Sitting of 10 February 1988

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

    Company Liquidations
    Mr. Ron Brown: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many companies went into liquidation during 1987; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Francis Maude): The number of company insolvencies in Great Britain in 1987 was 11,645—about 22 per cent. less than in 1986.
    Mr. Brown: Is the Minister aware that some companies deliberately go bust in order to renege on their commitments to staff, customers and creditors in general? For example, does he know that Glendevon Carpets in my constituency did that not so long ago and that many people suffered? Indeed, the company went out of business and resurrected itself elsewhere under a different name. The people behind that move got off scot free—I do not mean that as a pun, because the matter is too serious. Do the Government have any ideas or proposals that may deal with that problem?
    Mr. Maude: The phenomenon to which the hon. Gentleman referred is well understand and, regrettably, does happen. It was addressed in the Insolvency Act 1985, which gives courts the right to disqualify directors if they are found to have been guilty of misconduct such as that.
    About 64 directors have been disqualified in the past few months since the new regime came into force, and about 120 further applications are being made by my Department to the High Court for further disqualifications. I hope the hon. Gentleman is satisfied that it is a problem which we take seriously and have already addressed.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not so much liquidations as new business start-ups that are the important figures? Does he agree that new business start-ups under the Government have been—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about liquidations.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I have a question about that.
    Mr. Speaker: Yes, later.

    Financial Services Act
    Mr. Tim Smith: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on progress in implementing the Financial Services Act.
    Mr. Maude: Three self-regulating organisations have now been recognised under the Financial Services Act 1986. In addition, eight professional bodies have obtained interim recognition under schedule 15 to the Act. Two other self-regulating organisations, one professional body, seven investment exchanges — including one overseas exchange—and two clearing houses have applied for recognition, but have yet to be recognised. I intend that the central provisions of the Act will be implemented in April.
    Mr. Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that he has made excellent progress in implementing the provisions of the Act? Given the complex and comprehensive nature of the provisions, it is remarkable that there has not been more slippage. However, will he comment on two matters that will be important after A day in April? First, when will the compensation scheme be introduced; and, secondly, how will we ensure that there are not too many investment businesses that have only provisional authorisation after A day?
    Mr. Maude: It has always been intended that the compensation fund should come into operation three months after section 3 of the Act is implemented in April, and that remains our intention. I fear that there will inevitably be a number of investment businesses that are interim-authorised immediately after A day, particularly at the smaller end of the range. We understand that about 10,000 to 12,000 firms will he applying to the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Association for authorisation. It is simply a physical impossibility for all those to receive full vetting treatment before A day. However, I know that FIMBRA has that problem in mind and will seek to keep to a minimum the number of interim authorisations.
    Mr. McCrindle: The Minister will be aware of allegations of excessive legalism on the part of the Securities and Investment Board and some of the SROs. He will also be aware of the suggestion that the cost of registration, particularly for small firms, is quite excessive. Has he given any consideration to those allegations, and what is the response that he would like to communicate, perhaps through this question and answer session?
    Mr. Maude: We are aware of the concerns expressed. It is important that we should have a full and adequate system of investor protection, but it is equally important, in the interests of investors, that that system of regulation should not be so burdensome on business that choice for consumers of investment services is reduced. This is why we have built into the Act the competition scrutiny carried out by the Director General of Fair Trading.
    In addition, my right hon. and noble Friend has asked the Securities and Investments Board to report to us on a quarterly basis after the Act comes into full force in April on the effect of the Act and the rule books on businesses themselves. I stress that it is a practitioner—led system of regulation. All the self-regulatory organisations and the SIB are dominated by practitioners. It is up to the practitioners to ensure that their voices and concerns are heard in the process of regulation.
    Mr. Blair: Is the Minister aware that, although the provisions of the Financial Services Act are necessary, they will impose a great administrative burden on many small firms and individuals, as well as on the organisations dealing with the applications? I understand that many

    339
    thousands of firms may be in that position. Will he tell us what will be the position of the firms that are unable to register with the self-regulatory organisations or the SIB, simply because of the incapacity of those organisations to process the applications sufficiently quickly?
    Mr. Maude: My message to those firms is clear. If they submit their applications by P day, which is 27 February, even if the organisations cannot fully process the applications by A day, the firms will obtain the benefit of interim authorisation. The message to those companies is clear: to submit their application swiftly and, in any event, before 27 February.
    It is right that we should try to ensure that the burden falling on small businesses is as limited as possible. FIM BRA comprises 85 per cent. of small firms, which have a clearly heard voice in the councils of FIMBRA. In the recent elections a number of small firm representatives were elected to the ruling council of FIMBRA, which is a healthy sign.

    Telecommunications
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the level of output in the telecommunication industry in (a) 1986 and (b) 1980; and what was the level of exports in the industry over the same period.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John Butcher): Manufacturers' sales of equipment increased from £953 million in 1980 to £1,750 million in 1986. Exports were 10 per cent. of sales in 1980 and 12.5 per cent. of sales in 1986. There are no comparable statistics for the services sector.
    Mr. Thompson: I thank my hon. Friend for that encouraging reply, which shows the kind of improvement in the telecommunications industry and its performance that we all want to see. Some time ago my hon. Friend was quoted as saying that it was easier to export telecommunications equipment to Detroit than to Dusseldorf. Does he still say that today?
    Mr. Butcher: Regrettably, yes. Non-tariff barriers are still operated in Europe. Some of the post, telegraph and telecommunications organisations in Europe still operate monopoly purchasing practices. It is our view that the European market will have to move towards a more liberal environment. In a number of efforts pursued by my Department, and in bilateral meetings which I have undertaken with other European colleagues, we must do our best to deliver that open market as soon as possible, because our own industry is now well poised to take advantage of it.
    Mr. Darling: When considering the level of output and exports of the telecommunications industry, has the Minister discussed with British Telecom, which is a major component of the matter, the sale of magnetic tapes containing telephone directory and other information, possibly to people abroad, including fanatical religious organisations? Has he had any discussions with BT in view of the widespread concern about such possible sales?
    Mr. Butcher: That has not figured on the agenda of any discussions that I have had with counterparts elsewhere. I have noted carefully the hon. Gentleman's comments
    340
    and, on the face of it, I share his concern. I shall examine his comments carefully and, if necessary, write appropriately to BT.
    Mr. Michael Marshall: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to be a little less modest about his efforts in opening up the European telecommunications services market? Is it not the case that his Department has made some headway in getting other PTTs to agree that Mercury, for example, should have access to markets? Will he bring us up to date on where he sees that telecommunications development going?
    Mr. Butcher: Most countries in the European Community are looking closely, and some with considerable envy, at the British experience. In bilateral discussions I have found that Spain, France and the Netherlands are now ready to consider applications from Mercury for access and interconnection to such markets. I am encouraged by progress so far. It is encouraging to see that our European colleagues are interested in the sort of competition that has benefited the United Kingdom to such a great extent.

    Ballpoint Pens
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what specific steps he has taken to ensure that ballpoint pen manufacturers comply with the recommendations of his Department's investigation into the asphyxiation of children due to the inhalation of pen tops.
    Mr. Butcher: The industry was made aware of the outcome of my Department's investigations in September 1986. In a follow-up exercise in April last year several manufacturers reported that they were working on new designs. Members of the Writing Instruments Association are also working in parallel with other European manufacturers in drawing up parameters that should be taken into account in the designs of safer pen tops. In the meantime, manufacturers and importers have been reminded of their responsibilities under the general safety requirement of the Consumer Protection Act 1987.
    Mr. Janner: Does the Minister mean that manufacturers who put out unsafe pens, as Bic has been doing for so long, are liable to be prosecuted? Is he aware that in recent years 11 children have died through swallowing pen tops? Until we get some real action from the industry, will he arrange for Bic pens with separate tops not to be available in any Government Department? Will he also talk to the Secretary of State for Education and Science and make sure that they are no longer available in or supplied to schools?
    Mr. Butcher: I congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman on the effectiveness of his campaign and the manner in which he has pursued it. Obviously it has risen from a case involving one of his constituents, which greatly impressed my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs.
    I have written to a colleague at the Department of Education and Science asking him urgently to review its practice. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be encouraged to know that, following his meeting with my hon. Friend, we have contacted the British Standards Institute to set up a committee urgently to develop a pen top standard. Furthermore, he will be familiar with the work of Mr. Mathias, in Newcastle, on outline standards

    341
    for pen top safety. We have also brought that work to the attention of BSI. There is much encouraging response from the industry. Rather than taking immediate and draconian measures, I hope that through other means we will achieve the effect that the hon. and learned Gentleman would wish.

    Metals Industry
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the output of the metals industry in 1987 and in 1986.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Robert Atkins): The index of production for the metals industry was 110–5 in 1986 and 119 in the first 11 months of 1987, based on 1980 equalling 100.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend agree that, after 20 years of going downhill in the manufacturing industry, at long last we have turned the corner? Much of the reason has been the productivity and the work of unions and employers. Would it not be a tragedy if Austin Rover, Land Rover and other companies were foolishly to follow the Ford people and try to export jobs instead of goods? Is it not time that people realised that we all—management and workers—must keep the process going so that unemployment will drop, as it is already dropping in the midlands?
    Mr. Atkins: With his usual skill, my hon. Friend has paraphrased the Government's policy on a variety of matters, although his question went a little wider than the answer.
    Mr. Crowther: In view of the significant increase in demand for British-made steel in the past 12 months or so, is the Minister having discussions with the chairman of the British Steel Corporation to ensure that, whether or not it is privatised, BSC will retain an adequate steel-making capacity to meet any further demand that may arise from, for example, a further increase in the motor manufacturing operations in Britain or from any other source?
    Mr. Atkins: We are more than satisfied, as I think most people in this country are, with the management success of the present chairman and board of the British Steel Corporation, and we intend that as a result of that success——
    Mr. Skinner: The workers; they are the wealth creators.
    Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman is right: I certainly include the workers.
    As a result of that success, we are content to abide by the chairman's commercial advice about the future, as he sees it, of the corporation. That will require meeting the sorts of demands to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
    Mr. Gould: Has it occurred to the Minister that these welcome improvements have taken place in the one part of British manufacturing industry that is substantially under public ownership, and in which, accordingly, the requisite investment has been made? Can he now give a guarantee that a similar improvement will be made and sustained under private ownership? If he cannot, what is the point of privatisation, other than to hand over to the Government's friends in the City a return on investment which is rightfully that of the taxpayer?
    Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman will hear more examples of good news in various other industries during
    342
    today's Question Time. Steel is not the only one. The hon. Gentleman forgets the criticism that was rightly levelled at the British Steel Corporation for losing up to £3 million a day in the years preceding the changes that have recently been made. He should recognise that British Steel is a success story derived from having built on and understood the changes in European and world markets. I hope that he and his hon. Friends will not continue to attack the British Steel Corporation for the changes that it has achieved.

    Dollar Export Prices
    Mr. Martlew: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the increase in dollar export prices in the United Kingdom and in other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries in the latest year for which figures are available.
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Alan Clark): In the year to June 1987 United Kingdom dollar export prices increased by 6 per cent., compared with an increase of almost 11 per cent. for the industrial countries of the OECD taken together.
    Mr. Martlew: Does the Minister agree that the rise he has described has been a major disincentive to British industry and has reduced our competitiveness? Does he agree also that, because of these policies, British industry is becoming less competitive under this Government than it was in previous times? Is that not a major reason for the crisis in the balance of payments, which showed a record deficit in 1987?
    Mr. Clark: If the hon. Gentleman has a research assistant, I suggest that he sacks him, because the facts are precisely the opposite. In fact, our exports to the United States rose by 7 per cent. in sterling terms—and by 19 per cent. in dollar terms. That was achieved against an appreciation of the currency of 14 per cent.
    Mr. Gould: Will the Minister confirm that every one of the commonly used indices of competitiveness shows a loss of competitiveness of British industry under this Government? Will he accordingly refrain from repeating the false claims made by the Prime Minister on this front, and will he advise his ministerial colleagues to do likewise? What is the point of producing Government statistics and then systematically misrepresenting them?
    Mr. Clark: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, I think that you were extremely tolerant to allow the hon. Gentleman's question, which had nothing to do with exchange rates. However, I am quite prepared to tell the hon. Gentleman that I do not subscribe to the view that British exports are best served by a steadily depreciating currency. He should know that the two countries with the largest trade surpluses are those with the hardest and fastest appreciating currencies. The country with the largest deficit is the one whose currency has depreciated by one third in the past 18 months.

    Upholstered Furniture
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received about new regulations on the fire safety of upholstered furniture.
    Mr. Butcher: The proposals for new upholstered furniture regulations announced to the House on 11

    343
    January have been generally well received. A number of firms and other bodies have raised matters of commercial concern and technical detail, which we shall deal with in the drafting of the regulations.
    An encouraging response was also received from the EC Commission, supporting our proposed action as a consumer safety measure, whilst expressing understandable concern about the need to avoid as far as possible the setting up of any barriers to trade within Europe.
    Mr. Canavan: I welcome the new regulations, but will the Minister bear in mind that an estimated 300 lives are lost every year because of the presence of killer foam and other combustible materials in household furniture? Is the Minister entirely satisfied that the proposed timetable for introducing the new regulations is adequate, in view of the likelihood that another 300 lives will be lost between now and February 1989 and a further 300 before February 1990, when the new regulations are due to come into effect?
    Mr. Butcher: I am broadly satisfied that the measures announced last month will satisfy nearly all the concerns of the House. I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's argument, but he will understand that it is occasionally excruciatingly difficult to balance the paramount needs of consumer safety with a practical way of achieving them. The time frame of 1 March next year for foam and 1 March the year after for the covers is achievable. When we publish the draft regulations at the end of the month, as we agreed to do, we hope, and I think that we can fairly confidently expect, that the industry and the consumer associations will broadly welcome them.
    Mr. Conway: My hon. Friend's proposals to improve the quality of foam in furniture will be widely welcomed, but will he assure the House, first, that the quality of imports will be monitored to ensure that they meet the specifications, and, secondly, that his Department has not lost sight of the need to remind consumers of home safety, because even the higher quality foam will still be combustible and the new regulations will not solve the problem of fires in the home without individual control and responsibility?
    Mr. Butcher: I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend, and other hon. Members who have been concerned about this matter, that the regulations will bite on imports. The trading standards officers will be invited to take action on goods from wherever they come. The performance of modified foam, which could be acceptable under the test, will be continually monitored, but, having introduced the most rigorous set of regulations anywhere in the world, we should give the draft regulations a chance for the time being.
    Mr. Ashby: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that, at a time when sales should be at their highest, but are at their lowest, the industry requires certainty in respect of the regulations? Will my hon. Friend consider how to clarify the regulations so that retailers are clear about the quality of goods being sold, because at the moment nobody is certain about the regulations?
    Mr. Butcher: My hon. Friend is right. We must publish the draft regulations quickly. Ignition source 5 of BS 5852 is the test that we are minded to use on foam and we shall come to a view quickly on the direct match testing or the code of practice testing for covers.

    Compact Discs
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has on unit sales of compact discs in (a) 1987 and (b) 1986; and what value the sales represent.
    Mr. Maude: In the first nine months of 1987 the British Phonographic Industry Ltd. reported sales to retailers of 11 million compact discs—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. What goes on in the Gallery is not a matter for us.
    Mr. Maude: In the first nine months of last year the British Phonographic Industry Ltd reported sales to retailers of 11 million compact discs valued at £73 million. In 1986, 8·5 million compact discs were sold, valued at £56 million.
    Mr. Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that those are remarkable figures, and will he join me in congratulating the work force and management of the EMI CD plant in Swindon on taking a major share of that increased growth? Does he also recognise the genuine concern within the record industry about the practice of rental and copying of CDs and the advent of digital audio tape, both of which could damage this rapidly increasing contributor to British exports?
    Mr. Maude: I willingly join my hon. Friend in congratulating those of his constituents who have contributed to that excellent record of growth in the industry. In regard to copying, I hope that those in the industry will be reassured by the rental right that the Government have introduced by tabling an amendment to the Bill in another place. That will go a long way to meet current concerns.
    Mr. Greg Knight: Will my hon. Friend resist the entreaties of those who produce compact discs and who seek a ban or other form of restriction on the import or sale of digital audio tape machines? Does he agree that such an action, if attempted, could only be described as Luddite?
    Mr. Maude: We are not persuaded that measures are desirable to prevent the importation of DAT recorders or to require them to be fitted with spoilers to prevent home taping. I take my hon. Friend's point, but a lively debate is developing on this topic.

    Paper Industry
    Mr. Moss: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the level of output in the paper industry in 1987 and, in 1986.
    Mr. Atkins: The index of production for the paper industry was 102.6 in 1986, and 109·1 for the first three quarters of 1987, based on 1980 equals 100.
    Mr. Moss: Does my hon. Friend agree that that represents excellent news for British industry, and in particular for the paper industry in which employment has gone up by some 11,000 in the past 18 months? Does he also agree that the prospects for the paper industry are excellent, bearing in mind the unified market in 1992?
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend gives the lie to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould)

    345
    earlier by confirming yet again that in the paper industry, as in many others, we have a great success to show to the world.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Minister accept that the strong performance of the paper industry is most welcome, but will he acknowledge that there is concern within the industry about the implication of energy charges in the context of the privatisation of electricity? Will he persuade the Secretary of State for Energy to recognise the importance of keeping energy charges down to ensure that that industry will recover? Will he also make representations to ensure that when electricity is privatised, firms such as Thomas Tait in my constituency, which has made great investments to produce the right quality of paper, have the opportunity to tender for the substantial contracts?
    Mr. Atkins: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the matter of energy cost is a matter for the Secretary of State for Energy. He must pursue that with him.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I advise my hon. Friend, that leading members of the paper and board industry—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is Question Time.
    Mr. Winterton: Is my hon. Friend aware that leading members of the paper and board industry are strongly opposed to the proposed removal of the Patents Office from London to south Wales, not least because that will create huge additional costs for the smaller sector of the industry and clearly could adversely affect the bid of this country to get the Trade Mark Office located in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am interested in this matter, but I find it difficult to relate it to the paper industry.
    Mr. Winterton: I related my question directly to the paper industry. I have received direct representations from the paper industry, which is concerned about the proposed transfer of the Patents Office to South Wales.
    Mr. Speaker: Good enough.
    Mr. Atkins: My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy will no doubt have heard my hon. Friend's question.

    Enterprise Initiative
    Mr. Devlin: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what the response has been to the launch of the new enterprise initiative.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The response has been excellent. We have received more than 30,000 inquiries on the DTI freephone number, and 100,000 enterprise initiative booklets have now been distributed.
    My right hon. and noble Friend and I have also received many messages of strong support from industry for the policies announced in the White Paper.
    Mr. Devlin: I welcome my right hon. Friend's initiative on behalf of the many thousands of firms on Teesside that will directly benefit from the thousands of small projects set up each month, and the doubling of research and assistance to small businesses. Does he intend to maintain the presence of the DTI in its present form on Teesside?
    346
    If, as has been announced, the regional development office will disappear from Billingham, will he give an undertaking to redeploy the staff elsewhere in the region?
    Mr. Clarke: The change in the nature of the services offered by our Department will obviously involve some changes in the deployment of the staff. I assure my hon. Friend that we certainly will retain a regional office in Billingham. We shall open a new satellite office in Middlesbrough. It is possible that we shall require additional personnel in the region as a whole, so long as the response is strong enough. There will, however, be some changes, because the staff previously employed in the routine checking of automatic regional development grants at Billingham will no longer be required in the same numbers. We shall look at the possibilities of redeploying them elsewhere in the region as far as possible.
    Ms. Armstrong: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take the opportunity to reassure those firms seeking to locate or expand in the north that the new grants and other measures which he has announced will enable them to get quickly through the bureaucracy—this reflects one of their main fears about the loss of RDG—and that the overall amount of money going into the north next year will be not less, but more?
    Mr. Clarke: We believe that the new package of grants and support that we are able to give industry in the northeast will enable us to attract new investment to the region with the same success, if not more, as we have achieved in recent years. We plan to spend more money on DTI grants and services in the regions than we planned when the last White Paper was produced. Obviously, the eventual outturn of expenditure will depend on the response of firms in the regions and those who wish to go there.
    Mr. Grylls: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many people will warmly welcome the consultancy advice offered to small and growing businesses. thereby increasing their professionalism and heightening their success rate, while reducing their failure rate? Is he satisfied that the fees offered to the consultants for which the Department will look will be adequate to ensure that there is an adequate supply of consultants to deal with those firms that would like to take advantage of the services?
    Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his first remark. The level of response from small firms throughout the country shows that we have identified a genuine need and that we can provide a valuable service. The representations that I have received on consultants fees vary, depending on the type of consultants about which one is talking. At the moment we are particularly recruiting the business advisers who will carry out the initial company audit and decide what form of consultancy is required by the company. We find that the level of fees that we are offering is getting the right sort of people to apply. The fees for the eventual consultancy will be in line with those that we have recently been using satisfactorily for our existing consultancy services.
    Mr. Salmond: How many of the messages of support have come from business consultancies which undoubtedly will be the prime beneficiaries of the enterprise initiative? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman believe that what is good for business consultancies is necessarily good for business?
    Mr. Clarke: The messages of support have come from representative organisations of business and chambers of commerce, both north and south of the border, and from large numbers of business men, who accept the need to make our businesses ever more competitive in ways other than just price competitiveness, at which British industry is getting very good. There will be an increase in the amount of consultancy provided, but we are determined to ensure through our contractors that it is good quality consultancy that achieves the job of raising the management performance of the companies that will benefit from it.
    Mr. Holt: Referring to Teesside, will my right hon. and learned Friend reflect on the fact that, however great the Government's grants, the swingeing increase in rates by Cleveland county council by an additional 30p this year, bringing it up to 282p at county level, will negate much of the Government's good action in their initiatives? Will my right hon. and learned Friend speak to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and draw attention to this terrible impost on business in that area?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. It has been a feature in recent years that those local authorities that complain most about the difficulties of attracting new business in their areas go on to impose the highest possible rates and deter new investments. Fortunately, the Government have a proposal to introduce a national non-domestic rate across the country, which will rescue business from those local vagaries and be especially beneficial to industries in the north, in the type of constituency represented by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Blair: Is it not the case that the welcome given by industry — certainly north of the border — has been qualified? Industry says that it welcomes the White Paper only if it will not mean a decrease in the overall level of resources. Is it not the case that the business development initiative, which is one of the main items on which the Government hang their hat when saying that they are maintaining resources, applies nationally? Will the Minister tell the House how much of the money will find its way to the hard-pressed regions of the north, Scotland and Wales, rather than to the regions that are already well off?
    Mr. Clarke: The initiative does, indeed, apply nationally, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we are giving a higher rate of grant to companies that apply under the enterprise initiative in the assisted areas, which include large parts of Scotland and Wales. We are determined to plan and work on the basis that we shall achieve the same level of expenditure, at least in the regions, as we have achieved in the past. Our success depends on the take-up in the areas in question. That is why we are promoting the new initiative so heavily to business men in Scotland, Wales, the assisted areas and the urban programme areas. We wish to ensure that the level of take-up is achieved, benefits produced and the level of expenditure maintained.
    Mr. Jack: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the keen interest that is being shown by the Labour leader of Lancashire county council in the excellent enterprise package? To assist her in her further understanding of these exciting measures, will the Minister tell me when the DTI satellite office is due to open in
    Mr. Clarke: The new realism is affecting quite a lot of councils, although, to be fair, some of the councils in the north-west have always been fairly pragmatic and have worked with the Government in helping to promote new enteprise in their areas. I am sorry that I cannot give my hon. Friend the exact date for the opening of the new office. I rather thought that it had already opened, but if it has not, no doubt it will open in the next few weeks.

    Balance of Payments
    Ms. Mowlam: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his latest estimate of the deficit on the balance of payments in 1987.
    Mr. Alan Clark: The deficit was £2·7 billion in 1987. This is less than that forecast in the Financial Statement and Budget Report for the year.
    Ms. Mowlam: Will the Minister explain how we will pay our way in the world after oil, in view of the huge deficit which now exists and which is clearly soaring?
    Mr. Clark: How we pay our way. The hon. Lady may remember that all our overseas assets were sold during the war to pay the United States for armaments and raw materials. Those assets, if used now to pay our deficits each year at the present rate, would last until the 22nd century.
    Mr. Madel: If people want to improve the balance of payments in car and truck manufacture, should they not seek to persuade the trade unions at Ford to end the strike at once and start to renegotiate wages and conditions? Does that not apply particularly to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould)?
    Mr. Clark: One of the most praiseworthy features of our export performance has been the great improvement in industrial relations over the past two or three years. Therefore, I very much regret the dispute at Ford and hope that it will be settled very soon.
    Mr. James Lamond: Does the Minister realise that the deficit will continue to grow as long as he presides over agreements such as that reached on the import of acrylic yarn from Turkey? Was he surprised that, when he answered my question last time and lost his temper, he received a great deal of angry correspondence from the manufacturing employers in the industry, who feel that he is prepared to sit and let the industry go to rack and ruin before he accepts that the agreement is damaging?
    Mr. Clark: I did not lose my temper with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, I have great sympathy with the case that he argues. As I have told him, both at the Dispatch Box and in correspondence—at some length, I hope he will admit — the evidence that I needed to take a different position in the negotiations began to come forward only halfway through those negotiations. If this evidence is to be accepted in Brussels, it must satisfy and conform to very strict criteria. Anecdotal evidence simply about reductions in the work force is not sufficient. The evidence must relate to falling output and falling orders and to a clearly defined set of statistics about which the industry is well aware. I had a meeting yesterday with representatives of the industry and made all that plain to them. I accept that the situation has deteriorated since the negotiations were concluded. I have asked the industry for

    349
    a clear statement about what is happening. When that is to hand, I hope that I shall be able to put a further process in train.
    Mr. Page: is my hon. Friend aware that in 1986–87 corporation tax was nearly £13 billion—about £9 billion more than in 1981, despite a corporation tax reduction from 52 to 35 per cent.? Given those facts, does he agree that reducing taxation gives an increase in productivity and in enterprise and leads to the largest overseas investments of any country? That is the way to close our trade gap, and no other method will succeed.
    Mr. Clark: Certainly taxation policy has a lot to do with it, but I remain convinced that other factors such as price, quality and delivery are all important.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: Last year the deficit on manufactured trade on a balance of payments basis was about £7 billion. Ten years ago there was a surplus of about £12 billion at today's prices. Can the Minister tell us how many jobs that appalling turnround of £19 billion represents? How many jobs have been exported as a consequence? Is that not the new "jobgeld" that we are paying as tribute to Tory incompetence towards manufacturing industry?
    Mr. Clark: Unemployment figures have continuously improved over the last 14 months. The trade gap is a per cent. of our gross domestic product compared with 34- per cent. of the United States gross domestic product. I remember the hon. Gentleman and many of his hon. Friends up to about a year ago further proselytising the deficit financing policy of the United States. Look where that got the United States.

    Telecommunications
    Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has on moves to increase competition in the telecommunications sector in the European Community.
    Mr. Butcher: The Commission's Green Paper on telecommunications, which was laid before the House on 17 July, contains a range of proposals for the development of a competitive Community market in both services and equipment. In a series of meetings with telecommunications Ministers of the Community I have underlined this objective and exchanged views on methods of increasing competition in this sector.
    Mr. Nicholson: Is my lion. Friend aware that there are still complaints about the difficulties of access to a number of national markets in the European Community? Is he satisfied that rapid enough progress is being made towards the achievement of a single common market in telecommunications equipment? Is he aware that numerous parts of Britain, including Somerset, depend for job and wealth creation on that being achieved, and that we cannot wait until 1992?
    Mr. Butcher: The short answer is no, I am not satisfied by the rate of progress. That is why I have arranged so many meetings with my European counterparts. We have all agreed that we should make the fastest possible progress towards a truly common market in telecommunications equipment. I am encouraged that the Commission's directives on the liberalisation of the terminals market borrows a great deal from British
    350
    experience, and that many of the principles in the Commission's Green Paper borrow very directly from United Kingdom experience. In the meantime, we must see that our companies have access to what are, in practical terms, closed markets.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware of the concern about the growing importation from the continent of pornographic material by premium service operators of British Telecom? Many of us are fed up to the back teeth with the material that is being put out on the telephone and are sick of the "rent a knee trembler" performances that are being put out.
    Mr. Butcher: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we looked into that matter and associated issues during the Adjournment debate in the early hours of this morning. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is content that the action that the Director General of Oftel is currently taking with a considerable degree of urgency will meet some of his concerns. Both DG Oftel and BT share a number of the hon. Gentleman's concerns. We want to see fast action, but it must be for DG Oftel to implement that action, if necessary through a licence change.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: While recognising that the Minister is not responsible for the approval of equipment that can be fitted to British Telecom lines in homes, may I ask whether he is aware that Telecom, or someone, is obstructing the approval of diverter equipment that can be used on telephone lines? It seems that that is because Telecom can gain far more by renting than by allowing people to buy. Will the Minister now look into that, make the necessary representations and clear the blockage?
    Mr. Butcher: Yes, Sir.

    Publishing Industry
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the level of output in the publishing industry in 1987 and in 1986.
    Mr. Atkins: The index of production for the United Kingdom printing and publishing industries was 105.6 in 1986 and 116.3 in the first three quarters of 1987, based on 1980 equalling 100.
    Mr. Butler: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Is that not a remarkable tribute to the publishing industry and to the economy as a whole? I know that the policy of the Labour party is to increase choice, but with over 52,000 titles being published every year in this country, is that not a mark of the range of choice provided by capitalism?
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend's general philosophy is quite right. However, I am delighted to say that he was slightly wrong in the number of titles. The number of book titles published in 1986 was 58,000, which was an all-time record and yet again evidence of a success story.
    Mr. Dalyell: To which of the hon. Gentleman's ministerial colleagues should our congratulations be sent for the boost that they have given to the publishing industry by the use of injunctions?
    Mr. Atkins: It would seem, as ever, that the lawyers always win.

    British Steel
    Mr. Morley: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on the proposals to denationalise British Steel.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I have received a small number of letters from various parties about points of detail. I have so far received very few representations about the principle of privatisation itself.
    Mr. Morley: Is the Minister aware that there is much concern among those who are employed at BSC at the moment because no details have yet been put forward about the way in which the privatisation will take place? Is he aware that the trustees of the BSC pension fund recently announced a £41 million payout over and above their income because of the sale of part-owned BSC shares in steel companies? Will he give some assurances to the people who rely on BSC pensions that their rights will be protected?
    Mr. Clarke: We hope to publish the Bill turning the corporation into a Companies Act company shortly. Obviously, more details will begin to emerge during the debate on that. Meanwhile, I accept the hon. Gentleman's point about pension rights. It is an important matter and we shall have to reassure the employees—I am sure that we shall be able to—that their pension rights will not be affected by the change. When I have taken previous privatisation measures through the House, we have always been able to address that point successfully and I am sure that we shall be able to do so again.
    Mr. William Powell: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is widespread demand that that measure proceeds as soon as possible, and can he tell us when he expects the Bill to be published, so that the House can get on with its consideration of the details?
    Mr. Clarke: I expect the Bill to be published shortly. I advise my hon. Friend and others who are interested to wait for the business statement that follows this period of questions.
    Dr. Bray: Does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster think that the present levels of efficiency of the British Steel Corporation could conceivably have been achieved if it had been left in private ownership for the past 20 years?
    Mr. Clarke: It could have been achieved at any time by good management, with the co-operation of a good work force in making the necessary changes in working practices and the necessary investment in new plant and equipment, which British Steel Corporation has done so successfully. Now that it is such a successful corporation, there is no need for it to remain under the constraints of the Treasury and Government ownership, and we are ready to return it to the market.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will the Minister state whether it is correct that he has appointed merchant bankers, brokers and account managers for the flotation? If it is correct, why could he not tell me that in his answers to my written questions, and why does he presume that the Bill will pass through the House?
    Mr. Clarke: I am not sure about the questions, which I have not handled myself. It is certainly the case that we have appointed our advisers and issued a press notice on
    352
    that matter. I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman the fullest details of whom we have appointed: the Government merchant bank advisers are Samuel Montagu, the Government brokers are Rowe and Pitman, and the reporting accountants are Coopers and Lybrand.

    Regional Aid
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much in real terms was spent on all aspects of Government regional aid policy in the financial years ended in April 1979 and April 1986 in (a) Bridgend, (b) Wales and (c) each of the standard planning regions of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Atkins: Total expenditure in the United Kingdom at constant 1986–87 prices on the main schemes of regional assistance in 1978–79 and 1985–86 was £1,377–8 million and £784.7 million respectively. With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will arrange for the full set of figures requested to be published in the Official Report.
    Mr. Griffiths: I am sure the Minister will agree that it is absolutely astounding that at a time when unemployment was more than doubling, regional aid should have been virtually halved. Will the Government now make a commitment to reinstate regional spending in real terms so that areas with high unemployment, such as Wales, Scotland and the north, can receive an additional boost to attract new jobs?
    Mr. Atkins: For the ensuing year regional aid expenditure will be comparable with what we spent last year, albeit spread into a variety of different initiatives and regional assistance.
    Following are the figures:
    Expenditure at constant prices (1986–87=100) on the main schemes of regional preferential assistance in the financial years 1978–79 and 1985–86 in (a) Bridgend, (b) Wales and (c) each of the standard planning regions of the United Kingdom were as follows:

    £ million

    1978–79

    51985–86

    Northern

    311·1

    97·4

    North-West

    172·5

    88·6

    South-West

    18·5

    12·2

    East Midlands

    8·4

    8·6

    West Midlands

    —

    5·7

    Yorkshire and Humberside

    73·3

    35·4

    England

    583·8

    4265·8

    Wales

    2265·1

    149·1

    Scotland

    303·9

    210–0

    Northern Ireland1

    225·0

    159·8

    United Kingdom

    1,377·8

    784·7

    Bridgend

    2 362·3

    38·3

    Notes:

    Schemes included in the reply are regional developmemt grants, regional selective assistance, expenditure on land and factories by the English Industrial Estates Corporation, the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies, the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Highland and Islands Development Board, and grants by these boards.

    1Northern Ireland has a different range of financial incentives. The items included under the expenditure data in the table are the equivalents of the schemes listed above for GB.

    2 Includes payments of £26 million to one project in Bridgend (£50.6 million at 1986–87 prices).

    3 Excludes Welsh Development Agency payments, which are not readily available.

    4 Expenditure on business improvement services and the exchange risk guarantee scheme (elements of regional selective assistance) in England in 1985–86 cannot be broken down by region. Hence the total shown for England is greater than the sum of the figures for the individual regions.

    5 Expenditure on RDG in 1985–86 was reduced by the four-month moratorium on payments under the original RDG scheme introduced in January 1985, which deferred payments into 1986–87.

    Businesses (Bureaucratic Burdens)
    Mr. Page: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what new plans he has for lifting bureaucratic burdens on business.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Active work continues in every area of government to lighten the load of regulation and improve the delivery of Government services for business. We propose to issue a White Paper reporting progress and the next steps in the summer.
    Mr. Page: In thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for his reply, may I ask whether he is aware that in 1979 we had one of the most wizened and shrunken small business sectors in the Western world? Does he accept that due to the Government lifting the bureaucratic burdens it is now starting to grow? What does my right hon. and learned Friend intend to do to relieve the load on small businesses of company law, particularly on the audit facility?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend that one of the most impressive achievements of the British economic recovery has been the rate at which small businesses have set up and that sector has expanded. It is important that the Government continue to deal with small business in such a way that they do not waste management time or erect obstructions in the way of people intending to expand their business. We are now looking at several detailed proposals on company law reform and particularly aim to lift bureaucratic burdens in our changes. We have informed interested parties of the details of our intended reform of annual filing requirements for company accounts, and we are certainly giving detailed consideration to the small company audit and account requirements, to which my hon. Friend referred.
    Mr. Cryer: If lightening bureaucratic burdens on small firms is so good, why is it so good to increase them for trade unions in Act after Act? Since we lose more days every year from industrial injury than from strike action, can the Minister assure us that the proposals to remove the bureaucratic burdens on small businesses will not extend to the removal of health and safety obligations—which most small firms of any decent standard welcome—to ensure that loss of life and limb is not increased?
    Mr. Clarke: Trade unions can have their own bureaucracy, but I am sure that nothing that the
    354
    Government have done puts more bureaucratic restraints on them. This is a matter, not for me, but for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, as the hon. Gentleman knows. We are seeking to strengthen the ways in which members can enforce legal rights, which this House has provided, against trade unions which might otherwise be unwilling to concede them. That does not conflict with the other general aims of our policy. The Government have no intention whatever of reducing the standards of health and safety achieved in the British workplace.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I sought to be called on question No. 1 as I represent Lancaster——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry that the hon. Lady was not called then, but she has her chance now on question 21.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am now dealing with question 21, Mr. Speaker. I should like to point out that companies which come to Lancaster, despite any bureaucratic restrictions, rarely go into liquidation, because of the assistance given to them by local business men and the local city council. Anyone who comes to Lancaster will do exceedingly well.
    Mr. Clarke: That is a very welcome message for us all. It is confirmed by my experiences of Lancashire, where the co-operation between the local business leadership and the local council, and the use they make of the assistance from the Government, is very effective and is showing up very well in the recovery of the economy in that area.

    Competition Policy
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received in response to his recent statement on competition policy.
    Mr. Maude: My Department has received a large number of representations in the course of the recent review, and I expect to receive more in response to the proposed Green Paper on the new restrictive trade practices law, due for publication shortly.
    Mr. Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware of the possible takeover bid for British Bakeries in my constituency? Is he aware of a move by comparatively small companies to take over large companies, which then go in for asset-stripping on a big scale, which involves job losses? What will my hon. Friend do about this wicked practice?
    Mr. Maude: Asset-stripping is a highly emotive and quite often misleading term. If any merger qualifies under the legislation, it falls to my right hon. and noble Friend to decide whether it should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. He does that on the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading. The proposed merger to which my hon. Friend referred is, I believe, in the process of being considered by the Director General.

Hong Kong (White Paper)
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the White Paper on Hong Kong.
A Hong Kong Government White Paper, "The Development of Representative Government: The Way Forward" was published in Hong Kong earlier today. Copies of the White Paper have been placed in the Library of the House.
The publication of the White Paper marks the end of a wide-ranging review of developments in representative government. A Green Paper, published in May 1987, sought the views of the Hong Kong community. It set out a range of options for possible change; none was ruled out in advance. The Green Paper elicited a widespread public response. We were also able to benefit from a wide range of views expressed in the House during the debate on 20 January.
The White Paper discusses the full range of issues raised in the review. The main decisions which it announces are as follows:

(a) ten directly elected members will be introduced into the Legislative Council in 1991;

(b) in 1988 the number of appointed members in the council will be reduced from 22 to 20, and the number of members elected by functional constituencies will increase from 12 to 14. In 1991, the present system of election by members of District Boards will be abolished; but the urban and regional councils will each continue to elect one member to the council;

(c) links between the urban district boards and the urban council will be strengthened;

(d) the Governor will continue to be the President of the Legislative Council for the immediate future.

We are committed to the steady development of representative government in Hong Kong. We believe that the decisions set out in the White Paper mark an important step in that direction and that they represent a balanced and reasonable response to the views expressed by the people of Hong Kong and their representatives.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Since the Secretary of State a week ago poured cold water on our request for a statement, we are glad that our renewed request for a statement has met with a better response today.
This is a very timid White Paper. It has been long anticipated, with considerable expectation and hope, and now that it is available it will come to many as a considerable let-down. For the most part, it does little more than tinker with the status quo.
The proposals for direct elections to the Legislative Council are distinctly inadequate. It is not simply that those elections are not to take place until 1991, rather than 1988, as many in Hong Kong campaigned for. Although I advocated 1988, I can understand, if not agree with, the Government's decision to be cautious in the light of the divisions of opinion in Hong Kong about timing. It is even more regrettable that, when direct elections are introduced, they will apply to only 18 per cent. of the Legislative Council—10 Members—rather than 25 per cent., the figure that many of us expected this year.
I cannot understand why the whole electorate of Hong Kong, whose potential number is 3,300,000, is to be given
356
only 10 Members to elect when, under the new arrangement, accountants in Hong Kong—who cannot be especially numerous—are to have a Member of the Legislative Council all to themselves.
Mr. James Lamond: There are a lot of accountants there.
Mr. Kaufman: But not 330,000.
Even at this late stage, I hope that the Government will reconsider the number of directly elected Members of the Legislative Council, even if the date of the election is immutable. The Government should consider reallocating the places of the two new functional Members to the directly elected section and increasing that number to a minimum of 12. In the event of a change of Government in this country before 1991, we would discuss the feasibility and desirability of increasing the number of elected Members of the Legislative Council with the Government of the People's Republic of China.
Hong Kong can and must afford lively controversy, and no doubt there will be lively controversy there over the contents of the White Paper. However, having registered our criticism of the White Paper's contents, it is right that I should say to the people of Hong Kong that, whatever disappointment there may be, the colony is at a turning point in its history and it cannot afford deep and lasting divisions. It is essential that everyone in Hong Kong unites to ensure that the new arrangements work and are successful. I am confident that that is what they will do.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his modest, but appropriate, thanks for our willingness to offer the statement this afternoon. I am also grateful to him for his expression of support for the need for steadiness and unity among the people of Hong Kong. They have always manifested that, to their great credit and to the greater success of the territory.
I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's proposition that this represents a timid decision. It is an appropriate decision in response to the very careful and full consideration given to the matter in Hong Kong. Our key objective throughout has been to design a structure that will not be temporary or fallible, but one that will endure beyond 1997. I want to make it absolutely clear that the White Paper is entirely in line with the commitments given by the Government when the matter was last discussed. No commitment was made to introduce direct elections in 1988. It is nonsense to say—as some people said earlier today—that the White Paper means the postponement of direct election plans. The commitment in 1984 was to review in 1987. We have done that.
I note what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the number of directly elected Members. However, 14 elected Members from the functional constituencies will exist alongside the 10 directly elected Members. That is close to 50 per cent. of all the Members of the Legislative Council. We believe that they will represent a proper blend of continuity and change when the time comes. I am also grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's encouragement to the people of Hong Kong, after their mature reflection that has brought us this far, to continue to sustain the constitution in the way in which we would all wish.
Sir Peter Blaker: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the decision to introduce an element of direct elections to the Legislative Council in

357
1991 will be welcomed by the majority of Conservative Members and, I believe on the evidence, by the majority of people of Hong Kong? Is he also aware that BBC radio news reported this morning that the Government of Hong Kong and this Government have gone back on an undertaking to introduce an element of direct elections in 1988? Will he make it perfectly clear that no such undertaking has ever been given?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his commendation of the decisions announced. I am grateful to him also for giving me the opportunity to set beyond doubt the fact that those reports had no foundation. As I said in my earlier answers, there was no commitment beyond that to undertake a review, and there is no foundation for the suggestion that we have gone back on any commitment. It is very important that that proposition should be nailed now and nailed firmly.
Dr. John Marek: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that he has caused considerable disappointment and a sense of betrayal among a large section of the Hong Kong community? Is he aware that democracy demands tradition and roots and that that implies a move to direct elections this year and a majority of elected members by 1991? Is he aware that his lame statement and his sell-out will make the eventual transition of Hong Kong in 1997 harder rather than easier? Finally, is he aware that it is a very risky course that he wishes to pursue in the next few years?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The intemperance of the language used by the hon. Gentleman, with phrases such as "sellout", puts the value of his judgment in the right perspective. There is no case for such emotional and inaccurate phraseology, nor is there any suggestion that the Government are proceeding with undue caution. We have proceeded, as we have always advertised here, along an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary line, on the basis that each step should be carefully considered and that changes should command wide support and confidence in the community. What we said in the last White Paper is what has been said in this White Paper: these changes, after full consideration of all the views expressed, are well judged to command wide support and confidence and to ensure continuity, which is the foundation of stability.
Mr. David Howell: Further to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) about the BBC, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the report this morning also stated as a bland fact that the decisions about elections had been made in deference to Beijing? Will my right hon. Friend take every step to see that that nonsense is flatly refuted? Will he stongly underline the commitment, in his own words, to the steady development of representative government in Hong Kong? Will he confirm beyond all doubt that there is no going back on the spirit and aim of the 1984 accord or on our very strong determination and commitment to see Hong Kong flourish as a free-enterprise society for many decades ahead?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for what he has said. He rightly drew attention to the importance of the joint declaration between the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China. One of its
358
provisions, designed to ensure the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong, was the proposition that the legislature of the Hong Kong special administrative region shall be constituted by election. That is the direction represented by the changes which I have announced today.
It is wrong to suggest that the decisions we have announced today are decisions of anyone other than ourselves. Clearly we have taken account of the wishes of the people of Hong Kong. Clearly some of those people themselves have wished to take account of the development that has taken place on the Basic Law which is being prepared by China. All these matters are important to the continuity which we want to achieve. That continuity is designed to secure the survival of Hong Kong as a prosperous, stable, free enterprise society in accordance with the joint declaration.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Is the Foreign Secretary really suggesting that direct elections earlier than 1991, and of a larger proportion of the legislature, would be revolutionary? If it is not he who thinks that, is it Beijing that thinks so, and has he received representations to that effect? What chance does he see for establishing two systems in one country if the democratic system is not firmly established in Hong Kong before the changeover?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman must come back to reflect on the pattern that prevailed in Hong Kong until the first steps were taken in the direction of representative government only a few years ago. What is now proposed is a substantial and important further step in that direction. The mood of the people of Hong Kong was rightly expressed in the last White Paper, when it was noted that there was considerable general public concern that too rapid progress towards direct elections could place the future stability and prosperity of Hong Kong in jeopardy.
In summary, there was strong public support for the idea of direct elections but little support for such elections in the immediate future. That was the position a couple of years ago. Against that background, we have announced today the introduction of direct elections in 1991 and made it clear that we think that that is the right pace at which to proceed.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the I-louse will think it fair if I now give preference to those who were not called in the debate on Wednesday 20 January.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. James Couchman: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the White Paper will be seen widely as an elegant compromise between the apprehensions of the traditionalists, who have viewed direct elections with considerable concern, and the more radical and adventurous section of the community that wanted direct elections much more swiftly and for a much greater proportion of seats? My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that timetabling the introduction for 1991 shows a much greater grasp of the realities involved in trying to arrange direct elections in a hurry than those who wanted the introduction in 1988?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We have striven to balance the two factors to which he has drawn attention. As a result, we will have contributed to the prospect of continuity, stability and prosperity.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Will the Foreign Secretary recognise that, if he does not think that the statement is timid, some talented and energetic people in Hong Kong will think it is, and that it will provide impetus to their wish to emigrate? To avoid that danger, will the Foreign Secretary accept and tell our friends in China that the higher the proportion of seats that become directly elected, the greater the prospect for stability and progress in Hong Kong?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman is correct to say that there are some talented and energetic people in Hong Kong who disagree with the conclusions I have announced. That was implicit in the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman). We have striven to reach an answer that provides the best balance between all the opinions expressed and the anxieties felt in Hong Kong. I believe that that will prove to be the basis for continuity and stability of the system of government and continuity on the path towards and through 1997. believe that it will prove to be the best way of retaining in Hong Kong the largest quantity of talent of the sort the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. It is a matter of judgment. I respect those who argue in the opposite direction, but I think that we have struck the right balance for the future.
Mr. Roger Sims: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many hon. Members consider themselves friends of Hong Kong and that many of us will feel that the proposals, although we understand the mixed views about them, are in the best interests of the people of Hong Kong and the territory's future? Is he aware that it was only a few years ago that a number of people from Hong Kong were seeking advice from us as to how they should move forward to representative government? Indeed, the first elections were held only two and a half years ago under the functional constituency system—an ingenious device that seemed particularly appropriate for Hong Kong and appears to have worked successfully. Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the number of functional constituency seats is to be increased forthwith and that there will still be functional constituencies alongside directly elected Members after 1991?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his tribute to the balance of the conclusions we have reached. He is right to point out that it was only recently that moves were made in the direction of representative government against the historical background of Hong Kong. He is right to draw attention to the importance of the functional constituencies. The change that is taking place as a result of my statement today will take effect by the addition of 10 directly elected seats and a continuation of the functional constituencies in 1991.
Mr. Pat Wall: Does not the Secretary of State's statement mark only a further extension of the long process of denying the Chinese people of Hong Kong a say in the running of their lives, both in relation to the rightful reunification with China and to the social and economic conditions in the colony? Does that not show that the Government have more in common with one-party totalitarian Stalinism than they have with democracy throughout the world?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I dare say that, if I wanted advice about one-party Stalinism, I should turn to the hon.
360
Gentleman. I can assure him that the pattern of development in Hong Kong, the security that has been provided for the people of Hong Kong and the framework within which there has been an explosion of prosperity on a massive and demonstrative scale are a tribute to the free enterprise system which has underlain it and to the framework of government that has brought it thus far. The changes that we are making now are, in themselves, a further extension of the novelty of representative government which the hon. Gentleman appears to commend. I cannot see why he should complain about our movement in the direction of an increasingly democratic, free-enterprise society.
Mr. James Hill: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that we have heard a great deal about the lobby for 1988. I was recently on a private visit to Hong Kong, where I found that there were several other opinions, particularly in the business community. That community was looking forward to stability after the difficulties with the stock exchange and the devaluation of the Hong Kong dollar. It would have been a most inopportune time to bring forward a sweeping political change. My right hon. and learned Friend must have taken all that into account in the decision making that had to take place. I should have thought that today's decision was the right one, but I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will say something about the timetable of the Basic Law; we cannot have democratic elections without a Basic Law. There must be tremendous cooperation with the Governor of Hong Kong and the Chinese authorities.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend draws attention to another of the strands of opinion in Hong Kong, which emphasises the extent to which there are sharp divisions and variations in opinion there. That is one of the strong arguments for not making a major constitutional change in 1988, when opinion is divided in this way, but for proceeding along the timetable that he has commended.
My hon. Friend is also right to draw attention to the importance of the role of the Basic Law. As I have already said, the preparation of that is for the Government of the People's Republic of China, but it is being undertaken with the help of a Basic Law drafting committee on which Hong Kong people are well represented. I understand that the full text of the draft Basic Law will be formally published after refinement in May of this year and that Hong Kong people will then have four months to comment on it, before it is revised further. That other half of the equation is being carried forward quite sensibly.
This pattern of behaviour underlines the extent to which there is a fallacy in some people's thinking—that a choice must be made between the interests of Hong Kong and good relations between Britain and China. The truth is that we cannot have one without the other, and we are endeavouring to achieve both.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is it not clear that only when directly elected Members are in place will they have the authority to speak on the basis of democratic representation? Does it not ill become a Government who are supposed to be committed to democracy to say to other people, "You must wait for the system that we shall put in place and it will be only a short time before the final changeover takes place."?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: If life were that simple, what the hon. Lady says might be true. But life is not so simple. In making those changes from a system of government which has prevailed in Hong Kong, placed as it is historically and geographically, we are moving in the direction that she would wish, after the fullest possible consultation with the people concerned, on a time scale consistent with balance and continuity. We have done the best we can to take account of the diversity of opinion. With all humility, I believe that we have got the judgment about right.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that there will be a wide welcome in Hong Kong for the calm and considered way in which he presented his arguments today? Does he accept also that there will he some disappointment at the fact that there will be no direct elections in 1988? Does he agree that there will be some concern that what he has said today may not be the best way in which to ensure stability? Does he accept that there will be puzzlement about the fact that the small scale of what is proposed for 1991 falls short of the expectations not only of those who want direct elections this year but of those who are hostile to direct elections at any time?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend articulates the opinions of some people on the matter — I emphasise: some opinions of some people. We have made the best judgment that we can on the basis of an extensive survey and on the basis of debates in every conceivable representative institution and authority in Hong Kong. In almost all of them, as in the House, opinion was pretty evenly divided between both ends of the argument. The judgment that we have struck is as near right as one could get.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that it will not be lost on the British electorate that the Government who are handing over Hong Kong are the same Government who fought for the Falklands? They will be drawn to the irresistible conclusion that, whereas the Government were prepared to fight for the Falklands, they dare not do anything with Hong Kong because there are 1 million Chinese around the corner? [Interruption] Sorry-1 billion Chinese around the corner. There will be only 18 per cent. participation in the elections. The Government are demanding that trade unions, tied hand and foot, must ballot for everything. Eighteen per cent. would not do service to the Iowa caucus. Before long, the hon. and right hon. learned Gentleman, if he is still in the job, will make arrangements for a one-party state in Hong Kong.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The people of this country will learn from the hon. Gentleman's intervention that, if they seek one of the longest possible interconnections of wholly unconnected topics, founded upon a wholly misleading over-simplification, they have no better champion of that type of behaviour than the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Tim Rathbone: Dos my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the mixture of direct representation and functional representation is an intriguing experiment in proportionality? Does he consider that it bears particular study by her Majesty's Government?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not quite sure in what respect that kind of sophisticated proportionality is to be
362
commended. It might be commendable for the future tribulations of the parties that once constituted the alliance.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the existence and popular expectation of representative government will do much to strengthen prospects for Hong Kong's institutions in 1997? Does he expect evolution to be speeded up a little between 1991 and 1997?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The pattern of development that has so far been identified seems to commend itself to the people of Hong Kong. We shall look forward to their experience in operating it when we consider the prospect for any further changes.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on achieving a judicious and skilful balance in his paper. Will he reassure the people of Hong Kong that it patently shows that we have absolutely no need to suck up to the People's Republic of China?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The idea that Britain should be obliged to have a confrontation with the People's Republic of China or be obliged, in my hon. Friend's elegant phrase, to "suck up to" the People's Republic of China is an unusually uncharacteristic over-simplification, of which my hon. Friend is not often guilty.
Dr. Jeremy Bray: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that he has weakened the authority of, and undermined confidence in, the Government of Hong Kong by so palpably bowing to pressures from the People's Republic of China in a matter in which that country has no legitimate interest and which relates entirely to a period long before the handover?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am sorry to tell the hon. Gentleman that his view is dramatically over-simplified and foolish. As I said in the last debate on this matter, and again today, all the evidence shows that Hong Kong prospers when London and Beijing can work in harmony. The overriding need for Hong Kong is to secure a foundation for lasting future stability and prosperity. That cannot be founded on confrontation between Britain and China; it can be founded, as it sensibly has been, on a continued understanding and the implementation of the joint declaration, to which we are both committed.
Mr. Michael Marshall: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the whole future of Hong Kong—like its past—is based on its economic viability, which in turn is based on confidence? Is not the greatest threat to confidence in Hong Kong ill-considered statements urging on it a Westminster model, as some hon. Members have done, and as has been heard in some of the extreme statements of the Members of LegCo?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am sure my hon. Friend is right to remind the House of the importance of confidence as a foundation for stability — above all else — in Hong Kong. One of the remarkable things is the extent to which the people of Hong Kong and their representatives have, to a large degree, appreciated that, as is shown by the moderation and wisdom of what they say. That is a proposition that should be borne firmly in mind by Members of LegCo, this House and all others NA ho are concerned to uphold prosperity, stability and continuity in Hong Kong.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept my reassurance that I think that he has got it just about right — which can only mean that the Prime Minister's uninformed intervention has not been allowed to play upon this particular matter? Is not the blunt fact that the major considerations up to 1997 must be both the maintenance and success of Hong Kong's economy and the realisation that we must go along with the Chinese Government's acceptance of the scale and speed of change?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am always glad to accept a compliment from the hon. Gentleman, however much it may be accompanied by the thorns that he sometimes feels obliged to offer at the same time. He puts his finger on it precisely when he says that the future must be built on exchanges and understandings of the mutual interest of the United Kingdom, China and the people of Hong Kong. If what we are building now is to be stable and survivable, it needs to be built in that way.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will call the four hon. Members who have been standing, to put their questions briefly.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: As any lingering doubt that my right hon. and learned Friend may have had about the good sense of his policy will have been confirmed by the support of the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), and as everyone — including the People's Republic of China—is agreed that Hong Kong should have direct elections, why should they not be held as widely and as soon as possible if the tender seed of democracy is not planted until 1991? It may not be strong enough to withstand any of the winds by 1997.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The tender seed of democracy was first planted in the form of indirect elections as recently as 1985, and the judgment that we have formed is that to make a further change with the addition of direct elections only three years after that will be to hasten the process of maturation too quickly. I recognise that it is a matter of judgment. I do not think it would be easily possible to produce a conclusion that commended itself to the enthusiastic support of my hon. and learned Friend and, simultaneously, of the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds)—but I have to try my best.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the selection of a six-year period for partially elected representational government, instead of the nine-year period that was available to him, brings into question whether there is enough time to establish and experience representative government on a firm basis through direct elections, in
364
addition to the ministerial system which must still come? Will he carefully consider his fine judgment of today and reflect on whether he ought not to speed up that process?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The arguments advanced by my hon. Friend are perfectly legitimate. I do not want to let him think, however, that we are likely to embark on a reconsideration of this matter. The important thing is to proceed with this next step, to get the process under way on a settled basis.
Mr. Alastair Goodlad: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that his statement today will be broadly welcomed in Hong Kong and that it reflects the vast majority of the voices that spoke in the recent debate about the need for continuity and a measure of caution in these arrangements? As the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said, the people of Hong Kong will make the new arrangements work, and they will have the full support of this House in so doing.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend's experience of the people and colony of Hong Kong lends great authority to his observations. I am glad to endorse and accept them.
Mr. Robert Adley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the last word.
Is it not a fact that, for more than a century, stability and autocracy have gone hand in hand in Hong Kong? Is there not a degree of illogicality in the words of those who say that the best way to maintain stability is fundamentally to change the system as a matter of urgency? Is there not also a certain illogicality in the proposition advanced by the Opposition Front Bench that, on the one hand, the document and the future discussions up to 1997 should be based purely on decisions taken in this House, as though the People's Republic of China did not exist and, on the other, to say, as did the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), that if there is to be a change of Government before 1991, the first thing that he will do is to consult Beijing? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that most people think that he has got it right?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I thank my hon. Friend very much for that closing tribute. The least likely problem to affect the future of the people of Hong Kong is the prospect of the election of a Labour Government in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I shall take the application under Standing Order No. 20 first.

