

  6

  2

  A6

  Barton Bypass

  6

  2

  A11

  Thetford Bypass

  7

  4

  A16

  Boston to Algakirk

  7

  3

  A21

  Robertsbridge Bypass

  3

  1

  A27

  Pevensey Bypass

  6

  2

  A35

  Charmouth Bypass

  6

  2

  A36

  Steeple Langford Bypass

  2

  1

  A40

  Swakeleys Road Junction Improvement

  8

  6

  A41

  Bicester Bypass Stage 1

  3

  1

  A46

  Newark Relief Road

  27

  12

  A47

  Guyhirn Diversion

  3

  1

  A52

  Nottingham Outer Ring Road, Abbey Street Grade Separated Junction

  4

  2

  A282

  Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Approach Roads

  20

  4

  A303

  Sparkford Bypass

  6

  3

  A406

  Chingford Road to Hale End Road

  38

  18

  A435/A422

  Alcester Bypass

  7

  4

  A565

  Derby Road Improvement

  2

  1

  Sub total (a) 23 Schemes

  278

  111

  2
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Guidance was issued to all managers last July asking them to ensure that potentially offensive material is not displayed in the work place.

  Aircraft (Passenger Seats)
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will raise at his next meeting with the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority the provision by commercial airlines of seats for passengers obliged to occupy smoking seats against their wishes.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There are no plans to do so. Generally this is a matter which is best left to the commercial judgment of individual airlines. The authority is able to take the views of users into account in all transport licensing cases where standards of services are at issue.

  Road Costs
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all the motorway and trunk road contracts in England with a works cost of £1 million or more which his Department intends to award in 1988–89 showing, in each case, the total value of the contract and the expenditure likely to be incurred in that year.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The table lists schemes which we plan to start in 1988–89. The list is provisional and currently under review. Actual starts 1988–89 may differ from this list as progress is dependent on outstanding statutory procedures and other factors. Other schemes not on the list may start in 1988–89 if progress with statutory procedures is faster than currently expected.
  3

  Route

  Title

  Works cost estimate

  Forecast expenditure in 1988–89

  (B) Schemes for which some statutory procedures have not been completed

  M3

  Compton to Bassett widening

  27

  10

  A30

  Launceston to Plusha

  6

  3

  A35

  Axminster Bypass

  6

  0

  A36

  Beckington Bypass

  4

  1

  A36

  Codford Bypass

  2

  1

  A43

  Blisworth Bypass

  11

  0

  A303

  Ilchester to South Petherton

  9

  2

  A435

  Sedgeberrow Bypass

  1

  1

  A604

  Ml to Al Link

  60

  15

  A650

  Drighlington Bypass

  5

  1

  A696

  Woolsington Bypass

  9

  2

  Sub total (b) 11 Schemes

  140

  36

  (c) In addition, further contracts are expected to be let on schemes which will be under construction at 31 March 1988 as follows:

  Route

  Title

  Contract cost estimate (£ million)

  M40

  Banbury Bypass Contract 2

  23

  M40

  Banbury Bypass Contract 4

  45

  A2

  London Boundary to M2 Improvement Contract 4

  2

  A19

  Peterlee Grade Separated Junction Stage 2

  3

  Sub total (c) 4 Contracts

  73

  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list in the form of his answer of 2 April 1987,

  £ million

  Route

  Title

  Works cost estimate

  Estimated date for start of works

  (A) Schemes which had completed all their statutory procedures:

  M62

  Eastbound climbing lane (Junctions 21–22)

  3

  Spring 1988

  M62

  Westbound climbing lane (Junctions 24–25)

  2

  Spring 1988

  A2

  London boundary to M2 Improvement Contract 4

  1

  Autumn 1988

  Sub total (a)

  6

  (B) Schemes for which statutory procedures has still to be completed:

  M3

  Compton to Bassett widening

  27

  Early 1989

  A6

  Barton bypass

  6

  Mid 1988

  A27

  Penvensey bypass

  6

  Mid 1988

  A41

  Bicester bypass

  3

  Autumn 1988

  A52

  Nottingham outer ring road Abbey Street grade separated junction

  4

  Spring 1988

  A140

  Dickleburgh bypass

  2

  Spring 1989

  A435/A422

  Alcester bypass

  7

  Autumn 1988

  A696

  Woolsington bypass

  9

  Late 1988

  Sub total (b)

  64

  London Underground Ltd.
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans London Underground Limited has for franchising or contracting the managements of stations to commercial or voluntary bodies.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I understand there are no such plans.
  4
  Official Report, column 571–72, all the motorway and trunk road contracts with a works cost of £1 millon or more which his Department had intended to award in 1987–88 but no longer anticipated doing, with, in each case, an indication of when the contract might be let.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Construction has started or is expected to start as planned on 29 of the schemes listed in my answer of 2 April 1987. Current estimates of dates for start of works on the remainder are as follows:

  Herald of Free Enterprise
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the items of cargo carried on board the Herald of Free Enterprise at the time of her sinking whose carriage on board a passenger vessel breached regulations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  My Department has been informed by the authorities in Belgium that although one lorry on board was carrying a cargo declared to be cyanide
  5
  solutions, they found it to consist of several drums and plastic pails containing substances that are banned from carriage in a passenger ship.

  The Belgian authorities have asked for assistance in following up certain lines of inquiry in the United Kingdom. Since a prosecution is being considered in Belgium, it would not be proper to disclose further details.

  Toxic Waste (Transportation)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied that adequate checks exist over the manifests of cross-Channel ferries in order to detect the carrying of toxic chemical wastes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The onus to ensure that dangerous goods manifests are correct is placed upon the shipper and the ship operator in the Merchant Shipping (Dangerous Goods) Regulations 1981, as amended.

  My marine surveyors do carry out spot checks on the dangerous goods manifests, but this can ensure only that the goods can be carried on the vessel inspected and that they are correctly located. It is not possible to detect from the dangerous goods manifest undeclared or wrongly declared dangerous goods.

ENVIRONMENT

  South West Housing Society
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what public funds have been made available to the South West Housing Society Ltd., Bull Wharf, Redcliff street, Bristol BSI, for each year that funds were provided.

  Joint Manpower Watch-Quarter 51

  Numbers of staff by function: Bolton

  Population—261,000

  12th September 1987

  Non manual

  Manual

  Total

  Full time

  Part time

  Full time

  Part time

  Service

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  1 Education—Teaching

  3,010

  52·5

  450

  43·1

  3,460

  27·6

  2 Other

  687

  12·0

  323

  30·9

  484

  22·5

  1,946

  53·9

  3,440

  27·4

  3 Construction

  58

  1·0

  2

  0·2

  470

  21·9

  6

  0·2

  536

  4·3

  4 Transport

  5 Social Services

  620

  10·8

  121

  11·6

  353

  16·4

  1,003

  27·8

  2,097

  16·7

  6 Total (1–5)

  4,375

  76·3

  596

  85·7

  1,307

  60·8

  2,955

  81·9

  9,533

  76·1

  7 Libraries

  125

  2·2

  58

  5·6

  23

  1·1

  96

  2·7

  302

  2·4

  8 Recreation

  88

  1·5

  5

  0·5

  400

  18·6

  293

  8·1

  786

  6·3

  9 Environmental Health

  65

  1·1

  5

  0·5

  25

  1·2

  95

  0·8

  10 Refuse

  11

  0·2

  107

  5·0

  118

  0·9

  11 Housing

  240

  4·2

  15

  1·4

  76

  3·5

  36

  1·0

  367

  2·9

  12 Planning

  100

  1·7

  9

  0·9

  109

  0·9

  13 Chief Executive

  31

  0·5

  2

  0·2

  33

  0·3

  14 Finance

  171

  3·0

  13

  1·2

  184

  1·5

  15 Secretarial

  112

  2·0

  31

  3·0

  51

  2·4

  94

  2·6

  288

  2·3

  16 Legal

  13

  0·2

  13

  0·1

  17 Engineering

  162

  2·8

  1

  0·1

  144

  6·7

  307

  2·4

  18 Architecture

  76

  1·3

  76

  0·6

  19 Estates

  27

  0·5

  27

  0·2

  20 Personnel

  22

  0·4

  1

  0·1

  23

  0·2

  21 Management Service

  22 Computing

  67

  1·2

  2

  0·2

  69

  0·6

  23 Consumer Protection

  13

  0·2

  13

  0·1

  24 Other Administration

  9

  0·2

  4

  0·4

  13

  0·1

  6
  Mrs. Roe
  In recent years the Department of the Environment has paid the society the following amounts in housing association grant, revenue deficit grant and grant in relief of tax:

  Financial Year

  Grant Paid In Year(£)

  1972–73

  77

  1973–74

  4

  1974–75

  Nil

  1975–76

  812

  1976–77

  479

  1977–78

  1,432

  1978–79

  Nil

  1979–80

  1,178

  1980–81

  50,000

  1981–82

  443,812

  1982–83

  2,005

  1983–84

  27,563

  1984–85

  86,842

  1985–86

  329,289

  1986–87

  200,886

  1987–88

  332,553

  Local Government Employees (Greater Manchester)
  Mr. Tom Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the number of employees of each of the 10 metropolitan borough councils in Greater Manchester broken down by function, subject and area.

  Mr. Chope
  The tables show the results of the September 1987 survey of the joint manpower watch for the metropolitan borough councils in Greater Manchester. Information collected under section 56 of the Local Government Act 1985 for these authorities is available in the Library of the House.
  7

  Non manual

  Manual

  Total

  Full time

  Part time

  Full time

  Part time

  Service

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  27 Technical Services

  28 Central Service (13–27)

  703

  12·3

  54

  5·2

  195

  9·1

  94

  2·6

  1,046

  8·3

  29 Fire Service—Regular

  30 Others

  31 Other Services

  27

  0·5

  3

  0·3

  15

  0·7

  134

  3·7

  179

  1·4

  32 Total (7–12, 28–31)

  1,359

  23·7

  149

  14·3

  841

  39·2

  653

  18·1

  3,002

  23·9

  33 General Service (1–32)

  5,734

  100·0

  1,045

  100·0

  2,148

  100·0

  3,608

  100·0

  12,535

  100·0

  34 Agency Staff

  35 Magistrates Courts

  37

  0·0

  37

  0·0

  36 Probation—Officers

  37 Others

  Joint Manpower Watch—Quarter 51

  Numbers of staff by function: Bury

  Population—174,000

  12th September 1987

  Non manual

  Manual

  Total

  Full time

  Part time

  Full time

  Part time

  Service

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  1 Education—Teaching

  1,723

  51·7

  194

  25·7

  1,917

  26·4

  2 Other

  378

  11·3

  375

  49·7

  151

  18·9

  1,374

  57·5

  2,278

  31·3

  3 Construction

  9

  0·3

  219

  27·4

  2

  0·1

  230

  3·2

  4 Transport

  5 Social Services

  333

  10·0

  49

  6·5

  92

  11·5

  818

  34·3

  1,292

  17·8

  6 Total (1–5)

  2,443

  73·3

  618

  82·0

  462

  57·9

  2,194

  91·9

  5,717

  76·6

  7 Libraries

  73

  2·2

  40

  5·3

  2

  0·3

  12

  0·5

  127

  1·7

  8 Recreation

  65

  2·0

  20

  2·7

  185

  23·2

  32

  1·3

  302

  4·2

  9 Environmental Health

  41

  1·2

  4

  0·5

  45

  0·6

  10 Refuse

  23

  0·7

  2

  0·3

  77

  9·6

  102

  1·4

  11 Housing

  92

  2·8

  29

  3·8

  4

  0·5

  11

  0·5

  136

  1·9

  12 Planning

  60

  1·8

  3

  0·4

  63

  0·9

  13 Chief Executive

  46

  1·4

  4

  0·5

  50

  0·7

  14 Finance

  136

  4·1

  3

  0·4

  139

  1·9

  15 Secretarial

  30

  0·9

  8

  1·1

  48

  2·0

  86

  1·2

  16 Legal

  23

  0·7

  23

  0·3

  17 Engineering

  108

  3·2

  4

  0·5

  52

  6·5

  164

  2·3

  18 Architecture

  58

  1·7

  4

  0·5

  62

  0·9

  19 Estates

  25

  0·8

  1

  0·1

  1

  0·1

  4

  0·2

  31

  0·4

  20 Personnel

  14

  0·4

  1

  0·1

  15

  0·2

  21 Management Service

  13

  0·4

  5

  0·7

  18

  0·2

  22 Computing

  14

  0·4

  14

  0·2

  23 Consumer Protection

  9

  0·3

  9

  0·1

  24 Other Administration

  6

  0·2

  1

  0·1

  1

  0·0

  8

  0·1

  27 Technical Services

  49

  1·5

  8

  1·1

  57

  0·8

  28 Central Service (13–27)

  531

  15·9

  39

  5·2

  53

  6·6

  53

  2·2

  676

  9·3

  29 Fire Service—Regular

  30 Others

  31 Other Services

  5

  0·2

  3

  0·4

  11

  1·4

  86

  3·6

  105

  1·4

  32 Total (7–12, 28–31)

  890

  26·7

  136

  18·0

  336

  42·1

  194

  8·1

  1,556

  21·4

  33 General Service (1–32)

  3,333

  100·0

  754

  100·0

  798

  100·0

  2,388

  100·0

  7,273

  100·0

  34 Agency Staff

  35 Magistrates Courts

  22

  0·0

  8

  0·0

  30

  0·0

  36 Probation—Officers

  37 Others

  89

  Joint Manpower Watch—Quarter 51

  Numbers of staff by function: Manchester

  Population—455,000

  12th September 1987

  Non manual

  Manual

  Total

  Full time

  Part time

  Full time

  Part time

  Service

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  1 Education—Teaching

  6,995

  38·5

  3,965

  76·0

  10,960

  26·0

  2 Other

  3,057

  16·8

  715

  13·7

  1,108

  11·4

  5,948

  65·7

  10,828

  25·7

  3 Construction

  769

  4·2

  8

  0·2

  4,379

  44·9

  21

  0·2

  5,177

  12·3

  4 Transport

  5 Social Services

  2,037

  11·2

  293

  5·6

  1,159

  11·9

  2,498

  27·6

  5,987

  14·2

  6 Total (1–5)

  12,858

  70·9

  4,981

  95·5

  6,646

  68·1

  8,467

  93·5

  32,952

  78·1

  7 Libraries

  471

  2·6

  80

  1·5

  162

  1·7

  22

  0·2

  735

  1·7

  8 Recreation

  537

  3·0

  53

  1·0

  1,277

  13·1

  157

  1·7

  2,024

  4·8

  9 Environmental Health

  384

  2·1

  8

  0·2

  56

  0·6

  10

  0·1

  458

  1·1

  10 Refuse

  110

  0·6

  5

  0·1

  944

  9·7

  5

  0·1

  1,064

  2·5

  11 Housing

  843

  4·6

  23

  0·4

  243

  2·5

  34

  0·4

  1,143

  2·7

  12 Planning

  163

  0·9

  2

  0·0

  165

  0·4

  13 Chief Executive

  15

  0·1

  1

  0·0

  16

  0·0

  14 Finance

  548

  3·0

  9

  0·2

  557

  1·3

  15 Secretarial

  337

  1·9

  22

  0·4

  92

  0·9

  125

  1·4

  576

  1·4

  16 Legal

  120

  0·7

  1

  0·0

  121

  0·3

  17 Engineering

  631

  3·5

  1

  0·0

  136

  1·4

  4

  0·0

  772

  1·8

  18 Architecture

  500

  2·8

  2

  0·0

  502

  1·2

  19 Estates

  101

  0·6

  2

  0·0

  10

  0·1

  4

  0·0

  117

  0·3

  20 Personnel

  32

  0·2

  5

  0·1

  37

  0·1

  21 Management Service

  55

  0·3

  2

  0·0

  57

  0·1

  22 Computing

  128

  0·7

  8

  0·2

  136

  0·3

  23 Consumer Protection

  81

  0·4

  13

  0·1

  4

  0·0

  98

  0·2

  24 Other Administration

  51

  0·3

  3

  0·1

  54

  0·1

  27 Technical Services

  28 Central Service (13–27)

  2,599

  14·3

  56

  1·1

  251

  2·6

  137

  1·5

  3,043

  7·2

  29 Fire Service—Regular

  30 Others

  31 Other Services

  181

  1·0

  6

  0·1

  183

  1·9

  219

  2·4

  589

  1·4

  32 Total (7–12, 28–31)

  5,288

  29·1

  233

  4·5

  3,116

  31·9

  584

  6·5

  9,221

  21·9

  33 General Service (1–32)

  18,146

  100·0

  5,214

  100·0

  9,762

  100·0

  9,051

  100·0

  42,173

  100·0

  34 Agency Staff

  35 Magistrates Courts

  164

  0·0

  8

  0·0

  172

  0·0

  36 Probation—Officers

  37 Others

  Joint Manpower Watch—Quarter 51

  Numbers of staff by function: Oldham

  Population—220,000

  12th September 1987

  Non manual

  Manual

  Total

  Full time

  Part time

  Full time

  Part time

  Service

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  1 Education—Teaching

  2,523

  52·1

  433

  47·1

  2,956

  28·0

  2 Other

  510

  10·5

  289

  31·4

  370

  18·2

  1,650

  60·1

  2,819

  26·7

  3 Construction

  114

  2·4

  518

  25·5

  632

  6·0

  4 Transport

  5 Social Services

  508

  10·5

  70

  7·6

  337

  16·6

  772

  28·1

  1,687

  16·0

  6 Total (1–5)

  3,655

  75·5

  792

  86·1

  1,225

  60·8

  2,422

  88·2

  8,094

  76·8

  7 Libraries

  68

  1·4

  69

  7·5

  7

  0·3

  27

  1·0

  171

  1·6

  8 Recreation

  110

  2·3

  7

  0·8

  327

  16·1

  123

  4·5

  567

  5·4

  9 Environmental Health

  63

  1·3

  3

  0·3

  17

  0·8

  2

  0·1

  85

  0·8

  10 Refuse

  11

  0·2

  167

  8·2

  2

  0·1

  180

  1·7

  11 Housing

  148

  3·1

  8

  0·9

  101

  5·0

  44

  1·6

  301

  2·9

  12 Planning

  100

  2·1

  4

  0·4

  104

  1·0

  13 Chief Executive

  34

  0·7

  1

  0·1

  35

  0·3

  14 Finance

  231

  4·8

  15

  1·6

  4

  0·2

  250

  2·4

  15 Secretarial

  68

  1·4

  9

  1·0

  9

  0·4

  20

  0·7

  106

  1·0

  16 Legal

  30

  0·6

  30

  0·3

  10 11

  Non manual

  Manual

  Total

  Full time

  Part time

  Full time

  Part time

  Service

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  17 Engineering

  137

  2·8

  4

  0·4

  131

  6·4

  5

  0·2

  277

  2·6

  18 Architecture

  31

  0·6

  31

  0·3

  19 Estates

  31

  0·6

  31

  0·3

  20 Personnel

  20

  0·4

  1

  0·1

  21

  0·2

  21 Management Service

  22

  0·5

  22

  0·2

  22 Computing

  33

  0·7

  33

  0·3

  23 Consumer Protection

  15

  0·3

  15

  0·1

  24 Other Administration

  9

  0·2

  3

  0·3

  12

  0·1

  27 Technical Services

  28 Central Service (13–27)

  661

  13·6

  33

  3·6

  144

  7·1

  25

  0·9

  863

  8·2

  29 Fire Service—Regular

  30 Others

  31 Other Services

  27

  0·6

  4

  0·4

  46

  2·3

  100

  3·6

  177

  1·7

  32 Total (7–12 + 28–31)

  1,188

  24·5

  128

  13·9

  809

  39·8

  323

  11·8

  2,448

  23·2

  33 General Service (1–32)

  4,843

  100·0

  920

  100·0

  2,034

  100·0

  2,745

  100·0

  10,542

  100·0

  34 Agency Staff

  35 Magistrates Courts

  40

  0·0

  2

  0·0

  2

  0·0

  16

  0·0

  60

  0·0

  36 Probation—Officers

  3 Others

  Joint Manpower Watch—Quarter 51

  Numbers of staff by function: Rochdale

  Population—206,000

  12th September 1987

  Non manual

  Manual

  Total

  Full time

  Part time

  Full time

  Part time

  Service

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  1 Education—Teaching

  2,437

  50·3

  373

  38·3

  2,810

  26·7

  2 Other

  512

  10·6

  368

  37·8

  404

  26·1

  1,671

  52·6

  2,955

  28·0

  3 Construction

  74

  1·5

  215

  13·9

  289

  2·7

  4 Transport

  5 Social Services

  546

  11·3

  67

  6·9

  224

  14·5

  1,172

  36·9

  2,009

  19·1

  6 Total (1–5)

  3,569

  73·7

  808

  83·0

  843

  54·5

  2,843

  89·5

  8,063

  76·5

  7 Libraries

  78

  1·6

  66

  6·8

  10

  0·6

  22

  0·7

  176

  1·7

  8 Recreation

  108

  2·2

  12

  1·2

  286

  18·5

  56

  1·8

  462

  4·4

  9 Environmental Health

  59

  1·2

  2

  0·2

  40

  2·6

  62

  2·0

  163

  1·5

  10 Refuse

  22

  0·5

  1

  0·1

  146

  9·4

  169

  1·6

  11 Housing

  245

  5·1

  32

  3·3

  9

  0·3

  286

  2·7

  12 Planning

  80

  1·7

  6

  0·6

  86

  0·8

  13 Chief Executive

  4

  0·1

  4

  0·0

  14 Finance

  156

  3·2

  12

  1·2

  168

  1·6

  15 Secretarial

  88

  1·8

  16

  1·6

  24

  1·6

  83

  2·6

  211

  2·0

  16 Legal

  29

  0·6

  29

  0·3

  17 Engineering

  133

  2·7

  10

  1·0

  162

  10·5

  2

  0·1

  307

  2·9

  18 Architecture

  105

  2·2

  1

  0·1

  106

  1·0

  19 Estates

  28

  0·6

  3

  0·3

  3

  0·1

  34

  0·3

  20 Personnel

  29

  0·6

  29

  0·3

  21 Management Service

  22

  0·5

  3

  0·3

  25

  0·2

  22 Computing

  47

  1·0

  1

  0·1

  48

  0·5

  23 Consumer Protection

  9

  0·2

  9

  0·1

  24 Other Administration

  16

  0·3

  1

  0·1

  17

  0·2

  27 Technical Services

  28 Central Service (13–27)

  666

  13·8

  46

  4·7

  187

  12·1

  88

  2·8

  987

  9·4

  29 Fire Service—Regular

  30 Others

  31 Other Services

  14

  0·3

  1

  0·1

  35

  2·3

  97

  3·1

  147

  1·4

  32 Total (7–12, 28–31)

  1,272

  26·3

  166

  17·0

  704

  45·5

  334

  10·5

  2,476

  23·5

  33 General Service (1–32)

  4,841

  100·0

  974

  100·0

  1,547

  100·0

  3,177

  100·0

  10,539

  100·0

  34 Agency Staff

  12 13

  Non manual

  Manual

  Total

  Full time

  Part time

  Full time

  Part time

  Service

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  35 Magistrates Courts

  40

  0·0

  6

  0·0

  1

  0·0

  47

  0·0

  36 Probation—Officers

  37 Others

  Joint Manpower Watch—Quarter 51

  Numbers of staff by function: Salford

  Population—243,000

  12th September 1987

  Non manual

  Manual

  Total

  Full time

  Part time

  Full time

  Part time

  Service

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  1 Education—Teaching

  2,846

  47·2

  746

  61·2

  3,592

  27·5

  2 Other

  751

  12·5

  223

  18·3

  354

  18·3

  2,345

  60·4

  3,673

  28·1

  3 Construction

  218

  3·6

  433

  22·4

  651

  5·0

  4 Transport

  5 Social Services

  656

  10·9

  75

  6·2

  386

  20·0

  1,176

  30·3

  2,293

  17·6

  6 Total (1–5)

  4,471

  74·2

  1,044

  85·6

  1,173

  60·7

  3,521

  90·7

  10,209

  78·2

  7 Libraries

  112

  1·9

  74

  6·1

  10

  0·5

  29

  0·7

  225

  1·7

  8 Recreation

  150

  2·5

  72

  5·9

  360

  18·6

  99

  2·6

  681

  5·2

  9 Environmental Health

  92

  1·5

  3

  0·2

  1

  0·1

  96

  0·7

  10 Refuse

  38

  0·6

  290

  15·0

  328

  2·5

  11 Housing

  331

  5·5

  8

  0·7

  59

  3·1

  26

  0·7

  424

  3·2

  12 Planning

  116

  1·9

  2

  0·2

  118

  0·9

  13 Chief Executive

  12

  0·2

  12

  0·1

  14 Finance

  177

  2·9

  1

  0·1

  178

  1·4

  15 Secretarial

  90

  1·5

  3

  0·2

  3

  0·2

  35

  0·9

  131

  1·0

  16 Legal

  36

  0·6

  36

  0·3

  17 Engineering

  112

  1·9

  1

  0·1

  17

  0·9

  58

  1·5

  188

  1·4

  18 Architecture

  56

  0·9

  56

  0·4

  19 Estates

  45

  0·7

  45

  0·3

  20 Personnel

  63

  1·0

  6

  0·5

  69

  0·5

  21 Management Service

  17

  0·3

  17

  0·1

  22 Computing

  74

  1·2

  1

  0·1

  75

  0·6

  23 Consumer Protection

  14

  0·2

  2

  0·2

  1

  0·1

  3

  0·1

  20

  0·2

  24 Other Administration

  8

  0·1

  2

  0·2

  10

  0·1

  27 Technical Services

  28 Central Service (13–27)

  704

  11·7

  16

  1·3

  21

  1·1

  96

  2·5

  837

  6·4

  29 Fire Service—Regular

  30 Others

  31 Other Services

  14

  0·2

  20

  1·0

  110

  2·8

  144

  1·1

  32 Total (7–12, 28–31)

  1,557

  25·8

  175

  14·4

  761

  39·3

  360

  9·3

  2,853

  21·8

  33 General Service (1–32)

  6,028

  100·0

  1,219

  100·0

  1,934

  100·0

  3,881

  100·0

  13,062

  100·0

  34 Agency Staff

  35 Magistrates Courts

  43

  0·0

  14

  0·0

  57

  0·0

  36 Probation—Officers

  37 Others

  Joint Manpower Watch—Quarter 51

  Numbers of staff by function: Stockport

  Population—289,000

  12th September 1987

  Non manual

  Manual

  Total

  Full time

  Part time

  Full time

  Part time

  Service

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  1 Education—Teaching

  2,245

  48·1

  874

  53·0

  3,119

  27·8

  2 Other

  613

  13·1

  358

  21·7

  314

  18·0

  1,835

  58·0

  3,120

  27·8

  3 Construction

  104

  2·2

  317

  18·2

  421

  3·7

  4 Transport

  5 Social Services

  503

  10·8

  184

  11·2

  302

  17·3

  818

  25·9

  1,807

  16·1

  6 Total (1–5)

  3,465

  74·2

  1,416

  85·9

  933

  53·4

  2,653

  83·9

  8,467

  75·4

  7 Libraries

  113

  2·4

  81

  4·9

  18

  1·0

  61

  1·9

  273

  2·4

  14 15

  Non manual

  Manual

  Total

  Full time

  Part time

  Full time

  Part time

  Service

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  8 Recreation

  156

  3·3

  64

  3·9

  342

  19·6

  246

  7·8

  808

  7·2

  9 Environmental Health

  65

  1·4

  3

  0·2

  36

  2·1

  4

  0·1

  108

  1·0

  10 Refuse

  25

  0·5

  3

  0·2

  126

  7·2

  154

  1·4

  11 Housing

  125

  2·7

  5

  0·3

  89

  5·1

  28

  0·9

  247

  2·2

  12 Planning

  87

  1·9

  5

  0·3

  92

  0·8

  13 Chief Executive

  27

  0·6

  2

  0·1

  29

  0·3

  14 Finance

  133

  2·8

  9

  0·5

  142

  1·3

  15 Secretarial

  172

  3·7

  48

  2·9

  22

  1·3

  34

  1·1

  276

  2·5

  16 Legal

  31

  0·7

  2

  0·1

  33

  0·3

  17 Engineering

  113

  2·4

  141

  8·1

  254

  2·3

  18 Architecture

  60

  1·3

  60

  0·5

  19 Estates

  21

  0·4

  21

  0·2

  20 Personnel

  12

  0·3

  2

  0·1

  14

  0·1

  21 Management Service

  14

  0·3

  14

  0·1

  22 Computing

  27

  0·6

  9

  0·5

  36

  0·3

  23 Consumer Protection

  11

  0·2

  11

  0·1

  24 Other Administration

  9

  0·2

  12

  0·7

  6

  0·2

  27

  0·2

  27 Technical Services

  28 Central Service (13–27)

  630

  13·5

  72

  4·4

  175

  10·0

  40

  1·3

  917

  8·2

  29 Fire Service—Regular

  30 Others

  31 Other Services

  3

  0·1

  27

  1·5

  131

  4·1

  161

  1·4

  32 Total (7–12, 28–31)

  1,204

  25·8

  233

  14·1

  813

  46·6

  510

  16·1

  2,760

  24·6

  33 General Service (1–32)

  4,669

  100·0

  1,649

  100·0

  1,746

  100·0

  3,163

  100·0

  11,227

  100·0

  34 Agency Staff

  35 Magistrates Courts

  50

  0·0

  7

  0·0

  2

  0·0

  1

  0·0

  60

  0·0

  36 Probation—Officers

  37 Others

  Joint Manpower Watch—Quarter 51

  Numbers of staff by function: Tameside

  Population—215,000

  12th September 1987

  Non manual

  Manual

  Total

  Full time

  Part time

  Full time

  Part time

  Service

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  1 Education—Teaching

  2,352

  49·1

  547

  54·4

  2,899

  26·6

  2 Other

  495

  10·3

  193

  19·2

  344

  17·2

  1,815

  58·7

  2,847

  26·2

  3 Construction

  128

  2·7

  673

  33·7

  3

  0·1

  804

  7·4

  4 Transport

  5 Social Services

  437

  9·1

  119

  11·8

  162

  8·1

  882

  28·5

  1,600

  14·7

  6 Total (1–5)

  3,412

  71·2

  859

  85·5

  1,179

  59·0

  2,700

  87·4

  8,150

  74·9

  7 Libraries

  92

  1·9

  48

  4·8

  3

  0·2

  25

  0·8

  168

  1·5

  8 Recreation

  142

  3·0

  29

  2·9

  248

  12·4

  138

  4·5

  557

  5·1

  9 Environmental Health

  61

  1·3

  1

  0·1

  73

  3·7

  4

  0·1

  139

  1·3

  10 Refuse

  163

  8·2

  163

  1·5

  11 Housing

  160

  3·3

  8

  0·8

  50

  2·5

  60

  1·9

  278

  2·6

  12 Planning

  78

  1·6

  78

  0·7

  13 Chief Executive

  2

  0·0

  2

  0·0

  14 Finance

  168

  3·5

  39

  3·9

  207

  1·9

  15 Secretarial

  79

  1·6

  9

  0·9

  17

  0·9

  61

  2·0

  166

  1·5

  16 Legal

  34

  0·7

  2

  0·2

  36

  0·3

  17 Engineering

  155

  3·2

  3

  0·3

  212

  10·6

  1

  0·0

  371

  3·4

  18 Architecture

  55

  1·1

  55

  0·5

  19 Estates

  42

  0·9

  2

  0·2

  44

  0·4

  20 Personnel

  215

  4·5

  38

  1·9

  2

  0·1

  255

  2·3

  21 Management Service

  25

  0·5

  25

  0·2

  22 Computing

  50

  1·0

  4

  0·4

  54

  0·5

  23 Consumer Protection

  10

  0·2

  10

  0·1

  24 Other Administration

  8

  0·2

  8

  0·1

  27 Technical Services

  28 Central Service (13–27)

  843

  17·6

  59

  5·9

  267

  13·4

  64

  2·1

  1,233

  11·3

  29 Fire Service—Regular

  16 17

  Non manual

  Manual

  Total

  Full time

  Part time

  Full time

  Part time

  Service

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  30 Others

  31 Other Services

  2

  0·0

  1

  0·1

  14

  0·7

  99

  3·2

  116

  1·1

  32 Total (7–12 + 28–31)

  1,378

  28·8

  146

  14·5

  818

  41·0

  390

  12·6

  2,732

  25·1

  33 General Service (1–32)

  4,790

  100·0

  1,005

  100·0

  1,997

  100·0

  3,090

  100·0

  10,882

  100·0

  34 Agency Staff

  35 Magistrates Courts

  41

  0·0

  10

  0·0

  51

  0·0

  36 Probation—Officers

  37 Others

  Joint Manpower Watch—Quarter 51

  Numbers of staff by function: Trafford

  Population—218,000

  12th September 1987

  Non manual

  Manual

  Total

  Full time

  Part time

  Full time

  Part time

  Service

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  1 Education—Teaching

  1,857

  50·0

  146

  22·7

  2,003

  23·9

  2 Other

  369

  9·9

  304

  47·3

  172

  16·0

  1,466

  49·7

  2,311

  27·6

  3 Construction

  177

  16·5

  177

  2·1

  4 Transport

  5 Social Services

  377

  10·2

  86

  13·4

  67

  6·2

  1,106

  37·5

  1,636

  19·5

  6 Total (1–5)

  2,603

  70·1

  536

  83·4

  416

  38·7

  2,572

  87·3

  6,127

  73·2

  7 Libraries

  75

  2·0

  43

  6·7

  3

  0·3

  26

  0·9

  147

  1·8

  8 Recreation

  111

  3·0

  29

  4·5

  265

  24·7

  139

  4·7

  544

  6·5

  9 Environmental Health

  83

  2·2

  4

  0·6

  13

  1·2

  4

  0·1

  104

  1·2

  10 Refuse

  7

  0·2

  154

  14·3

  161

  1·9

  11 Housing

  113

  3·0

  43

  4·0

  44

  1·5

  200

  2·4

  12 Planning

  83

  2·2

  2

  0·3

  85

  1·0

  13 Chief Executive

  24

  0·6

  1

  0·2

  25

  0·3

  14 Finance

  162

  4·4

  3

  0·5

  165

  2·0

  15 Secretarial

  56

  1·5

  18

  2·8

  9

  0·8

  68

  2·3

  151

  1·8

  16 Legal

  29

  0·8

  29

  0·3

  17 Engineering

  118

  3·2

  134

  12·5

  252

  3·0

  18 Architecture

  98

  2·6

  98

  1·2

  19 Estates

  15

  0·4

  15

  0·2

  20 Personnel

  21

  0·6

  4

  0·6

  25

  0·3

  21 Management Service

  29

  0·8

  29

  0·3

  22 Computing

  23

  0·6

  1

  0·2

  24

  0·3

  23 Consumer Protection

  10

  0·3

  10

  0·1

  24 Other Administration

  5

  0·1

  1

  0·2

  6

  0·1

  27 Technical Services

  43

  1·2

  6

  0·6

  2

  0·1

  51

  0·6

  28 Central Service (13–27)

  633

  17·1

  28

  4·4

  149

  13·9

  70

  2·4

  880

  10·5

  29 Fire Service—Regular

  30 Others

  31 Other Services

  3

  0·1

  1

  0·2

  31

  2·9

  92

  3·1

  127

  1·5

  32 Total (7–12 + 28–31)

  1,108

  29·9

  107

  16·6

  658

  61·3

  375

  12·7

  2,248

  26·8

  33 General Service (1–32)

  3,711

  100·0

  643

  100·0

  1,074

  100·0

  2,947

  100·0

  8,375

  100·0

  34 Agency Staff

  35 Magistrates Courts

  29

  0·0

  2

  0·0

  1

  0·0

  9

  0·0

  41

  0·0

  36 Probation—Officers

  37 Others

  Joint Manpower Watch—Quarter 51

  Numbers of staff by function: Wigan

  Population—307,000

  12th September 1987

  Non manual

  Manual

  Total

  Full time

  Part time

  Full time

  Part time

  Service

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  1 Education—Teaching

  3,701

  56·8

  190

  17·9

  3,891

  27·1

  2 Other

  628

  9·6

  700

  65·8

  442

  18·6

  2,480

  56·5

  4,250

  29·6

  18 19

  Non manual

  Manual

  Total

  Full time

  Part time

  Full time

  Part time

  Service

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  3 Construction

  130

  2·0

  729

  30·6

  6

  0·1

  865

  6·0

  4 Transport

  5 Social Services

  556

  8·5

  40

  3·8

  299

  12·6

  1,469

  33·5

  2,364

  16·5

  6 Total (1–5)

  5,015

  76·9

  930

  87·4

  1,470

  61·8

  3,955

  90·1

  11,370

  79·2

  7 Libraries

  133

  2·0

  52

  4·9

  7

  0·3

  27

  0·6

  219

  1·5

  8 Recreation

  135

  2·1

  23

  2·2

  366

  15·4

  36

  0·8

  560

  3·9

  9 Environmental Health

  70

  1·1

  1

  0·1

  71

  0·5

  10 Refuse

  24

  0·4

  372

  15·6

  6

  0·1

  402

  2·8

  11 Housing

  231

  3·5

  2

  0·2

  49

  2·1

  83

  1·9

  365

  2·5

  12 Planning

  87

  1·3

  87

  0·6

  13 Chief Executive

  3

  0·0

  3

  0·0

  14 Finance

  208

  3·2

  27

  2·5

  235

  1·6

  15 Secretarial

  134

  2·1

  11

  1·0

  76

  1·7

  221

  1·5

  16 Legal

  31

  0·5

  31

  0·2

  17 Engineering

  162

  2·5

  2

  0·2

  64

  2·7

  228

  1·6

  18 Architecture

  52

  0·8

  1

  0·1

  53

  0·4

  19 Estates

  61

  0·9

  4

  0·4

  65

  0·5

  20 Personnel

  44

  0·7

  1

  0·1

  45

  0·3

  21 Management Service

  4

  0·1

  4

  0·0

  22 Computing

  33

  0·5

  1

  0·1

  34

  0·2

  23 Consumer Protection

  12

  0·2

  12

  0·1

  24 Other Administration

  18

  0·3

  6

  0·6

  24

  0·2

  27 Technical Services

  26

  0·4

  1

  0·1

  27

  0·2

  28 Central Service (13–27)

  788

  12·1

  54

  5·1

  64

  2·7

  76

  1·7

  982

  6·8

  29 Fire Service—Regular

  30 Others

  31 Other Services

  38

  0·6

  2

  0·2

  51

  2·1

  208

  4·7

  299

  2·1

  32 Total (7–12, 28–31)

  1,506

  23·1

  134

  12·6

  909

  38·2

  436

  9·9

  2,985

  20·8

  33 General Service (1–32)

  6,521

  100·0

  1,064

  100·0

  2,379

  100·0

  4,391

  100·0

  14,355

  100·0

  34 Agency Staff

  35 Magistrates Courts

  46

  0·0

  2

  0·0

  12

  0·0

  60

  0·0

  36 Probation—Officers

  37 Others

  Rights of Way
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to make it compulsory upon owners of passages or places over which there are public rights of way to erect a notice stating the name and address of the owner.

  Mr. Moynihan
  No. It would appear both unnecessary and inappropriate to impose such a burden on landowners. In cases where applicants to modify the definitive map and statement of public rights of way have been unable to identify owners and occupiers, they may apply to the certifying authority for a dispensation.

  Planning Appeals (Worthing)
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals against refusal of planning permission by the Worthing borough council have been made to him in each of the last five years; and on how many occasions he has reversed the council's decision.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The table shows the number of planning appeals received against decisions of the Worthing borough council between 1 January 1984, the 20
  earliest date from which this information is available, and 30 September 1987, the number decided in each period and the number allowed.

  Year

  Appeals Received

  Appeals Decided

  Appeals Allowed

  1984

  26

  23

  6

  1985

  40

  26

  10

  1986

  38

  39

  15

  January to September

  1987

  32

  25

  10

  Pin-ups
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will issue instructions for the removal of all offensive pin-ups in all his departmental premises.

  Mr. Ridley
  Guidance was issued to all managers last July asking them to ensure that potentially offensive material is not displayed in the work place.

  Swimming Instructors
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities provide training for swimming instructors.
  21
  Mr. Moynihan
  This information is not held centrally. I am advised, however, that during the year ending 30 September 1987, the Amateur Swimming Association issued approximately 11,300 certificates of competence for the teaching and coaching of swimming.

  Green Belt (Hertfordshire)
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the area of designated green belt land in the Hertfordshire, West constituency(a) in 1979 and (b) at the present time.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Approximately 4,770 hectares of land in the Hertfordshire, West constituency were designated green belt when the Hertfordshire county structure plan was approved in 1979. This position has not changed since.

  Crown Suppliers
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will put in the Library a full copy of the Coopers and Lybrand report and the Dewi Jones report on the Crown Suppliers.

  Mr. Chope
  Summaries fo the Dewi Jones and Coopers and Lybrand reports have been prepared and copies have been placed in the Library. We do not propose to publish them in full because they contain commercially confidential information.

  Illuminated Signs
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about his proposals to withdraw the need to seek planning approval to put up illuminated signs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  A total of 28 of the 46 organisations consulted last October have so far responded to the proposals, which were confined to certain specified types of illuminated signs. Some representations have also been received from individuals, amenity groups, and local authorities. My right hon. Friend will now be considering, in consultation with the Secretary of State for Wales, whether, and to what extent, to implement the proposals. If my hon. Friend wishes to submit any representations, he is welcome to do so.

  Thamesmead
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he exercised nomination rights to Thamesmead following the abolition of the Greater London council and prior to the transfer of Thamesmead from the London residuary body to Thamesmead Town Ltd.

  Mrs. Roe
  The joint committee of the London area mobility scheme acted as agents for my right hon. Friend.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many properties are being registered by Thamesmead Town Ltd. in the London borough of Greenwich.

  Mrs. Roe
  Thamesmead Town has applied to the Greenwich rent officers for rent registrations of 2,401 tenancies.
  22
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what additional resources are being made available to the rent officer service in Greenwich and Bexley, now that Thamesmead Town Ltd. has applied to the rent officer for registration of all the tenancies for which they are responsible.

  Mrs. Roe
  No increase in the number of rent officers or support staff were required for the Greenwich rent officer service due to agreed spare capacity, but additional machines and other equipment have been provided at a cost of approximately £4,000. For the Bexley rent officer service, approval has been given to two additional rent officer posts and to two additional support staff posts, one on a temporary basis. Additional machines have been provided for the Bexley service at a cost of approximately £1,700.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many tenants of Thamesmead Town Ltd. have received his Department's leaflet giving advice to tenants about their rights in the rent registration procedure.

  Mrs. Roe
  The Bexley rent officer service have issued copies of the Department's booklet "Regulated Tenancies" to all tenants concerned in the 2,983 applications submitted to them by Thamesmead Town. The Greenwich rent officer service have issued 1,800 tenants with copies of the booklet in respect of the total of 2,401 applications which Thamesmead Town submitted to them. Now that further stocks of the booklet are available the Greenwich rent officer service are issuing copies to the remaining 601 tenants.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress his Department has made in finalising the text of a leaflet on homelessness, the initial draft of which was circulated for consultation to interested voluntary agencies on 8 April 1987; and when his Department plans to publish and distribute this leaflet.

  Mrs. Roe
  We expect to publish a leaflet later this year. It will need to take account of further evidence now becoming available on local authorities' operation of the homelessness legislation.

  Housing Waiting Lists
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many households were housed by each London borough from its waiting lists through allocation procedures (a) during 1983–84; (b) during 1984–85; (c) during 1985–86, and (d) during 1986–87.

  Mrs. Roe
  Local authorities' annual housing investment programme returns include the numbers of dwellings let on secure tenancies, in the years ending 31 March, to households under normal waiting list allocation procedures. Figures for individual authorities appear in column D9C of the "HIP1 all items print" for 1984 and 1985 and in column E9C for 1986 and 1987; copies of all these documents are in the Library.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing those housing authorities where the council housing waiting list is of six months duration or less; if he will publish
  23
  separately a list of those housing authorities who have had 100 or more council dwellings vacant for periods of three months or more; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Roe
  The information requested is not available centrally. However, English local authorities' housing investment programme returns include the number of their dwellings that have been vacant for more than six months and those authorities reporting 100 or more such dwellings vacant at April 1987 are listed in the table. Most of these dwellings were not available for letting, as they were undergoing or awaiting works, or awaiting sale or demolition.

  Authorities with 100 or more dwellings vacant for more than 6 months at April 1987

  Number vacant over 6 months

  Percentage of stock

  Newham

  2,626

  8·1

  Hackney

  2,214

  4·8

  Manchester

  2,034

  2·1

  Tower Hamlets

  1,965

  4·0

  Sheffield

  1,857

  2·1

  Sandwell

  1,297

  2·4

  Salford

  1,177

  2·9

  Southwark

  1,154

  1·9

  North Tyneside

  990

  305

  Sunderland

  962

  1·9

  Islington

  954

  2·3

  Lambeth

  910

  1·9

  Bradford

  777

  2·1

  Leeds

  647

  0·7

  Wolverhampton

  639

  1·6

  Nottingham

  620

  1·4

  Camden

  594

  1·7

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  580

  1·3

  Lewisham

  568

  1·4

  Wandsworth

  544

  1·4

  Calderdale

  471

  3·1

  Coventry

  411

  1·7

  Brent

  404

  2·0

  Kingston upon Hull

  398

  0·9

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  389

  2·1

  Oldham

  388

  1·6

  Portsmouth

  382

  1·7

  Haringey

  367

  1·5

  Leicester

  355

  1·1

  Greenwich

  346

  1·0

  Birmingham

  334

  0·3

  Westminster

  327

  1·5

  Walsall

  310

  0·8

  Derby

  306

  1·5

  Burnley

  305

  4·3

  Gateshead

  304

  0·9

  Langbaurgh

  298

  1·8

  Knowsley

  283

  1·1

  Doncaster

  273

  0·8

  Southampton

  260

  1·2

  Preston

  224

  2·1

  Test Valley

  216

  3·0

  Wirral

  209

  0·9

  Kirklees

  202

  0·6

  Barnsley

  192

  0·6

  Rochdale

  186

  0·9

  Waltham Forest

  175

  0·8

  Middlesbrough

  155

  0·9

  North Bedfordshire

  137

  1·7

  24

  Number vacant over 6 months

  Percentage of stock

  Kensington and Chelsea

  135

  1·5

  Easington

  133

  0·7

  Dudley

  133

  0·4

  Merton

  133

  1·1

  Ealing

  132

  0·7

  Redbridge

  129

  1·2

  Bristol

  122

  0·3

  Carlisle

  119

  1·0

  Rochester upon Medway

  111

  1·1

  Hartlepool

  110

  1·0

  Trafford

  104

  0·8

  Redditch

  103

  1·0

  Sedgefield

  102

  0·7

  Norwich

  102

  0·4

  Stockton-on-Tees

  101

  0·5

  Note:

  Liverpool did not provide this information, but reported 4,164 dwellings (6·5 per cent. of stock) vacant for more than a year.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the firms licensed to import toxic chemical waste materials into the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Imports of special waste are subject to the same controls as indigenous waste and must be disposed of at a licensed facility. No import licence is necessary.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the quantities of toxic chemical waste imported to Britain in each of the past 10 years; and what were their countries of origin.

  Mr. Moynihan
  No records are held centrally of imports of waste imported into the United Kingdom. The amounts of special waste imported each year between 1983 and 1986 are as follows:

  Year

  Amount

  1983

  14,824

  1984

  5,000

  1985

  24,548

  1986

  53,000

  Full details of countries or origin are not available, but major sources are Netherlands, Irish Republic and Belgium.

  Nature Reserves
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report a list of each national nature reserve in (a) Wales, (b) England and (c) Scotland, indicating for each reserve its total area and the proportion (i) owned by private landowners, (ii) owned by the Nature Conservancy Council and (iii) owned by other public bodies.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [pursuant to his reply, 19 January 1988, c. 602]: The information is as follows:

  25

  Ownership of National Nature Reserves (NNRs), January 1988

  Per cent owned by:

  Name of NNR

  Declared Areas(HA)

  Private Landowners

  Nature Conservancy Council

  Other Public Bodies

  ENGLAND

  Ainsdale Sand Dunes

  492

  —

  100

  —

  Arne

  9

  —

  100

  —

  Asby Scar

  166

  —

  100

  —

  Ashford Hill

  20

  —

  100

  —

  Aston Rowant

  111

  64

  36

  —

  Avon Gorge

  63

  100

  —

  —

  Axmouth-Lyme Regis

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Undercliffs

  321

  83

  17

  —

  Barnack Hills and Holes

  23

  100

  —

  —

  Barton Hills

  44

  100

  —

  —

  Beacon Hill

  40

  —

  100

  —

  Blackwater Estuary

  1,031

  100

  —

  —

  Blean Woods

  90

  —

  100

  —

  Blelham Bog

  2

  100

  —

  —

  Bovey Valley Woodlands

  73

  —

  96

  4

  Braunton Burrows

  604

  100

  —

  —

  Bredon Hill

  36

  —

  100

  —

  Brettenham Heath

  234

  100

  —

  —

  Bridgwater Bay

  2,564

  4

  2

  94

  Bure Marshes

  451

  100

  —

  —

  Castle Eden Dane

  221

  —

  100

  —

  Castle Hill, Lewes

  47

  —

  —

  100

  Castor Hanglands

  90

  50

  —

  50

  Cavenham Heath

  204

  15

  85

  —

  Chaddesley Woods

  102

  —

  100

  —

  Chartley Moss

  42

  100

  —

  —

  Chippenham Fen

  104

  100

  —

  —

  Clawthorpe Fell

  14

  100

  —

  —

  Colne Estuary

  576

  46

  —

  54

  Colt Park Wood

  8

  —

  100

  —

  Coom Rigg Moss

  36

  —

  —

  100

  Cothill

  2

  100

  —

  —

  Cotswold Commons and Beechwoods

  295

  100

  —

  —

  Dendles Wood

  30

  —

  100

  —

  Dengie

  2,011

  —

  —

  100

  Derbyshire Dales

  320

  35

  50

  15

  Downton Gorge

  48

  100

  —

  —

  Ebbor Gorge

  41

  100

  —

  —

  Forge Valley Woods

  63

  —

  —

  100

  Fyfield Down

  230

  100

  —

  —

  Gait Barrows

  69

  —

  100

  —

  Gibraltar Point

  414

  —

  —

  100

  Glasson Moss

  58

  —

  100

  —

  Grain Heads Moss

  18

  —

  —

  100

  Hales Wood

  8

  —

  —

  100

  Hamford Water

  688

  100

  —

  —

  Ham Street Woods

  97

  —

  100

  —

  Hartland Moor

  243

  100

  —

  —

  Hickling Broad

  487

  100

  —

  —

  Highbury Wood

  47

  —

  100

  —

  High Halstow

  52

  100

  —

  —

  Holkham

  3,925

  100

  —

  —

  Holme Fen

  259

  —

  100

  —

  Holt Heath

  488

  100

  —

  —

  Holton Heath

  117

  100

  —

  —

  Kingley Vale

  146

  32

  68

  —

  Knocking Hoe

  9

  100

  —

  —

  Lady Park Wood

  45

  —

  —

  100

  Leigh

  257

  —

  —

  100

  Lewes Down

  49

  100

  —

  —

  Lindisfarne

  3,278

  100

  —

  —

  Ling Gill

  5

  —

  100

  —

  The Lizard

  712

  21

  79

  —

  Lullington Heath

  63

  —

  —

  100

  Martin Down

  301

  11

  46

  43

  Moccas Park

  139

  100

  —

  —

  Monks Wood

  157

  —

  100

  —

  Moor House

  3,894

  —

  100

  —

  Morden Bog

  149

  42

  —

  58

  Mottey Meadows

  32

  9

  91

  —

  Muston Meadows

  9

  100

  —

  —

  26 27

  Per cent owned by:

  Name of NNR

  Declared Areas(HA)

  Private Landowners

  Nature Conservancy Council

  Other Public Bodies

  Newham Bog

  13

  100

  —

  —

  North Fen

  2

  100

  —

  —

  North Meadow, Cricklade

  40

  —

  100

  —

  North Solent

  763

  100

  —

  —

  Old Winchester Hill

  61

  —

  100

  —

  Orfordness-Havergate

  225

  48

  52

  —

  Park Wood

  15

  —

  100

  —

  Parsonage Down

  276

  —

  100

  —

  Pevensey Levels

  52

  —

  100

  —

  Pewsey Downs

  166

  46

  54

  —

  Prescombe Down

  47

  100

  —

  —

  Ribble Marshes

  2,302

  —

  100

  —

  Rodney Stoke

  35

  —

  100

  —

  Rostherne Mere

  152

  48

  52

  —

  Roudsea Woods and Mosses

  276

  100

  —

  —

  Rusland Moss

  24

  80

  20

  —

  Saltfleetby-Theddlethorpe Dunes

  440

  73

  27

  —

  Scar Close

  93

  100

  —

  —

  Scolt Head Island

  737

  100

  —

  —

  Shapwick Heath

  304

  100

  —

  —

  Stiperstones

  436

  —

  100

  —

  Stoborough Heath

  110

  —

  100

  —

  Stodmarsh

  163

  —

  52

  48

  Studland Heath

  631

  100

  —

  —

  Swanscombe Skull Site

  2

  —

  100

  —

  Swanton Novers Woods

  60

  100

  —

  —

  The Flits

  21

  100

  —

  —

  The Swale

  216

  24

  76

  —

  The Wash

  97

  100

  —

  —

  Thetford Heath

  100

  100

  —

  —

  Thursley

  325

  —

  100

  —

  Tring Reservoirs

  20

  100

  —

  —

  Upper Teesdale

  3,497

  99

  —

  1

  Upwood Meadows

  6

  100

  —

  —

  Walberswick

  514

  92

  8

  —

  Weeting Heath

  137

  100

  —

  —

  Westleton Heath

  47

  —

  100

  —

  Winterton Dunes

  105

  100

  —

  —

  Woodwalton Fen

  208

  100

  —

  —

  Wren's Nest

  30

  —

  —

  100

  Wynbunbury Moss

  15

  —

  100

  —

  Wychwood

  262

  100

  —

  —

  Wye

  132

  —

  100

  —

  Wylye Down

  34

  —

  100

  —

  Wyre Forest

  357

  52

  16

  32

  Yarner Wood

  150

  —

  100

  —

  NNRs Declared since April 1987

  Barrington Hill

  18

  —

  100

  —

  Banacre

  231

  100

  —

  —

  Chippenham Fen

  7

  100

  —

  —

  Gordano Valley

  66

  100

  —

  —

  Hog Cliff

  88

  —

  100

  —

  Ludham Marshes

  73

  —

  100

  —

  Swanton Novers

  18

  100

  —

  —

  Winterton Dunes

  4

  100

  —

  —

  SCOTLAND

  Abernethy Forest

  1,921

  100

  —

  —

  Achanarras Quarry

  44

  —

  100

  —

  Allt Nan Carnan

  7

  100

  —

  —

  Beinn Eighe

  4,758

  11

  89

  —

  Ben Lawers

  3,974

  100

  —

  —

  Ben Lui

  798

  47

  53

  —

  Ben Wyvis

  5,673

  59

  41

  —

  Blar Nam Faoileag

  2,126

  100

  —

  —

  Blawhorn Moss

  69

  —

  100

  —

  Braehead Moss

  87

  —

  100

  —

  Caenlocham

  3,639

  92

  —

  8

  Caerlaverock

  5,501

  100

  —

  —

  Cairngorms

  25,949

  92

  8

  —

  Cairnamore of Fleet

  1,922

  32

  68

  —

  Claish Moss

  563

  —

  100

  —

  Clyde Valley Woodlands

  51

  47

  53

  —

  28 29

  Per cent owned by:

  Name of NNR

  Declared Areas(HA)

  Private Landowners

  Nature Conservancy Council

  Other Public Bodies

  Coille Thocabhaig

  81

  100

  —

  —

  Corrieschalloch

  5

  40

  20

  40

  Cragbank Wood

  9

  —

  100

  —

  Craigellachie

  260

  100

  —

  —

  Greag Meagaidh

  3,948

  —

  100

  —

  Dinnet Oakwood

  13

  100

  —

  —

  Dunnet Links

  433

  76

  24

  —

  Flanders Moss

  210

  100

  —

  —

  Forvie

  973

  100

  —

  —

  Glasdrum

  169

  —

  100

  —

  Glen Diomham

  10

  100

  —

  —

  Glen Nant

  59

  100

  —

  —

  Glen Roy

  1,168

  —

  100

  —

  Glen Tanar

  4,185

  96

  4

  —

  Gualinn

  2,522

  100

  —

  —

  Harmaness

  964

  100

  —

  —

  Inchnadamph

  1,295

  100

  —

  —

  Invernaver

  552

  100

  —

  —

  Inverpolly

  10,857

  99·9

  0·1

  —

  Isle of May

  57

  100

  —

  —

  Keen of Hamar

  30

  100

  —

  —

  Kirkconnell flow

  142

  100

  —

  —

  Loch a'Mhuilinn

  67

  100

  —

  —

  Loch Druidibeg

  1,677

  38

  62

  —

  Loch Leven

  1,597

  100

  —

  —

  Loch Lomond

  428

  83

  17

  —

  Loch Maree Islands

  200

  80

  —

  20

  Loch Sunart Woodlands

  163

  —

  43

  57

  Mealdarrock

  205

  —

  100

  —

  Milton Wood

  24

  100

  —

  —

  Moine Mhor

  493

  —

  100

  —

  Monach Isles

  577

  100

  —

  —

  Morrane Birkwood

  225

  100

  —

  —

  Morton Lochs

  24

  —

  100

  —

  Mound Alderwoods

  267

  100

  —

  —

  Muir of Dinnet

  1,415

  100

  —

  —

  Nigg and Udale Bays

  640

  100

  —

  —

  North Rona and Sula Sgeir

  130

  100

  —

  —

  Noss

  313

  100

  —

  —

  Rannoch Moor

  1,499

  —

  100

  —

  Rassal Ashwood

  85

  100

  —

  —

  Rhum

  10,684

  —

  100

  —

  St. Abbs Head

  77

  100

  —

  —

  St. Cyrus

  92

  100

  —

  —

  St. Kilda

  853

  100

  —

  —

  Silver Flowe

  191

  —

  —

  100

  Strathfarrar

  2,189

  100

  —

  —

  Strathy Bog

  281

  100

  —

  —

  Taynish

  370

  2

  98

  —

  Tentsmuir

  505

  76

  24

  —

  Tynron Juniper Wood

  5

  100

  —

  —

  Whitlaw Mosses

  19

  100

  —

  —

  WALES

  Alit Rhyd y Groes

  70

  38

  62

  —

  Cadair Idris

  403

  9

  91

  —

  Caunant Llennyran

  9

  —

  100

  —

  Coed Camlyn

  64

  —

  100

  —

  Coed Cymerau

  26

  —

  —

  100

  Coed Dolgarrog

  69

  —

  —

  100

  Coed Ganllwyd

  27

  100

  —

  —

  Coed Corawen

  13

  38

  62

  —

  Coed Rheidol

  —

  —

  100

  —

  Coed y Rhygen

  28

  —

  76

  24

  Coed Tremadoc

  20

  84

  16

  —

  Coedydd Aber

  169

  17

  81

  52

  Coedydd Maentwrog

  68

  100

  —

  —

  Cors Bodeilio

  6

  —

  100

  —

  Cors Caron

  792

  5

  95

  —

  Cors Erddreiniog

  67

  47

  53

  —

  Cors Geirch

  16

  —

  100

  —

  Cors y Llyn

  25

  67

  33

  —

  Craig Cerrig Gleisiad

  282

  18

  82

  —

  Craig y Cilau

  64

  100

  —

  —

  30 31

  Per cent owned by:

  Name of NNR

  Declared Areas(HA)

  Private Landowners

  Nature Conservancy Council

  Other Public Bodies

  Crymlyn Bog

  63

  11

  —

  89

  Cwm Clydach

  24

  —

  100

  —

  Cwm glas Crafnant

  15

  100

  —

  —

  Cwm Idwal

  398

  100

  —

  —

  Dyfi

  2,098

  74

  26

  —

  Gower Coast

  47

  100

  —

  —

  Haffod Garregog

  87

  100

  —

  —

  Morfa Dyffryn

  202

  100

  —

  —

  Morfa Harlech

  884

  100

  —

  —

  Nant Irfon

  142

  —

  100

  —

  Newborough Warren/Ynys

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Llanddwyn

  1,297

  23

  8

  69

  Ogof Ffynnon Ddu

  413

  —

  100

  —

  Oxwich

  288

  12

  88

  —

  Penhow Woodlands

  24

  —

  —

  100

  Rhinog

  598

  —

  100

  —

  Rhos Goch

  45

  —

  100

  —

  Rhos Llawr Cwrt

  35

  —

  100

  —

  Skomer

  308

  5

  95

  —

  Stackpole

  199

  100

  —

  —

  Scanner Rocks

  5

  —

  —

  100

  Ty Canol

  69

  —

  —

  100

  Whiteford

  782

  100

  —

  —

  Ynys Enlli—Bardsey

  180

  100

  —

  —

  Y Wyddfa—Snowdon

  1,678

  100

  —

  —

  Total

  163,765

  —

  —

  —

  Local Authority Services
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his answer of 21 January,Official Report, column 828, on enabling powers on charging for local authority services, he proposes to introduce the necessary enabling power in the form of a separate Bill.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 28 January 1988]: We shall use the most suitable legislative available vehicle. I shall write to the hon. Member on the subject.

  Monument (Millbank Gardens)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans for the restoration and maintenance of the monument in Millbank gardens in commemoration of the emancipation of slaves.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 5 February 1988]: Repairs to the stonework inside the Buxton memorial and to the gargoyles will shortly be carried out. Of the eight statues around the top of the memorial only three remain at present. One has been removed for repair and four were stolen. Remodelled and recast replacements will be positioned on the memorial.

  Leeds-Bradford Airport
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the findings of the Leeds-Bradford airport public inqurity into extended flying hours; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The inspector has completed his report of the inquiry and his findings are now being carefully considered. When this has been concluded, a decision will be issued jointly by the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport.
  32
  Whilst every effort will be made to reach the decision with the minimum of delay, I cannot predict at this stage when that will be.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Overseas Aid (Warship Purchases)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official Report, details of any projects which have been agreed or are presently being considered which would use any part of the United Kingdom or European Community aid budgets or ATP provisions for the purchase of frigates or any other warships by an overseas Government.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  There is none. Neither the overseas aid budget nor the European Community aid programmes are used for military or para-military purposes.

  Research
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all the research agreements and contracts which his Department has with the university of York; and into what subjects the research is being carried out.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We have no such research agreements or contracts.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all the research agreements and contracts which his Department has with the university of Loughborough; and into what subjects the research is being carried out.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The Overseas Development Administration has the following current research projects contracted to Loughborough university:
  33
  Development of Simple Pump Technology for Irrigation—Phase II (Costing £116,708)
  Reduced Cost Sewerage System—Phase I (£12,410)
  Use of Floating Macrophytes to Remove Plant Nutrients from Treated Refluents (£36,776)
  Simple Pump Technology for Irrigation—Phase I (£12,678)
  Design and Operation of Septic Tank Systems (£27,067)

  Boithuthong Community Centre, Bophuthatswana
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the total cost to the small projects scheme of contributions made to the Boithuthong community centre, Garankuwa, Bophuthatswana.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  An allocation of £2,000 has been approved towards the cost of a building and equipment for this centre, which is a non-governmental institution. No funds have so far been spent.

CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Empty Houses
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many empty houses there are on the Duchy of Lancaster estates.

  Mr. Butcher
  There are currently six houses or cottages vacant on the Duchy of Lancaster's estates.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Pin-ups
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will issue instructions for the removal of all offensive pin-ups in all his departmental premises.

  Mr. Butcher
  This Department is to issue shortly a further notice to its staff on the subject of sexual harassment at work, which will include a reminder to managers that they must take prompt action against unacceptable behaviour such as the display of sexually offensive photographs or posters.

  Balance of Trade
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give for standard industrial classification orders 3302 and 3341(a) annual output, (b) United Kingdom market size and (c) balance of trade for each year since 1983 and for as much of 1987 as is possible; and if he will give the figures on a similar basis for standard industrial classifications 3302 and 3341, together with standard industrial classifications 3301, 3443, 3453 and 3454.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The information that is available is shown in the tables:

  Activity Headings 3302+34415

  £ million

  Annual Output1

  UK Market Size2

  Trade Balance3

  1983

  2,953

  3,868

  -915

  1984

  3,994

  5,007

  -1,013

  1985

  5,127

  5,808

  -681

  34

  Annual Output1

  UK Market Size2

  Trade Balance3

  1986

  4,728

  5,698

  -970

  19874

  2,752

  3,333

  -581

  Activity Headings 3301+3302+3441+3443+3453+34545

  £ million

  Annual Output1

  UK Market Size2

  Trade Balance3

  1983

  6,987

  9,002

  -2,015

  1984

  8,731

  10,767

  -2,036

  1985

  10,171

  11,785

  -1,614

  1986

  10,051

  11,921

  -1,870

  19874

  5,565

  6,538

  -973

  1 Annual Output=Total Sales of Principal Products by UK manufacturers.

  2 UK Market Size=Annual Output — Exports (fob) Imports (cif).

  3 Trade Balance=Exports (fob)—Imports (cif).

  4 First six months only, not seasonally adjusted.

  5 Activity Heading:

  3301—Office machinery.

  3302 Electronic data-processing equipment.

  3441—Telegraph and telephone equipment.

  3443—Radio and electronic capital goods.

  3453—Electronic sub-assemblies and active components.

  3454—Electronic consumer goods and miscellaneous equipment.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the United Kingdom's deficit in manufactured trade with Japan, Korea, Taiwan, West Germany and the whole of the EEC including Germany, respectively, in the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The information is in the table.

  United Kingdom crude balance of trade in manufactures1 1987

  £ billion

  Trade with:

  Japan

  -4·2

  South Korea

  -0·6

  Taiwan

  -0·7

  F R Germany

  -7·5

  European Community

  -11·1

  1 Standard international trade classification Sections 5 to 8.

  Figures are on the overseas trade statistics basis: imports, but not exports, are valued inclusive of insurance and freight charges.

  Britoil
  Mr. Milian
  To ask the Chancellor to the Duchy of Lancaster what advice he has received from the Director General of Fair Trading on the proposed takeover of Britoil by BP; and if he will refer the bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State announced on 4 February his decision not to refer the proposed acquisition by the British Petroleum plc. of Britoil plc. to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. This decision was in accordance with the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading.

  Decentralisation of Trade
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his Department's plans for the decentralisation of trade policy.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  My Department has no plans to decentralise trade policy.

  Confidential Letters (Leaks)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will direct his Permanent Under-Secretary, Sir Brian Hayes, to prepare a report on leaks of confidential letters from his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  Any such direction would be superfluous. It is already Sir Brian Hayes's practice to institute an inquiry when there appears to have been an unauthorised disclosure of confidential information and it seems possible that investigation might identify its source. The reports of such investigations are submitted to Ministers.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police National Computer
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much he plans to spend over each of the next three years on interim arrangements in connection with the police computer; when the new permanent system(a) was and (b) is now scheduled to be operative; what has caused the delay in its introduction; why the current system is no longer suitable; if a new tender has been put out for the mainframe and terminals for the interim system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The capital cost of the interim equipment is about £3·75 million, but this is offset by savings of about £950,000 a year in terms of maintenance, power and other costs. Taking account of the residual value of new hardware, the interim arrangements are likely to cost about £65,000 a year.

  The interim equipment was necessary to replace processors which could no longer be economically maintained. It was procured by single tender action from the supplier of the present PNC equipment as no other firm could supply processors which would run the existing PNC software. No new terminals have been procured.

  The next generation PNC is expected to be operational in 1990, as originally planned.

  Metropolitan Police (Sickness and Injury)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Belfast, South on 22 January,Official Report, column 869, how many of the total days off sick or injured by members of the Metropolitan police were attributable to (a) injury and (b) sickness; and if he will give this information for the last five years, stating average days off per capita.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that information in the form requested is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, the numbers of officers injured on duty, who were placed on the sick list, are as follows:36

  Numbers

  1983

  1,911

  1984

  1,926

  1985

  2,593

  1986

  2,234

  1987

  2,164

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men (b) women were held on remand in magistrates' court cells in England and Wales on the 25 January 1988; and if he will list the magistrates' courts.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I am informed by the Metropolitan police that the police cells at Highbury Corner, Camberwell Green and Marylebone magistrates' courts held 32, 29 and nine prisoners respectively on 25 January 1988. Records do not distinguish between numbers of men and women held.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the longest period of time a person had been held on remand in a magistrates' court cell as of 25 January.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information required is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who has the responsibility for visiting and checking the conditions in which people being held in magistrates' court cells are kept; and to whom are reports sent as to such conditions.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It has been decided that lay visitor panels should have this responsibility. Arrangements for such visits in London will be introduced as soon as consultations with the Metropolitan police and the clerks to the courts concerned are satisfactorily completed. It is intended that reports on visits should go to a responsible senior police officer and to the Secretary of the Lay Visitors' Panel. It will be open to the latter to send a copy of a report also to my right hon. Friend as the police authority.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the weekly cost of keeping a person in a magistrates' court cell; and who pays this cost.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The average weekly cost of keeping a prisoner in police or magistrates' court cells, based on the latest accounts submitted by police forces, is £1,008. The cost is borne on the prison department Vote.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with panels of lay visitors as to the position of people being held in remand in magistrates' court cells.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Department is discussing with the Metropolitan police guidelines for lay visitors who visit remand prisoners held in police cells and magistrates' courts cells. We have also approached the clerks of the five magistrates' courts in London in which remand prisoners are held about access by lay visitors. When consultations are complete, the guidelines will be circulated to lay visitor panels.
  37
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the conditions under which people being held in magistrates' court cells are allowed visits; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are no general rules applying to visitors to persons held in magistrates' courts cells. I understand from the commissioner that in the Metropolitan police district prisoners detained in cells at magistrates' courts are allowed to receive visits from their legal representatives, probation officers and social workers preparing social inquiry reports. Such visits would be refused only if there was good reason. The police also do what they can to facilitate visits by friends and relatives, but arrangements vary and depend on such factors as the facilities available and other calls on police resources.

  Metropolitan Police (Heathrow)
  Sir Peter Hordern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many officers of the Metropolitan police were stationed at Heathrow airport in each of the last five years; and what percentage this represented of the total strength of the Metropolitan police in the same period and at the latest available date.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the information requested is as follows:

  Date

  Officers on policing duties at Heathrow

  Strength of the force

  Per cent.

  31 December 1983

  394

  26,729

  1·47

  31 December 1984

  407

  26,766

  1·52

  31 December 1985

  401

  26,705

  1·50

  31 December 1986

  401

  26,920

  1·49

  31 December 1987

  411

  27,355

  1·50

  Alcohol Sales (Under-age Persons)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to how many convictions there have been of(a) public house licensees or managers or (b) managers of off-licences or shops for offences involving the sale of alcohol to underage persons in (i) Somerset and Avon and (ii) England and Wales, in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The available information, which may he incomplete, is given in the table. The other information requested is not held centrally.

  Persons convicted of offences under section 169(1) of the Licensing Act 1964

  Year

  England and Wales

  Avon and Somerset

  1982

  187

  19

  1983

  188

  22

  1984

  164

  9

  1985

  170

  12

  1986

  165

  7

  Police Sub-stations
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has issued any guidelines to chief constables concerning(a) the opening hours of police substations and (b) levels of staffing at police sub-stations.
  38
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. These are operational matters which chief officers of police must decide.

  Members' Representations
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations were made by hon. Members to his Department in each year from 1983 to 1987.

  Mr. Hurd
  The available information relates to the number of cases of ministerial correspondence recorded in my Department as the result of representations made to Home Office Ministers, and is as follows:

  Number

  1983

  25,642

  11984

  26,200

  1985

  31,853

  1986

  33,015

  1987

  27,561

  1 The figures for 1984 is an estimate since precise figures are not available for November and December of that year.

  Although the great majority of the cases relate to representations made by right hon. and hon. Members, these figures include ministerial correspondence with noble Lords and others.

  Television Licences (Students)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring forward legislation to relieve students living in university accommodation from the requirement to have a full television licence if they operate a television in their own room.

  Mr. Renton
  There are no plans to do so. The full television licence already permits members of the licence holder's family who are living away from home as full-time students at an educational establishment to use portable television sets powered only by internal batteries.

  Knives
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have been convicted of carrying knives in the Metropolitan police area for the most recent 12 month period for which figures are available.

  Mr. John Patten
  The readily available information relates to possession of offensive weapons without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. A total of 1,840 persons were found guilty of such offences in the Metropolitan police district in 1986.

  Shotgun Cartridges
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on his intentions as to whether to classify further shotgun cartridges under section 1 control.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Our intentions are set out in the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, which lowers the diameter of shot above which a cartridge is subject to control under section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968 from 0·36 inch to 0·23 inch.

  Immigration
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are being held awaiting removal or deportation for overstaying under the immigration rules; and what is the breakdown of ethnic origin of these prisoners.

  Mr. Renton
  The information requested is not maintained centraly and could be provided only at disproportionat cost. Statistics relating to immigration control do not include the ethnic origin of the persons concerned.

  Persons refused initially1 an entry clearance2 to the United Kingdom

  Number of persons

  Year

  Bangladesh

  India

  Pakistan

  Sri Lanka

  Ghana

  Nigeria

  Hong Kong

  1977

  5,660

  2,400

  3,970

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  1978

  3,230

  2,300

  4,540

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  1979

  2,660

  2,120

  4,760

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  1980

  3,240

  1,980

  3,290

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  1981

  3,200

  1,280

  3,010

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  1982

  4,670

  1,410

  2,900

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  1983

  5,820

  1,670

  2,320

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  1984

  4,270

  1,250

  1,860

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  380

  1985

  4,900

  1,160

  1,680

  4570

  ֵ

  ֵ

  160

  1986

  3,680

  1,760

  2,150

  660

  3480

  ֵ

  110

  19875

  2,300

  4,810

  6,600

  680

  2,050

  62,640

  110

  ֵ Not available.

  1 Including those subsequently successful on appeal.

  2 Excluding persons refused a certificate of entitlement to, or a confirmation of, the right of abode.

  3 October to December only.

  4 30 May to December only.

  5 January to September, unless otherwise stated. The increase in refusals in 1987 in India and Pakistan reflected the introduction of the Visa requirement on 15 October 1986.

  6 February to September only.

  Royal Prerogative
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will issue a directive to the Director General of the security services clarifying the extent to which security operations which would otherwise be criminal offences can be made lawful under the terms of the royal prerogative.

  Mr. Hurd
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) on 29 January at column 397.

  Radio
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what powers the Radio Authority will have to arrange cross-subsidies to assist with the cost of transmission in remote rural areas;

  (2) what are his intentions on facilitating transitional arrangements for the transfer of responsibilities for radio broadcasting from the Independent Broadcasting Authority to the new Radio Authority.

  Mr. Renton
  We shall be discussing the transitional arrangements with the Independent Broadcasting Authority and other organisations with an interest. The position of stations in remote rural areas will be one of the matters for discussion.

  Entry Clearance
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list in the Official Report the number of refusals for entry clearance from all countries for each year from 1977 to 1987, broken down by country; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  The information requested is available centrally only for certain countries, and is given in the table.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether radio stations will be able to make their own transmission arrangements on both VHF and MF under the new arrangements proposed.

  Mr. Renton
  Stations will become responsible for their own transmission arrangements irrespective of whether they broadcast on VHF, MF or both.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Radio Authority will be required to ensure that national and local radio stations provide an adequate service of national and international news.

  Mr. Renton
  We do not envisage a general requirement on stations licensed by the Radio Authority to provide any given amount of news although any news given will have to satisfy the criteria set out in paragraph 7.7 of our Green Paper "Radio: Choices and Opportunities" (Cm. 92).

  Prison Education
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if Her Majesty's Government have any plans to alter the way in which prison education is currently delivered through local education authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Under current arrangements the great majority of education for people in custody is provided by teachers who are employed by and professionally responsible to the local education authority. The Government have no plans to change this means of
  41
  providing education. As part of the ongoing work of the prison education branch, agreement has been reached with the local authority associations to set up a working party on the role of local education authorities in providing education in prison. The aims of the working party are set out in the Government reply to the second report from the Education, Science and Arts Committee (Cm 298), copies of which are in the Library.

  London City Airport
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 28 January,Official Report, column 307, why it is not possible to identify police costs associated with London City airport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The costs of the attendance of police officers in response to particular incidents as required and in order to direct traffic in the vicinity cannot be separately identified from the costs of policing the surrounding area.

  Prevention of Terrorism
  Mr. Thorne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will seek the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  A draft order was laid on 25 January under section 14(10) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984. If the draft order is approved by Parliament, the Act will continue in force for a further 12 months. I have received the report from Viscount Colville of Culross on the operation of the Act in 1987 and copies have been placed in the Library. The report is supplementary to his review of the Act as a whole, publication of which was announced to the House on 9 December at column 167.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  File (Disappearance)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Attorney-General if a report was made to the Director of Public Prosecutions following the disappearance of a file belonging to Mr. Colin Wallace from the office of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) in March 1986.

  The Attorney-General
  I understand that no report has been received by the Director of Public Prosecutions relating to any such event.

  Mr. Holroyd and Mr. Wallace
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the outcome of the active consideration given to certain reports that appeared about Mr. Holroyd and Mr. Wallace, referred to in the Official Report, 23 February 1987, column 16.

  The Attorney-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the Answer given on 3 March 1987 to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Services in which he said that the various allegations made by Captain (Retd.) Holroyd and Mr. Colin Wallace over 42
  many years about the conduct of the security forces in Northern Ireland had been fully and carefully investigated since they left the Province in 1975; no evidence had been discovered as a result of these investigations to substantiate any of their allegations.

  Unification Church
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Attorney-General which religious organisations were approached for assistance when preparing the now abandoned appeal against the decision not to remove charity status from the Unification Church.

  The Attorney-General: Such an approach was made to the Church of England. I also received representations from the following organisations:

  The Churches Main Committee

  The Council of Christians and Jews

  The General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches

  The Ayra Samaj in London

  the Ethiopian Orthodox Church

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Attorney-General which of the Christian religious organisations, approached for assistance when preparing the appeal against the decision not to remove charity from the Unification Church, were prepared to state that the Unification Church was not a bona fide Christian organisation.

  The Attorney-General
  The Church of England expressed no view on whether or not the Unification Church is a bona fide Christian organisation. It did, however, declare doubts about the wisdom of attempting to prove in secular court proceedings that the Unification Church is not an organisation of Christian character. It expressed the view that the issues were very far from simple, requiring as they did the making of theological distinctions between orthodoxy, heresy and Christian deviations. Similar views have also been expressed by other Christian Churches and Church organisations.

  Herald of Free Enterprise
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Attorney-General if any proceedings are to be initiated against Townsend Thoreson Ltd. in respect of alleged illegal carriage of toxic chemical wastes aboard the Herald of Free Enterprise.

  The Attorney-General
  The capsize of the Herald of Free Enterprise and matters relating to it are under investigation by the police. When that investigation is complete, the Director of Public Prosecutions will consider the question of any criminal proceedings.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Attorney-General how many persons are employed in the Crown court sections of the Crown prosecution service, area by area; and how many in each area are legally qualified as either solicitor or barrister-at-law.

  The Attorney-General
  Crown court sections within the Crown prosecution service are staffed by law clerks supported by administrative staff. The function of law clerks is to prepare papers for counsel, liaise with the police, and to represent the Crown prosecution service in court. It is not a requirement that they should hold legal
  43
  qualifications. The numbers of law clerks employed in the Crown court sections are detailed on the attached schedule.

  CPS Area

  Numbers of Staff Employed in the Crown Court Section

  Law Clerks

  Administration Staff

  Avon/Somerset

  15

  3

  Beds/Herts

  13

  5

  Cambs/Lincs

  12

  3

  Cheshire

  9

  2

  Cleveland/North Yorks

  17

  0

  Cumbria/Lanes

  16

  11

  Derbyshire

  9

  4

  Devon/Cornwall

  14

  0

  Dorset/Hants

  18

  4

  Durham/Northumbria

  26

  9

  Essex

  12

  2·5

  Glos/Wilts

  7

  6

  Greater Manchester

  36

  3

  Humberside

  8

  6

  Kent

  16

  6

  Leics/Northants

  14

  0

  London-Inner

  113·5

  32

  London-North

  52·5

  15

  London-South

  41·5

  10·5

  Merseyside

  30

  9

  Norfolk/Suffolk

  9

  1

  44

  CPS Area

  Numbers of Staff Employed in the Crown Court Section

  Law Clerks

  Administration Staff

  North Wales/Dyfed

  9

  3·5

  Nottinghamshire

  12

  7

  South Wales/Gwent

  22

  3

  South Yorkshire

  15

  5

  Staffs/Warwicks

  15

  0

  Sussex

  11

  4

  Thames Valley

  19

  10

  West Mercia

  8

  4

  West Midlands

  35

  9

  West Yorkshire

  32

  0

  Figures taken from Staff in Post details at 31 December 1987.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

  Costs
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what was the cost of the Public Accounts Commission's work during 1987.

  Sir Peter Hordern
  These costs, which relate primarily to the time of the nine Members of the House who serve as Members of the Commission, are not quantifiable.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Prime Minister if, further to her reply to the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington of 26 January,Official Report column 133, she will give the time, nature and duration of her meetings on Monday 18 January between 12 pm and 6 pm.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Minister for Social Security and the Disabled
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list the interdepartmental responsibilities of the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled.

  The Prime Minister
  The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled has particular responsibility for coordinating policy on disablement and for benefits, aids and services for disabled people. These functions are discharged in conjunction with other departmental Ministers as necessary.

  Security and Intelligence Services
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) whether she will amend the terms of reference of the staff counsellor for the security and intelligence services, so as to allow him to counsel military intelligence officers as well;

  (2) whether she will amend the terms of reference of the staff counsellor for the security and intelligence services to counsel any individuals who have anxieties about the service;

  (3) whether she will amend the terms of reference of the staff counsellor for the security and intelligence services, so as to allow him to counsel military information officers as well.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Departmental Correspondence
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to her written answer of 11 December 1987,Official Report, column 278, in what circumstances she is prepared to give information on correspondence received from third parties.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing to add to the reply already given to the hon. Gentleman on 11 December, at column 278.

  National Health Service
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will give the date and place of any official statement by any Minister of the Crown prior to 11 June 1987 concerning the proposed review of the finances of the National Health Service.

  The Prime Minister
  There was no such statement.

  South Africa and Namibia
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list the names of all the South African citizens and Namibian citizens she has met in an official capacity over the past two years.

  The Prime Minister
  My normal practice will continue to be not to provide detailed information about my meetings with private individuals. Meetings in recent years with Chief Buthelezi, Bishop Tutu, Chief Mabuza, and Mrs. Helen Suzman were made public at the time.

  Trade Unions
  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list in the Official Report the trade unions she personally, or officials acting on her behalf, met during the past five weeks; and where these meetings were held.

  The Prime Minister
  As I have told the House before, my normal practice is neither to confirm nor to deny whether meetings with private individuals have taken place, even in those cases where no such meeting has occurred.

  Stalker Report
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received from the Irish Government concerning the Stalker report and the Royal Ulster Constabulary's alleged shoot-to-kill policy; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement issued following the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference on 2 February, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Secret Services (Papers)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will arrange for the early release of papers relating to the activities of the secret services at the time of the fall of the Gough Whitlam Government in Australia; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The release of records will continue to be dealt with in the normal way in accordance with the provisions of the Public Records Acts.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Young People (Full-time Education)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will take steps to put beyond doubt the right of every young person, including those with special educational needs, aged between 16 and 19 years who seeks it to receive appropriate full-time education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  Clause 81 of the Education Reform Bill, which clarifies the existing law on this point, puts beyond doubt the duty of local education authorities to provide full-time education for all who seek it up to the age of 19, including those with special educational needs.

  School Crossing Patrols
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many unmanned school
  47
  crossing patrols there are (a) in the United Kingdom as a whole and (b) in north Yorkshire; and what proportions these numbers represent of the total number of school crossing patrols in each case.

  Mr. Dunn
  My Department does not collect information about school crossings and patrols.

  Higher Education (Research)
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has had in support of the recommendation from the Advisory Board for the Research Councils to differentiate between three levels of higher education institutions in the level and scope of their research activity; and what reply he has given to the board.

  Mr. Jackson
  A substantial majority of the 250 submissions which my right hon. Friend has received about the ABRC's discussion document "A Strategy for the Science Base", accept the need for greater differentiation of research roles in higher education; but most do not support the board's recommendation that this should be at the institutional level. My right hon. Friend will be making a statement on policy for the science base later this year.

  Inner London Education Authority
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received about the future of the Inner London education authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  Since the introduction of the Education Reform Bill, the Department of Education and Science has received some 1,200 letters about education in inner London. My right hon. Friend announced on 4 February at columns 1178–9 that the Government had decided to introduce amendments to the Education Reform Bill, with the aim of transferring responsibility for education to the inner London boroughs and the City of London from 1 April 1990.

  Swimming Pools
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on the number of swimming pools under the control of local education authorities in England and Wales; and what proportion are open-air.

  Mr. Dunn
  Information about the number of such swimming pools is not available.

  Secondary Schools
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set out in a table for each local education authority(a) the number of children starting secondary schools at the start of the 1987–88 academic year, (b) the number of complaints he has received or been notified of where parents are not satisfied with their child's allocated school for 1987–88 and (c) the number of children who, following complaints, were subsequently reallocated to the school of their choice in 1987–88.

  Mr. Dunn
  Information on the number of children admitted to secondary schools at the beginning of the 48
  academic year 1987–88 has not been collected centrally. Information on complaints in respect of individual local authorities cannot be provided except at disproportionate cost.

  Where parents do not get the school they want for their child, it is open to them to appeal to an independent local appeal committee, whose decision is binding on the local education authority or school governors concerned. From informal inquiries made in 1985, it appeared that some 9,000 such appeals were made in that year, of which around 40 per cent. were decided in the parents' favour.

  The Secretary of State does not consider an admissions complaint unless the case has first been referred to the independent local appeal committee, and his powers of intervention in such local matters are extremely limited. In calendar year 1987, the Secretary of State received over 380 complaints about school admissions decisions in England but did not consider that there were grounds to intervene under sections 68 or 99 of the Education Act 1944 in any of these cases. It is not known how many of the pupils concerned were subsequently allocated a place at their preferred school or at another school acceptable to their parents.

  Business and Technician Education Council
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the future of the Business Technician Education Advisory Council and its services.

  Mr. Jackson
  I understand that my hon. Friend is referring to the Business and Technician Education Council. This is a non-departmental public body established in 1983 as a successor to the former Business Education Council and Technician Education Council, themselves established in the mid-1970s to validate a wide range of vocational courses and examinations at technician level and equivalent. It is one of many bodies, operating in the vocational qualifications field, albeit the only one with NDPB status under my Department. It has an important part to play in the much wider rationalisation of vocational qualifications now being undertaken under the aegis of the National Council for Vocational Qualifications. The council is currently taking steps to improve the marketing of its qualifications and its links with other bodies, and is reforming its structures and services to those ends. My right hon. Friend welcomes these steps, and looks to the council to continue its efforts to improve its own efficiency and responsiveness to the changing context in education and training.

  Schools (Opting Out)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many bodies representing schools in the Easington area have expressed an interest to his Department in opting out of local government control.

  Mr. Dunn
  All individual schools which have approached the Department about this proposal have done so on the basis that their interest will be treated in confidence.

  Education Reform
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish in the Official Report his recent correspondence with the court of the University of Edinburgh on the Education Reform Bill, initiated on 22 January; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The exchange of correspondence is as follows.22 January 1988
  The Rt. Hon. Kenneth Baker, M.P.,
  Secretary of State for Education and Science,
  Elizabeth House,
  York Road,
  LONDON SE1 7PH.
  Dear Secretary of State,

  Education Reform

    EDUCATION REFORM BILL
    The University Court of the University of Edinburgh, which is the University's supreme governing body established under the Universities (Scotland) Acts, has discussed those sections of the Education Reform Bill which are of direct relevance to universities. The Court instructed us to write to you to convey its dismay and anxiety over a number of proposals in the Bill as it is now before Parliament.
    The Court was particularly concerned at two aspects— the powers to be vested in the Secretary of State, and the powers to be given to the Commissioners to be established under the Bill. Under section 94(1), the Secretary of State may by order confer or impose on either of the Funding Councils such additional functions as he thinks fit, and under section 94(3) "the Secretary of State may make grants to each of the Funding Councils … subject to such conditions as he may determine;" the Court regards these powers as unnecessarily wide and as an unnecessary accretion of authority to the executive arm of government. Similarly, section 132(1) of the Bill provides that "for the purposes of performing the duty imposed on them by section 131 … the Commissioners may make such modifications to the statutes of any qualifying institution as they consider necessary or expedient," subject to the approval of Her Majesty in Council, while under section 135(2), an Order in Council may amend, repeal, or revoke, any provisions of an Act of Parliament—such as, presumably, one of the Universities (Scotland) Acts; the Court has grave reservations about the constitutional propriety of thus over-riding the statutory provisions of Parliament. Finally with regard to the proposed Commissioners, the Court takes strong exception to the sweeping powers conferred under Schedule 9, Section 4, under which the Commissioners may, apparently without any constraint, "do anything which appears to them necessary or expedient for the purpose of … their functions," including requiring any University Officer "to furnish any information or to produe any documents relating to the institution …".

    £ million at 1987–88 prices

    1982–83 outturn

    1983–84 outturn

    1984–85 outturn

    1985–86 outturn

    11986–87 outturn

    21987–88 estimated outturn

    1988–89 plans

    1989–90 plans

    1990–91 plans

    Schools

    9,531

    9,646

    9,441

    9,244

    10,005

    10,633

    10,630

    10,635

    10,654

    Higher and further education

    4,930

    4,960

    4,946

    4,751

    4,789

    4,904

    4,866

    4,851

    4,806

    Miscellaneous educational services research and administration

    826

    878

    888

    888

    930

    975

    1,032

    1,071

    1,090

    Research Councils and related bodies

    589

    604

    612

    618

    635

    657

    669

    675

    655

    Total Department of Education and Science

    15,876

    15,980

    15,888

    15,502

    16,358

    17,169

    17,197

    17,232

    17,205

    The Court's attention has also been drawn to the lack of any reference in the Bill to the maintenance of academic freedom; the Court hopes that this omission will be rectified.
    Copies of this letter are being made available to the Press, and the text will be published in the University of Edinburgh Bulletin. A copy is also being sent to the Secretary of State for Scotland.
    Yours sincerely,
    Archie MacPherson Rector
    A. M. Currie
    Secretary to the University
    A MacPherson Esq BA
    Rector
    University of Edinburgh
    Old College
    South Bridge
    EDINBURGH EH8 9YL
    Dear Rector
    Thank you for you letter, also signed by Mr Currie, of 22 January to the Secretary of State about the provisions in the Education Reform Bill relating to the universities. I am replying as these are matters for which I have responsibility within the Department.
    We have received many letters on similar lines about the proper balance between necessary central powers and institutional autonomy. Detailed discussions of the Bill's higher education provisions will begin shortly in the Commons Standing Committee and a large number of relevant amendments have already been tabled which will allow these matters to be properly explored. I obviously cannot prejudge the outcome of this or the debate that will continue through the Bill's Parliamentary passage.
    Yours sincerely
    Robert Jackson

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish in the Official Report a table, based on table 12.1 of the public expenditure White Paper Cmnd. 288-II, with all figures converted to 1987–88 prices and in the manner of his reply, Official Report, 29 January 1987 columns 509–14.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The information requested is set out in the table. The figures have been revalued using the GDP (market prices) deflator, which is assumed to rise by 4·25 per cent. in 1987–88, 4·5 per cent. in 1988–89. 3·5 per cent. in 1989–90 and 3 per cent. in 1990–91. All figures in the table have been rounded to the nearest £1 million, so that the totals shown may not equal the sum of their rounded components.
  51

  1982–83 outturn

  1983–84 outturn

  1984–85 outturn

  1985–86 outturn

  11986–87 outturn

  21987–88 estimated outturn

  1988–89 plans

  1989–90 plans

  1990–91 plans

  Central government

  Voted in Estimates Schools

  Building grants to voluntary and special schools

  48

  45

  52

  58

  50

  55

  68

  70

  74

  Music and ballet schools

  4

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  4

  4

  4

  Assisted places scheme

  11

  18

  25

  32

  40

  49

  53

  55

  54

  City technology colleges

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  18

  30

  30

  Higher and further education (including teacher training)

  Universities

  Capital

  151

  141

  137

  144

  154

  154

  147

  141

  142

  Current

  1,568

  1,555

  1,527

  1,478

  1,474

  1,562

  1,614

  1,620

  1,609

  Voluntary and direct grant institutions

  Capital

  5

  5

  6

  5

  5

  7

  6

  5

  5

  Current

  107

  105

  97

  92

  91

  95

  93

  90

  90

  Adult education

  14

  15

  15

  16

  16

  16

  17

  16

  16

  Postgraduate awards to humanities students and other student awards

  8

  5

  5

  4

  5

  6

  5

  5

  5

  Miscellaneous services, research and administration

  Youth service

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  Research programme and other education services

  19

  23

  24

  25

  24

  27

  45

  69

  75

  Administration and inspection costs

  40

  53

  55

  55

  57

  58

  65

  63

  63

  Compensation payments

  5

  5

  6

  6

  6

  7

  7

  7

  7

  Research Councils etc. Capital

  96

  90

  88

  97

  96

  93

  85

  99

  77

  Current (including postgraduate science awards)

  494

  513

  523

  521

  538

  564

  584

  576

  578

  Total voted expenditure

  2,573

  2,581

  2,568

  2,541

  2,564

  2,703

  2,812

  2,855

  2,833

  Other central government Schools

  -5

  -4

  -4

  -4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total central government

  2,569

  2,576

  2,563

  2,537

  2,564

  2,703

  2,812

  2,855

  2,833

  Of which: Total central government capital expenditure

  296

  277

  282

  302

  307

  310

  309

  318

  300

  Local authorities

  Relevant current spending Schools

  Under fives

  342

  352

  377

  377

  411

  441

  443

  456

  463

  Primary schools

  2,926

  2,876

  2,832

  2,809

  3,118

  3,370

  3,403

  3,486

  3,539

  Secondary schools

  4,416

  4,447

  4,397

  4,248

  4,645

  4,957

  4,895

  4,819

  4,797

  Special schools

  476

  491

  492

  497

  523

  544

  546

  541

  538

  Meals and milk

  512

  507

  488

  468

  471

  469

  431

  416

  404

  Transport

  230

  233

  227

  224

  219

  213

  205

  204

  205

  Non-maintained school fees

  143

  140

  138

  126

  125

  125

  123

  118

  114

  Teachers' centres

  29

  28

  31

  34

  37

  39

  42

  42

  41

  Child guidance

  35

  34

  35

  38

  41

  45

  45

  45

  45

  Pupil support

  32

  32

  37

  37

  38

  38

  38

  38

  38

  Higher and further education

  Advanced further education

  759

  757

  763

  776

  782

  780

  774

  782

  789

  Non-advanced further education

  1,094

  1,108

  1,137

  1,053

  1,100

  1,098

  1,104

  1,084

  1,045

  Adult education

  95

  102

  106

  109

  116

  123

  125

  127

  127

  Discretionary students awards and support

  151

  157

  162

  163

  176

  189

  200

  200

  200

  Miscellaneous services, research and administration

  Youth service

  121

  130

  133

  135

  143

  150

  160

  163

  162

  Recreational services and research

  57

  65

  66

  62

  66

  68

  75

  76

  75

  Administration and inspection costs

  543

  568

  573

  578

  610

  642

  664

  677

  691

  Total relevant current spending

  11,960

  12,026

  11,994

  11,735

  12,622

  13,291

  13,273

  13,273

  13,273

  Non-relevant current spending Mandatory student awards3

  833

  874

  848

  764

  733

  742

  733

  732

  728

  52 53

  1982–83 outturn

  1983–84 outturn

  1984–85 outturn

  1985–86 outturn

  11986–87 outturn

  21987–88 estimated outturn

  1988–89 plans

  1989–90 plans

  1990–91 plans

  Local authority capital4

  Schools

  332

  338

  311

  297

  284

  281

  316

  311

  309

  Higher and further education

  145

  137

  142

  146

  137

  134

  50

  50

  49

  Miscellaneous education services Youth service

  15

  12

  13

  12

  12

  12

  8

  7

  7

  Other education services

  22

  17

  15

  10

  7

  7

  6

  6

  5

  Total local authority capital

  514

  505

  482

  466

  441

  434

  379

  374

  371

  Total local authorities

  13,308

  13,404

  13,324

  12,965

  13,795

  14,467

  14,385

  14,378

  14,372

  Total Department of Education and Science

  15,876

  15,980

  15,888

  15,502

  16,358

  17,169

  17,197

  17,232

  17,205

  1 The 1986–87 figures incorporate a distribution by sector of total current spending by local authorities based on thcr provisional outturn expenditure on education.

  2 The 1987–88 figures incorporate a provisional distribution by sector of total current spending by local authorities based on their budgets.

  3 Includes payments to public sector higher education institutions as reimbursements of fees for EC students.

  4 Local authority capital expenditure figures are net of receipts attributable to education. They include provision for the Urban Programme.

  Teachers (Pay)
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many responses he has received to the Green Paper on teachers' pay and conditions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Thirty-seven responses to the Green Paper, "Teachers' Pay and Conditions: a Consultative Document" (Cm 238), have so far been received in the Department from organisations and two from individuals.