Heart Operation (Leeds)
4.7 pm
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Committee No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the postponement today of a desperately needed heart operation for two-year-old Jason Pullen from Halifax, who is awaiting surgery in Killingbeck hospital, Leeds."
The matter specifically relates to Jason, whose operation has been cancelled today. It is urgent because the child could die if he does not have the operation soon. It has had to be postponed four times because the hospital, whose staff are working under enormous pressure, cannot cope with the demand for cardiac surgery.
Only six of the 12 intensive care beds are in use, because the hospital cannot afford to employ enough skilled nurses to staff the rest of them. The surgeon, Duncan Walker, knows that life-saving operations are being restricted because of lack of funds, and he recently warned:
"increasing numbers of both children and adults will die on increasingly long waiting lists unless bottlenecks caused by lack of intensive care beds are relieved."
The doctors and nurses at Killingbeck have raised £300,000 for intensive care facilities and they are asking only for funding to staff them. The region does not have the money to do so, because the Government have persistently refused to staff the unit adequately. Staff are being put in an impossible position; in the words of the consultant:
"It is a matter of fact. We are not speculating. People are now dying on our waiting list."
Babies who are stable for the moment have to make way for acute emergencies, which often arise because those babies have been waiting too long on the waiting list.
Will Jason Pullen have to wait for his operation until his condition has so deteriorated that he is such an emergency himself, or will the Government give a commitment today that they will make sufficient funds available to end this dreadful lottery of who shall live and who shall die?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady 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 she believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the lack of beds in the intensive care unit at Killingbeck hospital, resulting in the cancellation of heart surgery for Jason Pullen for the fourth time."
I have listened with concern to what the hon. Lady has said. She knows that the only decision that I must take in looking at an SO 20 application is whether to give it precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow. I regret that I cannot find the matter she has raised appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20, and cannot therefore submit her application to the House.

Points of Order
4.10 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Within your hearing at Question Time, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that there would be a business statement after he had completed questions. What we had in mind was a business statement to explain how 60 tonnes of metal fell off a ship in the Mull of Galloway, and that metal was the bow of Trident——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not hear the hon. Gentleman ask a question about that during Question Time. I thought that his question had a rather different drift. My recollection is that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that that there would be business questions tomorrow.
Mr. Dalyell: The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster might have had in mind some kind of explanation of how an extremely expensive part of the Trident submarine, somehow put on the deck of a Bahamas-registered ship, falls off the deck into the Mull of Galloway. We have it in print, and it has been cross-checked, that the Navy is now staking out the Mull of Galloway in order to try to prevent anybody else, such as the Russians, finding this exceedingly valuable, highly technical, sophisticated part of the Trident submarine.
Should not the House be told how an enormously expensive part of Trident comes to fall off the deck of a ship? Who had the idea and notion of strapping part of Trident to the deck of a ship, despite the gale warnings, which then falls into the sea, at heaven knows what expense—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure that this is an important matter, but it is not a matter of order for me. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman pursues it in a different way. I should have thought that it would make an admirable Adjournment debate.
Dr. Jeremy Bray: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: It is not a point of order.
Dr. Bray: The steel in question was undoubtedly on its way from my constituency to Barrow and was made by the British Steel Corporation, to which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's statement specifically related—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an extension of Question Time, for which we have already had a full hour. The hon. Gentleman could have raised this matter on the question on steel, but it should not be pursued now.
Mr. Pat Wall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that I am in order to raise a matter in relation to the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) about Killingbeck hospital. Four weeks ago in this Chamber I asked the Prime Minister about Killingbeck hospital and I was assured that everything would be fine. In that four weeks, the situation has become worse, and we should have a debate on that issue today.
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Lady is successful in obtaining such a debate, the hon. Gentleman can join in.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noticed that, since my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raised his

367
point of order about the storm last night and the bit of Trident dropping off into the sea, and the fact, about which you were a bit uncertain, that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had said that there would be a business statement today, the Leader of the House has turned up. He obviously thinks that it is business questions today. We know that the Government had a bad shock last night which they have not got over. It is just conceivable that half the Government Treasury Bench thinks that it is Thursday. Will the Leader of the House let us have a statement about the important matter—more important than handing over Hong Kong to the Chinese—referred to by my hon. Friend?
Several Hon. Members rose— —
Mr. Speaker:Order. I can confirm that it is Wednesday. If we go on like this, we shall be taking today's business into tomorrow.
Mr. Eric S. Helfer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am aware that it is Wednesday because in Liverpool today the North-West TUC has called a great demonstration— [HON. MEMBERS: "What is the point of order?"] If hon. Members give me time, I shall come to that.
The North-West TUC has called a great demonstration throughout the north-west, including Liverpool, in relation to the problems of the National Health Service and those who work in it and their effect on the patients of the NHS. Since thousands—I mean thousands—of ordinary people will be demonstrating, and are demonstrating at this moment, in Liverpool, Manchester and elsewhere in the north-west, may we have a debate on the future of the NHS along the lines referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon)?
Mr. Speaker: That is a Standing Order No. 20 application without notice, upon which I need not comment.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 26 FEBRUARY
Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Gwilym Jones

Mr. James Couchman

Mr. John M. Taylor

Statutory Instruments, &c.
Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the three motions on the statutory instruments.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
That the draft Statistics of Trade and Employment (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Drug Trafficking Offences (Enforcement in England and Wales) Order 1988, be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Homes Insulation Grants Order 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 2185) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
Question agreed to.

Credit (Control)
4.16 pm
Mr. Elliot Morley: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to control the rate of interest charged by credit card companies by linking it to the rate recommended for borrowing by the Bank of England: to prohibit the making of inducements designed to promote excess borrowing by credit card users: to prohibit the charging of arrangement fees for consolidation and other forms of loans: to provide for clear written examples of what the APR means in financial terms and warnings for any loan scheme that may involve the loss of a house as part of the loan security conditions: and to make other provisions as to regulating such borrowing.
The Bill seeks to tackle the growing debt crisis in our society and recognises that much of the recent consumer boom has been financed on credit. Credit can be a useful and valuable option, but many families are paying a price for that credit in the misery of a spiral of debt that hangs round their necks like a chain.
It is time that some of the issues raised by such a credit expansion were brought out into the open. I have been motivated to introduce the Bill by my case work experience and the growing number of people who are turning to organisations such as the citizens advice bureaux and the money advice centres, locally and nationally, for help.
There is no limit to interest rates in Britain. I was shocked recently to be involved in a case in my constituency of a woman in her eighties. She was concerned about her electric and domestic bills and was unwell and vulnerable. She entered into a credit agreement with a finance company that charged her 1,000 per cent. APR interest.
On top of that, the lady was also charged for an insurance policy for redundancy even though it must have been clear to the agent who sold the policy that it was completely useless. I was able to obtain a refund for that lady, but, in the process, she died. There is no doubt that the stress of those loans added much to her ill health.
Loans at rates such as that are perfectly legal in Britain, but can they be justified? It is time that we had a maximum legal limit on consumer credit interest in Britain.
Initially, the Bill sought to tackle the many complaints that have been brought to me about the rate of interest being charged by bank and shop credit cards and the fact that when bank interest rates have fallen, the interest rates for credit have hardly moved. Those are two of the main facts that have led me to introduce the Bill.
Let me summarise the Bill's main proposals. First, it seeks to introduce a formula that will link all credit card interest rates, shop and bank, to the average bank personal loan lending rates, in a way that will allow credit card companies some flexibility, but will put a ceiling on the excessive interest rates being charged by some credit cards, particularly store cards.
Secondly, the Bill proposes to prohibit the marketing of credit cards by schemes that reward users with gifts according to the amount they spend on those cards; thirdly, it would ensure that all credit agreements print examples of repayments on money borrowed in cash terms as well as the APR; fourthly, it would make illegal the charging of arrangement fees for loans; fifthly, it would

369
ensure that all credit agreements that require the use of a person's home as security have a clear written warning that such schemes can lead to a loss of that person's house.
I should also like to suggest that all consumer credit organisations pay a levy from their profits to finance a chain of money advice centres, possibly incorporating existing ones, and the advisory role of the CAB that will enable anyone in Britain to get impartial debt advice.
Consumer debt in Britain has risen from £17.3 billion in 1980 to £41 billion in 1986–87, a figure that accounts for 10.7 per cent. of our total GDP. More than 2 million default summonses were issued in 1985, in the first quarter of the past financial year lending increased by 32 per cent., and there was a staggering 77 per cent. increase in credit card borrowing. That is the scale of the problem—all the more so when the interest rates of the two main credit cards have been on average at least 14 percentage points above the bank lending rate. The Government have considered that there is enough concern to refer credit cards to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
I seek to prohibit the marketing of credit cards by schemes which give gifts through accumulating points by spending on credit cards. The more one spends, the more points one gets. Although the introducers of the scheme associated with Barclaycard are aware of the dangers, at the very least such a scheme means that in effect those with debts are subsidising the richer users who get the gifts that are paid for by all the users. If credit card companies want to increase their market share, they should do so by marketing on reduced interest rates rather than by such schemes.
Since I announced the Bill, I have been contacted by a large number of organisations and individuals, and my attention has been drawn to the fact that many credit organisations at the shadier end of the market are capitalising on the misfortune of those who get into debt. Those consolidation loans often require a person's house as security, and may mean that people end up owing more money than they owed when they started. In some cases people are charged up to £2,000 in arrangement fees. When a credit firm is making a profit on interest repayments, there is no justification for such fees, and I propose that they are banned as soon as possible.
I also want all credit schemes that involve using the home as security to print a written warning in a prominent fashion so that people entering into such schemes are left in no doubt that such a schemes could lead to the loss of their homes.
According to a Marplan poll commissioned by the National Consumer Council, less than half the people questioned knew how APR was calculated. To make sure that people understand exactly what is being charged, I am therefore proposing that all credit agreements should give examples in cash terms of the monthly repayments and the total cost of the loan as well as the APR.
370
There are a great many issues of concern about consumer credit in Britain. Other proposals are needed in addition to those in the Bill, to deal with such issues as the way in which advertising by some credit companies is aimed particularly at those who are already in debt, and low-paid store assistants are given financial bonuses to get more customers on to their store credit card.
It is fair to say that many credit companies are responsible and reputable and are aware of all the points that I am laying out in the Bill, but can the range of credit card interest in Britain — from 19.5 per cent. of John Lewis to the nearly 40 per cent. of Dixons—be Justified?
Has the number of people suffering from debt been underplayed by a Government who wish to portray consumer booms as an economic miracle of their making? When one considers that on current estimates over half those on social security have some form of debt, does that not raise questions about the introduction of loans to replace single payments under the new social fund that is due to be introduced in April, and the effect that that will have on people who already have debt problems, partly due to the issues that I have outlined?
Although the Bill is designed to obtain a fairer deal for people on all incomes, from the highest to the lowest, as always it is the poorest and weakest in our society who carry the greatest burden. The poor and the low-paid carry the greatest debts as a proportion of their incomes. As the gap between rich and poor continues to grow, the Bill gives the Government the opportunity to tackle some of the injustices and abuses of consumer credit, to ensure fairer interest rates, and to lift the burden in particular from those whose lives are being destroyed by the misery of debt and the unscrupulous who prey upon them.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Elliot Morley, Mr. Alan Meale, Mr. Gerry Steinberg, Ms. Marjorie Mowlam, Mr. Rhodri Morgan, Mr. Paul Flynn, Mr. Paul Murphy, Mr. Eric Illsley, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Paul Boateng, Mr. John McFall and Mr. Alun Michael.

Credit (Control)
  CREDIT (CONTROL)
  Mr. Elliot Morley accordingly presented a Bill to control the rate of interest charged by credit card companies by linking it to the rate recommended for borrowing by the Bank of England: to prohibit the making of inducements designed to promote excess borrowing by credit card users: to prohibit the charging of arrangement fees for consolidation and other forms of loans: to provide for clear written examples of what the APR means in financial terms and warnings for any loan scheme that may involve the loss of a house as part of the loan security conditions: and to make other provisions as to regulating such borrowing; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 8 July and to be printed. [Bill 94.]
Orders of the Day
  Employment Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  Employment Bill
    Clause 13

      REQUIREMENT OF POSTAL BALLOT FOR CERTAIN BALLOTS AND ELECTIONS
      4.26 pm
      Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move amendment No. 10 in page 16, line 40, (Clause 13), at end insert—
      'except where it is reasonable for the union to believe, and it does believe, that a ballot conducted under the terms of section 3 of the 1984 Act would result in a substantial increase in the number of members participating in the ballot by comparison with a ballot conducted entirely by the postal method.'.
      The amendment seeks to allow a trade union, where it is reasonable if it believes that a workplace ballot would result in a substantial increase in participation compared to a purely postal ballot, to be entitled to use the workplace ballot.
      Clause 13 as drafted will oblige unions to hold ballots for a political fund and for elections to the principal executive committee by postal ballot only. Our main objection to the clause is that there is no reason to suppose that postal ballots are inherently more democratic than are workplace ballots, or a combination of the two systems. Indeed, there is a great deal of evidence to the contrary.
      Research produced by John Leopold in the Industrial Relations Journal last year, when he carried out work in regard to the political fund ballot that had recently taken place, reached the following findings. The average turnout in 38 unions using the workplace balloting method was 30 per cent. higher than the average for unions using the postal method. Only one union using a postal ballot achieved a turnout of more than 50 per cent., while only two unions using workplace ballots had turnouts of fewer than 50 per cent.
      It is notable that those findings were not seriously disputed in the Green Paper. Chapter 5.13 of the Green Paper tacitly accepts that many unions will achieve better turnouts with workplace ballots than with postal ballots. Paragraph 5.13 merely claims, rather feebly:
      "workplace ballots cannot guarantee a higher turnout".
      Of course, no one claims that they can. We merely argue that one reason unions should be free to choose them is that they tend, in almost every instance, to produce higher participation. Since the Government always talk about choice, how about a bit of choice for trade unions?
      Paragraph 5.13 lets the cat out of the bag. It says:
      "even if … workplace ballots do produce higher turnout levels they are not without … serious disadvantages."
      The rate of participation that most people would think was central to democracy is not the vital issue for the Government. They are happy to see the turnout reduced by clause 13. In many unions it would be reduced by up to one third. What concerns the Government so much?
      Paragraph 5.13, which we discussed at considerable length in Committee, gives two examples of workplace
      372
      ballots which have allegedly led to manipulation. The first, and most significant, is the Transport and General Workers Union general secretary election, which was rerun after an investigation by John Garnett of the Industrial Society found some irregularities. I point out that those irregularities were in fewer than 0.1 per cent. of the branches, or fewer than one in 1,000, but that is not something that we should ignore. Indeed, we do not.
      Mr. Garnett did not find sufficient evidence of abuse to warrant a re-run. In fact, the union took the decision only after the personal intervention of the successful candidate, Mr. Ron Todd. The best that the Green Paper can make of this case — far and away the most important case that it cites—is that it suggests
      "a need for more secure electoral arrangements."
      Of course, the Opposition agree, and so does the Transport and General Workers Union. That is why the union, without any prompting, tightened up its procedure between the first general secretary ballot and the second, going considerably further than Mr. Garnett had recommended.
      Does the Minister seriously believe that postal ballots are not, in theory at least or in practice, open to just as much abuse as workplace ballots? In Committee I quoted to the Minister, but he never answered the point—we should like an answer—the words of the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), when Secretary of State for Employment in 1985. On 23 April he said:
      "I understand from the research that, in a fully postal ballot conducted by the AUEW … 200,000 members never received a vote and 20,000 received a vote to which they were not entitled." —[Official Report, 23 April 1985; Vol. 77, c. 775.]
      Mr. Eric S. Heifer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best voting method in the trade union movement was followed by my old union, the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers? Every quarter it had what was called a star night. If a member did not attend, he was fined. Voting took place on the star nights.
      The chairman of the branch called out the names of those who were standing for election and they were recorded. They were then checked by the secretary and the members. After the vote had been taken and collected nationally, the national executive issued a form which showed the number of votes for each candidate. The number could be checked, because it was in print, by every member of the branch and the union.
      There was nothing wrong with that democratic process. It was far better than leaving it in the hands of some people dealing with ballots by post, which could be rigged. The Government have changed that voting method, which was a good democratic practice. Of course, the Government supposedly know better than the democratic practices of unions.
      Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. More than one method can seriously be considered. It is arguable—I agree with my hon. Friend—that existing methods, even on the Government's criterion of protection from abuse, are better alternatives than what the Government insist on, and they achieve a higher turnout.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the only way a postal ballot can be rigged is if the union officials who are sending out the ballot forms cook them? Does the hon. Gentleman agree

      373
      that there is no possibility of putting pressure on people when they receive the vote at home but considerable pressure can be put on people voting in the workplace?
      Mr. Meacher: The hon. Lady is a great deal more naive than I thought if she believes that postal ballots are not open to great interference by, for example, editorials in The Sun and the other Tory tabloids. They insist on having a full opportunity to interfere in union ballots. They have always done so, not least in the National Union of Mineworkers. I suspect that that is the prime reason why the Government insist on this method.
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my hon. Friend aware that workplace ballots take place on a fairly big scale in the House of Commons? In 1975, when the present Prime Minister was elected leader of the Tory party after she beat the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), a workplace ballot took place in the House of Commons among members of the Tory party, almost certainly including the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), who wants some other form of ballot for trade unionists. They all took part. The hon. Lady probably voted for who knows? She probably squealed at the top of her voice as well while she was doing it.
      The Government have double standards: one thing for them, another for trade unionists. They have just announced another ballot some time in the future for the Chinese in Hong Kong. The percentage vote will be 18 per cent.—about as much as an Iowa caucus.
      Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend has a point. I suspect that Tory Members are opposed to a postal ballot for themselves because most of them have two or more houses and it would not be clear to which the ballot was supposed to go.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do not the rules of the House provide that Members who live, as I do, in a constituency 250 miles away from this honourable House and are proud to do so, must also live somewhere in London? Why be so derogatory about that? The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) says that we have two houses. Do not Opposition Members get precisely the same facilities?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): That is not a point of order.
      Mr. Meacher: The only further argument which has been advanced in the Green Paper for clause 13—Ministers leaned heavily on this argument in Committee—is that there is
      "scope for subtler forms of pressure in a workplace ballot"
      and
      "there is a real question whether such ballots can ever be totally free from suspicion."
      I am sure that the House will take note of those words in the Green Paper. Despite the paranoia of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), the Green Paper offers not a shred of evidence to justify that assertion. That is not especially surprising. We are now leaving the realms of reason and entering the dark areas of conspiracy theory which always lurk deep in the Government's collective psyche. Faced with this, perhaps the Opposition should offer counselling, because I do not think that we shall be able to convince by reason alone.
      374
      What the Government regard as subtle pressure a rational person might regard as the legitimate and wholly democratic attempt by the union and its members to secure by persuasion a vote in line with the union's declared policies. In other words—I say this especially to the hon. Member for Lancaster—if it is blustering editorials in The Sun trying to influence a postal ballot, it is legitimate pressure; but if it is talking with other people at the workplace and other union members and activists, it is illegitimate and dangerous brainwashing. We condemn such utter rubbish.
      Mr. David Madel: Would the hon. Gentleman explain his case further? Clause 13 states that an individual trade unionist can
      "have a voting paper sent to him by post at his home address or any other address which he has requested".
      There is nothing to stop a trade unionist asking for his ballot paper to be sent to his place of work. He has the choice. Therefore, if he is worried that his ballot paper will get lost in the post, he can use that provision to overcome the problem.
      Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman is being extremely ingenious, and it sounds as though he is being rather defensive on the Government's behalf. Clearly the purpose of a postal ballot is to ensure that one is sent the ballot paper and can deal with it in the privacy of one's home. The number of workers at a given workplace who would take the initiative to ensure that ballot papers were sent to them at the workplace would be negligible, although I suppose that technically it may be an option. The hon. Gentleman should not use jesuitical arguments to wriggle out of the Government's clear intentions in the clause.
      Quite apart from the number of members participating, there are real practical difficulties in requiring large unions to conduct postal ballots. Let me give an example. The largest union — the Transport and General Workers Union—has an extremely diverse membership employed in various trades by literally tens of thousands of employers. There are about 1.3 million members in 8,500 to 9,000 branches. The members are employed not only in travelling occupations these include long-distance lorry drivers, coach drivers, air crew and travelling construction and agricultural workers—but at sea, in trawlers and lighthouses and on oil rigs and construction sites.
      Furthermore, the union has a membership turnover —and I say this in answer to the question of the hon. Member for Lancaster about the post—of about 20 per cent. a year, or about 25,000 members a month. That is why the TGWU would have difficulties with postal ballots. —[Interruption.] If the hon. Lady wishes to make a speech on the matter, she can. I see the Minister pulling a face at the suggestion that his hon. Friend might make a speech, and I can understand that.
      The co-ordination of elections, even with the central register of members that unions are required to collect under the Trade Union Act 1984, is a complex matter for large unions such as the TGWU. They require at least the degree of flexibility afforded by the Government's own previous anti-trade union Act—the 1984 Act—which is being taken away by the clause, if they are to ensure that every member is given a reasonable opportunity to take part in the democratic life of the union. Clause 13 as drafted will make that impossible. Perhaps that is what the Government intend, and that is precisely why we strongly oppose the clause.

      375
      Our case is simple. In our view, the participation rate is probably the single most important democratic criterion for a ballot. Workplace ballots fulfil that criterion to a far higher degree than postal ballots. That is why trade unions should be given the choice to adopt the most suitable ballot for them.
      Mr. David Winnick: The clause is another illustration of Government interference in the internal affairs of trade unions. I speak with some experience. The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) was shouting while my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) was speaking, but I am not sure that she is a trade unionist.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: As a matter of fact, I am.
      Mr. Winnick: In that case, it will be interesting to know what part the hon. Lady has played in her trade union. For example, does she ever attend a branch meeting?
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Yes.
      Mr. Winnick: Frequently?
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Yes.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Winnick: I find that difficult to believe, and I would like some evidence from the hon. Lady that she knows what she is talking about.
      I know what I am talking about. In a previous debate, I told the House that I am a national officer of my trade union, of which I have been a member for more than 30 years. I was an active member from day one.
      I saw nothing wrong in the method used by unions, including mine, of conducting internal elections by the branch system. I did not consider it undemocratic. Ever since we came into existence 97 years ago, we have had elections. That may surprise Conservative Members, because they have not had much experience of democratic organisations. It took years and years for the Conservative party to get round to electing even its leader. The first such election was in 1965.
      There is no election for the position of chairman of the Conservative party. His election is decided by whoever happens to be leader of the party at the time. That is why we make a valid comparison between the way in which the Communist party in the Soviet Union operates and the way in which the Conservative party operates.
      I do not know whether the Communist party in the Soviet Union wants to lecture us on how to conduct our affairs, but the highly non-democratic organisation that now governs the United Kingdom certainly wants to lecture us and to pass legislation governing trade unions, which have always held elections. We did not have to be pressurised into holding elections. I challenge the House to name me a single trade union that did not hold elections from its inception. I certainly do not know of one. I am sure that the Minister will tell us if he has any such information.
      My union is APEX—the Association of Professional, Executive, Clerical and Computer Staff. I have often strongly disagreed with its policies, but those policies are decided at the annual conference. If I disagree with them, I campaign, as I have done over the years, for different policies. I have sometimes succeeded and sometimes not.
      376
      I was elected to the executive as a result of campaigning; at first I did not succeed and then I did. But I could not for the life of me see what was wrong with the branch system,.
      Each year I would go along to the annual general meeting of my branch, where genuine elections took place. We would discuss the names to be nominated and ask each other, "What do you know of him or of this?" Two months later, when people had been duly nominated, we would have another branch meeting to decide how to cast our vote. We might spend 15 or 20 minutes on a particular position such as president or vice-president. Differing views would be expressed——
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten us as to the proportion of members who attended those meetings?
      Mr. Winnick: That is an interesting question——
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Answer it.
      Mr. Winnick: I shall reply to the hon. Lady, whose question I should have anticipated. In all honesty, I must say that it was not a large number of people, but the branch meetings were open to anyone who was a member and they could not be held on an authorised basis if a single member had not been notified beforehand of the proceedings. Anyone who wanted to could turn up. We would have a 15 or 20-minute discussion to decide whether X or Y or A or B should be given our vote. We would have a general discussion about those people's qualities.
      The Government decided to go beyond that and have workplace ballots. As I have already said, there is an argument for the branch method, but given the choice between a workplace or postal ballot, I think that far more people are likely to participate in a workplace than in a postal ballot. My union is in the process of having a postal ballot; the votes have to be in by next Monday. I would imagine, although I could be wrong, that the percentage of members voting in the current elections in my union on a postal ballot basis will be far smaller than the percentage of members who participated two years ago in the workplace ballot. I very much doubt that I shall be wrong.
      The hon. Member for Lancaster asked about the number of people that attend branch meetings. If the argument is that participation should be extended so that more people are involved, the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West was valid. If more people are likely to vote in a workplace than in a postal ballot, the workplace ballot is surely preferable. However, the important point is that the matter should be decided by the union. Some unions, including my own, prefer a postal ballot and that is a matter that the union executive and conference should decide.
      In a democratic society, unions should not be dictated to. We know how Governments operate in dictatorships. Despite nine years of Thatcherism, I am glad to say that, in essence, this is still a democratic society. In such societies, trade unions should be able to conduct their own affairs.
      Mr. David Lightbown: Hear, hear.
      Mr. Winnick: One of the Government Whips, the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown) says, "Hear, hear." In a previous debate on the Bill, I made a sedentary intervention to the effect that some

      377
      Conservative Members were involved in businesses that did not recognise trade unions. At that time, the hon. Gentleman nodded his head. We know that when hon. Members are appointed to the Government, they have to give up their shares and their directorships.
      When the hon. Gentleman was conducting a business, no trade union was allowed to operate. Moreover, I imagine that the firm in which the hon. Gentleman was involved in a leading way would have victimised trade unionists if they had tried to organise their employment. So let us not have any lectures about democracy from the Conservative party when so many Conservative Members are directors of firms in which trade unionism is not allowed.
      I have not the slightest doubt that this modest amendment will be defeated. If the Government are not willing to listen to reason on other matters, they will not listen to reason on this. It is nauseating to see trade unions being lectured day in and day out by an organisation such as the Conservative party, which does not believe in democracy in its own internal affairs.
      The Minister is not sympathetic to Mr. Eric Chalker. Hon. Members may wonder, "Who is Eric Chalker?" I can tell hon. Members that he runs an organisation called the Tory Reform Movement, which is putting forward modest proposals. It believes, for example, that the chairman of the Conservative party should be elected. Surely there is nothing revolutionary about that. However, I imagine that if the Minister were lobbied by the Tory Reform Movement and by people such as Mr. Eric Chalker, he would show no sympathy whatever.
      The Minister is not at all interested in democracy in the Conservative party and is the last person to lecture trade unions about how they should conduct their affairs. Trade unions have always been run on democratic lines. The members of trade unions are mere human beings and when occasionally there have been allegations of ballot rigging, the matter has been decided by a court. One type of ballot rigging, which I or my hon. Friends would be the last to defend, was decided against the people responsible, and rightly so, in the early 1960s in a court of law. As I say, trade unions do not require lectures about democracy, least of all from the Conservative party.
      Mr. Madel: I have two questions to ask. One of them has been partly answered by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) because he spoke about the opening words of amendment No. 10:
      "'except where it is reasonable for the union to believe, and it does believe'".
      I take it from what the hon. Gentleman said that when he spoke about "the union", as does the amendment, he meant that the members of the union will take the decision under amendment No. 10 about whether they want a change in the way in which the voting is carried out.
      I take it that the amendment does not mean that that decision will be made just by the general secretary or the executive council of the union but that it is the union members themselves who will vote on whether they wish to have a ballot system other than that laid down in clause 13. If it is the members of the union who will vote on that, then that is a perfectly reasonable starting point.
      My second point is the one that I made in an intervention during the speech by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) who said that my point was jesuitical. I do not think it is. Clause 13(1) says that a
      378
      voting paper can be sent to "any other address" that the individual member requests. It is perfectly reasonable for that other address to be the union member's place of work. If it is, it is up to employers to make sure that, if the voting paper goes to the place of work, it is easy for the employee to pick up the ballot paper and vote.
      I take the point made earlier, that members of the Transport and General Workers Union have many different sorts of jobs. There are long-distance lorry drivers and people working at sea and on lighthouses, and on occasions such people would want the ballot papers sent to the place of work. When the Minister is winding up, will he confirm that line 30 of clause 13(1) means that "any other address" may be the place of work? If it goes out from the House that it can be the place of work, I expect employers and managers to respond in a positive way and to make sure that it is easy for each employee to have his postal ballot paper sent to his place of work and to record his vote in the way he chooses.
      Mr. Heffer: I joined my trade union 50 years ago, and when I joined it I found that it was a very democratic organisation. I joined the Hertford and Ware branch of the union and the branch chairman was a distinguished local JP. He was portly, wore a bowler hat and a fob watch, and always came to branch meetings. He was a distinguished member of the local community.
      Our union meetings were totally democratic. The only other branch of the union that I have ever been in was the Huyton branch just outside Liverpool. In the branches to which I belonged, there was always total democracy. As I said earlier, when we had a ballot for union officials or to decide any other issue, it was conducted in a most democratic fashion. Members who did not attend the branch meeting on the 'star' night when the elections took place, were fined. It was made absolutely clear that every member of the union should attend when there was to be an election for the appointment of a local official, a district committee or, in our area, a management committee, national officers or district or full-time officers.
      Under the Government's policy, we know that if union members are fined by the union they can go to the court and be recompensed for not voting on democratic matters. We believed that it was important for people to vote and to attend branch meetings for elections to union positions, and I regard that as absolutely democratic. The chairman of the branch read out the names of all the people who were standing for election and they only stood if they had a minimum number of nominations from a number of branches.
      The meeting was told that there were so many votes for George—I almost said George Brown, but he was not in my union. There might be five people standing and the votes for each of them were recorded. Every union member had a right to put down on a piece of paper the number of votes that were cast for each candidate. The details were sent to the national executive and a list was sent by them to each branch showing the votes that were recorded for each candidate. That meant that, if the votes did not tally, that if some branch official tried to swing the vote, every union member could see that and could say, "Hang on, that is not accurate," and the matter could be raised. That is democracy. That is what we grew up with in my trade union. It was always like that.

      379
      5 pm
      When we had an issue such as a wage demand in the Liverpool area, we used to have a great aggregate meeting at which all the members of every branch in the area were called together. We used to use the Liverpool stadium. The negotiators would come together to explain to the members what they had been able to achieve for the membership. If the membership did not like it and said, "That is not good enough," they would vote it down at the meeting. The negotiators then had to go back to the employers and say, "Our membership is not having it," and they would have to discuss it again. If, in the last analysis, the membership said that it was not good enough and the employers said no, a ballot would be taken there and then in the branches and we would then take strike action throughout the entire area. To me, that has always been the basic democratic principle.
      However, that changed once the union became part of the Union of Construction and Allied Trades Technicians. It was changed by the new people who began to organise UCATT, and who brought various unions together. However, after a period, the membership said no and the union reverted to the democratic election of officials.
      Nobody needs to tell our movement about democracy. We grew up with it. We created it and we fought for it. Over the hundreds of years since our movement was formed, some of our members have died or have been sent to Australia in chains because they fought for democracy in this country.
      We do not need any lectures about democracy from this Conservative Government. In fact, the Government have consistently been the people who have restrained democracy in the country. Over the years, the Conservative party has fought every effort to improve the democratic rights of the people. Therefore, we do not need any lectures.
      My hon. Friends have tabled a reasonable and, if I may say so without being insulting — I think it is right — a moderate amendment. I would have gone much further. However, it does not make any difference whether the amendment is moderate, because the Government steamroller over everything, whether it is moderate, Left-wing, hard Left, soft Left or anything else. It does not make any difference because, if it is democratic, the Government steamroller over it. That is the Government's attitude.
      Although the Government are saying to the unions, "Go back to the membership," I advise them that we never needed to go back to our membership; we are the membership and have always been the membership. We have always encouraged our people to participate totally in the life of our unions.
      We do not need to be told about democracy. As union members, if we want changes, we have things called rules revision conferences. Every few years we change our constitution. We do so by going back to the members who vote. If the members want to change to a postal ballot, that is their decision. It is not a decision for the Government — it is the members' right. When the Government impose that on union members, they are being authoritarian.
      Although I know that, in a sense, I am unfortunately talking to the wind, I ask the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not on this side."] No, not on this side, but unfortunately I am talking to the wind as far as Conservative Members are concerned. In any case, the quicker we get television
      380
      in here, the better. Look at all the empty Benches, including our own. When we are discussing a matter of great importance for democracy in this country, hon. Members are not here. To me, such matters mean more than anything else because we are talking about the rights of ordinary working people who have always fought for democracy, supported it and died for it. That is the point about our people.
      Those who fought and died in the last war were not all members of the Conservative party. When I was a member of the Royal Air Force, I spoke in Banbury on the eve of a general election poll. I said then that to listen to the Tory party, one would think that Mr. Churchill had won the war on his own. What had the rest of us been doing? We all fought that war for democracy. We all fought against Nazism. That is why the late Harold Macmillan made the point that the miners, the dockers and the others who fought for democracy were our people.
      We have nothing to be ashamed of. We are the ones who have consistently fought for democratic rights in this country. We do not need any lessons from the Conservative party. If hon. Members are honest about democracy, they will vote for my hon. Friend's modest proposal.
      Mr. Graham Allen: Clause 13 is not quite the full-frontal attack on democracy that clause 3 was on Monday. However, the greatest insult that I can muster is to say that it runs it damn close. This clause contains a distillation of one of the key facets of Tory party policy —hyprocisy. It is hypocritical because the Tory party and the Government seek to corner the key words, the buzz words of "democracy" and "freedom". Their arguments have been exposed in Committee. However, on this occasion the buzz word is "choice" because if there is one thing that the clause does, it is to remove from 10 million trade unionists the possibility of choice in the way in which they conduct their elections.
      It is important that, in moving the amendment, we make it clear that it is we in the Labour party who seek to restore choice to trade unions, against the Government who seek, by clause 13, to remove the possibility of choice. It is important to place one or two facts on the record. I had the privilege of serving in a national campaign related to political funds, in which all the unions did not follow one view. They chose many different ways in which to express their wish either to retain or not to retain political funds.
      Some unions chose workplace ballots—for example, the Society of Graphical and Allied Trades, the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, the Union of Communication Workers, the National Communications Union, the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union, the Association of Professional, Executive, Clerical and Computer Staff, the Power Loom and Carpet Weavers and Textile Workers Union, the Ceramic and Allied Trades Union, the Transport and General Workers Union, the Confederation of Health Service Employees, the National Union of Tailors and Garment Workers, the National Union of Domestic Appliances and General Operatives, the National League of the Blind and Disabled, the National Union of Footwear Leather and Allied Trades, the National Graphical Association, the Transport Workers Union, the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers, the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers-TASS, the

      381
      National Union of Public Employees, the National Union of Mineworkers, the Fire Brigades Union, and the Scottish Carpet Workers Union.
      All those unions chose, of their own volition, a workplace ballot, which was carried out under the tight rules under which unions must administer their ballots and, in addition, the even more scrupulous and tighter rules that were put forward by the Government's own Trade Union Act 1984.
      Other unions exercised their choice in a different way and, by and large, chose to go for a postal ballot system. They include the Furniture, Timber and Allied Trades Union, the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers-EFC, the Electrical, Electronic, Plumbing and Telecommunications Union, the National Union of Seamen, the National Union of Scalemakers, the Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians, the Rossendale Union of Boot, Shoe and Slipper Operatives, the Musicians Union and the Union of Construction and Allied Trades Technicians. All exercised their choice in that way.
      The one outstanding facet of those ballots, other than the fact that all those individual unions won their political fund campaign, was the turnout—the ability of people to turn out to vote for the unions in those nationwide ballots. It averaged out that 69 per cent. of those who could have voted did vote when it was a workplace ballot, but in postal ballots the average was 39 per cent. across those unions.
      We are not being selective with figures. They are for national ballots held in 40-odd different trade unions. The figures stand the test. Clearly, a turnout of less than two thirds of the turnout possible under a workplace ballot was achieved by postal ballots. That is not to dismiss postal ballots. Trade unions have different circumstances and should be able to decide, but postal ballots produced a lower turnout.
      The Government are saying, "We shall decide how you will ballot in future." They say to all those unions that have decided to use a workplace ballot, "I am sorry, but we are imposing on you a postal ballot, so the likely reduction in your turnout will be one third." The aggregate for the whole trade union movement will be 3 million, so 3 million working people will be robbed of the ability to cast a vote in key elections or in political fund campaigns. That degree of disfranchisement by the Government is unprecedented.
      Indeed, in the past decades the Government have been loth to extend the franchise. It has taken about 100 years to force them to allow working people to have the vote in general elections to choose their Government. Even now, they are not content to maintain that position and are reducing the ability of trade unionists to vote in key elections.
      Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: No.
      Mr. Allen: The hon. Gentleman does not agree, but I ask him to reconsider the figures, which cannot be contraverted.
      The Government may come unstuck. The average percentage of people voting for a political fund in workplace ballots was 83 per cent. and in postal ballots it was 80 per cent. That is little difference, given the degree of national campaigning that went on. The Government,
      382
      who are bad losers and took a right pasting in the political fund ballots, may well not achieve the outcome that they wish from changing the rules.
      This legislation will not change an Act brought into being by a Labour Government or one of the revolutionary steps attributed to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), who is accused of giving things away to trade unions. The legislation that is being changed was laid on the statute book by a Conservative Government in 1984. The Government are unpicking their legislation just four years after it reached the statute book. In 1984, the Government tried to murder the ability of trade unions to defend themselves politically and to campaign, but the system did not deliver All the ground rules are up for grabs again and there will be change.
      This reminds me a little of the great affinity of the alliance, particularly the SDP, for postal ballots. The Government have now taken on postal ballots in their entirety and to the exclusion of any other form of balloting, as, indeed, the SDP sought to do. For the Government, just as for the SDP, these postal ballots are not an advance of democracy; they are a device for reaching their ends by different means. The Government will ditch postal ballots, just as Dr. Death, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), ditched them when they did not produce the results that he wanted. This is a farce. It is a fallacy to say that this is democratic and allows union members a choice, because it does not.
      We have heard about corruption in ballots. The grossest ever corruption in trade union ballots is about to be perpetrated by the Government who will disfranchise thousands of people who would vote in a workplace ballot but who for some reason cannot vote in a postal ballot. On a re-run of all the political fund ballots, up to 3 million trade unionists may lose their ability to vote.
      5.15 pm
      As I said in Committee, this must be the largest vat of sour grapes ever trampled by the Government for having been hammered by 40-odd trade unions in retaining their political funds. The fact that the Government are had losers is writ large. This is just the latest in a long line of attacks on the political funds of trade unions, stemming from the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act 1927. It is not that the Government have dreamed up something new. They thought that they could bend the rules in 1984. They even set the question—trade unions were not allowed to set the question—yet they could not win. They specified how the unions must ballot, but they could not win. The Government have had every possible advantage and the trade unions, by a united campaign, turned that round into victory.
      Because of the fear that the Government engender in trade unionists, not only were the political funds held, but the insurance workers—not a radical or revolutionary bunch of people—set up a political fund; the teachers in Scotland have been radicalised and set up a political fund; post office clerical workers and even the tax men have set up political funds. In some perverse way I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) for his foresight in introducing these political ballots. The nurses and other groups may be next.
      There has been no obvious demand for this change. The Government are introducing it on the basis of dogma. The

      383
      certification officer received seven complaints—up to 10 million trade unionists were balloted in this exercise—in the first year of the political fund ballots and five complaints in the second year. He received 12 complaints out of a possible 9 million, so there is no demand. The Bill, particularly this clause, has been introduced because of dogma alone. It is undemocratic and hypocritical. I hope that if it is not defeated tonight or in the other place, it will be the first clause to be repealed when we are returned to government.
      Mrs. Llin Golding: I support the amendment but, like my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), feel that it does not go far enough. The same applies to this as to many other parts of the Bill: the matter should be for the unions to decide. It should be for the unions to determine how voting takes place.
      What is the Government's justification for allowing the stock exchange, but not trade unions, self-regulation? The Minister has said that the unions must be controlled because of their power and influence. If that is the criterion, what of political parties? Should not their affairs be regulated by law? Does the Tory party intend to have a postal vote for elections or will it stick to conferences? Is it somehow different when it involves the Tory party rather than trade unions? Will hon. Members vote by post for the Tory chairman, or will he or, indeed, she, be appointed? Is the argument that Conservative Members and the Conservative party chairman are less important than union officials of a lower rank than president or general secretary? Are they less important than the chairman of the Conservative party?
      Some unions like postal ballots. It makes sense when they have scattered membership. The last union ballot I participated in was with NUPE when I was branch secretary. We had three sorts of ballots. The first was a workplace ballot, where the members were informed with information which was readily available, then had discussions; then the union hired ballot booths from the local authority and set them up, the same as in the general election, and the members went in to vote in secret. That is how they organised it themselves, without anybody telling them to do it. The second method was by post, sent out by the union to members' homes. The response to that method was lower, but not considerably lower.
      The third method was for me as branch secretary to deliver a vote to members' homes, to people such as caretakers who could not get to the workplace to vote. If the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) were still in the House, she would hear that postal ballots are delivered to members' homes and the person says, "Hello, Llin, come in and have a cup of tea." I would admire the garden, and then we turn to the vote, and they say, "Which way do you want me to vote?" As a good trade unionist, I would say, "Do what the executive recommends," or, "Have you read the leaflets?" or, "I think this, that or the other." Postal votes are influenced, and that was made clear to me as branch secretary when I went out to talk to members. It is there to be seen, and the Government are wrong in thinking that postal votes are not influenced.
      It is for the union to decide where the membership should vote and how best to conduct it. Democracy
      384
      consists of discussion, information and then voting. That is what we do in general elections and that is what happens in workplace ballots at all workplaces. It does not take place in postal ballots. In any case, it is easier to put pressure on people through postal ballots. Every Member of Parliament knows that calling to see somebody with a postal vote and having a little chat always pays dividends, because not only can the candidate put one side of the argument and dismiss the other side of the argument, but he does not have to argue both sides of the argument, as happens at work when people are airing their different opinions.
      In the workplace, many views are voiced and members decide after listening to those views. The workplace vote generates a higher turnout because of greater informed interest, whereas the postal vote is often left on the mantlepiece. Small, well organised political groups can go around to houses with postal votes and put pressurre on people and influence the vote. It has occurred that pressure has been brought to bear on people in branches, and I would not like to see that perpetuated.
      The Government, in preferring postal ballots to workplace ballots, have given way to the views of people without any practical experience at all. They have had no experience of trying to get members to take up their democratic rights. Members do not sit there waiting for the postal vote to drop through the letter box; someone must go to them to get them to vote and use the rights which have been won for them, often after a long and bitter struggle.
      I understand that the Government are obsessed with postal voting because they think it will lead to a more secure electoral arrangement, but what is the use of a union having such a secure electoral system that members do not participate? Each union should decide on the best method for getting its members out to vote; it is not for the Government to decide.
      Mr. Roger Knapman: Like the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) I am also concerned for disfranchised groups, but the clause is one of the jewels in the crown of this excellent Bill—but does it go far enough? There are still some underprivileged and potentially persecuted groups—disfranchised groups—which are urgently in need of the protection provided by the clause. One such group, admittedly of declining importance and reducing numbers, is sponsored by trade unions. My hon. Friends and I fully understand what they say and why they must say it.
      Opposition Members are fond of leafing through the Register of Member's Interests, so it comes as no surprise to find that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) is sponsored by COHSE, so we understand his remarks, and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) is sponsored by NUPE.
      Mr. Allen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Knapman: No. The hon. Gentleman has been begging me for months to make a contribution in the debate, and I am doing my best to intercede with the Minister on his behalf. The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) shares that distinction with NUPE.
      Ms. Clare Short: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Knapman: No. The hon. Lady has also asked me many times——
      Ms. Short: The hon. Gentleman has referred to me.
      Mr. Knapman: Very well.
      Ms. Short: The hon. Member does not understand what trade union sponsorship means. It means a link with a union for which one has political sympathy. In the case of NUPE, it represents many very low-paid women, typical of the women who live in my constituency, and I am proud to work with NUPE for the interests of those workers. I get no financial contribution of any kind for that work, and the hon. Member should understand that. Just because his hon. Friends take those kinds of jobs for large sums of money, he thinks that we are the same, but he will find that that is not so.
      Mr. Knapman: I understand from the hon. Lady that the relationship between hon. Members and their unions is very slight, but I suggest that Conservative Members understand why they say what they say.
      Mr. Bob Clay: I want to say a little more about the potential inadequacies of secret ballots, and to try to disabuse Conservative members of the notion that, other than the concession they have made that there is sometimes a poorer turnout, there is absolutely nothing else wrong with the proposition.
      Mr. Winnick: I missed the speech of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) because I went to check in the Register of Members' Interests what involvement he has with trade unions. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member for Stroud has listed himself as a partner in R. J. and R. M. Knapman, builders, and a member of a Lloyds underwriting syndicate? Would my hon. Friend find it of some interest to know whether the firm in which the hon. Member is involved allows employees to be members of trade unions, whether trade unions are recognised, and what sort of internal democracy—postal ballots or otherwise—takes place in Lloyds underwriting syndicates?
      Mr. Clay: One of the colleagues of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman), who is on the Standing Committee, had a different job every time he stood up to speak. Apart from his job here, he has been a management consultant for a building firm, like the one just referred to, and he had some other job. Goodness knows what sort of balloting went on there. The hon. Member for Stroud never spoke in Committee, to my recollection, so we never had the opportunity to raise those matters with him until tonight. I do not know whether he wants to respond to the question my hon. Friend has asked me—I cannot give the answer. He is sitting down; he obviously has something to hide. Postal votes certainly do not take place in Lloyds underwriters.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) several time used the words "as in the general election" when referring to postal votes. When she described her activities as NUPE's branch secretary, she described how postal votes are distributed.
      Last Monday and again today, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) made a point about how we take votes in this House. He described it as the Longbridge method. However, we must consider the votes that elect Members to this place. The general election is more like a workplace ballot than a postal ballot. What would happen if we conducted parliamentary elections by postal ballot?
      386
      I ask hon. Members on both sides of the House to speculate on the outcry that would occur if there was one story of a house-owner—man, woman, mother or father—who said to a child who might be 18, 19, or 20 years old and still living at home, "I'm not having any Tory voters in this house. You had better show me that ballot paper before you submit it; otherwise you are out of the house." What a hoo-hah there would be if that sort of thing happened in a general election. However, that cannot happen because the general election is not conducted by postal ballot.
      5.30 pm
      We are not simply concerned about trade union officers delivering ballot papers. As the clause is drafted at present, there will be remedies—although they are not very reliable — and procedures that may ensure that ballot papers are sent out properly. However, not even this Government could conceive of a law that would regulate the way in which the ballot papers were returned. Someone must collect those papers. Even if the papers are supposed to be posted back through the Post Office, nothing will stop the practice that happens during a general election with postal votes. That procedure involves someone visiting a house and telling the occupant, "If you have not put in your paper yet, I'll put it in for you."
      We are not just concerned about influencing how people vote. We do not know whether postal votes will even be submitted. At least in a general election one can check the register to discover whether a person with a polling number has submitted a postal vote. That cannot happen in trade union elections unless the Government have even more hidden agendas in mind in terms of registers of trade union members available for public inspection. We would not need blacklists any more; employers would have a national register of union members. The only way in which we can prevent the abuse of postal ballots is by creating even greater abuses.
      As late as the 1960s, I can remember canvassing in a by-election not in a wild rural area, but in mid-Bedfordshire. I remember farm workers in tied cottages telling me that they believed that the farmer who owned the cottages knew how they voted. I remember how difficult it was to persuade people that the ballot was secret. My goodness, if there had been a postal ballot, those farm workers in tied cottages would have said that the owner came round and made them show him their ballot papers.
      Conservative Members must explain why it has never been seriously suggested that hon. Members should be elected to this place on a postal ballot except where voters are infirm or blind or suffer some other disability. I stress that a postal ballot is not secret. If a method of voting by going out and recording a vote in a ballot box in a designated place which can be properly scrutinised is good enough for electing Members to this place, why is it not good enough for trade unionists? We are not even asking for that: We are simply asking that trade unionists should have that option if they believe that that is best.
      Mr. Frank Haynes: I will be very brief and ask a question. Is the Minister aware that not many days ago there was an election for the president of the National Union of Mineworkers? In Nottingham, British Coal—the employer — recognises only the other union, the Union of Democratic Mineworkers.
      In years gone by, my experience has been that, when a ballot took place, facilities were provided at the workplace

      387
      —the pit. In the presidential election, members of the NUM were denied that facility. They were told to take their ballot box on to the street and to ballot there. That is what happened.
      I want to refer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) about postal ballots and ballot papers going to the employer. Bearing in mind what I have just said about the management not co-operating with NUM members in the recent ballot for the NUM president, if the Minister's answer to the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West is yes, can he assure us that there will be fair play for those NUM members in Nottinghamshire in future?
      Mr. Andrew Welsh: I want to ask a specific question. To save the Minister intervening at this point, he can answer me in his reply. I know that, rightly, the Government are keen to reduce bureaucracy affecting businesses and especially small businesses, and they have my support in that. However, this measure will do the opposite for trade unions which, to some extent, must rely on the voluntary and unpaid efforts of individual members.
      Has the Minister any estimate of the extra bureaucratic costs and the effect on unions of imposing the extra burden? Is the Minister pressing the clause on ideological grounds, irrespective of the effect of the costs on trade unions? If not, will he tell the House what homework he has done on the effects of the clause? Is he thinking of extending the principle to other organisations, or will it apply only to trade unions because they are trade unions? I am not sponsored by a trade union, but I can tell when an organisation is being persecuted.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) stated fairly that we had debated this point at length in Committee. We have also debated it at some length this afternoon. He said that postal balloting cannot be said to be inherently more democratic than workplace balloting, and of course he is right. How hon. Members vote on this clause will depend on whether they believe that the turnout is the most important consideration.
      It was obvious from the debates in Committee and from what we have heard from many hon. Members today that many of them believe that turnout is the most important point. I can understand the sincerity with which hon. Members make that point, but the Government do not accept that turnout must be the final criterion. If we had to pick the most important point, we believe that it would be the ability of a person to vote knowing that he is voting secretly and in a system that offers the best chance—not a guarantee, because there is no such thing—of being able to vote in a secure, safe, free and secret manner. That must be the best criterion.
      The hon. Member for Oldham, West referred to the evidence and to the example given in paragraph 5.13 of the Green Paper. Many references have been made to that in our deliberations. Paragraph 5.13 refers to the election of the general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union. All credit should go to the TGWU for having that matter investigated. I remember that well. The press campaign that preceded the union's decision to act in that way was considerable. Whatever else we might try
      388
      to accuse the hon. Member for Oldham, West of, I fully believe that he is as appalled about rigging in union elections as any Conservative Member. I hope that he will accept that from me. There is no monopoly on outrage about those matters.
      Opposition Members have said that there were irregularities in only eight branches out of 9,500. Only 12 branches were investigated. When it becomes evident that some 799 votes out of 800 were signed by the same hand and the remaining paper was spoilt, there can be no doubt about the abuse. Indeed, The Observer—which is not an uncritical organ of the Conservative party — was prompted to say about that election that it had interviewed a trade union official who complained of having writer's cramp. I am as appalled about what happened as the hon. Member for Oldham, West.
      However, we must tackle the fact that such a vice can occur within the system. I accept fully that the hon. Member for Oldham, West and his hon. Friends feel as badly about that abuse as Conservative Members. Therefore, the House must ask whether it is possible to devise a method that will ensure that those abuses do not happen.
      Mr. Heffer: I refer the Minister again to the system used by my old union, the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers. It is far better than anything else that has been suggested. Is he aware that in trade unions, whatever their political or religious views, members vote for people because they think they are the best people? In my branch, one member belonged to the Roman Catholic Church. He always nominated a member of the Communist party. I once asked him, "Why do you do that?" He said, "Because he is the best trade unionist. His politics have nothing to do with it." That is democracy in a trade union.
      Mr. Nicholls: I would have come in due course to the contribution of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), but I will deal with it now. I accept what he has said about his experience in the trade union movement. I can understand that someone with his determination, commitment, industry and eloquence would never put up with some of the abuses which might happen. What we have to decide goes further.
      Where trade union members do not have the benefit of the commitment of people such as the hon. Member for Walton to see that the procedure runs properly, can we provide a system that is free-standing?
      The point has been made that many unions already have postal ballots. All we are saying is that essentially it is a question of trying to extend to all unions the benefits that some enjoy. It cannot be sufficient to leave it to the trade union when the present system can give rise to abuses which the hon. Member for Walton would deplore as much as I do.
      5.45 pm
      Another point ran through the contributions of several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), the idea being that in some way we had abandoned the legislation which we passed as recently as 1984 and that we were embarking on a different course. If we consider the Trade Union Act 1984 as it finally emerged after debate in the House, it is clear that we had a commitment to the principle of postal balloting but it was said that in certain circumstances it need not take place.