  Pupil Statistics
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will now publish in the Official Report for each of Waltham Forest, Merton, Enfield, Haringey, Barnet, Brent, Ealing, Hillingdon, Kingston, Sutton,

  Pupils aged 11 to 15 in all maintained schools

  Number of pupils studying in the authority

  Pupils from authority studying in other LEAs

  ILEA pupils studying in the authority

  Pupils from other 1LEAs studying in the authority

  Net inflow (-) or outftow(+)

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  (e)

  At January 1987

  Barnet

  15,448

  948

  342

  2,530

  -1,582

  Brent

  10,798

  2,801

  133

  654

  2,147

  Ealing

  13,091

  1,839

  94

  699

  1,140

  Enfield

  15,645

  938

  61

  1,045

  -107

  Haringey

  8,740

  1,786

  455

  827

  959

  Harrow

  9,625

  1,367

  7

  540

  827

  Hillingdon

  12,876

  618

  2

  668

  -50

  Kingston

  7,025

  662

  58

  885

  -223

  Merton

  8,466

  728

  384

  1,116

  -388

  Newham

  13,334

  468

  46

  399

  69

  Richmond

  6,925

  857

  741

  1,758

  -901

  Sutton

  10,017

  1,033

  43

  1,432

  -399

  Waltham Forest

  12,203

  839

  32

  300

  539

  ILEA

  104,574

  4,647

  5,817

  -1,170

  At January 1986

  Barnet

  15,860

  931

  323

  2,405

  -1,474

  Brent

  11,660

  2,735

  129

  718

  2,017

  Ealing

  13,909

  1,874

  87

  637

  1,237

  Enfield

  16,332

  876

  59

  1,087

  -211

  Haringey

  9,369

  1,966

  369

  694

  1,272

  Harrow

  9,964

  1,397

  7

  464

  933

  Hillingdon

  13,632

  553

  1

  752

  -199

  54
  Harrow, Newham and Richmond, and for the area covered by the Inner London education authority (a) the number of secondary pupils (b) the number of pupils studying in another local education authority area (c) the number of pupils educated who come from the Inner London education authority area, (d) the number of pupils educated from other local education authority areas and (e) the net inflow-outflow of pupils for the last date for which figures are available and in each of the past four years.

  Mr. Dunn
  [holding answer 4 February 1988]: The following information relates to pupils aged 11 to 15 in all maintained schools and is taken from authorities' regular returns to the Department for rate support grant purposes. The figures for January 1987 and the previous three years are as follows:
  55

  Number of pupils studying in the authority

  Pupils from authority studying in other LEAs

  ILEA pupils studying in the authority

  Pupils from other 1LEAs studying in the authority

  Net inflow (-) or outftow(+)

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  (e)

  Kingston

  7,251

  588

  51

  818

  -230

  Merton

  8,958

  683

  394

  1,153

  -470

  Newham

  13,898

  524

  39

  371

  153

  Richmond

  6,971

  922

  657

  1,535

  -613

  Sutton

  10,260

  1,002

  38

  1,301

  -299

  Waltham Forest

  13,034

  843

  34

  318

  525

  ILEA

  109,739

  4,572

  6,202

  -1,630

  At January 1985

  Barnet

  16,182

  912

  285

  2,248

  -1,336

  Brent

  12,533

  2,576

  124

  723

  1,853

  Ealing

  14,678

  2,018

  76

  561

  1,457

  Enfield

  17,092

  846

  78

  1,160

  -314

  Haringey

  10,069

  2,014

  309

  625

  1,389

  Harrow

  10,349

  1,354

  10

  478

  876

  Hillingdon

  14,047

  517

  6

  508

  9

  Kingston

  7,386

  527

  61

  685

  -158

  Merton

  9,415

  58S

  365

  1,079

  -494

  Newham

  14,499

  463

  48

  363

  100

  Richmond

  6,981

  1,015

  567

  1,330

  -315

  Sutton

  10,521

  932

  35

  1,225

  -293

  Waltham Forest

  13,668

  742

  27

  286

  456

  ILEA

  116,146

  4,475

  6,166

  -1,691

  At January 1984

  Barnet

  16,388

  882

  260

  2,087

  -1,205

  Brent

  13,419

  2,460

  98

  692

  1,768

  Ealing

  15,449

  1,991

  98

  581

  1,410

  Enfield

  17,850

  766

  76

  1,189

  -423

  Haringey

  10,982

  1,907

  285

  600

  1,307

  Harrow

  10,716

  1,304

  14

  414

  890

  Hillingdon

  14,731

  439

  5

  529

  -90

  Kingston

  7,713

  444

  77

  635

  -191

  Merton

  9,835

  538

  318

  1,157

  -619

  Newham

  15,164

  397

  47

  333

  64

  Richmond

  6,879

  1,076

  480

  1,028

  48

  Sutton

  10,906

  948

  50

  1,141

  -193

  Waltham Forest

  14,370

  690

  19

  270

  420

  ILEA

  123,436

  4,366

  5,898

  -1,532

  1 Including pupils from ILEA (c).

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Pin-ups
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will issue instructions for the removal of all offensive pin-ups in all his departmental premises.

  Mr. Mellor
  In accordance with item 69 of the programme of action for equal opportunities for women in the civil service, published by the Cabinet Office (Management and Personnel Office) in 1984, all staff in the diplomatic and aid wings have been notified that the display of sexually offensive material in the workplace will be regarded as a serious matter and may be dealt with as a disciplinary offence.

  Diplomatic Personnel
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the number of diplomatic personnel who are resident in the constituency of Kensington; and what is the number of members of their families resident in Kensington.

  Mr. Mellor
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Bophuthatswana
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what interpretation of the relationship between the territory of modern Bophuthatswana and the native reserves established for the Southern Botswana by British Governments is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards Bophuthatswana based.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Our policy is based on the fact that Bophuthatswana was created out of the Republic of South Africa, as a key element in the policy of separate development, to which we are wholly opposed.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries have applied for licences for fishing in the Falkland Islands control zone next season; what fees are being levied; and what limits are to be placed on times of fishing, location, species and catch size.

  Mr. Mellor
  For the 1988 fishing season, the Falkland Islands Government received licence applications to fish in the Falkland Islands interim conservation and management zone for fishing vessels from the United
  57
  Kingdom, Spain, Portugal, France, Netherlands, Greece, Italy, Poland, Chile, Taiwan, Republic of Korea and Japan. The season for finfish began on 1 January and for Loligo squid, on 1 February. The Illex squid season begins on 1 March. The seasons end on 30 June. Copies of the fees schedule, and information on the mesh regulations and fishing areas have been placed in the Library of the House, as have details of licence allocations for 1988.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many licenses issued for fishing in 1987 in the Falkland Islands protection zone were not taken up and reallocated and how many were awarded to undertakings, individuals or companies whose primary business was not fishing.

  Mr. Mellor
  I will reply as soon as possible.

  EC Legislation (Plain Language)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he supports the campaign launched by the consumers in the European Community Group and European Research into Consumer Affairs for plain language in European Community proposals and legislation; and if he will encourage Ministers to promote this issue within the Community at every opportunity.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Yes.

  Herald of Free Enterprise
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Belgian authorities about the carriage of toxic chemicals on board the Herald of Free Enterprise and on the discovery, subsequent to the vessel foundering of toxic items which are now being held in Belgium; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  My right hon. and learned Friend has had no contact with the Belgian authorities on this matter. I understand, however, that there have been contacts between other Departments and the Belgian authorities on this subject.

  Nuclear Exports (Japan)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Her Majesty's Government expect to communicate to the European Commision full details of any draft nuclear export agreements with Japan for technology and nuclear materials transfer, in compliance with article 103 of the Euratom Treaty.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 25 January]: We have no agreement with Japan for technology and nuclear materials transfer. The hon. Member may have in mind the contract between British Nuclear Fuels Plc and Japanese Nuclear Fuel Services. I am advised that this contract does not fall within the scope of article 103 of the Euratom treaty.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Energy Conservation
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Lord President of the Council whether there have been any consultations on the introduction of new energy conservation measures in the House.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Energy conservation measures are included in the Parliamentary Works Office programme of work. I understand that the proposals for 1988 will be coming forward for consideration by the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee shortly.

  Official Report
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what action he will take to prevent the number of mistakes now appearing in the Official Report.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I assume the hon. Gentleman is referring to some minor typographical errors. The attention of Hansard is automatically drawn to any lapses. The quality of the printing of Hansard is under regular review by a liaison committee consisting of senior Official Report and HMSO personnel, and remains higher than that of any comparable daily publication.

  Privy Council Office (Periodicals)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list all the periodicals subscribed to by the Privy Council since 1970.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The information requested is not available for the period before 1980. The periodicals subscribed to by the Privy Council Office since 1980 are as follows:

  Campaign*

  Economist Farmers Weekly*

  Financial Weekly*

  Listener

  New Scientist

  New Society

  New Statesman

  Now*

  Private Eye

  Spectator

  Times Literary Supplement

  Tribune

  UK Press Gazette*

  * No longer obtained.

  Other periodicals are borrowed from other sources, as and when required.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Breeding Sows
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list in the Official Report the numbers of breeding sows in each English and Welsh region and county pig herd for each year from 1979 to date of the most recently available figures.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information is contained in the table.
  59

  County by Standard Statistical Region

  Total breeding pig herd 1979–86

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  England and Wales

  717,672

  701,116

  713,883

  736,195

  727,395

  690,098

  715,167

  714,539

  Cleveland

  4,229

  4,015

  3,877

  4,323

  4,246

  4,004

  3,869

  4,351

  Cumbria

  6,064

  6,514

  6,386

  6,164

  6,345

  6,415

  6,373

  6,223

  Durham

  4,820

  4,911

  5,245

  4,841

  4,976

  5,000

  5,158

  5,184

  Northumberland

  2,913

  2,863

  2,668

  2,672

  2,476

  2,449

  2,302

  2,289

  Tyne and Wear

  802

  607

  567

  612

  561

  376

  474

  385

  North Region

  18,828

  18,910

  18,743

  18,612

  18,604

  18,244

  18,176

  18,432

  Humberside

  73,568

  73,919

  76,144

  78,954

  78,696

  78,774

  81,363

  83,142

  North Yorks (North Allerton)

  35,051

  35,243

  48,952

  54,890

  54,357

  56,429

  59,935

  61,363

  North Yorks (Beverley)

  —

  —

  8,814

  9,458

  9,808

  9,151

  9,653

  11,078

  North Yorks (Harrogate)

  20,120

  21,276

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Yorkshire

  6,124

  6,074

  6,069

  5,857

  6,381

  5,959

  5,895

  6,609

  West Yorkshire

  12,247

  11,946

  11,873

  13,149

  12,490

  12,201

  15,181

  15,319

  Yorks and Humberside

  147,110

  148,458

  151,852

  162,308

  161,732

  162,514

  172,009

  177,511

  Derbyshire

  5,342

  4,813

  4,982

  6,096

  5,680

  5,505

  5,381

  5,537

  Leicestershire

  8,050

  7,327

  7,408

  7,552

  6,476

  6,476

  6,558

  6,769

  Lincolnshire

  31,799

  33,359

  32,592

  32,839

  31,150

  31,150

  31,069

  31,661

  Northamptonshire

  8,184

  8,270

  8,356

  8,576

  7,945

  7,945

  7,778

  7,683

  Nottinghamshire

  14,517

  14,373

  14,928

  14,474

  15,114

  15,114

  14,790

  14,707

  East Midlands Region

  67,892

  68,142

  68,266

  69,537

  70,244

  66,190

  65,576

  66,357

  Cambridgeshire

  25,072

  22,258

  22,387

  22,825

  21,902

  19,271

  18,133

  17,453

  Norfolk

  57,901

  56,451

  58,056

  59,547

  58,360

  54,493

  56,992

  57,231

  Suffolk

  61,187

  60,811

  60,832

  63,491

  60,155

  56,050

  57,223

  55,914

  East Anglia Region

  144,160

  139,520

  141,275

  145,863

  140,417

  129,814

  132,348

  130,598

  Bedfordshire

  8,468

  7,973

  7,811

  8,005

  8,123

  7,616

  8,864

  8,564

  Berkshire

  9,196

  8,718

  9,063

  9,562

  9,462

  8,585

  8,985

  8,631

  Buckinghamshire

  7,963

  7,260

  7,526

  7,136

  6,901

  6,522

  6,190

  6,038

  East Sussex

  5,774

  5,226

  5,298

  5,351

  4,996

  4,030

  4,381

  4,321

  Essex

  25,561

  23,504

  23,069

  21,668

  20,267

  19,161

  19,351

  18,692

  Greater London (East)

  306

  258

  285

  311

  249

  236

  373

  487

  Greater London (South East)

  1,697

  1,661

  1,518

  1,609

  1,308

  1,155

  1,257

  1,113

  Hampshire

  15,993

  15,224

  16,180

  16,745

  17,566

  14,994

  16,838

  17,557

  Hertfordshire

  6,163

  6,134

  5,918

  5,946

  5,393

  4,372

  4,161

  3,794

  Isle of Wight

  1,396

  1,344

  1,164

  1,120

  1,205

  1,195

  1,235

  1,058

  Kent

  13,519

  12,923

  12,218

  12,269

  11,495

  10,350

  9,704

  9,715

  Oxfordshire

  22,060

  22,524

  22,051

  23,683

  24,824

  24,523

  27,490

  26,194

  Surrey

  6,426

  6,210

  6,204

  6,025

  5,870

  4,934

  4,775

  4,216

  West Sussex

  7,081

  8,104

  8,891

  9,075

  8,969

  7,974

  7,748

  8,057

  South East Region

  131,608

  127,063

  127,196

  128,505

  126,628

  115,647

  121,352

  118,437

  Avon

  5,160

  5,010

  5,138

  4,933

  4,943

  4,576

  4,592

  4,647

  Cornwall

  13,084

  11,373

  11,770

  12,133

  11,461

  10,172

  10,393

  9,965

  Devon

  23,208

  22,663

  22,332

  22,717

  22,379

  21,412

  23,104

  23,820

  Dorset

  11,432

  13,401

  13,774

  14,306

  13,753

  14,327

  15,066

  13,110

  Gloucestershire

  8,280

  7,615

  8,062

  8,585

  8,476

  7,953

  8,004

  7,952

  Isles of Scilly

  2

  2

  1

  3

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Somerset

  18,670

  17,084

  18,565

  19,135

  19,058

  17,149

  19,015

  19,953

  Wiltshire

  15,716

  15,477

  16,839

  17,155

  16,844

  17,130

  17,145

  18,118

  South West Region

  95,552

  92,625

  96,481

  98,967

  96,916

  92,721

  97,321

  97,567

  Hereford and Worcester

  15,209

  15,252

  15,188

  15,359

  15,364

  14,266

  14,451

  14,492

  Shropshire

  16,657

  16,406

  17,428

  17,800

  17,673

  16,474

  16,155

  15,616

  Staffordshire

  12,013

  11,450

  11,650

  11,779

  12,842

  12,619

  13,357

  13,569

  Warwickshire

  6,721

  6,114

  6,095

  6,128

  6,178

  5,871

  5,807

  5,295

  West Midlands

  2,462

  2,167

  2,421

  2,658

  2,552

  2,297

  2,573

  2,672

  West Midlands Region

  53,062

  51,389

  52,782

  53,724

  54,609

  51,527

  52,343

  51,644

  Cheshire

  11,678

  11,419

  11,586

  11,728

  12,508

  11,450

  12,148

  11,457

  Greater Manchester

  4,649

  4,083

  4,172

  4,354

  4,453

  3,641

  4,063

  3,846

  Lancashire

  24,906

  22,743

  24,557

  24,394

  23,681

  22,881

  23,346

  22,010

  Merseyside

  1,379

  1,369

  1,488

  1,479

  1,228

  1,141

  978

  1,130

  North West Region

  42,612

  39,614

  41,803

  41,955

  41,870

  39,113

  40,535

  38,443

  60 61

  County by Standard Statistical Region

  Total breeding pig herd 1979–86

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  England

  700,824

  685,721

  698,398

  719,471

  711,020

  675,770

  699,660

  698,989

  Clwyd

  3,402

  3,366

  3,387

  3,327

  3,371

  2,788

  3,221

  3,252

  Dyfed

  4,797

  4,321

  4,498

  4,646

  4,680

  3,974

  4,098

  3,878

  Gwent

  1,993

  2,048

  1,844

  2,722

  2,766

  2,830

  2,902

  3,315

  Gwynedd

  1,977

  1,677

  1,525

  1,689

  1,359

  1,040

  1,123

  1,116

  Mid Glamorgan

  544

  481

  563

  542

  546

  395

  448

  409

  Powys

  3,119

  2,562

  2,578

  2,480

  2,345

  1,935

  2,260

  2,137

  South Glamorgan

  837

  797

  944

  1,141

  1,109

  1,137

  1,208

  1,189

  West Glamorgan

  182

  143

  143

  177

  199

  229

  247

  254

  Wales

  16,848

  15,395

  15,485

  16,724

  16,375

  14,328

  15,507

  15,550

  Pins-ups
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will issue instructions for the removal of all offensive pin-ups in all his departmental premises.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Guidance has already been issued in my Department which makes clear that sexual harassment at work is not tolerated and in particular requires managers to ensure that potentially offensive material is not displayed in the workplace.

  Affatoxin
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make a statement about the recent import of peanuts containing five times the safe amount of affatoxin and their subsequent sale as wild bird seed;

  (2) if he will introduce a statutory limit on the proportion of affatoxin contained in imported foods destined for wild animals.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Controls which exist for levels of contaminants in feeding stuffs for domesticated animals and birds do not cover materials fed to wild birds; these controls are harmonised throughout the European Community and I am not aware of any plans to extend them to wild species.

  Milk
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total volume of milk production in the United Kingdom for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  '000 tonnes

  1978

  17,905

  1979

  17,830

  1980

  17,819

  1981

  17,610

  1982

  18,457

  1983

  18,923

  1984

  17,873

  1985

  17,680

  1986

  17,856

  1987

  116,976

  1 Provisional.

  Sources: EEC Dairy Facts and Figures/Milk Marketing Board.

  Radioactivity (Cumbria)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what experimental work he is undertaking or sponsoring, within the restricted area of Cumbria, into the effects of radioactivity following the Chernobyl nuclear accident.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I am arranging for a copy of my Department's post-Chernobyl agricultural research programme to be placed in the Library of the House.

ENERGY

  Anglo-French Electricity Supply Link
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what is the ratio of United Kingdom imports to exports of electricity supply via the electricity supply link between the United Kingdom and France for the years 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the performances of the United Kingdom and France electricity supply link; and what are the export figures via the link from the United Kingdom to France for the years 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987, expressed in gigajoules.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The existing cross-channel electricity supply link between England and France was not fully commissioned until October 1986.

  In 1985–86 France supplied the CEGB's system with 103 GWh (370,799 GJ) of electricity. There were no exports from England and France.

  In 1986–87 electricity exports from England to France were 188 GWh (676,798 Gil, while imports from France amounted to 6590 GWh (23,723,934 GJ). This represents a ratio of exports to imports of 1:35.

  Electricity System (Emergencies)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on his recent visit to the headquarters of the Central Electricity Board's national grid control system of Southwark; what arguments were put to him about the technical value of the coherence of the electricity system in times of emergency; and what his response was.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I visited the Central Electricity Generating Board's national control centre twice last autumn, and had wide-ranging discussions.

  L. A. W. Mining Company Ltd.
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has as to licences granted by British Coal to L. A. W. Mining Company Ltd. and the dates when such licences were granted.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a matter for the British Coal corporation, and I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Nuclear Safety
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received concerning the future of the mobile maintenance unit based at Llandegai Owynedd and Fiddler's Ferry and the scientific services department based at Llandegai and Manchester; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have received no representations.

  Coal Imports
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will issue a direction to the Central Electricity Generating Board not to purchase foreign coal, and in particular coal exported from South Africa, for use in its power stations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a matter for the Central Electricity Generating Board. However, I understand that the CEGB does not import any coal from South Africa.

SCOTLAND

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what additional regulations or advice his Department will produce to ensure that the collection of personal data for use in the community charge register complies with the terms of the first data protection principle; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what additional regulations or advice his Department will produce to ensure that the disclosure of personal data from the community charge register complies with the terms of the third data protection principle; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend is considering this matter. Compliance with the Data Protection Act 1984 and the data protection principles is a matter for individual community charge registration officers and local authorities.

  Community Charge Register (Access)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he intends to allow police, district health and social security specialist units or immigration officers routine access to the community charge register.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 28 January 1988 at column 324.

  Schools (Clydesdale)
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many pupils are at each primary and secondary school in Clydesdale constituency; and what is the teacher-pupil ratio at each school;
  64
  (2) if he will give, in respect of present primary and secondary schools in Clydesdale (a) the number of pupils in each school, (b) the number of teachers in each school and (c) the expected numbers resulting from falling rolls anticipated in 1991.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on individual schools in Clydesdale can be obtained from Strathclyde regional council.

  Strathclyde Structure Plan
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the effect that his draft decision letter on the Strathclyde structure plan 1986 update will have on development of the green belt in Strathclyde.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Strathclyde structure plan update (1986) proposes no substantial changes to the structure plan policies concerning the Clyde Valley green belt. In his draft modifications to the update my right hon. and learned Friend equally proposes no important changes to these policies. The draft modifications to the proposals in the update concerning residential development require additional land to be made available for housing in certain areas. The identification of sites would be a matter for district councils, in consultation with local housebuilders. The effect on the existing green belt is unlikely to be significant.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to take account of evidence that 700 houses are now being built and 1,700 others are planned to be built on land previously rejected by house builders before issuing his final decision letter on the Strathclyde structure plan 1986 update.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Yes.

  Pre-Court Diversion Schemes
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to publish the findings of his Office's research into pre-court diversion schemes.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A decision on the publication of two relevant reports on the subject will be taken when the second has been received.

  AIDS
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has about the decision of the United States national institutes of health to instruct all biological laboratories to review their safety guidelines following the reported infection of two laboratory workers with the AIDS virus after working with concentrated samples; and whether he will carry out such a review of procedures in medical and biological laboratories in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  We are aware of the decision of the United States national institutes of health. Following a review of procedures relevant to potential occupational HIV infection which was carried out by the advisory committee on dangerous pathogens, in July 1986 the Scottish Home and Health Department drew the attention of all health boards to revised guidelines drawn up by the
  65
  committee. These guidelines have been endorsed by the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive.

  Domestic Violence
  Mrs. Mararet Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what stage his Department has reached in its consideration of guidelines on police response to domestic violence.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Draft guidelines on the investigation of complaints of domestic violence are in course of preparation and will be the subject of consultation with relevant interests shortly.

  Road Contracts
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all the motorway and trunk road contracts in Scotland with a works cost of £1 million or more which his Department intends to award in 1988–89 showing, in each case, the total value of the contract and the expenditure likely to be incurred in that year.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Consideration of the major trunk road contracts to be awarded in 1988–89 is not yet complete. My right hon. and learned Friend's normal practice is to announce in March of each year those major schemes which he expects to start in the following year.

  Residential Care and Nursing Homes
  Mr. Millan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what response he has sent to age Concern Scotland regarding its document "The Case for Change" relating to residential care and nursing homes in Scotland; and what discussions he proposes having on the document.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I received the letter from Age Concern Scotland on 21 January. I am studying the proposals it contains and expect to reply shortly.

  School Meals and Milk
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children in(a) Tayside region and (b) Dundee district authority aea will lose entitlement to free school meals and free welfare milk after the Social Security Act 1986 is fully implemented in April; and how many of these children attend schools for those with special educational needs.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not held centrally.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, for each local authority ward, in the Dundee district council area, the percentage of the working population who are unemployed at the latest available date; and what are the corresponding figures for each year since 1983.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is not available, as unemployment percentage rates are calculated only on a travel-to-work area, regional authority and Scotland basis.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish figures for unemployment in the 66
  Dundee, East constituency for each year since 1979; and what percentage of the total working population this represents in each year.

  Mr. Lang
  Unemployment statistics on a parliamentary constituency basis are available only from June 1983. The table shows the number of unemployed claimants in the Dundee, East parliamentary constituency for December 1987 (the latest date for which information is available) and the corresponding figures for previous years. Unemployment percentage rates for parliamentary constituencies are not available.

  Dundee, East Parliamentary Constituency December

  Number of Unemployed Claimants

  1983

  8,015

  1984

  8,192

  1985

  8,245

  1986

  7,748

  1987

  7,004

  These figures are not directly comparable due to a change in the compilation of the statistics in March 1986. This information is available in the Library.

  Schools (Assaults)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what statistics are kept on the number of assaults taking place in schools in(a) Scotland as a whole, (b) Tayside region and (c) Dundee district authority area; and if he will give the number of assaults on (i) teachers and (ii) pupils per year since 1979 in each of these geographical areas.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on the number of assaults taking place in schools is not collected centrally.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the numbers of prosecutions taking place in each year since 1979 for assaults on teachers and pupils in Scottish schools.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Homelessness
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what sums have been allocated to each Scottish local authority for the relief of homelessness in each year since 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In determining housing revenue account capital allocations, my right hon. and learned Friend takes account of housing authorities' planned programmes for tackling the needs of their areas, including the needs of the homeless. The allocations issued are not, however, hypothecated for specific purposes and it is for each authority to determine its own policies and priorities and to programme expenditure accordingly, within the resources available to it.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of homeless households in Scotland became homeless through mortgage arrears in each year since 1979; and if he will give this information for(a) Scotland as a whole and (b) each district council.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  For Scotland as a whole, the proportions of households categorised as
  67
  homeless who quoted a court order for mortgage default as a reason for the loss of their last or present accommodation are as follows:

  per cent.

  1984–85

  2·7

  1985–86

  3·3

  1986–87

  3·0

  This category was not separately identified prior to March 1984.

  Number of applications front homeless households in priority need

  Areas

  Financial Years

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  SCOTLAND

  6,419

  6,029

  7,326

  7,492

  6,984

  8,338

  8,815

  7,318

  Borders

  Berwickshire

  6

  0

  6

  3

  6

  6

  2

  4

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  22

  13

  21

  21

  14

  9

  10

  6

  Roxburgh

  25

  12

  14

  25

  13

  26

  17

  24

  Tweeddale

  11

  11

  19

  0

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Central

  Clackmannan

  239

  200

  230

  230

  183

  196

  183

  104

  Falkirk

  101

  64

  116

  147

  174

  1,473

  1,156

  351

  Stirling

  119

  115

  105

  153

  223

  152

  0

  1

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Annandale and Eskdale

  29

  22

  26

  27

  28

  14

  14

  6

  Nithsdale

  115

  83

  116

  130

  138

  135

  127

  149

  Stewartry

  21

  15

  11

  16

  20

  20

  24

  20

  Wigtown

  63

  61

  36

  18

  30

  28

  39

  63

  Fife

  Dunfermline

  181

  212

  245

  245

  214

  263

  367

  337

  Kirkcaldy

  157

  97

  116

  129

  145

  99

  126

  132

  North East Fife

  23

  41

  25

  31

  29

  36

  42

  34

  Grampian

  Aberdeen

  210

  143

  191

  149

  163

  200

  365

  373

  Banff and Buchan

  23

  19

  27

  13

  5

  18

  28

  46

  Gordon

  16

  24

  19

  16

  25

  51

  49

  52

  Kincardine and Deeside

  12

  3

  9

  8

  9

  1

  0

  2

  Moray

  73

  94

  80

  101

  86

  60

  68

  56

  Highland

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Caithness

  6

  3

  12

  5

  2

  1

  0

  0

  Inverness

  78

  59

  83

  74

  115

  67

  48

  46

  Lochaber

  19

  20

  58

  41

  32

  32

  20

  34

  Nairn

  11

  11

  10

  29

  32

  13

  16

  23

  Ross and Cromarty

  21

  33

  11

  0

  0

  20

  14

  19

  Skye and Lochalsh

  20

  20

  10

  15

  16

  21

  24

  26

  Sutherland

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Lothian

  East Lothian

  24

  51

  103

  115

  106

  164

  127

  58

  Edinburgh

  267

  206

  203

  192

  164

  253

  445

  575

  Midlothian

  30

  27

  145

  56

  61

  41

  70

  99

  West Lothian

  104

  75

  176

  98

  62

  67

  83

  72

  Strathclyde

  Argyll and Bute

  113

  80

  83

  70

  55

  58

  64

  86

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  3

  0

  0

  0

  15

  25

  26

  23

  Clydebank

  21

  61

  119

  87

  130

  291

  252

  103

  Clydesdale

  26

  15

  24

  14

  11

  21

  31

  45

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  23

  72

  62

  169

  16

  118

  61

  0

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  26

  28

  26

  27

  28

  38

  37

  34

  Cunninghame

  224

  185

  222

  255

  227

  254

  272

  245

  Dumbarton

  82

  94

  158

  80

  72

  120

  245

  334

  East Kilbride

  74

  76

  109

  102

  95

  109

  134

  147

  Eastwood

  7

  5

  9

  8

  9

  10

  7

  6

  Glasgow

  1,822

  1,879

  1,714

  2,339

  1,949

  1,545

  1,267

  1,198

  Hamilton

  150

  117

  221

  86

  137

  86

  96

  76

  Inverclyde

  188

  210

  208

  154

  152

  170

  209

  214

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  61

  94

  117

  54

  28

  51

  193

  66

  Kyle and Carrick

  156

  121

  260

  218

  244

  234

  221

  238

  Monklands

  99

  72

  139

  75

  86

  88

  134

  111

  Motherwell

  428

  364

  597

  522

  541

  292

  162

  109

  Renfrew

  366

  379

  464

  579

  495

  560

  927

  485

  Strathkelvin

  140

  136

  133

  73

  63

  58

  102

  173

  68
  Information at district council level is being prepared and I shall write to the hon. Member about this as soon as possible.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of homeless households in priority need in Scotland in each year since 1979; and if he will give this information for Scotland as a whole and for each district council area.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The table sets out the information requested, on a financial year basis:
  69

  Areas

  Financial Years

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Tayside

  Angus

  84

  49

  55

  78

  67

  55

  90

  121

  Dundee

  198

  155

  165

  171

  185

  399

  602

  549

  Perth and Kinross

  55

  67

  166

  200

  223

  244

  150

  190

  Orkney Islands

  10

  4

  9

  2

  10

  8

  2

  2

  Shetland Islands

  15

  18

  23

  19

  23

  26

  49

  28

  Western Isles

  24

  13

  20

  23

  28

  12

  18

  23

  Notes:

  1986–87—Returns are still outstanding for a few districts.

  Blanks indicate no returns received to date.

  Schools (Expenditure)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the capital allocation for expenditure on schools in 1987–88 made by his Department to each education authority in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Local authorities in Scotland receive an allocation of consent to incur liability to meet capital expenditure on schools, further education colleges and community education buildings. Within this overall level of consent they are free to determine which education building projects will proceed. They are also free to transfer consent between certain other capita programmes. Information on the level of the total capita allocations for education, and on the assumed schools element included in that total, for 1987–88 is given in the table.

  £000 at cash prices

  Region/Island Authority

  Total allocation for education 1987–88

  Assumed schools element

  Borders

  1,134

  932

  Central

  3,065

  2,854

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,506

  929

  Fife

  4,180

  3,553

  Grampian

  3,965

  2,845

  Highland

  3,020

  2,181

  Lothian

  6,647

  4,842

  Strathclyde

  20,378

  18,239

  Tayside

  3,440

  2,715

  Orkney

  975

  923

  Shetland

  840

  679

  Western Isles

  4,360

  3,533

  Notes:

  1. Total allocation figures include where appropriate, assumed levels of capital financed from current revenue.

  2. Both sets of figures include the enhancement of consent issued in August 1987 for the purchase of equipment for science, technological and computing studies courses in secondary schools.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the bid by each Scottish local education authority to his Department for a capital allocation for expenditure on schools for 1987–88.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The bids made by local authorities in Scotland for consent to incur liability to meet capital expenditure on their education programmes in 1987–88 and the amounts included in such bids for school building, are given in the table.
  70

  £000 at cash prices

  Regional-Islands Authority

  Total bid for education building

  Bid for school building

  Borders

  1,348

  1,122

  Central

  3,008

  3,118

  Dumfries and Galloway

  3,387

  1,545

  Fife

  6,573

  5,034

  Grampian

  3,312

  2,657

  Highland

  4,130

  3,446

  Lothian

  8,555

  5,836

  Strathclyde

  24,888

  22,161

  Tayside

  3,701

  2,862

  Orkeny

  967

  910

  Shetland

  983

  643

  Western Isles

  5,158

  3,783

  Rates Relief
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of those who are eligible to vote in local government elections in(a) Tayside region and (b) Dundee district authority are (i) domestic ratepayers, (ii) spouses of domestic ratepayers and (iii) people who receive any relief from domestic rates because of special needs.

  Mr. Lang
  This information is not held centrally.

  Epilepsy
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to issue further guidance to health boards in Scotland on the provision of health services for patients with epilepsy to that issued in 1968 in the Hutchinson report "The Medical Care of Epilepsy in Scotland;" and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have no plans to issue such guidance.

  Doctors and Consultants (Telephones)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about arrangements for funding emergency repair cover for the house telephones of doctors and consultants working in the National Health Service in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  British Telecom is in the process of changing the arrangements for the operation and funding of emergency repairs to telephones at National Health Service premises and at the homes of key personnel. The Scottish Home and Health Department is consulting interested parties about ways of ensuring that key personnel (including general practitioners and hospital
  71
  consultants) can be contacted quickly in cases of urgency, even when there is a fault on their home telephone line. The Department aims to identify arrangements which represent good value for public money, do not conflict with the terms of service of the key personnel concerned and, above all, are effective.

  Fine Defaulters
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the percentage of inmates in Scottish prisons sent there due to fines defaults for each year since 1974.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The available information is set out in the table:

  Fine Defaulters as percentage of Total Average Daily Population in Penal Establishments in Scotland

  Percentage

  1974

  5·7

  1975

  6·6

  1976

  6·6

  1977

  5·9

  1978

  6·1

  1979

  6·4

  1980

  7·9

  1981

  5·1

  1982

  4·8

  1983

  4·5

  1984

  5·4

  1985

  5·8

  1986

  5·9

  1987

  5·2

  Prison Statistics
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total number of inmates in Scottish prisons in each year since 1974.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The average daily penal population in 1987 is provisionally estimated as 5,446. For earlier years, corresponding figures are given in appendix 2 of the annual reports "Prisons in Scotland" for 1985 and 1986.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of inmates in Scottish prisons aged(a) between 16 to 18 years (b) between 18 to 21 years and (c) between 21 to 25 years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Detailed information is not available on the age distribution of the penal population in Scotland. The average daily penal population in 1987 is provisionally estimated as 5,446—of these 987 were young offenders under sentence, aged under 21.

  An analysis by age of remand, direct sentenced and fine default receptions in 1986 was published in tables 8, 10 and 19 of Scottish Home and Health Department statistical bulletin No. 6/1987, "Prison Statistics Scotland 1986" (copies of which are available in the Library).

  Education (Under-sixes)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will publish a report on the Scottish Education Department's review of provisions for the under-sixes.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The review has been discontinued and I do not intend to publish a report.

  Islay (Wild Birds)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will describe the measures taken to prevent disturbance to wild birds in the proposed special protection area known as the Rinns, by the licensed shooting of white-fronted geese on Islay.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The special interest of the Rinns of Islay, including the habitats of wild birds, is protected by the area having been notified as a site of special scientific interest by the Nature Conservancy Council. None of the licences issued for the shooting of white-fronted geese on Islay permit shooting on land contained within the Rinns SSSI.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the impact of the killing of white-fronted geese on Islay on the conservation efforts and the distribution of the Greenland race of the species; and if he will make his policy to refuse any further applications for licences.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  As the primary objective is to scare the geese away from land being cropped, we would expect only a relatively small number to be shot.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will be measuring the effectiveness of the licences recently issued for the killing of white-fronted geese; and if a report will be made.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The issue of licences to shoot white-fronted geese is part of an overall package of measures to contain the geese within protected areas and other land providing their natural habitats. The effects of the measures are being monitored and a report will be compiled at the end of the over-wintering period.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider giving financial compensation to the farmers on Islay for damage caused by white-fronted geese and withdrawing the licences issued for shooting; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Nature Conservancy Council has agreements with farmers within the sites of special scientific interest to compensate for goose damage. The protection of crops and improved grassland outwith these areas is essential to the continued viability of agricultural production on Islay and a more widely based compensation policy would not offer an appropriate solution.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of white-fronted geese killed to date; and if he anticipates issuing any further licences for killing them.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Shooting is primarily intended to scare the geese and inquiries made by officials of my Department have indicated that in the period to 31 January 1988 none had been killed. The position is being kept under review and consideration will be given to the case for issuing further licences if it can he demonstrated that serious damage to crops or improved grassland is being caused by the geese.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if, pursuant to the reply of 20 January,Official

  73
  Report, column 720, he received any advice from the Nature Conservancy Council in respect of the licences to shoot white-fronted geese.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Nature Conservancy Council was given advance notice of the proposal to issue licences to shoot white-fronted geese. It indicated that it could not support the proposal.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if, pursuant to the reply of 20 January,Official Report, column 720, he will detail the terms of the respective licences to shoot white-fronted geese, including the number of birds permitted to be killed under each licence.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Since the licence is a lengthy document I am sending a copy to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if, pursuant to the reply of 20 January,Official Report, column 720, he will indicate the evidence he considered in assessing the serious damage to crops for the purposes of issuing licences to kill white-fronted geese; and if he will indicate the extent to which alternative solutions were considered and tested.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  On receipt of an application for a licence to protect a farm from serious damage by white-fronted geese, experienced members of my Department's agricultural staff report on the numbers of geese feeding and the extent of the damage being caused to crops and grassland. A licence would not normally be issued unless significant numbers of geese were feeding on the land. White-fronted geese are difficult to keep away from crops for any length of time, and shooting is needed to complement other methods of scaring.

EMPLOYMENT

  London Docklands
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether the Manpower Services Commission has any projects targeted on London docklands apart from the general programmes.

  Mr. Cope
  In addition to the Manpower Services Commission's mainstream programmes which are designed to respond to local needs in London docklands, as elsewhere, the MSC has a number of other initiatives. For the London docklands these include a local collaborative project, which aims to establish a long-term partnership between employers and training providers and a local employer network to encourage the involvement of employers in local vocational education and training issues.

  Pin-ups
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will issue instructions for the removal of offensive pin-ups in all his departmental premises.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The programme of action to achieve equality for women which the Cabinet Office (Management and Personnel Office) issued in 1984 recommended that Departments should advise their staff that sexual harassment at work was not tolerated and 74
  would be treated as a disciplinary offence. The guidance issued to my staff gives examples of what might constitute sexual harassment. These include
  "displays and circulation of sexually offensive material, for example pin-ups".
  I do not therefore consider that any further instructions are needed.

  Wages (Underpayment)
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many cases of underpayment the wages inspectorate investigated in each of the past five years in(a) the Northunnel travel-to-work area, (b) the Chester travel-to-work area and (c) the Runcorn travel-to-work area; how many checks were the results of complaints by staff; how many the result of routine spot checks; and what were the outcomes.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Statistics are not compiled for areas smaller than the nine wages inspectorate divisions.

  Accidents at Work
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the number of(a) accidents, (b) serious injuries and (c) deaths arising at the workplace for each year since 1975.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher)Official Report 16 December 1987, at column 578.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any information on the breakdown of accidents at work in small companies since 1975.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I regret that the information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, some details on this can be found in the publication "Health and Safety Statistics 1984–85", copies of which were placed in the Library.

  Major Accident Hazards
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report a list of those industrial installations in west Glamorgan which are covered by the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1984 (S.I. 1984, No. 1902); and whether the amending European Community directive 87/216 has yet been applied to any of them.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The industrial installations in west Glamorgan notified to the Health and Safety Executive under the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1984 are;

  1. BP Chemicals Limited, Port Talbot;

  2. British Gas Corporation, E M Edwards Works, Jersey Marine, Neath;

  3. BP Oil (Llandarcy) Refinery Limited, Llandarcy, Neath;

  4. BP Oil (Llandarcy) Refinery Limited, Queens Dock, Swansea;

  5. Calor Gas Limited, Aberdulais;

  6. Inc (Europe) Limited, Clydach.

  Compliance with the EC directive 87/216 is required by 24 September 1988. Regulations to implement the directive in Great Britain are currently being prepared.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many constituencies in(a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom as a whole have had a higher percentage rate of unemployment than Dundee East for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Lee
  The information requested is not available. Unemployment rates are not calculated for areas smaller that travel-to-work areas.

  Employees in Employment in Great Britain

  June of each year

  Agriculture and Horticulture 1(0100)

  Coal Extraction and Solid Fuels (111)

  Shipbuilding and Repairs (3610)

  Iron and Steel (2210)

  1977

  358,000

  312,000

  142,000

  222,000

  1978

  354,000

  308,000

  141,000

  199,000

  1979

  339,000

  299,000

  135,000

  191,000

  1980

  332,000

  298,000

  122,000

  168,000

  1981

  324,000

  285,000

  113,000

  130,000

  1982

  320,000

  271,000

  114,000

  114,000

  1983

  312,000

  257,000

  109,000

  95,000

  1984

  302,000

  234,000

  89,000

  85,000

  1985

  304,000

  219,000

  82,000

  83,000

  1986

  292,000

  183,000

  79,000

  75,000

  1987

  283,000

  154,000

  72,000

  72,000

  1 Figures in brackets denote Groups and Activity Headings of the Standard Industrial Classification 1980.

  The figures are unadjusted for the effects of seasonal variations.

  The estimates for shipbuilding and repairs and iron and steel are subject to considerable potential estimation error due to the relatively small number of employees in these industries.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current estimate for unclaimed benefit in(a) Scotland as a whole, (b) Tayside region and (c) Dundee.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have been asked to reply.

  For statistical reasons it is possible to provide take-up estimates only for Great Britain as a whole. A convenient summary of the national position is shown on pages 272 and 273 of the 1988 public expenditure White Paper (Cm. 288).

WALES

  Cancer Screening
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any proposals to increase the level of provision of mammography units and cervical cancer screening units in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The number of mammography units in Wales is to be increased as part of the centrally funded breast screening programme. The provision of cervical screening is the responsibility of district health authorities. Some £800,000 a year of central funding has been allocated over the last two years to help authorities develop and extend the service they provide.

  Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his most up-to-date estimate of the planned
  76
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many people have been employed in the agricultural industry in each of the last 10 years;

  (2) how many people were employed in the coal mining industry in each of the last 10 years;

  (3) how many people were employed in the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industries in each of the last 10 years;

  (4) how many people were employed in the steel industry in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Lee
  The available information is as follows:

  provision for payment of regional development grant, separately for old scheme and new scheme (a) gross and (b) net of European regional development fund receipts, for 1987–88, 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Planned regional development grant provision in Wales is as follows:

  £ million

  Old scheme

  New scheme

  1987–88

  22·0

  34·0

  1988–89

  17·0

  46·5

  1989–90

  2·0

  40·0

  1990–91

  0·6

  27·0

  These figures are gross of receipts from the European regional development fund. The provision for ERDF receipts towards RDG expenditure is £3·8 million in 1987–88 and £1·5 million in 1988–89. Information is not available at this stage on the likely level of ERDF receipts beyond 1988–89. The United Kingdom will, however, continue to claim reimbursement from the European Commission in respect of both regional development grant schemes.

  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total value of grants which Wales has received from the European regional development fund in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Net commitment to Wales from the European regional development fund was £54·9 million in 1985, £59·5 million in 1986 and £53·8 million in 1987.

  Regional Aid
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether regional selective assistance will be available for United Kingdom firms moving from one region of the
  77
  United Kingdom to Wales, or opening new branches in Wales following the change in policy announced on 12 January.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Regional selective assistance will continue to be available for all qualifying projects which improve employment opportunities in the assisted areas. Projects which move from elsewhere in Great Britain will be eligible for assistance on the additional employment which they create. Since 1984 relocation projects involving no net increase in jobs have not normally been assisted and that policy has not changed as a consequence of the announcements made on 12 January.

  Bus Deregulation
  Sir Raymond Gower
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the results to date of the deregulation of buses in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Initial research by the Department of Transport's Transport and Road Research Laboratory indicates that overall bus deregulation in Wales has been successful. Monitoring of the position is continuing.

  Bypasses
  Sir Raymond Gower
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many road bypass schemes have been completed in Wales since January 1987.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Two; the A48 Crosshands-Llanddarog bypass and A483 Ruabon bypass and Wynnstay link.

  Measles, Whooping Cough and Polio
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he plans any new schemes to increase parental compliance with the need for increased vaccination against measles, whooping cough and polio;

  Children vaccinated as percentage of the total born in the second previous year

  Health Authority and year

  Measles

  Diphtheria

  Whooping Cough

  Tetanus

  Polio

  Clwyd

  1981

  50·1

  81·2

  39·8

  81·3

  81·5

  1982

  53·6

  82·8

  45·6

  82·8

  83·3

  1983

  54·9

  84·9

  52·8

  84·9

  85·3

  1984

  57·1

  83·9

  59·7

  84·0

  84·1

  1985

  64·4

  86·0

  59·7

  86·0

  86·1

  1986

  71·4

  87·1

  62·7

  87·2

  87·3

  East Dyfed

  1981

  27·9

  86·1

  27·3

  87·9

  81·2

  1982

  30·8

  86·4

  31·1

  86·6

  82·3

  1983

  45·1

  83·7

  33·6

  83·7

  83·8

  1984

  53·5

  86·5

  44·9

  86·5

  86·5

  1985

  63·3

  87·7

  47·0

  87·7

  87·9

  1986

  65·0

  88·6

  50·0

  88·7

  88·2

  Gwent

  1981

  48·4

  84·2

  30·5

  84·2

  85·0

  1982

  51·7

  85·3

  38·0

  85·5

  86·2

  1983

  54·4

  86·2

  46·7

  86·3

  87·1

  1984

  57·4

  85·9

  53·9

  85·9

  86·2

  1985

  62·5

  87·4

  52·2

  87·4

  87·8

  1986

  64·6

  87·2

  54·1

  87·2

  87·7

  Gwynedd

  1981

  33·9

  80·6

  27·6

  80·8

  80·5

  78
  (2) by what percentage the uptake of (a) measles, (b) triple vaccine, including whooping cough, and (c) poliomyelitis vaccination fails short of the target level of 90 per cent. in each of the health authorities in Wales for each of the last six years.

  Mr. Grist
  Considerable efforts, including notably the designation of an appropriate individual in each district health authority to co-ordinate immunisation activity, have been made in recent years to achieve a significant improvement in the uptake rates for vaccination against a range of childhood infectious diseases. A public education campaign aimed both at raising awareness of the need for children to be protected against these illnesses and at motivating parents and health professionals alike has been promoted by Health Departments. There has been a marked improvement in the rates of vaccination against each of these diseases in all Welsh district health authorities, though some remain disappointingly low. Our officials will be considering with the Welsh Health Promotion Authority and district health authorities what further measures might be appropriate to achieve further improvement. In particular, consideration will be given to sensitive and appropriate methods of overcoming the resistance which continues to be evident in relation to the take-up of vaccination against both measles and whooping cough. The introduction of the new combined vaccine against measles, mumps and rubella later this year is expected to play a major part in this process.

  Health authorities in Wales were advised of the target uptake rate of 90 per cent. by 1990 for measles immunisation only in August 1985. At the same time they were invited to establish their own individual targets for diphtheria, whooping cough, tetanus and poliomyelitis. The tables set out the percentage uptake rates for immunisation against each of these diseases, by health authority, for the years 1981 to 1986 inclusive.
  79

  Health Authority and year

  Measles

  Diphtheria

  Whooping Cough

  Tetanus

  Polio

  1982

  37·5

  82·2

  35·8

  82·3

  81·9

  1983

  37·1

  79·8

  44·5

  80·0

  80·0

  1984

  46·0

  81·5

  52·9

  81·6

  81·1

  1985

  58·4

  86·2

  55·8

  86·2

  85·6

  1986

  68·0

  89·9

  60·1

  89·9

  90·1

  Mid Glamorgan

  1981

  28·6

  76·1

  18·6

  76·2

  76·8

  1982

  34·7

  79·7

  24·1

  79·6

  80·9

  1983

  36·6

  80·1

  31·7

  80·1

  80·7

  1984

  40·8

  79·1

  42·1

  79·0

  79·6

  1985

  48·5

  81·2

  42·3

  81·2

  81·5

  1986

  50·2

  81·0

  43·7

  81·1

  81·5

  Pembrokeshire

  1981

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1982

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1983

  61·8

  88·9

  60·6

  88·8

  89·1

  1984

  64·0

  85·8

  64·0

  85·8

  85·7

  1985

  71·3

  87·8

  64·1

  87·9

  88·1

  1986

  76·7

  87·4

  64·8

  87·5

  87·5

  Powys

  1981

  53·2

  74·6

  32·4

  74·5

  74·3

  1982

  56·4

  91·8

  46·9

  92·1

  93·2

  1983

  60·7

  91·0

  40·4

  91·0

  91·6

  1984

  64·9

  91·1

  63·3

  91·3

  91·4

  1985

  70·8

  94·5

  61·9

  94·6

  94·5

  1986

  76·9

  95·9

  65·1

  95·5

  96·5

  South Glamorgan

  1981

  27·2

  69·0

  22·4

  69·0

  69·1

  1982

  34·7

  77·8

  31·6

  77·8

  78·4

  1983

  37·6

  77·0

  40·4

  77·1

  77·2

  1984

  42·2

  75·2

  47·6

  75·2

  74·9

  1985

  53·8

  78·4

  49·5

  78·4

  77·1

  1986

  55·6

  79·0

  52·0

  79·0

  79·1

  West Glamorgan

  1981

  22·7

  70·3

  19·1

  70·3

  70·8

  1982

  25·9

  75·2

  24·4

  75·2

  75·4

  1983

  31·4

  76·7

  33·7

  76·9

  77·2

  1984

  35·9

  76·3

  43·0

  76·3

  76·3

  1985

  49·9

  79·7

  43·9

  79·7

  80·1

  1986

  56·5

  84·0

  51·3

  84·0

  85·0

  Wales

  1981

  35·0

  77·8

  26·2

  78·0

  77·6

  1982

  39·3

  81·4

  32·7

  81·5

  81·7

  1983

  43·9

  81·8

  41·6

  81·9

  82·3

  1984

  48·3

  81·3

  49·9

  81·3

  81·1

  1985

  57·3

  83·7

  50·4

  83·8

  83·7

  1986

  61·3

  84·9

  53·3

  84·9

  85·2

  n/a—Not available.

  Obstetric Units
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of the obstetric units run by general practitioners for each area health authority in Wales have no provision of anaesthetic services.

  Mr. Grist
  This is a matter of operational policy for the health authorities concerned and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman writes to the district general managers.

  AIDS
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has about the decision of the United States national institutes of health to instruct all biological laboratories to review their safety guidelines following the reported infection of two laboratory workers with the 80
  AIDS virus after working with concentrated samples; and whether he will carry out such a review of procedures in medical and biological laboratories in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The Department receives advice on such matters from the Government's Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens and the expert advisory group on AIDS.

  In July 1986 comprehensive advice was issued to all concerned in the ACDP document "LAV/HTLVIII—the causative agent of AIDS and related conditions—revised guidelines". Guidance is constantly under review to ensure that it reflects the latest expert opinion both in the United Kingdom and abroad. We have no plans to initiate a special review to supplement these arrangements.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has as to the median waiting time for operations in each Welsh health district for the 10 most common types of operation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  I shall write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many men and how many women were in full-time employment in June 1979 and December 1987 in(a) Bridgend, (b) Mid Glamorgan and (c) Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  In Wales, total male employment was 618,000 in June 1979 and 486,000 in September 1987 (the latest available date); equivalents for full-time female employment are 250,000 and 210,000 (these figures exclude self employed). Figures for Bridgend and Mid Glamorgan are not available, nor are separate figures for full-time male employees.

  Gwynedd Health Authority
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairman of Gwynedd health authority; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend and I, together with the Minister of State, met the chairman of Gwynedd health authority on 15 December 1987, when the authority's financial position and plans for financial recovery were discussed.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Raffan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his policy with regard to the charge which will be payable for static caravans used as second or holiday homes under the community charge in Wales; and whether he will make it his policy that the charge will he the same as in England and Scotland.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave today to my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett).

DEFENCE

  Army Vehicles
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about army vehicles driving on public highways after dark without lights; and what steps are taken to warn other road users when this occurs.

  Mr. Freeman
  No representations have been received about army vehicles driving on public highways after dark without lights. It is against regulations for army vehicles to use the public highway after dark unless in exceptional circumstances a special exemption has been secured; no such exemptions have been sought in recent years.

  Black Officers
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the name and rank of the highest ranking black officer in the armed forces; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The armed forces are fully integrated, non-discriminating organisations and no records are kept of the ethnic origins of personnel. Therefore, no information can be provided on the origins, number or rank of those from the ethnic minorities.

  Defence Procurement
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will give the value of procurement business given to Moores Wallisdown Ltd in each o' the years from 1980 to 1985 separately.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The overall value of HQ contracts placed with Moores Wallisdown Ltd. is as follows:

  £ '000

  1982–83

  30

  1983–84

  161

  1984–85

  nil

  1985–86

  238

  Information for earlier years could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will state the value of procurement business given to Altonjet in the years 1985, 1986 and 1987 separately.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We have no record of any HQ contracts having been placed with this company. No central record is maintained of orders placed locally and an investigation could only be carried out at disproportionate cost.

  Research Contracts
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many research agreements or contracts his Department has currently placed with the University of Southampton; and what are the subjects into which the research is being carried out;

  (2) how many research agreements or contracts his Department has currently placed with the University of Birmingham; and what are the subjects into which the research is being carried out;

  (3) how many research agreements or contracts his Department has currently placed with the University of Aston in Birmingham; and what are the subjects into which the research is being carried out.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mrs. Gordon) on 14 January at column 775.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many research agreements or contracts the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment has currently placed with universities and other establishments of higher education; and what is the total cost of these agreements and contracts.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Atomic Weapons Establishment has currently 41 research contracts or agreements placed
  83
  with universities and other establishments of higher education. The total value of these agreements and contracts is £2 million.

  Service Engagements (Termination)
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many soldiers from each regiment of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers left the Army without completing three years service; in each year since 1979;

  (2) how many soldiers from the Parachute Regiment left the Army before completing three years service in each year since 1979;

  (3) how many soldiers from the Royal Welsh Fusiliers left the Army before completing three years service, in each year since 1979;

  (4) how many soldiers from the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders left the Army before completing three years service, in each year since 1979;

  (5) how many soldiers from each regiment of the Royal Engineers left the Army before completing three years service, in each year since 1979;

  (6) how many soldiers from each regiment of the Royal Signals left the Army before completing three years service, in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Captain Fred Holroyd
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if any assistance was given by his Department to the Royal Ulster Constabulary inquiry in 1982 into the allegations of Captain Fred Holroyd, retired.

  Mr. Freeman
  Yes.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what full and careful investigations were carried out into the allegations made by Captain Holroyd, retired, and Mr. Colin Wallace, referred to in the Official Report, 3 March 1987, column 577, and when.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on 20 July 1987, at column 93.

  Nuclear Tests (Radiation Victims)
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence up to which date the recent National Radiological Protection Board report studied mortality in relation to Britain's nuclear test veterans; by how many since that date the number of deaths from multiple myeloma among nuclear veterans has increased; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In planning the conduct of the study, before any mortality data had been obtained, NRPB decided that it would attempt to take account of all deaths prior to 1 January 1984. The main results of the study refer to that date, although the authors refer in passing to some notifications received later than the above cut-off date. The Government, in the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on 28 January at column 309, have already said they would co-operate in implementing the recommendations by NRPB to continue
  84
  the study for a further period of 10 years. The further data to which the hon. Member refers will be included in that extension to the study.

  European Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to receive notification from his West German counterpart of his Government's agreement to the further development phase of the European fighter aircraft.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The co-ordination of four separate national approvals is necessarily complex, and allowance must be made for the different timings involved. We are encouraging our partners to reach their decisions as quickly as possible.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the F18 fighter aircraft or any of its derivatives meets the agreed operational requirements of the proposed European fighter aircraft.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the future progress of the European fighter aircraft project.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Further to the reply I gave to the hon. Members for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) and for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) on 10 November 1987 at column 157, the processing of national development submissions in each of the four partner nations is continuing. The development phase will be formally launched as soon as these activities have been brought to a successful conclusion. We expect this to be in the next few months.

  Service Personnel (Electors)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will detail the process by which members of each branch of the armed services may register as electors.

  Mr. Freeman
  Service personnel are encouraged to register as voters and may then vote in local, parliamentary and European elections. They register by service declaration form F/Vote/33 available in all ships, units or stations. Service declarations do not have to be completed annually. They are valid for the whole of the individual's service but may, of course, be amended.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps are taken to encourage service personnel in each branch of the armed forces to register as electors.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is our aim to achieve the highest possible level of service registration and we use a variety of means to encourage service men to register, including annual Defence Council instructions to commanding officers, compulsory displays of noticeboard information material, articles and advertisements in service magazines and newspapers, and radio broadcasts on British forces broadcasting services. All recruit training includes a period on voting rights and registration procedures. Families posted overseas are issued with further advice. Registration performance is monitored by each of the three services.

  Departmental Correspondence
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the written answer of 11 December 1987,Official Report, column 312, to what inquiries about correspondence between third parties and his Department he is willing to respond.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have nothing further to add to the answer I gave on that occasion.

  Army Chaplains
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many chaplains are currently attached to the Army; and how many are of each rank.

  Mr. Freeman
  (holding answer 4 February 1988): There are currently 160 chaplains in the Regular Army. The numbers in each rank are:

  1 Major General (Chaplain General)

  1 Brigadier (Deputy Chaplain General)

  9 Colonels (1 Principal Roman Catholic Chaplain, 8 Chaplains Class I)

  35 Lieutenant Colonels (Chaplains Class II)

  64 Majors (Chaplains Class III)

  50 Captains (Chaplains Class IV)

  In addition, there are 108 chaplains commissioned into the Territorial Army and 140 Army Cadet Force chaplains. All TA and ACF chaplains join as chaplains class IV (Captains) and can attain the acting rank of chaplain class III (Acting Major) after six years service.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  RUC (Injury and Sickness)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Belfast, South of 27 January,Official Report, column 292, how many of the total days off sick or injured by members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary were

  Kneecapping cases

  Compensation refused

  Compensation awarded

  Year

  Claims received

  Claims withdrawn

  By Secretary of State

  By courts

  By Secretary of State

  By courts

  Claims outstanding

  Compensation paid (£)

  1977

  15

  1

  3

  3

  7

  1

  —

  16,841

  1978

  19

  3

  5

  2

  8

  1

  —

  29,797

  1979

  14

  2

  3

  2

  6

  1

  —

  16,200

  1980

  18

  2

  6

  1

  6

  3

  —

  36,100

  1981

  37

  2

  1

  9

  17

  7

  1

  170,600

  1982

  28

  3

  —

  2

  13

  8

  2

  168,150

  1983

  6

  —

  3

  2

  1

  —

  —

  1,750

  1984

  5

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  2

  85,500

  1985

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  1986

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1987

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  Totals

  152

  13

  21

  21

  61

  21

  15

  524,938

  United States Politicians (Visits)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many locally and nationally elected United States politicians have been invited during each of the last 10 years to visit Northern Ireland at public expense; what positions they held; what was the full cost 86
  attributable to (a) injury and (b) sickness; and if he will give this information for the last five years, stating average days off per capita.

  Mr. Stanley
  The information in respect of the regular RUC is as follows:

  Injury on duty

  Average per member

  Sickness

  Average per member

  1983

  14,233

  1·78

  77,155

  9·64

  1984

  17,444

  2·15

  92,604

  11·39

  1985

  21,351

  1·58

  111,318

  13·48

  1986

  23,527

  2·86

  124,780

  15·15

  1987

  Figures not yet available

  Positive Vetting
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many civil servants in the Northern Ireland Office between 1965 and 1985 failed positive vetting.

  Mr. Stanley
  As the Government have made clear previously, it would be inconsistent with the confidentiality of the positive vetting procedure to give information of this kind.

  Criminal Injury Claims
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what figures are available to indicate the numbers of criminal injuries claims for each year since 1975 arising from so-called punishment attacks, the total amounts of compensation paid and the number of cases contested in court.

  Mr. Stanley
  [holding answer 29 January 1988]: The information that is readily available relates only to criminal injury claims for punishment shootings in the form of "kneecapping" and is as follows:

  in each case; how many were involved in each party; how many brought their spouses or other relatives; and, in those cases, who paid.

  Mr. Stanley
  [holding answer 3 February 1988]: Invitations to United States politicians to visit Northern Ireland at public expense are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Mortgage Tax Relief
  Sir Peter Hordern
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many individuals received mortgage tax relief in shared accommodation, not counting married couples; and what was the value of such relief in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  It is tentatively estimated that about 500,000 individuals (excluding married couples) are involved in multiple borrower mortgages. The direct revenue cost in 1987–88 of the additional mortgage interest relief which is available to sharers is estimated to be about £25 million.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Sir Peter Hordern
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the revenue derived in the last year for which figures are available from capital gains tax on assets held for more than(a) 10 years, (b) 15 years and (c) 20 years.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The liability to capital gains tax, expressed as a proportion of the total net liability accruing on the disposal of assets during 1985–86, is estimated to be about(a) 50 per cent., (b) 30 per cent. and (c) 20 per cent. respectively. These figures exclude tax on the capital gains of companies chargeable to corporation tax.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received regarding the effects of capital gains tax upon the deployment of investment in British business.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any estimate of what a 1p, 2p, 3p, 4p, 5p, 6p and 7p cut in the standard rate of income tax would represent as a percentage pay increase for a man on national average earnings.

  Increase in income after tax and national insurance (£ per annum) compared with indexation in 1988–89

  Multiple of average male earnings1

  1/2

  3/4

  1

  11/2

  2

  5

  Increased derived from:

  (a) 2 pence cut in basic rate

  (i) single

  77

  141

  204

  331

  459

  1,222

  (ii) married couple wife not earning

  48

  112

  176

  303

  430

  1,194

  (iii) married couple wife earning2

  82

  188

  294

  505

  716

  1,985

  (b) reduction of all higher rates of income tax to 40 per . cent.

  (i) single

  —

  —

  —

  —

  87

  5,971

  (ii) married couple wife not earning

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15

  5,685

  (iii) married couple wife earning2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  87

  7,794

  1 Average male earnings assumed to be £244·70 per week; an increase of 6·5 per cent. on 1987–88 in line with the assumptions used by the Government Actuary for reviewing National Insurance contributions (paragraph 3.02 of the Autumn Statement 1987).

  2 Assuming that the wife's earnings are the same multiple of average earnings as her husband's.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what was the estimated income tax forgone in 1986–87
  88
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The information is in the table:

  Reduction in basic rate of income tax

  Increase in income after tax as a percentage of gross earnings for a married man on average earnings, 1988–89

  Pence

  Per cent.

  1

  0·7

  2

  1·4

  3

  2·1

  4

  2·8

  5

  3·4

  6

  4·1

  7

  4·8

  It is assumed that the man's earnings are his only source of income. Average earnings are those for men in all occupations paid at adult rates who work a full week and whose pay is unaffected by absence. This figure is projected to 1988–89 in accordance with the assumptions given to the Government Actuary for reviewing national insurance contributions in paragraph 3.02 of the Autumn Statement 1987. The married man's allowance for 1988–89 is calculated by reference to the statutory formula for indexation.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what additional annual income net of tax and national insurance would result from (a) a 2p cut in the basic rate of income tax and (b) the reduction of all high rate income tax bands to 40 per cent. for (i) a person, (ii) an income tax payer, (iii) a household and (iv) average family of four.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 29 January 1988]: The effects of the proposed changes depend on the level of income. Estimates are given in the tables, for selected specimen incomes. The income tax changes are compared with the 1987–88 tax regime indexed to 1988–89 according to the statutory provisions and disregard any changes in the social security income related benefits to which the family may be entitled. The number of children in a family would not affect the tax liability.

  by the Treasury from taxpayers earning (a) between £20,000 and £50,000 and (b) more than £50,000 as a result of beneficial loans from employers;
  89
  (2) what was the estimated income tax forgone in 1986–87 by the Treasury from taxpayers earning (a) between £20,000 and £50,000 and (b) more than £50,000 as a result of loans from an employer to purchase a residence;

  (3) what was the estimated income tax forgone in 1986–87 by the Treasury from taxpayers earning (a) between £20,000 and £50,000 and (b ) more than £50,000 as a result of loans from an employer to purchase a car.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answers 4 February 1988]: Employees earning at a rate of £8,500 or more per year and all directors who receive an interest-free or cheap loan from their employer are liable to income tax on the difference between interest calculated at the official rate and the actual interest paid. When the benefit of the cheap loan is less than £200 in the year, no tax is charged. Estimates of the cost of this tax exemption are not available.

  Tax is not charged if the loan is such that any interest paid on it would be eligible for tax relief—for example, qualifying loans up to £30,000 to purchase a main residence. It is estimated that the total income tax forgone as a result of this exemption is around £100 million, but I regret that it is not possible to estimate the cost attributable to those earning over £20,000 per year.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the estimated income tax forgone in 1986–87 by the Treasury from taxpayers earning(a) between £20,000 and £50,000 and (b) more than £50,000 as a result of personal equity plans.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 4 February 1988]: The income tax relief on personal equity plans is in respect of dividend and interest payments on investments. Since personal equity plans were not available until January 1987, the income tax forgone in 1986–87 was negligible.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what was the estimated income tax forgone in 1986–87 by the Treasury from taxpayers earnings(a) between £20,000 and £50,000 and (b) more than £50,000 as a result of savings-related share option schemes.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 4 February 1988]: The total cost of income tax forgone in 1986–87 as a result of approved savings-related share option schemes is estimated at £50 million. I regret that it is not possible to subdivide this between different income groups.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what was the estimated income tax forgone in 1986–87 by the Treasury from taxpayers earnings(a) between £20,000 and £50,000 and (b) more than £50,000 as a result of the 1984 share option scheme.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 4 February 1988]: The cost of income tax forgone in 1986–87 as a result of approved Finance Act 1984 share option schemes is negligible since options must generally be held for at least three years in order to qualify for relief.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many earners did not directly benefit from the cut in the standard rate of income tax in 1987–88; and how many earners would not benefit from a further cut in the standard rate to 25 per cent. in 1988–89, assuming indexation of personal allowances.
  90
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 26 January 1988]: It is estimated that in 1987–88 and 1988–89 between 3 and 3·5 million earners (including part-time workers) would have insufficient income to benefit from reductions in the basic rate.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost of reintroducing a reduced rate band of income tax, worth the same as that band in 1978–79 in real terms, in 1988–89.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 26 January 1988]: The full-year direct revenue cost of reintroducing a reduced rate band of income tax in 1988–89, charging the first £1,650 of taxable income at 19 per cent. and worth the same to taxpayers in real terms as the band in 1978–89, would be about £3 billion. The cost assumes indexation of the current income tax bands and allowances according to the statutory formula.

  Budget Statement
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about his forthcoming Budget Statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  My right hon. Friend has received a large number of representations covering a variety of proposals.

  Luncheon Vouchers
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received seeking a review of the 15p tax-free allowance on luncheon vouchers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations. Decisions on changes in taxation are a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and will be announced in his Budget Statement.

  Pension Funds
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will detail the type of information requested on pension funds by the Inland Revenue (technical division) special office, Sheffield.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Tax-approved pension funds are exempt from tax only on their income and gains derived from holding investments. In each case, inquiries have been made to establish whether the tax exemption applies to all the fund's activities.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, pursuant to his answer of 25 January,Official Report, column 85, he will list the 12 pension funds from whom information has been requested.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 4 February 1988]: No. Information about particular taxpayers is confidential to the Inland Revenue.

  Private Health Insurance
  Mr. Chris Butler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received seeking relief from the taxation of employees' contributions to private health care insurance.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations.

  Deputy Secretaries
  Mr. Tom Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the responsibilities of each of the deputy secretaries in his Department and the number and ranks of staff reporting to each.

  Mr. Brooke
  The information as at 1 January 1988 is as follows:

  Deputy Secretary (Grade 2) Overseas Finance

  Responsibilities:

  European Community Group

  Aid and Export Finance Group

  Senior UK Director of the European Investment Bank

  United Kingdom representation at international financial and economic meetings

  Two Grade 3, four Grade 5 and 38½ other staff

  Deputy Secretary (Grade 2) Public Finance

  Responsibilities:

  Fiscal Policy Group

  Financial Institutions and Markets Group

  Monetary Group

  Public Sector Finances Group

  North Sea Development and Policy

  Three Grade 3, eight Grade 5 and 99 other staff

  Deputy Secretary (Grade 2) Industry

  Responsibilities:

  Public Enterprises Group

  Industry, Agriculture and Employment Group

  Two Grade 3, five Grade 5 and 64 other staff

  Deputy Secretary (Grade 2) Public Services

  Responsibilities:

  Social Services and Territorial Group

  Local Government Group

  Home, Transport and Education Group

  Treasury Officer of Accounts and Purchasing

  Financial Management Group

  Running Costs Group

  Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency

  Chairman of the Public Expenditure Survey Committee

  Chairman of the Procurement Policy Committee

  Seven Grade 3, 18 Grade 5 and 635 other staff

  Deputy Secretary (Grade 2) Deputy Chief Economic Adviser

  Responsibilities:

  Public Enterprises Analytic Unit

  Manpower Statistics

  Economics of Taxation

  Public Expenditure Economics and Operational Research

  Micro Economic Analysis of Trade Issues

  One Grade 3, seven Grade 5, 56½ other staff

  Establishments and organisation group, econonic briefing division, the information division and the rating of Government property department (1,046 staff) report direct to the permanent secretary; the defence policy and material group, the general expenditue policy group and the central unit on purchasing (87½ staff) to the second permanent secretary (public expenditure); the forecast and analysis group and the medium-term and policy analysis group (36 staff) to the chief economic adviser; the international finance group (24 staff) to the second permanent secretary finance; the pay and personnel management group, the Civil Service catering organisation and superannuation division (982½ staff including 598½ industrial civil servants at CISCO) to the second permanent secretary (Civil Service management and pay); and the accountancy advice group (43 staff) reports to the accountancy adviser to the Treasury and the head of the Government accountancy service.

  Inland Revenue (Sheffield)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer who is the head of the Inland Revenue (technical division) special office, Sheffield.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Mr. M. G. Longden.

  Pin-ups
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will issue instructions for the removal of all offensive pin-ups in all his departmental premises.

  Mr. Brooke
  Sexual harassment at work, of which the display of sexually offensive material is a form, is not tolerated and is dealt with, if appropriate, as a disciplinary matter through the usual Civil Service complaints procedures. Against the background of the general instructions and guidance which already exist, there is no evidence to suggest that any further instructions to deal with this particular form of sexual harassment are warranted in the Treasury.

  London Weighting
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the cost to the Exchequer of paying London weighting to those civil servants in receipt of such weighting over the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Brooke
  The estimated cost to the Exchequer of paying London weighting to civil servants in the last five financial years has been:

  £ million

  1983–84

  126·4

  1984–85

  126·8

  1985–86

  133·2

  1986–87

  141·3

  1987–88

  147·8

  These figures exclude additions to ERNIC, superannuation and pensions as a consequence of London weighting.

  Flotations
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how long before flotation stockbroking firms were invited to make proposals for the tender and how long before flotation the firm eventually used was actually chosen, in the cases of(a) British Telecom, (b) British Gas and (c) Britoil.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  In the case of British Telecom, stockbroking firms were invited to tender in a press notice issued in October 1983. The broker was appointed in December 1983, and flotation took place in November 1984.

  In the case of the 1985 Britoil sale, brokers were invited to tender and were appointed in May 1985. The sale of the Government's residual shareholding was in July 1985.

  In the case of British Gas, brokers were invited to tender in June 1985 and the broker was appointed in July 1985. The flotation took place in November 1986.

  Income Distribution
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update his reply of 8 April 1987,Official Report, columns 263–4, to give the income distribution table for 1987–88, and his estimate for 1988–89.

  Distribution total income1 1987–88

  Numbers

  Tax units aged under 65

  Tax units aged over 65

  Range of total income Lower limit

  Single people

  Married couples without wife's earned income

  Married couples with wife's earned income

  Single people

  Married couples without wife's earned income

  Married couples with wife's earned income

  £ per annum

  '000s

  '000s

  '000s

  '000s

  '000s

  '000s

  1,0002

  1,160

  200

  20

  30

  10

  5

  2,0002

  1,090

  230

  70

  340

  30

  10

  3,000

  980

  160

  70

  410

  90

  30

  4,000

  910

  190

  100

  250

  180

  90

  5,000

  1,020

  210

  100

  140

  180

  90

  6,000

  920

  270

  150

  100

  160

  70

  7,000

  850

  350

  180

  70

  110

  70

  8,000

  650

  370

  240

  100

  70

  60

  9,000

  600

  410

  270

  50

  50

  60

  10,000

  760

  800

  740

  80

  50

  80

  12,000

  460

  830

  1,260

  70

  60

  70

  15,000

  310

  520

  1,530

  50

  40

  80

  20,000

  100

  180

  660

  30

  20

  50

  25,000

  40

  90

  310

  10

  10

  20

  30,000

  50

  110

  340

  20

  20

  20

  50,000

  20

  40

  70

  5

  10

  10

  1 Total income for income tax purposes.

  2 Excluding those who have no Inland Revenue tax record because their earnings are below the PAYE reporting limit.

  Distribution total income1 1988–89

  Numbers

  Tax units aged under 65

  Tax units aged over 65

  Range of total income Lower limit

  Single people

  Married couples without wife's earned income

  Married couples with wife's earned income

  Single people

  Married couples without wife's earned income

  Married couples with wife's earned income

  £ per annum

  '000s

  '000s

  '000s

  '000s

  '000s

  '000s

  1,0002

  1,090

  200

  20

  30

  10

  5

  2,0002

  1,000

  220

  60

  280

  20

  10

  3,000

  890

  140

  60

  390

  50

  20

  4,000

  840

  190

  90

  260

  180

  90

  5,000

  960

  190

  100

  160

  160

  80

  6,000

  870

  190

  110

  110

  170

  80

  7,000

  830

  280

  150

  60

  130

  60

  8,000

  710

  330

  190

  80

  90

  60

  9,000

  560

  380

  240

  70

  50

  50

  10,000

  980

  820

  620

  90

  70

  90

  12,000

  590

  890

  1,110

  80

  60

  80

  15,000

  360

  700

  1,650

  50

  40

  80

  20,000

  150

  220

  820

  30

  20

  50

  25,000

  50

  100

  410

  20

  20

  30

  30,000

  60

  130

  450

  20

  20

  30

  50,000

  30

  60

  100

  10

  10

  10

  1 Total income for income tax purposes.

  2 Excluding those who have no Inland Revenue tax record because their earnings are below the PAYE reporting limit.

  Tax Allowances
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update his reply of 1 May 1986,Official Report, column to show what extra revenue would result from allowing all tax allowances, both personal and non-structural, at the standard rate of tax only.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 26 January 1988]: The direct revenue cost at 1987–88 levels of income
  94
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 26 January 1988]: The latest available estimates are given in the tables. They are based on projections from the 1984–85 survey of personal incomes and are therefore provisional.

  of allowing personal tax allowances at rates in excess of the basic rate of income tax is estimated to be about £810 million. Information on the similar cost of other income tax reliefs is available only in respect of mortgage interest, retirement annuity premiums, employees' superannuation contributions, the business expansion scheme, and donations to charities; in total it is about £750 million. It is not possible to estimate precisely the combined yield from restricting these reliefs and personal allowances to the basis rate, but it is thought to be about £1,750 million.

  95
  These estimates make no allowance for any possible behavioural effects if allowances and reliefs were to be restricted to the basic rate.

  Forestry
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the implication of Her Majesty's Government policy on the fiscal regime for forests of the report by the economic consultancy PIEDA, commissioned by the Council for the Protection of Rural England on tax relief for forestry, a copy of which has been forwarded to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 1 February 1988]: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give careful consideration to this report along with the many other representations he receives at this time of year.

  Toxic Waste
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what physical checks are made by Customs and Excise officers at all ports registered to receive toxic waste containers, to assess if the inventory carriage notes are commensurate with the materials carried.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 5 February 1988]: Customs and Excise officers do not normally make physical checks to assess whether inventory carriage notes are commensurate with the materials carried in toxic waste containers.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has anything to add to his answer to the hon. Member for Bridgend of 14 January,Official Report, at column 388, concerning privatisation.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 4 February 1988]: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on 14 January.

  Number of patients by specialty on in-patient waiting list as at 31 March 1981 to 1987 for Macclesfield District Health Authority

  Specialty

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  General medicine

  0

  1

  0

  0

  18

  0

  0

  Geriatrics

  51

  27

  13

  14

  11

  0

  8

  General surgery

  1,144

  1,024

  1,047

  1,127

  550

  364

  261

  Ear, nose and throat

  179

  153

  149

  127

  85

  181

  37

  Traumatic and orthopaedic

  590

  658

  555

  463

  326

  310

  270

  Ophthalmology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  71

  Urology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  100

  Oral surgery

  135

  118

  75

  65

  40

  53

  43

  Orthodontics

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  2

  2

  Gynaecology

  372

  334

  337

  231

  201

  249

  139

  Mental handicap

  0

  8

  10

  3

  3

  0

  0

  Mental illness

  53

  48

  34

  17

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  2,524

  2,371

  2,220

  2,047

  1,237

  1,159

  931

  Mentally Ill People
  Mr. Irving
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the cost per annum of caring for mentally ill patients at the lowest and highest dependency level.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Sheffield
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the figures for Sheffield health authority's in-patient waiting lists for each of the years from 1979 to the latest year for which figures are availble.

  Mr. Newton
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Total number of patients on the in-patient waiting list for Sheffield District Health Authority from 31 March 1979 to 31 March 1987.

  Year

  Position at

  Total number of in-patients

  1979

  31 March

  12,111

  31 September

  11,277

  1980

  31 March

  10,919

  31 September

  10,673

  1981

  31 March

  10,932

  31 September

  11,280

  1982

  31 March

  11,924

  31 September

  14,678

  1983

  31 March

  14,216

  31 September

  13,489

  1984

  31 March

  12,488

  31 September

  12,549

  1985

  31 March

  11,659

  31 September

  11,307

  1986

  31 March

  11,903

  31 September

  11,002

  1987

  31 March

  11,051

  Macclesfield Health Authority
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will tabulate by specialty the waiting list figures in the Macclesfield health authority as at 31 March in each year since 1981.

  Mr. Newton
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Mr. Newton
  The Department does not collect information on costs of caring for the mentally ill by dependency level. Health Service costing returns indicate that the cost per in-patient week in a mental illness hospital is £296 at 1987–88 prices.
  97
  Mr. Irving
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what action he proposes to take in response to the criticisms of deficiencies in regional hospital authority plans identified by the Comptroller and Auditor General in the report on community care, HC 108; and what assessment he has made of the impact of such deficiencies of the ability of his Department to formulate an accurate national overview on community care for the mentally ill;

  (2) if it would assist his Department, in overseeing and guiding the development of community care policies, if some aspects of regional health authority plans could be produced to a standard format; what assessment he has made of the areas which could be standardised; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what action he proposes to take to ensure that information about the planned level of local authority services for the mentally ill is included in future National Health Service plans, in the light of the Comptroller and Auditor General's identification of the need for a balanced consideration of the service changes proposed.

  Mr. Newton
  We are considering how we can specify clearly in future planning guidance the key quantitative information we expect plans to contain. This consideration includes services for mentally ill people in the community, whether provided by health authorities themselves or by other agencies.

  Hospitals (Funding)
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will revise his policy of 1982 of not giving extra resources allocated to run newer bigger hospitals in areas where they have been built.

  Mr. Newton
  Special protection within regional health authority allocations for the revenue consequences of capital schemes ceased in 1977–78, when the recommendations of the resource allocation working party were implemented. Regional health authorities are responsible both for planning their capital investment with regard to the likely availability of revenue, and for ensuring that their annual revenue allocations to districts are sensitive to service plans, including new capital developments.

  Hospital Hostels (Places)
  Mr. Irving
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many places in hospital hostels or their equivalent are available in each district health authority.

  Mrs. Currie
  "Hospital hostel" is the name that has been given to a form of accommodation commended in the 1975 White Paper "Better Services for the Mentally Ill" (Cmnd. 6233) in which a small group of long stay patients requiring 24-hour medical and nursing supervision are provided with in-patient care in an informal domestic environment. We intend such units to form a permanent part of district psychiatric services; a number of evaluations have reported encouragingly on the quality of life obtained. I regret that present statistics do not distinguish places in this type of accommodation from other accommodation for psychiatric in-patients.

  Motor Oil
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any proposals for the compulsory 98
  labelling of motor oil, warning of the possible link between used motor oil and skin cancer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  The evidence from animal tests suggests that repeated exposure to used engine oil could lead to the development of skin cancers. However, there is no evidence of an increase in skin cancers among motor mechanics. Any risk will be reduced if those exposed follow good hygiene practice, including using clean protective overalls and washing their hands.

  Labelling is not a matter for the Department. I understand that my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Employment and for the Environment are considering the need for warnings, including labelling. Some manufacturers already label their oils and others are considering doing so. The trade associations recommend that vehicle and workshop manuals include a warning to follow good hygiene practice when changing the oil in vehicles.

  Residential Care Homes
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will list the residential care homes for the elderly run by local authorities in which cases of neglect and cruelty towards residents have resulted in disciplinary action or criminal prosecution against members of staff; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list those members of staff of municipal residential care homes for the elderly and handicapped who have been disciplined or prosecuted for neglect or cruelty towards residents.

  Mrs. Currie
  Disciplinary proceedings against local authority staff are a matter for the local authority concerned, while prosecutions are for the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions and the information requested is not recorded centrally.

  Resettlement Unit, Bishopbriggs
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has reviewed the guarantee given in 1986 that the resettlement unit at Bishopbriggs would not be closed until he is satisfied that there are suitable alternative facilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Since the Government's policy on resettlement units was announced on 5 February 1985, it has been our aim to ensure that suitable alternative schemes are in operation before the units close. That is still our objective and review teams and officials are working towards it, making useful progress in respect of most of the units.

  In the case of Bishopbriggs resettlement unit progress has been slow. Although we cannot guarantee that, regardless of eventualities, the unit will remain open indefinitely, we do believe that it should be possible to provide suitable alternative facilities before closure.

  Retirement Pensioners
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to uprate the 25p additional amount paid to retirement pensioners aged 80 years and over; and if he will make a statement.
  99
  Mr. Scott
  We have no plans at present to increase the 25p addition. Basic pension is however increasing by £1·65 for a single person and £2·65 for a couple in April.

  Special Payments
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many women in the Seaham and Peterlee area will not receive the recently announced £8 special payment because their pension is paid from their husband's pension book; and if he will take steps to rectify this anomaly.

  Mr. Scott
  There are no married women whose retirement pensions are paid from their husbands' order books; all have their own order books and are therefore eligible for an £8 special payment.

  Basingstoke and North Hampshire Health Authority
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what has been the approved financial programme of the Basingstoke and North Hampshire health authority for each year since 1974–75, expressed(a) in cash terms, (b) in real terms (based on 1987–88) and (c) as a real term percentage increase or decrease on each preceding year and on the 1974–75 approved financial programme;

  (2) what has been the cost of the Basingstoke and North Hampshire health authority's development schemes for each year since 1974–75, expressed (a) in cash terms, (b) in real terms (based on 1987–88) and (c) as a real term percentage increase or decrease on each preceding year and as a real term percentage increase or decrease on the 1974–75 development scheme;

  (3) what directly allocated growth and capital funding the Basingstoke and North Hampshire health authority has received each year since 1974–75, expressed (a) in cash terms, (b) in real terms (based on 1987–88) and (c) as a real term percentage increase or decrease on each preceding year and on the 1974–75 allocations;

  Per annual accounts

  At 1987–88 prices

  As a percentage of total revenue expenditure

  Annual increase/(decrease) in real terms at 1987–88 prices

  £'000s

  £'000s

  Annual figure

  Increase/(decrease) in annual figure

  £'000s

  Per cent.

  1982–83

  23,581

  29,384

  74·95

  —

  —

  —

  1983–84

  25,038

  29,807

  74·55

  (0·40)

  423

  1·44

  1984–85

  26,375

  30,058

  74·43

  (0·12)

  251

  0·84

  1985–86

  27,477

  29,550

  73·69

  (0·74)

  (508)

  (1·69)

  1986–87

  29,666

  30,927

  74·27

  0·58

  1,377

  4·66

  1. The figures have been expressed at 1987–88 prices by the use of the Gross Domestic Product deflator.

  2. Prior to 1 April 1982 the authority's predecessor health district formed part of the Hampshire area health authority and district based figures were not collected centrally.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what have been the costs incurred in each year since 1974–75 by the Basingstoke and North Hampshire health authority for (i) cleaning, (ii) catering and (iii) laundry services, expressed(a) in cash terms, (b) in
  100
  (4) by how much in each year since 1974–75 funds budgeted by the Basingstoke and North Hampshire health authority for annual National Health Services pay settlements have exceeded, or been exceeded by, the cost of such settlements expressed (a) in cash terms, (b) in real terms (based on 1987–88) and (c) as a percentage excess-deficit.

  Mrs. Currie
  Allocations to the Basingstoke and North Hampshire health authority and the other information my hon. Friend requests are matters for the Wessex regional health authority. He may like to contact the regional chairman for the information he requires.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what funds the Basingstoke and North Hampshire health authority has raised in each year since 1974–75 through cost improvement programmes-savings against previous years or self-generated additional income, expressed(a) in cash terms, (b) in real terms (based on 1987–88) and (c) as a real term percentage increase or decrease on each preceding year and on the 1974–75 cost improvement programme.

  Mrs. Currie
  In 1986–87, the Basingstoke and North Hampshire health authority reported cash savings of £419,000 from its cost improvement programme. Information is not available centrally for earlier years, but the hon. Member may wish to approach Wessex regional health authority for this information.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the percentage cost in each year since 1974–75 to the approved financial programme of the Basingstoke and North Hampshire health authority of wages and salaries of National Health Service employees, expressed(a) in cash terms, (b) in real terms (based on 1987–88) and (c) as a percentage increase or decrease for each year.

  Mrs. Currie
  Following is information derived from the annual accounts of the Basingstoke and North Hampshire health authority since its establishment on 1 April 1982.

  real terms (based on 1987–88) and (c) as a percentage increase on the cost of the previous year and on the 1974–75 costs.

  Mrs. Currie
  Following is the information requested derived from the annual accounts of the Basingstoke and North Hampshire health authority since its establishment on 1 April 1982:
  101

  Domestic/cleaning services

  Catering services

  Laundry services

  Expenditure per annual accounts

  Expenditure at 1987–88 prices

  Per cent. increase/(decrease) at 1987–88 prices

  Expenditure per annual accounts

  Expenditure at 1987–88 prices

  Per cent. increase/(decrease) at 1987–88 prices

  Expenditure per annual accounts

  Expenditure at 1987–88 prices

  Per cent. increase/(decrease) at 1987–88 prices

  £000

  £000

  over previous year

  over 1982–83

  £000

  £000

  over previous year

  over 1982–83

  £000

  £000

  over previous year

  over 1982–83

  1982–83

  2,120

  2,642

  —

  —

  1,588

  1,979

  —

  —

  211

  263

  —

  —

  1983–84

  2,171

  2,585

  (2·16)

  (2·16)

  1,663

  1,980

  0·05

  0·05

  223

  265

  0·76

  0·76

  1984–85

  2,147

  2,447

  (5·34)

  (7·38)

  1,739

  1,982

  0·10

  0·15

  227

  259

  (2·26)

  (1·52)

  1985–86

  2,046

  2,200

  (10·01)

  (16·73)

  1,829

  1,967

  (0·76)

  (0·61)

  210

  226

  (12·74)

  (14·07)

  1986–87

  1,931

  2,013

  (8·50)

  (23·81)

  1,870

  1,949

  (0·92)

  (1·52)

  196

  205

  (9·25)

  (22·05)

  Notes:

  1. The figures have been expressed at 1987–88 prices by the use of the Gross Domestic Product deflator.

  2. Prior to 1 April 1982 the authority's predecessor health district formed part of the Hampshire Area Health Authority and district based figures were not collected centrally.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many in-patient cases have been treated by the Basingstoke and North Hampshire health authority in each year since 1974–75 and what has been the percentage increase or decrease on the preceding year and on the 1974–75 number of in-patient cases;

  (2) how many day-patient cases have been treated by the Basingstoke and North Hampshire health authority in each year since 1974–75; and what has been the percentage increase or decrease on the preceding year and on the 1974–75 number of day-patient cases;

  (3) how many out-patient cases have been treated by the Basingstoke and North Hampshire health authority in each year since 1974–75; and what has been the percentage increase or decrease on the preceding year and on the 1974–75 out-patient cases;

  (4) how many patients have been treated for chronic renal failure in the Basingstoke and North Hampshire health authority district since 1974–75, or the year in which such treatment became significantly available, expressed also as a percentage increase or decrease on the previous year and on the first year of significant statistics;

  (5) how many hip replacement operations have been performed in the Basingstoke and North Hampshire health authority district since 1974–75, or the year in which such treatment became significantly available, expressed also as a percentage increase or decrease on the previous year and on the first year of significant statistics;

  (6) how many coronary artery by-pass grafts have been performed in the Basingstoke and North Hampshire health authority district since 1974–75, or the year in which

  NHS hospitals, Basingstoke and North Hampshire District Health Authority All specialties

  Year

  Number

  In-patients per cent. change over previous year

  Per cent. change over 1974

  Number

  Day cases per cent. change over previous year

  Per cent. change over 1974

  Number

  Out-patients per cent. change over previous year

  Per cent. change over 1974

  1974

  16,713

  0

  0

  3,341

  0

  0

  78,724

  0

  0

  1975

  15,540

  -7·0

  -7·0

  3,548

  6·2

  6·2

  60,647

  -23·0

  -23·0

  1976

  17,143

  10·3

  2·6

  5,000

  40·9

  49·7

  71,796

  18·4

  -8·8

  1977

  17,871

  4·2

  6·9

  3,551

  -29·0

  6·3

  76,533

  6·6

  -2·8

  102
  such treatment became significantly available, expressed also as a percentage increase or decrease on the previous year and on the first year of significant statistics;

  (7) how many surgical beds have been available in the Basingstoke and North Hampshire health authority each year since 1974–75, expressed also as a percentage increase or decrease on the previous year and on the 1974–75 number of surgical beds;

  (8) how many patients have been treated in surgical beds in the Basingstoke and North Hampshire health authority in each year since 1974–75, expressed also as a percentage increase or decrease on the previous year and on the 1974–75 number of patients;

  (9) how many general medical beds have been available in the Basingstoke and North Hampshire health authority in each year since 1974–75, expressed also as a percentage increase or decrease on the previous year and on the 1974–75 number of general medical beds;

  (10) how many patients have been treated in general medical beds in the Basingstoke and North Hampshire health authority in each year since 1974–75, expressed also as a percentage increase or decrease on the previous year and on the 1974–75, number of patients;

  (11) how many geriatric patients attended day units in the Basingstoke and North Hampshire health authority district in each year since 1974–75 expressed also as a percentage increase or decrease on each preceding year and on the 1974–75 number of geriatric patients.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that I cannot give my hon. Friend all the information he seeks. The available information is given in the tables. My hon. Friend may like to approach the chairman of the Basingstoke and North Hampshire health authority for the further information he requires.
  103

  Year

  Number

  In-patients per cent. change over previous year

  per cent. change over 1974

  Number

  Day cases per cent. change over previous year

  per cent. change over 1974

  Number

  Out-patients per cent. change over previous year

  per cent. change over 1974

  1978

  19,395

  8·5

  16·0

  2,996

  -15·6

  -10·3

  84,445

  10·3

  7·3

  1979

  17,864

  -7·9

  6·9

  3,065

  2·3

  -8·3

  89,592

  6·1

  13·8

  1980

  19,704

  10·3

  17·9

  4,188

  36·6

  25·4

  92,490

  3·2

  17·5

  1981

  19,563

  -0·7

  17·1

  4,188

  0·0

  25·4

  98·338

  6·3

  24·9

  1982

  20,148

  3·0

  20·6

  4·053

  -3·2

  21·3

  99,882

  1·6

  26·9

  1983

  20,701

  2·7

  23·9

  3,533

  -12·8

  5·7

  105,677

  5·8

  34·2

  1984

  22,171

  7·1

  32·7

  3,291

  -6·8

  -1·5

  104,603

  -1·0

  32·9

  1985

  22,128

  -0·2

  32·4

  4,117

  25·1

  23·2

  103,510

  -1·0

  31·5

  1986

  23·201

  4·8

  38·8

  4,431

  7·6

  32·6

  107,532

  3·9

  36·6

  Surgical specialties

  Daily average of available beds

  In-patients

  Year

  Number

  Per cent. change over previous year

  Per cent. change over 1974

  Number

  Per cent. change over previous year

  per cent. change over 1974

  1974

  304·5

  0

  0

  7,114

  0

  0

  1975

  300·2

  -1·4

  -1·4

  6,206

  -12·8

  -12·8

  1976

  278·2

  -7·3

  -8·6

  7,336

  18·2

  3·1

  1977

  287·7

  3·4

  -5·5

  7,563

  3·1

  6·3

  1978

  299·3

  4·0

  -1·7

  8,104

  7·2

  13·9

  1979

  299·7

  0·1

  -1·6

  7,809

  -3·6

  9·8

  1980

  308·5

  2·9

  1·3

  8,503

  8·9

  19·5

  1981

  314·4

  1·9

  3·3

  8,866

  4·3

  24·6

  1982

  313·2

  -0·4

  2·9

  8,970

  1·2

  26·1

  1983

  296·9

  -5·2

  -2·5

  9,374

  4·5

  31·8

  1984

  315·6

  6·3

  3·6

  9,805

  4·6

  37·8

  1985

  308·5

  -2·2

  1·3

  9,170

  -6·5

  28·9

  1986

  288·7

  -6·4

  5·2

  9,090

  -0·9

  27·8

  Medical specialities

  Daily average of available beds

  In-patients

  Year

  Number

  Percentage change over previous year

  Percentage change over 1974

  Number

  Percentage change over previous year

  Percentage change over 1974

  1974

  82·0

  0

  0

  2,772

  0

  0

  1975

  85·0

  3·7

  3·7

  2,669

  -3·7

  -3·7

  1976

  91·9

  8·1

  12·1

  2,845

  6·6

  2·6

  1977

  89·9

  -2·2

  9·6

  3,111

  9·3

  12·2

  1978

  104·3

  16·0

  27·2

  3,500

  12·5

  26·3

  1979

  98·4

  -5·7

  20·0

  3,089

  -11·7

  11·4

  1980

  101·9

  3·6

  24·3

  3,356

  8·6

  21·1

  1981

  103·1

  1·2

  25·7

  3,375

  0·6

  21·8

  1982

  106·2

  3·0

  29·5

  3,763

  11·5

  35·8

  1983

  110·5

  4·0

  34·8

  3,631

  -3·5

  31·0

  1984

  113·4

  2·6

  38·3

  4,083

  12·4

  47·3

  1985

  115·8

  2·1

  41·2

  4,051

  -0·8

  46·1

  1986

  115·0

  -0·7

  40·2

  4,163

  2·8

  50·2

  Geriatric regular day cases: Total attendances

  Year

  Number

  Percentage change over previous year

  Percentage change over 1982

  1974

  n.a.

  —

  —

  1975

  n.a.

  —

  —

  1976

  n.a.

  —

  —

  1977

  n.a.

  —

  —

  1978

  n.a.

  —

  —

  1979

  n.a.

  —

  —

  1980

  n.a.

  —

  —

  1981

  n.a.

  —

  —

  1982

  1,131

  —

  —

  1983

  2,608

  130·6

  130·6

  1984

  2,913

  11·7

  157·6

  1985

  2,893

  -0·7

  155·8

  1986

  2,455

  -15·1

  117·1

  104 105
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many visits by health visitors have been made in the Basingstoke and North Hampshire health authority district in each year since 1974–75; and what has been the percentage increase or decrease on the preceding year and on the 1974–75 number of visits;

  (2) how many people have been visited by health visitors in the Basingstoke and North Hampshire health

  Persons visited by health visitors (first visit)

  Basingstoke and North Hampshire District Health Authority

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Number of persons visited by Health Vistors

  13,883

  13,696

  13,986

  14,102

  14,239

  per cent. change year by year

  —

  -1·3

  2·1

  0·8

  1·0

  per cent. change from 1982

  —

  -1·3

  0·7

  1·6

  2·6

  Notes:

  1. A visit includes each occasion when professional help or advice is given by health visiting staff.

  2. The "first visit" refers to the first visit received by a person from any member of the health visiting staff during the calendar year for any problem.

  3. Visits to households where there is tuberculosis or other infectious diseases are not included in this table.

  Total visits made by health visitors

  Basingstoke and North Hampshire District Health Authority

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Total visits

  46,484

  44,569

  46,958

  49,135

  49,430

  per cent. change year by year

  —

  -4·1

  5·4

  4·6*

  0·6

  per cent. change from 1982

  —

  -4·1

  1·0

  5·7

  6·3

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the cost of capital projects undertaken by the Basingstoke and North Hampshire health authority in each year since 1974–75, expressed(a) in cash terms, (b) in real terms based on 1987–88 figures

  Total capital expenditure

  Per annual accounts

  At 1987–88 prices

  Percentage increase/(decrease) at 1987–88 prices

  £000

  £000

  On preceding year

  On 1982–83

  1982–83

  2,427

  3,024

  —

  —

  1983–84

  2,356

  2,805

  (7·24)

  (7·24)

  1984–85

  3,081

  3,511

  27·17

  16·10

  1985–86

  3,314

  3,564

  1·51

  17·86

  1986–87

  3,682

  3,838

  7·69

  26·92

  Notes:

  1. The figures have been expressed at 1987–88 prices by the use of the Gross Domestic Product deflator.

  2. The figures include sums in respect of capital schemes within the district recorded in the annual accounts of the Wessex Regional Health Authority. Expenditure incurred by the latter authority for the region as a whole is excluded.

  3. Prior to 1 April 1982 the authority's predecessor health district formed part of the Hampshire Area Health Authority and district based figures were not collected centrally.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many places there have been in adult training centres for the mentally handicapped in the Basingstoke and North Hampshire health authority in each year since 1974–75, or the first year of the significant availability of such places, expressed also as a percentage increase or decrease on the previous year and on the 1974–75 figure, or the first significant year;

  (2) how many adults attended training centres for the mentally handicapped in the Basingstoke and North
  106
  authority district in each year sinc 1974–75; and what has been the percentage increase or decrease on the preceding year and on the 1974–75 number of people visited.

  Mrs. Currie
  Basingstoke and North Hampshire District Health Authority was formed in 1982. Comparable figures are not available before that date when these data were collected by area health authority only. The available information is given in the table.

  and (c) as a real term percentage increase or decrease on each preceding year and on the 1974–75, capital project cost.

  Mrs. Currie
  Following is the information derived from the annual accounts of the Basingstoke and North Hampshire health authority since its establishment on 1 April 1982:

  Hampshire health authority in each year since 1974–75, or the first year of the significant availability of places at such centres, expressed also as a percentage increase or decrease on the previous year and on the 1974–75 figure, or for the first significant year.

  Mrs. Currie
  Information on the number of places for mentally handicapped people in adult training centres is given in the table. It is based on the number of places reported by Hampshire social services department. The
  107
  information my hon. Friend seeks on the number of people attending adult training centres is not available centrally. He may wish to approach the Hampshire social services department for the further information he requires.

  Number of places for mentally handicapped people in adult training centres in the area covered by Basingstoke and North Hampshire DHA, and percentage changes, 1982–87.