      389
      The reason for my right hon. Friend taking that view was that he had heard, as we all had from trade unions, that it would be unfair to require postal ballots because unions had not had a chance to compile proper membership lists. We have moved on four years. We say that unions have had ample time to compile the lists and that it should now be possible to have a system of postal balloting.
      In the end it must come down to this: can we leave this to the trade union movement and can we be certain that in every single case abuses will not take place? Obviously we cannot. Therefore, we have to devise a system which minimises the possibility of abuse. Although it is not a fail-safe or a guarantee, in the end a postal ballot comes nearer to that ideal.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:
      The House divided: Ayes 202, Noes 288.

      Division No. 175]

      [5.45 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Allen, Graham

      Faulds, Andrew

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Fisher, Mark

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Flannery, Martin

      Ashton, Joe

      Flynn, Paul

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Foster, Derek

      Barron, Kevin

      Foulkes, George

      Battle, John

      Fraser, John

      Bell, Stuart

      Fyfe, Mrs Maria

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Galbraith, Samuel

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

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Blair, Tony

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Blunkett, David

      Gordon, Ms Mildred

      Boateng, Paul

      Gould, Bryan

      Boyes, Roland

      Graham, Thomas

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Buchan, Norman

      Hardy, Peter

      Buckley, George

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Haynes, Frank

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Canavan, Dennis

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Henderson, Douglas

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Clay, Bob

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Clelland, David

      Holland, Stuart

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Home Robertson, John

      Cohen, Harry

      Hood, James

      Coleman, Donald

      Hoyle, Doug

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Corbett, Robin

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Cousins, Jim

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Crowther, Stan

      Illsley, Eric

      Cryer, Bob

      Ingram, Adam

      Cummings, J.

      Janner, Greville

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      John, Brynmor

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Darling, Alastair

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

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

      Lambie, David

      Dewar, Donald

      Lamond, James

      Dixon, Don

      Leighton, Ron

      Dobson, Frank

      Lewis, Terry

      Doran, Frank

      Litherland, Robert

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Livingstone, Ken

      Dunnachie, James

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      390

      McAllion, John

      Reid, John

      McAvoy, Tom

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      McCartney, Ian

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      McFall, John

      Rogers, Allan

      McGrady, E. K.

      Rooker, Jeff

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McKelvey, William

      Rowlands, Ted

      McLeish, Henry

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      McNamara, Kevin

      Salmond, Alex

      McTaggart, Bob

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Madden, Max

      Sheerman, Barry

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Mallon, Seamus

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Marek, Dr John

      Short, Clare

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Martin, Michael (Springburn)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Martlew, Eric

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

      Maxton, John

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

      Meacher, Michael

      Soley, Clive

      Meale, Alan

      Steinberg, Gerald

      Michael, Alun

      Stott, Roger

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Strang, Gavin

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Mitchell, Austin (G'f Grimsby)

      Thomas, Dafydd Elis

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Turner, Dennis

      Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)

      Vaz, Keith

      Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

      Wall, Pat

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Mullin, Chris

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Murphy, Paul

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Nellist, Dave

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      O'Brien, William

      Wigley, Dafydd

      O'Neill, Martin

      Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Parry, Robert

      Wilson, Brian

      Patchett, Terry

      Winnick, David

      Pendry, Tom

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Pike, Peter

      Worthington, Anthony

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Wray, James

      Prescott, John

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Primarolo, Ms Dawn

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Radice, Giles

      Mrs. Llin Golding and

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Mr. Frank Cook.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Bowis, John

      Allason, Rupert

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Amess, David

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Amos, Alan

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Arbuthnot, James

      Brazier, Julian

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Bright, Graham

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Atkins, Robert

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Atkinson, David

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Baldry, Tony

      Burns, Simon

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Butcher, John

      Batiste, Spencer

      Butler, Chris

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Butterfill, John

      Beith, A. J.

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Benyon, W.

      Carttiss, Michael

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Cash, William

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Chapman, Sydney

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Chope, Christopher

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Colvin, Michael

      Boswell, Tim

      Conway, Derek

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      391

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Jack, Michael

      Cope,John

      Janman, Timothy

      Cormack, Patrick

      Jessel, Toby

      Couchman, James

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Cran, James

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Curry, David

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

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

      Key, Robert

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Day, Stephen

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Devlin, Tim

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Knapman, Roger

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Dover, Den

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Dunn, Bob

      Knowles, Michael

      Durant, Tony

      Knox, David

      Evennett, David

      Lang, Ian

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Latham, Michael

      Fallon, Michael

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Favell, Tony

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Fearn, Ronald

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lilley, Peter

      Forman, Nigel

      Livsey, Richard

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Forth, Eric

      Lord, Michael

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      McCrindle, Robert

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Franks, Cecil

      Maclean, David

      French, Douglas

      Maclennan, Robert

      Fry, Peter

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Gale, Roger

      Madel, David

      Gardiner, George

      Malins, Humfrey

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Mans, Keith

      Gill, Christopher

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Mellor, David

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Gorst, John

      Mills, Iain

      Gow, Ian

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Greenway, John (Rydale)

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Gregory, Conal

      Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Mudd, David

      Grist, Ian

      Neale, Gerrard

      Ground, Patrick

      Nelson, Anthony

      Grylls, Michael

      Neubert, Michael

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

      Hannam,John

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

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

      Page, Richard

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Paice, James

      Harris, David

      Patnick, Irvine

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Pawsey, James

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hayward, Robert

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Heddle, John

      Portillo, Michael

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Price, Sir David

      Hill, James

      Raffan, Keith

      Hind, Kenneth

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Holt, Richard

      Redwood, John

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Renton, Tim

      Howard, Michael

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Riddick, Graham

      Howells, Geraint

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Irvine, Michael

      Rost, Peter

      Irving, Charles

      Rowe, Andrew

      392

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Ryder, Richard

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Thurnham, Peter

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Tredinnick, David

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Trotter, Neville

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Shersby, Michael

      Walden, George

      Sims, Roger

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Wallace, James

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Waller, Gary

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Walters, Dennis

      Speed, Keith

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Speller, Tony

      Watts, John

      Squire, Robin

      Wells, Bowen

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Wheeler, John

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Whitney, Ray

      Steen, Anthony

      Widdecombe, Miss Ann

      Stern, Michael

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Stevens, Lewis

      Wilshire, David

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

      Wood, Timothy

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Woodcock, Mike

      Sumberg, David

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Mr. David Lightbown and

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 14

      INDEPENDENT SCRUTINY OF CERTAIN BALLOTS AND ELECTIONS
      The Minister for Employment (Mr. John Cope): I beg to move Government amendment No. 11, in page 19, line 1, leave out from `(a)' to 'either' in line 3 and insert
      'within the period of three months after it receives the report—

      (i) send a copy of the report to every member of the union to whom it is reasonably practicable to send such a copy; or

      (ii) take all such other steps for notifying the contents of the report to the members of the union (whether by publishing the report or otherwise) as it is the practice of the union to take when matters of general interest to all its members need to be brought to their attention;

      (b) ensure that any copy sent or notification given for he purposes of paragraph (a) above is accompanied by a statement that the union will, on request, supply any member of the union with a copy of the report,'.
      The amendment implements the results of the review that we promised in Committee of the method of making the scrutineer's report available to union members. The Bill as drafted was silent on how the report should be sent to members, as long as it is sent by some method to all members. As amended, the clause gives unions a choice as to how they distribute the report, and I hope that it meets the point raised by the Opposition in Committee.
      Mr. Gavin Strang: This is a minor amendment, but one that we welcome. There may have been some speculation on Second Reading, and certainly in Committee, about the general thinking behind the

      393
      Government's approach to some aspects of the Bill. I have to say that we thought it ridiculous that a separate copy of the scrutineer's report should have to be sent to every member of the union.
      The question that has to be asked is not why the Government are amending it, but why it was in the Bill in the first place. I suppose one could say that it was an error on the part of the civil servants. However, with your great experience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of trade union affairs and the Department of Employment, that is unlikely. I suggest another proposition, which is that civil servants have been operating on the basis that it is the Government's intention to harass the unions and make it as difficult as possible for them to go about their democratic affairs.
      We welcome this minor change. I think that the Minister will confirm that it means that the results of the scrutineer's report can be published in the union journal, along with the statement making it clear that any individual member of the union can write and ask for the full report. That is a more practical way of dealing with the matter than having to send a copy of the scrutineer's report to each union member.
      Mr. Cope: I can confirm that the journal would be an appropriate method of doing that, if it is the way in which the union usually distributes information to its members. I would never blame our civil servants for any matter with which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) or anybody else may disagree. We are responsible for it. However, I would not accept the alternative explanation offered by the hon. Member.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 16

      BALLOTS ON INDUSTRIAL ACTION AFFECTING DIFFERENT PLACES OF WORK
      Mr. Strang: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 20, line 6, leave out clause 16.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following: Government amendment No. 22.
      Amendment No. 13, in clause 17, page 21, line 33, at end insert
      'including such provisions as may be necessary to ensure that a union conducting a ballot under section 11 of the 1984 Act does not create an artificial balloting constituency for the purposes of securing a particular result in that ballot.'.
      6 pm
      Mr. Strang: When he replied to the debate in Committee, the Under-Secretary of State agreed with me that this was one of the most important clauses in the Bill. Is it not reprehensible that the Green Paper did not refer to it? No notice was given to the trade union movement that this further imposition was to be included in this anti-trade union Bill. Was it not also remarkable that, on Second Reading, the Secretary of State did not refer to this important clause? That shows the contempt which the Government have shown for the trade union movement and their indifference to the position of many employers who are concerned about and opposed to the clause.
      The Under-Secretary of State, who is a legal expert, agreed in Committee that this is a complex clause. Perhaps I can illustrate that by quoting an explanation which I obtained in a letter from the Minister of State when I wrote
      394
      to him about this clause in November last year. The clause is about ballots and about the balloting constituency with which trade unions will have to comply if they are to have a ballot which will give them immunity in tort for industrial action.
      In his letter, the Minister said:
      "Ballots where the union properly gives entitlement to vote to all of its members (ie. the "balloting constituency" consists of all its members) will not be affected at all by the provisions of clause 16. Nor will any ballot be affected where the union properly gives entitlement to vote

      (a) to all of its members employed by one employer, or by each of a number of employers taken together; or

      (b) all of its members employed in one particular occupational description or grade or each of a number of descriptions or grades taken together; or

      (c) to all of its members employed by one particular employer (or each of a number of employers taken together) in a particular occupational description or grade (or each of a number of descriptions or grades taken together).

      There will also be other cases involving more complex permutations of membership and employment by particular employers in which the balloting constituency will not mean that separate ballots have to be held in order to preserve immunity."
      That is how the Minister of State responded in part to my letter. This is a valid point. Surely we should be putting on the statute book industrial relations legislation which people clearly understand. For example, in a dispute such as that involving the National Union of Seamen, if the union takes legal advice, it should receive an answer in which the solicitor or the QC has some confidence. That will increase the prospects, when an employer takes legal advice from another individual, of the two sets of advice coinciding. That is a desirable prospect for industrial relations.
      The clause is unacceptable, because legal experts disagree about what it means. It is not good enough for Ministers always to duck out of this, as they did in Committee, by saying that it is a matter for the courts. We want to be clear about what it means before the Bill goes on to the statute book, so that workers, trade unions, managers and employers recognise the requirements which must be met in respect of the balloting process. The clause is about ballots and about democracy. That is why it is an important clause. It concerns the ballots which will be taken to determine whether, for example, workers at the Ford Motor Company can come out on strike in circumstances which prevent their union's funds from being sequestered. That is an important element of the Bill.
      Mr. Allen: One reason why the Government may not understand the full implications of their legislation is that it was introduced at a late stage and was not even in the Green Paper. It is not good industrial relations law, and it gives rise to some political venom from the Secretary of State for Employment who brought with him all his prejudices from his previous post as Secretary of State for Social Services—where, as I understand it, he had a had time as a result of selective strikes. Perhaps that is why this clause, more than any other in the Bill, is a complete botch.
      Mr. Strang: It is interesting to note that a number of correspondents at the time believed that it related to that, although Ministers denied in Committee that that was the intention of the clause.
      The democracy issue is fundamental to this Bill, to these amendments and to the Government's approach to industrial relations. The 1984 Act, which requires a trade

      395
      union to ballot its members and to obtain a majority before it can take authorised industrial action without being subject to legal challenge, is a fundamental ingredient of industrial relations legislation. The Government argue that they had to intervene to impose these legislative requirements because a substantial number of strikes were not in response to the genuine aspirations of workers or trade unionists. They claim that those strikes were a consequence of hot-headed, militant trade union leaders dragging people out on strike and contributing to poor industrial relations and the loss of many working days.
      Conservative Members will not be making too much of that point in the context of the current industrial strife. There has already been a reference to the day of action in north-west England about the state of the Health Service. Is it being suggested that, on that day of action, trade unions such as NUPE and COHSE are pulling out those nurses and workers against their will? Most hon. Members will understand what the role of most of those officials has been today. They have created the programme. They have created the situation in which the workers can take that action in a way that minimises the risk of serious hardship to their patients. That is the constructive role which most trade union officials will have been taking, in practice, today in respect of industrial action in the Health Service.
      I referred to that point on Monday. In the seamen's dispute, the leadership is urging workers involved in selective action to resume working. It is not a question of the officials trying to bring the workers out on strike. It is a question of the determination or otherwise of the seamen themselves.
      The same point applies to the Ford strike. The Secretary of State was brought here to answer a private notice question on Monday. His first point was that, although this was potentially an enormously important strike for the British economy, it had nothing to do with the Government. Indeed, he appeared to resent the fact that he had to appear before this House, but he admitted that the trade union officials had recommended the amended offer which was negotiated last Sunday. No one can suggest that the trade unionists at Ford are being pulled out on strike against their will.
      If the Ford dispute is settled in an orderly way—it is in the interests of the trade unions and of the Ford Motor Company to do so—it will be settled on the basis of a negotiated settlement between the unions and the Ford Motor Company. Anything which the Government, or anyone else, might seek to do to create anarchy and to encourage workers to go back to work, when there is an official dispute, is more likely to prolong the dispute than help to secure a solution.
      The clause is important. By imposing a further requirement on top of the Trade Union Act 1984, it will make the position worse rather than better. Why have the Government brought it forward in the first place? When challenged in Committee, the Minister said that they were worried that section 11 of the 1984 Act was defective because unions might create artificial balloting constituencies to get a majority in a strike ballot. In other words, they might put two groups of workers together, one militant and one not, to get an overall majority for a strike and thus get the moderate group of workers into a dispute with their employer.
      396
      Some of us wondered how the Government discovered the problem of artificial balloting constituencies. We asked for examples. In Committee, we eventually dragged out half an example. We demonstrated that it did not make the case for the clause. We are aware that, in its submission, the Institute of Personnel Management suggested that it was a possibility. I wonder. Is it because of what the IPM has said could happen that civil servants decided to put such a monstrous and damaging industrial relations proposal to the Ministers?
      The Government did not know whether the problem was real and needed to be addressed in legislation or whether it existed purely in the minds of certain individuals who were scrutinising industrial relations legislation. It is as though a college of cardinals had met to discuss the number of angels who could congregate on a pinhead and decided to frame the result in legislation. The result is a clause that can only damage industrial relations.
      As it stands, clause 16 amends sections 10 and 11 of the Trade Union Act 1984. Section 10 obliges a union, if it is to be immune from action in tort, to hold a ballot and achieve a majority vote before an industrial dispute can take place. Section 11 defines the constituency of trade union members who must be able to vote in such a ballot. In particular, section 11 (1)(a) requires that entitlement to vote be given to all members of the relevant union, who
      "it is reasonable at the time of the ballot for the union to believe will be called upon in the … industrial action to … breach … or interfere with the performance of their contract of employment".
      The Bill goes on to state that the ballot should not be extended to any other workers. That is simple and clear. The Government are seeking to enact a change in the legislation, which of course moves away from that. Clause 16 will become section 11(1)(1A) and (1B) of the 1984 Act. Section 11(1A) subdivides balloting constituencies that fall within section 11 as a whole, thereby placing further restrictions on unions.
      In general, ballots will not lead to immunity in tort unless they satisfy the further and, frankly, ridiculous requirement that each workplace affected by industrial action has been balloted and a majority obtained in each one. That is absurd, to put it mildly. The Government, as under clause 3, seem happy to impose on unions requirements that make an absolute mockery of democracy.
      In practice, exemptions from the requirement will be crucial. In Committee, we pressed the Ministers to find out just how far the terms "occupational description" and "grade" would go and just what sort of constituency would be covered. When will an aggregate ballot be allowed? Obviously, the force of our argument persuaded the Ministers that the exceptions were not wide enough. That is why they came back with the amendment, full of vague talk about factors and reasonable beliefs.
      Faced with the original form of clause 16, Opposition Members were baffled—more important, so were the unions and employers. The Engineering Employers Federation made that clear to me in a letter that I quoted in Committee.
      6.15 pm
      It is not good enough for the Government to bring forward legislation of this nature and tell us that it is up to the courts. We have looked at the Government's amendment. We do not believe that it will contribute in any way to solving the problem. All that will now be

      397
      required is for a union to believe that all balloted members have some factor, not necessarily common to all, that marks them off from other workers employed by the same employer, and which is not a consequence of their place of work. That would allow artificial balloting constituencies to occur in certain circumstances.
      I shall give an example in the fantasy terms that Conservative Members might understand. In a factory with two moderate Labour-voting supervisors and 10 readers of Socialist Worker who share a certain machine in a production process but who have the same grade and occupational description as 1,000 Tory party supporters elsewhere in the plant, a Machiavellian union could ballot the 10 militants and two supervisors on a wholly spurious grievance and bring the plant to a halt. Under the Bill as it previously stood, that would not have been allowed. Under the Government's amendment, it could happen.
      Opposition Members have moved their own amendment. If the Government are determined to do something along these lines, the sensible approach would be to delete the clause and to lay down the objective of avoiding artificial balloting constituencies. We support that remark. We do not see this as a problem. Of course we recognise that artificial balloting constituencies are not created. If the objective is to prevent that, surely it would be sensible to approach the matter with a code of practice.
      We reject clause 16 and the amendments, because no problem needs to be addressed. We have not heard any evidence or justification from the Government. We reject it because it is complicated, and we do not believe that is in the interests of the House or the country to put industrial relations legislation on the statute book that, frankly, most people cannot understand. We are opposed to it because it will not only be ineffective but will worsen industrial relations. Rather than improve the legislative framework within which managers, employers and workers go about their daily affairs, it will make it worse.
      Mr. Cope: I am not quite sure whether I exaggerate when I say that it seemed to me that both sides of the Committee moved at least a little nearer to one another in the course of the extensive debates on the clause. The result of the debates, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) said, is that we redrafted part of the clause in the direction—the hon. Gentleman did not seem to accept it—that Opposition Members and others outside wish. From some of the hon. Gentleman's comments and from amendment No. 13, it seems that Opposition Members have moved far enough at least to recognise the possibility of a problem occurring. The hon. Gentleman said that Opposition Members support the objective of removing artificial constituencies. That is the main purpose of the clause as a whole.
      In Committee, we promised to consider whether it was possible to amend the clause to enable an aggregate ballot of members employed at different places of work if they were in the same bargaining unit or bargaining group. We pointed out that, although the terms "bargaining unit" and "bargaining group" are well understood in general parlance, they are not easy to write into legislation. That is why we propose the definition in the amendment. It retains the general intended effect of clause 16, but I hope it will go some way to meet the concerns expressed in Committee in favour of a greater element of flexibility.
      The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East mentioned vague talk about factors. I describe that as flexibility,
      398
      which is necessary in this matter. I was interested to hear him complain that he thought that the clause as amended would still allow some artificial balloting constituencies to be created in certain circumstances. In other words, he was complaining that we were not putting enough protection into the Bill.
      However, the amendment will enable a union to hold a single aggregated ballot covering members employed at different places of work, if all the members of a union who are accorded entitlement to vote and who are employed by the same employer have a factor or factors in common. That is the way of defining the bargaining unit, among other things.
      The factor or factors in common must relate to their terms or conditions of employment, or occupational description, and a factor must not be one common to any other member employed by the same employer who is not accorded entitlement to vote. When, and only when, other members of the union employed by the same employer or employers are not in the balloting constituency and are not being given the opportunity to vote, members of the constituency should not have a factor in common merely because they work in the same place or places. They cannot be left out merely because of where they work.
      The amendment does not affect the ability of unions—provided by the clause as it stands — to aggregate ballot votes across groups or employers, provided that the conditions of the new subsection are met for the groups within the balloting constituency.
      I accept what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East said in Committee — we accepted it there — about the desirability of understandable legislation, but it is my experience, derived from much legislation—by no means exclusively to do with industrial relations or trade unions —that understandable legislation is difficult to achieve.
      I respond more to what the hon. Gentleman said about the importance of legislation being certain. That is not quite the way he put it, but it lay behind what he said. Certain legislation is not always understandable legislation; it means that we must use legal language, and what sometimes seems convoluted language, accurately to define the concept we are getting at, which can sometimes be described more easily in homely terms when we are not writing legislation. Nevertheless, I should like to feel that the Opposition at least think we have gone some way to meeting the concerns expressed in Committee about the bargaining unit, while continuing to address the problem to which outside observers have drawn attention.
      Mr. Michael Foot: Some of the clauses may be described as designed to inflict injury on the trade union movement and to interfere with its operations. Others may be described as the "adding insult to injury" clauses, which may not be so offensive in their operation, but are designed to irritate, confuse and cause general disruption for trade unions who are carrying out their business.
      I discussed some of the previous clauses with the Minister on Monday, and he complained that I had referred to some of them as having the apparent objective of extending balloting in certain areas. He asked what was wrong with that. We know the answer to that: these matters should be left to the trade unions, and it is insulting that the Minister should propose a Bill to teach the trade unions how to run ballots. They have been doing that for generations, building up their different

      399
      organisations and traditions for dealing with these matters. That is why the clauses are insulting. The Government are forcing all unions to use the same methods of operation, despite their different traditions.
      Clause 16 is different, and a different intention lay behind it in the first place. I was interested to hear that it was not included in the Green Paper and that the Government did not even take the trouble—or have the knowledge—to want to introduce it then. That makes us doubly suspicious, as it did my hon. Friends in Committee.
      The Government came forward with fresh proposals to try to deal with the matter. It would have been much better if the Government had accepted the advice of my hon. Friends and knocked out clause 16. The Government's intention was clearly not to assist the trade union movement.
      Instead, the Government have produced a clause that they say is extremely convoluted. I am sure that those of us who follow these matters closely will have understood exactly what the Minister was saying. There was no confusion or doubt about that after he sat down. But even he, who had studied the matter carefully and been skilfully briefed by the people in the Department of Employment—no one knows better than I how skilful they are—had to admit at the end of his speech that the clause was still convoluted.
      Two sets of people, who are not specially qualified, will have to deal with this convoluted legislation and decide whether a strike is legitimate. The first set are the ordinary workers trying to work out what they can do in particular circumstances. I am not blaming them—usually they know trade union law a great deal better than junior Ministers or anyone else. They have had practice in dealing with it, and have some idea of what it means. I confess to having no faith in the second set of people: Her Majesty's judges. They will get at the legislation even before workers can operate the new law.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) referred to the strike that almost took place among the seamen. That action is strictly relevant to this matter, because, presumably, the 1984 Act was clear. It was not as convoluted as this clause. What happened is a revelation of the way in which this shoddy sort of legislation operates. The general secretary of the National Union of Seamen has considerable experience of these matters and has engaged, with some considerable success, in industrial action. Perhaps that is why the Government wanted fresh legislation—to make it more difficult for that union to operate.
      When the general secretary and the executive committee of the National Union of Seamen arrived at their view on the present legislation a few weeks ago, they thought that the action they were going to take would be fully within the 1984 law. So did many of their legal advisers. However, when they went to court, they received a different verdict and had to take a different view of their position. The National Union of Seamen, like other unions, wants to abide by the law. We hate it. It is unfair, monstrous and unjust, and it threatens to confiscate that union's funds on a huge scale, but the union has to abide by it.
      As I came to the House this afternoon I listened to what the judge said in this matter. I do not know whether the general secretary was present. He and his associates have,
      400
      in the past few days, done their best to observe the present convoluted law. They hate it, but they have done their best to implement it.
      The judge told the seamen's representative today that it seemed that the general secretary still has some clout. Judges should try to use more restrained language. To sink into the vernacular is not the proper thing for respectable members of the judicial bench. Whether the general secretary will have any clout after this legislation comes into force and minorities are given an abslolute right to disobey the majority view on a ballot is another matter. I should be interested to hear the views of Her Majesty's judges on that matter.
      6.30 pm
      The judge thought that the NUS had enough clout to tell its members that it would be disobeying the law in certain circumstances. It would not have such clout if it was deprived of effective disciplinary powers inside the union, as it will be under this legislation.
      What happened to the seamen is relevant to the Bill because it will weaken the power of trade union general secretaries to ensure that their members obey the law and to use their position under the law to advance their interests. Clause 16, in its amended convoluted form, as the Minister has described it, or in any other form, will make it more difficult for the NUS in particular to know whether the constituency in which it is asked to have a ballot covers all the areas, and there will be even more confusion in the case of some other unions. When the Minister replies, I shall be happy to hear what will be the application of clause 16, if it remains in the Bill, in a situation such as that recently experienced by the NUS.
      It is fascinating to be discussing the Government's amendments to the Trade Union Act 1984 and the previous measures that they have introduced at the very moment when we are having illustration after illustration of the unworkability of the previous legislation. In the example that I have just given of the NUS there was gross confusion about the law.
      The Ford strike is the latest in a series of examples, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East referred, where the law is certainly not operating as the Government intended. Surely the Government never intended to ensure that trade union negotiators should be so deprived of their powers to negotiate that, in the Transport and General Workers Union case in the courts, even when it was thought that there was a possibility of a negotiation, the Government's legislation robbed them of the operation of a ballot.
      We are seeing the frustration of the feelings of people on the picket line throughout Britain. There is a report in The Independent today of what was said on the Ford picket line by one of the leaders of the Transport and General Workers Union. Talking of the Prime Minister, she says:
      "She's getting stuffed by her own legislation."
      The cost to the country is huge.
      Partly as a result of that legislation, we have had to have the dribble of legislation, of which the Bill is another example. The Government find that some of the chinks that they thought had been closed have not been, so they must discover some other way of closing them. Then the Government discover some legal loophole or convoluted openings that have been left, so they have to come along with legislation such as this.

      401
      Perhaps the explanation for the major clause in the Bill about giving minorities rights which the majorities should have had, which is causing such confusion, is that the rest of the Bill is such trivial nonsense. My hon. Friends were forced into hour upon hour of discussion in Committee.
      There is not the slightest guarantee that this Bill will be better than the previous three or four. All of them have been produced for the wrong motives and all have failed to go through the procedure that we always followed for industrial legislation. We always attempted to discuss matters with the people who knew something about them, whether it was the employers or the unions. We even set up some organisations in which employers and unions were represented, precisely so that we should be able to obtain that information properly. In other parts of the Bill the Government are seeking to undermine that balance. That does not give rise to any confidence about what the Government will do in future.
      The Government did not trouble to consult anybody. They did not know the exact evil with which they were trying to deal. They were pushed into Committee with no attempt to discuss the Bill with anybody. Nobody jogged the Government's elbow and said that they might have put some reference into the Green Paper. Now, at the last moment, the Minister comes along to say that he is sorry, but he too thinks that the clause is convoluted.
      The Government should take away this convoluted clause. I use the most moderate language that I possibly can. It would be best if the Government took away the Bill, but at least they should take away some of the clauses that have not been examined properly. They should have the courtesy to discuss them with the people who know something about them.
      It is a wonderful irony that the Government started out with the idea that one of the main things that they would do was to injure and impale the trade union movement on their legislation. They thought that it was wonderfully popular and that they could carry it further and further. They have now overreached themselves and my prophecy is that more and more, as trade unions recover their strength, power and cohesion—the Ford strike and the seamen's strike are only two instances—they will expose the shoddiness and shame of the Government's legislation.
      It would be a splendid beginning to the learning of wisdom in the face of what is happening at Ford's and in the seamen's strike if, for the first time in the Bill's passage through the House, the Government were to make a concession. I am shocked to hear that in all the discussions in Committee not one concession was made. The Government seem to think that they know it all. They thought that they knew so much about the trade union movement that they would not even concede one matter. That is a shocking way in which to try to deal with industrial relations in Britain.
      The Government will pay, because those relations will become more and more embittered and the people who will be responsible are the successive Ministers at the Department of Employment. I am sad to say that, because there was a time when the Department of Employment used its best endeavours—to use a phrase—to try to obtain industrial peace and decent industrial relations. But that cannot be said of this Bill, the Government or the Minister involved.
      Mr. Allen: First, I welcome the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) who was absent from much of the
      402
      Committee stage due to illness. It is a pleasure to see him in the Chamber, and I hope that he will soon he fully recovered. It may be some consolation to him that his brief contribution probably was more than the aggregate of about nine Conservative Back Benchers in three months' service on the Committee.
      The Government were allowed every possible opportunity to present practical examples of how clause 16 would affect real industrial relations. Indeed, there was even a break at the weekend in which we thought that Ministers might dare to decide what would he the effects of the Bill in particular circumstances. Opposition Members without exception pressed the Government for specific examples in every possible form, shape, structure and convolution to assist Ministers to come to terms with their own legislation. However, that was not possible at any stage.
      I put one question to the Minister tonight. If he cares to listen to the debate, he should listen to this question. If there is a national ballot that is not successful, will trade unions be in a position to ballot particular workplaces and call out those workplaces on strike, having failed to secure a majority nationally? I hope that the Minister can answer that question this evening.
      The Government do not know what they want from the clause. There are deeper implications in not knowing the purpose of the clause. If it is cloudy and unclear to the Government, clearly it will be difficult for trade unions to know what will happen. The suspense with which they will carry out their day-to-day activities will rest heavily upon them.
      I should like to repeat a brief story that I mentioned in Committee. When the great fast bowler Freddie Trueman was asked about all the variations in his style of bowling, he said, "I just run up and bowl it. If I don't know where the bugger is going to be how can the bugger at the other end know"—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. the hon. Gentleman should not use such unparliamentary language.
      Mr. Allen: That was a quotation from Freddie Trueman's autobiography. The person—if I may clean up Mr. Truman's language—at the other end who does not know where the ball is going, whether it will be swinging out, swinging in, a dipper, a yorker or a bouncer, is the trade unionist. The trade unions will be at the other end of the wicket when the legislation is hurled down on them. They will not know its effect because the Government themselves do not know the effect. That theme runs right through clause 16.
      Even today, the clause does not contain an adequate definition of such items such as workplace, occupation and grade. The Government themselves do not know what their own clause means and they cannot give practical examples of how the clause will affect real trade unionists out in the country. The only honourable course would be for the Government to withdraw the clause and start again.
      Mr. Strang: I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau, Gwent (Mr. Foot) reminded the House that we voted against clause 16 in Committee. We wanted the clause to be removed. My right hon. Friend, with his great experience of these matters, fully

      403
      understands the impact of the Bill and previous Tory Acts which attempt to undermine trade unions, and will have an adverse effect on industrial relations in Britain.
      In view of what the Minister said, perhaps inadvertently, I must emphasise that Opposition Members do not see a problem that requires legislation. We do not see a problem that requires the Bill. Clause 16 will make things worse, and the Government's amendment will make them worse still. We are moving from a bad scenario to a worse one.
      If a trade union created an artificial balloting constituency, by lumping together a certain group of workers with another group of workers in a wholly unjustifiable way in order to obtain a particular outcome in the ballot—an outcome in favour of industrial action—our view would be that that was bad trade unionism. A trade union would not get away with that.
      6.45 pm
      That is why there are no examples. Trade unionists are not so stupid. If the leadership of a trade union such as the CPSA—and this clause has a great bearing on the Civil Service—or any other trade union—it could apply to the TGWU in relation to the Ford plants — did not ballot all its members, the members themselves would consider that to be unfair. If there is to be a requirement for a ballot on the statute book as in the 1984 Act, the correct approach is to sustain the wording in the 1984 Act, because it is clear. It puts the requirement on the union to ballot those workers who are its members whom it may call out on strike. That is very clear. That is why it corresponds with the bargaining unit, and that is why it is consistent in that sense. Although we do not support the 1984 Act, it is consistent with collective agreements and the prevailing situation in regard to the public sector and throughout many industries.
      I conclude by making it absolutely clear that the Opposition are totally opposed to the Government. We are entirely opposed to the clause. We tabled our amendment because, as the Opposition, we are trying to minimise the damage that the Bill will impose. We accept that we may not defeat the Bill, so we must try to alter it in a way that reduces its impact and the damage that it will do to industrial relations legislation. That is why we shall vote for our amendment.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 219, Noes 269.

      Division No. 176]

      [6.47 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Blair, Tony

      Allen, Graham

      Blunkett, David

      Anderson, Donald

      Boateng, Paul

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Boyes, Roland

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Ashton, Joe

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Buchan, Norman

      Barron, Kevin

      Buckley, George

      Battle, John

      Callaghan, Jim

      Beckett, Margaret

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Beith, A. J.

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Bell, Stuart

      Canavan, Dennis

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

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

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      404

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Leighton, Ron

      Clay, Bob

      Lewis, Terry

      Clelland, David

      Litherland, Robert

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Livingstone, Ken

      Cohen, Harry

      Livsey, Richard

      Coleman, Donald

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      McAllion, John

      Corbett, Robin

      McAvoy, Tom

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      McCartney, Ian

      Cousins, Jim

      Macdonald, Calum

      Crowther, Stan

      McFall, John

      Cummings, J.

      McGrady, E. K.

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Cunningham, Dr John

      McKelvey, William

      Dalyell, Tam

      McLeish, Henry

      Darling, Alastair

      McNamara, Kevin

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      McTaggart, Bob

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Madden, Max

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

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Dewar, Donald

      Marek, Dr John

      Dixon, Don

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Dobson, Frank

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Doran, Frank

      Martin, Michael (Springburn)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Martlew, Eric

      Dunnachie, James

      Maxton, John

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Meacher, Michael

      Eastham, Ken

      Meale, Alan

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Michael, Alun

      Fearn, Ronald

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Fisher, Mark

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Flannery, Martin

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Flynn, Paul

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Foster, Derek

      Morley, Elliott

      Foulkes, George

      Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)

      Fraser, John

      Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

      Fyfe, Mrs Maria

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Galbraith, Samuel

      Mullin, Chris

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Murphy, Paul

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Nellist, Dave

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Gordon, Ms Mildred

      O'Brien, William

      Gould, Bryan

      O'Neill, Martin

      Graham, Thomas

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Parry, Robert

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Patchett, Terry

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Pendry, Tom

      Grocott, Bruce

      Pike, Peter

      Hardy, Peter

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Prescott, John

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Primarolo, Ms Dawn

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Henderson, Douglas

      Radice, Giles

      Hinchliffe, David

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Reid, John

      Holland, Stuart

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Home Robertson, John

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Hood, James

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Rogers, Allan

      Howells, Geraint

      Rooker, Jeff

      Hoyle, Doug

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Salmond, Alex

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Illsley, Eric

      Sheerman, Barry

      Ingram, Adam

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Janner, Greville

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      John, Brynmor

      Short, Clare

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Skinner, Dennis

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

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

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

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

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Snape, Peter

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Soley, Clive

      Lambie, David

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Lamond, James

      Steinberg, Gerald

      405

      Stott, Roger

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Strang, Gavin

      Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Wilson, Brian

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Winnick, David

      Turner, Dennis

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Vaz, Keith

      Worthington, Anthony

      Wall, Pat

      Wray, James

      Wallace, James

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Mrs. Llin Golding and

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Mr. Frank Haynes.

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Day, Stephen

      Allason, Rupert

      Devlin, Tim

      Amess, David

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Amos, Alan

      Dicks, Terry

      Arbuthnot, James

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Dover, Den

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Dunn, Bob

      Atkins, Robert

      Durant, Tony

      Atkinson, David

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Evennett, David

      Baldry, Tony

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Batiste, Spencer

      Fallon, Michael

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Farr, Sir John

      Bellingham, Henry

      Favell, Tony

      Bendall, Vivian

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Benyon,W.

      Forman, Nigel

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Forth, Eric

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Franks, Cecil

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      French, Douglas

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Fry, Peter

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Gale, Roger

      Boswell, Tim

      Gardiner, George

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Gill, Christopher

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Bowis, John

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Gorst, John

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Gow, Ian

      Brazier, Julian

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Bright, Graham

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Greenway, John (Rydale)

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Gregory, Conal

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Burns, Simon

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Butcher, John

      Grist, Ian

      Butler, Chris

      Ground, Patrick

      Butterfill, John

      Grylls, Michael

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hannam, John

      Cash, William

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

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Chope, Christopher

      Harris, David

      Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Colvin, Michael

      Hayward, Robert

      Conway, Derek

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Heddle, John

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Cope, John

      Hill, James

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hind, Kenneth

      Couchman, James

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Cran, James

      Holt, Richard

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Curry, David

      Howard, Michael

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

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      406

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Irvine, Michael

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Irving, Charles

      Rost, Peter

      Jack, Michael

      Rowe, Andrew

      Janman, Timothy

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Jessel, Toby

      Ryder, Richard

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Key, Robert

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Kilfedder, James

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Knapman, Roger

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Knowles, Michael

      Shersby, Michael

      Lang, Ian

      Sims, Roger

      Latham, Michael

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Speller, Tony

      Lilley, Peter

      Squire, Robin

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      McCrindle, Robert

      Steen, Anthony

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Stern, Michael

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Stevens, Lewis

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Madel, David

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

      Mans, Keith

      Sumberg, David

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Summerson, Hugo

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Mills, Iain

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Thurnham, Peter

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

      Tredinnick, David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Trippier, David

      Mudd, David

      Trotter, Neville

      Neale, Gerrard

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Nelson, Anthony

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Neubert, Michael

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Walden, George

      Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Waller, Gary

      Page, Richard

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Paice, James

      Watts, John

      Patnick, Irvine

      Wells, Bowen

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Wheeler, John

      Pawsey, James

      Whitney, Ray

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Widdecombe, Miss Ann

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Wilshire, David

      Portillo, Michael

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Price, Sir David

      Wolfson, Mark

      Raffan, Keith

      Wood, Timothy

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Woodcock, Mike

      Rathbone, Tim

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Redwood, John

      Renton, Tim

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Mr. David Lightbown and

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Mr. David Maclean.

      Riddick, Graham

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment made: No. 22, in page 20, leave out lines 29 to 38 and insert—

      407
      `(b) that there is, in relation to each of the members of the union, who is accorded entitlement to vote in the ballot, some factor (whether or not the same factor) which—

      (i) relates to the terms or conditions of that member's employment or to the occupational description which is applicable to that member in his employment;

      (ii) is a factor which that member has in common with some or all of the other members of the union who are accorded that entitlement and have the same employer as that member; and

      (iii) in a case where there are individuals employed by that employer who are members of the union but are not accorded that entitlement, is neither a factor which that member has in common with any of those individuals nor a factor which individuals employed by that employer have in common as a consequence of having the same place of work;'.—[Mr. Nicholls.]

    Clause 20

      PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTAL TO SECTION 19
      7 pm
      Mr. Nicholls: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 24, line 22, leave out 'or expenses which, (whether' and insert 'which.'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 15, 25, 17 and 18.
      Mr. Nicholls: Amendments Nos. 25 and 18 address concern expressed in Committee about the commissioner's ability to recoup his outlay from any award or settlement made.
      Amendments Nos. 15 and 17 ensure that subsections (2) and (3) express themselves in language appropriate to the legal systems of England and Wales and of Scotland respectively.
      Mr. Strang: We welcome the fact that the Government have tabled the amendments, some of which relate directly to concessions that we obtained in Committee. They are minor but they will be of some significant benefit to the trade union movement and we are grateful for them.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 15, in page 24, line 23, leave out
      'or an agreement or otherwise)'.
      No. 25, in page 24, line 26, leave out
      'so far as relates to any costs or expenses, on his rights'
      and insert
      'on any sum payable to the applicant'.
      No. 17, in page 24, line 33, leave out from 'of' to 'and' in line 34 and insert
      'any expenses which, by virtue of a judgement or order of the court, are payable to the applicant by any other person in respect of the matter in connection with which the assistance is provided;'.
      No. 18, in page 24, line 35, leave out
      'so far as relates to any costs or expenses,'. — [Mr. Nicholls.]