  Percentage Change

  Number of places (at 31 March)

  On 1982

  On previous year

  1982

  232

  —

  —

  1983

  232

  0·0

  0·0

  1984

  246

  6·0

  6·0

  1985

  246

  6·0

  0·0

  1986

  252

  8·6

  2·4

  1987

  252

  8·6

  0·0

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what funds have been devoted by the Basingstoke and North Hampshire health authority to the care and treatment of the mentally ill in each year since 1974–75, expressed(a) in cash terms, (b) in real terms based on 1974–75 and (c) as a real term percentage increase or decrease on each preceding year and on the 1974–75 allocation.

  Mrs. Currie
  Information on health authority expenditure by type of patient is not collected centrally: hospital costing returns submitted to the Department show expenditure on hospitals of different types and costing returns in respect of community health services show expenditure relating to the major areas of activity only.

  Following is information derived from the hospital costing returns submitted by the Basingstoke and North Hampshire health authority since its establishment on 1 April 1982:

  Revenue expenditure on hospitals categorised "mental illness"

  Per costing returns

  At 1987–88 prices

  Percentage increase/(decrease) at 1987–88 prices

  £000

  £000

  On preceding year

  On 1982–83

  1982–83

  8,285

  10,324

  —

  —

  1983–84

  8,645

  10,291

  (0·32)

  (0·32)

  1984–85

  8,800

  10,029

  (2·55)

  (2·86)

  1985–86

  9,104

  9,791

  (2·37)

  (5·16)

  1986–87

  9,429

  9,830

  0·40

  (4·78)

  Notes:

  1. The figures have been expressed at 1987–88 prices by the use of the Gross Domestic Product deflator.

  2. The figures exclude expenditure on hospitals categorised "mental handicap" and expenditure incurred for the mentally ill within community health services. The latter costs are not separately identifiable centrally.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many mentally ill patients have been treated

  NHS Staff by Main Staff Groups: in Post Basingstoke and North Hampshire District Health Authority 30 September

  Whole-time Equivalents1

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Medical and Dental2

  100

  90

  100

  90

  90

  Nursing and Midwifery3

  1,710

  1,730

  1,710

  1,660

  1,680

  108
  by the Basingstoke and North Hampshire health authority in each year since 1974–75, expressed also as a percentage increase or decrease on each previous year and on the 1974–75 number of patients.

  Mrs. Currie
  The number of admissions of in-patients into mental illness hospitals and units, managed by the Basingstoke and North Hampshire health authority, for each year since 1974, are shown in the table.

  The figures do not relate to individuals, and will include patients who have been discharged and readmitted during each year.

  Year of admission

  Number of admissions of mentally ill patients

  Percentage change in admissions on previous year

  Percentage change in admissions on 1974

  1974

  1,001

  1

  1

  1975

  982

  -1·9

  -1·9

  1976

  1,103

  +12·3

  +10·2

  1977

  1,060

  -3·9

  +5·9

  1978

  1,138

  +7·4

  +13·7

  1979

  1,129

  -0·8

  +12·8

  1980

  1,278

  +13·2

  +27·7

  1981

  1,252

  -2·0

  +25·1

  1982

  1,034

  -17·4

  +3·3

  1983

  1,133

  +9·6

  +13·2

  1984

  1,102

  -2·7

  +101

  1985

  1,305

  +18·4

  +30·4

  1986

  1,518

  +16·3

  +51·6

  1 Not available.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people in the Basingstoke and North Hampshire health authority district have received help to pay for residential and nursing care in each year since 1974–75, expressed also as a percentage increase or decrease on each previous year and on the 1974–75 number of patients.

  Mrs. Currie
  People in independent residential care or nursing homes can claim supplementary benefit to help with their fees. Information on the numbers claiming supplementary benefit in homes in the area of the Basingstoke and North Hampshire health authority could be obtained for this period only at disproportionate cost.

  Health authorities may enter into contractual arrangements with private health care providers, but must meet the costs incurred. Health authorities have no power to pay part of the costs of a patient's care in private establishments.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people, divided into convenient categories of employment, particularly specifying nursing staff, have been employed by the Basingstoke and North Hampshire health authority in each year since 1974–75.

  Mrs. Currie
  Because of the 1982 NHS reorganisation, figures on a consistent basis are not held centrally for years prior to 1982.

  The available information from 1982 is shown in the table.
  109

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Professional and Technical (Excluding Works)

  200

  220

  220

  230

  250

  Works

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  Maintenance

  90

  90

  80

  80

  70

  Administrative and Clerical

  360

  390

  370

  380

  380

  Ancillary

  740

  730

  710

  660

  600

  Total NHS Staff

  3,230

  3,270

  3,220

  3,110

  3,080

  Source: DHSS Annual Censuses of NHS Medical and Non-medical Manpower.

  1 Figures are independently rounded to the nearest ten (10) whole-time equivalents.

  2 Includes permanent paid, honorary and locum staff. Excludes all Consultants and Senior Registrars whose contracts are held by the regional health authority.

  3 Includes agency staff.

  Drugs
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what measures he proposes to take to control the rising cost of the drugs bill to National Health Service hospitals.

  Mr. Newton
  The Department is taking a wide range of measures to control the drugs bill in National Health Service hospitals. In the last year each region has reviewed pharmaceutical buying and has drawn up an action plan to ensure maximum value for money, particularly in high-spend, high-volume medicines.

  The Department has also encouraged the formulation of local multi-disciplinary drug and therapeutic committees to promote the rational and economic use of drug therapy. These are now commonplace within health authorities, and an effective means they are adopting to achieve their objective is the use of hospital drug formularies. Following the Nuffield report, the Department is also reviewing clinical pharmacy which could further assist in improving the cost-effectiveness of expenditure on drugs in hospitals.

  Agency Staff
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what measures he proposes to take to control charges imposed on the National Health Service by agencies which provide locum staff replacements for hospitals;

  (2) what approaches he has made to the Wessex region with regard to the control of charges imposed on the National Health Service by agencies providing locum staff replacements for hospitals within the Wessex region;

  (3) what approaches or responses he has received from the Wessex region with regard to the control of charges imposed on the National Health Service by agencies providing locum staff replacements for hospitals within the Wessex region.

  Mr. Newton
  The Basingstoke and North Hampshire health authority has expressed concern, in correspondence with officials, about the costs of locum medical staff engaged through agencies. A number of regional health authorities are currently collaboratng with the aim of containing such costs. We intend to consider the need and scope for central action in the light of their progress.

  Basingstoke District Hospital (Appointments)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people in each year since 1974–75 have been taken to and from Basingstoke district hospital for day appointments by the ambulance service.
  110
  Mrs. Currie
  I am sorry that the information my hon. Friend seeks is not available centrally. He may like to contact the chairman of the Winchester health authority, which is responsible for the Hampshire ambulance service, for the information he requires.

  Thamesmead Town Limited
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many applications for housing benefit by tenants of Thamesmead Town Ltd. include service charges; and what advice has been provided by his Department to Thamesmead Town Ltd., Greenwich council and Bexley council about the eligibility of service charges for housing benefit.

  Mr. Portillo
  Information on the number of applications for housing benefit by tenants of Thamesmead Town Ltd. which include service charges is not held centrally. Advice on both the existing regulations and the regulations which take effect in April has been issued to all authorities with responsibility for the administration of housing benefit, including the London boroughs of Greenwich and Bexley. The most recent guidance makes it clear that our policy remains that charges for services which the tenant has no option but to pay and which are connected with the provision of adequate accommodation should be eligible for housing benefit.

  Minister for the Disabled
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the responsibilities of the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled.

  Mr. Scott
  The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled has particular responsibility for co-ordinating policy on disablement and for benefits, aids and services for disabled people. These functions are discharged in conjunction with other departmental Ministers as necessary.

  AIDS
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has about the decision of the United States national institutes of health to instruct all biological laboratories to review their safety guidelines following the reported infection of two laboratory workers with the AIDS virus after working with concentrated samples; and whether he will carry out such a review of procedures in medical and biological laboratories in England.
  111
  Mr. Newton
  We are aware of the recent decision of the United States national institutes of health to instruct all biological laboratories to review safety guidelines. Such a review was carried out in the United Kingdom by the advisory committee on dangerous pathogens which, in 1986, issued revised guidelines on the safe handling of laboratory specimens containing the AIDS virus — including working with concentrated samples. These guidelines apply to all medical and biological laboratories in the United Kingdom and have been endorsed by the health departments, the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive.

  Abortions
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make it his policy to(a) gather and (b) publish the names of individual doctors concerned in abortions after 18 weeks' gestation carried out in the private sector; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  Information about doctors carrying out abortions in all private sector places approved under the Abortion Act is provided to the Department on a confidential basis.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the figure for the number of abortion notifications mentioning rape in cases where abortions were performed at or after 18 weeks' gestation in the latest period for which figures were collected.

  Mr. Newton
  Statistics on the number of abortion notification forms which mention rape may be provided reliably only for the period from 1 January 1987. The provisional number of abortion notification forms with any mention of rape, for gestation at 18 completed weeks and over for the period 1 January to 31 October 1987 inclusive is one.

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the number of fully equipped emergency ambulances in the London ambulance service on 31 December 1987; what are the changes planned in that number for future years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  There were 363 emergency ambulances on 31 December 1987. Of these, the 263 "front-line" ambulances were all equipped with "motivus resuscitation packs"; the rest were day ambulances which are otherwise fully equipped but do not carry resuscitation packs.

  Following a detailed examination of day ambulances, the London ambulance service found that the work allocated to them could be more effectively dealt with by transferring the patient workload to non-emergency vehicles and front-line ambulances. On average, 450 walking and chair case patients per day will be transferred to non-emergency vehicles and 97 stretcher case patients per day will be transferred to front-line ambulances. Front-line and non-emergency staff complements are to be amended to take up the transferred work.

  As a result of removing the patient demand from 100 day ambulances, the total emergency fleet size of ambulances will be reduced as follows:
  112

  During Year

  Fleet Size

  Ended 31 December 1987

  363

  1987–88

  351

  1988–89

  314

  1989–90

  273

  This planned reduction of 90 ambulances will be closely monitored by the London ambulance service and pursued only if there proves to be sufficient flexibility in the fleet to deal with peaks in demand and large-scale incidents.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the number of crews of emergency ambulances rostered, or planned for, by the London ambulance service during each 24-hour cycle of normal weekdays in 1987; whether any changes are planned in that number for the future; and what are the reasons for any change of policy.

  Mrs. Currie
  The number of crews of emergency ambulances rostered by the London ambulance service during each 24 hours of normal weekdays in 1987 and planned for the future are:

  Shift period

  Number of rostered crews in 1987

  Number of rostered crews planned

  Early shifts

  170

  188

  Late shifts

  154

  151

  Night shifts

  94

  90

  The London ambulance service's aim is to achieve a better balance of resources throughout London in line with patterns of demand and a more effective relief system for covering absences. This will bring about a further improvement in the response time of ambulances to emergency incidents. Relief staff will be increased from 164 to 270, thereby increasing the actual number of manned front-line ambulances.

  The effect on the staffing levels of the service, including additional ambulance persons to convey non-emergency patients transferred from day ambulances is as follows:

  Proposed

  Change

  Staff rostered on front-line ambulances (including extra staff for day ambulance stretcher cases)

  1,161

  +17

  Relief staff

  270

  +106

  Emergency service staffing

  +123

  Day ambulance staff

  0

  -200

  Non-emergency ambulance personnel

  853

  +93

  Whole service

  2,284

  +16

  Sight Test
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many sight tests were carried out under the National Health Service during the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available; and if he will make an estimate of the number of such tests for which payment will be demanded, allowing for the proposed exemptions, if the charges proposed in the Health and Medicines Bill are enacted.

  Mr. Newton
  Some 10·75 million sight tests were conducted in England under the NHS in the 12-month period to 30 June 1987. We estimate that around 70 per cent. of sight tests would in future be paid for privately.

  Claimants (Wales)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the total number of claimants(a) claiming for board and lodging from his Department and (b) with dependent children in the latest year for which figures are available (i) in Wales and (ii) in each of the Department of Employment travel-to-work areas in Wales.

  Mr. Portillo
  In May 1987 an estimated 8,000 people were claiming for board and lodging accommodation charges in Wales. Less than 500 had dependent children. I regret that the information requested on the numbers in each of the Department of Employment travel-to-work areas in Wales is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. These estimates have been obtained from the Department's May 1987 quarterly

  2 August 1983

  31 July 1984

  31 July 1985

  13 August 1986

  29 July 1987

  Cleveland

  (Eston, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Redcar, Stockton)

  67,458

  75,340

  79,214

  78,781

  74,048

  Northumberland

  (Ashington, Berwick, Blyth, Hexham)

  19,543

  20,218

  21,298

  21,229

  21,235

  Durham

  (Bishop Auckland, Chester-le-Street, Darlington, Durham, Peterlee, Scaham, Stanley)

  59,262

  62,557

  65,603

  65,263

  63,247

  Tyne and Wear

  (Gateshead, Houghton-le-Spring, Jarrow, Newcastle St. James, Newcastle East, Newcastle West, North Shields, South Shields, Sunderland North, Sunderland South, Wallsend)

  144,005

  153,122

  160,354

  158,940

  157,404

  Source: 100 per cent. count of cases in action at the dates specified.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people were receiving supplementary benefit for 1983–84, 1984–85, 1985–86, 1986–87 and the

  2 August 1983

  31 July 1984

  31 July 1985

  13 August 1986

  29 July 1987

  Darlington

  12,779

  13,406

  14,467

  15,005

  14,481

  Bishop Auckland

  13,587

  14,510

  14,937

  15,212

  14,290

  Peterlee

  6,411

  7,046

  7,392

  7,316

  7,304

  Source: 100 per cent. count of cases in action at the dates specified

  Social Security Reform
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the basis and the sources from which he compiled the estimated number of claimants in Great Britain who will be eligible for transitional payments under the income support scheme.

  Mr. Scott
  The source used for estimating the number of transitional additions under income support is the 1986 annual statistical inquiry, the latest information available, uprated to take account of subsequent increases in benefit rates. The rules governing the award and calculation of transitional additions have been applied to this information to provide the estimates.
  114
  statistical inquiry. The sample size for this exercise is too small to obtain a precise figure of the number of claimants with dependent children.

  Supplementary Benefit (North-East)
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people were receiving supplementary benefit for 1983–84, 1984–85, 1985–86, 1986–87 and the latest figures for 1987–88, for(a) Cleveland, (b) Durham, (c) Northumbria and (d) Tyne and Wear.

  Mr. Portillo
  Information is not available in the precise form requested. The Department's local offices serving each district are listed although the boundaries are not conterminous.

  The number of people in receipt of supplementary benefit is as follows:

  latest figures for 1987–88, for his Department's local offices at (a) Darlington, (b) Bishop Auckland and (c) Peterlee.

  Mr. Portillo
  The number of people in receipt of supplementary benefit for the years requested is as follows:

  RPI Error
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps are being taken to rectify the anomaly as between persons with multiple benefits payable from one payment book receiving one payment and those with separate books for different benefits receiving one payment for each benefit, under the scheme intended to correct the effect of the error in the retail price index.

  Mr. Scott
  We do not propose to alter the arrangements for the special payments exercise, which is designed to combine as far as possible fairness with speed of payment. Having benefits combined on one order book does not
  115
  automatically mean that the claimant has suffered more than once from the error in the RPI. The ex-gratia special payments fully compensate the great majority of people who have combined books: less than 10 per cent. of them will be under-compensated for the RPI error because of the method of payment.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many representations he has received regarding the offer of only one special payment to cover more than one social security benefit, following the error in the retail price index.

  Mr. Scott
  About 40.

  Social Security (Young Claimants)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate how many 16 and 17-year-olds who are not still in education deliberately choose to remain on social security rather than take a job or accept a training place.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to the information contained in my hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) on 7 December 1987, at column 57, and also to the reply which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment gave to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), on 17 November 1987, at column 509.

  NHS Pay Deal
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) whether Her Majesty's Government will fully fund the 1988–89 Health Service workers' pay deal;

  (2) whether Her Majesty's Government will pay the 1988–89 Health Service workers' pay rise from 1 April.

  Mr. Newton
  The additional funds which health authorities have been given for 1988–89 are intended to cover all pay and price rises. The Government will await the recommendations of the review bodies before taking any decisions on implementation and funding.

  General Practitioner Consultations
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the estimated cost of each general practitioner consultation in England in 1986–87.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Oldchurch Hospital, Romford
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has as to the results of the experimental reception system in the accident and emergency department Oldchurch hospital, Romford; and if he will make a statement on its possible adoption throughout the National Health Service.

  Mrs. Currie
  I understand that the nurse practitioner scheme, introduced in the accident and emergency 116
  department at Oldchurch hospital in 1986, has enabled patient care to be improved by reducing waiting times and inappropriate attendances.

  We welcome the scheme and the recognition given to it by the award of the RIPA-Hay first prize for managerial innovation in the public sector in 1987 to Barking, Havering and Brentwood health authority. I understand that the health authority will shortly be publishing information about the scheme to other health authorities.

  Nurses (Shifts)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received concerning the present pattern of nurses shifts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I am not aware of any representations, although I am aware of some local difficulties over proposed changes in the pattern of nurses shifts.

  Detailed rostering arrangements are for local decision. Following reports by our auditors in 1983 of apparently wasteful use of nursing time due to log shift overlaps in some places, health authorities were asked to review this matter generally. Several health authorities have managed to re-order their nursing rosters to achieve more efficient working patterns without detriment to the service. It is important that others do the same and all should keep shift patterns under constant review.

  Health authorities are asked to report any changes in the deployment of nursing staff in their short-term programmes and the matter will also feature in the normal review process as necessary.

  Single Payments
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish a table showing the expenditure on single payments by each local office of his Department as a sum per head of the claimants registered with each office.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 14 January 1988]: The information the hon. Member seeks has now been placed in the Library.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish a table showing the relevant figures in table 14.1 of Cm. 288-II adjusted by the hospital and community health services pay and price deflator.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 26 January 1988]: The figures requested are given in the table for the years from 1982–83 to 1986–87. No forecasts of pay and price movements have been made for subsequent years. In addition health authorities had the benefit of recurrent savings of the order of £400 million over this period at 1986–87 prices from cash-releasing cost-improvement programmes.
  117

  Hospital community health and related services

  £ million

  1982–83 outturn

  1983–84 outturn

  1984–85 outturn

  1985–86 outturn

  1986–87 outturn

  Current expenditure

  Gross

  10,355

  10,364

  10,356

  10,368

  10,421

  Charges

  90

  96

  96

  99

  101

  Net

  10,264

  10,267

  10,260

  10,270

  10,320

  Capital expenditure

  Gross

  835

  846

  915

  940

  961

  Receipts

  23

  39

  57

  90

  149

  Net

  812

  808

  859

  850

  812

  Note: The above figures are at 1986–87 price levels, after adjusting for HCHS current and capital pay and price inflation.

  Mentally Handicapped Patients
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the amount of his Department's allocation specifically for the care of mentally handicapped patients.
  118
  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 5 February 1988]: In the main the Department does not allocate funds for specific purposes. Within a national framework of health care priorities it is for each health authority to determine how its resources, including allocations, should be used.

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

Military Doctrines: NATO/Warsaw Pact
Lord Kennet: 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 response NATO has made to the Warsaw Pact proposal of May 1987 that member states should meet "with the aim of comparing the military doctrines of both alliances".
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, NATO last week concluded its consideration of the proposal. The alliance would be ready under certain conditions to address the question of military doctrine in discussions with the Warsaw Pact.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, what are those conditions and who will conduct the discussions?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we do not see any purpose in discussion of military doctrine in the abstract divorced from military capabilities on which any doctrine must necessarily depend. However, we see some value in it on the basis of concrete information about the size of each other's forces.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for that reply which indicates a constructive reaction from NATO and Her Majesty's Government. Will he indicate the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards the Warsaw Pact proposal? To what extent do Her Majesty's Government believe that the doctrine of flexible response would be affected by such discussions?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it is not the practice of NATO as an organisation to respond formally to declarations, such as that on military doctrine, from the Warsaw Pact. This is a matter for individual members to decide for themselves but, as I said, the alliance stands ready on certain conditions to address the question in discussions. I do not think that I can go any further than that.
As to flexible response, given the massive superiority of the Warsaw Pact, mobility is obviously essential to alliance defensive capabilities as is the ability to counterattack from the air as a means of neutralising Warsaw Pact reserve forces.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, could one begin by discussing the fact that membership of NATO is voluntary and membership of the Warsaw Pact is not?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. NATO is a voluntary organisation of independent democratic nations grouped together for collective self-defence. The Warsaw Pact is none of those things.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister nevertheless agree, despite all the stuff we have just heard, that the Warsaw Pact happens to exist and that many people believe it could still constitute a threat to this country? What is wrong with that? Does the Minister not agree that the NATO countries may want to discuss this proposition in view of the remarkable change in atmosphere in the Soviet Union? Does he not think that something could be gained, even though at all times we must insist on completely acceptable verification under any new agreement or proposed agreement?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think that it would be a mistake to equate the two organisations. As for the point about verification which the noble Lord mentioned, that of course goes rather wider than this Question.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is it not the case that there is no channel of communication at present

3
between NATO and the Warsaw Pact? In the light of the first Answer that the Minister gave, will the Government not consider trying to establish a regular means of communication between the two organisations so that these matters can be discussed regularly and frequently?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I do not think that that is a realistic proposition. In any consideration of a matter such as this, it is important that we be sure that discussion of doctrines does not merely provide a propaganda vehicle for the East to hammer away at Western nuclear policies and to criticise flexible response. We must guard against that. It is only prudent to establish a sound basis on which the discussions that I have mentioned could take place.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us believe that the words "military doctrines" are quite ridiculous? What is really meant is "military intentions". Is there not all the difference in the world between NATO and the Warsaw Pact on that?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very valid point.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that the question of short-range nuclear missiles is bound to come up in any such discussions and that there seems to be some uncertainty as to the policy of NATO concerning such missiles? Can he help us on that?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I should have thought that all sorts of things would crop up in the discussions.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that the whole House is aware that Question Time sometimes proceeds rather quickly, even when one is not intending that? After he has had a moment to consider, will he tell us the conditions under which NATO would be willing to accept this invitation to discuss military doctrine with the Warsaw Pact? Will he also tell us who will conduct the discussions on behalf of NATO? If the answer to either of, or both, those questions is classified, will he say why?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, any discussion of doctrine must take second place to the overriding need to launch a new round of conventional stability negotiations currently the subject of informal Warsaw Pact-NATO discussions in Vienna as well as further talks on confidence-building. That is a very important feature. I do not have information on those who might take part under any circumstances.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Lord try a little harder to answer the question I put to him?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord's question went considerably wider than the Question on the Order Paper, which is concerned specifically
4
with military doctrine as brought forward by the Warsaw Pact in May last year.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, are we not getting into an entirely untenable position? If we can have discussions between America and the evil empire which result in an agreement, why cannot we have discussions between the Warsaw Pact and NATO?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it is not the practice of NATO as an organisation to respond formally to declarations from the Warsaw Pact.

Armed Forces: Alcohol/Drug Abuse
2.44 p.m.
Lord Blyth: 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 steps they are taking to treat armed forces personnel who are dependent on alcohol and other addictive drugs.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that satisfactory procedures do exist in the armed forces for the control of alcohol and drug abuse. I refer your Lordships to the evidence given to the Armed Forces Bill Committee in February 1986, a copy of which is in the Library.
Lord Blyth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that excellent reply. Can he say whether the forces use private treatment centres, and, if not, why not? If they do, who pays for that treatment? Can he also assure the House, bearing in mind that this is an extremely sensitive and rather secretive problem, that adequate channels are available for close relatives of people who may have this problem—perhaps the wives—to receive adequate, sympathetic advice and help?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I said in the earlier Answer, I believe that we have the facilities in place for the purposes which the noble Lord has rightly described. Perhaps the most important are those at the three main service hospitals in the United Kingdom. They are the Royal Naval Hospital at Haslar; the Royal Air Force Hospital at Wroughton; and the army hospital at Woolwich. There are also units in Hong Kong and Germany. All those hospitals have an appropriate range of staff to deal with these problems. There are also other arrangements relating to the more informal purposes to which the noble Lord referred.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, in any of the hundred cases of alleged bullying, intimidation or ill-treatment that have been investigated since 1986, can the Minister say whether alcohol or drug abuse was in any sense judged to be a contributory factor?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not think that I can claim that there was no question of any

5
drunkenness in the cases to which the noble Lord has referred. The fact of the matter is, I fear, that for generations soldiers have been involved in drinking to a greater or lesser extent, and I dare say there was some evidence of that in the cases to which the noble Lord has drawn attention. However, that is perhaps another question.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, what education is given to the armed forces on the problems of drug or alcohol addiction?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we conducted a major study into these matters two or three years ago with particular reference to the possibility of drug abuse in the armed forces. Following that study, a range of new educational facilities have been put in place including lectures to those going abroad on exercise to countries where this may be a problem, the issue of leaflets and posters, and other forms of personal education.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the front line on the Somme in 1915 we were given a tot of rum at daybreak and that this did a great deal to keep up our spirits when we were standing up to our waists in water?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that only goes to show that there are two sides to any question.

NHS: Ward Closures
2.47 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: 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 how many hospital wards have been closed during 1987 in order to effect financial savings, and whether they intend to take steps to bring them back into use as soon as possible.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, temporary closures may be made for a number of reasons; for example, staff shortages, damage to buildings and to prevent the spread of infection. It is for health authorities to decide when such measures are necessary, and information is not collected centrally on such closures or the reasons for them. Where such closures have been made to avoid overspending, the extra £75 million funding announced by my right honourable friend the Minister for Health in another place on 16th December has already enabled some re-openings.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that not very satisfactory reply. In view of the number of closures that have been reported over the past 12 months, can he tell the House what has happened to the DHSS guidelines of 1975, which stated that no patient requiring urgent hospital
6
treatment should have to wait more than one month, and no patient requiring any hospital treatment should have to wait more than 12 months?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, every endeavour is made by health authorities to meet those guidelines. Indeed, we are constantly looking at them to see whether such matters can be improved. However, it should be pointed out that demand for health care is totally uncontrolled. It is true that a number of districts are having difficulty remaining within their budgets this year. It should be remembered that managers are responsible for health authorities keeping within the law and, although they plan their district finances very carefully, they do not control the clinical decisions which determine the level of expenditure.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord prepared to examine the situation which has occurred in one or two London hospitals where the staff have endeavoured to the best of their ability to reduce waiting lists but, on accomplishing that, have been punished by having wards closed? Does the Minister not consider that such instances at St. Bartholomew's and one or two other London hospitals ought to be examined so as to keep up the morale of the staff—if achieving nothing else— whose endeavours during the past few months have been wonderful?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I certainly agree with the second half of the noble Lord's supplementary question. The endeavours of the staff have been very praiseworthy indeed. I do not believe that anyone is being punished in the way that the noble Lord suggests. What has happened is that staff, particularly in London, have not been available for extra beds made available at the beginning of the financial year. That is why we have reached the present position.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the word "punishment" was that used when I spoke to senior surgeons, senior physicians and specialists, and senior midwives and nursing sisters. They said to me, "For our endeavours we are being punished"—
Lord Denham: Question!
Lord Molloy: Will the noble Lord not examine the situation?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, that may or may not be true; but I still do not believe that it is an appropriate word.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, whether or not the word "punishment" is right, is it not true that temporary closures are still taking place? In view of what the Minister said about health districts overspending, is not the message to the Government from doctors, nurses, patients and, overwhelmingly from taxpayers, quite clear—that the Chancellor really must use some of his surpluses to make a significant and major infusion of funds into the National Health Service to stop the bleeding that is now going on?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if the noble Lord is referring to the Budget, he knows as well as I do that this is not an appropriate moment to comment on what may or may not be contained in my right honourable friend's Budget Statement. Having said that, the decisions on what to pay for have already been made. The Budget tells us how to pay for them.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is not so much a question of consideration by the Chancellor but that of a fundamental review of the service which I understand my right honourable friend the Prime Minister proposes to undertake? Is it not the case that all these questions on specific issues are very valuable and constructive but that they merge into a greater question for fundamental review?
Noble Lords: Question.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My noble friend did ask a question.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I certainly accept that there are many differing aspects to what is widely described as the health service problem, which principally exists within the acute services. It is because there are so many different aspects to it that an inquisition is being undertaken.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is it not true that this very last-minute "inquisition" by the Prime Minister is one conducted by Ministers and civil servants and includes no independent people from the medical or nursing professions? It is a political exercise, does the Minister not agree?
Lord Skelmersdale: Most certainly not, my Lords. As I said in the House, I believe in answer to a supplementary question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, the other day, any thoughts that can be given by your Lordships, the professional bodies or anyone else will be well received by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.
Lord Hayter: My Lords, does the Minister really imply from his reply to the Question that the department does not know the number of wards that have been affected by financial savings?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, what I said was that there are no centrally collected facts and figures for such closures or the reasons for them. I pointed out that financial reasons are not the only criteria for temporary closures.
Lord Ennals: Should the information not be available, my Lords?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it never has been, and the arrangements within the NHS currently—and during the time of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals—do not enable such figures to be collected.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, will the noble Lord and his right honourable and honourable friends get right away from the misconception that the demands on National Health Service facilities are infinite? Everyone knows the average time people are going to live and the incidence of disease in the population. Therefore, there is some means of calculating what the requirements of the National Health Service will be.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if that were so, I wish the noble Countess would tell me.

Hospital Proposals for Westminster
2.55 p.m.
Lord Ennals: 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 will make a statement on the futures of the Westminster Hospital and the Westminster Children's Hospital in the light of proposals made by the Riverside Health Authority.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, Riverside Health Authority is consulting formally on a proposal to build a new Westminster and Chelsea Hospital on the site of St. Stephen's Hospital, Fulham. The consultation paper shows that if a new hospital were to be built as is proposed, other hospitals in the district, including the Westminster on its present site and Westminster Children's Hospital, would close. A decision on such a project would be taken only after thorough consideration of the implications for patients, and assessment of the financial and other aspects of the proposal.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, in view of the drastic proposals by the Riverside Health Authority to reshape the hospital provision in the district—which involves, as the Minister said, the closure of four major and well-renowned hospitals, leaving no hospital provision whatever in the Westminster area and the demolition of St. Stephen's Hospital to make room for a new 680-bed hospital—is it not imperative that the Secretary of State should call in that proposal to satisfy himself that if carried through it will provide an effective and adequate service for the people of the whole of Riverside and not just one end of it?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, clearly, as I have said, Ministers have to approve the financial aspects of the scheme as a whole. It would be impossible—in fact, it would not be impossible but improper—to do that without recognising the considerations such as the effect on patients, the cost and benefits, how the scheme would be funded and whether it would give good value for money. Those are the kinds of issues that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, is interested in.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, is it right that the review will cover not only costs but the terms of reference for work done by different bands of nurses

9
thereby possibly negating the Salmon Committee report? If the review considers the roles of different types of nurses that will take time. Will it be part of the review? Am I correct in that?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am slightly confused, but I believe my noble friend is talking about the clinical grading review of trained or untrained nurses in our hospitals. So far as I know, that is not directly related to the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Government are convinced of the necessity for a major hospital to serve Westminster? Will he also confirm that, in the current state of knowledge, there is no better alternative available than the present Westminster Hospital?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if by "Westminster" the noble Lord means the Houses of Parliament, quite clearly arrangements both for emergency and primary health care treatment of Members of your Lordships' House and those of another place would be a most important factor in reaching any decision in the matter.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I do not mean only Members of this House— important as they are—but also the denizens of Westminster.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if the noble Lord means more widely, then clearly it is necessary to consider the effect on patients, as I have said. By that I mean all patients in the Riverside Health Authority area.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Westminster Hospital site is very valuable from the point of view of development? Will he give an assurance that the development value of the site will have nothing whatever to do with the hospital's continuance or closure?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, any of the sites mentioned in the scheme have quite a high potential cash value. It will be necessary to consider the whole scheme and the financial aspects of it all at the same time. I am afraid I cannot give the kind of guarantee for which the noble Lord is asking.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I find it astonishing that the Minister will not give an assurance on the financial implications of developing the site for other purposes than a hospital. Surely an assurance can be given that the only decision that can be made is for the benefit of the health service.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I thought that I had already clarified that matter. However, it is equally obvious to me that financial considerations will have to be taken into account.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister aware that those involved in the AIDS unit, which is an extremely important unit at St. Stephen's Hospital,
10
are gravely concerned about the effects of this plan on their ability to fulfil their AIDS responsibilities, which are so important at this time?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes, of course I am aware of that, but I find this a difficult issue and I must be careful not to pre-judge this particular investigation. I find it difficult to believe that work must be carried out in a particular geographical area.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend whether the forthcoming review will consider the work of boards, councils and committees within the health service and attempt to reach a conclusion as regards their usefulness?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, although that question does not have a great deal to do with the Question on the Order Paper, I think that the official answer to my noble friend is that nothing is sacred.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Westminster Hospital is a designated rehabilitation centre and that many disabled people attend? Is he also aware that St. Stephen's site presents difficulties as regards transport and, with an ageing population, patients would have extreme difficulty in reaching a large hospital in Fulham?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I was aware of that matter. Transport is one of the issues at which my right honourable friends look with particular interest when deciding whether to approve or disapprove potential closures.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister whether the relevant community health council has so far made representations to him about this matter.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the district health authority has issued a consultation paper to the community health council which is still deliberating on it.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, in addition to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, about transport for the disabled, is the Minister aware that people travel to Westminster Hospital from various areas of London? It is in a convenient area for them to use their own personal transport, and patients need to attend that hospital in order to see consultants and visit special surgeries.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, having lived and worked in the area for some time, I suggest that if patients are using their personal transport, the car parking facilities, where they now exist, are far from adequate.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, of course I meant public transport, in addition to personal transport, which many people use, as do I, when attending Westminster Hospital.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I thought that I had already dealt with public transport in answer to the supplementary question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham.

Business
3.3 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Ferrers will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on war crimes.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Legal Aid Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m., for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Board) Order 1988 will be taken.

Hastings Borough Council Bill
3.4 p.m.
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Social Security Bill
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Social Security Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order—

Clauses 1–2,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 3–8,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 9–10,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 11–15,

Schedules 4–5,

Clauses 16–19.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Arms Control and Disarmament (Privileges and Immunities) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Legal Aid Bill [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 32 [Regulation]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 27, line 27, leave out ("be entitled to").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 45. We have moved on to Clause 32 and the Marshalled List promises an interesting diet of further debate in relation to this clause. I should like to deal with a matter which was first specifically raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Griffiths at Second Reading, and it was also referred to in our debates during Committee. In relation to remuneration provisions, as presently drafted Clause 32(6) provides that:
"The Lord Chancellor, in making regulations for the purposes mentioned in subsection (2)(e) above"—
that is in respect of remuneration:
"as respects any description of legal aid work, shall be entitled to have regard, among the matters he considers appropriate, to—".
There then follows a list of factors. The question was raised as to whether the words "be entitled to" were appropriate. I pointed out my concern that an annual full and detailed consideration of all aspects of remuneration may prove to be an impossible task to perform. I suggested that it may well be unnecessary to look at every aspect of each fee in relation to particular reviews.
I have taken further advice upon the matter and I am told that, subject to proper safeguards, the idea of a general uprating would not be prejudiced if the words "be entitled to" were left out. In the spirit of the considerations during the Committee stage, I accordingly beg to move Amendment No. 45.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, on behalf of the Opposition I welcome the decision taken by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to move this amendment. Indeed, it augurs well for the debate to follow. Clearly, it is necessary that it should be mandatory upon the Lord Chancellor to have regard to the matters which are listed from (a) to (g) in subsection (6) and that it should not be a mere permissive power. We welcome the willingness of the noble and learned Lord to make this concession at such an early stage in our proceedings today.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, my colleagues on these Benches would also like me to welcome this amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful for this promising start and I hope that it augurs well for my securing the agreement of your Lordships to the rest of the amendments that I shall be proposing. I should like to mention that this point was raised in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in Committee. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, for signifying his position with regard to it.
It will be obvious to your Lordships that the agreement of this amendment will have a small effect on Amendment No. 46 because in this amendment I follow the words of Amendment No. 46 only to a limited extent.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 27, line 27, leave out ("be entitled to have regard, among the matters he considers appropriate") and insert ("have regard to the principle of allowing fair and reasonable remuneration according to the work actually and reasonably done or to be done and shall in particular have regard").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a very modest little amendment but at the same time is immensely important and I hope to satisfy your Lordships that it is an irresistible one. Perhaps I may deal with the amendment under those three headings. First of all, I deal with its modesty. This amendment seeks to do no more than to continue the statutory obligation which exists at the moment and was imposed by Parliament some 14 years ago in the Legal Aid Act 1974, Section 39(3), which so far as material, reads as follows. The Lord Chancellor:
"In making regulations … as to the amounts payable to counsel or a solicitor assigned to give legal aid … and any person by whom such amount falls to be assessed, taxed or reviewed under the regulations, shall have regard to the principle of allowing fair remuneration according to the work actually and reasonably done".
It thus imposes an important dual obligation first upon the Lord Chancellor making the regulations and secondly, upon those obliged to carry them out.
The reason for the special provision was referred to by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham in Committee on 19th January when he pointed out that lawyers are in a separate position from nurses, doctors and others paid by the public because they are an independent profession paid by the piece, paid by fees; they are not paid by salary. The need for such a statutory obligation is quite simple. Some four years ago in Cmnd. Paper 9077 the Government were committed to the following view:
"The Government believes that legal aid should be available to assist those of small or moderate means, by giving them the same chance to pursue or defend their legal rights as those in a position to instruct lawyers privately."
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor confirmed in Committee on 19th January that the Government's position is:
"still as stated in the Cmnd. Paper".
I do not need to spend time—certainly not at Report stage—to emphasise before your Lordships that you cannot achieve the same chance to pursue or defend legal rights as those in a position to instruct lawyers, unless there is an ability to pay a reasonable remuneration for those services.
Indeed, that was expressly accepted again by the Government in the same Cmnd. Paper in these terms:
"The Government accepts that legally aided work should be reasonably remunerated";
hence the absence of any novelty and the total modesty of the amendment proposed.
Now I turn to the importance of the amendment. A very large number of litigants are legally assisted; virtually all defendants in criminal cases; some 70 per cent. of litigants in matrimonial cases; no doubt a very high proportion in personal injury cases; in cases in which there is judicial review sought by the subject; and, in landlord and tenant litigation. Everybody agrees that it is essential that the legal aid service should not degenerate into a second-class or second-rate service. There are already strong warning signs that that is happening at the moment.
However, at present there are the following safeguards: first, the existing statutory obligation of fairness; and secondly, the assessment of proper remuneration done initially or by way of appeal by taxing masters who are qualified judicial officers with a right of appeal from them to a judge in chambers. The Lord Chancellor has fully acknowledged—and the White Paper and the scrutineer's report makes this clear—that in order to reduce expenditure there is a move towards establishing fixed or prescribed rates for work which is done.
As matters stand, prescribed rates have been agreed for a large amount of the criminal work because units of work—to use current jargon—can be easily identified. This process is occurring in relation to matrimonial work and the Lord Chancellor clearly hopes to spread that across the whole range of litigation.
In Committee I gave an indication of one prescribed rate which was £33 for all paperwork in matrimonial cases, whether it was a long opinion which took a week to write or a long affidavit which took 20 hours to draft. That prescribed rate of £33 is scarcely enough to induce a self-respecting plumber to cross the threshold. It means that in virtually every case that prescribed rate has to be looked at and inevitably up-rated. However, it is proposed that gradually the judicial process of taxing or assessing fees shall be moved over to the administrative process. The judicial officer is to be replaced in due course by a member of the Executive, a civil servant without qualifications called a taxation co-ordinator. Therefore, the whole assessment will leave the realm of the judicial process and become part of the administrative process.
The dangers are further mirrored by Clause 32. Other amendments will highlight them. However, I shall just give your Lordships an immediate indication. There is introduced for the first time in this sort of legislation Section 32(6)(f):
"the cost to the public fund of any provision made by the regulations:"
is to be considered when considering what the lawyer should receive.
I find paragraph (g) unintelligible, but it is the subject matter of an amendment and subsection (11) brings in another indication of Treasury control not to be found in Section 39(3), and we know from Committee that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is resisting—and will continue to resist—that which is the subject matter of another amendment; namely an independent fees advisory committee. That is the importance of this amendment.
I come now to its irresistibility. In recent litigation by both branches of the legal profession for judicial review in 1986 of the Lord Chancellor's exercise of his statutory obligation under that same section, in long affidavits read out to the Divisional Court there was not the slightest suggestion that the obligation to pay fair remuneration was causing anyone the slightest problem or trouble. However, better still in a debate on 4th June 1986 (at col. 1008 of Hansard) the then

15
Lord Chancellor (my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham) used these clear terms:
"I am, of course, wholly wedded to an independent and vigorous legal profession, fairly remunerated. Secondly, I wholeheartedly accept the principle of fair remuneration according to work reasonably and actually performed. I should be wedded to that principle whether or not the words were embedded in statute. Otherwise I should be guilty of trying to defend work not reasonably remunerated in that manner."
The White Paper issued on 26th March 1987 said in terms that the Government will continue to have regard to the principle of fair remuneration. That statement was repeated by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor at Second Reading. He confirmed in that debate on 19th January (at col. 177 of Hansard):
"there is no question of my trying to depart from the basis on which we have worked."
One therefore asks the question: why is the statutory obligation to be suppressed? Why is it no longer to continue in the legislation?
I ventured a view which has been the view of many; namely, that it was designed to prevent access to the courts for judicial review, as occurred successfully two years ago. However, that was repulsed by the Lord Chancellor as being an unworthy suggestion, and of course I accept that that cannot be what is behind it.
The only two other grounds suggested by the Lord Chancellor were these. He suggested that the word "fair" was too vague and that it was difficult to apply—a problem which none of his predecessors had voiced. I have sought to alter that by adding the word "reasonable" after the word "fair" because there can be no suggestion that "reasonable" has any difficulty in its application, as it is the very word found in Order 62, which obliges the taxing master to operate in these terms—and I give your Lordships the exact words to indicate that those responsible for the drafting did not foresee any difficulty:
"On a taxation of costs on the standard basis there should be allowed a reasonable amount in respect of all costs reasonably incurred."
So much for that criticism. The second criticism, which is understandable, is this. The Lord Chancellor, as I have indicated, is anxious to lay down prescribed rates; a rate for the job before it is carried out. Accordingly, he said, fair remuneration for work actually and reasonably done did not appear to him to make very much sense when contemplating making regulations to provide rates for work before it is done. That is readily catered for and I have sought to do so by adding the words "to be done" so that the formula reads:
"Fair and reasonable remuneration according to the work actually and reasonably done"—
the past tense—
"or to be done"—
the future tense.
The Lord Chancellor has drawn attention to the small amendment that he has agreed to, which he has just moved, and the next amendment which follows. One should never be ungrateful for the cart even though it comes before the horse. One should not be ungrateful for the cart even if there is no horse at all,
16
but that is exactly the position here. You have to define the obligation before using such terms or other circumstances that are relevant. You cannot determine relevance until you know to what obligation the relevance is directed.
I end by saying that, in my submission, the inevitable consequences of removing from this legislation the existing statutory obligation of fairness and reasonableness in relation to payment will, in the short or the long term, be simply that it will seriously undermine the strength, vitality and independence of the legal profession and public confidence in it. In the Command Paper to which I have referred the Government accepted that a legal profession having those qualities which I have spelt out is of fundamental importance to our freedom under the law. Therefore, I beg to move.
Lord Benson: My Lords, I support this amendment. The whole thrust of the debate in Committee on this topic was that the words "fair remuneration" should be included in the Bill so that the legal profession is properly paid. In his answer the Lord Chancellor said:
"As I have explained, the reason I have not put in the phrase 'fair remuneration' in that context is that it is meaningless as an addition to the factors. What does it mean?"
Many of us in this House listened to those words with incredulity, but having seen them in cold print they are no less astonishing. Every enterprise, large or small, must have an objective. Unless the objective is fairly stated there will be muddle and confusion. The objective to be stated in this case is extremely simple. It is that fair remuneration shall be paid out of the public purse for legal work properly done. That, in effect, is what is in the existing Act and that, in effect, is what this amendment seeks to do.
There are a great many factors which have to be taken into account in arriving at fair remuneration. Those factors are the nuts and bolts and they have to be put together to make the finished article and to arrive at the objective. When all of them have been considered they have to be weighed up and in the mind of an honest and independent person fair remuneration has to be fixed for payment out of the public purse. I make the comment for the removal of doubt that the Treasury is not honest and independent for this purpose because it is not independent. The Bill rather strangely goes out of its way to refer to the Treasury to make it clear that the Treasury is fighting a corner.
The Lord Chancellor asks what "fair remuneration" means. We should give some attention to those words, starting with the word "fair". Every single set of accounts for the past 40 years that has been submitted to the public or to taxing authorities has to be, by statute, fair. Fair is the cardinal principle in every arbitration and other tribunal proceedings. Fair is the very basis of the administration of justice in this country. Our taxing statutes are riddled with the word "fair".
Let us now look at the words "fair remuneration" together. Every employer in this country knows what fair remuneration involves. Every housewife who employs a daily lady or mother's help for an hour or two a week knows what fair remuneration is. Every

17
teenager who gets his first job knows what those words mean.
Seventeen years ago the Top Salaries Review Body made its first report and laid down the principles on which all its subsequent reports should be written. The body made it absolutely clear in the text that it knew what fair remuneration meant. The whole of the legal profession, from Law Lords to the humblest practitioner, is asking for these words to be restored because the profession knows what fair remuneration means. Against that galaxy of talent, legislation, case law, experience and opinion the Lord Chancellor stands alone. He does not know what those words mean. All of us in this Chamber and the whole of the legal profession outside it will be distressed to know that the head of the judiciary in this country is in that predicament.
There has never been any difficulty in the past in knowing what "fair remuneration" means. The words have been on the statute book for 14 years. At this moment in time the Lord Chancellor of the day has, by statute, to know what the phrase means because he has to administer the existing Act as part of his responsibility. In the debate on 4th June 1986 the then Lord Chancellor the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said that he was compelled by statute—the one to which I have just referred—
"to make regulations which have regard to the principle of fair remuneration for work actually and reasonably done".
He added,
"I have already said that I wholeheartedly embrace that principle".—[Official Report, 4/6/86; col. 1011.]
The noble and learned Lord Chancellor now in office, in the Second Reading debate reaffirmed that principle. He also drew attention to the White Paper in which the Government have committed themselves to that principle. In the face of those facts, how is it possible for this blanket of incomprehension suddenly to have enveloped the Woolsack and the Treasury; how is it possible for two well-known English words suddenly to have lost their meaning; how is it possible, when two Lord Chancellors and the Government have stated that they are irrevocably committed to a principle, it should now be discarded from this Bill?
In the light of those facts, it is difficult to speak in moderate terms. The gentlest language that I can use is to say that if these words are omitted it will be a shameful injustice deliberately imposed upon the legal profession. It will leave a stain that will last for many years to come. The only chemistry that will remove that stain—indeed the only chemistry which in this context will restore the credibility of the Government—is to transpose the words from the existing Act into this Bill.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I hope that there is no fundamental difference of philosophy between either of the two noble Lords who have just spoken and myself. My noble and learned friend Lord Ackner twice quoted me, once when I was explaining something to my noble friend Lord Trafford. I do not think he is here but I cannot quite see behind me. I was explaining about the
18
particular nature of the problem with which we were confronted. I pointed out that what gives difficulty to this problem is the fact that virtually all lawyers are paid by the piece and by fee whereas most other publicly-remunerated persons are paid by salary or by time. That is much more easily defined and much more easily arrived at.
I did not mean thereby to rebuke my noble friend, Lord Trafford, for having expressed some anxiety as to whether lawyers were not perhaps overstating the case in relation to their remuneration. He meant to say that because he has since told me so. I expressly told him that I was not creating any kind of rebuke to him; I was explaining something which I thought he had not taken into account.
I remain, as I was when occupying the place of my noble and learned friend, entirely wedded to an independent legal profession and a vigorously independent legal profession. No civilised society can get on without one. In spite of the fact that we are not always popular, as one can see by reading the speech of Jack Cade in the second part of "King Henry VI", we perform indispensable functions in a free society. I am entirely wedded to a legal profession, as I was in 1986 in the passage now twice referred to, paid what is fair in the circumstances.
I view with rather less than enchantment the terms of the amendment moved by my noble and learned friend which, as the noble Lord, Lord Benson, candidly conceded, transposes the existing legislation framework with some alterations into the proposed statute we are now discussing. The first matter I wish to point out to both my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner and to the noble Lord, Lord Benson, is the phrase "have regard to". In the form which the Bill now takes, supported in Committee by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, the words "have regard to" have a fairly intelligible meaning. I should like to say to my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner that I was responsible for having to use these words and applying them before this Bill came for discussion in this House. In 1986, I said—unless I am vastly mistaken because I have not looked it up—that I wanted to pay remuneration which was fair. What is meant by "have regard to"? I have great regard for my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner and the noble Lord, Lord Benson, but I do not have to do exactly what they say. What does "having regard to" the principle of fair remuneration mean except that one does not always have to pay?
That is an insuperable objection to the wording of the existing legislation and therefore to the wording of the proposed "modest, irresistible and important amendment". If it had said that fair remuneration must be paid I could have understood at once what was meant although I should require—as did my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack when the matter was discussed in Committee—a little more indication of what other people thought were relevant considerations in assessing what is fair. If I may use the word again, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Benson, was a little less than fair to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack in the speech which fell from him a few moments ago. I assure him that I speak now from experience and not from prejudice. It is difficult to be told to be fair when

19
different people hold different views as to what factors ought to be taken into account in estimating fairness. I ask my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner why he has added the words "and reasonable"? What is the difference between what is fair and what is reasonable?
Lord Ackner: My Lords, if that is intended as a question, then I can answer it. I thought that I had. I added the word "reasonable" because my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor had difficulty in understanding how it worked. I added the word "reasonable" because it is used by taxing masters as the basis for assessing fair remuneration, and I read out the terms of Order 62.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, with great respect to my noble and learned friend, he has jumped the gun because he has not met the point I was about to make. If you use the word "fair", subject to what I have said and what I am about to say, I understand that is what has to be paid; that is, if one can make out what is meant by "have regard to". If you say "fair and reasonable" one must either contemplate that what is fair may still not be reasonable or that what is reasonable may not be fair. To add "fair and reasonable" together must involve a conflict in the mind of any person seeking to interpret the amendment as to what kind of remuneration would be fair but not reasonable and what kind of remuneration would be reasonable and not fair. It makes the task of the Lord Chancellor more and not less difficult. If it means the same thing in both cases, then the addition of the words is undesirable. If you mean one thing, you should say one thing. Do I see the noble Lord rising?
Lord Somers: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble and learned Lord, but am I right or wrong in thinking that there is a difference between "having regard to" and "having regard for"?
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I do not believe I can answer that question offhand although I will contemplate it in the dark watches of tonight. If I can think of a solution I will try to communicate with the noble Lord.
One now comes to a point which needs to be discussed with a considerable degree of frankness. The legal profession is entitled to fair remuneration. Because the profession is remunerated by fee, remuneration has to be calculated in a different way as compared with those who are remunerated by salary. I should not like to be in the position of a Minister at the Home Office, the Ministry of Defence or the Department of Health and Social Security, who had to say that those who come under his statutory jurisdiction should have a remuneration which was not fair. I think that everybody in the public service should have fair remuneration, but in all cases it must be subject to negotiation and to some kind of common argument as to what factors enter into the conception of fairness.
In Clause 39 of the Bill the Lord Chancellor is bound to pay monies voted by Parliament. If the
20
monies voted by Parliament are not sufficient to pay what is regarded under this clause as fair remuneration, the Lord Chancellor is in an impossible position. Therefore, I think he is entitled to be told in this clause what factors he should take into account.
Among those factors is one which my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner referred to in his criticism of the existing Bill. Apart from other things, it is the cost to public funds of any provision. If the Lord Chancellor is not entitled to take into account the cost of the provision, as he is entitled to do under the clause as it stands, how does he stand if Parliament under Section 39, when it is law, does not vote the funds which he has got to pay? We all know that the Lord Chancellor's department is a spending department just as much as the Department of Health and Social Security, the Home Office or the Ministry of Defence. His is a spending department and he has to negotiate with the Treasury.
I am not at all content with the kind of oblique and hostile references to the Treasury which were made by the two previous speakers. The Treasury is always the fall-guy in these debates, but the Treasury has two other factors to take into account. In the first place every penny that is paid under this Bill by way of remuneration to the legal profession will come out of something else. Secondly, the Treasury has to take into account the totality of public expenditure. It is an unpleasant fact of life, but one which should be taken into account, that everything we spend in Parliament on public services of any kind is made out of the product of either manufacturing industries or service industries which we provide for ourselves and other people.
You can kill the goose which lays the golden egg. The Treasury is given the unpleasant and unpopular task of keeping the goose alive because, if she is killed, there will not be any money for anybody to be paid anything. When one is making a fall-guy of the Treasury and putting it up as an Aunt Sally, one is neglecting the fact that, in spending money on the legal profession, the enemy of the Lord Chancellor's Department is just as likely to be the nurses or the defence forces and the generals as the Treasury. The fact is that one has to take into account what other people are getting.
My noble friend Lord Trafford was quite right when he made what I thought was not a particularly well-informed interruption the other day. He said that, like everybody else, the lawyers must stand with the other spending industries and see what can be done. I am wholly of the opinion that lawyers are entitled to fair remuneration, but I think the same about nurses, private soldiers or seamen. There is nothing special about this. However, to tell the Lord Chancellor that he must have regard to a principle—not that he must perform the principle—taken out of context of the total economic situation seems to me to put him in an impossible position. The Treasury has a legitimate part to play in this discussion and one should not try to make an Aunt Sally of it.
I have listened in this Parliament and in the previous Parliament to a very large number of these

21
discussions. We hear people who want money from public funds; they are always the people who are interested in the particular service. It would not be in order for me to talk about the needs of the health service in this debate, and quite rightly nobody has spoken either in Committee or so far on Report about the health service. However, they are there, spectrally making equal demands on the public service. The Lord Chancellor is in an unenviable position. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Benson, was very much less than fair to him when he said that everyone, including nurses, doctors and air marshals, understands what fair remuneration means.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Benson: My Lords, I did point out that everybody knew except the noble and learned Lord Chancellor.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, that was precisely why I said that the noble Lord was being unfair to the Lord Chancellor, and I say so again. We do not know what it means in each of these cases, and our assessment of what is fair in relation to the armed services, the health service or the legal service, differs according to who we are. The lawyers have a different idea from air marshals as to what would be fair in the circumstances. It is the poor old Treasury that has to take the knock.
That brings me back to this "modest, irresistible and important" amendment moved by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner with his persuasive advocacy, before which I have trembled on more than one occasion. I wonder why he thinks that it is necessary to put the hands of the clock back on this occasion in order to preserve the independence of the legal profession?
My noble and learned friend made a brief reference to the judicial review last year or the year before. A great deal of what went on during the course of those proceedings I am bound to keep in confidence. The case was settled on terms which I found perfectly agreeable. The legal profession, although perhaps less enthusiastic than I, certainly accepted them as fair. However, there is something that I must now say which is irrefutably true. If those proceedings had not been launched by the legal profession, I could have obtained exactly the same terms two months earlier, but because I was unable to negotiate either with the legal profession or with the Treasury during the currency of those proceedings, my hands were tied behind my back. All they did was to shoot themselves in the foot to the extent to getting what they wanted two months later.
I am standing by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack. I have also had to sit there, and he has been given a very raw deal so far in this debate.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has justified his action in regard to the judicial proceedings. I do not want to turn the sword in the wound, but he said that the case was settled on terms agreeable to him. I wonder whether he will confirm that, despite strong resistance, an order was made by the Divisional Court for his department to pay the entire costs.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I confirm it but withhold any comment in view of what I happen to know took place. I do not think that it would be proper to draw the attention of the House to exactly what happened, but I could tell noble Lords a tale whose merest word would make the hair of my noble and learned friend stand on end.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, as one who is not trained in the law but a lay person who has had to work with the law perhaps I may ask two questions on matters which puzzle me very much. What other profession has written into a Bill its terms of payment? If those are written into a Bill for the legal profession, then all the other professions—architects and so on—will take this as a precedent and will want their terms of payment written into an Act of Parliament. Where would we be? It would be a most awkward situation.
My second worry concerns a fair and reasonable service. Do I understand correctly that if the legal profession does not have its terms of payment written into an Act of Parliament, those who are in need of help will not receive a reasonable service? I should be grateful to have answers to those questions.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the greatest help we can give to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is to try to arrive at a scheme which will ensure the full co-operation of both branches of the legal profession. Without their full co-operation this new scheme, with its many fundamental changes, will fail to give that public service which all your Lordships hope that it will provide.
Until I heard my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham just now I was quite convinced that an acceptance of the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, would be in the interests of all concerned. It would give confidence to the legal profession that it will be treated fairly and reasonably in this matter of fees. It would give confidence to the profession because when it sees the Bill it will not only try to understand it and its implications but it will be sensitive to changes which are to be made to the present law.
I do not think that either branch of the legal profession should be over-sensitive but we have to be realistic. We have to avoid the possibility that a number of the best and ablest members of the profession will say, "We have a duty to perform if we can but we in our turn have a right to be treated fairly and reasonably". My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham said that the Bar is entitled to fair remuneration. My noble and learned friend is one of my oldest and best friends. I have heard him speak on, I suppose, a hundred occasions, from the days when we were at university together until he retired as Lord Chancellor and since. However, I must confess that, I think for the very first time, I was mystified by one of his speeches.
I do not share his difficulty about the use of the words "have regard to", because we must consider the context in which those words will be used. The context arises, first, in subsection (2)(e) of Clause 32, and, secondly, in Clause 6, which is the clause that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, seeks to

23
amend. It is not unusual when a power or an obligation is placed upon a Minister of the Crown to make regulations that Parliament should give guidance or directions in the making of those regulations and in doing so shall use the words, which in any event we are going to have in the subsection, "have regard to". The Lord Chancellor will have to have regard anyway. One cannot get away from that. The question is whether:
"among the matters he considers appropriate"—
I quote again from the subsection—there shall, in addition to the seven factors specifically mentioned, be this broad general principle.
We can argue endlessly about the subtle use of words. Goodness knows, in our statute law we can argue a great deal. If we are not careful we shall find that the words we use or fail to use will give rise to difficulties in the courts which in turn will make more money for the profession. Are we not making heavy weather about a phrase which has been used before and has not, as I understand it, given rise to any specific difficulty and which in the opinion of noble and learned Lords, and I am sure of other Members of your Lordships' House, will be applied by the Lord Chancellor in the sense in which it is intended and if necessary interpreted by the courts and by the taxing masters? I do not wish to labour these arguments, but if we are to have both branches of the profession united within themselves and doing their best to make the new scheme work in order to maintain the degree of continuity which it has been suggested should be maintained, it would be wise to establish the principle of fair and reasonable remuneration, and it is not something that we should ignore.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down perhaps I may ask for his comment on this statement. He said that the phrase "have regard to" has never caused difficulty. I can assure him that not only did it cause me great difficulty, but I took counsel's lengthy opinion on it and I still did not understand it at the end. I want to ask him this brief question. Does "have regard to" mean "perform" or "pay", or does it mean something else; and if so, what?
Lord Renton: My Lords, with respect to my noble and learned friend, I think that that is a point which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor would wish to argue. Those words are in the Bill whether or not the amendment is accepted, and we just have to take them as being there.
Lord Griffiths: My Lords, I support the amendment. The regulations under discussion are the regulations by which the Lord Chancellor will lay down the scale of fees which are to remunerate virtually the whole of the criminal Bar and that large portion of the solicitors' profession which conducts civil work and a great many of those who practise in the civil field at the Bar.
The Bill provides by subsection (7) that before making those regulations the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor shall consult with the Law Society and the Bar. What is the purpose of those
24
consultations? The purpose is that they should sit down as employers sit down with trade unions and try to arrive at a wage structure. But what sort of wage structure are they trying to arrive at? The answer must surely be a fair wage structure: fair on the one side to us in our capacity as taxpayers, who have to pay the bill for legal aid, and fair on the other side to those who have to work in the profession and whose livelihoods, for the most part, depend upon it.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said that it is his intention that the result of the negotiations shall be "fair remuneration". His predecessor said likewise and the Government asserted that fact in their White Paper. When the matter was first raised I was sympathetic, and still am, to the view held by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that it was preferable to spell out the content of what was considered fair insofar as it was possible. I accepted the fact, and still believe it to be right, that in Clause 6 he has attempted to spell out those factors which contribute towards fair remuneration. My initial objection to the way he did it was that he said that he was "entitled" to take into account fair remuneration. I do not much fancy negotiating with someone who is entitled to be fair; I would rather negotiate with someone who had to be fair. Therefore, I welcomed the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to correct that matter.
Ever since we have had legal aid, the overriding obligation to provide fair remuneration has been spelt out in the statute. The intention has been repeated over and over again. The noble Lord, Lord Benson, has pointed out the interpretation that removing that intention from the Bill may bear. Such delicate negotiations will be successful only if they are conducted in a spirit of complete mutual trust. If it is the intention to pay fair remuneration, for goodness sake, let us say so. The provision has been on the statute book since 1974. I do not accept that the presence of those words has given any trouble in the past. Let us have them again, filled out in the way that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has proposed to give guidance on some of the ingredients that they embrace.
4 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. I must make it clear that I have no interest to declare. I mention that fact simply because the last time I made a similar observation during the Bill's progress, it was inadvertently transposed in the Official Report that I did have such an interest to declare. I have no such interest.
What is in issue here is a point of principle and not a question of semantics. We are not concerned with the difference between "having regard to" and "having regard for". We are not concerned as to whether fair means reasonable or whether reasonable means fair and what each adjective may, or may not, add to the other. We are concerned with an elementary situation which I can put forward in this way: if I were to say point blank to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, "Do you favour paying the legal profession for legally aided work fair

25
and reasonable remuneration?", he would say, "Yes, of course". There is no other answer he could give or could possibly wish to give.
Let us start with that simple proposition. Let us go on to say that it is an obligation accepted by previous noble and learned Lords who have occupied the Woolsack for some 14 years. Let us realise that after those 14 years the principle has suddenly been abandoned in the Bill. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor must know the deep unhappiness that has spread throughout the whole of the legal profession—the Bar and the solicitors—as a result of its sudden and totally unexpected omission. Various reasons have been given for the omission. Conjecture has run rife, but no explanation has so far been given that has satisfied the legal profession.
The principle has been accepted for 14 years. I have no doubt that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would accede to it at once and without any hesitation. I ask the noble and learned Lord what purpose is served by his beginning what we all know will be a distinguished tenure of office as Lord Chancellor at odds with a united legal profession on a principle which has existed for all that time? No purpose is achieved and nothing will be gained by such an omission.
I suspect that eventually there will be arguments about particular words in the Bill. If that is the view that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor takes, and it may well be, and if he were to indicate that he is willing to come back on Third Reading with an amendment that accepts the principle, but with the wording modified slightly to meet some of the points that have been made, I have no doubt that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, would accept that situation. That a widely accepted principle should disappear, causing such dissatisfaction among the whole profession, is something I am sure the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor does not desire. Therefore I ask him to accept the amendment or to recognise, in principle at any rate, that the provision is acceptable and should be brought back at a later stage.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I rise briefly to emphasise one aspect possibly lost sight of during what the House may feel has been an argument on words. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, to whom we always listen with delight—sometimes also with approval—said that he could not see the difference between the words "fair" and "reasonable". Much of the time of the House was taken in listening with enjoyment to that part of his speech on semantics. I would most respectfully say to the noble and learned Lord that although I thought his speech was fair, in that not one remark was aimed below the solar plexus, I did not think it was reasonable. Therefore, from my remarks, he may possibly detect that there is a slight difference between the meaning of those words.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, what I said was said in this context and not in some other context.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, so be it. I should have thought that there was also some slight differentiation in this context. However, I hope that the House will not be misled into thinking about words and will return to thinking about principles. It is in that connection that I said that I wanted to emphasise something. The one result that the House would not want to see as a consequence of the Bill's passage is two classes of lawyers—first, the good and experienced ones who receive the type of fee mentioned in subsection (6)(a),
"the time and skill which it requires"
followed by subsection (6)(b),
"the general level of fee income arising from it".
The second category would be those lawyers who do not have the experience and skill of the first class of lawyers, and who are prepared to accept (because they are not professionally busy) a lower standard of fee for the work which they do. It will mean not only two classes of lawyers but two classes of justice.
In those circumstances, I go back to the principle which has been emphasised and underlined by those who are much more eloquent and persuasive than I can be. Up till now, as has been said, we have been content with this standard. It was a standard which was dealt with by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, in his own view about the proceedings which took place last year. I do not intend to comment on those proceedings. I was not privileged to be behind this curtain of mystery which appears to have overlaid the negotiations, nor the order for costs or whatever it was. I hope the House will not be beguiled into trying to peep behind that curtain.
If this amendment is passed, it is mandatory that fair and reasonable remuneration should be one of the factors which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor must take into account. The message to my profession is that if this amendment is passed, we shall, I hope, be a united profession in trying to make the legal aid system work with the best possible members of our professions dealing with it. If the amendment is not passed, another message goes out to my profession which I think would be deplorable.
4.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in seeking to deal with this amendment as fairly as I can, I should like to make it abundantly plain that in my opinion a proper basis for negotiation with the legal profession on the remuneration to be paid to the profession for publicly-funded work under the legal aid fund is that the formula should be clear, should be plain and should be capable of application to the problems in hand.
Until now, first in relation to criminal legal aid (I think in 1967) and then in a consolidating statute in 1974 the phrase "fair remuneration for work actually and reasonably done" was used. It is immediately apparent to your Lordships that that formulation was in reference to work already done. The question had to be asked: first of all, had it actually been done? Strange that the legal profession should require a formula of that kind that remuneration might be demanded for work which had not been done. But

27
that is in the formula; the work must actually be done first of all.
Then it must be reasonably done. Somebody must have thought that there was a possibility that the lawyer might do work which was not reasonably required. Why should the taxpayer pay for that? Therefore it said, "fair remuneration for work actually and reasonably done". That is in the nature of a formula which would be applied once the work was finished.
Of course, much depended on who was paying for the work. The question in issue in the particular decision was whether the client was paying for the work. It might be fair for the client to pay more than it would be fair to charge the opposing party. That is why there is a distinction between taxation determination as between party and party on the one hand, and as between solicitor and client on the other hand, the first of these now being replaced by the standard basis to which my noble and learned friend, Lord Ackner, referred. So this arises out of ex post facto judgment on fees actually charged in relation to work which was done. These questions arose in connection with it. These were matters for professional people to submit for judgment.
The noble Lord, Lord Benson, in his remarks (to which I listened with interest) was surprised that anyone should occupy the Woolsack who did not understand what was meant by "fair". In Committee I certainly asked the question: what is meant by "fair" in this context? I believe that I have some understanding—not as much as I should like —of what is meant by fairness in relation to judicial proceedings. I have endeavoured to act in accordance with that understanding and sought to improve it as years have gone on. But it is very important in this situation to have matters upon which we may be agreed as the foundation of successful negotiations. I believe there is nothing better as a foundation for successful negotiations with the Bar and the solicitors' branch of the legal profession than clear and precise formulation by Parliament of what should be in mind.
When I came into office I reviewed the situation which had existed in the years before I came about this matter. I discovered that before any progress could be made in these negotiations in the past, what had to be done was to identify factors to be taken into account for identification as the basis of progress. It was when these factors were isolated and determined as between the parties that progress in the negotiations started.
Perhaps I may put it in a simple example. Supposing the question is: what is fair remuneration for an hour of paperwork? The Bar, let us say, might suggest £40. I might think: Well, what about £30? What is the next step? The test is fairness. Is £30 or £40 the fair figure? We could argue about that for quite some time. But what we want to do is to make progress, therefore we see what it costs the person in question to give this service. He has to make arrangements to do the paperwork; he has to get some type of assistance; for example, in typing and that sort of thing. He has outlays. He has a cost which
28
he must bear. When that is isolated, we have to think what is left for him. Has he anything left? Is there something left which can be identified in relation to that item? Then we say, "But there is more to it than that. How much paperwork can he be expected to get through? What will this give him in respect of his professional qualifications and the like?" These factors which I have set out fully in this Bill are derived from what took place in the past by way of negotiation.
I certainly intend that these regulations should, among other things, fix rates in advance of the work being done so that the profession will know plainly and clearly what the rates are to be in the vast majority of cases or at least in a sufficient amount of cases to make it worthwhile to proceed in this way. This I believe is very important: that the legal profession, like so many others, should know in advance what the rates are to be, and that the public purse paying for them, just as the private client, should know in advance at least to some extent what will be involved in instructing this work and in taking on this responsibility. Why should it all have to be left to be determined after the work is done, after the work is finished? Then and only then can we reach a figure for remuneration.
So the purposes for which this is applied are not only as a basis of taxation, ex post facto, for work done, but also in determining the rate for work to be done. My noble and learned friend Lord Ackner, with his customary courtesy, has recognised this point and has put it into his amendment, although I am not absolutely clear whether the words "actually and reasonably" apply for the future as well as the past. That must be a matter for clarification. It may be my fault, but it is a little difficult to apply that to the future, at least to be clear in relation to its future application as stated.
However, there is another point. I believe that it is an advance if we can move to standard fees, fees which are to comprehend a particular type of case, not necessarily by reference to the precise work done in each case: for example a standard fee for a criminal case in the Crown Court lasting not more than three days. We should be able to arrange a basic standard rate for the brief fee and for refreshers in such a case.
Now of course two cases in the Crown Court which are covered by that standard fee might in the nature of things involve different amounts of work but yet that would be reasonable because otherwise one has to have detailed examination of the fees in every case, and the result of that is that money which might otherwise go to the legal profession for maintenance of the service will be taken up in finding out whether the fees are right. Surely there is an advantage from the point of view of the profession in that. In so far as we have introduced this measure already under the initiative of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone it has worked very satisfactorily.
The standard fee system in criminal trials is something like 18 months old. It is a little early to say exactly how it will work but it is necessary to maintain that kind of flexibility. The words:
"work actually and reasonably done".

29
refer to actual detailed provision and specification of work. I doubt very much whether that formula is particularly apt for this particular situation. However the essential matter that I am putting forward to your Lordships and to which I attach a good deal of importance is that we want a clear formulation of the test to be applied to the remuneration.
My noble and learned friend Lord Ackner seeks to add to what I have done in the way of putting out factors. Those factors are open for consideration. There has not been a lot of criticism of them to date, with the exception of one to which I should like to draw particular attention. I shall do that in a moment. To those factors are to be added the words, shall:
"have regard to the principle of … fair … remuneration [for] work actually and reasonably done or to be done and shall in particular have regard".
I was interested that the noble Lord. Lord Mishcon, interpreted that amendment in his remarks to your Lordships as meaning that the principle of fair remuneration is one of the factors which must be taken into account in the consideration of reasonable remuneration under these regulations. I think that I noted him correctly in that. That just goes to show how inappropriate it is to try to go back, as my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham said, and put the clock back instead of trying to express in detail and analyse what is meant by "fair remuneration". One should not try to go back to adopting this very general expression which in a sense means all things to all men depending on which side of the negotiations one happens to be. That is the last thing that one wants if one wants a basis for negotiations which is likely to be successful.
The noble Lord, Lord Benson, said, and I accept, that the word "fair" arises in many contexts. The words "true and fair view" have appeared on certificates of accounts for generations, although one must add that that is hacked up by a very large number of detailed regulations which he knows much better than I do. But in this particular situation we are trying to set out in the statute plain, workable criteria for determining remuneration. In my view the words fair remuneration for
"work actually and reasonably done",
were all very well as a general statement of principle. Indeed that is what the amendment claims for them. But when it comes to getting down to brass tacks and getting remuneration negotiations on foot one must apply the principle by determining what the factors are. That is what I have done. I am a stage past talking about the principle. I am seeking to apply that principle by isolating the important factors.
As I said on Second Reading and as I repeat now, I am very open to suggestions for improvement of these factors. We shall have some discussion on some of them in a moment. That is perhaps rather an underestimate but we shall have discussion in due course. I am very amenable to improving those factors, to making them as comprehensive, as accurate and as acceptable as possible. But I regard it as a sad step hack to return from the isolation of these factors, which constitute fairness, to setting out,
30
as it were, a vague principle again as the basis for the remuneration of the legal profession.
There is one particular factor which I wish to mention because it is very important to this matter. That is the factor which I have described as:
"the cost to public funds of any provision made by the regulations".
That is factor (f) in the Bill. As I understood it, although I shall be corrected no doubt if I am wrong, there was much question as to whether it was fair to introduce that provision. That is open to argument. Your Lordships will hear argument in the course of debate on a later amendment that it is not fair to include that factor. But the question of whether it is fair or not certainly exists. I maintain that in the circumstances with which we are dealing here it is fair. But there is certainly a question about that.
If one introduces the word "fair", which is the foundation of that argument, into the opening words of the provision, one immediately obscures and undercuts the decision that one has already taken about whether that particular factor is to be introduced. I say that the underlying principle by which these factors are determined is the principle of fairness. It is obscurantist to put the principle in when one has got past that stage and is seeking to apply it.
I certainly consider, as my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham said, that the position of Lord Chancellor in this matter is not a particularly easy one. But I regard it as fundamental to the success of his position. I do not of course guarantee success for myself personally but I am thinking about the office and the position. It is fundamental to that to have a clear, precise, determinate list of factors as the basis for these remuneration regulations. It is for that reason that I resist and invite your Lordships not to accede to this particular amendment.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I wish to make it perfectly clear that I am not adding a factor or seeking to add a factor by my amendment. I am putting the horse where it should be by defining the obligation, and after the obligation is defined then, as is frequently the case, one identifies some of the major relevant factors.
If noble Lords will study Clause 32(6), it will be seen that the last few words refer to matters "he considers appropriate". Those words are to be omitted in the next amendment to be moved, and in their place are to be inserted the words, "which are relevant". How does one determine the relevance of anything without first defining the object? The words I seek to retain so that that statutory obligation continues are the current definition of the obligation.
I do not wish to decry anything that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has done by setting out certain relevant criteria, but do not let us imagine that there is any novelty about it. In 1986 the Lord Chancellor's Department provided a definition in a document dated 8th April, under the heading:
"Matters to which the Lord Chancellor proposes to have regard in making the criminal legal aid regulations".
It goes on:
"The Lord Chancellor's statutory duty is to have regard to the principle of allowing fair remuneration according to work actually and reasonably done".

31
Now mark these words:
"In the exercise of that duty he considers it proper to have regard to various matters, including the following".
One finds in the Bill the substance of what is in that document. So there was available to work (and they did work) side by side with the statutory obligation, properly defined, the various relevant factors identified two years ago but now put in on their own without first defining the obligation.
I have had the privilege of attending your Lordships' House at all stages of this Bill. I have appreciated, as most of us have, that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is not in a giving vein. That is a criticism of his brief; it is totally inconsistent with his personality. Since that vein is going to continue, I have no alternative but to take the views of the House on what is a very important, albeit a very modest, amendment.
4.33 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 46) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 85; Not-Contents, 115.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L. [Teller.]

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ardwick, L.

Longford, E.

Attlee, E.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Aylestone, L.

McNair, L.

Basnett, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Benson, L.

Milford, L.

Blease, L.

Mishcon, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Molloy, L.

Brightman, L.

Mulley, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Bruce of Donington, L.

Peston, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Phillips, B.

Carter, L,

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Rea, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Reilly, L.

David, B.

Renton, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Diamond, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Seebohm, L.

Edmund-Davies, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Serota, B.

Ezra, L.

Shackleton, L.

Falkland, V.

Shannon, E.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Shepherd, L.

Fletcher, L.

Somers, L.

Foot, L.

Stallard, L.

Gallacher, L.

Stedman, B.

Galpern, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Glenamara, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Grey, E.

Strauss, L.

Griffiths, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Templeman, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Tordoff, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Underhill, L.

Jeger, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

John-Mackie, L.

White, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Leatherland, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Listowel, E.

32

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Allerton, L.

Jessel, L.

Alport, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Ampthill, L.

Kearton, L.

Arran, E.

Killearn, L.

Auckland, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Bauer, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Long, V.

Beloff, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Belstead, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Bessborough, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Blatch, B.

Manton, L.

Blyth, L.

Mar, C.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Margadale, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Marley, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Butterworth, L.

Merrivale, L.

Caccia, L.

Mersey, V.

Caithness, E.

Milverton, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Minto, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Morris, L.

Carnock, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Chelwood, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Munster, E.

Colwyn, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Nelson, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Croft, L.

Orkney, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Oxfuird, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Pender, L.

Derwent, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Dundee, E.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Eccles, V.

Porritt, L.

Elibank, L.

Pym, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Reay, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Renwick, L.

Faithfull, B.

Richardson, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rodney, L.

Foley, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Fortescue, E.

Sandys, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Selkirk, E.

Gainford, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Southborough, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Stockton, E.

Gridley, L.

Strange, B.

Grimthorpe, L.

Strathspey, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Swansea, L.

Marylebone, L.

Swinfen, L.

Havers, L.

Terrington, L.

Hayter, L.

Thurlow, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hesketh, L.

Westbury, L.

Hood, V.

Wise, L.

Hooper, B.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

War Crimes
4.40 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement on war crimes committed during the Second World War which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
"The House will be aware of recent allegations that suspected war criminals have found haven in this country. Lists of names have been sent to us by the Simon Wiesenthal Center and others. Inquiries conducted by my department suggested that some

33
of the people named are still living in this country and we undertook to consider what action, if any, should be taken.
"The legal position is as follows. We would normally deal with alleged crimes in foreign countries by way of extradition. However, all the cases in question relate to crimes committed in territories now controlled by the Soviet Union, with whom we have no extradition treaty. Nor do the courts in the United Kingdom at present have jurisdiction to try offences of murder and manslaughter committed abroad when the accused was not a British citizen at the time of the offence. If we were to prosecute in these cases we should need to legislate to extend the jurisdiction of our courts.
"The passage of time does not lessen the horror with which we now read about wartime atrocities, but it does inevitably complicate the investigation of any allegations which might be made.
"I decided that it was impossible to take this issue forward without a better idea of what evidence existed. I therefore asked the Simon Wiesenthal Center to provide evidence to substantiate the allegations. In July of last year the center provided us with a large quantity of documentary material. This material contained serious allegations against a number of people. The material was carefully considered within Government. Our conclusion was that as it stood the material would not be sufficient to support a criminal prosecution, even if there were jurisdiction.
"In the circumstances it is clear that further work has to be done. I have therefore decided to appoint an independent inquiry to examine material relating to the allegations, to conduct interviews—possibly including interviews in the Soviet Union—and to consider the likely value of the evidence which could become available to United Kingdom court proceedings. In the light of its assessment, the inquiry team will advise whether the law should be amended in order to take jurisdiction over crimes allegedly committed overseas by persons now resident in this country. In the event of such a change it would be for the prosecuting authorities to decide, after such investigations as they may think necessary, whether any action should be taken in individual cases. I have placed the inquiry's full terms of reference in the library. I am very grateful that Sir Thomas Hetherington, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, and Mr. William Chalmers, the former Crown Agent in Scotland, have agreed to undertake the inquiry.
"All of us who have considered these matters recognise that they are intensely difficult. The allegations are very serious and must be pursued. However, I do not believe that the material now before us would justify me in proposing to Parliament a change in the law. The inquiry which I have announced will enable us to form a clearer view of the weight to be given to the allegations, and will enable us to determine whether it would be
34
right to propose a change in the law to extend the jurisdiction of the courts."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for repeating the Home Secretary's Statement on this intensely painful matter, which will revive painful memories for many of us.
Very serious allegations have been made by the Simon Wiesenthal Center in America and others against persons living in this country. Those allegations are in respect of the alleged commission of war crimes by some of those persons during the Second World War. In that situation it is right that there should be full inquiry into the allegations and investigation of evidence that has already been obtained and any other available information. To achieve that, there must clearly be an independent inquiry. On this side of the House we welcome the Statement and the proposed inquiry.
That inquiry will have the task of examining and weighing the material relating to the allegations that have been made against those who have been able to find haven in this country. They may be innocent or they may not, but it is a matter that calls for the most serious examination. The evidence to be considered will presumably include information already collected by the Wiesenthal Center, which of course must be examined and weighed for the strength or weakness that it may present.
It is a task which will be familiar to the two distinguished public servants who are to conduct the inquiry, Sir Thomas Heatherington, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, and Mr. William Chalmers, the former Crown Agent in Scotland. It has already been indicated in the Statement by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that they will be given every facility to perform their task both in this country and abroad. It is a very heavy responsibility and upon their judgment must depend a very great deal.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I too, am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for repeating the Statement. Perhaps I may say at once that at this stage there can certainly be no question of this matter being in any way a party political issue.
I welcome much of what is contained in the Statement, but I hesitate a little over the suggestion at the beginning of the first paragraph that:
"The House will be aware of recent allegations".
As I understand it, the allegations now go back certainly many months and it may well be some years. I should be grateful if the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, could indicate on what date the Government first became aware that allegations of this nature were being made. I should not want it to be thought—and I am sure the Government would not want it to be thought—that they had been in any way dilatory in pursuing this matter.
I accept that there may well be problems concerning both jurisdiction and the obtaining of evidence. It may well be that the appointment of the two distinguished public servants named in the Statement will help to resolve the problem of

35
evidence. Have the Government considered going back yet again to the Wiesenthal Center to see if they can resolve some of the problems about the further evidence, because it may be that it has facilities for obtaining evidence perhaps even more efficiently and effectively than Sir Thomas Hetherington and Mr. Chalmers?
Finally, I welcome without reservation the clear indication in this Statement that appalling wartime atrocities will not be forgiven nor forgotten however many years elapse, and that, if and when evidence becomes available, the Government will be quite unrelenting in bringing the alleged criminals to trial.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am very grateful for the reaction of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. As we know, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, is a person who is a great expert on these matters, having been a prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials. What he has said is of great importance. When he said that these issues bring back painful memories, he struck a chord which will evoke sympathy throughout the House and indeed throughout the country. They are very painful memories indeed.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, asked when we had the information about this. He queried the use of the word "recent". The list of the names which was received from the Simon Wiesenthal Center contained unsubstantiated and often generalised allegations. It did not form an adequate basis for a decision and my right honourable friend invited the center to substantiate its allegations. In July last year it gave us a large amount of material in relation to a few people. Since then we have subjected the material to legal analysis and have been considering the implications.
This is a difficult matter because the public interest considerations do not all point in the same direction. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, says that he hopes the Government will take the necessary action to prosecute people. I can only say to him that it would be wise to await the outcome of the inquiry. At present we in this country do not have the legal facilities to prosecute. If that were to be necessary then it would require a change in the law. That in itself would bring forward some fairly hefty implications.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, as an official of the House of Lords and House of Commons War Crimes Group, perhaps I may say on its behalf that we do not wish to see a witch-hunt in this affair. It would be totally wrong to allow such an atmosphere to be generated. However, in view of the growing suspicion about the numbers of Nazis, however small, who may be in the United Kingdom, and who may have been concerned with the Holocaust and mass persecution of the Jews, it is right that the air should be cleared. I hope therefore that it will be a quiet, low-key, but nevertheless deep inquiry. May I ask the noble Earl whether the report will be published and therefore available for debate?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mason, that it should be a quiet, low-key inquiry. That indeed is what we hope it will be. It will be necessary to wait and see the report of the inquiry before I can say in what way the results will be made public.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, has my noble friend any idea of the time factor likely to be involved? He obviously cannot give any undertaking, but one wishes to know the period of time that is contemplated as a possibility before the inquiry may be concluded.
Lord Ferrers: My Lords, our anticipation is that it will be in about a year's time.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, will the noble Earl be kind enough to answer the first query that I raised about the date when the Government first heard of the unsubstantiated allegations?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am so sorry. It was in fact in November 1986.

Legal Aid Bill [H.L.]
4.55 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 32.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 27, line 27, leave out ("he considers appropriate") and insert ("which are relevant").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment follows Amendment No. 45. It deletes the phrase "he considers appropriate" and inserts the phrase "which are relevant". This is an attempt on my part to secure good will, to which my noble friend Lord Renton referred, in making it clear that the standards to be used are standards which are not particular to me. The phrase "he considers appropriate" was thought to be too subjective and on reconsideration I have thought it right to put forward a more objective formulation. I beg to move.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I have only one inquiry to make. By reference to what is it proposed to decide whether something is relevant? Is it by reference to fairness or to some other concept? If so, what?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in my judgment what regulates the question of what is relevant is the context in which this phrase occurs. It is a determination of remuneration. Therefore everything that is in the judgment of a court—if it has to decide—that is properly relevant to determination of remuneration in the circumstances of the case will in my view be appropriate to be taken into account.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, in my view the requirement "which are relevant" is more attractive than stating that the Lord Chancellor is entitled to have regard to them. The Lord Chancellor would be entitled to disregard them entirely if those words remain. The amendment proposes that it is a

37
mandatory duty to consider "matters which arc relevant". That seems to me to be a more satisfactory position than leaving the matter to the subjective judgment of what the Lord Chancellor considers to be appropriate. I therefore support the amendment.
Lord Benson: My Lords, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, I have one point of inquiry. If the amendment is agreed, will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor be kind enough to tell us this. When he has had regard to the factors, is it the intention to fix fair or unfair remuneration for the legal profession?
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend replies, am I right in thinking—and if I am not right I should like to be corrected—that, by substituting "relevant" for "he considers appropriate", my noble and learned friend—if one reverts to something that was said in a previous debate by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner— has made himself subject to judicial review.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my understanding is that a clause of the kind that we have in this Bill would certainly make the Lord Chancellor open to judicial review in decisions that he took under it. However, the doubt was expressed by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner and others, including the noble Baroness Lady Seear, that the way in which it was expressed might have the effect of making a successful judicial review unnecessarily difficult because of the phraseology. I am anxious to make it as plain as possible that it is intended to exercise this clause in a fair and proper manner.
Reverting in a sense to the previous amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Benson asks whether it is my intention to fix fair or unfair remuneration. I expect the clause to produce a result which persons viewing the matter objectively would regard as fair remuneration to the legal profession, having properly taken into account all the relevant factors, including the factors expressly stated in the clause.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 27, line 34, at end insert ("and whether competent barristers and solicitors will continue to undertake the work").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, having regard to the previous debate and the speeches that were made in it, I can summarise the reason for this amendment in very few words. In the contribution that I tried to make to that debate I endeavoured to say that I am sure the House would want to avoid there being two sets of lawyers who would be doing legal aid work and work that was not legal aid. Therefore, one of the considerations must be whether the rate of remuneration that was being paid was such that competent lawyers could not be expected to do it unless they were being asked to be charitable in connection with this work or indeed—as is happening in many legal aid firms throughout the country—that they find themselves in financial difficulties as a result of doing legal aid work.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor mentioned just now the words "fair and proper" as the considerations that he would take into account. They are enumerated here. I should have hoped that he could have accepted this amendment as one of relevant factors that he should have in his mind when fixing remuneration. I beg to move.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I moved this amendment at Committee stage. Obviously the lateness of the night gave me too great a sense of relief that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor was going to accept the concept. In Hansard (at col. 185) my noble and learned friend said on 19th January:
"At this time of night and having regard to what I said in respect of the earlier amendment, I shall certainly take this matter into account".
I had assumed that this was an undefended amendment, so to speak. Apparently it is not. In the spirit of total conciliation, I quote another observation made by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham in the debate on 16th June 1986. This is what he said:
"It is of course right that it is wholly in the public interest that the Bar and the solicitors' profession should continue to attract and retain a sufficient number of competent practitioners in the criminal as in other fields".
It was doubtless for that reason that he included in the items that he set out in the paper dated 8th April 1986 (to which I have drawn reference) this as item No. 5:
"whether competent people are continuing to be attracted to and retained at the Criminal Bar in sufficient numbers".
One deletes the Criminal Bar because this is an overall point. Bearing in mind the reaction of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in Committee, albeit at approaching midnight, hearing in mind the list which contains this point under the heading "Lord Chancellor's Department 8th April 1986" and even bearing in mind what my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham (when Lord Chancellor) said in the debate to which I have referred, I cannot for the life of me see now what is in contest on the matter.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I apologise to him for my seeming lack of courtesy in not referring to the fact that it was he who moved the amendment at Committee stage. I had forgotten that.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I join my noble friend, not in any way to suggest that I am in favour of any undivided profession—divided profession is firmly my view—but in order to make sure that both our weight was leant to what I should have thought was a simple amendment which should be granted.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I undertook to consider this, I have done so carefully since we debated it at Committee stage. There is a slight difficulty in the wording of the amendment proposed in relation to "competent barristers and solicitors". Precautions are taken by both branches of a united profession on this matter to ensure competence in the

39
members of the profession. Barristers and solicitors are to be competent. What I believe is in question here is the competence or special qualifications for the particular level of work. The problem that has been pointed to is that I assume the question is whether, if the remuneration is fixed at a certain level, one will get people of the necessary experience. I hesitate to use the word "expertise" in view of the expressions of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham upon that on the last occasion. But we need to get people of the necessary skill and experience to undertake the work. I had understood that that is the flavour of what is wanted.
Having considered that, I believe it is catered for in paragraph (d) where I have tried to relate the question to the general level of competence to the particular work. I may not have succeeded, but that is the intention. The intention of paragraph (d) in this context is that I should be obliged to consider whether a certain level of fee will attract a sufficient number of people of the general level of competence required for that work. That is the idea and it is expressed in the manner that parliamentary counsel have here used. I believe it covers the point.
To suggest that there are incompetent barristers may not be wise. I know that my noble and learned friend did not intend that and neither did the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon; but I believe that the point they are seeking to make in the amendment is covered by paragraph (d).
Lord Renton: My Lords, it seems to me that the use of the word "number" in the Bill makes the amendment unnecessary, if I may say so with respect. Bearing in mind that the word "number" of barristers and solicitors undertaking the work means that, for us to add,
"and whether competent barristers and solicitors will continue to undertake the work"
simply makes it tautologous and repetitious. So I should not support the amendment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, subject to any observations, while I am still on my feet, that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, may care to make before I resume my seat, I endeavour to answer the noble and learned Lord. I remember that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, used the phrase, which is not unknown, of the cart being put before the horse. If I may say to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on this occasion I believe that his observations seem to be putting the cart before the horse. I say that for this reason. The wording of paragraph (d) seems to me to mean that the Lord Chancellor, when fixing remuneration, will consider the number and general level of competence of barristers and solicitors who are undertaking the work for legal aid. That is a very different matter from the amendment which I had the privilege of moving —copying, as I have now made it clear with an apology—the amendment that was previously moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. That is not what we want: a view, as it were, after the event as to the number and competence of barristers and solicitors who may be undertaking that specific
40
type of work. What we want to do is to see that the remuneration scale that is fixed will attract competent solicitors and barristers both by way of number and competence to undertake that work.
If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor does not like the word "competence" and says that he prefers the expression "those of sufficient skill and experience" instead of the word "competence" I am perfectly sure that there would be no objection to the use of suitable phraseology. If he will forgive me, his answer that the amendment is covered by subsection (6)(d) must surely not be correct for the reason that I have tried to give.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the intention of including paragraph (d) is to cover this point. If I have not done that correctly it may be necessary to alter the paragraph. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, what he has said leaves out of account the fact that the regulations relate to the future. In other words, I am making regulations for remuneration for work to be done. They will affect work done after they come into force and I look to the number and general level of competence of barristers and solicitors undertaking the work. The idea is that I must produce a level of fees in relation to a particular type of work which will provide the number and general level of competence of barristers appropriate for that work.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, with the leave of the House, although strictly I had not resumed my seat, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his courtesy in answering my argument. I hope that he will forgive me for saying that I am not in the slightest degree convinced by it. It would be a perfect argument if we were starting a legal aid scheme in 1988. It would then be right that one would look ahead, see the number of people who are competent to do the work and then fix a fee for the future.
Unfortunately, the situation is that because of the low fees which are now being paid in legal aid, the noble and learned Lord will not obtain a proper picture of the competence and number of people who ought to be carrying out the work if he looks now at the number and the competence. I say that perfectly frankly. One wants to see the legal aid scheme work properly with a sufficient number and sufficient competence, skill, or experience —whatever word one wishes to use. Our amendment is different from paragraph (d) in that the noble and learned Lord ought to take into account the number, the competence, and the standard that should be required in any field of legal work. He should then say: "In order to attract that number and obtain that competence, experience and skill, this ought to be the fee".
If the noble and learned Lord is saying that that is what he meant to achieve in paragraph (d), I should like to consider—and, in order to assist me, I should like my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner, also to consider —whether the substitution of the amendment that we are now moving would possibly answer that point. I am looking to the future based on the need to obtain both numbers and competence, and to pay a proper remuneration in order to achieve that.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, with the leave of the House, having regard to the paternity which is now conceded in regard to the amendment, I should like to explain in a sentence or two how it was included in the Lord Chancellor's Department's list of relevant factors on 8th April, 1986. The Bar was saying, as was said in the debate in June, 1986, that people are no longer coming to the Bar because they are put off. Unless they are high-fliers who can carry out privately funded commercial work, they are not coming to the Bar. Those who are now at the Bar are doing their best to move away from the main publicly-funded criminal work and into civil work. The anxiety was felt that, although there are now enough people to carry out the work, because they cannot all leave the profession and find other employment, they will not enter from the universities because the professors and the profession will say that if one is thinking of coming to the Bar to undertake criminal or matrimonial work, all of which by and large is publicly-funded, one should think again. That is the point we are seeking to make and it is why the Lord Chancellor's Department has identified it as being one of the relevant factors.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with the leave of the House, all I can say is that in my view a proper working of Clause 32(6)(d) will have the effect of making that a relevant consideration. If the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has in mind particular examples of work being done by persons of inadequate competence under the legal aid scheme, I should be glad to have details of that. However, at the moment we are seeking to set up a general framework. The purpose of paragraph (d) is to take account of the nature of the work so that under the regulations an adequate fee will be fixed in order to ensure that the work will be undertaken by a satisfactory number of barristers and solicitors with a general level of competence adequate for the work.
The overall effect to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has referred, will be a conglomeration of that for all types of legal aid work. The idea of paragraph (d) is that it relates to particular pieces of work in respect of which the fee is sought to be determined by the regulations. In my view, the overall effect will be properly taken into account.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, with the leave of the House—and I promise not to ask for the leave of the House again in regard to this matter—will the noble and learned Lord show some little flexibility in this matter? I say that most respectfully. My noble and learned friend Lord Ackner and I have endeavoured to say what we mean by the amendment and why we consider that the existing words do not carry out the purpose of the amendment in looking to the future. If the noble and learned Lord will say that if there is doubt about the words he will make the matter clear within the spirit of our amendment, and also look at the argument which the present words do not address, I personally would be satisfied and we can reconsider the matter at Third Reading.
42
I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will not present an immoveable wall against any arguments for altering any part of the Bill. Surely this matter can be looked at favourably because it would appear that the noble and learned Lord, and my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner and I, are trying to achieve precisely the same object. We believe that it is not achieved by the present wording but that it is achieved by our amendment. Will the noble and learned Lord consider the matter in order to ascertain whether our wording can be accepted, or some other wording which makes it abundantly clear. He has said many times that he is anxious that when the statute emerges from Parliament it should be in clear and precise language that everyone can understand.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I believe I have demonstrated that I am far from being immoveable on these matters, apart from where necessary and I am happy to look at this matter again. I have considered it carefully since the Committee stage and I had reached my conclusions. However, in the light of what has been said today, I am happy to reconsider the issue. I do not promise that I shall be persuaded that the paragraph should be changed, but I promise to reconsider the matter with the kind of open mind which your Lordships might expect.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in the expectation of that open mind. I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Benson Lord Benson moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 27, leave out line 36.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the basic principle behind this amendment is simple. If the Government decide to make a service available to the public they must do one of two things. They must either provide enough funds from the public purse for that purpose and pay those engaged in it properly, or they must cut the service appropriately. It is not possible for a responsible government to provide inadequate funds to continue the service unabated and then to say that only one of the parties who contributes to the service must make up the difference by having its remuneration curtailed.
This is a new clause in the history of the Legal Aid Bill. One can only guess what its purpose is. I assume that its purpose is to enable those who are negotiating on the subject of pay on behalf of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in bland innocence to say, "We should like to pay you adequately but Parliament will not vote us enough funds and therefore we are sorry but we have to curtail your remuneration." That would be discriminatory, punitive and monstrously unfair. It will lead inevitably to a second-class legal aid service and in due course it will lead to a second-class judiciary.
A very large number of people are involved in providing the legal aid service. By way of example, there is the judiciary, the civil servants who provide the backup service in the courts and elsewhere, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor himself and his immediate staff. Each and every one of those