    Clause 23

      THE TRAINING COMMISSION
      Mr. Meacher: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 24, line 44, leave out clauses 23 to 28 (part II of the Bill).
      We now come to part II of the Bill. The Opposition deliberately formulated this amendment to delete the
      408
      clauses constituting part II of the Bill so as to ensure a broad debate on the Government's proposals for training for the unemployed as a whole. We would certainly agree that there has long been a need for major improvement in adult training for the unemployed, but in our view there are several fundamental objections to the way in which the Government propose to proceed.
      First, it should be recognised that by restricting the scheme to the unemployed they are making it very lopsided. Enhanced training for the employed is just as important, if not more so, but under this Government it has been run down to its lowest level for decades and is still being neglected. Britain now spends only just over 0·1 per cent. of its payroll on training to improve the skills of those in work, as compared with 2 per cent. to 3 per cent. in Germany and Sweden. There is a huge gap. Having dismantled most of Britain's training programmes, the Government are still ignoring the major part of the problem.
      Furthermore, there is a fundamental dilemma over funding at the heart of the proposals, which we believe will make them unworkable. It is proposed both to increase the number of participants by 50 per cent. and to upgrade substantially the quality of training, but to achieve both those considerable extra objectives within the same budget as before—£1·5 billion. Frankly, that is impossible. The aims can be reconciled only by very large cuts in the allowances payable to trainees, which will severely impair incentives and fatally damage any prospect of a voluntary scheme. Once compulsion is introduced to overcome the consequences of inadequate funding, the whole character of the proposals will alter for the worse. There is risk that the scheme will be a monumental flop like the job training scheme, and for similar reasons.
      The Secretary of State for Education and Science has talked about extending freedom of choice for young people, while the Secretary of State for Employment has favoured compulsion for the youth training scheme, which will sour the whole atmosphere of the scheme. If the Secretary of State of Employment is not to do the same for adult training, he must put his money where his mouth is. That will mean a substantial lift in the current budget ceiling. If the scheme is to remain voluntary and adequate incentives are to be provided for trainees, it is sheer fantasy to talk of enhanced high quality training—as the report does and as the Secretary of State does—without any increase in funding.
      Paragraph 6.12 of the Manpower Services Commission working party report proposes £16 a week for the training component. I do not know whether the Secretary of State agrees with that, but it is plainly absurd for high-quality training. Moreover, a major part of the new proposal is the increased involvement of private employers who are to be offered £25 per week per trainee—the figure proposed by the MSC. That might be enough for cheap labour, but it is certainly not enough for enhanced training. Unless the Secretary of State faces up to the Treasury better than he has in the past, there are all the signs that the latest proposals will degenerate to provide the same kind of low-quality work placements as their predecessors.
      The community programme managers have already made it clear that the present training and job search content cannot even be maintained unless the current fee of £440 per place is increased. But with many more participants working full-time, more training aids needed, more space used and more heating, lighting and telephone

      409
      costs incurred, anything less than a 50 per cent. increase in costs is simply not viable. So far, the Secretary of State has turned a blind eye to the basic practicalities.
      The next issue is the fundamental one that participation in training schemes must he voluntary. The Secretary of State has denied the element of compulsion — it is amazing that he has done so—but the Government's approach is increasingly riddled with compulsion, as I shall show. First, clause 4 of the Social Security Bill brings compulsion into YTS; there is no question about that. Then there is clause 26 dealing with adult training programmes, in which at least the potential for compulsion is also apparent. Thirdly, there is restart, the tighter availability for work rules and claimants being referred to the claimant adviser, who certainly puts the strongest pressure on claimants to get off the register, even if not into a job.
      If there is the odd individual case of abuse—and of course there always will be—the Government can use the armoury of rules that they already have to prevent abuse of the benefits system. The legal powers available are already strictly applied. Section 20 of the Social Security Act 1975 specifically penalises claimants who have refused to avail themselves of a suitable opportunity of a place on an approved training programme. They are disqualified from receiving unemployment benefit for 13 weeks.
      The Government now propose to make that 26 weeks, which is a very long time to suffer a reduction of supplementary benefit from £18·75 — not itself exactly generous—by 40 per cent. down to £11·25. Anyone who has tried to live on £11·25 a week for six months knows that that is a fearsome financial penalty. If the authorities believe that a claimant is not available for work, they can withdraw benefit altogether.
      The evidence of those who decline to enter YTS or leave early shows that they do not deliberately become unemployed. Let me give one figure from the Government's own case. Of those declining a place on YTS—estimated by the MSC to be between 20,000 and 30,000 each year—fewer than 700 per year—2 per cent. to 3 per cent.—have had their benefit reduced for being voluntarily unemployed. There are powers to deal with the occasional case of abuse. No one challenges those powers, but there is no justification whatever for what is proposed in the Bill—the blanket and virtually automatic removal of benefit from all 16 to 17-year-olds. That is a completely different matter and we utterly reject the proposal.
      As I have said, the provisions of clause 26 will mean that the new adult training programme will be anything but voluntary. The clause means that few claimants will be able to exercise their judgment and choice about whether a training scheme is appropriate to their circumstances or whether it will lead to a better chance of finding work. We still believe that the provisions in the 1975 Act are right. Under those provisions, unemployed people did not have to enter a programme if they could establish that it would not lead to a better chance of finding appropriate work. That reasonable allowance in the scheme is now explicitly ruled out. Clause 26 means that an offer of a place on the new scheme will be unrefusable, regardless of the quality or appropriateness of the scheme.
      My next point is one that we did not raise in Committee. Any suggestion that voluntary work is an acceptable exit from this scheme, as is proposed in paragraph 5.37 of the MSC report, should be immediately
      410
      scotched. If it is not, some people could be forced on to the scheme by threat of the withdrawal of benefit and simply offered unpaid voluntary work as a follow-up. They will be deprived of payment if they do not join the scheme and deprived of payment afterwards if they do. That is intolerable.
      That brings me to the matter of employee status. Under the Employment Protection Act 1975, a worker has the right to take an employer before an industrial tribunal if he thinks that he has been unfairly dismissed for trade union activities. After six months' employment, an employee is entitled to written responses for a dismissal, and if that statement of response is untrue or inadequate, the employee is entitled to compensation. That sort of provision should also apply to trainees. It is vital that adult trainees should enjoy not only a safe and nondiscriminatory working environment, but that they should be free to undertake trade union activities, have the right to challenge arbitrary or unfair disciplinary procedures and should be allowed to appeal against unfair dismissal. That is not the case under the Bill.
      7.15 pm
      Introducing trainees to workplaces inevitably leads to an element of job substitution and displacement. Those things are on a considerable scale — greater than the Government have yet admitted. A study commissioned by the MSC shows that in 1986 the YTS had a job substitution effect of 17 per cent. A subsequent study published in the Employment Gazette in October suggested that job substitution in the YTS might be considerably greater. That is the Government's own official gazette and it speaks about a job displacement rate of up to 62 per cent. in establishments with fewer than 100 employees.
      In 1986, the Technical Change Centre Research Organisation found that nearly one third of the employers that it surveyed gave savings in labour costs as the motive for participating in YTS. A further 16 per cent. who did not expect to save on labour costs found that they did so. The survey also found that nearly one in five of the employers involved would have taken on employees if they had not recruited YTS trainees. That is 20 per cent. of the employers surveyed. Another 18 per cent. would have taken on extra staff at peak periods and others would have had to subcontract some work. That shows the displacement and job substitution effect of the YTS and it is very worrying.
      I shall now turn to the matter of the rate for the job. Last year, a YTS study gave estimates of the YTS trainees' output. They varied from £18 a week in mechanical engineering and £21 a week in construction to £36 a week in repair of consumer goods and vehicles and £33 a week in retail distribution. Those figures show the value of what are, supposedly, trainees.
      If we assume, not unreasonably, that adult trainees would produce at least as much and in some case considerably more, it can be seen that many trainees will make a net contribution to their placement employer's profits after the managing agents' charges of £4 to £8 per day have been deduced. For that reason, trainees should be paid not some flimsy little allowance but the proper rate for the job.
      The MSC claims that projects operating under the community programme will be able to continue as normal under the new programme. If that is true—and it is the MSC that says it—participants will be engaged in work

      411
      for the majority of their time, 60 per cent., and will spend only 40 per cent. of their time in directed training. That is less than half. Therefore, participants will be engaged in the same activities as the ones that they are now engaged in — producing goods and services of benefit to the community—but they will become trainees and will lose their rights as employees. The value of their work will be downgraded because they will not receive the rate for the job.
      If, as expected, the Government accept the proposed allowance on top of benefit—£10 plus an extra £1·95 for under 25-year-olds and £1·25 for married people without children—the amount will certainly not be sufficient to provide the motivation to join the scheme or to provide motivation on the scheme. There will be wide discrepancies of payment to participants, calculated at between £38 and £90 a week or even more. That is for people doing exactly the same work.
      The Government claim that payments will reflect need rather than the rate for the job. That is totally spurious because the Government have deliberately held down the community programme average wage of £67 a week. That would now be over £85 a week if it had kept up with inflation since the time the community programme was introduced.
      When the idea of the benefit-plus scheme for the longterm unemployed was originally suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his 1982 Budget, the premium suggested was £15. In the discussion on the Government's manifesto proposals during the recent election campaign, the then Secretary of State for Employment also suggested that the level of the premium would be about £15 a week. Therefore, £10 is a significant reduction on what the Government previously said, apart from being a major cut in present community programme payments.
      It is undeniable that the vast majority of people currently employed in the community programme will be substantially worse off than they are under the present rate-for-the-job wage. I shall give two figures to illustrate that. On average, men employed as ordinary workers on the community programme are £39 a week better off than they were on benefit. That is the difference between £28 and £67. Women workers are £35 a week better off. Those figures show just how much those people will lose because of the change to benefit-plus.
      Topping up is an important matter. The proposed income support arrangements will make effective topping up of wages difficult, if not virtually impossible. It will not enable unions to negotiate the full rate for the job, because, under the social security regulations, anything that a claimant receives over the additional £10 a week will be deducted pound for pound from his benefit entitlement. Similarly, spouses' earnings are likely to be deducted from a trainee's benefit-plus income. This will discourage employers from giving overtime or from asking people to work unsocial hours for higher wages or to work on Saturdays.
      The final issue that concerns us involves trade unions and local advisory bodies. At present, trade unions, local authorities, local businesses and others exercise a monitoring role in the delivery of MSC programmes to the area manpower boards. However, the MSC is now
      412
      proposing to replace the area manpower boards with a new structure of local advisory bodies, involving major changes, which have the Government's agreement.
      One directly related change is that individual trade unions will lose their powers to scrutinise and to withhold approval from existing community programme schemes. Under the new programme, trade unions will merely have the right to be consulted where they are recognised and appropriate, and
      "any difficulty arising in establishing a programme shall be referred to the MSC area manager who, if necessary, will invite one employer and one trade union member of the local board to assist him or her in resolving the disagreement. Only where the area manager agrees that jobs are threatened, the project should not be implemented."
      The size and composition of the new boards will, of course, reflect the changes in the commission itself, which has been deliberately biased by the Government in favour of the employers to humiliate and marginalise the trade unions. The boards are likely to be much smaller, with no more than 12 or 15 members. Again, employers will be in a majority, with the remainder of board members drawn from local authorities, trade unions, the education service and voluntary organisations. Significantly, the membership will be determined by the chairman, and who appoints the chairman? The Secretary of State. [Interruption.] Yes, no doubt it will be the Prime Minister, who is well known for spending much of her time, when she has some time to spare in the evening, looking through the patronage lists of the good and the great.
      The MSC working party report proposes that local action plans involve only employers, and not the unions. That is another attempt by the Government to push aside any contribution from the unions. I should point out that trade unions have an obvious and necessary input into all training matters. Trying to oust them for reasons of political dogma will simply scupper the whole project—as happened, and rightly so, in the case of the job training scheme.
      In conclusion, the co-operation of all sides — the trade unions, local authorities, voluntary organisations, and the area management boards as well as the employers—is essential if sufficient places are to be provided on schemes for long-term unemployed people. Such cooperation will be given if the Government adhere to the principles that I have outlined and, as a result, the scheme can be clearly demonstrated to be fair, effective and good for participants without damaging public service provision and employment. The principles that we have outlined—and nothing less than all those principles—should be the bedrock on which an improved training scheme can be built.
      The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): Part II, which the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) seeks to remove, brings up to date the Employment and Training Act 1973, which created the Manpower Services Commission. The Bill brings that Act up to date because, in the 15 years since it reached the statute book, there have been considerable changes in the nature of our labour market, but at no time have the changes been as marked as they are now.
      The unprecedented growth in output of the past six years has resulted in the creation of nearly 1·5 million new jobs. Unemployment is falling. In fact, it is undergoing the largest sustained fall on record. The seasonally adjusted December figure was the lowest for five and a half years.

      413
      Youth unemployment is falling. It is down by one third over the past 12 months. There were fewer unemployed school leavers last September than in any September since 1974.
      Those factors have highlighted the need to develop fresh approaches to people and work, and they have given us the opportunity to do so. It is this opportunity to respond to the needs of the new labour market which the Opposition are now attempting to block.
      It is important to remind the House of the major change which took place last October—the establishment of an integrated employment service. Indeed, one of the most important aspects of part II is that it gives the Department of Employment the powers to operate the service for the longer term.
      The new service seeks to bring together the work of the jobcentres and the unemployment benefit offices. Its main priority is to tackle the problem of long-term unemployment and to make sure that the unemployed get their fair share of the new jobs that the economy is creating. People who have been out of work for a long time clearly find it particularly difficult to get back into a job. They need special, individual help. However, under the previous system there was a risk that people attending only one of the two offices—either the unemployment benefit office or the jobcentre—could miss out on some of the services on offer. The new arrangements are designed to close that gap.
      The new employment service is already, through the work of restart counsellors, implementing our commitment to provide counselling for the long-term unemployed to help them into a job or training. People who have been unemployed for more than six months are now being given this assistance at six-monthly intervals. It is proving to be an effective form of assistance. In the 18 months that the programme has been operating nationally, about 3 million people have been interviewed and over 85 per cent. have received a positive offer in the form of a place on a community programme, in a job club or on a job training scheme, and the like.
      A second source of help provided by the employment service is the work of the claimant advisers. They can help to ensure that the person involved receives the right benefit. They can also show people with high benefit entitlement that it pays to work—[Interruption.] Well, the fact is—I think that we will be able to establish this even to the satisfaction of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short)—that many of the people who currently turn down jobs are doing so in the mistaken belief that they will be better off on benefit. The new family credit which replaces the family income supplement in April means that virtually no one will be better off on benefit.
      Ms. Short rose——
      Mr. Fowler: I shall give way in a moment.
      I hope that, by re-integrating the jobcentres within the Department, we will clear the way for the new role of the Manpower Services Commission, which will now be called the Training Commission and which will provide a focus for our training efforts and will be directly responsible—
      Ms. Short rose——
      Mr. Fowler: If the hon. Lady will wait a moment.
      414
      It will be directly responsible for training provision which is financed by public funds, and it will have a wider remit to encourage training by employers for their own employees.
      Ms. Short: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. However, it is not good enough to misdescribe the changes that his Government have made through the availability for work tests and the claimant advisers, because unemployed people throughout the country know that those individuals exist to threaten and frighten them into taking up places on schemes that they do not find attractive. For the Secretary of State to stand at the Dispatch Box and say that those people are there to help is an insult to the experience of unemployed people in this country.
      Mr. Fowler: What the hon. Lady has just said is wholly untrue and wholly without foundation. She should be thoroughly ashamed of herself for putting forward that view. The fact is that one job of a claimant adviser is to seek to explain to people—surely there cannot be any conflict among us that the social security system is sometimes difficult to understand—what the benefits are, not just out of work but in work. The hon. Lady has just revealed the destructiveness of her attitude, which was exhibited throughout the whole Committee stage.
      The Training Commission will provide a focus for our training efforts. It will be directly responsible for training provision which is financed by public funds. I agree with the hon. Member for Oldham, West that there should be a responsibility on employers, which is why we are giving such a wide remit to encourage training by employers for their employees. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's first remarks that training for the unemployed is only one part of the issue; training for the employed must also be encompassed.
      7.30 pm
      The theme of the work of the Training Commission must be and will be training through life. The aim will be to fit people for a labour market which will change substantially during their working lives.
      Of the clauses that the Opposition seek to remove, clause 23 enables me to appoint up to six additional employers to the commission. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Clearly employers are the major providers of training and employment. We cannot have an effective training strategy without industry, nor can we have an effective industry without training. My aim will be to appoint members from some of the areas of major employment growth—for example financial services, tourism and small firms. They will come not necessarily entirely from those areas, but from areas of that type where new jobs are being created.
      Clause 24 adjusts the powers of the commission to take account of its new training function and the establishment of the employment service. Together with the largely technical provisions of the clause is the new power to pay a YTS bridging allowance.
      Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman says that when he enlarges the commission he will appoint some employers who represent new developments or industries. Why does he not appoint trade unionists from those industries in an equivalent number? The MSC was founded on the basis of that equality. It worked for a considerable time and, according to the right hon. Gentleman, it worked well.

      415
      Now he is unbalancing the whole arrangement and he has not given any excuse for it. Trade unionists are as interested as employers or anybody else in developing these new industries.
      Mr. Fowler: We set out these proposals clearly when we went to the country. We want to extend the representation on the commission because we believe that, in addition to its present members and make-up, there are others who can make a contribution in terms of their experience in job creation. Small firms are a classic area where there has been one of the greatest expansions in jobs. We should like to have someone from that area on the commission. There will still be trade union members on the commission. We have made no secret of the fact that we are not aiming for an equality of representation; we are trying to get the maximum amount of experience around the commission table for the creation of jobs.
      Mr. Foot: If the Bill goes through, naturally we shall want the Training Commission to be successful. Indeed, the whole future of our industry depends on the new training system, however it may be devised, being successful. If the Secretary of State is so determined about its success, why does he not preserve one element of the old system which proved so successful and give some proper recognition to the trade union contribution? He talks as though trade unions cannot make a contribution equivalent to that of employers, but of course they can. He has weighted the commission in favour of employers without any excuse, and some half-sentence in a manifesto is not a proper excuse. He should give the House the reason why he will undermine the MSC which for many years worked on the basis of equivalence.
      Mr. Fowler: The right hon. Gentleman may not accept my arguments, but I have given the reasons which he seeks. We are not doing what he accuses us of doing. We are not for a moment saying that trade unions do not have a contribution to make. That would be absurd. We are saying that others from outside not only the TUC but the CBI, have a greater contribution to make. They have experience of providing jobs in particular areas where over the past few years job creation has been most successful.
      Clause 24 provides a new power to pay a YTS bridging allowance. The new guarantee to all 16 and 17-year-olds of a suitable YTS place is crucial. The vocational training leading to a recognised qualification will now be the norm, not the exception. It will be a universal opportunity—not, as so often in the past, a privilege for the lucky few. We shall seek to give the options of full-time education, training or employment. One effect of the hon. Gentleman's proposals would be to prevent our offering young people the short-term allowance to ease the transfer from one YTS job to another.
      The provision of training for adults, both employed and unemployed, is not yet a match for our training of young people. Clearly, that is the most practical issue that the commission will have to address. A key aspect of its strategy will be the development of a new comprehensive training programme for the adult unemployed.
      I shall seek to make a statement to the House on that new adult training programme shortly and, clearly, hon. Members will be able to ask questions. The House will not expect me to go into intricate detail now, but I shall make a couple of comments about it.
      416
      Broadly speaking, the new programme, for which the Government will be making available more than £1·4 billion, will have two objectives. It will aim to equip the unemployed, particularly the long-term unemployed, with the skills they need to re-enter and make the fullest possible contribution to the new labour market by providing a mixture of directed and practical training and by placing as much reliance as possible on training with employers. That is the best way to ensure that training meets the needs of industry. From the trainees' point of view, it is also the best way to help them get a job at the end of the programme.
      Mr. Meacher: Could the Secretary of State get away from his gramophone record speech and perhaps answer one or two of my specific questions? How is it possible in the same budget to increase the number of participants by 50 per cent. and to produce enhanced high quality training without so cutting back the level of trainee allowances as to reduce the motivation for people to join the scheme, leading to compulsion to ensure that the places are taken up, which will sour the scheme?
      Mr. Fowler: I come precisely to that matter. The first point to make in response to what the hon. Gentleman said is that he is under a misconception about what the £1·4 billion refers to. There are 500,000 people under training, not the 400,000 that he has been quoting. The 400,000 refers to a previous year of training.
      The second aim of the new programme is to ensure that all unemployed people have an incentive to participate in it, which is why we are seeking to move from the present system of payment to an allowance based on benefit entitlement plus a premium. I accept entirely the hon. Gentleman's point that the success of the new programme will depend on its ability to deliver high-quality training.
      First, we will convert the £1 billion a year spent on temporary work projects in the community programme to money to be spent on training. That is an enormous turnaround. Secondly, the new programme will bring together more than 30 schemes that the MSC runs. As a result, we will be able to do away with wasteful divisions and complexities in the current arrangements and instead will have a simpler, more efficient and more flexible arrangement, ensuring better use of resources.
      Thirdly, the new programme will have the substantial budget of about £1·4 billion a year, which will enable 600,000 people to be trained each year. On top of that budget, the proposals of the MSC envisage employers contributing £150 million a year towards training costs. Almost all the contributions from employers will be new money and will therefore provide a further means of enabling training quality to be enhanced.
      Fourthly, I have said many times that the proposals of the MSC — I accept what the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) said about the MSC—are its unanimous recommendations for training 600,000 people a year with £1·4 billion from the Government.
      Ms. Short rose——
      Mr. Fowler: If I could go on.
      The MSC's proposals are not for a cheapskate scheme but for a programme delivering high-quality training. The MSC has proposed built-in measures to ensure that the quality standards are achieved and maintained. Approved status against set criteria will be required of all training

      417
      agents and training managers. Inspections will be made by the training standards advisory service, and recognised qualifications will be offered wherever possible. The MSC would not have put forward its report unless it considered that all this could be done within the resources available. Therefore, I have no fears about the quality of the new programme.
      Ms. Short: I am sure that the Secretary of State would not wish to mislead the House. He set down parameters; he wrote to the Manpower Services Commission and said, "For this £1·4 billion you have to get 600,000 people through the scheme." The commission has come up with the best possible deal that can be got within those parameters. The Secretary of State knows, as I and many others know, that many trade union representatives on the commission have agonised about whether they are right to endorse that deal. They feel that perhaps they should stay in because they have got a few more pounds for the unemployed than would have been available without those trade union negotiators, but all of them are deeply unhappy about the proposed scheme. That is the truth.
      Mr. Fowler: I do not accept what the hon. Lady says. She again seeks, as she does in all her contributions on training, to destroy any consensus on it. It can hardly be denied that the MSC has made a unanimous report on the scheme. Whatever concerns there may be in the background, that is the most important point to grasp. The hon. Lady referred to the attitude of trade unionists, but it seems to me that their attitude is a darn sight more constructive to the proposals than is the attitude that she has shown in these proceedings.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Henry McLeish: The Secretary of State sent a letter to the commission on 18 September outlining the framework for the proposals. Did that framework include the sum of money and number of places he envisaged?
      Mr. Fowler: The framework included, from memory, the budget which was there; that is broadly correct. Of course, that was our proposition to the Manpower Services Commission, but it has had the opportunity of considering it and responding to it.
      I want there to be no mistake about this. I have endorsed the commission's recommendation that the new programme should be voluntary. I have no plans to designate it approved training for the purpose of benefit sanctions under section 20 of the Social Security Act 1975. The quality of the new programme and the guaranteed lead over benefit will provide a more than adequate incenitive to those who genuinely want to work. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said; the vast majority of people want to work.
      Mr. Meacher: That is a very important point. Does the Secretary of State believe that a £10 lead over benefit, from which we have to deduct the £5 cost of work expenses that will not be covered—so it is a £5 lead over benefit—will offer a real incentive to hundreds of thousands of people, when the community programme allowance has not been increased in line with inflation and is some £20 or £30 higher than the level of benefit? Will not that constitute a huge disincentive to getting the numbers that the right hon. Gentleman wants and will it not lead remorselessly to compulsion?
      Mr. Fowler: It will not lead remorselessly to compulsion. I have made it clear that I have endorsed the commission's recommendation that the new programme should be voluntary, so I hope that that is understood.
      I shall refer to the details of the payment when I make my statement to the House. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to make a statement on that now. It must be common ground—I am not the only one to have observed this; organisations such as Youth Aid have observed it—that the present structure of payment for community programmes leaves out many married people with children simply because it does not attract the average of £67. In the end, the community programme is a part-time scheme, predominantly for young people. It leaves out many long-term unemployed people who are married and have families. We will seek to expand on those points in the White Paper and my statement on it.
      Ms. Short: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Fowler: I will not give way again, but I will listen to what the hon. Lady has said. I want to underline the fact that the new programme is to be voluntary. I hope that that message, if no other, comes from this debate.
      Part II of the Bill, which the Opposition are trying to remove, provides the foundation of our strategy for employment and training. That strategy takes account of, and builds on, the many developments in the labour markets that have already taken place. That strategy looks forward to the labour market of the 1990s and, above all, to the skills that working people will need then. Trying to remove the provisions in part H is an attempt to turn the clock back to the early 1970s. That is a futile objective and I resist the amendment.
      Mr. McLeish: You will forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, for not giving the same account of part II as that given by the Secretary of State for Employment. Many of my hon. Friends and I believe that part II is so important and so bad that we want to delete—not amend — a whole section of a major Bill. That speaks volumes for our general concerns.
      Each clause in part II is significant and far-reaching, for the unemployed and for society in general. However, my hon. Friends are worried that part II is much more than the sum of its individual clauses. The debate is timely because, as the Secretary of State said, a White Paper on the new adult programme will be presented soon. Clearly, this legislation paves the way for the introduction of that programme.
      The Opposition stress that in the past nine years, training has become a devalued concept in the public's eyes because of the abuse heaped on it by the Government. Training has been discussed in great detail, hut, considering the serious or effective training in the United Kingdom, many people would doubt the validity of this Government using the training concept.
      Part II provides a fascinating insight into Government thinking about the unemployed. It marks a watershed in the consensus that has existed over the past few years in our ability to identify problems and, one hopes, come up with constructive measures to tackle them. I also believe that part II represents a fundamental shift in the attitude of Governments since the war to those problems. Clearly

      419
      it identifies a positive merging for the first time of the social security benefit system with the provision of temporary work and temporary training programmes.
      To use an ugly word, it is workfare. That concept has been imported from the United States. It is alien to the unemployed — I notice that the Secretary of State is shaking his head. I understand that he will be visiting the United States at Easter to study what is happening in more detail, and many of his colleagues have already been to the United States. For the first time, the unemployed will be subjected to social security payments and poor-quality training.
      While Ministers stand at the Dispatch Box and speak very plausibly about the needs of the unemployed and the sincerity of the Government's approach, they have adopted a sinister, pathological approach to the unemployed. The Government are not concerned about problems with the economy. The Government's proposals have nothing to do with the fact that there are still 2–6 million people on the dole, 500,000 young people forced into YTS and another 600,000 people about to embark on the new adult programme. The Government are not concerned with economic policies. They are telling the unemployed, "Look, we are helping you out because your deficiencies have created your position." That smacks of the old Poor Law mentality that some of my older colleagues may recall—although perhaps that is before their time.
      This is a fundamental shift in the Government's approach to unemployment and training — — [Interruption.] The Secretary of State is obviously enjoying my contribution, so I will probably speak for at least three hours longer than I had originally envisaged.
      Why are we suggesting that the whole of part II should be deleted? Let us consider part II in detail. Not many Conservative Members present today were in Committee. For their benefit, I will explain that clause 23 suggests that the Manpower Services Commission should become the Training Commission. That is fine. There is no problem about that. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has said, that Training Commission will be packed with employers' or quasi-employers' representatives. No justification has been given for that. Those changes undermine the MSC's status and they are an attempt to smash the tripartite arrangements and the consensus that existed for many years about those specific problems.
      Clause 24 is interesting. It introduces the bridging allowance concept. The Government are guaranteeing every young person a place on the new programme. However, they have come up with the idea of an eight-week allowance at £15 a head in case young people do not get a place as quickly as the Government guarantee. That is obviously necessary because of the outrageous proposal contained in clause 4 of the Social Security Bill, which intends to withdraw the general entitlement to benefit from 16 and 17-year-olds. The Government create one mess and put forward another in its place as a sop to young people who, when they leave a programme or a job, find difficulty getting another.
      Clause 25 is sinister. It allows the Secretary of State to take dramatic powers to control the destiny of young people and adults in any designated training programme. It affects conditions and pay and it means that
      420
      unprecedented decisions can be taken by the Department. There will be no decentralisation, but the Secretary of State will designate groups, and his power will mean that young people's status, conditions and pay will be affected, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West said earlier.
      Clause 26 deals with the compulsory element with the amendments to the Social Security Act 1975. It is outrageous for the Secretary of State to suggest that this measure is all about sweetness and light and the willing hand of Government seeking to help people in difficulties. While the plausibility may be accepted by people who understand nothing about training, the young kids at the sharp end in Scotland, Liverpool, Birmingham and London will feel very sour when they hear those comments as the reality is more difficult than the Secretary of State is willing or able to accept.
      What is the real reason for the Opposition voting to support amendment No. 19? We will vote for it because of this sequence of events. Part II seeks to emasculate the MSC. It builds on the withdrawal of the genuine entitlement to benefit of 16 and 17-year-olds. That age group is isolated, vulnerable and prey to the sort of policies and programmes envisaged in the Bill. I have already referred to the Secretary of State's remarkable power to intervene on the status of young people. I believe that all the powers in part II mean a dramatic intensification of the states power to meddle, interfere and coerce and to make compulsory many things that people believe should be voluntary because they are all related to personal choice.
      I am a new Member. I have been involved in training and was a member of a manpower area board. I carried out consultancy work with young people and I have a passionate interest in education. However, as a result of the Secretary of State's delivery at the Dispatch Box and the contributions in Committee, I am fundamentally worried that we are returning to a Poor Law philosophy on the back of workfare. The Government have adopted a punitive approach to people who do not fit into this expanding economy that we hear so much about. I have already referred to the individualistic approach — blaming those who do not fit in and no one else.
      The Secretary of State said much about the expansion in the number of jobs and the labour market. However, there are more part-time jobs in that labour market. People receive less pay in that labour market than they did three or four years ago. I accept that the labour market is changing, but many young people will not be too willing to enter the labour market that has been created by this Government.
      I want to make a serious point about the Government's attack on the unemployed. We have been told that there must be co-operation for the new adult scheme to work. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West said, many groups including voluntary organisations and local authorities are among the most important providers. The Secretary of State said that, if employers are providing enough training, the providers must be considered and the MSC area boards will be packed to allow that to happen.
      If the Secretary of State cannot get the co-operation of voluntary organisations and local authorities, the new programme is dead. Over 90 per cent. of places are provided by these two sponsors. If the Secretary of State treats with contempt the representations they have made, there will be a sad outcome for the unemployed. It is not the Labour party which will suffer but the Government,

      421
      who are so arrogant and so devoid of sanity that they are willing to jeopardise a £1·5 billion programme because of the dogma and prejudice enshrined in part II of the Bill.
      8 pm
      It is regrettable that we have reached this stage in relation to a group of people who need a radical, imaginative and innovative programme. People are apprehensive. If the Bill is enacted, their apprehensions will be reinforced. If the White Paper which the Secretary is to present contains some of the proposals which we suspect it will, I fear for the future of the new programme.
      The Secretary of State has talked about the new labour market. We have heard about a refreshing change and policies designed to complement what is happening in society. In reality, Britain is fast becoming a country where quantity is overtaking quality. Germany, France, Denmark and Sweden are all approaching the problem positively, with policies to tackle the industrial needs of those in work and those out of work. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) was always talking about the Secretary of State's visit to Sweden.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has said that we have the worst trained work force in Europe. In comparison to the OECD countries, our record is even worse. Some countries whose industrial performance we might laugh at have more effective industrial training policies. That is the economy which Government Members ask us to contemplate. If we are serious about training for adults and for young people, in work or out of work, we must start learning a lesson from countries which provide dramatic examples of what can be done.
      When we have discussions about training, we should remember the regional imbalances. It is fine for the Secretary of State to say in this Chamber in London that all the young people in Westminster can find jobs as soon as they leave school. Young people in my constituency do not have that luxury. Parents are desperate to find work for their children. It is the same in Wales and in the regions. We will be viewed with suspicion if we spout in this Chamber about conditions in London when things are so different when one drives 20 or 30 miles from here.
      As for sex, race and disability, many fine words have been spoken about equal opportunities. I hope that, when the Secretary of State presents his White Paper, he will cover those points.
      If the Government are as serious about training as we are, they should say so. We want the Government to regard training not as an alternative to the dole queue but as important in itself. Any self-respecting industrial nation wants to invest resources in training. When the Secretary of State replies to the debate, I want him to say that the Government are taking training seriously, but not as a sop to the dole queue. If there is one thing a young person or an adult does not like it is being made to feel that he is being used, with no end product as a result.
      I ask the Secretary of State to accept the simple proposition emerging from the Manpower Services Commission, from the Labour party and from other groups which could not be classified as political. When will we get out of the rut of producing narrow-based, high-volume programmes for kids, young people and adults? Has the Secretary of State any self-respect when he says that we can spend £1.5 billion on 600,000 people and then
      422
      talk about real quality? I cannot believe that that is a reality. If we are serious about wanting people to have respect for what the Government are doing, that is not how to do it.
      "Freedom", "independence" and "choice" are words that trip off the tongues of Ministers on every subject. What freedom, what independence and what choice are there for many young people and adults who are victims of economic policies beyond their responsibility? It cannot be right to talk about a choice for kids when the Government are withdrawing university places and treating further education provision with contempt, and when they have smashed apprenticeships and job opportunities for many years. Some people may regard that as choice, but I do not believe it is. That is why there is cynicism and great disrespect for the Government's provisions.
      Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I came into the Chamber to listen and not to speak, but I think that there are important things to be said from the Government Benches to Opposition Members who in many cases are rehearsing arguments which they have gone over in Committee.
      I have been saddened by some of the contributions. We have heard talk of cheap labour, of insufficient benefit and of trade unions not having enough say. Opposition Members should remember that the Government have no money; it is the taxpayers' money, which has to be used sensibly. The greatest motivation for a person is not how much money he will be paid while he is training but what the prospects will be at the end of the training, when he has gained new skills which one hopes will lead to a permanent job so that he may marry, have a family and perhaps purchase his own home. These are the things that motivate people towards getting proper permanent jobs rather than false jobs.
      It is not so long since the Opposition were always reminding us that training schemes were a way of disguising the unemployment figures. We do not hear much of that now, because our Action for Jobs programme happens to be working very well. The Conservative Government have come up with schemes that were beyond the wildest imagination of the Opposition. In the Labour party manifesto at the general election, we did not see much evidence of what it would do. The Conservative Government, with their Action for Jobs, are getting people back to work and are training for the needs of industry.
      Hon. Members should realise that industry in this country is taking off faster than in the rest of Europe. If we do not have training schemes, we will not have people with sufficient skill in the right industry to take up the positions that will be on offer. Let us make no mistake: the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) gave me the impression that he would rather pay people a large benefit to sit at home doing nothing. Yet Action for Jobs provides all sorts of options.
      Taxpayers should not be expected to support someone who is not prepared to help himself by taking up the option of training. Opposition Members talk about availability for work. I suppose they have all heard of the black market. The black market means that someone is claiming benefit and working at the same time. They are

      423
      squeezing the taxpayer in two ways. First, they are not paying taxes and, secondly, they are drawing benefit that the taxpayers are paying for.
      We are putting forward sensible and helpful solutions. We hear all this nonsense about pouring in money in order to motivate people to go on training schemes, and we hear nonsense about the level of benefit paid during the time spent on those schemes. The motivation that people under training need is the prospect that their new and extra skills may lead to a permanent job. That is what the Conservative Government stand for, and that is what they are doing.
      Mr. Ron Leighton: The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) obviously approaches these matters in a deeply philosophical way, which leads me on to the few comments I want to make.
      Part II uproots and mutilates the MSC. I do not think that that is an excessive way of putting it. It takes 11,000 officials from the MSC and puts them in the Department of Employment. It also takes considerably more than £500 million from the MSC and transfers it to the Department of Employment. Therefore, it is not excessive to say that the MSC is being uprooted and mutilated. That must be the result of the new philosophy and new approach to these matters.
      The Secretary of State referred to the debate in 1973. The other evening I could not sleep very well so I read the Hansard for 1973 which contains the debate in which the MSC was set up. I find a completely different atmosphere in the Chamber now. The Secretary of State was then Maurice Macmillan. He explained the new idea of a labour market organisation that would not be controlled by the Government. He said that it would be independent. It would be an organisation of the partners in the labour market — the employers, the trade unions, the local authorities and the education authorities. The Government were to have a hands-off approach. That was the novel concept adumbrated by Maurice Macmillan.
      If hon. Members read that debate — I recommend them to do so— they will see that there was one Conservative Back Bencher, the present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and a predecessor of the current Secretary of State for Employment, who could not understand the new concept. He could not understand how we could set up a body that was not controlled by the Government. It was not an easy concept, but Maurice Macmillan sought to explain how it would be possible. My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Mr. Walker), now a Deputy Speaker, spoke from the Labour Front Bench. I will not mention the other Labour Front Bench spokesman of the time.
      There was a consensus in the House. It was a bipartisan issue. Everybody agreed with what we were trying to do in those days. How different it is today. Look at the atmosphere in the House today. This is the new approach, the new Conservative party. It is completely different.
      We are adding six extra employers to the MSC. I am all in favour of the employers, but no one has explained to me why there will be six extra employers and not six extra trade unionists. After all, as the MSC has explained,
      424
      it does not proceed by voting. If we have to decide by voting, we might as well not have an MSC. It does not do things that way.
      The only time I know that the MSC had a vote was when the skill centres were axed. The proposition was carried by one vote. The representative of the education interests who originally supported it was a Scotsman. He later said he had made a mistake and wanted to change his vote. However, it was too late. The MSC does not proceed by voting. Perhaps it is like the Cabinet. There are bodies that do not proceed by means of votes, because if they did the whole thing would break down.
      8.15 pm
      Since then, the Government have increasingly changed the nature of the MSC and leaned on it in a way that is pushing it to destruction and into something completely different. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) talked about the agonies of some trade unionists on the MSC. They have been put under great stress. The Government have been giving instructions to the MSC. For example, the youth training scheme was set up after an instruction from the Government. They did not consult the MSC and ask whether it thought that the scheme would be a good idea. I do not blame the present Secretary of State for that, but that is how it happened.
      The MSC do not like what the Government are doing to it. As the Secretary of State knows, the MSC wrote to him on 23 July. I have seen the letter and I hope that I will receive a copy of his reply to the MSC, which said:
      "We are saddened by your intention and you would not expect us to be otherwise."
      The letter was written by Sir Bryan Nicholson. He has gone now. He went rather sadly and is now doing something else. The letter went on:
      "From the very earliest days of the Commission we have set great store on establishing and maintaining an attractive public Employment Service".
      It has tried to set up an "attractive" service, not a compulsory one. It has not said, "If you do not go on this scheme or take this job, you will not receive any benefit."
      The letter goes on to say that the MSC wants to offer a service that
      "provides employers, not least small firms, with an efficient service offering them the best value for money… treats individual job seekers and job changers"—
      that is good—
      "in a way they have a right to expect in a modern society."
      They are not to be treated as criminals, convicts, recalcitrants, spongers or scoundrels, but, to use the words of the MSC, as
      "they have a right to expect in a modern society."
      The letter also mentions the disabled and says that the MSC wants to provide
      "an attractive gateway to other opportunities."
      The sense of that letter is that the MSC does not trust the Government to do that. It does not trust the Government to provide an "attractive" employment service. We will have to see. It may be a little coded, but that is what the MSC is saying. The letter says:
      "we urge you to pay the closest possible attention to the following matters which could be at risk in what will inevitably be a protracted and difficult organsiational transition."
      I will not read too much of the letter, but I shall mention two things. The MSC says that it is worried that, if the service is too closely identified with benefit payments

      425
      and benefit claimants, employers might not wish to use the service in the future. The employers might not like it if it is based on benefits, compulsion and other such aspects.
      The letter states:
      "Management and staff of the functions you propose to transfer will need to be reassured that the move is not a prelude to privatisation, to further staff cuts, or to changes in their terms and conditions".
      I do not know whether they have received those assurances. The Secretary of State said that he had received a unanimous response. I think that that was so. What was said in that unanimous response? The MSC says that participation in the new scheme should be voluntary and that unions should have a significant say in whether individual schemes receive approval.
      Every community programme must have union approval, but will that still be the case? If not, there will be trouble with that programme. We saw what happened to the job training scheme. The TUC did not approve of that and it was a complete flop because there was no consensus. That is likely to happen again, if we rush at things in a headstrong way and if we do not have any consensus and ignore the TUC.
      The MSC report to the Government states that existing schemes have failed to live up to expectations. A few days ago, I received a copy of the February issue of Personnel Management. I do not know whether other hon. Members have read it, but it is a good publication. It refers to the MSC report to the Government, which stated:
      "All the commission's research and experience show that many of the unemployed are sceptical and hostile towards Government programmes.
      All of the present and past programmes have had their value and continue to do so. But, taken together or taken separately, they leave gaps or fail, in different ways, to measure up to the needs of the time or the hopes and aspirations of the long-term unemployed."
      The Secretary of State must not spoil the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar by skimping on the money involved. Extra people will go on to the scheme without extra money.
      We do not have the same level of training as other countries, not because the Government do not put in the same amount of money as West Germany, France or the United States, but because British companies do not put in sufficient money. Every Secretary of State for Employment that I have known has lamented that fact. If the present Secretary of State needs to be convinced, he should talk to his new Parliamentary Secretary, who is an expert on this subject.
      How can we encourage British employers to invest in people? Foreign companies recognise the benefits of doing that. They invest up to 5 per cent. of turnover, yet the average input in British industry is 0·3 per cent. The Government are financing schemes, but I urge them not to skimp and ruin the schemes.
      The commission proposes that, in addition to the £10 a week premium, participants should be paid travel costs of over £5 a week. They should also be given any lodging expenses, as well as assistance with other necessary items, such as special clothing and tools. There would also be a payment of up to £50 per week to meet the child care costs of single parents. I accept that the Secretary of State cannot give the precise figures today, but even £10 is more than the Department was wanting to pay. The unemployed are now allowed to earn up to £4 a week.
      Mr. Clay: Does my hon. Friend agree that even that is a little deceptive? Most people's travelling costs will be
      426
      above £5 and will therefore have to come off the £10. The trainee will have to pay those costs himself so, in reality, the sum is not even £10.
      Mr. Leighton: I do not understand how this will be done but, at present, the unemployed are allowed to earn £4 a week without losing benefit, so £10 is really £6. The Department of Health and Social Security estimated about £7 for the costs of travel, clothing and food. That should be added. Instead of driving this sum down, the Government would be well advised to be generous and to obtain full consent for these programmes. The value of the training is most important, but it will be a great mistake to screw down this payment and affront everybody.
      We are all in favour of a high-quality YTS scheme. An article in the October edition of the Employment Gazette dealt with the economic effects of YTS schemes. It referred to the deadweight effect of YTS places, that replace the jobs for young people which would have existed without YTS. It also referred to jobs for older workers which were replaced by YTS trainees. It then referred to output—in other words, value added—by trainees on YTS schemes. They go to work and they produce. What is the value of what they produce?
      The output of service industries—repair of consumer goods and vehicles, retail, distribution and personal services—is above the YTS rate of pay of £27·30, and the trainee produces more than £27·30. According to the article, the output of retail assistants is measured at £39 a week. If one produced £39 a week of added value and was paid only £27 one could describe that as cheap labour. A trainee could be brought in as a substitute for a worker who had been sacked. That is not a good aspect of the scheme.
      According to the article, some YTS trainees are being trained for skills that are not in short supply and could be met without YTS training. That applies particularly to YTS trainees in retailing, which has 25 per cent. of all trainees. Hotels have 7 per cent. of trainees and personal services, such as hairdressing, have 6 per cent. of trainees. Clerical trainees in all sectors account for 10 per cent. of YTS trainees. Those categories account for almost 50 per cent. of YTS trainees. Fifty per cent. of those trainees are in valuable schemes, but 50 per cent. are in schemes where they are not getting proper training, or in areas which are not in short supply.
      The quality of training in retail schemes is less than satisfactory. Several managers in those trades admitted that there would be little to teach second-year YTS trainees. Training for general shop assistants could be provided in a few weeks—for example, just by filling up shelves.
      We want a first-class YTS scheme. We want better quality training. The training allowance should be higher. It is not right to say that we have got everything perfect. We do not want a cheapskate scheme. If we could get a decent, high-quality scheme without cheap labour, we could have a bipartisan policy. Unfortunately, we do not appear to have one at the moment.
      8.30 pm
      Mrs. Golding: The Bill represents yet more centralisation of power, yet more power for the Minister, and the transfer of yet more power to the Ministry. At the moment, in the MSC, employers, trade unions, local authorities and educationists work together in a practical

      427
      way. They talk about things, people and places that they know. To them, they are real places, not just bits of paper in Ministry files.
      For many years, I sat as a trade union member on the old North Staffordshire district manpower services committee. I had a great deal of first-hand experience and knowledge of local training and employment needs. The committee dealt with matters by bringing together employers, trade unions, local authorities and educationists. They were not civil servants. Indeed, civil servants and people from the Ministry would not have had the kind of expertise that members of the Committee had. We knew north Staffordshire's needs.
      The former Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme was the Minister in the Department at that time. Many people in his Department were sceptical about the work of district manpower committees. Never one to duck an issue, the then Minister, the former Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, said, "Right. We shall have a detailed survey of an area. We shall choose north Staffordshire." Departmental officials had relevant details. They went to all employers in the area. They went to schools and every other place that they could think of. They collected a great deal of material. When they had collated the material, they produced a little book and took it along to the committee.
      All that the 20 committee members had said were north Staffordshire's needs were stated in that book. With their survey and expertise, they did not find one matter that the committee, as local people, did not know. We in north Staffordshire talk to each other, we know each other and, furthermore, we like and trust each other. That is the best way in which to deal with training and employment. We know that training and employment go hand in hand, and that they should not be isolated from each other.
      Most certainly, the Department of Employment was responsible for some schemes, but look at what happened to them. The Department let them slip through its fingers. I refer to the job release scheme. Another scheme was put forward by the former hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. It was thought of by an ordinary working man who had practical experience. Perhaps the Minister should talk to more ordinary working people who have practical experience and get some better ideas for schemes. That scheme was scrapped because it was practical. It was a humane way in which to solve a problem, but it was scrapped because the Ministry is the Treasury's lapdog. It was far too practical and expensive for it.
      In the MSC, employers and unions have acted together to try to solve problems. The Ministry has now decided to change the balance of trade union and employer representation on the new committee. The strength of the MSC has always been that trade unions and the Confederation of British Industry have nominated people with a fierce pride in their areas and a determination to fight for their industries, services and workers. The Minister does not want fighters; he wants lapdogs. In future, he will choose people to sit on boards. That choice will not be for unions or the CBI. Oh, no—they are not to be trusted.
      The Bill will give the Minister yet more control, which is what he wants. So much for the Tory idea of local consultation. The clauses have nothing do do with good sense or industry and training needs. The Minister should withdraw them and think again.
      Mr. Tony Worthington: The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) spoke of how the Government have debased the term "training". I thought of my first job. I worked—I stress the word "work"—in a borstal, where I heard the governors's pep talk to new trainees. It was an interesting choice of words. He said, "You are not here for punishment, you are here for training." There was the loudest suppressed raspberry that I have ever heard. When we talk to youngsters, as many hon. Members and I did during the general election campaign, we use the word "training" and we know that we are using a word that has been debased.
      There is great concern about the consequences of the changes. I shall talk about the changes as they affect the adult training programme. There is probably much agreement among hon. Members about the present community programme. We are not happy that it is an overwhelmingly part-time scheme.
      Ms. Short: The Secretary of State would not give way on this point. My hon. Friend will remember that, when the Government introduced the community programme, which replaced the old community enterprise programme, they deliberately introduced much part-time work to keep the wage rate down to an average of £67. They are now using the excuse that, because part-time work produces low wages and therefore cannot attract people with dependants to the benefit-plus system, the solution is to provide full-time places within the scheme. They have manufactured a problem which they have solved by giving people, in effect, £5 on top of their benefit.
      Mr. Worthington: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for covering the next two pages of my speech. Her point should be made many times.
      Due to its design, the scheme became overwhelmingly part-time. Due to its design, older workers find the present scheme unattractive. There are faults in the scheme. Frequently, the community programme relates to work that is more properly done by local social and health services people. We would all agree that it was a major folly to introduce the community programme without an adequate training component. The Government now realise that fact, but they are not putting matters right in the way they should.
      Opposition Members agree that a major fault of the scheme is that wages started too low and, over time, have become proportionately lower. What do the Government do about the faults? They lower wages even further and convert the programme into a full-time programme by using DHSS money, rather than facing up to the inadequacy of funding. They then say that training should come from the same inadequate budget as before.
      I particularly refer to the Government's complete indifference to the consequence of their policy changes on present users of the community programme, those who sponsor the community programme, and its clients. Frequently, its clients are among the most disadvantaged people in our society, for whom the community programme, whatever its faults, has been used by voluntary organisations and local authorities to give services to the elderly, mentally ill and handicapped. I find the Government's indifference to the consequences of these changes disturbing.
      It is all very well to say that, in future, the adult training programme, the community programme with a future,

      429
      should be private-sector led. Where is the private sector in my constituency? The Minister must return and tell us where these training places will come from. At present, more than 90 per cent. of the community programme places in Scotland are local authority or voluntary organisation-led. Who will come forward from the private sector in areas in which unemployment is 20 per cent. and higher, and in which there is no local economy?
      Where is the private sector that will employ—that word is not a term to be used any more—people and provide these training places? I have corresponded with the Minister about this. Will supermarkets and the retail sector be the leaders, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) mentioned in connection with the youth training scheme? Will supermarkets and other large stores provide training places?
      We already know that the Government pay the wages of much of the private sector through job substitution on the youth training scheme. The people of this country subsidise private industry by paying the wages of those firms. That will happen under the adult training programme, too. The workers in retailing, the members of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, are alarmed that, in an industry in which jobs are increasingly low-paid and part-time, they will be squeezed out by the adult training programme.
      The private sector does not exist in my area. The combination of job scarcity and social deprivation in my constituency means that community benefit projects are especially valuable.
      I come now to the consequences of the Bill for the clients of community programmes. In the Clydebank part of my constituency, the MSC has, unbelievably, been the largest single employer. At one stage more than 1,000 workers were employed on community programme schemes in that area. I shall quickly list some of them. The first is a security project, sponsored by the local authorities and voluntary organisations in the area, which greatly improves the quality of life for the elderly and disabled by giving them security in their homes. Crucial to the success of that scheme is the quality of its management and the motivation of its workers, as people are being allowed into private homes. What will the proposals do to the quality of such a scheme?
      What about the care of gardens schemes which are mounted by local councils for the elderly and the disabled, who take pride in their gardens but cannot manage them themselves? For there to be an adequate contract between the people who receive and the people who run that service, the people on the scheme must be well motivated so that the project is well managed. In my area there is a small converted doctor's surgery, which local people have run as a day centre. It is called "The Wee Hub" and it has been established by local people with MSC funds as a day centre for the elderly. They struggle to make it run—they have to keep on changing the staff—but the staff that they find are well motivated and are not induced to be there by the pittance that comes in.
      What about the link schemes in the Glasgow area, where 35 workers provide a service for literally thousands of people who have been mentally ill? Once again, the quality of the scheme is crucial. If I had had my way the community programme would never have been allowed near such schemes. It is fundamentally unsuited to them,
      430
      lacking, as it does, trained workers, and receiving annual funding, but the voluntary organisations have made the scheme work.
      Above all, what about the Crossroads care attendance scheme — 23 MSC-funded projects that provide assistance to those who care for the elderly and the handicapped? The scheme brings in £1·5 million from the MSC each year. Workers go into homes and look after people's nearest and dearest. What will happen to the quality of that scheme? The Government's response is one of total indifference.
      8.45 pm
      The impact of MSC expenditure in Scotland is considerable—£140 million a year. That compares with the Scottish Development Agency budget of £95 million a year. What is done with that money matters a great deal to the economy. The voluntary sector in Scotland is underpinned by £48 million-worth of MSC funds. Those resources are on a scale that the voluntary sector has never had before. That sector has enormously assisted the Government to make their community programme work; now, under these proposals, it will be kicked in the teeth for its co-operation.
      Mr. Clay: Before my hon. Friend moves on, does he agree that there is another angle to his important point about the effect on existing community programme schemes? It reveals the key to the Government's deception over this matter.
      I listened with interest to the list of projects that my hon. Friend gave; I can think of very similar ones in my area, where thousands of people are on such schemes. Some of those schemes—this is not to their detriment—now have nothing to do with training. Dial-a-ride and services for the disabled are two such schemes. The Government are trying to deceive us that the new schemes are about training—that is their excuse for workfare-plus and for cutting the rates of pay. The Government are telling the truth to the extent that the existing community programme schemes will go altogether. They have nothing to do with training. So it is not only a matter of the disappearance of the quality of some of the present schemes: they will disappear altogether if the Government stick to their pretence that they will all be about training from now on.
      Mr. Worthington: I am grateful for that point, and I shall take it further. The Government lack evenhandedness about training. A massive amount of training is needed in the caring industry, in which there would be employment in the Health Service, the social services and in social work. But that sort of work is ignored for training purposes. I emphasise that on the end of these valuable schemes are exceedingly vulnerable groups of people who have come to value their day centres and the people who visit their homes. The schemes have been introduced with no idea of caring for such people.
      I could understand it if the Department of Employment agreed that it needed to change the direction of the community programme and give it another focus in future, saying that it would safeguard people who are benefiting from the present schemes. Such schemes may not make sense as employment training, but as health and social work they make good sense.
      These schemes may or not survive, but even if they do, it will be with a chain gang of pressed personnel —