43
would be outraged if they were told that their pay was going to be curtailed because Parliament had not voted enough funds for the legal aid service. It is small wonder that the legal profession is outraged for that very reason.
In Committee the Lord Chancellor expressed his outrage in muted terms. He said that his pay and anyone else's pay which is fixed for the public service takes account of the fact that it is paid out of public funds. I think that perhaps the Lord Chancellor might momentarily have forgotten that his pay is not reduced if the public funds are not provided for the service. Perhaps he has also forgotten that the legal profession also gives public service out of public funds. By this clause, at the behest of the Lord Chancellor himself, the legal profession alone can have its remuneration curtailed because Parliament will not provide the funds.
None of the other great spending departments of Government is subject to legislation which says that if Parliament does not vote them enough funds for their needs, then one of their suppliers, and one only, may have its remuneration curtailed. Why is this irresponsible form of government administration introduced into the Legal Aid Bill? The Bar Council and the Law Society have an obligation—and in fact do so—to inform recruits as to the prospects when they come to the profession. They would like to say "Come and join this great profession. You will have to work hard but the rewards are fair. We welcome you".
Now they will have to tell the truth. They will have to say, "A great slice of legal work is now covered by the legal aid scheme. For years past lawyers engaged in it have been inadequately remunerated. The Legal Aid Act recently passed makes it clear from its clauses that that inadequate remuneration will continue in the future. The legal aid service will inevitably become a second-grade service. We beg you to take these matters into consideration before you join this profession". That is the heritage which is being passed down by this Government to the future generation.
We see in this Bill, with these clauses for which amendments are proposed but unhappily not acceded to, definitive steps which will reduce the legal profession to a second-rate profession. I repeat that that will affect the quality of the judiciary in due course. Before taking that step I beg the House to consider very carefully. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, we have had a legal aid service since Tudor times, and that was the old procedure of in forma pauperis. If somebody claimed wrongly that he was entitled to legal aid in that form, the punishment was that he would be flogged. We have now substituted a different scheme and the sanction against false claim is the one adumbrated by my noble and learned friend on Thursday; namely, that the views of a party against whom legal aid was claimed can be considered on the merits at the time that the legal aid was being considered.
44
The great difference that was made in 1947 was that the procedure in forma pauperis did not reach the person who could not afford litigation and who, nevertheless, needed help to bring or defend his rights but was above the level of pauperism—poverty. In 1947 the legal aid scheme was transformed into a social service funded out of public funds. The legal profession still made a contribution. Up until then, it was regarded as a duty to appear for a litigant in forma pauperis and famous cases came before your Lordships' House with the lawyer giving their services completely gratuitously. After 1947 the lawyers continued still to make a personal sacrifice because they accepted less than the proper taxed fees that would be allowed.
However, it became, subject to that, a social service funded by public funds. As my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham pointed out on Amendment No. 46, as such it has to compete with a whole number of other social services. In each one there are people claiming emoluments. There is the private soldier and the officer in the army. There is the rating and the officer in the navy. There are the nurses and administrators in the hospital service, and so on. One could enumerate them indefinitely.
Nobody could have listened—and I say this without personal prejudice—to the speeches of my noble friend Lord Benson, my noble and learned friends Lord Ackner and Lord Griffiths and other noble Lords who spoke to Amendment No. 46 without being deeply impressed. I found it quite impossible to vote against their contentions having heard them. But this seems to me an entirely different matter, and a completely impossible amendment to accept. Of all the servants in the various public services apparently only the lawyers will not have their remuneration considered with competing claims. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is enjoined to consider this, that and the other, but the one aspect he is not allowed to consider is the cost to public funds. That seems to be an impossible proposition and I hope that my noble and learned friend will not accept it.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I want to make only a brief comment. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Benson, greatly overstated his case in putting forward this amendment. Nor am I at all content with the view relating to the remuneration of barristers and solicitors when the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said in an earlier debate that idealism had gone out of the window.
The law is a profession. It is not a trade union. When my father, who was by far the most competent barrister I have ever spoken to intimately, was advising me on what to do when I was called to the Bar he said that the art of the advocate was the ability to persuade. I believe that to be the profound truth. He advised me to take any work which came, whatever it was, and to do the best I could with it. There was no legal aid. I took criminal work, matrimonial work and I worked in the Chancery Division. My home was the King's Bench Division, the county court and the magistrates' courts. I worked all over the place. I must say that this theory

45
that the legal profession is developing—it has been reflected in some of the speeches today—that if you handle crime you have to do that and nothing else, that if you do legal aid work you have to defend in crime and nothing else, or perhaps do matrimonial work and nothing else, or act as a plaintiff in running down cases and nothing else, runs against my whole experience of the profession and undermines its professional character. The law is a profession and God grant that it should never become a trade union.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the last words of the noble and learned Lord echoed through the Chamber and certainly struck my ears. However, I assure him that there is no need for drama to alter in any way the character of the profession that he has honoured by being a member for many years; and a distinguished member, too.
I never said that idealism had left my profession. If I thought that I would leave the profession rather quickly. I happen to be, I hope, as faithful a member of it as the noble and learned Lord, even if not as distinguished a member. I said something quite different in Committee. I said that either the Government have to rely upon the old idealism still current in the profession. where all of us who were worthy of the name "lawyer" used to do as much as we could to take on cases and matters even where we were not paid one penny or at reduced fees, or it must be properly paid for.
I do not intend to recount to the House my own experiences over the years, which I very much enjoyed, of running a poor man's law centre in one of the poorest districts of London. I learnt an awful lot about human nature and I hope that at the same time I learnt a little about the law. However, I learnt much more about human nature as a result of that experience.
What I said in Committee was that the Government took upon themselves the responsibility of saying to the profession, "We no longer need your idealism". The days referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, going back to Tudor times and lasting over the centuries were memorable and idealistic, but the Government said, "We do not intend to do that any more than we are going to do it with health. We are no longer going to ask a doctor as a matter of charity to see the cap-doffing person outside who begs him to look at his child but who cannot pay the fee." The Government said, "In a welfare state we no longer require that; we are going to pay properly for a National Health Service and we are going to pay properly for a legal aid scheme." I said that in those circumstances idealism was no longer called upon and was asked almost to fly out of the window so that the legal aid scheme would properly function without charity being called for. I hope the noble and learned Lord will never quote me again as saying that idealism had left the legal profession.
Having said that, our fear is that the Treasury will one of these days, and it may be rather soon, say to the Lord Chancellor, "In the general economy which we are practising this is the total amount we are going to give you. That is the total sum regardless of
46
whether or not you can pay out fair remuneration and regardless of whether or not you can properly run the legal aid programme". We say that in fixing the remuneration the difference is between the concept of the overlordship of the Treasury saying, "You will have only this sum for this year, now fix your legal aid scheme", and the Lord Chancellor's Department being able to say, "This is the cost of the legal aid scheme run as economically and as efficiently as possible; this is the cost and we must therefore argue for that cost". Once there is the obligation to supply a legal aid scheme it must be properly paid for. Again, I speak in terms of the cart being placed before the horse.
That is all I have to say but I repeat—only because otherwise it is extremely hurtful—that there is no member of the legal profession for whom the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, has any respect, or for whom I have any respect, who does not carry into his allegiance to that profession a love of the law and a desire to serve his fellow man.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I venture to suggest that this amendment is being misunderstood. The cost to public funds is clearly relevant in the administration of this service. The cost to public funds must bear upon the entitlement to legal aid; where you draw the limits, what is the capital and what is the income. The cost to public funds must determine whether there is legal aid before the Social Security Commissioners —a matter with which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor had considerable sympathy. However, funds do not stretch that far. They do not stretch far enough to cover proceedings before the industrial tribunals. They do not stretch far enough to cover the coroner's courts. We all wish that they did.
If public funds cannot accommodate, for example, appeals to the House of Lords, that facility must be withdrawn. What this amendment is directed to is simply this. If public funds permit legal aid so that those who need to rely upon the service shall have, as the Government have said more than once, the same ability to obtain assistance, then it follows that it must be properly remunerated. To bring into the scale of remuneration, once it is accepted that legal aid should be provided, this nebulous phrase,
"cost to the public funds",
thereby producing the potential application of some ill-defined and undisclosed incomes policy, is quite irrelevant.
Its irrelevance is demonstrated by reference to that useful document of 8th April 1986 in which the Lord Chancellor's Department sets out the various matters to which regard should be had. There is not the slightest reference to the fact or hint that this in itself was of relevance. This is why there is anxiety at its being introduced in a clause where the principle of fair remuneration has gone out of the window. By all means let the Government say that the fund cannot afford various facilities, but once they say that they can afford that facility, then in order that the customer should get the same kind of service as he would have done if he could have afforded it, it must follow that the public funds argument is irrelevant.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that very early in the legal aid administration a deduction of a percentage was made from civil legal aid in respect of remuneration which otherwise might be payable on the ground that it was legally aided. I believe it is important to remember that, because in the various arguments that we have had this point is sometimes forgotten. The Government recently announced that this particular percentage would be cut. It could not be cut altogether because of the legislation under which legal aid was paid. It was to be cut from 10 per cent. to 5 per cent., and it will be cut altogether if and when this Bill becomes law because the possibility of doing that lawfully would then occur. I believe that in all the discussions connected with remuneration it is worth while to bear that in mind. One might gather from the atmosphere and from what we have heard in some of the speeches that there is a suggestion that the Government are concerned only to try to reduce and reduce and reduce, whereas as regards civil legal aid we have at a stroke increased remuneration by 11 per cent.
As regards this amendment, it is proper to understand what is being said. The noble Lord, Lord Benson, in moving the amendment has misunderstood the part that this particular phrase (which he seeks to delete) plays in the matter. I said, and I believe it to be true, that in fixing the remuneration of those in the public service the Government will take into account the fact that it is a public service that is being funded. The remuneration of Ministers and officials is fixed with that in mind.
I agree that, remuneration having been fixed and agreed to for a particular period, there is no question of its then being cut in order to afford some particular public interest unless in very special circumstances. It may have happened in the past in rather special circumstances the details of which I need not dwell upon. There is no suggestion of that in this clause. What is suggested here is that in fixing the remuneration to which a solicitor or barrister will be entitled under the legal aid scheme, one of the factors to be taken into account is the cost to public funds of any provision made by the regulations. In my view and entirely in accordance with the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale, this is simply to recognise an important fact of public administration and to recognise it appropriately on the face of the Bill as one of the considerations to be taken into account.
The noble Lord, Lord Benson, made a suggestion which is negatived by the provisions of the Bill as I sought to explain them to noble Lords who moved amendments to Clause 39. Once remuneration has been earned under the regulations in respect of work done under the regulations following the date on which they come into effect, that work will be remunerated. There is no question of a cut being made thereafter. Once the remuneration has been earned on the statutory basis, that remuneration becomes payable out of money provided by Parliament. In the terms of the opening part of Clause 39, the Lord Chancellor has an absolute obligation, subject to time and place, to make
48
payment of the sums to which the legal profession is entitled in terms of the remuneration provisions.
There is no question of a subsequent cut such as that which the noble Lord, Lord Benson, described and which he sought to distinguish from the kind of considerations affecting all persons who are paid out of the public purse. In my view recognition that the remuneration is to be out of the public purse is fundamental and it is appropriately recognised on the face of the statute. We are seeking to identify the factors which make up the appropriate remuneration for the profession. In those circumstances I could not possibly accept this amendment or advise your Lordships to agree to it.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I make two points in answer to the Lord Chancellor. The first is that I do not understand that the removal of the 10 per cent. is any act of generosity —
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, on a point of order. I understand that we are on Report stage. This is not the first time that it has happened but it is being treated as a Committee stage. We are entitled only to one speech.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, the amendment is down in my name and I believed that I was entitled to close it. However I bow to my noble and learned friend if I am wrong.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: The amendment is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Benson.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, the amendment is down in our joint names. May I have the permission of your Lordships to continue uninterrupted?
The two points I make are these. I do not understand that it is the result of any government generosity that the 10 per cent. is being moved. It is a technical consequence. We have moved from a method of taxation known as party and party and indemnity taxation to a standard basis. It is because of the standard basis taxation that the 10 per cent. is going. I read that in the report of the Legal Aid Advisory Committee.
My second point is that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said at Committee stage, and again today, that there is no question of our taking money out of the pay otherwise agreed for the legal profession. I accept that, but perhaps I may emphasise how the problem is going to arise in practice. The new approach to fees is prescribed fees. The prescription of those fees from time to time—often very frequently, vide the £33 for paperwork to which I have referred—has to be looked at in the light of the particular circumstances of the case. One can well see as a result of government policy the word going out that the prescribed rate must not be departed from or, if departed from, by no more than a given percentage.
That is where the danger lies. The money would not be taken out; it just would not be properly paid.

49
That is the reason for resisting something which has never occurred before in a clause where all the pointers are that this is going to be a method of cut-price remuneration. However, out of respect, as I think the phrase is, to your Lordships' lobby, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Benson Lord Benson moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 27, leave Out lines 37 to 40.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to remove from the Bill paragraph (g) of Clause 32(6) because it is unintelligible. That is a sufficient reason for asking for its removal and one which scarcely requires embellishment. It might be prudent to comment that the nature of this clause is similar to the unsatisfactory drafting in some of the other clauses of this Bill.
In so far as it is possible to ascribe a meaning to the words, it appears to say that the Lord Chancellor shall have regard to two things: a list of priorities and, secondly, any considerations indicated by paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d).
First, what will the Lord Chancellor do when he has made the list of priorities? Will he lock it up in his files or will he use it? If he uses it, how will he use it and why? The public is entitled to know the intention of the list of priorities, and there is no indication in the Bill.
Secondly, what are the considerations indicated by paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d)? Here again the public is entitled to know precisely how those considerations affect paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). In the course of replying to this amendment I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will specify the considerations presently indicated by paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) and the order of priority which he presently thinks appropriate for each of them.
This amendment is not a matter of ridicule; it goes to the very heart of Clause 32(6), which is the remuneration of the legal profession. It is entitled to know precisely what the clause means. As presently drafted, it might be used to erode or to eliminate altogether the effect of paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). I suggest that not only for the reason that the wording is unintelligible the clause should be withdrawn. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, purely as a matter of drafting, I think that the Bill is capable of improvement upon the point which the noble Lord, Lord Benson, has mentioned. Perhaps I may weary your Lordships for one moment by reading out the relevant words and the sequence in which they will come now that two amendments of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor have been agreed to. It will read as follows:
"The Lord Chancellor, in making regulations for the purposes mentioned in subsection (2)(e) above as respects any description of legal aid work, shall have regard, among the matters which are relevant, to—"
Then we go down to (g):
"the relative priority among the matters for which he is responsible under this Act which he attaches to any considerations indicated by paragraphs (a) to (d) above."
50
In trying to understand this, I must confess that it is possible, with a metaphorical wet towel round one's head, to derive a sense of logical English from it, but it is not easy. I think that the draftsmen should be invited to reconsider this purely as a matter of wording.
I now come to the substance of the noble Lord's amendment. I find it rather strange that, having set out these specific tests to which my noble and learned friend referred in some detail when we were discussing Amendment No. 46, we then find that they are not born free and equal. Paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) are to be given relative priority. However the quite important tests under paragraphs (e) and (f) for this purpose are excluded by not being mentioned. I must confess that I find that very strange. Therefore, although I am uncertain whether paragraph (g) is necessary at all, I think that for the reasons that I have mentioned—the matter of drafting and the matter of substance—it should be reconsidered.
Lord Griffiths: My Lords, I too have great difficulty with the wording of this subsection. I do not know what are comprised among the matters for which he is responsible under this Act. Is that meant to bring in paragraphs (e) and (f)? If not, to what is it referring? I confess that I just do not know the answer.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I too should like to voice my difficulty in understanding this. Since my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has said he wishes to identify a simple and workable formula which the professions will be able easily to follow, this does not seem to qualify.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I adhere to the object that I expressed earlier of obtaining a workable formula which will be reasonably plain. I think I am right in saying that this particular point was not raised at Committee stage, but I am subject to correction if anybody has raised it and I have allowed it to slip from my mind.
The (g) factor—if I may call it that for the purposes of reference—is intended to ensure that when the Lord Chancellor takes his decision on remuneration, he can do so having regard to the implications for the legal aid scheme as a whole. These regulations will generally deal with particular types of work. For example, it is possible that the fees allotted to matrimonial work would produce a balance in favour of matrimonial work because it was thought to be particularly important at a particular time that it should be concentrated upon. It is one of the matters that has to be provided under the Act. I have to have regard to the relative priority of the various services for which I am responsible. I believe it is necessary that I should be able to have regard to these factors and the considerations arising from them in relation to the legal aid scheme as a whole.
For my part I regard that as an important consideration. Remuneration of the profession, is, as your Lordships have said, a crucial factor in ensuring the health of the legal aid scheme. Factor (g) does not in any way diminish the Lord Chancellor's responsibility in giving weight to each factor, and in

51
particular to that factor. The clause requires him to have regard to each of the factors set out. Remuneration rates cannot be set in a vacuum. We need to take account of the implications for the legal aid scheme and the way the work is conducted under that scheme as a whole. That is what factor (g) ensures and that is one reason why I believe it to be important.
The provision has the effect of ensuring that the Lord Chancellor's decision is taken by having regard to the precise factors listed and the considerations arising from them. This is the point that I sought to illustrate in relation to paragraph (d). If the result of consideration under paragraph (d) was that not enough barristers and solicitors of sufficient standing were undertaking particular work that would be a consideration of which it would be right to take account in allotting priorities or weight as between the factors. Accordingly, I would think it necessary to have a provision of the type which is specified in paragraph (g) to open out these considerations and allow them to be used as one looks forward to the time at which the remuneration will take effect; and not only therefore to the remuneration but the likely effect of that remuneration on all the services to be rendered.
I regard the clause as important and one that should be retained. Whether it can be improved is a matter of judgment. If I may I shall certainly examine what has been said to see whether any improvement can be made to the clause because I am still anxious that we should have in regard to remuneration for the future a clause which everyone can understand.
6 p.m.
Lord Benson: My Lords, I understood the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to say that in the light of the comments that have been made on this clause tonight he will consider amending it to make it what I would call intelligible or at least more in accordance with the explanation that he sought to give us. If that is so, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment. I should like to be sure that I understood the position correctly.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I said that a number of noble and learned Lords (for whose opinion I have the greatest possible respect) have said that this is unintelligible. In the face of suggestions of that kind, it must be responsible of me to ask parliamentary counsel to have another look at the clause to see whether he can make it more intelligible to my noble and learned friends and to those who will have to operate it. I desire, however, to make it clear that I wish to retain what I have sought to explain as the purpose of the clause. What I am offering is to attempt to improve the wording to meet the difficulties on which my noble and learned friends and others appear to have stumbled.
Lord Benson: My Lords, on the basis of that undertaking, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 28, line 5, leave out subsection (9).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is one of those consequential on the changes I agreed to accept in relation to the differentiation between the affirmative and the negative resolution procedure in respect of the various regulation-making powers. We require to alter the basic structural arrangements in this connection, and this provision is in pursuance of those undertakings. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 28, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) Any regulations made for the purpose of sections 1(5), 1(7), 2(8), 7, 13, 14, 15. and 32(2)(e) of this Act or containing any provision made for any purposes shall not come into force unless or until approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, to some extent we have covered the ground in regard to this point: namely, the importance of having the affirmative resolution procedure for important provisions made by regulation. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has agreed in regard to Clause 2(8) and Clauses 7, 13 and 32(2)(e); but I do not think that the same concession has been made on Clause 1(5) which covers the important provisions regarding the scope of legal aid.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, just so that there is no mistake about this matter, Clause 2(4) is what I have agreed to make subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and not Clause 2(8). Clause 2(8) has to do with the numbers. Clause 2(4) deals with the extension of the board's powers. There may be a misprint or perhaps the noble and learned Lord intends to subject Clause 2(8) to this power.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I am most grateful. Perhaps I had better look at the clauses one by one. Clause 1(5) relates to the scope of legal aid and is an immensely important provision. I should like the observations of the noble and learned Lord on that. The next one is Clause 1(7). I do not think that I can make any serious contention about Clause 1(7) so I withdraw it from the amendment. It deals with occasions when counsel can be dispensed with. It does not sound as though it is of revolutionary importance, but for the Bar it might be thought to be so. I do not think I can press that one, but I thought that Clause 2(8) in relation to the extension of the board's functions had been agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it was Clause 2(4).
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, with regard to Clause 7 and the scope of legal advice, the resolution procedure has been agreed. In regard to Clause 13 and the scope of legal aid, that has been agreed for affirmative resolution. In regard to Clause 14, which governs financial eligibility for legal aid, it has not. It is a fundamentally important provision and I should be grateful for the further thoughts of the noble and learned Lord on that point. Clause 15, which governs contributions for civil legal aid, seems to us to be of

53
sufficient importance to merit each House having the opportunity to consider the regulations when it is sought to introduce them. We have just dealt with Clause 32(2). Those arc the matters to which my amendment relates. An abundance of regulations are still left under the sole supervision of the negative procedure but the ones referred to in the amendment are of sufficient importance for each House to be able to examine them and express a view upon them.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, perhaps I may take the regulations that are outstanding in the amendment and try to deal with them in the order in which they appear. Clause 1(5) deals with the power to specify what may be included in advice, assistance and representation in particular circumstances. It also provides for regulations to allow for work done otherwise than under the Act to be included within its provisions. That kind of regulation will be self-explanatory and though important can certainly be adequately dealt with by the negative resolution procedure. If there is an objectionable matter your Lordships would have the chance to raise it.
Clause 1(7) deals with the power to prescribe circumstances in which representations can be limited to solicitors only or counsel only, or the circumstances in which representation by more than one counsel is to be allowed. Regulations of that type are self-explanatory. The noble and learned Lord has agreed that it would not be appropriate to allocate parliamentary time in advance and possibly unnecessarily to those regulations.
The next matter relates to Clause 2(8), as printed. As I intervened to say, I have agreed that Clause 2(4) should be the subject of affirmative resolution. In discussion on that clause, I think we reached substantial agreement about that matter. Clause 2(4) is taken up again in Clause 2(8) which also incorporates Clause 2(6). Clause 2(4) is agreed by me as requiring affirmative resolution. I do not think that it is appropriate to make Clause 2, and particularly Clause 2(6), subject to the affirmative resolution procedure for the reasons that I have just given.
I have agreed to Clause 7. Your Lordships will remember that that clause was subject to amendment by the House. I have agreed to make the powers under that clause subject to affirmative resolution. Clause 13(2) (the scope of civil legal aid) and Clause 14 (the financial eligibility conditions for civil legal aid) are entirely self-explanatory and I should have thought appropriate for the negative resolution procedure. As regards Clause 15 (the arrangements for contributions and the statutory charge in civil legal aid), I made some adjustments to the statutory powers to take account of a point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner.
As regards the remuneration regulations, I should have thought that those were pre-eminently regulations which should be dealt with by way of negative resolution. It will be plain enough what the regulations are seeking to do and no explanation or introduction of them will be required. Therefore I suggest to your Lordships that it would be appropriate that they be dealt with by the negative resolution procedure.
54
Having considered those powers individually, as we have done during the Bill's passage, I venture to suggest to your Lordships that we have reached a proper balance as between the affirmative and the negative resolution procedures. Parliamentary time is a scarce commodity and I am sure that your Lordships would not wish to be wearied unnecessarily with explanations from me of uncontroversial provisions. Who knows, the remuneration regulations may well fall when made under that category—one never ceases to be amazed—and, accordingly, I think we have achieved a good balance which I invite your Lordships to accept.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I think that I am allowed to speak at the end of the debate. It would be churlish of me not to express gratitude for some of the concessions that have been made. The issue is not whether a provision is clear or straightforward but how important the point is to the litigant or potential litigant. However, I shall examine carefully what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said. At this stage I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amentment No. 53 not moved.]
Lord Benson Lord Benson moved Amendment No. 54:
After Clause 32 insert the following new clause:
("Legal Aid fees Advisory Committee.
The Lord Chancellor shall appoint an Advisory Committee (to be known as "the Legal Aid Fees Advisory Committee") to examine and report to him on all matters relating to the remuneration of the legal profession in connection With legal aid.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this subject was debated late into the night in Committee. The Committee stopped just before midnight. During that debate I explained in some detail why the Royal Commission on Legal Services had made the recommendation that an advisory committee should be appointed. I also explained how it would be set up and the effect it would have on the remuneration of the legal profession. It would weary the House if I were to go through all that argumentation again, but I have one or two relevant points to make.
The basic reason the Royal Commission found for making the recommendation was that there was copious evidence, extending over a long time before we even sat (1976 to 1979) to show that adequate statistical and financial information had not become available. Apart from that, there had been a continuous failure to pay adequate remuneration for the lawyers engaged in the service. There was, so to speak, a running fight in that connection. We went into the matter in a good deal of detail and came to the conclusion that the only solution would be the appointment of an advisory committee. That proposal has indeed been warmly endorsed by the legal profession.
On 4th June 1986, the former Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said that he was not and had never been unfriendly to the suggestion of such an advisory committee. He said that he would greatly welcome a mechanism which would help him to fulfil his responsibility. In

55
Committee the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor took the opposite view. He said:
"I think that we are making progress in the collection of the basic data. That is what is required. It is much better for those concerned to work this out between them than to pass it all over to some third party to sort out".—[Official Report, 19/1/87; col. 199.]
Ten years ago we found that the basic data had not been provided. Indeed, now some 10 years later it has still not been provided. One doubts whether it ever will be provided in a satisfactory form.
However, assuming that it is eventually provided, it is not only the data but the interpretation which is placed upon it that is important. I remind the House that with all the resources at their disposal the Government have for many years failed to find a suitable formula or satisfactorily to remunerate the legal profession in the legal aid service.
If the Royal Commission's recommendation had been adopted, that inept administration, which has plagued the legal aid services for so many years, would have been avoided. The legal profession is anxious for an advisory committee to be appointed so that order can be restored out of chaos. When replying in Committee, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that it was always open to him to appoint an advisory committee, and so it is; but, it is equally open to him not to do so. The purpose of the amendment is to suggest that, in view of past experience and the uncertain prognostications for the future, the option should be removed and an advisory committee should be appointed by statute.
The House may or may not think that the arguments that I have put before it are compelling. But anyone who reads carefully the debate which has taken place about factors, principles, standards, fair remuneration and so forth, will realise the general muddle which still prevails. That is one of the overriding reasons for having an independent committee to advise on those problems and help to sort out the chaos which has existed for so many years.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, recently I happened to come across a magazine issued by the Bar which has two great advantages. First, it contains two excellent photographs; one in colour and one in black and white, which almost do justice to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. They caught my eye. Secondly, the following phrase used by my noble and learned friend caught my eye: "I welcome advice". That is the whole purpose and function of the amendment. That it is advice only the committee would offer is made plain when one sees what the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft (a one-time Permanent Secretary to the Treasury), said, to which my noble friend Lord Benson has drawn our attention.
He said this:
"I am aware that the creation of a fees advisory hoard can be and indeed has been criticised on a number of grounds. The first is that the Government are abdicating a crucial responsibility. Secondly, it places too much power in the hands of a non-accountable body. Thirdly, it omits from the equation the critical item of the ability to pay. All those arguments are very old and are totally misconceived.",
He went on:
56
"The proposed body, like the several others that already exist and to which reference has been made during the course of the debate, would be advisory to the extent that it would be open to the Government of the day to reject or modify the advice if there were clear and compelling reasons in the national interest for doing so. It is for the Government to make that judgment, for good or ill. I believe that I am right in saying that in their wisdom successive governments of both colours have almost invariably used that right of modification in the case, for example, of the Top Salaries Review Body, but there has always been a public benchmark, whether honoured or not.".
The need for that body to exist was made clear two years ago when the Bar retained Messrs. Coopers & Lybrand to make a detailed investigation into what was the situation in regard to criminal legal aid. In essence, they reported as follows. Barristers with between 10 and 15 years' seniority (that is, aged 30 to 35, or perhaps a little older) who were dependent upon criminal legal aid were earning 30 to 40 per cent. less than barristers of the same seniority employed in government departments. Of course those in government departments have the advantage of security of tenure, security of income and the reassuring knowledge that if they go sick there is someone to maintain their families. They also have many pension advantages.
The Government are a monopoly employer. They therefore ought to have advice available to them if they genuinely want to be fair and reasonable. This type of advisory body is not a new class of body, it exists, and successfully exists, in many, many fields.
As amendment after amendment has been lost, Clause 32 becomes more and more depressing reading to those who do not want to see the legal aid system degenerate into a second-rate service. The advisory committee will provide the necessary check and advice, which may on occasions support a desire to keep fees down rather than to allow them to go up. But it will be an independent body, in which, like other independent bodies, professions are likely to have confidence. It cannot in any way hurt the Government to have advice available unless they are bent on disregarding such advice in the majority of cases.
Lord Renton: My Lords. I too read the article in Counsel. I read with admiration and agreement, if I may say so, the answers which my noble and learned friend gave, besides admiring the handsome likenesses and photographs, both of them.
I can tell my noble and learned friend what he already knows: he will get plenty of advice. He will get advice from the Bar Council and the Law Society, from the judges and perhaps from the leaders of circuits. He will get advice of course from the Legal Aid Board itself. I am very much afraid that if there is an advisory committee appointed there will be a tendency to try to channel that advice through this proposed advisory committee instead of to the Lord Chancellor, as I think it should be directed. The advisory committee will perhaps consist of distinguished accountants who may not all be as sympathetic as the noble Lord, Lord Benson. But my feeling is that it will not be easy if we have this advisory committee to work out the division of functions among it, the Legal Aid Board and the Lord Chancellor's Department. Therefore I would find it very difficult to support this amendment.
Lord Griffiths: My Lords, I support this amendment because of the melancholy experience which I had when I was president of the Senate. I watched the deteriorating relationships between the profession and the Lord Chancellor's Department, arising out of attempts to have direct negotiation between those bodies on legal aid fees. It is very understandable. The Lord Chancellor's Department regards itself as the keeper of the public purse, and very properly so. Those who are negotiating on behalf of the professions regard it as their task, within reason and what is compatible with a public position, to secure as good remuneration as they can for the profession.
The situation reached such a pitch that when the Bar, at great expense, commissioned a report by Coopers & Lybrand, the attitude of the Lord Chancellor's Department was that it was basically such a flawed document that it was hardly worth taking it into consideration. That is not a satisfactory way to collect and evaluate data.
As I understood the function, the suggestion in this amendment is that the advisory board would itself receive the data and arguments presented by the two sides and bring to it a completely independent judgment of what was in all the circumstances fair remuneration. It would then give its advice to the Lord Chancellor in exactly the same way as various other bodies give their advice on fair remuneration for nurses, judges, generals and so forth to the Government. I believe that to be a far better and more satisfactory way of arriving at fair remuneration.
The other matter that disturbs me greatly is that it is essential for the health of the administration of justice in this country that there should be a good, harmonious working relationship between the Lord Chancellor and his department and the professions. Unless there is a harmonious relationship, the adminstration of justice will suffer greatly. I am afraid that the refusal to acknowledge the principle of fair remuneration is inevitably likely to sour future relations in negotiations on pay.
These two amendments are in some way tied together. Had the principle of fair remuneration been conceded, I should have felt less anxious about this amendment. But as the principle of fair remuneration is not conceded, I support it because I think it very important that there should be an entirely independent look at the remuneration of the profession, in which there would, I hope, be a large lay input.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, as my name was brought into this matter at an earlier stage perhaps I may say that in the present form in which the amendment is proposed I am inclined to think that it would be, as my noble friend Lord Renton said, as it were a fifth wheel to the coach. But there are two entirely separate issues to be considered here.
When the Coopers and Lybrand report was brought to my attention I did indeed on the advice of my officials regard it as a deeply flawed document. So
58
it turned out to be, not from any lack of expertise or expert integrity on the part of the accountants who were engaged by the Bar but because the data—forgive my old pronunciation—fed into it by the Bar itself were not accurate. They were very inaccurate indeed in parts. I shall not go into detail because it was ultimately established that they were inaccurate.
When I said during the debate in 1986 that I was not in any way hostile to a mechanism whereby the facts could be established, I meant exactly what I said. It seemed to me to be wholly undesirable that in any negotiations between the department of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and a learned profession or either part of a learned profession regarding what the facts were, the facts could not be decided by a mutually agreed mechanism of some kind. I still think that that may very well be true, although I should hope that the mechanism when agreed would not be imposed by statute on either side but would be mutually acceptable to the two negotiating bodies. However, when it is said that there should be an advisory committee on fees generally then I am much more hesitant because a different issue is thereby raised.
My noble and learned friend Lord Griffiths said that the department of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—he was too polite to say the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor although certainly two of us present in the Chamber took it that my noble and learned friend meant the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—regarded itself as the keeper of the public purse or some such expression. He meant, in effect, that the Lord Chancellor's Department was a fairly subordinate department of the Treasury.
I do not know what the department was like under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, or what it will be like under my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, but that remark certainly was not true of me when I held that office and I hope it never will be true of the department of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
Obviously under the doctrine of Cabinet responsibility the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor must take responsibility for the ultimate outcome, not only of negotiations between himself and the profession but also of negotiations between himself and the Treasury. But I can assure my noble and learned friend Lord Griffiths that the department of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor (and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor himself, in my experience) regards itself as the spokesman for the legal profession—the judiciary as well as the two branches of the practising profession—inside the Government. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is their friend at court. I can tell my noble and learned friend Lord Griffiths that many and ferocious were the battles fought by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and his department on behalf of the legal profession inside the government machine. I do not think that I am entitled to say more than that.
But to suggest that one will improve matters by bringing in an advisory body appointed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to advise

59
generally on the basis perhaps of the Top Salaries Review Board or that which deals with the doctors, the top airmen, the top soldiers, the top sailors, etc. would tend to be, in the form in which it is now proposed, to propose a fifth wheel to the coach. I believe that my noble friend Lord Renton made that point much better than I am doing now.
I thought that I detected in the speeches of my noble and learned friend Lord Griffiths and the noble Lord, Lord Benson, a desire to make the analogy between the Top Salaries Review Board and the other advisory bodies and what is now proposed for the legal profession. But the difference is clear and, I should have thought, decisive. To take the rather painful part of the analogy, judges are paid by salary. That means that it is quite legitimate for them to appear, or for senior doctors or consultants to appear, before their body—I once appeared before it myself as a patient—and say, "Look, we must have an independent piece of advisory machinery in order to say what somebody paid by salary entirely out of public funds should receive by way of remuneration and in comparison with other highly paid professions."
However, I do not believe that in the present situation of this amendment a profession which is paid entirely by fees should be at all in the same position. It is the duty of the department of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to negotiate on the basis of agreed facts. If the department cannot agree them it should devise a mechanism to determine them. On the basis of agreed or determined facts it should negotiate with the two professions direct. Having negotiated with the two professions direct it is up to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to approach his colleagues in the Government. Let us not again make the mistake of regarding the Treasury as the Aunt Sally to be attacked. The Treasury does include all the other spending departments. The right way forward is to agree one's facts first, get them clearly determined or agreed and then to negotiate direct with the profession and direct inside the Government between the department of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the other departments.
I do not believe that an outside body would be of any use for that purpose. It would either be a nugatory body because, as has been said, its advice could be disregarded, or it would be used as a pressure point to get for the legal profession something which it could not get by the process which I have described.
Lord Roskill: My Lords, I venture to suggest to your Lordships that this amendment is to be supported and to express the hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will have second thoughts other than those which he expressed in Committee. I of course accept what my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone has just said. There have been many occasions on which his department and that of his predecessors in the past has put up a valued fight with the Treasury on behalf of the judges and the legal profession. Many of us in the past have been deeply grateful for
60
that. However there have been other occasions on which unfortunately such battles have been lost.
It cannot be stressed too strongly—here I speak, like my noble and learned friend Lord Griffiths, as a former president at the Senate—how melancholy it is that for one reason or another relations between the Bar Council and the Law Society on the one hand and Whitehall (I use the word generically at the moment) on the other have deteriorated sadly in recent years.
I was not in my place earlier because I was engaged in trying to resolve a long dispute which is not a subject of legal aid. I have a number of extremely busy juniors and leaders. The juniors said to me, "I am so glad you are going down there. Can nothing be done to restore the confidence of the Bar in Whitehall and see that we have a fair deal?—because unless something is done soon"—here I quote the words of one junior not unknown to my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale—"legal aid will simply pass into the hands of the duds".
I heard the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, express the same thought more elegantly in Committee but there is a very real risk that that will happen. I suggest that nothing would restore confidence more quickly between the Bar Council as it now is and the Law Society on the one hand and central government on the other than if my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack would show willingness to set up a committee and would provide in the statute that it should be set up. As the noble and learned Lord said later during the Committee stage that night, of course he can appoint a committee if he wants to do so. But, as my noble and learned friend has said, sometimes the Lord Chancellor might say "Yes", but he is not immortal and another Lord Chancellor might say "No".
Those of us who support the profession on this wish to see a statutory obligation. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has said, the Government are not obliged to follow the advice of such a body; they could reject its advice, as they have more than once rejected that of other advisory committees. But at least there would be an independent body which the profession could trust, which at present is lamentably and sadly lacking. I venture to hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will give another thought to this proposal.
Lord Meston: My Lords, although it is right to say that there are distinctions between practitioners who receive fees and those who receive salaries and therefore have the benefit of advisory committees, many legal practitioners dependent upon legal aid work receive a fee that is finite; it has a ceiling upon it and their livelihood has a ceiling upon it. They are therefore not really in an equivalent position to practitioners who enjoy privately-paid work. They are in a position equivalent to those receiving salaries without the security of those who have salaried employment. It is for that reason, among others, that I believe the proposed committee would be so useful.
Such a committee could do a great deal to ensure the confidence of the legal professions upon whom

61
the future working of the legal aid system will continue to depend. It would do much to remove the heat from future negotiations between the professions and government departments. I suggest that it would not only remove the heat but would also produce well-informed light, and its function—as is clear from the amendment—would simply be to advise.
In that context the committee need not be expensive or cumbersome. It would not have to meet frequently once the machinery for the assessment of remuneration was properly in being. It would only be of help. I venture to suggest also that we would not be spending so much time on the topic of remuneration during the course of this Bill's passage through your Lordships' House if such an advisory committee had already been in existence.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, in an appeal to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, which others have also made in this debate, to consider this amendment with a completely open mind and—if I may say so with respect—very seriously indeed.
I make that plea (and I hope this will not be deemed too bold a remark) for the sake of the dignity of the Lord Chancellor's position which, as has been said, is historically the head of the legal profession.
I have always regarded it as absolutely unseemly that the head of the legal profession, whether or not he is represented by officers of his department, should sit across a table bargaining over the fees payable in regard to legal aid. That led to a most unhappy situation—and we have all agreed not to draw the curtain on it this afternoon—of proceedings actually being brought by a branch of the profession against the Lord Chancellor on the basis of a judicial review.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was frank enough to say that he kept open the doors of the court in regard to an application for judicial review by the very wording of the clause with which we are dealing. That was a very frank and, if I may say so, a very honourable statement. But I assure him that there is not one Member of your Lordships' House, nor one solicitor or member of the Bar, who wants so see that situation arise ever again.
6.45 p.m.
What is the way of avoiding that? The way is not the harsh bargaining that sometimes used to take place by virtue of the fact that the Lord Chancellor had the Treasury looking over his shoulder—maybe in the very gentlemanly and gentle guise that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, depicted the Treasury, merely telling him to be awfully careful about the fees that are agreed—and on the other side, I hope, reasonable negotiators appointed by the Law Society and the Bar Council, who tried equally to put to the Lord Chancellor the reasons why the Treasury should not on this occasion win the battle because it was an unfair battle.
That is completely undignified and wrong. However, what if the Law Society, the Bar Council and the Lord Chancellor could say, "We have had the advice of a panel"? It is not intended to be a standing
62
committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, was hinting, but merely a panel to which certain aspects will be referred from time to time, possibly with the help of the manpower commission when some research has to be carried out; I am talking about the manpower secretariat.
The difference then would be in the dignity of the discussions, where an independent outside body whose decisions were not binding on either party was able to put its recommendations or views so that both parties could deal with them and with the data that it had to present.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, when speaking in terms of certain top review bodies, said quite correctly that they deal with salaries. I respectfully draw the attention of the noble and learned Lord to the fact that there is another professional body that deals with fees coming from both the private and public sector, which does have such a committee or panel. I refer to the pharmaceutical profession. I am told that it works extremely well. If ever there is a profession needing an advisory body, then it is the legal profession. The public may feel that the profession is getting greedy; I hope that they do not, but that is sometimes the view expressed.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor walks into the unfortunate street where passers-by in the legal profession—members of it—wonder whether he is doing his duty by that profession and whether he is not being too mean. Is it not very sensible to have a panel nominated by the Lord Chancellor? I am sure that the legal profession would be delighted with that. It might have sitting on it a solicitor, a barrister, an economist, a senior civil servant and one other suitable expert. I am referring to notes because I know that the Law Society put forward proposals that the membership of such an advisory panel might comprise such persons. As noble Lords will have noticed, that means a majority of people other than practising solicitors and barristers.
I plead with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that we do not want a repetition of the unseemly and ungainly past. It put both the profession and the Lord Chancellor in the wrong position. The Legal Aid Board cannot fulfil such a role because it is charged with administering the scheme. It would be a nonsense if that board were to put forward such suggestions. We have the opportunity in the Bill before us of achieving dignity for the position that the noble and learned Lord holds and for the two sides of the legal profession. I beg the noble and learned Lord to accept the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I begin by paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Benson, who moved this amendment and to his work as chairman of the Royal Commission on Legal Services. I agree with him that it is of fundamental importance that proper data should be available to whoever has the responsibility to determine legal aid remuneration. However it is done, that is the first and fundamental requirement. My predecessor but one, the then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, together with the Bar Council and the Law

63
Society, put in place some arrangements for the collection of data.
Under the present system there are serious limitations on the collection of data, but that system can be improved. The first stage is to obtain agreement on the data to be collected and the method of operation. I agree entirely and am willing to receive any advice that anybody cares to tender about how the system should progress. Personally I am thoroughly committed to progressing it as far as possible in order to see precisely what will happen and to ascertain the income that is derived by practitioners from legal aid
A good deal has been said about that matter. At present I am engaged in negotiations with both the Bar and the Law Society and therefore I shall be careful about going into detail. However, I believe that the first essential is to produce good data. That is a process upon which we are already engaged and which we shall continue to improve. I accept that there is great scope for further improvement. I believe that the data collection operation can be improved —in the courts on criminal legal aid and in the Law Society on civil legal aid —with the result that more data will be available to whoever has the responsibility for determining remuneration.
The second point that I want to make is that it is fairly plain that the precise form which regulations governing remuneration should take is likely to be complicated. There is a great variety of work which it would be well to cover under the regulations and which different priorities may affect. Considerable progress has been made already in the standard-isation of fees, which has a bearing on economy and cuts out unnecessary taxations and the like. There are difficulties to be faced but I believe that they are capable of being tackled.
As I understand it, the suggestion is that there should be inserted into the present machinery a Legal Aid Fees Advisory Committee. I should like to make clear to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that it is an advisory committee that is to be set up under statute with the remit:
"to examine and report to him"—
that is the Lord Chancellor—not on selected matters as they may arise but
"on all matters relating to the remuneration of the legal profession in connection with legal aid".
In other words, the committee is to have as a standing remit the responsibility of examining every aspect of this matter for as long as this legislation lasts. Accordingly, the idea that I think the noble Lord was suggesting, whatever its independent merits may be, is not the idea that is suggested in this amendment.
As I understand it, the proposal is that the Bar and the Law Society should collect their information and, in so far as there is none, supplement their case with argument. The same goes for the Lord Chancellor. He should submit to this advisory committee his view on the appropriate level of remuneration and the details of the scheme. Then presumably the advisory committee will form a judgment, as between the Lord Chancellor and the profession in its two branches about the correct level of remuneration. It is advice
64
only. The Lord Chancellor has taken a decision at an earlier stage but advice will come as to whether that decision is good, bad or indifferent. He will then be expected, I presume, to take a further decision in the light of that advice.
One of the great attributes of the legal profession is that it is able to examine disputes and come to a resolution of them. Advising clients to agree is a skill that advocates and solicitors claim to have. I believe that this ability to settle on reasonable terms is exercised to a degree which the public sometimes does not recognise. Surely if there is any place in which it is possible to achieve settlement on reasonable terms it is between the legal profession in both its branches and the Lord Chancellor directly.
The Lord Chancellor has the responsibility for determining remuneration by clear criteria (subject to my being able successfully to clarify paragraph (g)) laid down by Parliament. Surely the legal profession and the Lord Chancellor together will be able to secure such a course. If the Lord Chancellor fails in a way that leads to injustice, as has been said, the courts are available. There is nothing undignified about disputes being taken ultimately to court. I hope that no such situation would arise with me, but the fact is that the courts are a very dignified—perhaps the most dignified—way of settling disputes. No lack of dignity is involved in going to the courts. It would be very unfortunate if such a matter could not be resolved but, as I have said, I hope that we will be able to resolve these matters.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord will forgive me, I talked in terms of dignity in regard to an application for judicial review. I know that he will understand that I was not thinking of the court acting as an arbitrator, which quite obviously is a most dignified role. I was thinking of an argument as to whether the Lord Chancellor of this country has adopted the procedures that he should have followed in taking certain decisions under an Act of Parliament. If that is dignity I do not know what dignity means.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I can anticipate a perfectly proper dispute between both branches of the legal profession and the Lord Chancellor about what is a relevant factor to be taken into account in the light of the applicable statutory provisions. I have heard arguments of that kind before between perfectly dignified people and such disputes will have to be determined. I would hope that such circumstances would not arise as long as I have the responsibility. In my view it is necessary to have machinery which is likely to function reasonably.
I cannot see why it is an improvement on direct negotiation between the Lord Chancellor and the Bar and the legal profession to have some independent body, however dignified, however independent and however high its credentials, intervening between the Lord Chancellor on the one hand and the legal profession on the other. After all, the Lord Chancellor ought to have a very deep knowledge and appreciation of the work of the legal profession in all its branches, which I certainly hope that I have and the person who succeeds me will have. Certainly, my

65
noble and learned predecessors have clearly demonstrated such knowledge and appreciation.
I cannot see that any greater level of expertise is likely to be generated. Although I do not wish to refer to my history in any detail, I have been a recipient of remuneration under the legal aid scheme since 1976. Up to 1979 I acted in cases which were paid through legal aid. I have also spent some time as the chairman of the tribunal for determination of pharmacists' remuneration under the National Health Service in Scotland—to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred in more general terms—and have considered the matters that arose in that connection. I also had responsibility on behalf of the much smaller Bar of Scotland for discussions on remuneration under legal aid for it for some four and a half years. I therefore have a little experience in a number of fields of negotiations of this type. I say in all sincerity that to introduce another body to give advice—and I welcome advice, as I always have done—with statutory responsibility to give advice in this way is to interfere with the direct line between the Lord Chancellor and the profession, which seems to me to be appropriate to this profession.
It is true that there are professions which have other arrangements, but the other professions are different. They do not have their remuneration determined by the Lord Chancellor in a relationship to the profession which is quite unique and very special. I welcome the good will of both branches of the profession in these negotiations. I shall do my best to earn it. However, all parties need to be reasonable to preserve good will and I have every expectation that both branches of the professions will have such an attitude in these matters.
The last thing in the world that I wish to do is to create a system that does not work. On the other hand, I believe that there is a great deal to be said for direct negotiations. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, was talking about equiperating the situation with the private field. In the private situation, the person who is instructing the solicitor or counsel hopes to be able to make some arrangement with him, although ex post facto if there is a dispute about that there can be a taxation. However, if he is in a position to reach agreement in advance, that is surely the best arrangement. Accordingly, although I have listened carefully to all that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Benson, and other noble Lords and noble and learned Lords who have supported this idea, I do not find the arguments persuasive. I invite your Lordships not to accept this amendment.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I have listened carefully but sadly to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I shall have in due course to return to my room, find my copy of Counsel, and where it says "I welcome advice", I must put a little asterisk, and at the footnote say "Save on legal aid fee matters". My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham referred to the report of Coopers & Lybrand. I shall not go into the merits of it, but the very fact that he contested its acceptability shows the desirability of an independent fees advisory committee.
66
When I spoke in that debate I did not deal with the contents of the Coopers & Lybrand report. I referred to the position on the ground, which was this. There is a queue of highly competent young lawyers seeking to go into chambers who do not do legally assisted work—or very little of it. It is quite the opposite with regard to chambers which specialise in or do only legal aid work. There is a flight from the Bar from those quarters that do legal aid work.
I spoke to the Attorney-General of Hong Kong some 18 months ago. He was astonished at the number of experienced and competent members of the English Bar seeking to obtain a very modest appointment in his office, with all the anxieties and problems that that country faces in the near future. I know, not only because I too have been president of the Senate, chairman of the Bar, and treasurer of my inn but from the fact that I have a son-in-law and a daughter at the Bar, that members of the Bar are changing over as fast as they can, if they can, from legally assisted work to private work. From the point of view of the public interest the future that we envisage is quite simply this. This will involve more expense because work incompetently done means work which takes longer to do and where the risk of a wrong decision with appellate work is subsequently increased.
This is really the last-ditch stand to breathe back into Clause 32 some semblance of fairness. In view of the attitude which has now been adopted twice by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, reluctantly but with no other alternative I ask for an opportunity to test the views of the House.
7.6 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 54) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 63; Not-Contents, 96.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Ackner, L. [Teller.]

Griffiths, L. [Teller.]

Airedale, L.

Halsbury, E.

Attlee, E.

Hampton, L.

Barnett, L.

Hanworth, V.

Benson, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Blease, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Briginshaw, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Jeger, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Carter, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Colville of Culross, V.

McNair, L.

David, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Meston, L.

Diamond, L.

Mishcon, L.

Donoughue, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nicol, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Northfield, L.

Ennals, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Foot, L.

Roskill, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Galpern, L.

Serota, B.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Greenway, L.

Stedman, B.

Grey, E.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

67

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Underhill, L.

Strabolgi, L.

White, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Wigoder, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Long, V.

Arran, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Auckland, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Barber, L.

Mar, C.

Bauer, L.

Margadale, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Marley, L.

Beloff, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Belstead, L.

Merrivale, L.

Bethell, L.

Mersey, V.

Blatch, B.

Morris, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mottistone, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mountevans, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Munster, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carnock, L.

Nelson, E.

Chelwood, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Coleraine, L.

Orkney, E.

Craigavon, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Crickhowell, L.

Pender, L.

Croft, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Pym, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Reay, L.

Derwent, L.

Renton, L.

Dundee, E.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Rodney, L.

Elibank, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Salisbury, M.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Faithfull, B.

Sandford, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Sandys, L.

Fortescue, E.

Selkirk, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gridley, L.

Southborough, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Stockton, E.

Marylebone, L.

Strange, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Swansea, L.

Havers, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hesketh, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hood, V.

Thurlow, L.

Hooper, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Trumpington, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Vinson, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Windlesham, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Lawrence, L.

Wynford, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I suggest that this would be a convenient moment at which to break for dinner. I propose that further consideration on Report be adjourned until 8.15 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Board) Order 1988
7.15 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th January be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, our debate today takes place because any industrial training levy order which involves a levy exceeding 1 per cent. of an employer's payroll must receive parliamentary approval under the Industrial Training Act 1982. In the case of the engineering board, one part of the levy proposals—that covering site employees in the mechanical and electrical engineering construction sector—establishes a levy rate of 1.12 per cent. and thus requires approval under the affirmative resolution procedure.
The board's levy proposals for 1988 show no change from those approved by this House in March last year. The board anticipates that it will raise some £19·6 million from the levy after allowing for exemptions. The levy will apply to those firms which fall within the scope of the board between the date that the order comes into force and 31st August 1988.
The levy proposals are in two parts; the first applying to mainstream engineering and the second to the mechanical and electrical engineering construction industry. I shall briefly outline the proposals in both sectors. For mainstream engineering establishments the board proposes a total levy of 1 per cent. of an employer's payroll. For an establishment with fewer than 1,000 employees, 0·08 per cent. of payroll will be non-exemptible. Larger establishments will pay a non-exemptible levy of 0·08 per cent. in respect of the first 1,000 employees, and 0·072 per cent. in respect of the remainder. The bulk of the levy is therefore exemptible; that is, employers who train satisfactorily will be given credit for this and will not be required to pay the maximum levy to the board. In addition, firms employng 40 workers or less will be excluded totally from paying levy. Some 68 per cent. of firms employing 12 per cent. of the workforce will be excluded from levy because of their size.
Turning to the mechanical and electrical engineering construction sector, again the levy proposals are the same as those approved last year. In this sector, arrangements differ for workers employed on-site and those employed off-site. For on-site employees, no levy is payable on the first £50,000 of payroll. Above that, a non-exemptible levy of 1.12 per cent. will apply, and 31 per cent. of establishments employing 0.5 per cent. of the workforce will be below this levy threshold.
For off-site employees, establishments with up to 30 employees will be excluded from levy. This will mean that some 79 per cent. of establishments employing 11 per cent. of the workforce will not pay the levy. Establishments with more than 30 employees will be levied at 1 per cent. of payroll. The non-exemptible element of this levy will be 0.15 per cent.
The raising of a non-exemptible levy in excess of 0.2 per cent. in the on-site sector means that the board must satisfy another requirement of the Industrial Training Act 1982. That is, that there should be a proven employer consensus in the industry for the proposals. Employer organisations representing more than half of the employers liable to pay levy—and also organisations representing employers liable to pay more than half the total levy

69
between them— have confirmed their agreement to the proposals, thus satisfying the conditions required by the Act.
The proposals before the House were approved unanimously by the board and the Manpower Services Commission. They are necessary for the board to carry out its function of stimulating and encouraging training within the industry so that our engineering firms can compete and succeed in the international markets of this high technology age. I commend them to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved. That the draft order laid before the House on 13th January be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committed]—(The Earl of Dundee.)
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his explanation of the Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Board) Order. We on this side of the House welcome it. It is my understanding that it has the support of both sides of industry; the trade unions and the employers. The Engineering Industry Training Board has a good record of training and we believe that the order will help its work. On a personal note, I should like to say that I am glad that the EITB has had a significant effect upon the training of women in the engineering industry. It has done a great deal to encourage women to take up training in the engineering industry and has recently started a range of initiatives to encourage their training in this non-traditional field.
With those few remarks, I welcome the order. It will help the industry and the training within it. It is necessary to have training in this important high-tech industry for manufacturing, for exports and for the general economy.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.15 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.21 to 8.15 p.m.]

Legal Aid Bill [H.L.]
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 33 [Advisory Committee]:
[Amendment No. 55 not moved.]
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 28, line 35, leave out subsection (5).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is an important amendment and its purpose is to ensure the continuing existence of the Lord Chancellor's Legal Aid Advisory Committee. That committee was established under the Legal Aid Act 1974. I well remember its first report because I had the benefit of it at that time, occupying the honourable position that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor occupies now. Throughout my term I found it of very great assistance to the work of the department, the courts and the public. Its members are appointed by the Lord Chancellor for their knowledge of the work
70
of the courts and social conditions, and they include members of the judiciary, solicitors in private practice, a justices' clerk, a chief taxing master, barristers, academics and representatives of advice organizations—in other words, a splendid cross-section of the users of the legal system and those who carry out important functions in it.
The committee's statutory responsibility has proved to be of abundant value and over the years the committee has established its worth as an informed critic of the Law Society's administration of legal aid and indeed as a generator of ideas for the development of legal services. It has a distinguished record as an independent commentator on legal aid and legal services and an impartial voice for the public interest in these matters. It has carried out detailed inquiries into various aspects of the legal aid scheme covering both policy issues and administration.
The annual reports that the committee has published have been an enormous stimulus to improvement of legal aid and its services. The report of 1983–84 reported on a detailed inquiry into eligibility for legal aid covering both financial and non-financial criteria in both civil and criminal proceedings. More recently the report for 1985–86 expressed serious concern at the decrease in eligibility for legal aid for families with children, caused by the reduction in dependants' allowances, and also criticised the mounting delays in granting certificates and in the payment of bills. In that way, through its reports, it has rendered very great service indeed to the administration of justice.
On Second Reading the Lord Chancellor expressed the view that with the establishment of the Legal Aid Board there would be no need to retain the advisory committee, which would represent at times, as the noble and learned Lord suggested, an unnecessary duplication. But the functions of the Legal Aid Board, are, after all, in replacement of those carried out up to now by the Law Society. That function in regard to the Law Society was valuable and we think that the continuing function in regard to the Legal Aid Board will be of equal value. The board will be under a duty to report to the Lord Chancellor. That is provided for in Clause 4, but it also can act as a watchdog in the same way as in a sense the advisory committee has acted as a watchdog on the Law Society and has reported constantly upon it in a valuable way.
What is important is that the operation of the legal aid scheme will continue to be monitored by an independent body which can advise and make recommendations for improvements. The board's own function will be managerial. Its job will be to run the legal aid scheme, and the need for its work to be monitored by an independent body which can advise and make recommendations for improvement, standing a little outside the legal aid scheme but nevertheless being a part of it, would be of value. Indeed, I cannot see how the new Legal Aid Board can fulfil that role of monitoring and watching the whole scheme when its primary job will be management and administration of the legal aid scheme itself. In our submission therefore the

71
emergence of the Legal Aid Board will not render superfluous the continued existence of the Legal Aid Advisory Committee. On the contrary, it will be a valuable supplement to it.
The Bill proposes the continuance of the committee, presumably until the Legal Aid Board settles in. However, the clause which seeks to delete it—namely, Clause 33(5) and (6)—provides that:
"The Lord Chancellor may, by order dissolve the advisory committee on such day as is specified in the order and on that day this section shall cease to have effect except as regards the defrayal out of money provided by Parliament of the allowances falling to be paid".
Therefore, with that power under Clause 33(5) the Lord Chancellor may at any time in his discretion order the dissolution of the advisory committee. The subsequent subsection (6) gives the Lord Chancellor power to do so by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment, but I believe I am right in saying that it has been amended and will now require affirmative decisions by both Houses; at least, I greatly hope that that is so.
We are anxious about the possibility that at any time—I shall not say at the drop of a hat, a wig or whatever it may be—the Lord Chancellor can terminate the advisory committee, which in our view should continue in existence. The knowledge that it is still in existence will give confidence to all concerned in the administration of justice. If I may say so, to hold the threat of its dissolution over the new arrangements will I fear put a question mark over the reliability of the new set-up for legal aid. In those circumstances, I beg to move.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, being at heart an unrepentant optimist, I thought I would return to the Chamber because this is not an amendment to establish a new advisory committee but to retain an existing one. I thought those impressive words "I welcome advice" might at least inure for the benefit of that which already exists. In that happy frame of mind, I support this amendment.
8.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, like noble and learned Lords who preceded me as Lord Chancellor, in administering the legal aid scheme I have welcomed the advice of the Legal Aid Advisory Committee. I heartily endorse the tributes that have been paid to its work. Over the years its reports have been extremely valuable.
However, we have to recognise that the Legal Aid Board to be established under this Bill is to be given the power to advise me on the provision of advice, assistance and representation under the Bill when enacted. The board will be closely involved with the management of the system but, as I said earlier, I expect it to be independent, to have a mind of its own and therefore to be in a position to give advice on the whole range of matters that fall within the operation of the legal aid scheme.
While of course, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said, I welcome advice, it may not be wise to create or to continue in existence too many advice agencies. The possibility is that as this scheme
72
with the Legal Aid Board gets under way and settles down, the functions of the Legal Aid Advisory Committee may be overtaken. There is bound to be an overlap and it is possible that those functions may be overtaken.
As I have said before, parliamentary time is at a premium. If in the future it is foreseeable that that should happen it is right to take the power in the primary legislation to discontinue this advice. At the moment this advice is obligatory because of the statutory provisions of the Legal Aid Advisory Committee under which it has to function. It is because it may prove an unnecessary committee in the future that I think it right to include in the Bill power to discontinue it. At present I have no intention of discontinuing it, at least for some time. I have explained that to the Legal Aid Advisory Committee. In fact within the last few weeks I have appointed two new members, and I had the pleasure of meeting them last Thursday at a meeting of the committee which I attended.
I believe that it would be prudent to include in the Bill a power for the future to discontinue the committee if that seemed to be right in the light of the development of the system. The present proposal in the Bill is for that to be done by way of a negative resolution. I can understand the importance of this matter. It may go some way to dealing with the point if I say that, in relation to the Legal Aid Advisory Committee, I am willing to consider changing that to an affirmative resolution procedure. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and I have our names jointly to the amendment to delete subsection (6). That is consequential on the way in which I have been dealing with the earlier undertakings that I gave. On this occasion I wish to add to these undertakings to consider whether or not the power to dissolve the committee should be exercised only after an affirmative resolution of both Houses.
The Legal Aid Advisory Committee discussed with me matters that I believe were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in amendments proposed in Committee. I believe I am right in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, also took part in these discussions about the relationship—so long as the two organisations lasted—between the Legal Aid Advisory Committee and the Legal Aid Board. Certain matters were brought to my attention at this meeting to which I have referred which I shall want to consider further. I have not lost sight of that aspect of the matter, although I believe it is not the subject of particular amendments at this stage of the Bill. It may be that for that transitional period it would be right to make arrangements which are not dissimilar to those applying to the Law Society at the moment.
I also have to consider that this new Legal Aid Board is independent and it is a new body. A certain degree of sensitivity must be shown in the nature of the relations that are created between itself and the Legal Aid Advisory Committee. There is no question of either being subservient to the other and care must be taken to balance these matters. Subject to that I am prepared to go that length with the noble and learned Lord. I certainly feel that it would be only prudent to leave in some mechanism for

73
discontinuance of this particular form of advice in the light of the development of the system as a whole.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord would explain how the new Legal Aid Board can conceivably become a watchdog in the public interest over a system which it is administering? Does he not understand that the public can have confidence only in a watchdog which both is and is seen to be independent.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall answer that by saying that the Legal Aid Advisory Committee may be described as a watchdog, but I am not sure that that is a particularly appropriate name for a body of this distinction. Its reports are not the reports of a watchdog exactly; they are more the reports of independent persons of constructive mind indicating ways in which the legal aid system as a whole might be improved.
For example, I am not conscious—I may be wrong about this—of it picking out particular aspects of the Law Society's administration which require attention in the way that a watchdog would. In the public service there are other watchdogs—at least there are other persons not described by that name—which act in that capacity. Some of them have been referred to already in these debates. The Legal Aid Advisory Committee has a much more constructive and independent role than that of a watchdog. I believe I am right in saying that the principal reason that the reports of the Law Society are put before it is so that it may have a comprehensive understanding of the way in which the system is operating. I believe that the Legal Aid Board itself will be an independent operator of the system. Obviously it cannot be independent of itself, but it consists of independent people who take pride in the system which they are operating. They will be able to give the kind of constructive advice which hitherto has come from the Legal Aid Advisory Committee.
I am not saying now that it is impossible that there should be a role for both of them indefinitely. All I am saying is that it is possible that there will not be a role for both of them indefinitely and that it is prudent to take account of that possibility in the primary legislation and to provide a power if needs be—I underline these words—to discontinue the Legal Aid Advisory Committee.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I think that this is a point where legal expertise is necessary. This is a practical point. The clause which the noble Lord would have deleted says that the Lord Chancellor may dissolve the advisory committee. The noble and learned Lord, who has sat on the Woolsack and who has had vast experience, said that he found the advisory committee very helpful indeed and that he would be reluctant for it to go.
The noble and learned Lord who now sits on the Woolsack, who has equivalent experience in terms of the practicalities, believes that it may well be that the new Legal Aid Board, when it is set up, will be able to carry out the functions adequately, sensibly and effectively. The noble and learned Lord who was
74
previously on the Woolsack did not have a Legal Aid Board, as it will be, from which to draw a comparison. If this matter arose in any of the businesses with which I am connected, I would hope that sensible precautions have been taken to avoid a big mistake. The board and the advisory committee will both operate for a period. They will both be available to be called upon. If the noble and learned Lord who happens to be Lord Chancellor after this Bill becomes an Act finds that that board is incapable of giving the kind of advice on this issue which the advisory committee gave, then he will not make use of the power we are now giving to him.
If he finds that it is a good thing, there would be no point in duplication. No doubt the lawyers know that in their field duplication is just as disturbing and frustrating as it is in the business field in which some of us have to operate. If in actual practice it appears that the advisory committee is still necessary, then it will carry on. On the other hand, if after having the board and the committee working for a period the Lord Chancellor thinks that it is no longer necessary, then why have the duplication? I should have thought that this is a practical and sensible way of approaching it. Under those circumstances I hope that those of us who are not legal experts will be able to offer some practical advice and say, "Don't clutter yourselves up unnecessarily with any clauses in a contract which you do not think the successful running of your business requires".
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, will forgive me, but is it not the normal practice in your Lordships' House that on Report stage debate should not break out after the spokesman for the Government has made his reply to a particular amendment, and that the only remaining contribution should normally be on behalf of the movers of the amendment as to the course which is then recommended.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, may I say that I have not recognised that even as an accepted convention either in the other House or this, and I have sat in one or another of them for 36 years. If the convention is as the noble Lord has said, then I shall apologise but hope that heed will be taken of what I have said.
Lord Renton: My Lords, my understanding has been after only eight years in your Lordships' House that on Report stage the main convention is that we may only speak once except with the leave of the House. The mover of an amendment has a right of reply, but even after the government spokesman has declared the government case, the matter is still open for debate. Indeed, it may be in the interests of the Government that further views should be heard. Sometimes they are invited.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, only for the sake of clarity and not out of any intelligence of ingenuity, I happen to have taken advice. So that we know at least how our proceedings ought to be dealt with, perhaps I may say that the convention appears to be that after the Minister has spoken in answer for the Government, the mover of any amendment thereupon speaks. The only person who can speak

75
after the Minister is the Minister himself, if it were not for the mover, and he does it by leave of the House. As I have said, I have taken advice; it is not my own edict.
Lord Renton: It is not the practice.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, one is almost rendered speechless by all these qualifications and conditions about the right of free speech in your Lordships' House. However, I understand that I am entitled to say something in reply.
I should like in particular to take up the queries of the noble Lord opposite. The problem that will have to be faced is that the new board will have a managerial role. It will not be an advisory role as is the case with the Lord Chancellor's Legal Aid Advisory Committee. At present one has the Law Society and its machinery on the one side doing the managing plus the Legal Aid Advisory Committee. Hereafter, instead of the Law Society, there will be the managerial board. It is at the very least as important that its work should be the subject of review as in the case of the Law Society.
When I was speaking of the role of the advisory committee as a watchdog in reply to what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said, I was not saying that that was its only function. On the contrary, I pointed out that it has initiated some rather exciting lines of progress and advance in the legal aid field.
Certainly this is not an hour to test the opinion of your Lordships' House, but it may be that the noble Lord will give further thought to what I venture—I hope not too arrogantly—to call a warning. I think the attitude of the Government to the continued existence of the advisory committee would be something of a touchstone of their willingness not to dominate with this chosen board which will have the managerial role. I venture to think that there will be considerable alarm and despondency if this advisory committee in the fullness of time has to go. The noble Lord has said that there is certainly not any immediate intention to do that. My noble friend Lord Mishcon and myself have joined with the noble Lord on the question of Amendment No. 57 in leaving out subsection (6). However, the words used by the noble and learned Lord did not convey that that was a must, but gave the impression that that was only possible. It may be that I misunderstood the noble and learned Lord in that respect, but I think it must be a must. On those terms, I hope I have not broken any of the laws of the Medes and Persians and Welshmen and Scotsmen and all else. I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 28, line 40, leave out subsection (6).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already explained that this amendment is in line with the performance of the undertakings I gave changing some of these regulation-making powers to the
76
affirmative resolution procedure. This in itself does not have the effect of making this particular clause subject to the affirmative resolution procedure; but I have undertaken to consider that and shall do so. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 58:
After Clause 33, insert the following new clause:
("Orders and regulations: general.
—(1) Any power under this Act to make an order or regulations shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.
(2) As respects orders under this Act other than orders under section 43—

(a) except in the case of an order under section 2(4), any instrument containing the order shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament:

(b) in the case of an order under section 2(4), no such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.

(3) As respects regulations under this Act—

(a) except in the case of regulations under section 7, 13(2) and 30(5), any instrument containing the regulations shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament;

(b) in the case of regulations under section 7, 13(2) or 30(5), no such regulations shall be made unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this new clause is inserted again in pursuance of the undertakings that I gave and in order to give a power to use the affirmative resolution procedure in particular cases. I believe that it follows the undertakings which I gave in Committee. The matter I have just discussed remains for Third Reading. I shall certainly intimate to your Lordships at Third Reading precisely what I propose in that connection. In the meantime, the purpose of this amendment is to carry out undertakings already given. I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I think there were one or two instances in an earlier debate when we were discussing this point when the noble and learned Lord intimated that he would have a look at it again, and perhaps he would do so.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I hope that the attendance in your Lordships' House is at this moment so emaciated that I might be allowed to make a few observations that might be thought to be marginally relevant, and escape censure in so doing.
I should like to query the value which we sometimes place in your Lordships' House on whether orders should be confirmed by negative or affirmative resolutions. It appears to me in the light of the current political and constitutional situation to make far less difference than we sometimes suppose. We sometimes believe in your Lordships' House that we have achieved something positive if we change a negative procedure to an affirmative procedure. Those bodies outside your Lordships' House which assist us so voluminously with their advice appear to think that they have achieved even more if such a step is taken.
In the present circumstances, if an order is made in another place it is 100 per cent. certain that it will go through. In present circumstances, when it comes to your Lordships' House the position is that we have

77
no power whatsoever to amend it and by constitutional practice we have no power to vote against it. So there is absolutely nothing in effect that we can do about it.
The vice occurs in a Bill of this nature where there is a piece of principal legislation which creates vast regulation-making powers conferred upon the Minister. I can understand the reasons for that; but it is undoubtedly a very effective way of escaping parliamentary scrutiny so far as concerns your Lordships' House. I should therefore like to place on record my own protest—and I do not want to make a Second Reading speech—at the procedures under this Bill which have given such extensive regulation-making powers to the Lord Chancellor, and to say that I believe the debate as between whether something should be by the affirmative or negative procedure is not a very important debate in the present rather unhappy situation in which we find ourselves.
If that situation continues, in due course we may have to consider very seriously whether the present convention under which we do not vote in the ordinary way against an order that has been passed by another place should be allowed to continue.
Lord Renton: My Lords, having listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said, I think we should bear in mind that, although inevitably a good many statutory instruments will be made as a result of the powers given by the Bill, if there were fewer statutory instruments there would have to be many more clauses in the Bill. For better or worse, the view has been taken in the past that when there is a good deal of detail which may have to be altered from time to time it is better done by statutory instrument than by having to alter the principal legislation. For that reason, although I was a little alarmed when I found that there were to be more than 50 statutory instruments, the reality of the situation with regard to the Bill is that it is inevitable.
The noble Lord rather poured scorn on the difference between the affirmative and the negative procedure. With respect to him, he overlooked, or at least played down, the advantage that the Lord Chancellor will have to give an explanation before the House considers the statutory instrument on the affirmative procedure, whereas on the negative procedure no such explanation will come until a Member of your Lordships' House tables a Prayer. We know, as the noble Lord pointed out, that we rarely do that. So there is a real constitutional advantage even to us in your Lordships' House in having the affirmative procedure, and, as I said earlier, the Lord Chancellor deserves credit for the extent to which he has enlarged the opportunities for it.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, we seem to have strayed rather far from the amendment but I should like to say how profoundly I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. In a number of respects we quite unduly fetter our role as a revising and scrutinising Chamber. He has identified one. Another is the so-called Salisbury rule. There is no conceivable reason why your Lordships, who after all in your
78
composition are more representative of political society at large than any other institution, should not exercise your full powers. Those powers are limited only by the Parliament Act. I have a Motion down for ballot on this matter, but as I never win a ballot or a raffle I thought I would take this opportunity to say how profoundly I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, there is one point on which I think we ought to try to clear our minds. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said that it was the House of Lords that was not able to fulfil its complete duty as he saw it by using statutory instruments. I accept what my noble friend has said. I do not see how we could carry through the amount of legislation we do without having the assistance of statutory instruments. However, I think that he was being perhaps a little insular in thinking that the present system does not give protection against the wrong thing being done. Whether or not, under a convention or a rule, the House of Lords cannot amend or turn down a statutory instrument, the other place can.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the other place cannot amend statutory instruments. It can reject them.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords. I thank my noble friend. I thought that it had the power to amend too, but apparently I am wrong and I withdraw that remark. Parliament has the power to reject, and so the fact that one part of Parliament does not have the same amount of ultimate influence as the other part does not remove the point that Parliament has the power. That is what we are part of and that is where the power is. I do not think that the benefit of having the statutory instrument in terms of saving time, space and printing should be criticised in the way the noble Lord did just because the ultimate power of Parliament having the last word is vested in the other place and not in this Chamber.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I felt very much like Rip Van Winkle when the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, rose because it seemed as if I was waking up and hearing debates that had taken place on other parts of the Bill during his much regretted absence. My noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones counted the number of regulations. We debated it then and we found that it was more than 50. We decided—or some of us decided—that that was possibly not the best way of dealing with primary legislation
Two points arise—and I say this very quickly because we want to get on with other amendments and with more relevant debates. There is an argument for legislating not by primary legislation but by regulation in order to ensure that the statute book is not piled up with unnecessary clauses, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
Lord Renton: And detail.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the problem arises where legislation refers to regulations without Parliament, whether it is the Commons of your Lordships' House, really knowing the nature of those

79
regulations when it passes the Act. That is the real difficulty with which we are very often faced. I know that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will forgive me if I say that this has occurred so often during the course of this Bill that we deal with matters by sheer generality and talk in terms of later regulations when this House as the revising Chamber and as part of the legislative machine of government has not the slightest idea what those regulations are going to be. However, the power is given and, if I may revert to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and subsequent speakers, the matter comes either by affirmative or negative resolution.
Perhaps I may explain to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, why we have fought so hard, not being able to know the nature of the regulations, for the affirmative resolution. With the affirmative procedure, if people are interested enough there is bound to be a debate in your Lordships' House and we can put a point of view which we hope the Minister will consider. If the negative procedure is adopted one has to put down a petition in order to negative. That procedure is a little cumbersome. Many of us forget about it and remember only when it is all too late. From these Benches I copy my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones in a plea. It has been correctly pointed out to me that I should have used the word "Prayer" and not "Petition". I am most grateful. One has to lodge a Prayer and not a Petition. It sounds very much more ethical and religious and in those circumstances is a very much nicer procedure, I am sure.
My plea is this. Where a matter is of vital importance in connection with the Bill it should be in the Bill even if it makes it more cumbersome. If one has to legislate by secondary legislation and by giving the power to regulate, at least the Minister in charge—and I say this with all deference to the noble and learned Lord—on a material and vital matter should be able before the Bill leaves this Chamber to give some indication of what the regulations are likely to be wherever that is possible. That is the plea that was made from these Benches. I repeat it now.
9 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I have understood the observations that have fallen from your Lordships since I last spoke, not much doubt has been cast on the propriety of approving Amendment No. 58. I am glad about that.
However, on the more general matters which have been raised, I have one or two comments. First, I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, was present when I pointed out that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, had taken time to count the number of regulation-making powers in the Bill and arrive at a figure of 56. Similarly, I thought that to while away a little time I might count the number of regulation- and scheme-making powers in the legislation that we are replacing I discovered that it was about 60. It would seem that we are making improvements in the direction requested.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said that we have a sense of achievement because we have
80
managed to move from the negative to the affirmative resolution procedure. I should like to encourage a sense of achievement. I believe it is good for us all to feel that we have achieved something. He questioned whether our achievements are as great as we think. Sometimes it is good to feel that we have done something well, and I should not like to be the one to reduce that sense of well-being which your Lordships have so far attained.
As regards the effectiveness of one procedure against the other, I have taken seriously the points that have been made on the matter by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. I was encouraged on Second Reading to know that his most important criticism of the Bill was that it had that number of regulation-making powers. On the whole, I thought that that was as much of an endorsement for the principle of the Bill as one could expect in the circumstances. But I believe that there is a difference between the affirmative and negative resolution in regard to changing matters.
Where we are proposing a change—as has already been said, by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and others—an explanation has to be given to the House. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, says, there must be a debate. The Government have to decide what their explanation is before they start; whereas with the negative resolution procedure they need only to think of an explanation after the Prayer is tabled. Surely therefore there is some progress in that change.
I have two comments to make about the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on the Minister coming forward with all the regulations before the Bill leaves the House. First, many of the regulations are already in place under existing legislation, and they will continue in operation for some time. Secondly, it is a difficult task to try to show what the regulations will be until one knows what one's powers will be. After all, your Lordships must not be assumed to have accepted those regulations without change. We have seen a number of changes (to many of which I have agreed) in the course of the constructive debates that we have had. One can just imagine the work what would be thrown away if we had been trying to draft regulations under powers that were subsequently amended.
However, there is a more fundamental point with regard to these regulation-making powers. They are intended to enable the system to adapt to change and therefore to focus on proposals that the Minister may have to present is to miss the point. The point is to consider the general provisions of the primary legislation and whether it is appropriate to grant those powers. The whole object of the exercise is to create the possibility of adaptation to circumstances. The Minister would be failing in his duty if he did not take advantage of that flexibility to adapt the system to new circumstances continuously. We cannot return continously to your Lordships' House with primary legal aid legislation. I am sure that your Lordships would soon become tired of that. Accordingly, it is right to take this advantage to put the structure into place, with provisions for adaptation as circumstances develop. That is what the system seeks to do.

81
To present a picture of what the regulations might be at a time not yet reached could well be misleading It could be work which might well prove to be utterly unproductive. I hope that noble Lords feel that I have tried to respond to the requests that have been made, and that by agreeing to the affirmative resolution procedure in a number of cases we have improved the Bill and made progress.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 39 [Finance]:
[Amendment No. 58A not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 58B:
Page 31, line 17, leave out ("with the approval of the Treasury").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wonder whether your Lordships remember that in Committee, not for the first or the last time, I made an error. That error was during a debate with regard to Treasury approval having to be obtained thus putting, as I submitted to the Committee, some manacles on the noble and learned Lord's wrists which we would wish him not to have.
The arguments for the continuance of the use of those words and against their omission was that the "approval of the Treasury" had to be obtained before the money supply and the amount of it could reach the Lord Chancellor's Department. I submitted to that argument and when the noble and learned Lord, with complete fairness, called the first amendment to leave out,
"with the approval of the Treasury".
I said, "Not moved" or I asked for leave to withdraw. Then, by mistake, when he called the amendment for the second time I said, "Not moved". That error spoilt the opportunity to test the Committee's view on whether the approval of the Treasury was necessary in the second case; namely, in Clause 39. I should like to refer your Lordships to Clause 39. That provides:
"The Lord Chancellor shall pay to the Board out of money provided by Parliament … such sums",
as are mentioned in the clause. I need not repeat them. It continues:
"as he may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine are required for the other expenditure of the Board".
I admit at once that the consent of the Treasury is necessary for that purpose. Continue, if your Lordships will, to read subsection (2) of Clause 39:
"The Lord Chancellor may … determine the manner in which and the times at which the sums referred to in subsection (1)(a) above shall be paid to the Board; and … impose conditions on the payment of the sums referred to in subsection (1)(b) above."
There again, the top line of that subsection states, "with the approval of the Treasury".
I make the first point that quite obviously the question of the determination of the manner in which and times at which sums shall be paid out and the imposition of conditions on the payment should be the Lord Chancellor's province. There is no need for him to obtain the approval of the Treasury. If the answer to my objection is that this must for some reason be approved by the Treasury, then I ask why the words are in the Act in any event.
So with some confidence I move the amendment Lit Report stage which by my own error I was unable to move and on which I was unable to take the view of the Committee at the Committee stage. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I support this amendment. On the face of it, it is a quite unimportant amendment because whether these words remain in or come out of the Bill makes absolutely no difference to what will happen on the ground. When I say "on the ground", I mean in Parliament Square; crossing from Treasury Chambers in Great George Street to the office of my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack at the other end of the building. The same people will talk to each other, the same approval will be sought and acquired, the same decision will be arrived at. That applies both to Amendment No. 58A and to Amendment No. 58B.
Although on the face of it this is a supremely unimportant amendment in the sense that it will change nobody's conduct at all, there is real significance behind it. The phrase is a silly one which is increasingly creeping into statutes. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said in Committee, unnecessary words should not be in a statute. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has just pointed out much the same thing and it was repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. So, for that reason as well, the draftsmen and those who give instructions to the draftsmen should be warned off this phrase. It appears over and over again in statutes; in this Bill it occurs on almost every page. It is a great waste of money.
However, there is yet another reason why this amendment is important and why the draftsmen should not put in this phrase with a sort of neurotic tic whenever the Treasury might be concerned with any decision. That is because it brings the Treasury into intense detestation and vilification.
Perhaps I may come to that in a moment, but first I shall deal with whether this phrase is necessary at all. Noble Lords will remember that in the early part of this Bill a Legal Aid Board is set up. It has to maintain two accounts: one is the legal aid fund; the other is all the income and expenditure other than that connected with the legal aid fund. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said in Committee, this is a very difficult clause to understand because one has to go backwards and forwards to Clause 5, where two different subsections are being referred to and a number of different paragraphs under those two subsections. What it amounts to is that, so far as the legal aid fund is concerned, the Legal Aid Board must enter any receipts. Those receipts will be such as contributions made by legally aided persons. There are many others recited in the Bill. The expenditure, on the other hand, is the disbursement of money as reward for those who give legal advice, legal assistance and legal representation. Of course there is an enormous gap between the small receipts and the enormous disbursements. That gap is made up with money voted by Parliament. That is what Clause 39(1)(a) is concerned with.

83
But in addition to that there is the other account of the other kinds of receipts and disbursements. The receipts will again be money provided by the public; the disbursements will be on such things as staff, accommodation, and other matters. Those matters are referred to in Clause 39(1)(b).
In Committee I ventured to challenge my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor with the question: if those words "with the consent of the Treasury" are left out, whose action will be altered in any way, and in what way? My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor gave two answers. The first was a flight of fancy which it would be, I think, kind to describe as a near miss. It was that his department might be sued by the Legal Aid Board. The essence of the argument was that, although the approval of the Treasury made no difference to the operation of subsection (1)(b) or subsection (2) of Clause 39, it did denote an absence from subsection (1). My noble and learned friend's first immediate reply was that that would be useful if his department were sued by the Legal Aid Board.
The Legal Aid Board is appointed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. It is subject to his directions and regulations. It is his creature. It is of course a matter of pure fantasy to think of the Legal Aid Board suing my noble and learned friend. I do not think that more need be said about that, because my noble and learned friend had a more substantial argument. That was that the presence in subsection (1)(b) and in subsection (2) of the words,
"with the approval of the Treasury",
would draw the attention of the accounting officer in his department to the fact that they were not contained in subsection (1)(a).
There are a number of things to be said about that argument. First, that style of draftsmanship is calculated to appeal exclusively to those who prefer to scratch their right ear with their left hand. Secondly, the accounting officer of the department of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor needs no reminder that he need not have the approval of the Treasury under subsection (1)(a), because that is money voted by Parliament. Money which is voted by Parliament in the Committee of Supply in the other place cannot be interfered with by the Treasury or anybody else. It must be used exclusively for the purpose for which it is voted.
Thirdly, the accounting officer needs no reminder of that because he is the senior official in the department of my noble and learned friend. He is the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. Subject to my noble and learned friend himself, he is responsible for the drafting of this Bill and knows excactly what is in it. The presence of phrases that have no influence or effect in Clause 39(1)(b) or in subsection (2) is not needed and cannot be needed to denote their effect on subsection (1)(a).
So far as concerns subsection (1)(b) regarding other expenditure of the board, that is a matter of daily and routine discussion between every spending department and the Treasury. It does not need writing into every Act of Parliament. It takes place
84
whether or not the words are on the face of the Bill. The same applies in respect of subsection (2)(a).
The money I mentioned to your Lordships is voted by the other place in Committee of Supply but it cannot all be appropriated by the spending department on the first day of the financial year. For example, there may be a Vote for the pay of the army. Certainly the Ministry of Defence cannot claim that the whole of that sum should be paid over on the first day of the financial year. That expenditure must be discussed with the Treasury as to when and how it is needed. That is cleared by subsection (2)(a) so it is not necessary for it to appear both in subsection (1)(a) and (b) and in subsection (2)(a).
So far as concerns subsection (2)(b), my noble and learned friend did not seem very certain for what purpose it was meant. My feeling is that it is the kind of provision that the draftsman might make on the instruction of officials in case it turned out to be useful in some way or another that cannot be envisaged at the moment. The only case mentioned by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor was money is paid over subject to a contingency; in other words, when it was not immediately required by the spending department—in this case, by the Legal Aid Board—but might in the future be needed for some purpose, in which case it would be a stipulation that the money was not to be spent until that condition had been satisfied. But that again is the subject of everyday discussion with the Treasury.
There is to be found in your Lordships' House one former Chancellor of the Exchequer and four Chief Secretaries. I do not see any of them present at the moment, but I do see the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, who is a great expert on these matters. I say, subject to any challenge, that the words in question are utterly unnecessary for any purpose and should be removed.
My noble and learned friend has virtually agreed with that view. After the Committee stage I wrote to him about two other points but mentioned in passing that I thought he should look again at this clause. He was good enough not only to do so but also to write to me about the matter. He said:
"As we both know, it is a matter of routine that the kind of matters covered by Clause 39 are discussed and agreed between my Department and the Treasury, and this is inevitable and right".
That puts more succinctly what I have been endeavouring to lay before your Lordships. He goes on:
"I am not persuaded that, simply because Treasury approval is sought as a matter of routine, specific reference to it in the Bill is unnecessary. A clear reference on the face of the Bill makes the Treasury's concern and involvement explicit. I believe that removing the reference would encourage the view that the Treasury is not and should not be involved".
That is the end of the passage.
This particular statutory phrase is a comparative novelty and was not needed before to ensure Treasury control. After all, there was Mr. Gladstone as Chancellor of the Exchequer with his policy of candle-ends. He did not need the expression "with the approval of the Treasury". I have forgotten the name of the noble Earl whose grandfather was "Black Michael" Hicks-Beach. He was a Chancellor of the Exchequer so terrifying to every spending

85
department that he was able to impose a budget before the Omdurman campaign was undertaken. He did not need the phrase.
Shortly after the Renton Report, when we were fairly full of hope that the statute book might at last be streamlined and redundant phrases removed, I remember raising on a Home Office Bill the question of the desirability of the phrase "with the consent of the Treasury". I had raised the matter at Committee stage in the debate on whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, who was then a Home Office Minister, said that he knew perfectly well that those were matters of everyday discussion. Emboldened by that observation, I put down an amendment at Report stage to omit those words; but by that time unfortunately his arm had been twisted.
It was said that Treasury officials felt more comfortable if that phrase was in the Bill notwithstanding the fact that for centuries we had managed without it. Since then the phrase has appeared habitually and in this Bill it has appeared so frequently that it has reduced my noble and learned friends who were in the Chamber earlier this evening to such a frenzy that on the third day in Committee your Lordships were kept up till midnight before their frenzy was exhausted. By that time it was not only their frenzy that was exhausted.
The Treasury does itself immense harm by insisting, as it does, that this phrase should be in the Bill. Throughout our discussions it has, quite wrongly, been a subject of vilification. At every stage I have endeavoured to put the Treasury case. However, in so far as concerns this phrase its actions are utterly misconceived and it is doing itself immense damage. In my time I have seen departments suffer and grow weak because they were the subject of habitual criticism.
I remember not long ago, a decade or so ago, the Home Office became a byword for obscurantism—I think wrongly— and its most moderate and sensible proposals were looked at askance for that reason. If the Treasury insists on that kind of phrase, the same will happen to it. Its whole authority will be diminished. My noble and learned friend said that this was not a Treasury draft; it was drafted in his department. That is true, but it is not the whole truth. It is true in the sense that the Minister in charge of the Bill is responsible for its drafting; but it is also true that a clause of this sort is not put into a Bill until it has been cleared with the Treasury. Adverting to my exchange with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, as a matter of history this phrase comes in because the Treasury, quite wrongly, likes to have it in.
Therefore if the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, carries this matter to a Division—I do not suppose that he will at this time of night—I shall support him wholeheartedly.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I also support this amendment. I shall do so very briefly. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, speaks with all the knowledge and experience of a former Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I fully endorse
86
what he says so far as it is within my knowledge. However, perhaps I may quickly refer to a point which I think is worth underlining. During our debate on the amendment to leave out the earlier phrase in line 15, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor pointed out why the Treasury's approval was not required in relation to subsection (1)(a) of this clause. Yet in subsection (2)(a), which refers only to subsection (1)(a), we find that the words "with the approval of the Treasury" have been inserted to cover that. That cannot be consistent with what my noble and learned friend said on the earlier occasion.
On subsection (2)(a)—which admittedly refers to subsection (1)(a)—I would say this. The Lord Chancellor has already been provided with the money to which subsection (2)(b) refers. All that arises on the wording of subsection (2)(b) is whether he shall have power to impose conditions without the approval of the Treasury. Bearing in mind that he has been provided with the money, it seems nonsensical to insist that the Treasury should also have to give approval to any conditions which he in his wisdom considers are necessary. I therefore hope that my noble and learned friend will consider very seriously what has been said.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I undertook to consider these matters between Committee and Report stages. In response to a letter from my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale, to which he has made reference, I replied to him in some detail although he kindly said that his letter did not call for a reply.
I have considered this matter with as much seriousness as I can command. I have to say in the first place that these provisions are intended to create legal obligations between the board and the Lord Chancellor. My noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale says that the board will never sue the Lord Chancellor; it is a figment of my heated imagination. He may not have put it like that: that is taking it to extremes. It was a near miss, as he put it; a fantasy.
I am trying here to define legal obligations. In a well-regulated society disputes sometimes arise, as we discussed earlier. They have to he resolved by the position at law. Everyday matters continue happily. The Treasury, the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Legal Aid Board and possibly even the legal aid profession are all agreed. But some unfortunate day may come when there is a dispute. The dispute cannot be regulated by what is normally done, what is the understanding or what happens when everybody is agreed. It has to be resolved by reference to the statutory obligations that are imposed by the Bill, when it becomes an Act, on the various parties. I pointed out at Committee a very important distinction between Clause 39(1)(a) and Clause 39(1)(b). From the introduction to the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I appreciated that he clearly understood that much of my response, because he has accepted that to have the approval of the Treasury in Clause 39(1)(b) is perfectly appropriate, although I suspect that the argument of my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of

87
Glaisdale, if taken to its logical conclusion, would delete that phrase as well.
However the phrase that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has chosen for his attack this time is the opening phrase in Clause 39(2). Here the Treasury is the department responsible for ensuring that the money voted by Parliament is used in accordance with the statutory obligations upon the various Ministers, is used properly and in a way which conforms with proper accounting practice and all that kind of thing. That is the Treasury's responsibility and the Treasury approval to the conditions which I might impose under Clause 39(2)(b) is part of that.
My noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale says that if I have this it is not necessary that the approval of the Treasury should apply to the conditions. But that is part of the working out of the arrangements. The conditions which I might impose will have to conform with the standards necessary for proper public accounting, as set by the Treasury, and that great department of state is subject to the Public Accounts Committee and has to satisfy it. The truth is that the approval of the Treasury is accepted as being required and what I have sought to do is to set out the legal relationships correctly and in the appropriate detail upon which that understanding is based. I believe that it makes for good administration clearly to set out the responsibilities of the various Ministers and Ministeries when statutory obligations are being imposed.
My noble and learned friend said that Gladstone did not require this phrase. I think it is fair to say that the technique of judicial review and the calling to account of Ministers by the courts has developed somewhat since Gladstone's day. It is important that if a Minister such as the Lord Chancellor is subjected to judicial review the legal obligations that are in question and the particular consents he must get from others are properly before the court. I regard it as necessary accurately to reflect these relationships in the conditions which are imposed.
As I said, I believe it is fundamental that the Lord Chancellor should have an unconditional obligation to pay to the board the sums referred to in Clause 39(1)(a)—the content of which I explained on the last occasion and shall not repeat—but it is appropriate that the Treasury should insist on the manner and times at which these sums are to be paid. In other words, the obligation to pay is absolute but the manner and times at which the sums should be paid is a matter that is not absolute but is subject to proper financial control.
For these reasons in my submission to your Lordships the words,
"with the approval of the Treasury",
are not unnecessary but they accurately reflect the legal relationships between the parties. It is the purpose of the Bill among other things to set these out.
When I stated that the Bill was drafted on the instructions of my department and that I took responsibility for it, my noble and learned friend said that that was the truth but not the whole truth. Of
88
course other departments are interested in a Bill drafted on the instructions of my department. However, the theory that the Treasury can include this provision without my approval is not appropriate. The Bill as now presented to your Lordships is my responsibility. It is on the basis of that responsibility that it is presented to the House.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, at one stage I thought it was a predetermined tactic to talk out my amendment and that was not the purpose with which I moved it. Having said that, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for supporting the amendment. Nothing in the world will convince me that in an Act of Parliament such as this there should be the provision that the Lord Chancellor cannot determine the way in which money is to be distributed and so forth without the approval of the Treasury.
Having said that, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord for the explanation of his point of view, if I may use those words. The time is late—even later than I anticipated when I moved the amendment—and at this stage it would be wrong to ask your Lordships to express a view. The noble and learned Lord has heard the views expressed in favour of the amendment by those far more experienced than I. I ask him with his usual patience to agree to consider the arguments put forward on this occasion and in a fuller House and at a more civilised time we can deal with the matter at Third Reading if necessary. In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, hoping that the noble and learned Lord will accept the suggestion that I respectfully made to him.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 43 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 59 and 60:
Page 32, line I, leave out ("made by statutory instrument").
Page 32, line 34, leave out ("made by statutory instrument").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 59 and 60 are consequential on what I have already sought to explain. With the leave of the House, I beg to move the amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Civil proceedings.' scope of Part IV representation]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 36, line 25, at end insert—
("8. Arbitration proceedings.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope to move this amendment as briefly as I did the last. I pray that the debate will not last as long as with the last one. At the Committee stage of the Bill I suggested that it would be useful and perhaps essential to introduce into the legal aid provision a cover for arbitration proceedings in certain circumstances; in other words, the means test, if I may describe it in that summarised form, would still exist. However, in deserving and

89
proper cases, and where it would appear that the arbitration was worth while, legal aid cover should be available to those who need it.
I shall not repeat my speech but on that occasion I drew the Committee's attention to the fact that many contracts are now entered into for minor matters, as many of your Lordships may think, concerning little people and that there is an arbitration clause in the contract. The Consumers' Association is keen about this matter, especially in cases where dealing with arbitration proceedings would be a hardship if it fell upon the purse of the kind of people I have in mind. It would be a sensible and proper provision to cover the issue, especially when aribitration sometimes saves an awful lot of time in the courts and so forth.
I also drew attention to some Landlord and Tenant Act cases, but I shall not weary your Lordships with that again at this time. I hope that in the circumstances the noble and learned Lord at the conclusion of a fairly happy day—not very happy for those of us who have been trying to move amendments—would at least bring a smile to our faces as we leave this Chamber by adopting this amendment. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I endeavoured to explain in Committee, in answering a very similar amendment, that I do not feel that arbitration proceedings are very high on the list of priorities to which legal aid might be extended. Since then there has been a development which is perhaps worthy of note and that is that a Member in another place has proposed a Private Members' Bill called the Consumer Arbitration Agreements Bill and it has been given a Second Reading in another place. The effect of that would be to open up the courts to small arbitrations to some extent. I put the matter fairly generally and not as precisely as Mr. Pawsey has done or may yet do.
The result of that may, to some extent, deal with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, both tonight and in Committee, although I appreciate that it may not deal with them all. There is one aspect of construction contracts with which it may not deal. However, it is perhaps a move in the right direction so far as the noble Lord is concerned that the courts' jurisdiction may be extended and thus legal aid extended in some of these disputes which are at present covered by arbitration proceedings. However, I regret that I am not able to bring a smile to your Lordships' faces in the way suggested by the noble Lord on this particular occasion. But—who knows?—I may be able to do so on some other occasion.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, having been given some hope that a smile will be on the faces of certain of your Lordships who will be trying to improve this Bill on Third Reading, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 [Amendments of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986]:
The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom)The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom) moved Amendment No. 61A:
Page 40, line 7, at beginning insert—
("( ) In section 16 —

(a)subsection (1) is repealed;

(b)in subsection (2), the words "In this section and" are repealed.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment, with your Lordships' leave I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 61B to 61E and Amendment No. 62A. Part I of Schedule 4 amends the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 in order to alter the arrangements for the collection of contributions from assisted persons in civil cases so that payment will become a matter of settlement between solicitor and client. The amendments now proposed are mainly concerned with clarifying a number of points of detail which were raised by the Scottish Legal Aid Board and by the Law Society of Scotland. First, they are designed to put beyond doubt that the payment of the contribution is entirely a matter between solicitor and client, and that is effected by Amendments Nos. 61B and 61C. Secondly, to provide that the solicitor's right to collect the contribution is established as soon as the board have assessed the account; that is effected by Amendment Nos. 61D. Thirdly, to remove an apparent conflict between Sections 16 and 17 as regards payment into the fund of expenses recovered. That is effected by Amendment No. 61A to which Amendment No. 62A is consequential. Amendment No. 61E is a drafting point. I beg to move Amendment No. 61A.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in order to show the flexibility of at least one side of the House, we have no objection to these amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendments Nos. 61B to 61E:
Page 40, line 8, after ("words") insert ("from "by the Board" to").
Page 40, line 9, before ("the") insert ("to contribute to").
Page 40, line 25, at end insert (", but an account of expenses which has been approved for payment by the Scottish Legal Aid Board shall not be liable to taxation by an auditor of court in any proceedings.").
Page 40, line 32, leave out ("legally assisted person") and insert ("the person concerned").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule5[Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 44, leave out lines 8 to 13 and insert—
("21. Section 64 of the Family Law Act 1986 (family proceedings rules) shall cease to have effect.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential upon the deletion of reference to Section 64 of the Family Law Act. It gives specific power to the Family Proceedings Rules Committee to differentiate in rules as to costs in legal aid cases and in private cases.
Under the Bill there will no longer be any need for the committee to differentiate between these two types of costs since the Lord Chancellor will in future set out in regulations such matters as relate to legal aid. This amendment will remove the corresponding provisions in the Family Law Act which are no longer necessary. I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, with Celtic adaptability, I approve of this amendment. Is this perhaps to be regarded as a precursor to a family court?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in the sense that any family court will come after this, I suppose it is true that this is a precursor to the family court, but I have to say that the contribution that this amendment makes to that is minimal.
Your Lordships know that I am very concerned that the proper arrangements should be made in relation to children both in the substantive law and in procedural law, but it would be quite wrong of me to claim that this is a step in that direction.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Repeals]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 62A:
Page 45, line 51, column 3, after ("Section") insert ("16(1), in section 16(2) the words "in this section and'', and section").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a consequential amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 46, line 3, at end insert—("1986 c.55. The Family Law Act 1986. Section 64.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 62 that I have already moved. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

University College London Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at seven minutes before ten o'clock.

  CIVIL SERVANTS: LONDON PAY AREA RESIGNATIONS
  CIVIL SERVANTS: LONDON PAY AREA RESIGNATIONS
  SOCIAL SECURITY IN THE EC: ECC REPORT
  SOCIAL SECURITY IN THE EC: ECC REPORT
  SOCIAL FUND: CRISIS LOANS
  SOCIAL FUND: CRISIS LOANS
  ASHFORD REMAND CENTRE: PRISONERS' VISITS
  ASHFORD REMAND CENTRE: PRISONERS' VISITS
  ASHFORD REMAND CENTRE: PRISONERS' REGIME
  ASHFORD REMAND CENTRE: PRISONERS' REGIME
  BROADCASTING POLICY
  BROADCASTING POLICY
  PREVENTION OF TERRORISM (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ACT 1984
  PREVENTION OF TERRORISM (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ACT 1984
  CHERNOBYL FALLOUT: RESEARCH AND POLICY
  CHERNOBYL FALLOUT: RESEARCH AND POLICY
  ADULT STUDENT NUMBERS
  ADULT STUDENT NUMBERS
  BUILDING DESIGN AND CRIME
  BUILDING DESIGN AND CRIME
  NUCLEAR SUBMARINES: DECOMMISSIONING
  NUCLEAR SUBMARINES: DECOMMISSIONING