      431
      people whose motivation may not be of the highest. They will not be paid properly for the job and they will not be given the status of workers undergoing training. The Government have shown a total lack of credibility on the quality of that training and that means that the sensitivity of the schemes is attacked.
      Many of the schemes will not survive. The voluntary organisations will pull out, sometimes causing the collapse of the voluntary organisation itself. As is already occurring, civil servants from the Department of Employment will be obliged to write sick letters to the schemes, regretting that the schemes no longer meet the criteria and telling them that they should seek alternative funding from the NHS—they must be joking—or the local social work department, which suffers from the clawback arrangement whereby if it spends £1 it loses £3, or from the urban aid scheme, and when a scheme does so it is told it is not eligible because it is not a new project.
      Is the Minister aware of the sheer misery which the changes will cause? Even if the Department of Employment should not be picking up the schemes the Government have a collective responsibility. In Scotland, if the schemes do not survive, we are talking about £48 million in social services cuts.
      Where will the money come from to fund projects that are of immense value to the local community? I am pleased to speak in support of the Opposition's amendment which seeks to delete these clauses because of the damage that they will cause to these particular schemes.
      Ms. Short: We have had a useful debate and some important points have been made about the effects of part II. A number of contributions from the Opposition Benches have shown what a dishonest—I use the word advisedly—account of the changes the Secretary of State gave the House today.
      The Secretary of State pretended that there would be some great improvement in the employment services. He went on to describe changes that have already been made — the Department of Employment has taken direct responsibility for the jobcentres and so on, and restart and the rules on availability for work have been introduced—and then suggested that somehow the Bill was necessary to authorise those changes. That is false. The changes that the right hon. Gentleman has described have already taken place, so that is not a true account of part II.
      Let us look at what part II really does. It centralises power and control over training schemes in the hands of the Secretary of State and it takes away the power to be consulted that the Manpower Services Commission — the tripartite body that has been described — had. Secondly, it deliberately takes new powers to compel unemployed people to participate in low-paid schemes and then the Bill dishonestly calls work experience schemes "training". That is what part II is all about, and that is why we reject it.
      The Secretary of State is taking the power to appoint six extra commissioners. At the moment, three commissioners are appointed after consultation with the trade union movement, three after consultation with employers, two after consultation with local education authorities, and the chair is the personal appointment of the Secretary of State.
      432
      That will no longer do. That must be changed. The Secretary of State wants power, so he takes the power to appoint six extra people and they will be appointed to stuff the commission and ensure that it will be his lapdog.
      In Committee, at the request of several organisations representing disabled people, we asked that at least one of those six extra people should be a representative of disabled people. But no, that was not acceptable and the Secretary of State threw out our request.
      Not content with having taken control of the commission by stuffing it with his personal appointees, the Secretary of State has to take away powers that the Commission previously had. Under the Employment and Training Act 1973, the commission was asked to submit proposals to the Secretary of State on training and assistance for the unemployed. It was asked to submit the proposals to ensure that the activities of the commission were in accordance with proposals approved by the Secretary of State and to give effect to the Secretary of State's directions as repeated in this legislation. Therefore, under the 1973 Act, the Secretary of State had considerable powers. The commission could submit proposals, but he had to approve them, and if he wanted to, he could give directions.
      But the Secretary of State was not content with that. Having stuffed the commission, he takes all these powers to himself and away from the commission so that he holds the powers and can give directions to the commission about what it must do, or he can use some other body.
      The House should ask why we should have a commission at all. We know that when the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) was Secretary of State for Employment he made it clear that he did not like the MSC. It was widely thought that that might be because trade unions were represented on the commission and his intolerance and dislike of trade unions is clear to everyone. That is reflected in the earlier part of the Bill. He wanted to abolish the commission.
      My view is that the Government are, in effect, abolishing the commission and are retaining a fig leaf for as long as the trade unions will go along with that so that they can force through any scheme or structures that they want. As I said earlier, the trade union representatives on the commission are now constantly agonising about whether they should go because by staying they give legitimacy to schemes that are destructive and unhelpful to the unemployed, which encourage the use of the unemployed as cheap labour, substitution for other workers and the dragging down of wage levels, or whether it is better to stay and negotiate to make things a little better than would otherwise be the case.
      My personal view — I stress that — is that the Secretary of State is now seeking to humiliate the trade union representatives on the MSC with the changes in the Bill. It is time for them to leave the commission to seek to represent the interests of the unemployed and those who seek training through traditional trade union measures. I stress that that is my view. It is my serious view and it is no good the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), saying that that is a disgraceful view. Trade unions exist to seek to represent the interests of working people and to get the best for them.
      Mr. Fowler rose——
      Ms. Short: If the Secretary of State will wait a minute —as he always requests 0everyone else to do whenever they seek to intervene—I shall give way.
      The long-term unemployed are to be compelled to take part in schemes by threats that their benefit will be removed for six months if they refuse. They have to pay the first £5 of their expenses in getting to work. Therefore, they can be forced to work full-time for £5 a week. The dominant scheme will be work experience, based so that it will inevitably displace other other workers in a way that is described in the YTS statistics that have been put before the House. I do not believe that those proposals are in the interests of the unemployed or of other workers. The trade union movement should not support such things. It is better for them to get out of the commission and seek to defend the interests of working people in other ways.
      9 pm
      Mr. Fowler: The hon. Lady has made a serious suggestion. When she speaks from the Dispatch Box, for whom is she speaking? Is she speaking for the Labour party? Surely that is the purpose of speaking from the Dispatch Box. What is the status of her speech?
      Ms. Short: Perhaps the Secretary of State was not listening. He often does not listen to those who seek to work for the unemployed. I have made it clear that in this matter, this is a personal view. Everything else that I shall say will reflect the position of the Labour party from the Front Bench. I said before that this was my personal view, and I am entitled to put forward that view.
      Mr. Fowler: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Ms. Short: I do not have to give way to the Secretary of State. He refused to give way to me.
      Mr. Fowler rose——
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Lady has made it quite clear that she is refusing to give way. I must ask the Secretary of State to resume his seat. The hon. Lady has twice made it clear that she is not giving way.
      Ms. Short: The Secretary of State refused to give way to me. He has such arrogance that he thinks that it is all right for him to stand at the Dispatch Box and refuse to give way but that somehow he is entitled to intervene whenever he wishes.
      Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: The House should have an answer. If the hon. Lady was speaking from the Back Benches, the House would happily accept that her words are her own personal opinion. However, I find it difficult to listen to the hon. Lady speaking from the Dispatch Box, dismissing her party responsibilities and saying, "This is my personal opionion." We want to know from the Front Bench what is the Labour party's opinion.
      Ms. Short: The hon. Gentleman has just repeated the Secretary of State's question to which I gave a clear answer. On the question whether the trade union movement continues to have representatives on the commission, I said that that is a matter for the trade union movement.
      Mr. Nicholls: What is the Labour party's view?
      Ms. Short: If the Under-Secretary would allow me to answer the question, everyone might be clear about it. I
      434
      have already answered it once, but Conservative Members were not listening, so I will answer it a second time, and then perhaps I can move on.
      Ministers and Conservative Members should understand that the representation of the trade union movement on the commission is fragile. Those in the trade union movement who sit on the commission agonise over whether they should continue to do so. I have had discussions with a number of people who hold those places. The representatives of the trade union movement have to decide whether to remain on the commission. My personal view is that the humiliation involved in part II of the Bill makes it no longer worth staying. Part II——
      Mr. Brandon-Bravo: What does the Labour party say?
      Ms. Short: The hon. Gentleman should stop being silly. Part II of the Bill takes power to pay a bridging allowance of £15 a week for only eight weeks to participants on the youth training scheme. That is necessary only because the Government have removed the right to supplementary benefit from 16 to 17-year-olds and have thus made the youth training scheme compulsory. We consider that a disgraceful move.
      Young people have participated voluntarily in the youth training scheme in enormous numbers. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) made it clear that only very small numbers have been penalised for refusing a place on a scheme. One of the effects of that is to remove from young people the choice about which scheme to enter and what kind of training best suits them. It removes from young people with families on low incomes the choice to remain on supplementary benefit and to study for up to 21 hours a week. Indeed, 30,000 young people a year have been doing that. They have achieved 0-levels and A-levels, and some even went on to university. That option is to be wiped out. If young people need an income, they will be forced onto the youth training scheme. That is a complete outrage.
      Clause 26 takes powers to make the refusal of offers of places on low-paid training schemes—which under the new proposal, will pay £5 a week on top of benefits equivalent to the refusal of a job and to make it possible for the Department to refuse benefit for six months to people who refuse places on those schemes.
      We have heard a lot of equivocation from the Secretary of State about when he expects to use those powers. The report from the Manpower Services Commission about the adult training scheme said that the scheme must be voluntary, or those who proposed it would not support it. The Secretary of State says that he broadly accepts their proposals, but he refuses to withdraw clause 26. He keeps saying that he has no plans at present to designate the new scheme as a compulsory scheme under clause 26. No one would expect him to want to designate it at the present time. One would expect him to hope to get the scheme up and running to provide enough places and then designate it. His words imply that that is his plan.
      In Committee, we asked the Secretary of State to give an undertaking that he would never designate the scheme under clause 26. If the right hon. Gentleman is to respond to the recommendation of the Manpower Services Commission that the scheme must be voluntary, he should be able to give that undertaking. He has refused to do so. All he will tell us is that he has no plans, for the present

      435
      time, to designate the scheme. It seems a fair assumption that he will wait until the scheme is up and running—if he ever gets it—and then designate it.
      Long-term unemployed people will be forced to work for £5 a week on schemes that are basically work experience. The recommendation is merely that 40 per cent. of their time should be on directed training, but 60 per cent. of their training will be spent working, for which they will get £5 a week and no guarantee of any job at the end of it. They will have no guarantee that they will be given any skills to enhance their employment opportunities.
      The whole package of proposals in part II is deeply unacceptable. It means a serious diminution in the incomes and freedom of choice of the unemployed and in the MSC's powers. It means centralisation of power in the hands of the Secretary of State. That is why I invite my hon. Friends to vote that part II be deleted.
      Mr. Cope: I shall do my best to respond briefly to some of the points raised, but I make it clear that many of them concerned the new training programme for the unemployed—which is soon to be the subject of a White Paper and statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—rather than the Bill.
      Some hon. Members, but not all, have understood that the Bill carries forward, and to a degree rearranges, the powers under which existing schemes as well as proposed schemes such as the new training programme can be carried out. The Bill specifically provides for the MSC to carry on those programmes that it operates at the moment. It makes some changes to the commission, the aim being to raise the profile of training. There was considerable support on both sides of the House for that, although I understand that not everyone agrees with the methods that we propose. Employers are the major providers of training and the major customers for it. Employers create jobs, and they need to have a greater say in, and make a greater contribution to, training.
      Of course I do not agree with everything that the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) said in this connection, but I do agree about the fundamental importance of improving training. That must be at the top of our industrial agenda and employers must do more to invest in their work force. That is precisely why we are renaming the MSC the Training Commission and seeking greater employer involvement with the commission and its aims.
      The Bill does not transfer the jobcentres, as the hon. Member for Newham, North-East seemed to suggest. That was done in October, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear. It follows that the transfer is a separate arrangement and not a part of the Bill. I think that both sides of the House are united in wanting quality training schemes. That is extremely important. Unemployment is undergoing the largest sustained fall on record. Over the past six years, 1·5 million new jobs have been created, which gives us the opportunity, which we are anxious to seize, to help the unemployed find new jobs.
      The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) made an interesting contribution, but he was wrong to say that we are indifferent to the type of schemes under the community programme about which he was talking. On the contrary, there will be project places
      436
      in the new scheme, but I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await the White Paper for more details. We are responding to many of the hon. Gentleman's criticisms of the community programme. It is said that much of the work is part-time, that it is unattractive to older workers and married people with dependants and so on.
      We are responding to those criticisms and to the lack of training in the community programme to which the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) drew attention. I thought that the hon. Gentleman came near to saying at one stage that some of the unemployed were incapable of being trained, although I would not wish to attribute that assertion to him if he does not agree with it. We certainly do not agree with that; on the contrary, we believe in making every effort to assist all the unemployed people that we can back into work.
      Mr. Worthington: I am at a loss to know which part of my speech the hon. Gentleman is referring to. I would never ever come anywhere near to saying that.
      Mr. Cope: I apologise if I am misrepresenting the hon. Gentleman. He argued for the community programme, which has to a considerable extent made work for people to fill in their time, and does not supply enough training.
      Other criticisms have been made of the community programme. Much attention has been devoted to the rate for the job and so on. The changes that we propose to the community programme and the benefit-plus scheme are no new ideas. I draw the attention of the House to the Youthaid report published in 1982 on what was then called the community enterprise programme, which was the precursor of the community programme:
      "Consideration should also be given to the possibility of payment on CEP calculated on a 'Benefit plus' basis. The CEP allowance would be topped up by Social Security or Unemployment benefit. This would have the advantage of ensuring that the CEP paid each worker the same amount while those with dependants would get more as a result of the variations in the benefits."
      That is an important criticism, made as long ago as 1982 when, I am informed, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) was director of studies for Youthaid. I do not know whether she agreed with what Youthaid said in its report on CEP. If she did, she has obviously changed her mind.
      Ms. Short: The research on the old community enterprise programme was funded by the Department of Employment. I was the director of studies and not one of the researchers. The recommendation came from the researchers. We discussed it at the time and, although it was not my view, the researchers had done the work and they were entitled to put the view forward.
      Mr. Cope: There has been some confusion tonight about which are the hon. Lady's views and which are other people's, and it helps to get matters clear.
      We believe that training should have a higher profile. We need to get employers more involved in training, and that is central to our proposals. We shall all learn more about the new programme from the White Paper and from my right hon. Friend's statement.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 206, Noes 258.

      Division No. 177]

      [9.15 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Graham, Thomas

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Allen, Graham

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Grocott, Bruce

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Hardy, Peter

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Ashton, Joe

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Henderson, Douglas

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Barron. Kevin

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)

      Battle, John

      Holland, Stuart

      Beckett, Margaret

      Home Robertson, John

      Beith, A. J.

      Hood, James

      Bell, Stuart

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Howells, Geraint

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

      Hoyle, Doug

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Blair, Tony

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Blunkett, David

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Boateng, Paul

      Illsley, Eric

      Boyes, Roland

      Ingram, Adam

      Bradley, Keith

      John, Brynmor

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Kennedy, Charles

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Buchan, Norman

      Lamie, David

      Buckley, George

      Lamond, James

      Callaghan, Jim

      Leighton, Ron

      Carnpbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

      Carnpbell-Savours, D. N.

      Lewis, Terry

      Canavan, Dennis

      Litherland, Robert

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Livsey, Richard

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Clay, Bob

      McAllion, John

      Clelland, David

      McAvoy, Tom

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      McCartney, Ian

      Cohen, Harry

      McCrea, Rev William

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      McCusker, Harold

      Corbett, Robin

      Macdonald, Calum

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      McFall, John

      Cousins, Jim

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Cox, Tom

      McKelvey, William

      Crowther, Stan

      McLeish, Henry

      Cryer, Bob

      McTaggart, Bob

      Cummings, J.

      Madden, Max

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Marek, Dr John

      Darling, Alastair

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Martin, Michael (Springburn)

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

      Martlew, Eric

      Dewar, Donald

      Maxton, John

      Dixon, Don

      Meacher, Michael

      Doran, Frank

      Meale, Alan

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Michael, Alun

      Dunnachie, James

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Eastham, Ken

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Fearn, Ronald

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Fisher, Mark

      Morley, Elliott

      Flannery, Martin

      Morris, Rt Hon A (Wshawe)

      Flynn, Paul

      Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Foster, Derek

      Mullin, Chris

      Foulkes, George

      Murphy, Paul

      Fraser, John

      Nellist, Dave

      Fyfe, Mrs Maria

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Galbraith, Samuel

      O'Brien, William

      Galloway, George

      O'Neill, Martin

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Parry, Robert

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Patchett, Terry

      Gordon, Ms Mildred

      Pendry, Tom

      438

      Pike, Peter

      Spearing, Nigel

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Prescott, John

      Steinberg, Gerald

      Prirnarolo, Ms Dawn

      Stott, Roger

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Strang, Gavin

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Reid, John

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Turner, Dennis

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Vaz, Keith

      Rogers, Allan

      Wall, Pat

      Rooker, Jeff

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Rowlands, Ted

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Salmond, Alex

      Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wilson, Brian

      Sheerman, Barry

      Winnick, David

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Worthington, Anthony

      Short, Clare

      Wray, James

      Skinner, Dennis

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

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

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Snape, Peter

      Mrs. Llin Golding and

      Soley, Clive

      Mr. Frank Haynes.

      NOES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Colvin, Michael

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Conway, Derek

      Amess, David

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Amos, Alan

      Coombs, Simon (Swinoon)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Cope, John

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Couchman, James

      Atkins, Robert

      Cran, James

      Atkinson, David

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Curry, David

      Baldry, Tony

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

      Batiste, Spencer

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Day, Stephen

      Bellingham, Henry

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Bendall, Vivian

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Benyon, W.

      Dover, Den

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Dunn, Bob

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Dykes, Hugh

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Evennett, David

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Fallon, Michael

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Farr, Sir John

      Body, Sir Richard

      Favell, Tony

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Bos well, Tim

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Forth, Eric

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Bowis, John

      Franks, Cecil

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      French, Douglas

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Gale, Roger

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Gardiner, George

      Brazier, Julian

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Bright, Graham

      Gill, Christopher

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Burns, Simon

      Gorst, John

      Burt, Alistair

      Gow, Ian

      Butcher, John

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Butler, Chris

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Butterfill, John

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Greenway, John (Rydale)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Gregory, Conal

      Cash, William

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Chapman, Sydney

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Chope, Christopher

      Grist, Ian

      Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

      Ground, Patrick

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Grylls, Michael

      439

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Porter, David (Waveney)

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

      Portillo, Michael

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Harris, David

      Price, Sir David

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Raffan, Keith

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Hayward, Robert

      Redwood, John

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Heddle, John

      Riddick, Graham

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Hill, James

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Hind, Kenneth

      Rowe, Andrew

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Holt, Richard

      Ryder, Richard

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Howard, Michael

      Shaw, David (Dover)

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

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Shersby, Michael

      Irvine, Michael

      Sims, Roger

      Irving, Charles

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Jack, Michael

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Janman, Timothy

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Jessel, Toby

      Speed, Keith

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Speller, Tony

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Squire, Robin

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Key, Robert

      Steen, Anthony

      Kilfedder, James

      Stern, Michael

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Stevens, Lewis

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Knapman, Roger

      Stokes, John

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Knowles, Michael

      Sumberg, David

      Knox, David

      Summerson, Hugo

      Lang, Ian

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Latham, Michael

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Lilley, Peter

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Maclean, David

      Tredinnick, David

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Trippier, David

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Trotter, Neville

      Madel, David

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Malins, Humfrey

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Mans, Keith

      Viggers, Peter

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Mills, Iain

      Walden, George

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Waller, Gary

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Watts, John

      Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

      Wells, Bowen

      Moss, Malcolm

      Wheeler, John

      Neale, Gerrard

      Whitney, Ray

      Neubert, Michael

      Widdecombe, Miss Ann

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Wilshire, David

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Wolfson, Mark

      Page, Richard

      Wood, Timothy

      Paice, James

      Woodcock, Mike

      Patnick, Irvine

      Patten, Chris (Bath)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Mr. David Lightbown and

      Pawsey, James

      Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

      Amendment accordingly negatived.

    Clause 29

      CROWN EMPLOYEES AND CONTRACTS ETC.
      Amendment made: No. 21, in page 32, line 1, leave out
      'and 10 above and any other enactment which'
      and insert
      3(3) and 10 above and any enactment which is contained in any other Act and'.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]
      Order for Third Reading read.
      9.26 pm
      Mr. Fowler: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      I shall be brief. This is an important Bill, which makes changes in both industrial relations law and in training arrangements for unemployed people. In November when I spoke on Second Reading, I said that the Bill was set against a background in which unemployment had fallen for 15 months in succession by more than 400,000 in the 12 months to that date. We have debated the Bill for 70 hours since Second Reading and three months later it is interesting to see that unemployment has fallen, not for 15 but for 18 months in succession, and not by 400,000 but by more than 500,000 in the past 12 months.
      The provisions give effect to three key proposals on employment and training which we set out in our manifesto. First, the manifesto outlined Our plans to consult on a major restructuring of our employment and training services. Secondly, it foreshadowed a change in the role of the MSC. Thirdly, it guaranteed a place on YTS to every school leaver under 18 not going directly into a job.
      Our plans for reforming the training available to longterm unemployed people underlie these proposals. It is now our major training priority to give the long-term unemployed the skills necessary to bring them back to work. I shall announce the details of this new programme shortly, but I can say that it will make it possible for us to retrain up to 600,000 a year and it represents a massive investment in training unemployed people in skills that they and our economy will need in future.
      The Bill also takes the process of industrial relations law reform a step further. The essence of this step-by-step process of change and reform is a determination to see that the framework of law is appropriate to match the needs of the day and to respond to any omissions that have been apparent. In that spirit, the Government published our Green Paper last February, which put forward issues and suggestions. During the general election, we made it entirely clear and gave full details of what issues we intended to legislate on. No one can claim that we have in any way hidden our intentions. The Bill basically puts into effect the promises we have made.
      The Bill is not— I repeat, not—an attack on trade unions or trade unionists. Many of its provisions simply build upon the examples which some unions have given us of how the rights of their members can be assured. It is concerned with the right framework of law for trade union affairs—the framework necessary above all to protect and ensure the rights which ordinary trade union members want and need. It puts the interests of trade union members first and foremost. That is the essence of our approach.

      441
      The Employment Act 1980 adjusted the balance of power between employers and trade unions. The Employment Act 1982 set out new responsibilities for unions and employees and the Trade Union Act 1984 promoted democratic practices in trade union affairs. The Bill is concerned with giving new rights to trade union members and setting out new ways by which those rights can be enforced.
      Trade union members must have protection from abuses of power by their unions and the rights in respect of their unions that they are entitled to expect in a free society. The Bill gives members the right not to be called out by their union without a properly held secret ballot which produces a majority; the right not to be disciplined by their union if they choose to work rather than to take industrial action; the right of access to their unions' accounting records and to have professional advice when inspecting them; and the right to stop their unions applying funds for unlawful purposes or handing out indemnities to those found guilty of criminal offences. It sets out other rights which will be available to all trade union members.
      Many trade unionists have some of those rights under their contracts of membership with their union, and to that extent the Bill merely confirms them, but there are examples of union rule books and practices which do not guarantee the fundamental rights. All the evidence is that trade union members and the public support the law guaranteeing those rights.
      The Bill has two strands. First, it develops further the training strategy of the Government, builds on the success of YTS and marks out our next priority, which is to provide better training for the long-term unemployed so that they can obtain skills to help them back to jobs. Secondly, on the industrial relations side, the Bill sets out a number of further reforms of the law which will ensure that excessive union power is held in check. But, above all, it gives new rights to trade union members. I commend the Bill to the House.
      9.32 pm
      Mr. Meacher: The Government are good, as we have learnt, at redefining problems they cannot solve so as to pretend they do not exist, and then they give them a new and wholly bogus name. To call the Bill an Employment Bill really does take the biscuit. It is not about employment, it is about keeping the anti-trade union vitriol on the boil. It is not even one Bill, it is two quite separate Bills, one about anti-trade union legislation and one about training programmes for the unemployed.
      It is a Bill that no one wants. The CBI, the Institute of Personnel Management, the Engineering Employers Federation and even the Freedom Association have expressed hostility to main parts of the Bill, none of which the Secretary of State has paid the slightest attention to. The hostility is scarcely surprising, for what responsible person in industry would ever call for a ballot when those who lost were encouraged to disobey the majority verdict, or for a Bill in which the Government took action to prevent a union from disciplining a minority who broke the majority decision? It is official, in clause 3 of the Bill.
      The Bill is the fourth in the Government's string of anti-trade union legislation. For a Government who like to claim respect for the law, the Bill totally undermines the deep respect held by the people for majority decisions democratically reached. Taken to its logical conclusion, it
      442
      will boomerang against the Government. If clause 3 discredits ballots to strike, it also discredits a ballot to return to work. It could lead to protracted disputes even after a negotiated settlement. Is that the kind of industrial relations that the Government believe in?
      What hypocrisy for the Prime Minister, having secured only 43 per cent. of the electorate's vote, to demand unswerving compliance with her laws while at the same time denying trade unions which secure more than 50 per cent. of their votes the power to carry through an overwhelming democratic decision without hindrance. Indeed, in recent weeks we have seen the Transport and General Workers Union receive 88 per cent. of the votes at Ford and the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers receive 90 per cent. of the pit vote.
      The Government are so psyched up by their third election victory that they have gone even further over the top in their vendetta against the unions. Not only are minorities protected if they opt out of majority decisions, but clause 16 requires ballots to be won overall and at each workplace with exceptions that will constitute a field day for lawyers. Clause 16 is designed to break up industrywide collective bargaining and undermine the whole idea of collective rights.
      We may conclude that the Bill is not simply anti-union; it is also profoundly anti-democratic. So it is. The Bill requires every ballot to be carried out by post rather than at the workplace even though the evidence shows overwhelmingly that workplace ballot produce much higher turnouts—in many cases twice as high. I would have thought that a much higher turnout at the workplace, plus the uncertain targeting by post, would have clinched the matter in favour of the former on democratic grounds.
      No doubt the Government believe that exposure to Sun editorials for the postal ballot is considerably more conducive to the right result than exposure to industrial activists at the workplace. It is such a pity that the Government's eagerness to constrain every minute detail of balloting for unions, even to the extent of forcing less democratic methods on them, does not extend to requiring any democratic procedures from employers, the City or the Tory party.
      However, amid all this bad news it is fair to state that there is something in the Bill that looks like a bit of silver lining. The Government are proposing to establish a commissioner for the rights of trade union members. That might appear surprising as not one union member has sought a declaration or enforcement order from the courts in the past four years. That is rather a small area of rights requiring attention when by comparison 30,000 complaints a year are made against the employer for unfair dismissal, of which one tenth are upheld by tribunals.
      That is precisely the problem for the Government, as the Green Paper admits. Trade union members are simply not using the courts. This new agent provocateur, this new commissar for the harassment of trade unions, is being wheeled out to make union members use the courts. That is the first example of nationalisation under this Government of a purely privatised undertaking, the destructive role of David Hart and other industrial malcontents that we saw during the strike by the National Union of Mineworkers. That, writ large, is what the new trade union harassment officer is all about.
      We might have thought that the commissioner would be ideally suited to stand up for the rights of trade union

      443
      members in the GCHQ affair, as that involved the Government as employer trying to remove the basic right to belong to a trade union. However, the commissioner is expressly precluded from taking up such cases. He can act only against trade unions. However, if the Government are genuinely solicitous about the rights of union members, why not extend the commissioner's power to help union members enforce their rights against the employer over health and safety, training, equal pay for work of equal value and redress against unfair dismissal? If the Government are so keen, as they have claimed to be, to "give the unions back to their members" why not let union members elect the commissioner so that they get the person they want?
      What confidence can union members have that the official appointed by the Government—not unknown for their partisan exercise of patronage in sensitive posts — will be impartial, or is the post being kept for industrial wallflowers like Ian MacGregor or as a bolthole for disgraced courtiers like the Secretary of State for Social Services?
      Part 2 deals with training programmes for the unemployed which, as we have already made clear, fail to meet the fundamental requirements which we have outlined. First, the Government's proposal to abolish wages based on the rate for the job and to restrict payment to benefit plus allowance is highly damaging. It will mean that two people doing the same job may get vastly different rates of payment.
      The change to benefit plus allowance would also rule out topping up by managing agents since any income over an additional £5 a week would be deducted pound for pound from the allowance. Paying the rate for the job is the only way to organise temporary employment or work experience for adults. It is essential to help prevent job substitution and undercutting of wages. This principle must remain the basic building block of any new programme. It is not in the Bill.
      Secondly, the scheme must be voluntary. I do not wish to call the credibility of the Secretary of State into question, but I find it difficult to believe him when he says that the new scheme will be voluntary. People should join the scheme because they want to, not because they fear that they will lose all or part of their benefit if they do not join. Compulsion is a recipe for lower standards, resentment and disruption. It could drive the unemployed into the shadow economy or into even greater poverty. Neither employers nor trade unions want reluctant conscripts in workplaces or special projects. Compulsion, together with the reduction to benefit plus allowance, would effectively convert the community programme into the worst kind of workfare, as we have seen in the United States. That is what we believe would happen.
      Thirdly, the only way to guarantee protection for participants is to ensure that they continue to have employee status, which will give them legal protection on anti-discrimination rights, health and safety, industrial injuries and other employment rights. The Government's proposals in the Bill will remove employee status from participants and deny them the right to legal protection.
      Fourthly, trade unions are an essential way of maintaining proper terms and conditions for participants, for ensuring health and safety standards, for preventing abuse of commission rules, for representing participants
      444
      and working to improve training schemes. The cooperation of trade unionists is essential to the success of such schemes. Therefore, trade union approval and monitoring, and endorsement by area manpower boards, should continue to be part of a properly financed scheme based on these four principles. None of the four principles is in the Bill.
      The Bill is not about improving industrial relations; it is about poisoning attitudes to trade unions. It is not about creating employment; it is about undermining collective rights. It is not about enhancing training; it is about removing people from unemployment registers and providing cheap labour for employers. It is not wanted by either side of industry. It is a Bill too far, even by the anti-trade union prejudices of the Government. It will be unremembered and unlamented when the next Labour Government consign it to the dustbin of history.
      9.43 pm
      Mr. Tim Janman: This excellent Bill has my wholehearted support. One of the most important and essential ingredients of the Bill is clause 3 which defends the right of an individual to follow his conscience on whether he joins an industrial dispute, and removes from him the fear of having to live under the threat of a jumped-up little Hitler of a shop steward who will bang him over the head if he dares go against the wishes of the union.
      Opposition Members have rightly pointed out that people have to consider what the reaction of their colleagues will be when a dispute is over and they return to work. They are absolutely right about that. It is useful to see Opposition Members at last recognising that one cannot legislate to change human nature. That is a factor which individuals have to weigh up when considering whether to join a dispute.
      However, it is wholly unacceptable when unions such as the National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers, can expel 500 teachers, as it recently did, because those individuals put the needs of their customers — in this case, their pupils — before other matters that their conscience said were less important. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) had experience of that sort of travesty when he was expelled from the NAS-UWT in 1979.
      Unions are unique. There is no parallel between a trade union and an employer and there is certainly no parallel between a trade union and a golf club, as we heard suggested by Opposition Members in Committee. It is interesting to note the reaction of Opposition Members who are saying that there is a degree of state interference coming into trade unionism. They are always the first to stand up and defend state interference in the way in which an employer conducts his business. If we look at the amount of legislation and the regulations that employers have to put up with, we see that it is still far more than anything that is happening in this Bill with regard to trade unions.
      The way in which Opposition Members have ranted and raved about the Bill would lead one to think that we were giving the minority the right to veto the majority. Clearly, we are not. Clause 3 merely gives the individual the right to follow his conscience, and rightly so. It is a good clause and I support it, as I am sure do most of my hon. Friends.
      Other major elements of the Bill are the two clauses relating to the closed shop—clauses 10 and 11. Much

      445
      was made by Opposition Members of the Freedom Association's rather woolly thinking on clause 3 but they did not mention the essential caveat made by the Freedom Association, which was the ending of the closed shop.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) and I said in Committee that we remain sceptical about the ability of clauses 10 and 11 to have any effect on the pre-entry closed shop. We welcome the commitment from the Minister in Committee that if clauses 10 and 11 do not have the desired effect, the Government will come back to legislate further to ensure that the closed shop — an odious concept, totally incompatible with a free society or free labour markets —is completely removed from our way of life.
      I should like to make two quick points on clauses 12 and 13. First, I hope that the Government will carry out the commitment made in Committee to introduce a clause in the Lords for election addresses to be made a requirement of postal ballot elections. I hope that the Government will consider bringing forward a code of conduct for the nomination procedure for people who are to be nominated for the posts of general secretary and president, which are non-voting posts on the executive.
      Clause 7 does not go anywhere near far enough. It is a travesty that millions of people in this country are being coerced into paying money to a political party that they neither support nor vote for. We have heard much from the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) about democracy in all sorts of organisations, including the Conservative party. However, I am sure that there is no organisation as foolish as the Labour party, which allows block votes which include millions of people who do not vote for the party or support it.
      I know that the Government will not do anything in this Bill, but I hope that one day we will bite the bullet of contract-in and contract-out and that we will legislate to say that if somebody wishes to pay the political levy, they have to volunteer to do so. At present millions of people are conscripts in the army of the Labour party.
      I support the Bill, as do the vast majority of my hon. Friends. It will enhance democracy, freedom and accountability of trade unions and their leadership.
      9.48 pm
      Mr. Harry Barnes: The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) is as tolerant of trade unions as he is of ethnic minorities. His views on this matter are listened to as little as his views on racial issues.
      The Government's approach to trade union measures is just like their approach to many other measures which they are pushing through the House. They have discovered that the step-by-step approach, in which one measure follows another in rapid succession, begins to have an effect if they take action, not by dealing with unemployment, but by encouraging developments whereby unions and others find themselves in a weak position to negotiate. We can learn some lessons from the Government's techniques in respect of trade unions and put them into practice when we come to office and reverse those measures to regain sanity in trade union matters.
      There is a double tactic in the Bill, as there is in the local government legislation. Theoretically, the Government are pushing for a free and open market and arguing about a correct balance of power between capital and labour. Anyone can see that the balance which the Government have been trying to correct—they see it as an imbalance
      446
      —has gone to such a ridiculous extreme that trade union organised labour is in such a poor position that it cannot defend the interests of its members. This is a further measure in that direction. Paradoxically, when the Government push such measures in the name of a sacred free market and of a balance of power, they do so by enhancing central control, as with local government legislation.
      The role of the MSC and the commissioner is presented by the Government as a sea change. There is the almost obligatory change of name from the Manpower Services Commission to the Training Commission. The Government appear to believe that, by changing its name, they can make people forget their original criticisms of an organisation. It is like using new language to describe Sellafield, but people learn about organisations from the way they operate and changes of name do not alter people's attitudes towards organisations.
      This change of name fits into a general pattern of a Tory version of newspeak. We all know about George Orwell and about Ingsoc. The Government have developed their own form of "ingcon" whereby words are changed to soften public images. For example, the poll tax is called a community charge and cuts are renamed efficiency savings. The measure has nothing to do with unemployment. People will be expected to forget their experiences of the MSC because it is to be called a Training Commission.
      Let us examine the record of the MSC since the Government came to power in 1979. Since then, the number of unemployed has doubled and the Government have put millions of pounds into the MSC and its various schemes. During that time, the MSC was transformed from a benign, consensual, bipartisan, independent body, which role was assigned to it by the right hon. Member for Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and the last Labour Government, into the image of the market place.
      Education and training are now targeted at the employer as customer rather than at the individual. The Government are supposed to be concerned about the individual. As an employee and citizen, the individual is not considered in the Education Reform Bill or this measure. Under the Tories, the MSC's aim has been to deliver a cowed, cheap work force to the lowest bidder. Its aim has been to reduce the expectations and attitudes of a generation who have been denied real jobs and given poor training. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in one of his franker moments, said, training is not so much low-tech as no-tech. We should remember the comments of the chairman of the MSC in 1981:
      "the young should be the source of cheap labour."
      Yesterday, in a programme entitled "File on Four", the monetarist guru, Patrick Minford, frankly admitted that which politicians cannot admit; the new adult training scheme is about reducing wages. That is the Government's hidden agenda. We know that the NHS is not safe in their hands. We now know that rights, pay and conditions at work are equally unsafe. The Bill worsens an already bad situation and inevitably moves us towards more compulsory labour schemes and workfare.
      The Government cures unemployment for 16 to 18-year-olds by coercing them into cheap labour schemes or low-paid jobs. They introduced a new adult training scheme, on which claimants will work for benefit-plus. That is as near to workfare as the Tories can get at the moment. That it is getting closer to workfare was

      447
      demonstrated in Committee by the Tories' argument during the debate on clause 26. That clause expands the reasons for which unemployment benefit can be withdrawn. It used to be for six weeks. It is now to be increased from its current level of 13 weeks to 26 weeks. Under the Social Security Act 1975, unemployment benefit can be confiscated if a claimant
      "has without good cause refused or failed to avail himself of a reasonable opportunity of receiving training approved by the Secretary of State … for the purpose of becoming or keeping fit for entry into, or return to, regular employment."
      Those words have been withdrawn from this legislation.
      In this legislation, those 19 words will make a crucial difference. No longer will training have any relevance or purpose for the individual. An individual can be coerced into cheapjack training schemes or face the prospect of living even further below the poverty line than he does at present. The training measure demonstrates the depth of the legislation, and I urge hon. Members to vote against it.
      9.58 pm
      Mr. Spencer Batiste: On Second Reading, as vice-president of the Conservative Trade Unionists organisation, I wholeheartedly welcomed the legislation for the dramatic improvement that it will make in the lot of rank and file trade unionists. Time is short, so I shall not deal with all clauses, but simply say that the organisation again welcomes the Bill. It has already had its first notable success, even before it has become law, by forcing the National Union of Mineworkers to have an election for its presidency. I expect that, when the Bill becomes law, there will be many more notable successes in the years to come. I warmly commend it to the House and wish it well in its further passage.
      9.59 pm
      Mr. Strang: We are fundamentally opposed to the Bill, which is anti-trade union, centralist and authoritarian. It seeks to concentrate more power over training in the hands of the Secretary of State. The Government are suppressing organisations in our society that seek to dissent, which is why they have abolished the GLC and the metropolitan counties, and why they attack our trade unions.
      The Bill was brought out, and the decisions about it were taken, in the hope that the Conservative party could make political capital in the run-up to the general election. All the evidence shows that, day by day, more and more people are coming to recognise that, far from the legislation helping to solve industrial disputes, it will make it harder to do so. They are beginning to understand that the Bill will not enhance democracy in the workplace: it will diminish it. Above all, more and more people are beginning to recognise that it is in their interests that trade unionists should have more power in the workplace—
      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. Alan Howarth.]

Employment Bill
Question again proposed, That the Bill be read the Third time.
Mr. Strang: We support a constructive role for trade unionists in our society; that is why we shall vote against the Bill tonight.
10 pm
Mr. Cope: I arranged with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to respond to any new points that were raised by the Opposition on Third Reading, but there were none, so I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 219.

Division No. 178]

[10.00 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Aitken, Jonathan

Colvin, Michael

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Conway, Derek

Allason, Rupert

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Amess, David

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Amos, Alan

Cope, John

Arbuthnot, James

Cormack, Patrick

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Couchman, James

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Cran, James

Aspinwall, Jack

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Atkins, Robert

Curry, David

Atkinson, David

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

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Day, Stephen

Baldry, Tony

Dickens, Geoffrey

Batiste, Spencer

Dorrell, Stephen

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Bellingham, Henry

Dover, Den

Bendall, Vivian

Dunn, Bob

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Durant, Tony

Benyon, W.

Dykes, Hugh

Bevan, David Gilroy

Emery, Sir Peter

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Evennett, David

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Fallon, Michael

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Farr, Sir John

Body, Sir Richard

Favell, Tony

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Boswell, Tim

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Forman, Nigel

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Bowis, John

Forth, Eric

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Fox, Sir Marcus

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Franks, Cecil

Brazier, Julian

French, Douglas

Bright, Graham

Fry, Peter

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Gale, Roger

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Gardiner, George

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Gill, Christopher

Buck, Sir Antony

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Budgen, Nicholas

Glyn, Dr Alan

Burns, Simon

Goodlad, Alastair

Burt, Alistair

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Butcher, John

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Butler, Chris

Gorst, John

Butterfill, John

Gow, Ian

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Gower, Sir Raymond

Carrington, Matthew

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Carttiss, Michael

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Cash, William

Greenway, John (Rydale)

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Gregory, Conal

Chapman, Sydney

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Chope, Christopher

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

Grist, Ian

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Ground, Patrick

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Grylls, Michael

449

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

Hanley, Jeremy

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Hannam, John

Page, Richard

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

Paice, James

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Patnick, Irvine

Harris, David

Patten, Chris (Bath)

Hawkins, Christopher

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Pawsey, James

Hayward, Robert

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Heddle, John

Porter, David (Waveney)

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Portillo, Michael

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Powell, William (Corby)

Hill, James

Price, Sir David

Hind, Kenneth

Raffan, Keith

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Holt, Richard

Rathbone, Tim

Hordern, Sir Peter

Redwood, John

Howard, Michael

Rhodes James, Robert

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Riddick, Graham

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Hunter, Andrew

Rost, Peter

Irvine, Michael

Rowe, Andrew

Irving, Charles

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Jack, Michael

Ryder, Richard

Janman, Timothy

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Jessel, Toby

Sayeed, Jonathan

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Key, Robert

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Kilfedder, James

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Shersby, Michael

Knapman, Roger

Sims, Roger

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Knowles, Michael

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Knox, David

Speed, Keith

Lang, Ian

Speller, Tony

Latham, Michael

Squire, Robin

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Stanbrook, Ivor

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Steen, Anthony

Lilley, Peter

Stern, Michael

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Stevens, Lewis

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

McCrindle, Robert

Stokes, John

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Maclean, David

Sumberg, David

McLoughlin, Patrick

Summerson, Hugo

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Madel, David

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Major, Rt Hon John

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Malins, Humfrey

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Mans, Keith

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Maples, John

Temple-Morris, Peter

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Mills, Iain

Thornton, Malcolm

Miscampbell, Norman

Thurnham, Peter

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

Tredinnick, David

Monro, Sir Hector

Trippier, David

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Trotter, Neville

Moore, Rt Hon John

Twinn, Dr Ian

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Moss, Malcolm

Waldegrave, Hon William

Neale, Gerrard

Walden, George

Neubert, Michael

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Waller, Gary

Nicholls, Patrick

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

450

Warren, Kenneth

Winterton, Nicholas

Watts, John

Wolfson, Mark

Wells, Bowen

Wood, Timothy

Wheeler, John

Woodcock, Mike

Whitney, Ray

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Widdecombe, Miss Ann

Wiggin, Jerry

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wilshire, David

Mr. David Lightbown and

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Mr. Alan Howarth.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Flynn, Paul

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Anderson, Donald

Foster, Derek

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Foulkes, George

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Fraser, John

Ashdown, Paddy

Fyfe, Mrs Maria

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Galbraith, Samuel

Ashton, Joe

Galloway, George

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Barron, Kevin

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Battle, John

Gordon, Ms Mildred

Beckett, Margaret

Graham, Thomas

Beith, A. J.

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Bell, Stuart

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Bennett, A. F. (D'nfn & Ffdish)

Grocott, Bruce

Bermingham, Gerald

Hardy, Peter

Blair, Tony

Harman, Ms Harriet

Blunkett, David

Haynes, Frank

Boateng, Paul

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Boyes, Roland

Heffer, Eric S.

Bradley, Keith

Henderson, Douglas

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Hinchliffe, David

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Holland, Stuart

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Home Robertson, John

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Hood, James

Buchan, Norman

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Buckley, George

Howells, Geraint

Callaghan, Jim

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Canavan, Dennis

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Illsley, Eric

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Ingram, Adam

Clay, Bob

John, Brynmor

Clelland, David

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Jones, leuan (Ynys M6n)

Cohen, Harry

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Coleman, Donald

Kennedy, Charles

Corbett, Robin

Lambie, David

Corbyn, Jeremy

Lamond, James

Cousins, Jim

Leighton, Ron

Cox, Tom

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

Crowther, Stan

Lewis, Terry

Cryer, Bob

Litherland, Robert

Cummings, J.

Livsey, Richard

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Cunningham, Dr John

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Dalyell, Tarn

McAllion, John

Darling, Alistair

McAvoy, Tom

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

McCartney, Ian

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

McCrea, Rev William

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

McCusker, Harold

Dewar, Donald

Macdonald, Calum

Dixon, Don

McFall, John

Dobson, Frank

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Doran, Frank

McKelvey, William

Duffy, A. E. P.

McLeish, Henry

Dunnachie, James

McTaggart, Bob

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Madden, Max

Eastham, Ken

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Marek, Dr John

Fearn, Ronald

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Fisher, Mark

Martin, Michael (Springburn)

Flannery, Martin

Martlew, Eric

451

Maxton, John

Pike, Peter

Meacher, Michael

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Meale, Alan

Prescott, John

Michael, Alun

Primarolo, Ms Dawn

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Radice, Giles

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Reid, John

Morgan, Rhodri

Richardson, Ms Jo

Morley, Elliott

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)

Robertson, George

Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

Robinson, Geoffrey

Mowlam, Marjorie

Rogers, Allan

Mullin, Chris

Rooker, Jeff

Murphy, Paul

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Nellist, Dave

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Rowlands, Ted

O'Brien, William

Ruddock, Ms Joan

O'Neill, Martin

Salmond, Alex

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Sedgemore, Brian

Parry, Robert

Sheerman, Barry

Patchett, Terry

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Pendry, Tom

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

452

Short, Clare

Walley, Ms Joan

Skinner, Dennis

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Wareing, Robert N.

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

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

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

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Snape, Peter

Wigley, Dafydd

Soley, Clive

Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

Spearing, Nigel

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Steel, Rt Hon David

Wilson, Brian

Steinberg, Gerald

Winnick, David

Stott, Roger

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Strang, Gavin

Worthington, Anthony

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Wray, James

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Turner, Dennis

Tellers for the Noes:

Vaz, Keith

Mrs. Llin Golding and

Wall, Pat

Mr. Frank Cook.

Wallace, James

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Inner London Education Authority
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): A large number of hon. Members wish to take part in this short debate. I hope that speeches will be relatively brief.
10.15 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I beg to move,
That the draft Precept Limitation (Prescribed Maximum) (Inner London Education Authority) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.
I shall try to follow your injunction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by being reasonably brief, because I understand that many hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate. I am sorry that my opposite number, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), has been ill for the past few days. I hope that he can soon return to the House and to Committee upstairs.
Last Thursday, I announced the Government's intention to wind up the Inner London education authority and to secure the transfer of education responsibilities to local councils from 1 April 1990. Today's debate concerns the financing of the authority in the forthcoming year. This order limits the precept which may be made by ILEA for the financial year 1988–89.
The precept maximum set out in the draft order has been arrived at after careful consideration. It is the product of a six-month process during which I have taken full account of the representations put to me by the authority, both in writing and in person. In a moment I shall briefly summarise that process, but before I do so I think it may assist the House if I set the order before hon. Members in its wider context.
ILEA is the largest education authority in the country. Like other inner-city authorities, it caters for communities which face a wide range of social and economic problems. However, the Government's assessment of need to spend takes account of such factors as concentrations of ethnic minorities, one-parent families, poor housing conditions and low family income, yet ILEA's budgeted spending in 1987–88 is a massive 75 per cent. above its grant-related expenditure assessment.
A comparison of ILEA's unit costs with those of other city authorities highlights its inefficiency. According to the latest figures from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, the outer London boroughs are spending on average £1,100 per primary pupil. So are Manchester, Newcastle and Liverpool. Birmingham is spending just £900 per pupil. ILEA is spending £1,700 per pupil. The outer London boroughs are spending £1,700 per secondary pupil. Liverpool, Newcastle and Manchester are spending between £1,750 and £1,950 per pupil. ILEA is spending £2,600 per pupil. No other authority has unit costs which approach those of ILEA.
ILEA secondary schools on average have five more support staff than schools in outer London boroughs. They have nine more than schools in metropolitan areas as a whole. ILEA spends four times as much per pupil on school meals as the outer London boroughs on average and more than three times as much as metropolitan districts. It employs twice as many administrators and inspectors per head of population than the outer London
454
boroughs and more than three times as many as the metropolitan districts. This shows that ILEA is a massive bureaucracy.
ILEA has become a by-word for high spending. It is by no means a by-word for high performance. Survey research suggests that ILEA ranks 86th among LEAs—practically at the bottom — in terms of the straight percentage of school leavers achieving five or more 0- levels at grades A to C or CSE grade 1, but is at the top of the league for spending per pupil. How best to allow in the assessment of performance for socio-economic factors is acknowledged to be a thorny issue, but the point is that however one does it ILEA's performance is disappointing. In other words, London's ratepayers are not getting good value for money.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Secretary of State has made a number of extremely contentious points. Will he tell us about the exam results? What proportion of ILEA pupils spend all their time from the age of five up to the age at which they take the exams in ILEA schools? Is it not true that London has a large turnover of population and many of those children spend only part of their time in ILEA schools? It is extremely difficult to judge the performance of an authority on exam results when pupils move in and out of the area.
Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman is not right about that. He specifically mentioned pre-five schooling. ILEA has some very good nursery schooling of which it is proud. But however one looks at the results—whether one tries to put a gloss on them or doctor them—the plain fact is that the results from ILEA are very disappointing by any standard.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Baker: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall continue, because I know that several hon. Members wish to speak.
Since taking powers to limit precepts for selected authorities in the Rates Act 1984, the Government have sought to protect the inner London ratepayer from the high rate levels which are a result of ILEA's overspending. But ILEA has made precious little attempt to get control of its cost base. It has eroded its reserves and resorted to measures that impose further burdens on ratepayers in the longer term rather than tackle the root causes of its overspending. The authority spent £55 million more than its expenditure level set by the Government in 1986–87. Its budget for the current year is £80 million more than the implied expenditure level for the year — that is more than 8 per cent. So in the last two years alone, overspend has reached some £135 million.
ILEA is automatically designated for precept limitation in 1988–89 under section 68 of the Local Government Act 1985, as it has been for the past two years. But even if designation had not been automatic, ILEA's continued high spending would have brought it well within the criteria for selective designation. —[Interruption.] If hon. Members who do not represent ILEA areas wish to speak on ILEA matters, we should welcome it. I am glad that —[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a short debate and there is too much comment from a sedentary position from both sides of the House.
Mr. Baker: It is a short debate. Most of the interruptions seem to be coming from the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). As I was saying, against the background of overspending that I have outlined, the Government are clear that a firm approach is needed to limit the burden that ILEA is placing on London householders and businesses alike.
Members should note that I have been prepared to listen and respond to the representations that ILEA has made to me. I have been prepared to—[HON. MEMBERS: "You have not."] I say to hon. Members who say that I have not listened that I have listened. I have listened carefully to representations. I increased the expenditure level——
Mr. Bernie Grant: What about parents?
Mr. Baker: It is a pity that Opposition Members follow in this House the customs that they learnt in some of the town halls of London. I would say only that I have listened. I have increased the expenditure level by £15 million, from £955 million to £970 million. Since October——
Mr. Corbyn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Baker: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I think I should pursue my speech. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."]
Mr. Baker: I shall be delighted to give way —[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I realise that the House feels strongly about this matter. However, it is a short debate, and it will be very much better if we have short speeches without interruptions.
Mr. Corbyn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Baker: I shall be delighted to give way.
Mr. Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State tell the House how many parents of ILEA children he consulted before introducing this monstrous order and why he feels that he has the power to impose an undemocratic diktat on the children and parents of all inner London schools?
Mr. Baker: The diktat was enshrined in statute in 1985 in the Act that abolished the Greater London council, and the rate precept and expenditure level principles have operated for the past four years.
Mr. Bernie Grant: How many parents?
Mr. Baker: I can tell the hon. Gentleman, who keeps shouting from a sedentary position, that I have consulted ILEA representatives and the chairman of ILEA as I am obliged to do. I have listened to their representations and have met them on several occasions. They put their views to me and I listened most carefully. Having listened to those representations, I decided to increase the expenditure level by about £15 million.
In December, I announced a redetermined expenditure level of £970 million with a requirement that the additional £15 million should be used only in connection with the one-off costs to which ILEA had drawn my attention. It said that it would put forward proposals, and I acknowledged the point made by the authority that in order to secure substantial savings from reductions in staffing levels it would need to incur one-off redundancy costs. It asked, would I please help with them? I increased the expenditure level by £15 million because, being a reasonable person, I listened to reason and responded.
456
At the same time I proposed a precept maximum of 80.56p to enable the authority to raise the £970 million. In so doing I assumed that the authority would end the current year with revenue balances of about £30 million. I made no allowances for the drawing down of balances to relieve the precept.
Mr. Frank Dobson rose——
Mr. Baker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would allow me to continue.
In January the authority rejected the proposed precept maximum. It sought to raise an additional £73·5 million. That is £100 million less than its original demand. It made the demand and said that unless I agreed to the higher figure education in London would be ruined. Next time round the authority's demand had been reduced by £100 million, and that in itself is interesting. Nevertheless, as a result of its reduced demand, it required a precept increase that was 6p higher than my proposal.
I again considered carefully all that the authority had to say, including arguments about upward pressures on spending and the difficulty of securing savings in the first year of a programme of reductions. I decided to add to the precept maximum that I had originally proposed to allow the authority to raise another £15 million, or £985 million in total. The revised precept maximum is 81·8p, and that is 2p or 2·5 per cent. higher than the current year's precept.
Mr. Dobson rose——
Mr. Baker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue.
Then I laid before the House a draft order which would, if approved, enable me to prescribe a precept maximum of 81·8p. I did so because I am concerned to have the final outcome fixed by 15 February, the date set out in the Rates Act 1984 to avoid the uncertainty associated with the use of interim procedures, and so that there is no cause for ILEA to delay in implementing the measures necessary to live within the precept income that the maximum would raise. I made it clear that I was prepared to withdraw the order if agreement on the precept could be reached. However, the authority has rejected my revised figure.
Mr. Simon Hughes rose——
Mr. Baker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way.
As a result of the moves that I have made, the precept maximum in the draft order will allow the authority to raise £30 million more than the original expenditure level and £42 million more than the current year's expenditure level. The authority has said that this precept maximum will damage the education service in inner London. I do not accept that. In absolute terms, the redetermined expenditure level is over 50 per cent. above ILEA's GREA for 1988–89. The authority should be more than able to provide an adequate education service within that sum.
I recognise that the scale of reductions implied by the precept maximum —involving a cash cut of £40 million compared with the authority's budget for 1987–88 —represents a tough challenge.
Mr. Dobson rose——
Mr. Baker: I shall give way in a moment.
The effect on the service will depend on how the authority responds to that challenge, on whether it acts

457
quickly to implement a savings package and manages that package effectively. I am satisfied that the precept maximum is reasonable and achievable, given responsible action by the authority.
Mr. Dobson: In view of the Secretary of State's announcement of the intended abolition of ILEA, does he think that ILEA will incur any expenditure in the next financial year because of the break-up of the authority? If so, what allowance has he made?
Mr. Baker: I do not think that in the next financial year ILEA will incur any expense in its break-up. I shall invite ILEA and the different London boroughs, whether Conservative, Labour or Liberal-controlled, to come and speak to my Department. I have set up a unit to do that so that there can be a proper, controlled transfer of education responsibilities. Costs will be incurred in the second year and the year of transfer.
Mr. Simon Hughes: The Secretary of State said that he consulted colleagues and officers. Can he tell the House why his colleagues on ILEA did not endorse yesterday the precept rate that he brings to the House today?
Mr. Baker: I have spoken to virtually all groups, although not to the Liberal group. Conservatives came to make representations to me. [Interruption] They must make up their own minds. They made their view clear to me when I saw them that substantial savings could be made in ILEA without any reduction in the service in inner London. They all strongly supported my statement last week to abolish the ILEA within two years.
I have given thought to the effect of the precept on ratepayers in inner London. The maximum is 2–5 per cent. higher than the current year's precept, and it will add about 1 per cent. to the average rate bill. The authority's original estimate of its needs would have added 18 per cent. to the current precept and nearly 8 per cent. to rate bills. That would have meant £75 more in rates for the owner of a three-bedroomed, semi-detached house in Camden and £300 more for the average shop. Its subsequent proposal for the precept would have added nearly 9 per cent. to the precept and an extra 4 per cent. to rate bills. It would not be right to impose those increases on ratepayers who are already overburdened as a result of ILEA's past overspending.
For those reasons, the draft order has been laid before the House and I ask the House to approve it. It is now up to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) to make the case for ILEA and increased spending. That case rests on the need for extravagance, the importance of waste and the virtue of incompetence. I leave it to him.
10.32 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: First, I apologise on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) who is ill; he would have liked to be here to make this case.
Last Thursday the Secretary of State came to the House as the messenger from the knackers' men to announce the slaughter of ILEA. He has returned tonight to announce that not content with slaughter, he wants to torture it. Will he come next week to inflict some further punishment to please his masters in the Tory party who seem to have a paranoid hatred of ILEA? It would be worrying enough if it was a hatred of a democratically elected body, but it
458
is worse, because it is an attack on the education of 280,000 London children. His proposals to abolish ILEA and to penalise it financially this year will have a devastating effect on the education of those children. When he claims, as he did in the general election, that the Conservative party is anxious to raise standards, he should think hard about how he will lower standards of education in ILEA over the next two years.
I shall be brief because many of my hon. Friends feel angry and wish to speak. Can the Government guarantee that all those ILEA schoolchildren will not suffer over the next two years as a result of these cuts? What did the Secretary of State's professional advisers tell him about the practicality of imposing the cuts, not over 12 months but over six months? We must always remember that a school's financial year starts part way through the year, and commitments cannot be varied until the following September. The Secretary of State is imposing the cuts on schools from September. The professional advice from Mr. Rigg, the director of finance, and Mr. Stubbs of [LEA is that it will be impossible to do it.
The least that the Secretary of State could have done would be to say that he had received professional advice which suggested that the cuts were possible. But he has insisted that his officials keep quiet, because they cannot come up with advice on how to impose the cuts in the time scale envisaged.
About 75 per cent. of ILEA's expenditure is on staffing, and it will be extremely difficult to impose such cuts without harming the curriculum for pupils in ILEA schools.
The Secretary of State claimed that ILEA was profligate. He criticised its school meals expenditure, but he should remember that almost 50 per cent. of ILEA pupils take free meals. That shows the deprivation in the ILEA area. The Secretary of State should be proud of the fact that the authority wants to ensure that children get enough to eat and can benefit from their education. He should remember that the free school meals service was introduced because children could not benefit from their education. It looks as though he wants to return to the days when children could not learn properly because they were not properly fed.
The Secretary of State mentioned the expenditure on secondary school places. But through the assisted places scheme he is happy to pay sums that are far in excess of the money that ILEA spends on places such as those at Westminster school. If it is good enough to spend money on the assisted places scheme, why is it not good enough to spend money on all secondary pupils in ILEA? Why should they be penalised so that the Government can confer a privilege on the small group of children who obtain assisted places?
Since 1981, ILEA's expenditure has increased by about 45 per cent. The expenditure of the outer boroughs has increased by about 40 per cent., so ILEA has not done well compared with them. But the shire counties' expenditure has increased by 46 per cent. Let us consider the model of someone who should have shown financial propriety—the Secretary of State and his Department. During the same period, the Department's expenditure increased by 51 per cent. If it is so bad that ILEA's expenditure has increased by 45 per cent., is it not appalling that the Department's has increased by 51 per cent.? No doubt the right hon. Gentleman can justify his expenditure. I suggest that ILEA can justify its expenditure.

459
The Secretary of State has had clear warnings from his professional advisers that if the cuts are imposed standards will fall. The Minister of State who will reply to the debate must prove to the House that standards in ILEA will not fall. Instead of continually running down ILEA, the Secretary of State should have recognised that ILEA has good nursery education and that it was involved in curriculum innovation long before the Government thought that it was fashionable. The Hargreaves report and the Thomas report not only discuss curriculum innovation, but demonstrate that many ILEA schools have been doing that for many years.
The Secretary of State should recognise ILEA's record on access by mature students to higher education. The White Paper on higher education pays lip service to the importance of attracting back mature students, but the Government do little about it. ILEA has a record second to none in attracting back mature students from working-class and ethnic minority backgrounds, and the Secretary of State should have paid tribute to it. It has an extremely good record on special education. The right hon. Gentleman has given us no evidence that the cuts are practical.
My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said that the cuts were announced two weeks ago. Since then, the Government have completely reversed their policy on ILEA and decided to abolish it. It will be almost impossible to impose the cuts. Even if there was a smooth running organisation to carry out the cuts, there would be great difficulties and hardship. However, the Secretary of State will not have that smooth organisation. He has thrown the organisation into complete turmoil. As ILEA is broken up, almost all the middle ranking officers in the authority will be considering their futures. They will not be sure that they will get jobs with the new borough authorities and they will be tempted to move out of ILEA. There will be great uncertainty. The Secretary of State is imposing two problems on ILEA— the problem of the abolition of the authority and the massive cuts in the first period.
Why on earth did the Secretary of State not take the order back to the Department and say that the Government have created a completely new situation with the proposal to abolish ILEA and that they would have to revise the order? That would have been the only honest thing for the Government to do. However, he is ploughing on with his paranoid hatred of the authority.
We have still not discovered what the Conservatives have against ILEA except that, on the whole, ILEA has been a beacon for good education standards —[Interruption.] It is all very well Conservative Members laughing, but if they visited the schools, they would find high-quality education in the vast majority. Perhaps ILEA should have proceeded with some of its reorganisation of the secondary schools to take account of falling rolls, but on many occasions it was the Government who delayed those logical reorganisations. The Government interfered when ILEA tried to go ahead with proposals for tertiary education. If there is any blame for ILEA being slow to take account of falling rolls, the Secretary of State and his predecessors must share some of the blame.
I ask my hon. Friends to express their anger at the Government's behaviour towards ILEA and to vote against the order.
10.41 pm
Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I think that Opposition Members who are very wound up about this order tonight and about the Government's decision to end the inner London education authority rather imagine that something very sudden has developed and that this is the result of a new initiative which is quite unfounded and rather too hasty.
I would like to remind the House of the debate and the questions and answers that took place as long ago as 1981 when the Secretary of State for Education and Science at that time — Mr. Mark Carlisle as he was — after an extremely careful review, decided that the Inner London education authority should be permitted to continue. It was a very difficult balance of argument at that time. But I would like to remind the House of one of the things that he said in his statement on 4 February 1981:
"It is up to ILEA to put its house in order. It must recognise that the right to precept entails the obligation to spend responsibly. If ILEA systematically abuses the rating system by unchecked extravagance, additional financial controls will be needed. The Government are now considering what further measures they would take to meet that situation."
There could not have been a more sincere or clear warning from my then right hon. and learned Friend. I think that in retrospect he was being too trusting and too optimistic as things have turned out.
I spoke in the questions after the statement and among the things that I said was:
"will he proceed at once to place an upper limit on ILEA's expenditure in the coming year and not merely to rest on threats that if it overspends the Government may reconsider their position at some future date?"—[Official Report, 4 February 1981; Vol. 998, c. 297–300.]
I cannot say that I received from my right hon. and learned Friend a very satisfactory reply. So a few weeks later I and a number of other hon. Friends representing areas within the Inner London education authority brought in a Bill—the Inner London Education Authority (Expenditure Control) Bill—on 13 April 1981. It was signed by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton), Martin Stevens, the former Member for Fulham, my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) and myself. The Bill's long title said:
"The Bill provides that the expenditure limit of the Authority shall be calculated by reference to the average cost of education per child in the remainder of England and Wales plus an element for London weighting to be determined by the Secretary of State."
I want to take the opportunity of the debate to pay tribute to many of the people in ILEA who are extremely dedicated, high quality educationists who do their utmost for the children. But we must recognise that ILEA is an enormously expensive authority for the results that it is achieving. I believe that is because its whole structure was misconceived from the start. It was always too large and unmanageable, bound to become a heavily bureaucratic organisation and bound to be an oppressive weight on the ratepayers.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) asked what the Conservatives have got against ILEA. What we have against ILEA is the hundreds and hundreds of pounds per ratepayer that have to be paid

461
because of the precept, when we believe that the results we are getting for our money are not sufficient to justify the expense. This is why there is such an outcry for reform.
There is another side to the question. It is not simply a question of providing lavish and wonderful education for London. We have to think of where the money is coming from. In the case of my borough it is coming often from people who can ill afford the rates that they have to pay and who are building up a bitter resentment against ILEA because they feel that their money is being taken from them and wasted. This is not a situation that my right hon. Friend can allow to continue.
I entirely support my right hon. Friend's move to place an upper limit on ILEA's expenditure. I do not think that ILEA will be handicapped if it has these millions to spend. I think that my right hon. Friend has got the balance right. On behalf of my ratepayers, I hope that the order will be well received and will be passed by a substantial majority.
10.46 pm
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I have been telling the Secretary of State in Committee that he is a very special person. Indeed, he seems to me to come into that category which The Times was referring to in an editorial in 1967 when it said:
"High politics are unsuitable for the ordinary man. Great Prime Ministers Winston Churchill and William Pitt were sociable drinkers; Lloyd George and Palmerston could not be trusted with women; Chatham, perhaps the greatest of all, was actually mad."
Having heard the Secretary of State talk about the precept tonight, and having listened to his proposals on the abolition of ILEA, I confidently predict that the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) will be even madder than Chatham.
To describe the Secretary of State's attitude towards ILEA as vindictive would be to utter a pathetic euphemism and to fail to invest in the richness of the English language which would allow us to pour hatred, scorn, venom, ridicule, derision and loathing on his many absurdities.
The first part of the right hon. Gentleman's plan is to create financial and administrative chaos, and in the process to ignore the advice of the two people who have statutory responsibilities in this sphere, that of the director of finance, whose responsibility comes under section 73 of the Rates Act 1984, and that of Mr. William Stubbs, the education officer, whose responsibility comes under the Education Act 1944. I am slightly surprised that the Secretary of State is prepared to ignore the advice of Mr. Stubbs since he is about to give him a prestigious post as head of the funding council for the polytechnics. If he thinks that Mr. Stubbs is such a brilliant man, perhaps the Secretary of State can explain why, when Mr. Stubbs presents such an honest view of the ILEA budget, he utterly ignores that view.
The Secretary of State's problem is that he moves from false premises to false conclusions by a logic that is not merely faulty but positively mystifying. Therefore, I am led to believe that the argument is not about logic but that we are talking about a brute political batte. Unfortunately, the firepower is not evenly distributed. Indeed, it reminds me of the battle which took place between the Rawalpindi and the Scharnhorst in November 1939. I know about that battle because my father died aboard the Rawalpindi. The Rawalpindi was a little merchant ship with a bit of tinplate and peashooters which masqueraded as guns. The
462
Scharnhorst was the pride of the German fleet, a massive battleship which blew this little boat out of the water. I liken the Secretary of State to the captain of the Scharnhorst and Neil Fletcher, the leader of the I LEA, to Ludovic Kennedy's father, who was the captain of the Rawalpindi.
The force that the Secretary of State has is the political force of an arrogant majority in the House. It is the votes in the Lobby, the right of all Secretaries of State not to answer awkward questions in the House; it is the ability, if necessary, to produce guillotines in the House to get their measures through. Poor Neil Fletcher has one thing only. The only thing he has on his side is the moral authority that ILEA exercises and which is backed up by parents, children and teachers. Unfortunately, in this world, moral authority does not carry one very far and I suspect that Neil Fletcher will end up like Ludovic Kennedy's father—dead.
I have seen the papers that ILEA has presented to the Secretary of State and, in my view, it has argued a powerful case. However, the Secretary of State's response illustrates the substantial disadvantages in according to the Secretary of State centralised powers over local matters and powers that he is exercising without responsibility. The power to fix the precept rests with the Secretary of State but the responsibility rests with the two chief officers in ILEA. Effectively, the Secretary of State is telling David Riggs and William Stubbs that he is going to usurp and arrogate to himself executive powers that ILEA's officers should hold.
I have spoken to the officers at ILEA and they said that they have been talking not to the Secretary of State but to civil servants at the Department of Education and Science. When those civil servants have been pressed by ILEA's officers to say where the extra cuts can come from, they said, "The Secretary of State has looked at this"—I use their words—"in the round." Of course, the phrase "in the round" is a euphemism for the fact that the Secretary of State does not know what the hell is going on in ILEA.
The Secretary of State seems to think that one can close down schools rather as one can close down a factory at British Leyland or a British Coal pit. I do not pretend that it is easy to close down a British Leyland factory or a British Coal pit. However, if one starts to close down schools, which is inherent in the proposed huge cutback, the Secretary of State has to ask himself about the processes involved in dealing with 1,000 schools and colleges. How is ILEA supposed to offer a core curriculum to 1,000 separate institutions and then start to close some of them down without extraordinary rearrangements? First, there has to be lengthy negotiation with the staff of those institutions; by statute, there have to be extraordinary negotiations with the Department of Education and Science, there has to be a reorganisation of the remaining schools, one has to rejig the pupil-teacher relationship and reorganise the core curriculum. The Secretary of State has ignored every practical problem. Therefore, ILEA wins the argument and tonight the Secretary of State wins the votes.
However, things will get worse. I shall end on this point because many people want to speak. Phase two of the awful mechanism that the Secretary of State is putting into effect comes next Wednesday when we shall witness one of the constitutional outrages of the post-war years. —[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Flarrow, West (Mr. Hughes) can tell me when this last happened.

463
We are to have a Second Reading debate next Wednesday and we do not have available any of the new clauses that will be debated. There will be a debate on new clauses that will be produced on a subsequent day, probably Friday week, and they cannot be amended. My question to the hon. Member for Harrow, West is, when did the House last have a Second Reading debate on a major political issue without having any clauses before it and when the Bill could not be amended? I am not the one who is caught praying in aid the House of Lords, but if the House of Lords wishes to consider a constitutional issue, it is that we shall not be able to debate the Bill next Wednesday, and we shall not be able to amend clauses. That is an outrage and something of which a basically liberal, decent Secretary of State should be thoroughly ashamed.
11 pm
Mr. John Bowis: The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) is a little confusing. One moment, he predicts that we shall have a Chatham on the Government Front Bench, and the next minute he tries to close pits. We have enjoyed and been edified by the hon. Gentleman's membership of our Standing Committee. We have grown used to his predictions for the future of hon. Members and, indeed, members of ILEA and so on. I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman, who had such a distinguished career at the Bar and in the Civil Service, and had wealth and influence, should while away his evening years on Opposition Benches. We welcome him and enjoy his contributions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I should like to extend the courtesy to other Opposition Members.
It is said that the best form of defence is attack. I do not suggest that the Opposition's defence is attack. There is no question of the Government attacking inner London education. The Government and Parliament are defending ratepayers and, ultimately, the education of children and students in inner London. That is what the measure is about. The Labour party knows that it cannot defend the indefensible—ILEA's expensive bureaucracy—so it tries to attack the modest restriction on overspending by that education authority.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: The hon. Gentleman referred to the modest measure. Does he agree that it represents an 8 per cent. cut in ILEA's expenditure for next year? Will he address the logistical problem that the Secretary of State did not mention, which is that roughly five twelfths of the cut will apply to the school year that will finish in August? Therefore, the effective cut will be around 14 to 15 per cent. for the next school year. Does that not pose a threat to children and ratepayers, for whom he expressed concern?
Mr. Bowis: I entirely accept that there is a cut. It will come as a great relief to the ratepayers of inner London, who would otherwise have had to pick up the tab. I agree also with the hon. Gentleman's implied criticism of ILEA for, over the years, getting itself into this position, having had the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams). The only explanation for overspending that the Opposition have given is that there is a degree of deprivation in inner London. If there is deprivation, and if it justifies ILEA's double spending on education, why, why are ILEA's results so poor?
464
I represent a constituency in division 10 of ILEA. That division covers the Wandsworth borough. By all the criteria of deprivation, Wandsworth is not as badly off as its neighbouring boroughs. One would expect the results in the boroughs to be better. There is less deprivation than is to be found in other boroughs, but unfortunately the results are worse than in many other areas. That does not add up, even in ILEA's terms.
Mr. Chris Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman apply precisely the same argument to the expenditure of the Metropolitan police? Even if we remove the national functions of the force from our consideration, it still costs twice as much per head of population as any other force in the country. Furthermore, it has a worse success record than other forces. "Why, why", to quote the hon. Gentleman, does that occur?
Mr. Bowis: A national force with diplomatic and other special responsibilities cannot be compared with other forces. The hon. Gentleman should not knock the Metropolitan police, because in the area which I represent its result are getting better year by year. Let us defend the police as well as the education service.
In inner London there is twice the spending on education that is to be found in the rest of the country. The number of young people in inner London leaving school with five 0-levels or more, or CSEs grade 1, has reached the dizzy height of 10 per cent. Only 10 per cent. reach that standard or level before they are sent out into the job market, and the national average is 20 per cent.
Let us take the other side of the coin. In inner London, 20 per cent. of school leavers have no qualifications, which is twice the national average. At the same time, twice the national funding goes into ILEA schools. It is unfortunate that the results of school leavers within the area are only half as good as the national average.
Money alone is not the criterion by which we should judge ILEA. The key factor is the way in which money is spent. Funds must be redirected with a view to maximising the help that is given to ILEA schoolchildren. That will be done only if we enable the boroughs to spend on behalf of the children in their own areas. Money must be targeted to where it can be used most effectively.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: In which and how many of the schools in the hon. Gentleman's constituency does he foresee staff being lost?
Mr. Bowis: We are discussing the results of ILEA, not its administration. In the division which I represent there is only one secondary school that achieves results that are above par for ILEA, and that is a voluntary-aided Catholic school.
Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bowis: I shall continue because I know that many hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate.
There are many ways in which money that is directed to ILEA is misspent or badly spent. If we are to get the right education in inner London, we must get the funding and the ethos right. I read stories in the press about schoolboys being encouraged to dress in girls' clothes as part of a scheme to eradicate sexism. I read that boys aged up to seven years dress in skirts and petticoats and carry handbags. It seems that they are taught embroidery and play with dolls while girls play with engineering sets and toy cars as part of ILEA's scheme to combat sexism and

465
stereotyping. This is happening — [HON. MEMBERS: "What is wrong with it?"] Presumably money is being paid to people to go to the ILEA schools to tell the staff to follow this course. That is an example of the way in which moneys are being wasted and misdirected. I accept that that may have been done a year or two ago.
Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman obviously did not hear the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). Will he now tell us which schools, and how many teachers in his constituency, he proposes to axe, so that they can know what he is voting for tonight?
Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman did not listen to the answer I gave before. I spoke of raising standards by directing funds into the schools and away from bureaucracy. That does not necessarily mean teachers. It means getting rid of the bureaucratic nonsense that I have been talking about.
As another example, I shall quote from a letter I received this week from the department of environmental design at the North London polytechnic, in the school of architecture, Holloway road:
"I confirm that the above named student is at present engaged in the preparation of a major design project for the final year of the diploma in architecture (Hons.) course. Therefore any appropriate assistance you will be willing to render to this student will be very greatly appreciated by the school of architecture"—
and so on. The letter from the student reads:
"I am a student in my final year at the polytechnic of North London, studying for a postgraduate diploma in architecture. For my final comprehensive design, I have chosen to design a brothel. Although it is a hypothetical exercise the aim is to make our projects as realistic as possible in preparation for the real world after college. I therefore need to collect as much information as I can on my subject in order to form a thesis to support my scheme."
That is ILEA—[HON. MEMBERS: "Tell us another.]" No doubt there are many others.
Not only does ILEA vastly overspend in the wrong ways, its children and schools—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House wants to hear how this is going to develop.
Mr. Bowis: The answer is clear. In the long run—I hope it will not be too long—we must remove our children and students from ILEA's care. In the meantime, we must certainly pass this modest measure to ensure that costs to inner London are reduced, and to direct spending on education to the chalk face — to the children and students—because that is where it belongs.
11.8 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) complained about education to avoid stereotypes; he might have benefited from that himself.
We should not approach this subject by giving silly examples, such as those that the hon. Gentleman produced. Even if the letter he read out was serious, which is highly unlikely, the hon. Gentleman should have addressed the real issue. ILEA is an education authority in inner London, with the most deprived concentration of population in the country. It is the largest education authority in Europe, and everyone in it accepts that improvements can be made. No one is uncritical of it. But what will be the effect of this financial order?
466
Although there is certainly room for improvement in ILEA, the Secretary of State cannot say that it is the worst authority in the country. Some Tory education authorities have academic standards below those of ILEA. The Secretary of State says ILEA costs a great deal. As the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) told him, the Metropolitan police, with the lowest clear-up rate in London, costs relatively more. Inner London's health services, with the longest waiting lists, cost more. They are run by political appointees of the Government, not of the Opposition. Personal social services in inner London cost much more than those of any other local authority.
The authority, with a budget of £1,000 million, is being asked to lop off about £100 million. With no argument to back up his case, the Secretary of State is saying that that can be easily accepted. Even the right hon. Gentleman's party colleagues yesterday, in the building across the river, did not vote for his proposal. They abstained when it came to it because the people at the chalk face, as the hon. Member for Battersea described them, Tories elected to run education in London, elected directly by the people of London—the parents and ratepayers—know that LEA cannot cope with that cut and properly survive.
The reality is that £120 million must be lost. Seventy per cent. of costs are staff and 14 per cent. are fixed. ILEA is already committed to sums for this school year. Many savings could not begin until next year. Cuts take time to work through. It is an impossible requirement. Last year the Secretary of State said that a 7 per cent. cut would be a tough target to meet, yet this year, on top of that, there is this further cut.
ILEA has not said that it will not talk or is not willing to make savings. It has said that it accepts that the Conservatives, with their 41 per cent., won a general election, even though in inner London they won hardly any seats. It has said that it accepts that it must reduce its budget. —[Interruption.] The Conservatives may have won one seat, but the majority of ILEA members are not Tories. As hon. Members well know, the vast majority belong to the Opposition. The electors of inner London, who voted specifically for this education authority, by an overwhelming majority gave that trust to members of a party other than the Secretary of State's.
The reality is that there will be cuts not just in administrators but in people at the chalk face. That is why the hon. Member for Battersea should begin facing up to where the cuts will fall. They will fall on the children of the families whom he represents. They will fall on the students who hope to continue their education after 16. They will fall on people who have trained to be teachers and will no longer to be able to be teachers in the part of Britain that most needs qualified and competent teachers. They will fall on people who at the moment benefit from what is recognised as one of the best special education local authorities, not just in Britain but in the western world. The cuts will fall on the mentally and physically handicapped, who will not be able to have the resources they need and on the nursery schools for single-parent families that will not be opened. The hon. Member for Battersea deceives himself if he thinks that the people of inner London do not value education more than that.
Worse than that is the fact that the Secretary of State proposes that education should go to the boroughs—the same boroughs that he, when he was Secretary of State for the Environment, regularly condemned. He will be

467
handing on to them a rundown education service, starved of funds, with a lack of repair, staff and commitment. He knows what happened when the GLC was abolished. Long before it went, senior officers left. Long before it went, many people jumped ship for the sake of their careers. At the end, the GLC no longer had key officers.
As has been made clear, the rate has been set by the Government with no suggestion from the Secretary of State of where the cuts should be made. He has suggested no budget but has simply said that ILEA must accept this cut.
The esimates do not even agree with the estimates from officials of ILEA of what is required and committed. There has been no proper consultation, in spite of what the Secretary of State would say.
Matters are even worse in London — for three reasons. First, in London three quarters of the money comes from the business rate, none of it from the taxpayer. The ratepayers have paid for the lot.
The domestic rate in London for ILEA has gone up only 78p per week in the past seven years. That is not a massive increase charged to the ratepayers. That is not vast additional expenditure. I wonder whether the ratepayers in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) or in my constituency would consider that that was too much to pay for the education service in inner London.
In ILEA there has been a 45–1 per cent. increase in spending between 1981–82 and 1987–88. In the whole of England, including ILEA, spending has increased by 45·3 per cent. Spending in ILEA has increased less than the average for the whole country, in spite of the need and the deprivation and in spite of the fact that some primary schools in my constituency have 28 different mother tongues. Comparatively, ILEA spends less than other services.
ILEA has been funded by the ratepayers. The Secretary of State is determined not to listen to the facts. That is why he received no support in county hall yesterday. Perhaps the red sky on the south bank, sadly because of the fire at St. Thomas's hospital, symbolises Baker's delight at the demise of education in London.
The Secretary of State once was committed to education. Now he is committed to undermining it for the people who most need it. It is disgraceful. The order will be resisted even if we cannot win the vote.
11.16 pm
Mr. George Walden: I wish to do something that has been almost unprecedented in the Chamber recently and base my comments on some of the remarks made by Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) stressed that ILEA is a democratically elected authority. The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) considered that Mr. Neil Fletcher has a one-man moral majority—I believe that the hon. Gentleman said that he had moral force. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) stressed that the funding of ILEA and its abolition were inseparable. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) asked whether there would be any extra expenditure by ILEA in the next year— —[Interruption.] I am trying to help hon. Members by summarising their cases.
468
I shall draw together those points. We must remember that the Government, Conservative Members and Opposition Members share one fundamental problem about London — parental apathy. That is linked with what has been said by Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch spoke about the moral force of Mr. Neil Fletcher. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the turnout in those direct elections was 44–04 per cent. of the population. In the hon. Gentleman's own constituency the turnout was 33.89 per cent. What sort of representation, moral force and democracy can be based on a turnout which, in my opinion, is not even a quorum of the electorate? What does that mean? It means that coupled with the degeneration of the Labour party —some obvious examples of that are present—ILEA is run by a doubly unrepresentative clique of people. That is not the fault of the Labour party—
Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Walden: No, I shall finish my point. It is the fault of parental apathy. Over the next few years, ILEA, because it is an unscrupulous organisation, will need extra money to spend on campaigning to perpetuate itself in the face of the Government's decision to abolish it. The Government must use every legitimate means at their disposal to communicate directly with parents in inner London and explain to them not the points that will be better explained by The Sun and other newspapers, or spending details, but the facts about education standards.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should let parents know about the relative underachievement of ILEA compared with the rest of the country. He should also let them know how disgruntled London employers are about school leavers who are not fit to hold down jobs. He should also let London parents know, in simple, understandable language, that comparisons can be made between the underachievement of ILEA, after account has been taken of all the social problems with which it has to deal, and comparable European countries that provide a better education service.
Unless the Government show imagination during the wind-up period, the people of London will not agree with the Government's decision. They have been conditioned to accept low education standards. Unless the Government do their best to win the propaganda war, they will have a difficult political dispute on their hands. The Opposition will do their best to draw attention away from the central point of low education standards. That has already happened. Mr. Neil Fletcher is no longer speaking as he did two months ago. He no longer talks about the inadequacies of ILEA schools; he talks about how wonderful they are. I advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to recognise that that will be the key to the winding up of ILEA.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman lectured us a few moments ago about the need to put the Government's case to London parents. There is to be a survey of the opinion of those parents. If their opinion is massively in favour of the retention of ILEA, would the hon. Gentleman recommend the Government to scrap this measure, or would he advise them to override the opinion of London parents?
Mr. Walden: I have already answered the hon. Gentleman's question. I made it clear that the

469
Government will have a political problem on their hands in trying to convince some London parents. There is educational apathy in London, which is reflected in the figures that I have given. I could give more. This is not necessarily a party political point. An analysis of the turnout in the different boroughs shows that the opinion of London parents is not related directly to prosperity. It is a social problem that is caused by educational apathy. If the hon. Gentleman will listen for a moment, he will be completely convinced by what I have to say.
I am suggesting that the Government ought to try to overcome that apathy. There are people who live in this capital city who are culturally accustomed to low expectations and whose attitude has been hardened by ILEA's policies. I thought that the hon. Gentleman would have understood, from what I said earlier, that that was my point.
11.24 pm
Mr. John Fraser: I suppose that I should declare an interest, in that I went to a London county council school, my children went to an ILEA comprehensive school, my wife works for an ILEA school and I have been the governor of several ILEA schools. I wish that Conservative Members, especially Ministers, would declare their interests in these matters. If they were to declare the kind of schools which they attended and to which most want to send their children, we would understand the gulf between the thinking of the people who impose this order on ILEA and that of those who have to suffer its effects.
The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) was asked about the design of a brothel. I do not know why the letter was written in those terms, but if such a letter were addressed to the Secretary of State, it would invite his opinion on the design of a slaughterhouse. He should hang his head in shame. He comes to the House with a view to decimating ILEA, which is what he is doing in the order by taking away one tenth of its resources, and next week he will propose to the House ILEA's destruction.
The Secretary of State came to the House with no enthusiasm for ways in which ILEA could be reorganised to accept the 10 per cent. cut, but with a vicious enthusiasm for the cut without any constructive suggestions on the way in which it should be imposed. There will be a cut across the board. We have heard how difficult it is to impose a 10 per cent. cut in expenditure in the middle of the school year. It will mean a cut of 4,400 in the number of teachers. It will mean the closing of 100 schools and the cutting of 4,800 support staff or, put another way, the abolition of every second nursery school place in inner London. That is the nature of what the Secretary of State asks us to approve.
The Secretary of State is not asking ILEA to slim down. He is asking it to amputate a limb, because he is asking for cuts that are so sudden and deep in their surgery that they are bound to cause irreparable harm to ILEA through shedding staff, depleting the number of teachers and causing redundancies. The only thing in which the right hon. Gentleman took pride was the £15 million allocated not for employing staff but for sacking them.
The order represents an act of class warfare. It is an act of class warfare in the punning sense of the word, in that it attacks the child in the class. It is also an attack by the privileged, the affluent and those who, on the whole, have no experience in ILEA against those who have to struggle
470
against the drudgery of poor, unskilled jobs and the even worse drudgery of unemployment. The Secretary of State is asking my constituency in the borough of Lambeth not only for cuts in ILEA but for cuts by the local authority.
What have the Government done to us? They have given us 25 per cent. male unemployment—I use the expression "male unemployment" because it is an effective measure of unemployment across the board—and taken away tax revenue by increasing rates, VAT and insurance contributions. The Government have taken away our jobs, homes and housing benefits. Act after Act of this Government has increased the deprivation and despondency in and instability of the inner city area that I represent.
Many children in the outer London boroughs who are leaving school face a 4 or 5 per cent. possibility of unemployment. In inner city areas such as mine, because of the background and tradition of housing, deprivation and poverty, the risk of unemployment for youngsters is probably sometimes as high as 50 per cent. There is only one way to climb the ladder and escape from the cage of the inner city—usually through the chance of education. Conservative Members, from the Secretary of State downwards, try to convince us that the way to improve the chances for those children to escape is to cut resources, not increase them.
Mr. Gerald Bowden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Fraser: No, I am not giving way. This is a bitter attack——
Mr. Bowden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Fraser: If the hon. Gentleman can defend Dulwich, I shall defend Brixton. This is a bitter attack by the privileged on the deprived, which we shall vole clown tonight.
Mr. Bowden rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It seems clear that the hon. Gentleman is not giving way.
Mr. Bowden: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) giving way?
Mr. Fraser: I have finished, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has finished. Mr. Gerald Bowden.
11.31 pm
Mr. Gerald Bowden: Opposition Members should recognise that for the past 10 years the Conservative group on ILEA has presented an alternative budget, costed by the finance staff of ILEA, which showed a rational reduction in expenditure. If that had been accepted, ILEA would not now have to face these rather harmful cuts. The suggestions would have reduced the support staff and the extravagant and cost-inefficient services that back up ILEA—but not to the benefit of children — and would not have reduced the efficient delivery of an education service. Whenever a Socialist authority is faced with the need to make a cut it looks at the broom and cuts the bristles—the working edge—when it could take two inches off the handle.
11.32 pm
Ms. Mildred Gordon: The Inner London education authority has been accused of being a high-spending authority. As hon. Members have already pointed out, London is a special case. The Metropolitan police spends double the amount that other police authorities spend to less effect. The social services too spend more. But I want to ask Conservative Members how much per child they pay for their children's education in private schools. The most grubby little private school with unqualified teachers is charging £2,000 per head, and public schools charge double that. The other day I telephoned a tutorial college to which people from all over the country—and, indeed, from other countries—send their children for intensive coaching if they fail their 0 and A-levels. That costs £8,000 to £10,000 a year. Therefore, I reckon that we are getting very good value from ILEA.
ILEA has been attacked over its examination results. A recent survey by Sheffield university showed that ILEA's examination results are on a par with those of many other authorities. And examinations are only one side of the picture. We get a high-quality comprehensive service from ILEA. Adult education and education for special needs are used and much appreciated by adults and children living within a wide radius of London. I get letters from constituents who have never had the chance of further education who want to know what is to happen to Morley college. I would like the Minister to answer that, because people are very worried about that centre of excellence.
Mr. Walden: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms. Gordon: The hon. Gentleman has had his say.
Mr. Walden: Will the hon. Lady give way? [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) has made his speech. It is clear that the hon. Lady does not intend to give way and time is now getting very short.
Ms. Gordon: The research and development carried out by ILEA has been used all over the country. Its initiatives include the Hargreaves report on secondary education, the Thomas report on primary education and the Fish report on special needs. Those reports were all valuable additions to educational knowledge and are useful to educationists throughout the country.
When we talk about standards of education we cannot ignore social conditions. The ILEA serves seven out of the 10 most deprived areas in Britain. I was a teacher and I know about children who live in overcrowded conditions and who sleep, sometimes six to a room, head to feet on the floor. They do not get a decent night's sleep and however well money is spent, however good the teachers and the standard of education, it is hard for children to learn when they are tired. Many children have no quiet place in which to do their homework. That is another disadvantage that the Secretary of State is not taking into account.
Many children have no books at home and do not get a head start. —[Interruption.] Conservative Members should listen to this because it is important. Children often come to school in the morning without food having been put in their mouths. Government policies mean that for many families the money runs out halfway through the
472
week. Thousands of teachers in London and in other parts of the country keep a packet of biscuits in the cupboard. When the children come to school in the morning the teachers give them milk and a couple of biscuits because they know that the children are hungry.
ILEA should be given more than the amount of money needed to keep up with inflation. The money should not be cut. More should be provided and school breakfasts should be given to children who need them. That is what we should have in a civilised society. The Government will please their friends in the City of Westminster by keeping down rates at the expense of London's underprivileged children. They are using the same shameful tactics on ILEA as they are using on the Health Service. They are using the tactic of starving an organisation of resources in order to reduce services with which the public have been more than satisfied. If they reduce those services to a standstill, it will pave the way for the destruction of the Health Service and the abolition of ILEA.
11.38 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): Year after year the Inner London education authority has claimed that the sky will fall as a result of precept limitation. I should like to quote from an ILEA committee paper that gives advice from ILEA's finance director and its education director about the prospects for balancing the budget given the precept maximum that my right hon. Friend was about to set. It says:
"Although on paper such a budget might balance, in practice it would rely on such a combination of financially favourable factors as to be incapable of achievement."
That paper is dated 9 January 1987. The budget in 1987–88 was balanced. The issue of overspending was barely tackled by ILEA. Its spending is outstandingly high relative both to the grant-related expenditure and in comparison to any other authority.
However, in determining the expenditure level and the precept maximum my right hon. Friend took into account all the factors relevant to the authority's circumstances. He listened to oral and written representations by ILEA on both matters and on each occasion made a positive response. Opposition Members have accused him of being vindictive, but that is not the action of a vindictive man.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) took issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) because my hon. Friend quoted from a letter which he had received from a young lady studying at the North London polytechnic and designing a brothel. Today I went to the polytechnic to make a speech to the students and this young woman showed me her design for a brothel. My only sadness was that I was not competent to advise her on whether it was a good or bad design.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister give way? Mrs. Rumbold: ILEA's assessment of the reduction in spending required in 1988–89—
Mr. Bennett: Will the Minister give way?
Mrs. Rumbold: —has come down from——
Mr. Bennett: Give way.
Mrs. Rumbold: No, I will not.
Mr. Bennett rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mrs. Rumbold.
Mrs. Rumbold: ILEA—
Mr. Bennett: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House expects the Front Benches to set a good example. Mrs. Rumbold.
Mrs. Rumbold rose——
Mr. Bennett rose——
Mr. Clive Soley: On a point of order—
Mrs. Rumbold: I have an important point to make and I want to make it.
Mr. Bennett rose—
Mr. Soley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On several occasions recently members of the Government have made allegations which have turned out to be untrue. Is it in order for the Minister to make an allegation which is probably untrue and then not to give way to have it tested in the normal way of this House?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a matter for argument, not a point of order for the Chair. I call Mrs. Rumbold.
Mrs. Rumbold rose——
Mr. Bennettrose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is an important debate. There are strong feelings about the matter and we have only a few minutes left. I hope that hon. Members will give the Minister an opportunity to answer the debate properly.
Mr. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of State has made a serious accusation against ILEA. She should answer this simple question: was that course financed by ILEA or was it financed by the Government?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is for the Minister to say what she wishes, and she has only two minutes in which to do it.
Mrs. Rumbold: Opposition Members should listen to the Government's arguments and the reasons why they set such a precept for the Inner London education authority. There is a justification for it. The authority's assessment of required spending has come down from 15 per cent. to about 11·4 per cent. as the process continued, partly as a response to my right hon. Friend's representations. The reduction for which we are asking need not be as steep as ILEA claims, but much will depend upon the way in which the authority controls its upward pressures on spending.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State took full account of the authority's estimate of its base line for spending in 1988–89 in reaching his decision on expenditure and on the precept maximum. Its estimates were among the matters in front of him when he increased the proposed precept to allow ILEA to raise an additional £15 million—
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted Business).
The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 153.

Division No. 179]

[11.45 pm

AYES

Aitken, Jonathan

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Fox, Sir Marcus

Allason, Rupert

Franks, Cecil

Amess, David

Freeman, Roger

Amos, Alan

French, Douglas

Arbuthnot, James

Gale, Roger

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Gardiner, George

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Atkins, Robert

Gill, Christopher

Atkinson, David

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Glyn, Dr Alan

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Goodlad, Alastair

Baldry, Tony

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Batiste, Spencer

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Bellingham, Henry

Gorst, John

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Gow, Ian

Bevan, David Gilroy

Gower, Sir Raymond

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Green way, Harry (Ealing N)

Body, Sir Richard

Greenway, John (Rydale)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Gregory, Conal

Boswell, Tim

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Grist, Ian

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Ground, Patrick

Bowis, John

Grylls, Michael

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Brazier, Julian

Hampson, Dr Keith

Bright, Graham

Hanley, Jeremy

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

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

Burt, Alistair

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Butcher, John

Hayward, Robert

Butler, Chris

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Butterfill, John

Heddle, John

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Carrington, Matthew

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Carttiss, Michael

Hill, James

Cash, William

Hind, Kenneth

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hordern, Sir Peter

Chapman, Sydney

Howard, Michael

Chope, Christopher

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

Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Colvin, Michael

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Conway, Derek

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Hunter, Andrew

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Cope, John

Irvine, Michael

Couchman, James

Jack, Michael

Cran, James

Janman, Timothy

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Jessel, Toby

Curry, David

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

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

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Day, Stephen

Key, Robert

Dorrell, Stephen

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Dover, Den

Kirkhope, Timothy

Dunn, Bob

Knapman, Roger

Durant, Tony

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Emery, Sir Peter

Knowles, Michael

Evennett, David

Knox, David

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Fallon, Michael

Lang, Ian

Farr, Sir John

Latham, Michael

Favell, Tony

Lawrence, Ivan

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Lee, John (Pendle)

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Forman, Nigel

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Lightbown, David

Forth, Eric

Lilley, Peter

475

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Lord, Michael

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

McCrindle, Robert

Shersby, Michael

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Maclean, David

Soames, Hon Nicholas

McLoughlin, Patrick

Speed, Keith

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Speller, Tony

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Major, Rt Hon John

Squire, Robin

Malins, Humfrey

Stanbrook, Ivor

Mans, Keith

Steen, Anthony

Maples, John

Stern, Michael

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Stevens, Lewis

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Maude, Hon Francis

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

Mellor, David

Stokes, John

Mills, Iain

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Sumberg, David

Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

Summerson, Hugo

Moate, Roger

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Moss, Malcolm

Temple-Morris, Peter

Nelson, Anthony

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Neubert, Michael

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Thornton, Malcolm

Nicholls, Patrick

Thurnham, Peter

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Townend, John (Brldlington)

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Page, Richard

Tracey, Richard

Paice, James

Tredinnick, David

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Trippier, David

Patnick, Irvine

Trotter, Neville

Patten, Chris (Bath)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Pawsey, James

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Waldegrave, Hon William

Porter, David (Waveney)

Walden, George

Portillo, Michael

Waller, Gary

Powell, William (Corby)

Walters, Dennis

Price, Sir David

Ward, John

Rattan, Keith

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Warren, Kenneth

Rathbone, Tim

Watts, John

Redwood, John

Wells, Bowen

Renton, Tim

Wheeler, John

Rhodes James, Robert

Whitney, Ray

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Widdecombe, Miss Ann

Riddick, Graham

Wiggin, Jerry

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Wilshire, David

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Winterton, Nicholas

Roe, Mrs Marion

Wolfson, Mark

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Wood, Timothy

Rowe, Andrew

Woodcock, Mike

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Ryder, Richard

Younger, Rt Hon George

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Sayeed, Jonathan

Tellers for the Ayes:

Scott, Nicholas

Mr. Robert Boscawen and

Shaw, David (Dover)

Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Beith, A. J.

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

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

Allen, Graham

Bermingham, Gerald

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Blair, Tony

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Blunkett, David

Ashdown, Paddy

Boateng, Paul

Ashton, Joe

Boyes, Roland

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Bradley, Keith

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Battle, John

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

476

Buckley, George

McAllion, John

Callaghan, Jim

McAvoy, Tom

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

McCartney, Ian

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Macdonald, Calum

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

McFall, John

Clay, Bob

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Clelland, David

McLeish, Henry

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Madden, Max

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Corbyn, Jeremy

Marek, Dr John

Cousins, Jim

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Cox, Tom

Martin, Michael (Springburn)

Cryer, Bob

Meacher, Michael

Cummings, J.

Meale, Alan

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Michael, Alun

Cunningham, Dr John

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heelsy)

Dalyell, Tarn

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Darling, Alistair

Morgan, Rhodri

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Morley, Elliott

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

Mowlam, Marjorie

Dixon, Don

Mullin, Chris

Dobson, Frank

Murphy, Paul

Doran, Frank

Nellist, Dave

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

O'Neill, Martin

Faulds, Andrew

Patchett, Terry

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Pendry, Tom

Fisher, Mark

Pike, Peter

Flannery, Martin

Prescott, John

Flynn, Paul

Primarolo, Ms Dawn

Foster, Derek

Quin, Ms Joyce

Fraser, John

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Fyfe, Mrs Maria

Robertson, George

Galbraith, Samuel

Robinson, Geoffrey

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Rooker, Jeff

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Rowlands, Ted

Golding, Mrs Llin

Ruddock, Ms Joan

Gordon, Ms Mildred

Sedgemore, Brian

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Skinner, Dennis

Harman, Ms Harriet

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

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

Haynes, Frank

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

Heffer, Eric S.

Snape, Peter

Henderson, Douglas

Soley, Clive

Hinchliffe, David

Spearing, Nigel

Holland, Stuart

Steinberg, Gerald

Home Robertson, John

Stott, Roger

Hood, James

Strang, Gavin

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Howells, Geraint

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Hoyle, Doug

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Wall, Pat

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Wallace, James

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Walley, Ms Joan

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Illsley, Eric

Wareing, Robert N.

Janner, Greville

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Wilson, Brian

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Kennedy, Charles

Worthington, Anthony

Lamond, James

Wray, James

Leadbitter, Ted

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Leighton, Ron

Lewis, Terry

Tellers for the Noes:

Livsey, Richard

Mr. Ken Eastham and

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Mr. Ray Powell.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Precept Limitation (Prescribed Maximum) (Inner London Education Authority) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.

PETITION

  Rating Reform
  11.56 pm
  Mr. John McAllion: I wish to present a petition which prays that this honourable House should repeal the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987.
  The petition comes from Tayside regional council. It has been signed by all the members of the Labour administration, including the convenor of the council, Mr. Ron Tosh, and the leader of the administration, Mr. Chris Ward. It has also been signed by the members of the Scottish National party group. Together with the Labour group, they make up a clear majority on Tayside regional council.
  Both groups represent a clear majority of the people in Tayside. They reject the poll tax in Scotland for a number of reasons. It is unjust and unfair. It favours the rich. The tax will be costly to collect. Most people in Scotland believe it will be unworkable. It is also a serious infringement of the civil liberties of the Scottish people. It is the sincere wish of the Tayside regional council that the House repeal the Act.
  To lie on the Table.

Opencast Mining (Deeside)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ryder.]
11.58 pm
Mr. Barry Jones: I apologise for the state of my voice. I am glad to see the Minister in his place. I hope he will help my constituents by decisive intervention. The subject is opencast mining, understandably an emotive issue. There is much public interest in opencast mining. It greatly affects the quality of life of local people and it is assuming increasing importance for the public, for local councils and for British Coal.
I have interviewed my constituents at Cheapside. They are deeply concerned, but they are full of fight, resource and determination. In my constituency there is widespread apprehension because the Opencast Executive wants to mine in areas apart from Cheapside and Ewloe.
The Minister probably knows that I have corresponded with Sir Robert Haslam of British Coal on this issue. The Minister knows that I have tabled written questions and posed oral questions to the Secretary of State. I have also written to Ministers and they have replied courteously. I have invited Ministers to visit the Cheapside site and to meet the action committee in that area. Last week there was a large and successful public meeting. It took place in Ewloe and it backed the protesters.
My aim in this debate is to persuade the Under-Secretary of State to move heaven and earth to persuade the Opencast Executive not to mine coal at the Cheapside site. Better still, I want him, in conjunction with the Department of Energy, to instruct British Coal to cease planning to extract coal from an attractive area such as Cheapside.
Nationally, I think it is time that the Government drew up a plan for opencast coal production. Additionally, I believe that the Government should begin a phased reduction of opencast coal production. Moreover, I urge the Government to revise their planning guidelines for opencast coal workings as currently set out in the circulars of the Department of the Environment and the Scottish and Welsh Offices.
The public inquiry opened on Tuesday at Queensferry leisure centre just days after hearing of the closure proposals for two deep mine pits in south Wales where a total of 2,000 jobs are to go. My constituents, who oppose the Opencast Executive, are bewildered. They know of the harrowing unemployment figures in the south Wales valleys, where more than one in four men are frequently out of work and they know that Cheapside is an attractive area environmentally. They say, "Keep the work for the south Wales valleys and save the Cheapside community from the impact of explosions, earth movement and many forms of stress."
I support the action committee of the residents of Liverpool road and Smithy lane who oppose the Cheapside British Coal proposals. I can tell the House that the local community is united. It is very well led. I pay tribute to Mr. John Iball of Four Winds, Liverpool road who has organised so well. Mr. Iball and his committee have had the loyal support of local councillors such as Mr. Ivor Roberts JP, Mr. Tom Middlehurst and Mr. Glen McIver. Indeed, there has been all-party support for the committee.

479
When I visited the residents of Liverpool road I talked not only to Mr. and Mrs. Iball in their home but to Mr. Gary Feather and his son Timothy. Mr. Feather lives in Smithy lane at Gwelfryn and, arguably, he faces the greatest difficulty. I have also discussed matters with Mr. E. Jackson JP of Millbank and Mr. K. Morris of Halmore, Liverpool road, to name but a few.
Nobody should have an earth barrier 6 ft from their garden wall. Happily, Clwyd county council opposes the Opencast Executive and supports my constituents. The district council of Alyn and Deeside supports my constituents at Cheapside. Indeed, it has formed an opencast coal sub-committee to support the residents. It has supported the community by submitting a planning statement. The Hawarden community council objects to the Opencast Executive's proposals. The Buckley town council opposes the proposals. It is already an important consideration that all local government units, of whatever size, have come out strongly against the proposals. I urge the Government to bear that in mind when they make their decision and when they receive the planning inspector's proposals.
It is important to note that every unit of local government is supportive of the community that now resists the Opencast Executive's proposals. They are elected bodies, and they are important units in the local government of Clwyd. Indeed, Clwyd county council is taking the lead in protecting residents who live near the Cheapside site.
I want the Minister to give considerable weight to the fact that the county, district, town and community councils are all on the residents' side. The site is close to the rear of some delightful homes. Fine families live in them. If a large earth wall is built, an attractive part of the countryside will be torn apart. The Minister is a fair man. He and his colleague the Secretary of State will want to bear in mind the important statements that the local authorities have made.
Although people in the Cheapside area are worried, they are not the only ones in my constituency who are worried. The residents of Buckley are also apprehensive. We have even heard rumours about proposals for the Connah's Quay area in the locality of Wepre.
Cheapside has attractive field patterns. The hedgerows are important. They are an integral part of the countryside. There are numerous mature trees and an important wildlife habitat. It is a pleasing scene. The wild flowers, grasses and mosses are valued. From residents' homes facing the Cheapside site, views of the countryside are good—too good to rip apart. I know the area well. I was born in my constituency—indeed, two miles from the Cheapside site. As a youngster, I was familiar with the area.
My constituents are apprehensive on environmental grounds. It is not an exaggeration to say that they dread the prospect of great noise in general and the prospect of periodic sustained blasting in particular. No hon. Member would wish to live adjacent to such noise and potential persistent disruption of domestic life. My constituents can see difficulties in respect of the Opencast Executive's heavy lorries and traffic flows on the busy A494 trunk road. There is a road safety aspect. Local people believe that
480
heavy lorries leaving and entering the site will make things difficult. Being high powered, the lorries are bound to make a contribution to noise levels.
My constituents of Cheapside dispute the need for the Opencast Executive's initiative. It is interesting that the adjacent town council of Buckley, a large authority which meets regularly, has donated £100 to the action group. It is throwing its not inconsiderable weight behind the Cheapside campaign. The Alyn and Deeside district council is considering authorising a virement to meet costs. The Alyn and Deeside council is a large and important local authority. As I have said, it is unanimously throwing its weight behind the protesters. The Hawarden community council has retained a solicitor to ensure that its views are made known in support of the residents at the public inquiry that is taking place this week.
The opposition to this 100-acre proposal is well briefed and formidable. My constituents know that excavations would go 160 ft deep. That depth would be reached by the use of the most modern and large machinery and equipment, which would imply persistent noise from engines and movements. To achieve a depth of 160 ft, there would be a requirement to blast through several layers of sandstone. We know that 25 lorries will operate daily on the site and on the roads leading in and out. This is too much.
I prevail upon the Minister to meet the residents. Can I persuade him to visit Cheapside? If the executive has its way, my constituents will endure an agony, and one which I should like them to be spared.
If a line is drawn from the Severn to the Wash, the shallow coal measures are to the north. They are on the east and west coasts of Scotland, the north and south of Wales, in Cumbria, the north-east of England, south Yorkshire, parts of Lancashire and Nottingham and Leicester, for example. This was ordained millions of years ago. I submit that the north is taking the strain, and I want the Government to lessen it and to intervene to the satisfaction of my constituents.
The superbly organised Coalfield Communities Campaign has published its valuable report on opencast coal and I urge the Minister to undertake to read it. I hope that he will urge the Secretary of State to do so as well. Previously, the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for Energy, which means that he has many insights into the energy industry. I can assure the Under-Secretary of State that, if he brings this important document to the notice of his right hon. Friend, he will be thanked, and perhaps rewarded. I want Ministers to study it. With my own insight of the Welsh Office, I hope that a departmental meeting will be called. I hope also that Ministers will ensure that their officials or advisers will note the document and its conclusions.
The Coalfield Communities Campaign is a nonpolitical body. It is drawn, organised, researched and led by local authorities throughout Britain which are based on the existing coalfields. It is careful to be non-political and non-partisan in that sense. It has at heart the best interests of the citizens living in the coalfields. It has been drawn inexorably in its several years of existence led by its chairman to consider the impact of opencast mining upon communities.
This document, published only last week, is important. I have a high regard for those who lead the Coalfield Communities Campaign. The Minister should know that a number of local authorities in Wales are attached to the

481
campaign, and he could do worse than to seek to meet its Welsh arm. He will learn only positive things from it. It has a first-class reputation.
I make a plea on behalf of my constituents, a beleaguered community of ordinary men and women who are up against the big, bureaucratic power of British Coal and its subsidiary, the Opencast Executive. I am trying now to link my locality and constituents to national policy. A strategic choice needs to be made between closing down mine capacity and restricting opencast working. The choice is as basic as that. The countryside can be shattered by opencast working. Wildlife, wild flowers, grasses, hedgerows, mature trees and saplings and field patterns of hundreds of years' standing will be hugely affected.
This is the case for the Cheapside community. Everyday, family life in the area will be affected by noise, dust and blasting. Traffic conditions will deteriorate, and citizens who have invested their all in their homes, and in their improvement and alteration — at the cost of all their time, money and efforts over a long period—will be blighted. Youngsters will be brought up in these conditions, if the Opencast Executive has its way.
I make a plea to the Minister to take action that will be of service and help to my constituents. I offer the following positive proposals, as outlined by the Coalfield Communities Campaign. First, the Government should draw up a national plan for opencast coal production. They should consult widely in the industry and with the local and planning authorities.
Secondly, the Government should begin a phased reduction of opencast coal production, with immediate effect. Thirdly, they should revise their planning guidelines for opencast working, as set out in their circulars for the Department of the Environment, and the Welsh and Scottish Offices. The aim should be a tougher environmental criterion for the Opencast Executive.
Finally, I refer to the report of the Coalfield Communities Campaign opencast coal working party, entitled, "Ewloe Opencast Coal". It is wrong to claim that opencast mining is necessarily cheaper than deep mining, for which demand is falling. So, the campaign says, opencast working may not enjoy the financial advantages claimed for it by British Coal, which are based on average rather than marginal costs. The signs are that the marginal costs of opencast and deep mining are broadly comparable. In that context, the wider social and environmental costs involved assume an increased importance. Profits from opencast coal mining do not subsidise losses in the deep mining sector. That is the assertion of the Coalfield Communities Campaign.
In the short term British Coal aims to eliminate such losses, which are in any case covered by profits within the deep-mine sector. In the long term— this is of crucial importance — British Coal's costs per annum for new deep-mined capacity are such that cross-subsidisation would he unnecessary and may in certain circumstances be impossible.
The Minister is a good listener and I hope that he will very much take to heart the points that I have made for a splendid community, fighting hard to retain its environment and avoid an awful impact upon its living conditions. Again, I urge him to study carefully the Coalfield Communities Campaign document and to take action urgently to help my constituents.
12.20 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): I thank the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) for his kind and polite words. I commiserate with him on his sad, but I hope not painful, voice this evening.
I do, of course, appreciate that he and many of his constituents are concerned about the implications of British Coal's proposals for the land at Ewloe. Indeed he wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales about them in October last so that even before tonight we were in no doubt about where he stood. He has, as always, stated most persuasively the doubts and fears of his constituents, and the House fully appreciates the support that he has given them.
Opencast development is always contentious arid no one knows better than we in Wales the strong feelings that new proposals so often give rise to both among prospective neighbours of the development and among people and organisations who feel strongly about conservation of the environment.
However, I am sure that he will recognise that l can say nothing about the planning merits of the proposals or about the likely outcome of the planning appeal and the associated orders. Ministers of successive Administrations of all political colours have made it a firm practice never to comment on appeals under consideration by them because of the paramount need that they remain objective at all times and to ensure that their decisions on such matters are given in accordance with the highest standards of openness and impartiality.
The hon. Gentleman's remarks will of course be taken into account by my right hon. Friend when he comes to consider the proposals in due course. I shall also ensure that they are conveyed to the inspector who is presently holding the local inquiry in this case and I shall ask him to distribute copies to the parties to the appeal w hen the inquiry resumes.
The hon. Gentleman's choice of subject for tonight's debate gives me the opportunity to put the Ewloe proposal in the context of planning appeals generally. Many planning applications which come to my right hon, Friend on appeal after being refused by the local planning authority are controversial and one would certainly include opencast working in that category.
I should like to begin my remarks with a brief description of the appeal process which the British Coal proposal at Ewloe is now undergoing. The right of appeal goes back to the legislation of 1947. Although many refinements of procedure have been introduced over the years, the basic right of appeal remains unaltered. Any applicant for planning permission who is refused permission or who fails to receive a decision within a prescribed time can appeal to my right hon. Friend. This basic right is available just as much to massive organisations such as British Coal as to the private individual, upset because his house extension cannot be approved. Similarly, the rules which govern consideration of an appeal apply to both big and small alike.
An appeal under section 36 of the Coal Industry Act 1971 serves three main purposes. First, it allows anyone whose application is refused by a local planning authority to seek a second opinion on the planning merits of the proposal. Secondly, it allows planning Ministers to supervise the development control process and on

483
occasion to reassert or to clarify national policy, something which is in fact happening as regards opencast coal at the moment. Thirdly, it gives the public a say, allowing it to question the assumptions and arguments of the main protagonists in a planning dispute and to put forward alternative points of view.
Throughout the last 40 years the main components of the appeals process have been openness, fairness, impartiality, the opportunity to state a case in writing or appeal before an appointed person and the statutory right of appeal to the High Court against the decision on a point of law or of procedure. Those five components represent the judicial elements of the process. The decisions themselves are discretionary and this is what gives the appeal process its administrative character and of course that leaves the decision itself to the judgment of either the inspector or, in a recovered case, of the Secretary of State.
Most decisions are taken by inspectors. In Wales we now have a full-time force of 12 inspectors and we can also call on the services of a number of part-time officers. They are all experienced, both in the planning process and in matters of policy that are applicable generally or are particularly applicable to Wales.
The transfer to inspectors of the responsibility for decision-making has taken place gradually over a number of years and about 95 per cent. of appeals are now handled in this way, but the Secretary of State reserves the right to recover jurisdiction in selected cases and the Ewloe case is clearly one where that is appropriate. The inspector's role here is to obtain the facts, to conduct an impartial inquiry and to make a report to the Secretary of State. Of course the inspector is not a maker of planning policy. In that matter he takes the lead from my right hon. Friend, who works on the basis that appeal decision letters are not the right place for making such policy. It is, after all, a basic principle of the appeals system that no part of the decision should come as a surprise to the parties.
Every appellant has the right to a local inquiry, though most people choose to have their appeals decided by the written representations method. The appellant must be told in advance of the facts and arguments which will be deployed against him at the inquiry. The conduct of the inquiry is primarily a matter falling within the discretion of the inspector, but there are certain prescribed rules which have to be followed. Those rules are at present under review and the revised version will be laid before the House later this year. The various improvements which are proposed should assist the process of preparing for the inquiry, make the proceedings shorter and generally result in the giving of earlier decisions.
484
In particular, we hope to make more effective use of the period before the inquiry opens. Early exchanges of information, for example, proofs of evidence, at that stage, will help the inspector and the parties to identify the principal issues and to avoid discussion of matters which are not relevant to the appeal. We take the view that the inquiry should be no place for surprise tactics.
People other than the main parties are, of course, allowed to attend the inquiry and, at the discretion of the inspector, present their views in person or through a representative. That is most important in the kind of case that the hon. Member has raised tonight. For here it is not only matters of local and central policy that may be important, nor indeed general issues about conservation of the environment. The inspector will also want to listen to and consider very carefully how the lives of people in the neighbourhood of the proposal are likely to be affected by the development and to weigh those considerations with all the others.
When everyone has been heard the inspector closes the proceedings and goes away to write his report. In recovered cases this is considered within the Welsh Office and my right hon. Friend takes his decision. Great care must be taken to see that as far as possible the decision is legally correct. The 1971 Act provides that an appeal decision is open to challenge in the High Court from any "aggrieved person" who believes he can show that the decision is defective on a point of procedure or law. The minds of officials and of Ministers must, therefore, be addressed to each case in a proper manner. This all takes time but is absolutely essential.
In February 1984, circular 13/84 called "Opencast Coal Mining" was published jointly by the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office. That circular contained a number of observations on the subject in general and a set of guidelines against which planning decisions should be taken.
As I have said, local planning authorities or the Secretary of State on appeal have to consider both the development plan and other material considerations. The circular indicated that structure plan policies and general proposals for opencast working are expected to indicate in general terms the areas in which there are presumptions for and against opencast working. Local plans should define these areas in detail—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past Twelve o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Ministerial Visit
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost to public funds of the recent visit by his Minister of State to the sub-continent of India.

  Mr. Renton
  The cost to the public funds for travel and subsistence expenses of my recent visit to the sub-continent of India was £10,600.

  Residence Applications
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to be able to reach a decision on the applicants United Kingdom residence to which his letter and 106257/8(S) of 27 November 1987 to the hon. Member for Woking refers; and if he will allow the individuals concerned to leave the United Kingdom and re-enter again on a temporary basis until this case is determined.

  Mr. Renton
  I wrote to my hon. Friend on 9 February.

  Breath Tests
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to(a) the age of drivers stopped and asked to take a breathalyser test and (b) the age of those failing such a test.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Information on all those required to provide a roadside screening breath test is published annually in Home Office statistical bulletins, the latest issue, No. 24/87, giving figures for 1986. The bulletin does not include information by age of driver, because these details are not collected centrally. However, information on the ages of those found guilty of driving and so on with excess alcohol is published in table 15 of "Offences Relating to Motor Vehicles, England and Wales, 1986, Supplementary Tables", and of those breath-tested after accidents involving personal injury in table 36 of "Road Accidents, Great Britain, 1986", copies of both of which are in the Library.

  Risley Remand Centre (Suicide Attempts)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the period of detention at Risley remand centre of the six Iranians and one Iraqi who entered the United Kingdom at Liverpool without authorisation in December 1987; to which nation these people were deported; whether any of them had any form of medical examination while they were at Risley remand centre; what was the nature of the suicide attempts that they made on 4 January; and whether any other suicide attempts were made by these men while they were at Risley remand centre.

  Mr. Renton
  These stowaways were detained at Risley remand centre from 22 December 1987 to 15 January 1988 216
  following refusal of entry. All of them were medically examined there and held in the hospital wing. On 4 January, two of the men scratched themselves on the stomach and chest with a plastic knife causing superficial injuries. No other attempts to injure themselves were made. The men flew to Greece on 15 January under arrangements made by the immigration service and agreed with the men and the Greek authorities.

  Senior Police Officers (Meeting)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the purpose of the meeting at the Royal hotel, Scarborough, in May 1986 which was attended by Sir Lawrence Byford, Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Mr. Phillip Myers, Inspector of Constabulary for the North West and Northern Ireland, Mr. Colin Sampson, chief constable of West Yorkshire, and Mr. James Anderton, chief constable of Greater Manchester; and for what purpose Sir John Hermon, Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary visited this hotel whilst the meeting was taking place.

  Mr. Hurd
  The meeting was arranged by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary to discuss allegations about the conduct of the then deputy chief constable of Greater Manchester which had been brought to the attention of Mr. Anderton.

  The meeting took place on 19 May 1986. I understand that Sir John Hermon was in Northern Ireland throughout that day and that he had no prior knowledge of the meeting.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Church Schools
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement regarding the Government's policy towards Church of England secondary schools.

  Mr. Dunn
  I value the work done by Church of England schools within the maintained sector.

  Fee Remission
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what would be the extra cost involved of full fee remission for all home students, in respect of part-time degree courses in(a) universities, (b) polytechnics and other colleges and (c) the Open University.

  Mr. Jackson
  The extra cost of full remission of part-time students' fees would have been £14·14 million for the universities in the academic year 1985–86 and £8·85 million for the Open University in 1986. The information is not available for polytechnics and other colleges.

  City of London Polytechnic
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Education and Science what proposals have been made to close down the department of metallurgy and metals engineering at the City of London polytechnic and for what reason; what steps are planned to safeguard the position of existing students in the event of such a closure; and when a decision is likely to be taken.
  217
  Mr. Jackson
  The court of governors of City of London polytechnic decided at its meeting on 20 January to cease recruitment to all metallurgy courses. I understand that the reason for the decision was the need to contain the polytechnic's expenditure within the funds expected to be available to meet it. The polytechnic has assured all existing students that they will be enabled to complete their courses under arrangements to be made with Thames polytechnic.

  Education Reform
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met representatives of the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education; and whether he discussed with them his proposals for further education colleges included in the Education Reform Bill.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend will be meeting representatives of the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education on 24 February. He expects to discuss with them then issues relating to the Education Reform Bill.

  Universities Funding Council
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to establish the membership of the Universities Funding Council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend will announce the membership of the Universities Funding Council in due course.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received concerning his proposals for devolving the control of further education colleges from local education authorities to college governing bodies.

  Mr. Jackson
  361 responses have been received to the consultation paper, "Maintained Further Education: Financing, Governance and Law", from a wide range of colleges, local education authorities, educational and other organisations, and individuals.

  Medical Students
  Mrs. Rosie Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to increase the

  Total expenditure1

  Authorised precept

  Cash

  21987–88 real terms

  Cash

  21987–88 real terms

  £ million

  £ million

  Percentage change year on year

  p

  p

  1983–84

  855

  1,018

  —

  77·00

  91·66

  1984–85

  897

  1,023

  +0·5

  80·00

  91·17

  1985–86

  3887

  954

  -6·7

  77·25

  83·08

  1986–87

  4905

  943

  -1·2

  77·25

  80·53

  1987–88

  51,015

  1,015

  +7·6

  79·73

  79·73

  1988–89

  6970

  928

  -8·6

  781·80

  78·28

  Percentage change between 1983–84 and 1988–89

  -8·8

  218
  extra week's allowance given to medical students to the same weekly rate as the basic maintenance grant; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  No. The rates of grant payable for extra weeks of attendance apply equally to all eligible students, and reflect the fact that the main rates of grant include provision for some items (like books and equipment) which is related to a full year's expenditure.

  Inner London Education Authority
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will indicate in respect of his policy to require reductions in the net expenditure of the Inner London education authority for the financial year 1988–89, the approximate percentage reduction he expects under each of(a) staff, (b) premises, (c) transport, (d) supplies and services, (e) transfer payments, (f) finance and debt charges and (g) other expenses;

  (2) over which academic terms in the financial year 1988–89 he expects the Inner London education authority to implement his required reduction in expenditure; and if he will indicate the percentage reduction of expenditure this indicates for the respective terms.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Subject to the House's approval, the Secretary of State intends to prescribe a maximum precept for the ILEA for 1988–89 of 81·8p, enabling the authority to raise £985 million. The ILEA will need to make substantial reductions to manage its expenditure within this level of precept income. It is for the ILEA to determine how best to achieve these reductions.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will tabulate in the Official Report the net expenditure of the Inner London education authority for each of the financial years 1983–84 to that determined for 1988–89, in current values, together with the authorised precept in pence per pound on inner London local authorities, in both actual and current values, indicating which were subject to maximum rate limits, together with the approximate percentage increase or reduction in net real expenditure compared to the previous financial year, and the overall reduction in percentage of real terms from 1983–84 to 1988.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information available is set out in the following table. The ILEA has been subject to precept limitation since 1985–86.
  219

  1These figures are consistent with the definition of "total expenditure" used for block grant purposes. They exclude the capitalisation of repairs and contributions from special funds.

  2The cash figures have been repriced to 1987–88 real terms using the gross domestic product (market prices) deflator.

  3 The figure for 1985–86 includes £31·4 million of additional income arising from an adjustment in the calculation of pooling contributions.

  4 Revenue expenditure recorded in ILEA's published statement of accounts for 1986–87 before adjustment for capitalised repairs and including expenditure met by contributions from special funds was £970 million.

  5 ILEA's budgeted revenue spending as recorded in its published estimates before adjustment for capitalised repairs was £1,025 million.

  6 The figure given is the re-determined expenditure level for the ILEA in 1988–89. The precept maximum of 81.8p (see note 7) would enable the ILEA to raise £985 million on the latest available information.

  7 Subject to approval by the House of the draft Precept Limitation (Prescribed Maximum) (Inner London Education Authority) Order 1988 laid before the House on 29 January.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what inquiries or reports into the administration of educational standards in the Inner London education authority he has asked Her Majesty's inspectorate of education to undertake, or has received from it since 1979; and with what result.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The last comprehensive HMI report on educational provision in ILEA was made public in 1980. Since then, HMI has continued to inspect on a wide basis and has reported to the holder of my office accordingly; all institutional reports and surveys have been published and are available in the Library of the House.

  Primary and Secondary Schools (London)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the primary or secondary schools in the London boroughs of Islington, Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Southwark and Lambeth to which he, or other Ministers in his Department, have paid an official visit subsequent to his taking up office as Secretary of State for Education and Science.

  Mr. Dunn
  Since May 1986 my right hon. Friend has visited Notre Dame Roman Catholic girls' school in Southwark. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) has visited St. Luke's Church of England school in Lambeth, Mulberry girls' school in Tower Hamlets and Alleyn's school, which is an independent school, in Southwark and my hon. Friend, the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) has visited Islington sixth form centre.

  Ideal Home Exhibition
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the estimated total cost of the hire of a stand by his Department at the Ideal Home Exhibition, broken down by(a) full cost of officials and inspectors from his Department staffing the stand, (b) hire of stand, (c) publicity and publications and (d) all other costs.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The cost of hiring the Department of Education and Science stand is a matter of commercial confidentiality between the Department and the organisers. The stand will be manned by volunteers from the

  Whole-time equivalent doctors and nursing staff in NHS hospitals

  Lanarkshire Health Board

  Nursing staff1

  Hospital

  Type of hospital3

  Doctors2WTE

  Qualified

  In training

  Unqualified

  Total

  Alexander

  Type of hospital subject to change4

  —

  8·0

  —

  —

  8·0

  Bellefield

  Mental handicap unit (adult and children)

  0·9

  28·4

  —

  48·9

  77·3

  Bellshill Maternity

  Non-teaching, non-GP, maternity unit

  25·0

  143·8

  86·0

  80·1

  309·9

  220
  Department and Her Majesty's inspectorate, who will receive time off in lieu for work outside their normal conditioned hours; the extra cost to the Department will be confined to travel and subsistence for some of Her Majesty's inspectorate.

  The cost of publications will depend upon their take-up rate during the exhibition; all publications will be supplied from the Department's existing stocks. No publicity costs have been incurred. A 12-screen video wall will be hired at a cost of £25,730. This will be used to display examples of good practice in schools. Other costs of furnishing the stand (furniture, electricity, cleaning and so on) will be in the order of £3,000.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science between what dates he intends to hire a stand at the Ideal Home Exhibition; for what purpose; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  My Department will be taking a stand at this year's Ideal Home Exhibition throughout the period when the exhibition is open, that is from 8 March to 4 April inclusive. The main purposes of the display are:

  i to inform members of the public about the changes in the composition of school governing bodies following the passage of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986; and to interest parents visiting the exhibition in becoming parent governors of their child's school.

  ii. to explain the new examinations (GCSE, AS-levels and CPVE) to parents and prospective employers.

  iii. to explain the thinking behind the proposed national curriculum.

  Relevant publications about these subjects and other education matters of interest to the public will be available on the stand. It will also show examples of best practice in education and will enable visitors to ask questions about particular aspects of their own or their children's education.

SCOTLAND

  Hospitals (Lanarkshire)
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will name the hospitals in the Lanarkshire health board area, giving details of the type of hospital and the numbers of(a) doctors and (b) nurses at each hospital.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows:
  221

  Nursing staff1

  Hospital

  Type of hospital3

  Doctors2WTE

  Qualified

  In training

  Unqualified

  Total

  Birkwood

  Mental handicap unit (adult)

  1·4

  44·8

  —

  101·9

  146·7

  Cleland

  Geriatric unit including assessment unit

  4·9

  74·3

  —

  80·1

  154·4

  Coathill

  Day hospital

  1·2

  103·6

  —

  64·1

  167·7

  Hairmyres

  Mixed specialist hospital without maternity unit

  62·2

  330·4

  150·0

  102·7

  583·1

  Hartwood

  Mental hospital, non-teaching

  23·7

  474·6

  131·0

  249·0

  854·6

  Kello, Biggar

  GP hospital

  1·1

  12·3

  —

  6·8

  19·1

  Kirklands

  Mental handicap unit (adult)

  1·4

  75·3

  5·0

  87·6

  167·9

  Lady Home

  GP hospital

  —

  10·1

  —

  5·2

  15·3

  Law

  Mixed specialist hospital without maternity unit

  91·6

  426·3

  231·0

  110·2

  767·5

  Lockhart

  Miscellaneous type of hospital

  0·1

  18·9

  —

  9·5

  28·4

  Monklands

  Mixed specialist hospital without maternity unit

  120·8

  440·7

  156·0

  137·1

  733·8

  Motherwell Maternity

  Maternity unit, non-teaching, non-GP

  0·3

  23·9

  —

  5·0

  28·9

  Roadmeetings

  Long-stay geriatric unit

  1·0

  36·4

  —

  49·6

  86·0

  Stonehouse

  Mixed specialist hospital without maternity unit

  34·8

  180·6

  50·0

  53·8

  284·4

  Strathclyde

  Long-stay geriatric unit

  0·3

  46·0

  —

  24·9

  70·9

  Udston

  Long-stay geriatric unit

  0·4

  19·6

  —

  10·2

  29·8

  Victoria Cottage

  GP hospital with long-stay cases

  0·7

  10·6

  —

  5·0

  15·6

  Wester Moffat

  Long-stay geriatric unit

  0·2

  25·6

  —

  20·1

  45·7

  William Smellie

  Maternity unit, non-teaching, non-GP

  8·7

  74·9

  —

  18·5

  93·4

  Wishaw

  Long-stay geriatric unit

  0·1

  31·0

  —

  17·9

  48·9

  1 In post at 31 March 1987 (excluding teaching staff).

  2 Average over the financial year 1986–87.

  3 As shown in Scottish Health Service Costs.

  4 Used for young chronic sick specialty in 1986–87

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list his overseas visits since June 1987.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I visited in my official capacity the United States of America between 9 and 16 October 1987 and Japan between 17 and 21 October 1987.

  National Health Service (Review)
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he proposes to hold as part of the review of the National Health Service in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend will consider carefully any submissions put to him.

  Veterinary Inspectors
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when representatives of his Department last met the British Veterinary Association to discuss the work of local veterinary inspectors; what matters were discussed; and when he anticipates a further meeting taking place.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No such meetings have taken place and none is planned. However, my officials are closely following the discussions which are taking place between the British Veterinary Association and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received against proposals to put work done by local veterinary inspectors out to tender.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Letters have been received from two hon. Members following approaches made to them by the north of Scotland division of the British Veterinary Association and an individual practitioner.
  222
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total cost to his Department's Department of Agriculture of paying fees to local veterinary inspectors in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Fees and other expenses due to local veterinary inspectors in Scotland, as elsewhere in Great Britain, are borne by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, not by my Department. However, I am advised that the sums involved in the years for which information is available were as follows:

  Year

  Fees1

  Travel and subsistence

  £

  £

  1981–82

  1,317,894

  81,694

  1982–83

  1,342,120

  121,175

  1983–84

  1,461,200

  126,825

  1984–85

  1,560,455

  125,825

  1985–86

  1,341,155

  133,219

  1986–87

  1,574,692

  136,189

  1 Including earnings related National Insurance contributions.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local veterinary inspectors are currently retained by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in Scotland; and how many there were in 1985, 1980 and 1975.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The responsibility for appointing local veterinary inspectors in Great Britain rests with the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, acting jointly. The number of local veterinary inspectors currently retained in Scotland is 508. This compares with 510 and 429 in 1985 and 1980 respectively. Comparable information for 1975 is not available.

  Brucellosis
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of brucellosis in human beings were recorded in Scotland in 1960, 1965, 1970, 1975, 1980 and 1985.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Brucellosis is not a notifiable disease and figures for 1960 and 1965 are not available centrally. The Communicable Diseases (Scotland) Unit has supplied the following data for the later years:

  Year

  Number of cases of brucellosis

  1970

  347

  1975

  116

  1980

  79

  1985

  5

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Stalker-Sampson Investigations
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his statement of 25 January,Official Report, columns 21–23, when he was first informed by the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland of the Director's decision to give directions not to institute any criminal proceedings relating to the Stalker-Sampson investigations.

  The Attorney-General
  Thursday 21 January 1988.

  Ministerial Statement
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Attorney-General who was informed of his intention to make a statement in the House on 25 January prior to that date; and when.

  The Attorney-General
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.

  Ministerial Communications
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Attorney-General what communications there were between his Office and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North on 24 January either directly or on behalf of his Office and what communications there were within the previous seven days.

  The Attorney-General
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.

WALES

  Health and Personal Social Services
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table setting out for 1987–88 and 1988–89 the estimated number of(a) families and (b) persons in each health region or equivalent, and in Wales as a whole, showing net average expenditure on health and personal social services per family and per person in each year, and distinguishing between expenditure on the National Health Service and on the personal social services.
  224
  Mr. Grist
  The information is not readily available in the form requested. For Wales as a whole net estimated outturn in 1987–88 and net planned expenditure in 1988–89 per person and per family of four are as follows:

  Net expenditure per year

  Population (thousand)

  Health and Personal Social Services

  National Health Service

  Personal Social Services

  £

  £

  £

  1987–88 2,814:

  Per head

  445

  391

  54

  Per family of 4

  1,780

  1,564

  216

  1988–89 2,817:

  Per head

  472

  416·5

  55·5

  Per family of 4

  1,888

  1,666

  222

  The expenditure figures used are constistent with the information given in "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1988–89 to 1990–91" (Cm. 288-II) and include net current and capital spending.

  The population estimates quoted are the most recently published ones based on a 1985 projection by the Office of Population Census and Surveys.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the figures for recruitment to teacher training courses in 1987; what were the figures for 1986 in(a) the University of Wales and (b) the local authority/voluntary sector; and whether recruitment targets were achieved.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Details of teacher training students recruited in 1986 and 1987 are as follows:

  Recruitment to Initial Teacher Training in Wales

  1986–87

  Target

  1987–88

  Target

  Public Sector

  BEd Primary

  410

  525

  509

  525

  BEd Secondary

  58

  100

  77

  85

  PGCE Primary

  146

  135

  148

  135

  PGCE Secondary

  89

  105

  l09

  120

  Total

  703

  865

  843

  865

  University Sector

  Primary

  124

  141

  160

  160

  Secondary

  451

  545

  468

  545

  Total

  575

  686

  628

  705

  Recruitment to courses in the public sector increased by 20 per cent. and to courses in the University of Wales by 9 per cent.

ENERGY

  Mining Equipment
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what has been the contribution of heavy duty longwall mining equipment to the improvements in the productivity of British Coal for the years 1985–86 and 1986–87;

  (2) what information he has into how many British coal faces utilise heavy duty mining equipment, and as to when all faces will be so equipped.
  225
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  These are matters for British Coal, and I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Coal (International Trade)
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give his estimate of the growth of the international trade in coal by the end of the century.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Department does not undertake such estimates. However, a widely known projection of international coal trade in the OECD area is that published by the International Energy Agency (IEA) in "Coal Information 1987". This projects that total hard coal imports by OECD countries in 2000 will be 65 per cent. higher than the level in 1985.

  Coal Industry (Policy)
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will review the Government's energy policy, in the light of the conclusions of the Financial Times international coal report, a copy of which has been sent to him, about the potential number of coal-importing power stations likely to be built over the next 10 years and their capacity to absorb all the additional tonnage now planned, as well as the slack to be taken up in over capacity at existing mines.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No.

  Nuclear Experiments
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will(a) list all occasions since 1 January 1973 when notifications of planned nuclear experiments have been made to the European Commission under European treaty article 34 and (b) place copies of such notifications in the Library.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No experiments have been carried out at United Kingdom nuclear power stations which required to be notified under article 34 of the Euratom treaty.

  Radiation
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will undertake to revise all statements made to the House by Ministers in his Department since May 1979 on safe levels of radiation exposure, in the light of(a) new dose limits recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection and (b) the new exposure standards set by the National Radiological Protection Board.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Occupational exposure to radiation is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. Reference was made to the current advice on dose limitation provided by national and international bodies in the answers I gave the hon. Member for Newcastle Upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) on 22 January 1988 at column 886 and 1 February 1988 at columns 474–75.

  Nuclear Exports
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will(a) list all occasions since 1 January 1973 that
  226
  notifications of planned nuclear exports have been made to the European Commission under the European treaty article 103 and (b) place copies of such notifications in the Library.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The hon. Member may have in mind commercial contracts for the export of nuclear materials. I am advised that these contracts do not fall within the scope of article 103 of the Euratom treaty. Particulars of individual consignments and destinations are of course commercially confidential to the parties involved.

  Nuclear Installations (Fixed Assets)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what valuation was put on the fixed assets at Sellafield, Capenhurst and Springfields when transferred from the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority to British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. ownership in 1971; and whether the initial investment cost in these facilities is included as a proportion of the unit cost of nuclear-generated electricity by his Department.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The net book values of the fixed assets to which the hon. Member refers were:

  £ million

  Sellafield (Windscale and Calder Hall)

  8·29

  Capenhurst

  6·98

  Springfields

  4·31

  The value of these facilities is reflected in BNF's charges to its customers and, as such, is included in the unit cost of nuclear-generated electricity.

  British Nuclear Fuels plc (Exhibition)
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the work of British Nuclear Fuels plc to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Services Committee, arrangements have been made with the authorities of the House for an exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from 29 February to 4 March inclusive.

  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the level of financial contributions made by member states of the International Atomic Energy Agency for its safeguards system.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The costs of the International Atomic Energy Agency's safeguards system are met from the agency's regular budget. A total of $45 million has been allocated for safeguards in the 1988 budget of $137 million to which member states will contribute in accordance with their assessed contributions.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if Her Majesty's Government will increase its contributions to the International Atomic Energy Agency in support of the expanded role now played by the agency's operational safety review team.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The costs of the International Atomic Energy Agency's operational safety review teams are met from the agency's regular budget. The regular
  227
  budget for 1988, to which the United Kingdom will contribute in accordance with her assessed contribution, allows for increased activity by these teams.

EMPLOYMENT

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many small businesses have been established in the northern region since 1983.

  Mr. Cope
  The best estimate available of the number of small businesses is from VAT information. In the three years 1984 to 1986, there were an estimated 20,100 new VAT registrations in the northern region.

  MSC (Employment Schemes)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any proposals to increase the range of aids available under the Manpower Services Commission's special aids to employment scheme.

  Mr. Lee
  The aim of the special aids to employment scheme is to supply any tools or equipment that are needed to overcome the effects of any disability in the employment field. Consequently, there is no limit to the range of aids that can be considered under the scheme.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any proposals to publicise more widely the aids currently available under the Manpower Services Commission's special aids to employment scheme.

  Mr. Lee
  The special aids to employment scheme is already publicised widely by the Disablement Advisory Service and staff at jobcentres, through the code of good practice on the employment and disabled people, videos, leaflets, liaison with employers and voluntary organisations, and direct contact with individual people with disabilities. There are no plans to publicise individual items available under the scheme, but examples are quoted in leaflets.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment is made of the suitability of aids issued under the special aids to employment scheme for the needs of the recipients.

  Mr. Lee
  The aim is to provide the most cost-effective suitable device which a person with a disability needs to do the job. Assessment of the appropriate aid for the purpose is made by staff of the Disablement Advisory Service in consultation with individual worker, the employer, the manufacturer, and technical and medical guidance and support as necessary.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many aids provided under the Manpower Services Commission's special aids to employment scheme in the last five years were issued to people categorised as(a) deaf without speech, (b) deaf with speech and (c) hard of hearing.

  Mr. Lee
  The figures showing the number of aids issued under the special aids to employment scheme to the three categories of people with hearing impairment are only readily available for the latest two and a half years (April 1985 to October 1987):
  228

  Numbers

  (a) Deaf without speech

  97

  (b) Deaf with speech

  248

  (c) Hard of hearing

  347

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average length of time between receipt of an application for equipment under the Manpower Services Commission's special aids to employment scheme and the date the equipment was delivered.

  Mr. Lee
  There are no figures available on the average length of time between receipt of the application for equipment under the special aids to employment scheme and the date the equipment was obtained. Typically, the period can vary from a few days to several weeks depending on the complexity of the case and the availability of the equipment.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what has been (1) the numerical, and (ii) the percentage, loss or gain in(a) manufacturing industry, (b) service industries and (c) the public service from 1979 to 1987 in(i) the United Kingdom, (ii) West Germany, (iii) the United States of America and (iv) Japan;

  (2) what has been the total increase or decrease in jobs in (a) manufacturing industry, (b) service industries and (c) the total economy from 1979 to 1987 in (i) the United Kingdom, (ii) West Germany, (iii) Japan and (iv) the United States of America.

  Mr. Lee
  There are no figures for job losses or job gains, and estimates are not available for all the dates, areas and categories specified. The available information is as follows:

  Numerical changes in the levels of civilian employment1

  Manufacturing Industries

  Service Industries

  Totals in Civilian Employment

  Great Britain

  1979–1985

  -1,783,000

  1,119,000

  -919,000

  1979–1987

  -1,954,000

  1,856,000

  -432,000

  West Germany

  1979–1985

  -793,000

  627,000

  -505,000

  Japan

  1979–1985

  1,200,000

  3,210,000

  3,280,000

  United States of America

  1979–1985

  -1,579,000

  9,370,000

  8,326,000

  Percentage changes in the levels of civilian employment1

  Manufacturing Industries

  Service Industries

  Totals in Civilian Employment

  Great Britain

  1979–1985

  -25

  8

  -4

  1979–1987

  -27

  13

  -2

  West Germany

  1979–1985

  -9

  5

  -2

  229

  Manufacturing Industries

  Service Industries

  Totals in Civilian Employment

  Japan

  1979–1985

  9

  11

  6

  United States of America

  1979–1985

  -87

  15

  8

  1 Civilian employment is the sum of employees in employment and the self employed in Great Britain. In West Germany, Japan and the United States of America the figures include unpaid family workers.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of those available for work in Derbyshire were unemployed in each of the years 1983 to 1987; and what was the number of advertised job vacancies for each of those years.

  Mr. Lee
  The table shows the annual average number of unemployed claimants expressed as a percentage of employees in employment plus the unemployed. Estimates of self-employment, also part of the working population, are not regularly produced for counties. Also included are the annual average number of unfilled job vacancies registered at jobcentres, in the county of Derbyshire for each year from 1983 to 1987. Total numbers of advertised job vacancies are not available but it is estimated that nationally about a third of vacancies are notified to jobcentres.

  County of Derbyshire

  Year

  Unemployed claimants1 (per cent·)

  Unfilled vacancies2

  1983

  12·4

  1,512

  1984

  12·7

  1,493

  1985

  12·7

  1,663

  1986

  12·8

  2,049

  1987

  12·0

  2,363

  1 The numbers are affected by changes in the coverage of the count·

  2 The number of unfilled vacancies for 1983 is an average of 9 months, as the figures are only available from April 1983·

  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many self-employed people there were in (i) the Northwich travel-to-work area, (ii) the Runcorn travel-to-work area and (iii) the Chester travel-to-work area in each of the last five years; and what those figures represented as a percentage of the working population.

  Mr. Lee
  The only source of information on the self-employed resident in travel-to-work area (TTWAs) is the decennial census of population. Information from the 1981 census of population for the relevant TTWAs is as shown in the table:

  Self-employed Number

  as percentage of economically active

  Northwich

  5,237

  9·1

  Widnes and Runcorn

  3,115

  4·9

  Wirral and Chester

  17,084

  7·0

  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has as to how many 230
  visitors stayed overnight in (a) the Northwich travel-towork area, (b) the Runcorn travel-to-work area and (c) the Chester travel-to-work area in each of the last five years; how much they spent; and how many jobs they provided.

  Mr. Lee
  Data on the number and expenditure of overnight visits to the travel to work areas specified are not available. However, data on the number of overnight visits to Cheshire by overseas visitors and their associated expenditure are:

  Visits

  Spending

  (000s)

  (£ millions)

  1982

  172

  20

  1983

  183

  23

  1984

  211

  27

  1985

  198

  31

  1986

  204

  38

  The latest available data on employment in tourism related industries in Cheshire relates to September 1984 when there were an estimated 21,800 employees in employment. Equivalent data for specified travel-to-work areas are as follows:

  Number

  Northwich

  2,600

  Widnes & Runcorn

  3,200

  Wirral & Chester

  12,800

  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have taken advantage of the job training scheme child care payment systems in(a) the Northwich travel-to-work area, (b) the Chester travel-to-work area and (c) the Runcorn travel-to-work area.

  Mr. Cope
  There are no trainees receiving child care payments in the three areas concerned. The facility for such payments is being piloted in 10 areas nationally, none of which fall within the boundaries of Cheshire.

  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, what is the current level of(a) youth, (b) long-term and (c) all unemployment in (i) the Northwich travel-to-work area, (ii) the Chester travel-to-work area and (iii) the Runcorn travel-to-work area; what have been the figures at the same date in each of the last five years; and what each figure represents as a percentage of those available for work.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is available from the Library. Table(a) shows the number of unemployed claimants aged under 18, table (b) shows the number of unemployed claimants unemployed for over one year, and table (c) shows the total number of unemployed claimants at October of each of the last five years, (the most recent available figures are for October 1987) in the Northwich, Wirral and Chester and Widnes and Runcorn travel-towork areas, together with these numbers as a percentage of employees in employment plus the unemployed. Comparisons over the period are slightly affected by the change in the method of compiling the figures in March 1986.
  231

  Travel to work area

  October 1983

  Per cent.

  October 1984

  Per cent.

  October 1985

  Per cent.

  Octobe 1986

  Per cent.

  October 1987

  Per cent.

  Table (a)—Unemployed Claimants aged under 18

  Northwich

  478

  1·0

  485

  1·0

  461

  1·0

  344

  0·7

  258

  0·6

  Wirral and Chester

  2,763

  1·3

  2,527

  1·2

  2,374

  1·2

  2,114

  1·1

  1,530

  0·8

  Widnes and Runcorn

  1,057

  1·8

  1,008

  1·7

  805

  1·4

  717

  1·3

  614

  1·1

  Table (b)—Claimants unemployed over one year

  Northwich

  2,254

  4·9

  2,514

  5·3

  2,493

  5·3

  2,467

  5·3

  2,027

  4·4

  Wirral and Chester

  15,703

  7·6

  17,007

  8·3

  17,848

  8·8

  17,650

  8·8

  15,421

  7·7

  Widnes and Runcorn

  4,865

  8·3

  5,503

  9·3

  5,659

  9·9

  5,487

  9·8

  4,637

  8·3

  Table (c)—Total unemployed Claimants

  Northwich

  6,262

  13·5

  6,434

  13·6

  6,563

  13·8

  6,016

  12·9

  5,116

  11·0

  Wirral and Chester

  37,083

  18·0

  38,637

  18·9

  39,368

  19·5

  37,875

  18·9

  33,365

  16·6

  Widnes and Runcorn

  11,389

  19·3

  11,703

  19·8

  11,584

  20·3

  11,335

  20·2

  9,668

  17·2

  School Leavers
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of school leavers went directly into full-time employment in(a) the Northwich travel-to-work area, (b) the Chester travel-to-work area and (c) the Runcorn travel-to-work area, in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Lee
  I regret that the information requested is not available for the relevant travel-to-work areas.

  Confectionery and Biscuits
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are his estimates of the prospects for further employment in the confectionery and biscuit industry in the north of England, in the event of the removal of value added tax from products currently charged at the standard rate.

  Mr. Lee
  I am not in a position to make such estimates.

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many of those registered as unemployed in England and Wales in each of the last five years had previous primary diagnoses of(a) mental illness and (b) schizophrenia psychoses; and how many had been registered as unemployed for (i) three to six months, (ii) six months to one year, (iii) one to three years and (iv) over three years.

  Average Hourly Wages of Employees in Manufacturing Industry1

  Belgium

  United Kingdom

  Federal Republic of Germany

  France

  Netherlands

  Sweden

  United States of America

  Italy

  (Francs)2

  (£)2/6

  (Deut-schmarks)3

  (Francs)2

  (Guilders)2

  (Kronor)3

  ($)

  (Lira)4

  1975

  144·32

  1·399

  9·69

  11·99

  9·95

  ..

  4·83

  1,794

  1976

  159·68

  1·559

  10·35

  13·87

  10·77

  27·31

  5·22

  2,133

  1977

  174·59

  1·687

  11·14

  15·61

  11·83

  29·51

  5·68

  2,673

  1978

  18444

  1·949

  11·73

  17·49

  12·49

  33·03

  6·17

  3,244

  1979

  199·61

  2·275

  12·36

  19·56

  13·05

  36·01

  6·70

  3,849

  1980

  217·88

  2·664

  13·18

  22·72

  13·77

  39·63

  7·27

  4,684

  1981

  243·08

  2·934

  13·92

  26·14

  14·56

  43·18

  7·99

  5,742

  1982

  256·80

  3·197

  14·64

  29 75

  15·60

  45·67

  8·49

  6,693

  1983

  270·33

  3·436

  15·14

  33·56

  15·93

  48·45

  8·83

  7,712

  1984

  281·78

  3·677

  15·49

  35·67

  16·16

  53·98

  9·19

  8,539

  1985

  293·81

  3·971

  16·20

  37·75

  16·58

  58·58

  9·53

  ..

  1986

  295·30

  4·268

  16·80

  39·29

  ..

  ..

  9·73

  ..

  Source: International Labour Office 'Year Book of Labour Statistics 1986'

  `Bulletin of Labour Statistics 1987–8'
  232
  Mr. Lee
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Occupational Health Services
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has responded to the consultative document produced by the Health and Safety Commission regarding occupational health services and ratification of International Labour Organisation convention 161 adopted in June 1985; and if' he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I invited the Health and Safety Commission to give its views on whether the Government should ratify ILO convention 161 on occupational health services. The commission issued a consultative document and, in the light of the comments received, has recently submitted its advice which I am currently considering.

  Hourly Earnings
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has for each year since 1975 as to the figures for average hourly earnings of industrial workers in(a) Belgium, (b) Britain, (c) Germany, (d) France, (e) Holland, (f) Sweden, (g) the United State of America and (h) Italy.

  Mr. Lee
  The table sets out the available information published by the International Labour Office for average hourly wage of employees in manufacturing industry.
  233

  Notes:

  1 Average gross earnings per hour of men and women of all ages (except salaried employees) unless otherwise indicated. See notes for each country. Figures relate to annual averages unless otherwise indicated.

  2 October of each year.

  3 Includes family allowance paid directly by employer.

  4 Includes value of payments in kind.

  5 Second quarter of each year. Adults only. Including holiday and sick leave payments and the value of payments in kind.

  6 Full time male manual workers on adult rates of pay—includes quarrying after 1983 and all adults prior to 1980.

  .. Not available.

  Italics Change in coverage of series.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  British Industry Committee
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance he proposes to give to the British Industry Committee on South Africa in its efforts to get British companies to invest in social projects in South Africa.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have kept in close touch from the outset with the British Industry Committee on South Africa about its scheme to invest in social projects in South Africa. We also maintain contact with the major British companies already involved in such projects, which we welcome. The Government have committed funds totalling £21 million for the five years beginning in April 1987 to our own major development programme for black people in South Africa.

  Helsinki Final Act
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the recent progress of Romania in fulfilling the Helsinki Final Act.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) on 13 January, at columns 185–89.
  Romania's performance has not improved over the last six months. The presidency of the European Community made representations to the Romanian authorities on 3 February in Bucharest on behalf of the Twelve, drawing attention to the need for Romania to respect its CSCE commitments.

  BBC Overseas Service
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will indicate in real terms the grant payable to the BBC overseas service over the last five years.

  Mr. Mellor
  The total grants-in-aid of the BBC external services in the last five years for broadcasting and monitoring were as follows:

  Total £ million

  Real increase on previous year percentage

  1982–83

  70·9

  5

  1983–84

  77·6

  5

  1984–85

  81·1

  0

  1985–86

  90·0

  5

  1986–87

  98·8

  7

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if any representations have been made to Her Majesty's Government or to the United Kingdom ambassador in Washington from the member states of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty concerning breaches of non-proliferation treaty article 1 on the prohibition of assistance in making nuclear weapon devices.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have received no such representations.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is aware of any breaches of article VI of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Mellor
  No.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if any member state Government party to the non-proliferation treaty has ever made it known to the depository states that they intend to consider withdrawing from the treaty; and if he will list the signatories to the treaty at the most recent practicable date.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have received no suggestions that any party to the non-proliferation treaty wishes to withdraw. I have placed copies of the latest list of signatories to the treaty in the Library.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives his Department will take to ensure the extension and strengthening of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty at the 1995 renewal conference of the treaty.

  Mr. Mellor
  We are strongly committed to the nonproliferation treaty. It is, however, too soon to consider initiatives for renewing the treaty in 1995.

  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will request Her Majesty's Government's ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency board of directors to forward a report to his Department on the agency's director-general's latest safeguards implementation report and oral commentary; and if he will place a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Mellor
  We receive International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards implementation reports on an annual basis. The reports and the Director-General's oral commentary are confidential to board members.

  However, a summary and the main conclusions of the 1986 safeguards implementation report (the latest available) are given in paragraphs 34 and 391 to 437 of the International Atomic Energy Agency's annual report for 1986. I am arranging for a copy to be placed in the Library.

  Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will instruct Her Majesty's Government's permanent ambassador to the United Nations permanent disarmament conference to initiate negotiations under the amendment procedure of the 1963 partial test ban treaty to enforce the finalisation of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty.

  Mr. Mellor
  No.

  Nuclear Materials (Security)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if any representative from the nuclear authorities in the United Kingdom has been invited to the meeting of nuclear experts convened by the DG. 17 energy directorate of the European Commission on 15 February; and if he will set out the assistance the United Kingdom intends to offer to the Energy Commission inquiry looking into nuclear materials security in the European Economic Community.

  Mr. Mellor
  Yes. The possibility of any United Kingdom assistance being supplied will be considered in the light of the outcome of the meeting.

  Nuclear Materials (Oversight)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's evaluation of the adequacy of chapters 7 and 10 of the European treaty on ensuring oversight of nuclear materials and technology management within and without the EEC.

  Mr. Mellor
  We are satisfied that chapters VII and X of the Euratom treaty adequately cater for the safeguarding of nuclear material both inside the Community and in trade between Community and third countries. These chapters do not address the question of technology management.

  Nuclear Safeguards
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information his Department currently possesses on the inquiries to be undertaken, respectively, by(a) the Euratom safeguards directorate and (b) the commission of inquiry of the European Parliament appointed on 20 January to investigate the adequacy of the implementations of nuclear safeguards to nuclear facilities within the EEC member states.

  Mr. Mellor
  I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the allegations involving a German firm, Transnuklear, and the Belgian nuclear centre at Mol. Following those allegations, Euratom officials, working with officials from the International Atomic Energy Agency, carried out exhaustive checks and found no evidence that any nuclear material of significance has been diverted and no evidence of any breach of safeguards.

  The European Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry which was appointed on 20 January to investigate activities at Mol is to report within four months from that date.

  Armoured Personnel Carriers (Turkey)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth. Affairs what assurances have been sought from the Turkish Government on the proposed uses of the 40 Shorts SS50 armoured personnel carriers which its Interior Ministry has contracted to buy for their gendarmerieé; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  None. Turkey is a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation ally with which we enjoy excellent bilateral relations.

  Nuclear Materials (Khartoum)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will instruct Her Majesty's ambassador to Sudan to inquire of the Sudanese Prime Minister if he will make available to Her Majesty's Government any information he possesses concerning the allegations of a black market in weapons grade nuclear materials in Khartoum made public initially on 30 October 1987.

  Mr. Mellor
  Her Majesty's embassy in Khartoum is in touch with the appropriate Sudanese governmental authorities. There is still no evidence to confirm the allegation of a black market in weapons grade nuclear material in Sudan.

  Annette Heunis and Terry Tsle
  Mr. Ashby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received from Her Majesty's ambassador in South Africa about the case of Annette Heunis and Terry Tsle, who have fled to Bophuthatswana to escape the attempts by the South African police to stop their mixed race relationship.

  Mrs. Chalker
  None. The case has received extensive coverage in the British press. As the House knows, Her Majesty's Government believe that individuals should be free to live where they wish.

  Hong Kong
  Sir Peter Blaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Hong Kong Government White Paper on representative government will be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The Hong Kong Government White Paper on the development of representative government was published in Hong Kong earlier today. Copies of the White Paper were placed in the Library of the House today. The paper covers a range of issues connected with the development of representative government. The main decisions are that

  (a) ten directly elected members will be introduced into the Legislative Council in 1991;

  (b) in 1988 the number of appointed members in the Council will be reduced from 22 to 20, and the number of members elected by functional constituencies increase from 12 to 14. In 1991 the present geographically-based electoral college system of election will be abolished, but the urban and regional councils will each continue to elect one member to the Council;

  (c) links between the urban district boards and the urban council will be strengthened;

  (d) the Governor will continue to be the president of the Legislative Council for the immediate future.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Coal Waste (Disposal)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with British Coal regarding its proposals to dispose of increased amounts of coal waste and slurry off Dawdon; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 9 February 1988.

  Dairy Inspections
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average(a) cost of a dairy inspection, (b) duration of a visit for a dairy inspection and (c) number of visits each inspector carried out per day, for the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, the charge of £90 reflects the total cost of enforcing the milk and dairies regulations, and the salary and travelling costs of the dairy husbandry staff who carry out farm visits (including follow-up visits which are not chargeable) account for approximately half of this sum.

  The duration of routine dairy husbandry visits varies and it is not possible to provide a meaningful average.

  Dairy husbandry advisers achieve between three and four visits per day, but this is an average. In practice they aim to devote complete days to farm visiting (during which they normally cover five farms) after which between one third and one half of a day is required for writing up the results and preparing for the next block of visits.

  Chemical Trials
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the scope and purpose of all chemical trials currently being conducted on United Kingdom farms.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 9 February 1988]: The agricultural and horticultural industries use a wide range of chemicals, most notably as fertilisers, pesticides, fungicides, veterinary medicines, disinfectants and cleaning agents. My Department has statutory responsibilities for testing or monitoring in a number of these areas. We also have a research and development programme to support this work and to explore was of minimising chemical usage. This includes studying the effects of chemicals in crops and food, on the environment and on wild life. Most trials involved are carried out in laboratories or at experimental research stations, though some do take place on farms with the agreement of the farmer concerned and subject to the necessary supervision. Farm trials are also undertaken to assess commercial viability, though the majority of these are conducted by chemical companies and subject to any licensing conditions. In the case of pesticides, this involves authorisation by the granting of an experimental permit under the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986. For veterinary medicines, companies or individuals may apply for an animal test certificate under the Medicines Act
  238
  1968. But in order to protect commercial confidentiality, section 118 of the Act prohibits the disclosure of information relating to such applications.

  Centrally held information on the R and D programme does not readily allow the identification of projects which include farm trials and details of these and the many pesticide permits could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Rainfall (West Yorkshire)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when his Department first received from the Meteorological Office rainfall figures for the period 2 to 7 May 1986, in relation to west Yorkshire; when this information was transmitted to his Department's regional offices in west Yorkshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 9 February 1988]: First information on rainfall across Britain during the period in question was provided immediately, by telephone—see my reply of 29 January at column 421. This was used to identify areas most likely to be affected by fallout; later, this function was replaced by the use of results of surveys of actual deposition and of monitoring, which made it clear that north Wales, Cumbria and southwest Scotland were the areas of significant deposition. Subsequent to these surveys, preliminary rainfall maps (based on radar data and covering the whole country on 3–4 May) were received by my Leeds regional office at the end of June 1986 from the local meteorological office.

DEFENCE

  Air-Sea Search and Rescue
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many mountain rescue associations have submitted comments to his Department on the future of air-sea search and rescue services.

  Mr. Freeman
  Since 1 January 1987, seven mountain rescue organisations have submitted comments to this Department on the future of search and rescue services. A number of other organisations associated with mountaineering have also done so.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Moray,Official Report, 26 January, column 183, he will list in the Official Report the names of those organisations and individuals who have made representations to retain air-sea search and rescue services as a function of the Royal Air Force.

  Mr. Freeman
  Representations to retain search and rescue services as a military function have been made by, or on behalf of, the following organisations:

  Brecon Mountain Rescue Team

  British Mountaineering Council

  Cockermouth Mountain Rescue Team

  Hinckley Mountaineering Club

  Llanberis Mountain Rescue Team

  Lomond Mountaineering Club

  Mountaineering Council of Scotland

  Mountain Rescue Committee

  Mountain Rescue Committee of Scotland

  Moray District Council

  National Organisation for Outdoor Education

  239

  (Scotland)

  National Union of Seamen

  Pembrokeshire Conservative and Unionist Association (St. Davids branch)

  Ramblers' Association, East Yorkshire and Derwent Area

  Scottish Mountaineers' Club

  Swaledale Fell Rescue Organisation

  Tweed Valley Mountain Rescue Team

  Wick Community Council

  It is not the practice to list the names of private individuals who have made representations to this Department.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list in the Official Report the total number of representations he has received about the future of air-sea search and rescue services.

  Mr. Freeman
  Apart from parliamentary questions, some 60 inquiries or representations about the future of air-sea search and rescue services have been received by this Department since 1 January 1987.

  Trident (Contracts)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the contracts awarded to United Kingdom companies for work on the United States Trident strategic weapon system programme, giving in each case the name of the company, the nature of the work, the value of the contract and the duration of the contract.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Up to the end of September 1987, 395 contracts had been awarded to 59 United Kingdom firms out of a total of 1,007 requests for quotation received from the seven major United States primes involved with the United States Trident II programme. The total value of these contracts is $78 million. Many of the contracts are for initial quantities for the full-scale engineering development phase, with the potential for follow-on production orders. It is not the practice to give details of individual contracts.

  Exercise Teamwork 88
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if a rehearsal amphibious landing in the United Kingdom is planned for Exercise Teamwork 88; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  No rehearsal amphibious landing is planned to take place in the United Kingdom as a part of Exercise Teamwork 88, which will be a major NATO maritime exercise held later this year in the Atlantic and Norwegian sea areas.

  Trident
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if the re-entry vehicle bus for the Trident system is being purchased in the United States of America;

  (2) whether the re-entry vehicles for the Trident system are being purchased in the United States; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  As has frequently been stated, the Trident D5 missile — which includes the post boost vehicle (or bus) — will be purchased from the United States. The warheads will be developed and manufactured in this country, and will be assembled in the United Kingdom into re-entry vehicles of which some parts will have been purchased from the United States.

  Departmental Staff Duties
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of his departmental staff are employed full-time on nuclear arms control and disarmament research.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Responsibility within the Ministry of Defence for nuclear arms control matters falls initially on the defence arms control unit. Within this unit, two people are engaged full time on nuclear arms control. A great many others, in various parts of the Ministry, contribute to relevant research and to the formulation of policy as an important part of their duties.

  British Nuclear Fuels plc
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) on how many occasions in each of the years 1979 to the present day he met the chairman of British Nuclear Fuels to discuss nuclear materials provisions in support of the United Kingdom nuclear deterrent;

  (2) when he last paid a visit to (a) British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. Sellafield, (b) British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. Capenhurst and (c) British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. Chapel Cross.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Since my right hon. Friend was appointed to his current office in January 1986, he has not met the chairman of British Nuclear Fuels plc officially nor has he visited the company's sites at Sellafield, Capenhurst and Chapel Cross.

  Tritium
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has had any discussions with his counterpart in the United States of America over the provision of tritium to the United States of America from Chapel Cross.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend has had frequent meetings with the United States Secretary for Defence; the details of their discussions are confidential.

  Cabinet Defence Committee—UKAEA (Minutes)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will arrange for a copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet Defence Committee and the chairman of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, of 2 August 1957, recently released under the 30-year rule, to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Freeman
  If the hon. Member is referring to a specific document that has already been released for open inspection under the 30-year rule, he may ask the Library to request a copy direct from the Public Record Office at Kew.

  Nuclear Accidents
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department has made any evaluation of the implications of the radiation contamination of clean-up workers following the 21 January 1968 accident involving a nuclear weapon-carrying B-52 US air force bomber at the US air force base at Thule, Greenland, for emergency procedures at all Royal Air Force bases used by nuclear capable aircraft.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The alleged contamination of personnel involved in the clean-up operation after the
  241
  Thule accident in 1968 is a matter for the US and Danish authorities. However, the accident was studied in detail by the Ministry of Defence, and all pertinent lessons are now reflected in our nuclear weapon accident contingency plans, the details of which remain classified.

  30-Year Rule
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will initiate a review of all the statements and parliamentary answers made by Ministers in his Department to the House to assess if formal revision is necessitated by new information contained in official papers on defence matters released on 11 January under the 30-year rule; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  To enable me to reply perhaps the hon. Member would specify which statements contained in official papers on defence matters released on 11 January under the 30-year rule would in his opinion necessitate review or revision of parliamentary answers made by MOD Ministers.

TRANSPORT

  British Rail
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will detail the changes in the investment criteria

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Exchequer

  118

  114·2

  147·5

  195·6

  216·2

  312·5

  339·2

  317

  111

  101·4

  82·1

  Ratepayers

  212

  193·6

  156·9

  I have no information about the amount of grant requested prior to 1985–86, but since then the total grant has been in excess of need and surpluses have been carried forward each year.

  Traffic Accidents (Radiation)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of the number of traffic accidents in which either workers or employees were exposed to significant levels of radiation for each year since 1975.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Studies carried out by the National Radiological Protection Board show that since 1975 no employees or workers have been exposed to significant levels of radiation in traffic accidents.

  Light Dues
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has about the level of charges equivalent to light dues levied by different European countries.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Within the EC, light dues are charged in Greece, the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. I have no information about the level or scope of the charges in Greece, but the Republic of Ireland operates a similar system to that in the United Kingdom, although the rates of charge may vary from time to time. I understand that in the Netherlands there is a Government levy on port dues which is applied to meeting 242
  applied by Her Majesty's Government to British Rail for (a) passenger and (b) freight traffic since the Transport Act 1962; and what future changes he envisages.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Changes since 1962 could be ascertained only at disproportionate cost. The Government's current views on criteria for railway investment will be set out in their response to the Transport Committee's report on the financing of rail services.

  London Regional Transport
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of(a) the amount of central Government funding to London Regional Transport and (b) the amount of public funding from all sources that was (i) requested by London Regional Transport, or where appropriate the Greater London council and (ii) provided for the last 10 years.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  It is not possible to attribute subsidy between ratepayers and taxpayers prior to 1985–86, since much of the latter's contribution was by means of rate support grant and transport supplementary grant to the GLC, which, as block grants, were not hypothecated. The figures for grant provided are as follows:

  the costs of navigational aids outside the ports. Elsewhere in Europe, I understand that in Sweden light dues are levied on vessels arriving from abroad, and that in Norway part of the costs of lights is met through port charges. Of the membership of the International Association of Lighthouse Authorities, which is a worldwide organisation, about 45 per cent. of member countries rely solely on port or light dues, and about 38 per cent. rely on general taxation or subsidy or a mixture of public finance and dues.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has about the relative safety for different types of road user on(a) all roads, (b) trunk roads and (c) motorways.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information requested is available only for English roads:

  Accident involvement rates for drivers/riders of different vehicle types: England: 1986

  Per 100 million vehicle kilometers

  Motorways

  Trunk roads

  All roads

  Car drivers

  26·1

  78·8

  122·8

  Pedal cyclists

  N/A

  1,156·5

  631·5

  Motor cyclists

  167·2

  697·4

  1,011·9

  Light goods vehicle drivers

  22·1

  69·6

  100·9

  Heavy goods vehicle drivers

  23·2

  61·2

  67·1

  243

  Motorways

  Trunk roads

  All roads

  All drivers/riders of motor vehicles

  26·1

  85·2

  137·9

  The involvement rates relative to the involvement rate of car drivers are given in the table.

  Relative accident involvement rates for drivers/riders of different vehicle types: England: 1986

  (car drivers= 1)

  Motorways

  Trunk roads

  All roads

  Car drivers

  1·00

  1·00

  1·00

  Pedal cyclists

  N/A

  14·67

  5·14

  Motor cyclists

  6·40

  8·85

  8·24

  Light goods vehicle drivers

  0·84

  0·88

  0·82

  Heavy goods vehicle drivers

  0·89

  0·78

  0·55

  All drivers/riders of motor vehicles

  1·00

  1·08

  1·12

  Casualty rates for drivers/riders of different vehicle types: England: 1986

  Per 100 million driver kilometers

  Motorways

  Trunk roads

  All roads

  Car drivers

  10·9

  31·5

  38·4

  Pedal cyclists

  N/A

  1,121

  605

  Motor cycle riders

  148

  636

  908

  Light goods vehicle drivers

  9·6

  22·7

  24·2

  Heavy goods vehicle drivers

  7·1

  14·1

  12·3

  All drivers/riders of motor vehicles

  10·8

  36·1

  51·8

  Relative casualty rates, for driver/riders of different vehicle types: England: 1986

  (car drivers= 1)

  Motorways

  Trunk roads

  All roads

  Car drivers

  1·00

  1·00

  1·00

  Pedal cyclists

  N/A

  35·6

  15·8

  Motor cycle riders

  13·5

  20·2

  23·6

  Light goods vehicle drivers

  0·88

  0·72

  0·63

  Heavy goods vehicle drivers

  0·65

  0·45

  0 32

  All drivers/riders of motor vehicles

  0·99

  1·15

  1·35

  Roads (Repair and Maintenance)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which road repair and maintenance schemes originated by(a) his Department and (b) local authorities are now privately managed; and what plans he has to extend management privatisation of road projects.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Private agents manage repair and maintenance on our behalf in the following areas:

  1. South Yorkshire, Greater Manchester, and the West Midlands (motorways only).

  2. West Yorkshire (motorways and part of the trunk roads).

  I am not aware of arrangements for private management of maintenance of local authority roads.

  We have no plans at present to extend private management of trunk road maintenance. We shall keep the possibility under review.

  Aircraft (Near-Miss Incidents)
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will discuss with Civil Aviation Authority making the maximum information available to the public regarding the near-miss involving a British Airways plane and a Bulgarian aircraft.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on Monday 8 February.

  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will ascertain from the Civil Aviation Authority whether lack of command of the English language has been a contributing factor in near-miss incidents.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I will ask the chairman of the CAA to write to my hon. Friend.

  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will ascertain from the Civil Aviation Authority whether the near-miss involving a British Airways plane and a Bulgarian aircraft was in any way contributed to by defective air traffic control equipment.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on Monday 8 February. This is a matter which will be considered by the investigation being conducted by the chief inspector of accidents.

  Railways Inspectorate
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the duties of the Railways Inspectorate.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The principal duties of the Railway Inspectorate are to assist and advise the Secretary of State in the exercise of his jurisdiction under the railway regulatory Acts. This includes the inspection and approval of new and altered railway works, including level crossings, safety rules and regulations, and the reporting and investigation of accidents. In addition, the inspectorate applies the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act 1974 to the operational parts of the railways in Great Britain under an agency agreement between the Department and the Health and Safety Commission, and inspects railway works and investigates accidents in Northern Ireland, Hong Kong and Singapore under separate agency agreements. Full details of the Secretary of State's jurisdiction under the railway Acts, and details of the agency agreement with the HSC, are given in appendix 11 of the Department's report on the safety record of the railways in Great Britain during 1986, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Railways (Safety)
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the availability of finance is one of the criteria adopted by the Railways Inspectorate in determining its policy towards safety measures on railways.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Both British Rail and London Regional Transport have a statutory duty to provide or secure the provision of rail services and in so doing to have due regard to efficiency, economy and safety of operation. In considering proposals affecting safety the Railway Inspectorate bears these requirements in mind.

  Heavy Vehicles
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he intends to take to encourage the use of air suspensions on heavy vehicles to reduce the harmful effects on roads and bridges.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We are circulating proposals to increase the permitted weight on each axle of a triaxle of a semi-trailer from 7·5 tonnes to 8 tonnes provided that air suspensions or other equivalent fluid suspensions are fitted. This will allow more flexibility in load distribution and reduce the likelihood of overloading axles. The maximum weight of articulated vehicles remains at 38 tonnes.

  Night Flying
  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has reached decisions about future night-flying restrictions at Heathrow and Gatwick airports; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Channon
  On 6 November last year I published proposals for future night restrictions at the two airports. I set out then my objective—to improve the night noise climate around the airports without imposing unnecessary restrictions on the airline industry.

  I am very aware that many people living near the airports feel strongly about night flying. I have considered their views very carefully. My predecessors accepted that some night disturbance was unavoidable. They framed night restrictions designed to phase out the noisiest aircraft. This phasing out has now been achieved and those living near the airports have benefited—at no small cost to the airlines. I now have the opportunity to build on those achievements with further improvements in the night noise climate.

  The challenge is to ensure that the benefits of modern aviation technology are enjoyed not only by those who fly, but by those on the ground. I believe that we can do that by giving airlines an incentive to replace their older, noisier aircraft by modern quieter ones. There is a balance to be struck. These modern aircraft are expensive. But because they make so much less noise than their predecessors, particularly on take-off, they can be used at night with much less disturbance. And because night movements can make a lot of difference to the economics of operating expensive new aircraft, they become more attractive to airlines. They will be used by day, much more than at night, and so will help to improve the daytime noise climate.

  I am determined that at Gatwick night noise disturbance should be reduced over the next five years. I therefore intend to reduce sharply flights by noisier, older aircraft, while increasing those by quieter aircraft —allowing a very small increase year by year in the total number of flights. I am thus adopting the preferred option in the consultation paper.

  At Heathrow there is less demand for night flights than at Gatwick. The present quotas are not fully used, and I can achieve my objectives by limiting the further growth of night movements by keeping them to about their present level, as proposed in the consultation paper. There are very few planned departures in the middle of the night at Heathrow: in future I shall require that these should be modern, quieter aircraft. Take-offs by older, noisier
  246
  aircraft will not be allowed in the small hours except for a small quota for those planned to take off earlier which are unavoidably delayed. This should achieve a considerable improvement in the noise climate during this most sensitive period.

  I know that many people near Gatwick remain to be convinced that more flights, even by modern aircraft, can mean less disturbance from noise. I assure them that we shall monitor the noise climate, and the noise of individual aircraft, to ensure that the benefits of quieter aircraft are realised in reduced disturbance. I am prepared to consider whether additional monitoring is necessary, to verify the reduced effects on local populations of night flights by quieter aircraft. It is important that people should have confidence in the monitoring, and I therefore intend to conduct it more openly, by inviting the airport consultative committees to nominate representatives of local people to sit with representatives of the airline industry on an advisory committee to consider all aspects of monitoring.

  The consultation paper proposed a regime for night flights extending over five years. However, if after two years (that is after the summer season 1989) it is apparent that disturbance from night flights at Gatwick is getting worse, rather than lessening as our research leads us to expect, we shall revise the quotas accordingly. Thus we shall, in effect, be putting the onus on the airline industry to prove their case in the meantime. At Heathrow, because the quotas are being cut, the level of disturbance will in any case be less than it otherwise would have been.

  In response to suggestions made during the consultation, I shall make some small adjustments to the consequential changes which we proposed.

  The main points of the new restrictions are described in a paper I have placed in the Library. Copies will be sent to hon. Members who were involved in the recent consultations.

  Channel Tunnel (Rail Infrastructure)
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will indicate the investment criteria applied by Her Majesty's Government to British Rail, and information available to him on criteria applied by the French Government to SNCF, in relation to rail infrastructure connected to or associated with the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  So far as Channel tunnel related investment is concerned, it is our understanding that the French Government, like Her Majesty's Government, expect the investments of their railways to show a proper commercial rate of return.

  Motor Vehicles (Safety)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the manufacturers of motor vehicles with a view to improving vehicle safety and safety of other road users; what steps he is taking to secure wider adoption of safer vehicles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We attach high importance to safety-conscious vehicle design and maintenance. We regularly meet vehicle manufacturers and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders to discuss the
  247
  implications of new technology, new vehicle standards, vehicle defects and appropriate corrective action including recalls.

  The Transport and Road Research Laboratory has been in the forefront in fostering safer vehicle design. Current ideas and developments include the pedestrian-friendly car, which could save pedestrian casualties caused by unsympathetic vehicle fronts, increased use of rear seat belts and child restraints, improved fire prevention, a softened steering wheel which could prevent facial injuries, and increased fitment of such braking features as antilock.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Tax Changes
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much on average those earning over £50,000 a year have gained, on an annual basis, from tax changes over the past eight years.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave to the hon. Members for Worsley (Mr. Lewis), for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) and for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on 14 January 1988, at columns 389–90.

  Borrowing Requirement
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, pursuant to the reply of 25 January,Official Report, columns 82–84, concerning the Government's borrowing requirements, he will publish in the Official Report particulars of the difference between Government revenues and disbursements for (a) central Government, (b) local government and (c) other public bodies in the current financial year, excluding borrowing.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 9 February 1988]: The difference between the Government's receipts and expenditure is their borrowing requirement. Details of the borrowing requirements of central Government, the local authorities and the public corporations are published in "Financial Statistics", tables 3.4, 4.4 and 5.4 respectively.

  Government Data Network
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidelines currently apply to limitations on the exchange of information between Government Departments; and in what way this will be affected by the proposed introduction of a Government data network.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 8 February 1988]: Any transfer of date between Departments requires the authorisation of the Department that owns the data. This requirement will continue if the proposed GDN is introduced.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, pursuant to his answer of 12 November,Official Report, column 277, he is yet in a position to announce the outcome of the tendering process for the Government data network.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 8 February 1988]: No. Memoranda of agreement were agreed by Departments and the bidding consortia on 11 January. Tenders will be invited shortly.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Data Processing Industry
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the level of output in the data processing industry in 1986 and in 1980; and what was the level of exports in the industry in the same period.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Respondents to the Department's computing services inquiry reported sales of £1·6 billion in 1986, including £114 million exports. In 1980, respondents reported £500 million sales and £34 million exports.

  Management Education
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to encourage the spread of management education.

  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how he intends to advance his proposals on management education outlined in the recent White Paper.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  As set out in the White Paper, "DTI—department for Enterprise," (Cmnd. 278), DTI, along with other Government Departments and the Manpower Services Commission, is represented on the industry-led Council for Management Education and Development (the Charter Group initiative). The council's objective is to encourage the spread of management education and good management practice. Its work will include formulating a code of good practice and helping to develop a framework for management education and training at all levels. I am greatly encouraged by the progress which the council has made so far.

  Letter Monopoly (Breaches)
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many prosecutions have been initiated by his Department relating to the breaking of the letter monopoly of the Post Office; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  None. It is the responsibility of the Post Office to decide what action should be taken if it believes that its letter monopoly is being infringed.

  Printing Industry
  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the level of output in the printing industry in 1986 and 1987.

  Mr. Atkins
  The index of production for the United Kingdom printing and publishing industries was 105·6 in 1986 and 116·3 in the first three quarters of 1987 based on 1980 = 100.

  Space Research
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his policy on the science and technology of space research; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I remain wholly committed to a programme of scientific research in space and in particular to the European Space Agency's Horizon 2000
  249
  programme. This programme has received a 20 per cent. real terms increase in funding over the last three years and I am satisfied that the present level of planned funding will enable the objects of Horizon 2000 to be met satisfactorily.

  Space can be a spur to new advances in technology by British industry. It can sometimes be a profitable area of economic activity, for example in the field of communications. I am satisfied that the current level of Government expenditure of some £120 million per annum is justified and I will continue to seek to use it in ways which are potentially beneficial for industry. However, I do not consider that a case has been established for any increase. I have today confirmed to the European Space Agency that Britain will not be extending its involvement in ESA by taking part in the optional programmes on the Ariane V launcher or the Columbus space station as presently proposed.

  Earth observation from space, however, could have significant potential. It involves the processing of remote sensing data from satellites and its supply to end-users for a range of applications. Data from the European Space Agency's first remote sensing satellite, to which the United Kingdom is contributing, will start to be transmitted by the early 1990s. To process this data I have decided to provide funds, estimated at £4 million per annum over five years, to set up an earth observation data centre as part of the national remote sensing complex at the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough.

  At present there is little agreement, either among manufacturing companies or users, on a preferred strategy for future earth observation operations, but I will continue to consider the various options open to us.

  Investment Capital
  Mr. George
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his estimate of the amount of capital raised for new investment on the stock market in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Maude
  New money raised on the stock exchange in the year to January 1988, net of redemptions, was £16·7 billion.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the increase in United Kingdom producer prices and manufactured import prices in the latest year for which data are available.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  United Kingdom output producer prices for manufacturing increased by 3·8 per cent. and manufactured import prices by 4·2 per cent. between 1986 and 1987.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his latest estimate for the balance of trade in manufactured goods for the current year and 1989.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Autumn Statement forecast that there would be a deficit in trade in manufactures of £9 billion in 1988. A new forecast will be published at the time of the Budget.
  250
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the increase in manufactured imports and manufactured exports between 1979 and 1987.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Between the years 1979 and 1987 imports of manufactures, on a balance of payments basis, increased in value by £39·8 billion (141 per cent.) to reach £68·1 billion while exports rose by £29·9 billion (96 per cent.) to £60·8 billion. The corresponding increase by volume was 62 per cent. for imports of manufactures and 25 per cent. for exports.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the latest estimate of the deficit on manufactured trade in 1987.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  For the year 1987 the deficit in trade in manufactures was provisionally estimated to be £7·3 billion.

  Computer-aided Design
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what support his Department is providing for computer-aided design.

  Mr. Butcher
  My Department offers support for the promotion of computer-aided design by the provision of information and advice, and through specific initiatives, to schools, higher education institutions and industry.

  Electronics Industry
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the level of output in the electronic capital goods sector in 1986 and in 1980; and what was the level of exports in the industry over the same period.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  United Kingdom manufacturers' sales of radio and electronic capital goods amounted to £3 billion in 1986 and £1·6 billion in 1980. The industry's exports came to £1·2 billion in 1986 and £500 million in 1980.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the level of output in the consumer electronic sector in 1986 and in 1980; and what was the level of exports in the sector in the same period.

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

  Consumer electronics sector1

  £ million

  1980

  1986

  United Kingdom manufacturers' sale

  551

  989

  Exports

  134

  448

  Note:

  1 Activity Heading 3434 of the Standard Industrial Classification (1980).

  Commercial Vehicles
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has on total unit sales of British-produced commercial vehicles in the home market in 1987 and 1986.

  Mr. Atkins
  Sales to the home market of United Kingdom-built commercial vehicles increased from 175,843 units in 1986 to 193,553 in 1987.

  Association of British Chambers of Commerce
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met the officers of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry met the national council of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce last week. A wide variety of topics were discussed.

  Consumers' Association
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next expects to meet representatives of the Consumers' Association; and what subjects he proposes to discuss.

  Mr. Butcher
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs visited the Consumers' Association on 25 January and discussed a number of topics relevant to consumers. I have no specific plans for a further visit, but I shall be arranging to meet representatives of consumer bodies, including the Consumers' Association, in the near future.

  Textile Industry
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has on the growth of productivity and change in profitability in the textile industry since 1980.

  Mr. Atkins
  Between 1980 and the three quarters of 1987, productivity rose by 44 per cent. Profitability of large textile companies has also increased strongly over the period, according to their published accounts.

  Austin Rover
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has on sales of individual models made by Austin Rover in 1987 and 1986.

  Mr. Atkins
  During 1987 Austin Rover sold a total of 296,784 cars in the United Kingdom against 293,240 in 1986. The model breakdown was as follows.

  1987

  1986

  Mini

  15,873

  16,154

  Metro

  108,223

  109,351

  Maestro

  43,815

  51,406

  Montego

  56,238

  62,658

  Rover 200

  50,254

  45,197

  Rover 800

  20,200

  4,307

  Total

  296,784

  293,240

  Preliminary figures indicate that total worldwide sales by Austin Rover increased in 1987 to over 435,500 against 411,023 in 1986.

  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to return the Austin Rover Group to the private sector; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  It remains the aim of both the Rover Group board and the Government to return Austin Rover 252
  and Land Rover to full private ownership. The group's chairman has spoken publicly of his belief that privatisation can be achieved in the lifetime of this Parliament, and work continues within the company to review the options towards that general objective.

  Aerospace Industry
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster by how much turnover in the aerospace industry has increased in the last 10 years; and by how much exports in the industry have increased over the same period.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Aerospace industry sales increased from £2·2 billion in 1977 to £7·6 billion in 1986. In the same period, exports increased from £900 million to £4·3 billion.

  Regional Aid
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a further statement on the criteria for obtaining regional selective assistance.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have nothing to add to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry's replies of 19 January, at columns 671–75, to my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) and to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and 26 January, at column 149, to the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams).

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on the regional policy aspects of his Department's recent White Paper.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Since the publication of the DTI White Paper on 12 January we have received several representations on aspects of regional policy which refer, amongst other things, to the changes we have made.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what timetable he envisages for the assessment of eligibility for regional selective assistance.

  Mr. Atkins
  For offers of regional selective assistance made by my Department in 1987 the average period between receipt of application and date of offer was eight weeks. I am actively considering ways in which the processing time can be kept to a minimum in future—particularly for small applications — consistent with meeting the objectives of the scheme.

  Questions about the administration of regional selective assistance in Scotland should be addressed to the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on his statement on the future of regional policy, and how he proposes to respond to these.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Since the publication of the DTI White Paper on 12 January we have received several representations on aspects of regional policy which refer, amongst other things, to the changes we have made. We will consider the views expressed very carefully.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what advice will be available to businesses to enable them to acquire regional selective assistance.
  253
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The regional selective assistance scheme is described in the Department's booklet, "The Regional Initiative: Guide to Regional Selective Assistance," which also gives contact points for further inquiries. Officials are available to give further advice to potential applicants as and when it is requested.

  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the implications of the White Paper "DTI the Department for Enterprise" for the west midlands region.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The west midlands has a strong tradition of entrepreneurship and business enterprise and I have every expectation that the region's businesses will make extensive use of the consultancy initiatives and of the other elements of the enterprise initiative. Regional selective assistance remains available within the west midlands intermediate area. The DTI is establishing new offices in Stoke-on-Trent, Telford, Coventry and Hereford in order to get nearer to the business community. I am sure that the enterprise initiatives will make a very worthwhile contribution to the region's prosperity.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received concerning the future funding of regional aid and the consequences of any changes in regional funds from the European regional development fund.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have received a number of representations about the European Community's current review of its structural funds, including the European regional development fund. The Government consider that the highlands and islands of Scotland should continue to be eligible for the fund. We have made representations to the Commission accordingly.

  Turkish Yarn
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what evidence he has received of trade disruption to United Kingdom industry arising from the importing of Turkish acrylic yarn.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I have nothing to add to the reply I have sent to the hon. Member following his priority written question put down for answer on 1 February.

  Mr. James Lamond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has received any representations regarding the recent agreement reached with Turkey on the import into the United Kingdom of acrylic yarn.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Yes, I have received a number of representations about the recent agreement with Turkish textile exporters.

  I met representatives of the Confederation of British Wool Textiles, who are concerned about the acrylic yarn imports.

  North Peckham Task Force
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement concerning expenditure of Government funds by the North Peckham task force.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Since the Government's North Peckham task force was set up in 1986, some £4·2 million of Government funds have been committed for task force 254
  projects benefiting the residents of the area. Of this, about £1·2 million has come from funds available to task forces and £3 million from other Government programmes.

  Competition Policy
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has for strengthening competition policy and acting against restrictive practices.

  Mr. Maude
  Proposals for strengthening competition policy were announced in last month's White Paper "DTI —the department for Enterprise" (Cm 278).

  British Telecom (Magnetic Tapes)
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has had discussions with British Telecom regarding the proposed sale of magnetic tapes containing telephone directory and other information to third parties.

  Mr. Butcher
  No. This is a matter for British Telecom. It would be for the Director General of Telecommunications to consider any representations about such a proposed sale.

  New Businesses (Retired People)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will take steps to encourage retired people with business or professional experience to use their experience for the benefit of new businesses.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I am actively seeking semi or newly retired people to serve as enterprise counsellors to conduct business reviews for small and medium-sized firms under the consultancy elements of the new enterprise initiative. A national recruitment campaign has already attracted many applicants, and I expect that 200 additional enterprise counsellors will be appointed as a result.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met representatives of the European Community Commission to discuss grants from the European regional development fund.

  Mr. Atkins
  At the Industry Council on 22 December, which agreed in substance on the proposed RESIDER programme for European regional development funds in certain steel closure areas.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Irving
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has for strengthening collaborative research and development.

  Mr. Butcher
  The White Paper, "DTI — the Department for Enterprise," which was placed before the House on 12 January announced important initiatives to strengthen collaborative research, including programmes on information technology and superconductivity. On 3 February my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science announced five programmes in the LINK initiative. These programmes have a total Government contribution of £42
  255
  million over five years. One of the principal aims of LINK is to strengthen collaboration between the science base and industry.

  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what measures he is taking to evaluate the effectiveness of spending on civil research and development in the United Kingdom; and what are the results.

  Mr. Butcher
  It is primarily for the market to evaluate research and development activity in the private sector.

  As far as my Department's programmes of support for R and D are concerned, we undertake regular reviews of their effectiveness and, in particular, their value for money. Where such reviews show that some adjustment to our approach is justified we take appropriate measures to achieve this.

  Leyland Trucks
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has on the profitability of the former Leyland Trucks since its merger with DAF.

  Mr. Atkins
  I understand that DAF BV has not yet published its audited results for the year ended 31 December 1987. However, the chairman of DAF's board of management recently confirmed that Leyland DAF had made a significant contribution to the DAF group's 1987 profit of £18 million.

  Departmental Confidential Hot Line
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will introduce a confidential hot line at his Department for informants on suspected insider dealing and other breaches of the Financial Services Act.

  Mr. Maude
  It is already open to members of the public to contact my Department, anonymously or otherwise, about alleged contraventions of the Company Securities (Insider Dealing) Act 1985. Any such approaches are treated in confidence if the informant so wishes. The main provisions regarding breaches under the Financial Services Act 1986 are not yet in force. When that Act is fully implemented, responsibility for its enforcement will be shared between my Department and the Securities and Investments Board. My Department will shortly be discussing the practical implications of this with the Securities and Investments Board.

  Japanese Manufacturers
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many Japanese manufacturers are established in the United Kingdom; and what percentage of total Japanese investment in western Europe this represents.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department of Trade and Industry is aware of 75 Japanese companies in the United Kingdom that are either manufacturing or have announced plans to do so. This represents about 30 per cent. of all Japanese manufacturing plants in western Europe.

  Car Sales
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has on new car sales in 1987; and what was the importers' share of the market in 1987 and in 1986.
  256
  Mr. Atkins
  There were 2,013,693 new car sales in 1987. The importers' share of the market was 51½ per cent. in 1987 and 56 per cent. in 1986.

  Single European Market
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he will take to ensure that inner cities benefit from the single European market from 1992.

  Mr. Atkins
  Completion of the single market will create opportunities and challenges for all sectors of the economy by ensuring unimpeded access to a market of 320 million people. Our policies reflect the need to equip inner-city firms to compete for that business.

  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how he will encourage small firms to take advantage of the 1992 single European market.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The national awareness campaign which we are preparing is intended to ensure that all companies in Britain, large and small, are fully aware of the opportunities and challenges of the single European market. Under the enterprise initiative (launched on 13 January) financial assistane is available to firms of fewer than 500 employees for consultancy support to help them improve their competitive performance.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to prepare British companies for the competition of the single European market in 1992.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  We are determined to ensure that British business is given every chance to take advantage of the new opportunities which will come from creating a single Community market. We will shortly announce the details of a major awareness campaign to reach companies throughout the country.

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what timetable he envisages for carrying out a review of the assisted areas map.

  Mr. Atkins
  The White Paper, "DTI—the department for Enterprise", (Cm. 278), indicated that the Government have no intention at present of reviewing the assisted areas map.

  Television Advertising
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his Department's budget for television advertising in the current year.

  Mr. Butcher
  Currently planned expenditure by DTI on television advertising is £5£3 million in this financial year.

  Japan (Trade Deficit)
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the level of trade deficit with an inward flow of capital from Japan in 1987.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The United Kingdom trade deficit with Japan in 1987 totalled £3,968 million, on an OTS basis, exports and imports reaching £1,495 million and £5,463 million respectively.
  257
  The United Kingdom does not compile comprehensive statistics on flows of capital between the United Kingdom and other individual countries.

  HOTOL
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has received any further proposals from British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce on HOTOL.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have recently received a proposal from Rolls-Royce for a further year's work on the HOTOL propulsion concept. I expect to receive a related proposal from British Aerospace shortly and I will consider them both with care.

  Staff Dispersal
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to complete his review of the possible relocation out of London of divisions within his Department; and what priority he attaches to achieving such a relocation.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I am very committed to ensuring that my Department's divisions are located as cost effectively as possible, bearing in mind the services they provide, the need to recruit and retain staff, and the potential benefit to a receiving region's economy. I hope to announce shortly a decision on the relocation of the Patent Office. I will continue to consider the best location for other parts of my Department.

  English Industrial Estates
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the future planned expenditure on English Industrial Estates.

  Mr. Atkins
  In 1987–88 English Estates' planned programme in the assisted areas was increased from £33·5 million to £37 million. As a result of increased levels of asset sales, it is likely to achieve a record programme of £47 million. In 1988–89 it has been asked to plan for a programme £5 million higher than this year's (that is, £42 million). In practice it may exceed this figure and it has been authorised to spend up to £49 million if it can generate the necessary funds from its own resources. The level of the new managed workspace programme for the inner cities has not yet been finalised. It will, however, be additional to the planned expenditure under the existing programme for the assisted areas.

  Mergers
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proportion of proposed mergers was referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in 1987.

  Mr. Maude
  Of the 321 mergers and merger proposals which qualified under the Fair Trading Act 1973 for reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in 1987, six, or approximately 2 per cent., were subsequently referred to the commission.

  Companies (Grants)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if his Department maintains an approved list 258
  of companies for the purposes of grants towards management, financial, organisational and other consultancies.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Under the enterprise initiative consultancy schemes, which currently cover marketing, design, quality and manufacturing systems, the selection and deployment of consultants is a matter for the scheme contractors who operate on behalf of the DTI. Similar arrangements will be made for the new consultancy initiatives on business planning and financial and information systems to be introduced in April.

  Inner Cities
  Mr. Chapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on progress on departmental co-operation and initiatives to tackle inner-city problems.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Government Departments are continuing to work together with business, local councils, voluntary organisations and local residents in the inner cities through a range of programmes and initiatives to bring about inner-city renewal. Government Departments co-operate through the urban programme and inner-city task forces to support projets which encourage enterprise and development and improve the environment. The Government effort is also co-ordinated by the five city action teams which promote joint initiatives and provide a local point of contact for companies and others wishing to be involved in inner-city renewal.

  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what contribution the private sector is making to his Department's inner-cities initiative.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The private sector is making a tremendous contribution to the success of our policies for the inner cities. within my own Department's inner-cities initiative we have:—support from six clearing banks for task force development funds
  —secondments, including the secondment of the task force leader in Spitalfields by TSB England and Wales plc
  —backing by over 150 individual firms for the scheme of enterprise advice and training—"Headstart in the Inner Cities" which the Industrial Society is running for my Department and MSC
  —the setting up, by "Investors in Industry plc", of a £10 million investment fund for growing businesses in inner-city areas
  —involvement through Business in the Community with which we are collaborating in four task force areas on a neighbourhood partnership programme.

  These are only a few examples. There are many other individual cases in which the private sector is involving itself in task force projects. I greatly welcome the work currently being taken forward by the CBI to develop still more ways in which industry and commerce can commit itself to the economic future of our cities.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the weekly output of United Kingdom-made steel in November 1987; and what has been the trend in the weekly rate since 1980.

  Mr. Atkins
  In November 1987 the weekly average of United Kingdom crude steel production was 370,000 tonnes. The information on steel output is published
  259
  monthly in "BSC/BISPA Steel Industry Statistics" and the "CSO Monthly digest of statistics", copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  EC (Trade Barriers)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his policy on the removal of trade barriers within the European Community.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  We and other member states are committed to taking all the steps necessary to complete the single market of the Community by 31 December 1992. Completing this market of 320 million people will open up major opportunities for business. We are determined to ensure that British business is given every chance to make the most of them.

  EC (Insurance Market)
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress has been made in attempts to achieve agreement in the European Community on removing national barriers to free trade in insurance.

  Mr. Maude
  At the Internal Market Council on 18 December agreement was reached, by qualified majority, on the main elements of the non-life insurance services directive. This is a welcome step forward in opening up the Common Market to free trade in insurance, and we hope that it will now be possible to move quickly to formal adoption of the directive.

  Managed Workshops
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals he has on the provision of managed workshops.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  We have asked English Estates to establish a new programme for the provision of managed workspace, primarily in inner-city locations and with considerable private sector involvement. The level of the new programme has yet to be finalised, but it will be additional to the planned expenditure under the corporation's existing programme for the assisted areas.

  Financial Institutions
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the implications of the recent White Paper on his Department for its responsibility for regulating the City financial institutions.

  Mr. Maude
  Paragraphs 2.27 to 2.33 of the White Paper explain the work being done to increase confidence in the working of markets by achieving a fair level of protection for the individual customer and investor. The Financial Services Act 1986 establishes a new regulatory structure which will provide a comprehensive system of investor protection which will retain the flexibility to respond to developments in rapidly changing markets.

  Canning Town Glassworks
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what action he proposes to take in regard to the 260
  closure of the Canning Town Glassworks at Swinton in view of the reassurances previously offered by Guinness plc. to the hon. Member for Wentworth.

  Mr. Atkins
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman shortly.

  Support for Innovation
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what support for innovation will be provided by his Department outside development areas after 1 April; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The White Paper "DTI—the department for Enterprise" (Cm 278) sets out in chapter 8 "Innovation, using Technology" the support for innovation available throughout Great Britain. This support covers collaborative research, technology transfer, small firms and start-ups, exceptional projects, space and other research programmes. Support for collaborative research is described in more detail in the "Research and Technology Initiative" booklet, and I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

  Balance of Trade
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has about the latest figures for the balance of trade on a per capita basis between the United Kingdom and the United States of America; and what information he has as to the per capita balance of trade between the United States of America and Canada, Sweden, Japan, West Germany and Brazil.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The information is in the table.

  United States of America balance of trade per capita January to October 1987

  United States $

  (A)

  (B)

  United Kingdom

  -10

  -50

  Canada

  -40

  -370

  Sweden

  1 -10

  1 -290

  Japan

  -200

  -390

  F R Germany

  -50

  -200

  Brazil

  -10

  -70

  1 =estimate

  (A) balance per head of United States population.

  (B) balance per head of trading partner.

  Sources: United States Department of Commerce.

  OECD.

  IMF International Financial Statistics.

  Trade Safety
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his policy on the European Community draft directive for general duty to trade safety.

  Mr. Butcher
  The Consumer Protection Act 1987 introduced a general safety requirement into United Kingdom law on 1 October 1987. We can therefore support in principle the concept of a general safety duty throughout the European Community. When the EC draft directive is communicated, we will approach the discussions with the Commission and member states in a constructive way. But there are a number of potential problems involved in this complex issue which will need careful handling if it is to result in genuine improvements to the protection afforded to consumers.

  Child Safety Campaign
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what action the Government are taking as their contribution to the European child safety campaign beginning in April.

  Mr. Butcher
  The United Kingdom has made clear its willingness to participate in some form of European child safety campaign, provided that it is well thought through and properly targeted. Discussions have been held during 1987 with the Commission and other member states about the form and content of a campaign and we are waiting for revised proposals to come forward from the Commission. No decision has been taken on the launch of the campaign, and any action taken by the United Kingdom Government will need to be considered in the light of the Commission's proposals. My Department has already announced the start of a series of consumer safety awareness campaigns to be run over the next three years. Child safety will feature prominently among the target areas.

  Heavy Duty Mining Equipment
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what was the United Kingdom share of the following markets for heavy duty mining supports for the period 1981 to 1986: North America, Western Europe (excluding the United Kingdom and West Germany), Africa, the far east and Australia;

  (2) what was the United Kingdom share of the following markets for heavy duty mining shearers for the period 1981 to 1985: North America, Western Europe (excluding the United Kingdom and West Germany), Africa, the far east and Australia;

  (3) what was the United Kingdom share of the following markets for heavy duty mining face conveyors for the period 1981 to 1985: North America, Western Europe (excluding the United Kingdom and West Germany), Africa, the far east and Australia.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information is not readily available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what was the total value in 1987 of exports of British-produced heavy duty longwall mining equipment;

  (2) what was the total value in 1987 of exports of home-produced mining equipment, excluding heavy duty longwall mining equipment.

  Mr. Atkins
  Information on exports of home-produced mining equipment is not available. However, total exports of mining equipment for 1987 amounted to £86.8 million; this figure may include some re-exported goods.

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics.

  Note: Mining equipment defined as Standard Industrial Classification Activity heading 3251.

  Guinness plc
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects the inspectors appointed to investigate the affairs of Guinness plc to report.

  Mr. Maude
  The investigation continues, but I am unable to say when a report will be received.

  House of Fraser (Holdings) plc
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects the inspectors appointed to investigate the affairs of House of Fraser (Holdings) plc to report.

  Mr. Maude
  The investigation continues, but I am unable to say when a report will be received.

  Lonrho plc
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to complete his consideration of representations in relation to a possible breach by Lonrho plc of sections 204 to 206 of the Companies Act 1985 in relation to share dealings in House of Fraser plc during the period from the date of the inspector's interim report into share dealings in House of Fraser to the date of its acquisition by A1 Fayed Investment and Trust (UK) Limited.

  Mr. Maude
  These matters are kept under review, but at present no action is considered necessary.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to complete his consideration of representations in relation to a possible breach of section 231 of the Companies Act 1985 by Lonrho plc in relation to its Liechtenstein subsidiaries Blorg and Contango.

  Mr. Maude
  By letter dated 16 November 1987, my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry informed my hon. Friend that representations in relation to a possible breach of section 231 of the Companies Act 1985 by Lonrho in relation to its Liechtenstein subsidiaries, Blorg and Contango, had been considered and he had decided to take no further action in the matter, the substance of which occurred some 20 years ago.

  Electronic Fund Transfers
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to introduce a statutory code of practice to govern electronic fund transfers between banks and customers.

  Mr. Butcher
  I have no immediate plans to introduce such a code of practice. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer set up a review committee in November 1986 to look into all aspects of banking services law. Developments in electronic funds transfer are an important element in that review. Until the review committee has reported, it would not be appropriate for the Government to form a view on such issues.

  Productivity Rates
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has for each year since 1974 about the figures for productivity hourly of industries in(a) Belgium, (b) Britain, (c) Germany, (d) France, (e) Holland, (f) Sweden, (g) the United States of America and (h) Italy.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information is in the table.
  263

  Output per manhour in manufacturing 1980 = 100

  Year

  Belgium

  United Kingdom

  Federal Republic of Germany

  France

  Netherlands

  Sweden

  United States of America

  Italy

  1974

  68·1

  96·4

  80·5

  75·6

  76·5

  87·6

  88·5

  81·5

  1975

  71·7

  94·5

  83·0

  77·7

  75·4

  88·9

  92·2

  77·9

  1976

  79·1

  98·8

  88·8

  84·1

  83·8

  90·3

  96·3

  84·5

  1977

  83·5

  99·2

  92·1

  88·7

  87·9

  88·8

  98·6

  85·5

  1978

  89·0

  100·8

  95·0

  93·8

  93·9

  91·3

  99·4

  88·1

  1979

  94·0

  101·5

  99·6

  98·4

  98·9

  98·4

  100·0

  94·4

  1980

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  1981

  107·1

  106·5

  102·2

  104·2

  104·2

  100·4

  102·2

  103·4

  1982

  113·1

  111·9

  103·7

  110·9

  107·4

  103·4

  104·4

  105·4

  1983

  120·6

  120·4

  109·7

  115·7

  114·3

  111·4

  110·4

  108·2

  1984

  124·6

  125·7

  113·7

  120·2

  126·5

  116·3

  116·4

  115·1

  1985

  127·6

  129·7

  118·7

  124·2

  131·2

  119·4

  122·5

  116·9

  1986

  126·7

  133·0

  121·1

  126·8

  133·9

  122·4

  127·0

  118·3

  19871

  128·2

  140·8

  122·7

  129·7

  133·2

  127·0

  130·8

  121·9

  1 1st quarter to 3rd quarter, not seasonally adjusted·

  Source: International Monetary Fund.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Dr. Blackburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will take steps to publish lists of compliance cost assessments which Departments prepare, showing the impact of proposed new Government regulation on businesses.

  Mr. Maude
  Officials in the enterprise and deregulation unit are arranging for a selected list of compliance cost assessments (CCAs) to be published in the Department of Trade and Industry magazine "British Business". In addition, Departments will arrange for lists of CCAs to be published in appropriate publications and press notices.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  1991 Census
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether the 1991 census information will be made available to community charge officials in England and Wales; whether census officials expect to use the community charge register; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  It would be an offence under section 8(2) of the Census Act 1920 for the Office of Pupulation Censuses and Surveys to pass census information about identified persons or households to community charge officials. The office has no plans to use community charge registers in carrying out the 1991 census.

  Health Services
  Mr. Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will conduct an urgent exercise within the European Community to compare the various funding arrangements for hospital and health care services; how private and taxpayer funding contributes to these services and by what proportion; and what personal control and accountability the individual has over the provision of health services.

  Mr. Newton
  Much of the information referred to by my hon. Friend is already available in published form in this country. In particular, the funding arrangements for 264
  state health systems are summarised in "Tables of Social Benefit Systems in the European Communities" a copy of which is in the Library.

  We shall of course take appropriate account of this information, supplemented by further inquiries where this seems sensible, in conducting the review announced recently by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

  Family Practitioner Committee (Leeds)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will reconsider the funding application from the Leeds family practitioner committee for the salary for a general practitioner dealing with the homeless.

  Mr. Newton
  Yes. We have asked officials to look into ways in which the problems encountered so far in funding can be overcome.

  British Paediatrics Association
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the British Paediatrics Association campaign "Making Children a Priority Again", which is to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mrs. Currie
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Services Committee, arrangements have been made with the authorities of the House for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall during the week commencing 22 February.

  Health and Personal Social Services
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish a table setting out for 1987–88 and 1988–89 the estimated number of(a) families and (b) persons in each health region or equivalent, and in England as a whole, showing net average expenditure on health and personal social services per family and per person in each year, distinguishing between expenditure on the National Heath Service and on the personal social services.
  265
  Mr. Newton
  The information is not readily available in the form requested. For England as a whole net expenditure per person and per family of four in 1987–88 and 1988–89 is as follows:

  Net expenditure per year

  Population (million)

  Health and personal social services

  National health service

  Personal social services

  £

  £

  £

  1987–88

  47·380

  Per head

  413

  349

  64

  per head per family of four

  1,652

  1,396

  256

  1988–89

  47·488

  Per head

  436

  370

  66

  per head per family of four

  1,744

  1,480

  264

  The expenditure figures used in this calculation are taken from table 14.1 in "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1988–89 to 1990–91", vol II (Cm 288-II) and include net current and capital spending. The national health service figure is the balance of health and personal social services expenditure after the deduction of health and personal social services spending and includes an element in respect of centrally financed services.

  National Health Service Staff
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give details of the total numbers and the total costs of salaries of National Health Service administrative and clerical staff for each of the years 1974, 1979 and 1986.

  Mr. Newton
  The information is given in the table:

  Numbers and costs of salaries of administrative and clerical staff employed in the National Health Service in England

  Number1 (whole-time equivalent at September)

  Cost3 (in financial year beginning) £ million

  1974

  82,800

  207 (755)

  1979

  103,000

  501 (872)

  1986

  2111,400

  903 (941)

  1 Rounded to the nearest hundred.

  2 Including general managers.

  3 Main figures represent true costs in each year. Figures in parentheses alongside represent these costs at 1987–88 money values.

  Speech therapists

  Salary from 1 April 1975

  Salary from 1 August 1979

  Salary from 1 October 1982 to 31 March 1984

  Minimum

  Maximum

  Minimum

  Maximum

  Minimum

  Maximum

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Speech therapist

  2,142

  2,811

  3,212

  4,048

  5,130

  6,074

  Senior II speech therapist

  2,811

  3,537

  4,048

  4,968

  6,345

  7,468

  Senior I speech therapist

  3,243

  4,005

  4,598

  5,555

  7,468

  8,370

  Chief IV speech therapist

  3,243

  4,005

  4,598

  5,555

  7,468

  8,370

  Chief III speech therapist

  3,684

  4,641

  5,155

  6,324

  8,370

  9,269

  Chief II speech therapist

  4,179

  5,334

  5,764

  7,166

  9,630

  10,799

  Chief I speech therapist

  4,872

  6,033

  6,606

  8,011

  10,799

  12,108

  District senior chief (grade introduced on 1 April 1982)

  —

  —

  11,204

  12,561

  Age Allowance
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate the cost of extending the age allowance to all persons over state retirement age; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Andrew Scott
  The estimated cost of extending the retirement pension age addition to all pensioners together with a corresponding increase in the pensioner premium in income support would be about £100 million in 1988–89.

  Retail Prices Index (Error)
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received from voluntary organisations regarding the error in the retail prices index and the distribution of funds surplus to those required for £8 compensatory payments.

  Mr. Scott
  We have received more than 20 letters from organisations about the disbursement of funds, mostly registering an interest in applying for funding. We have also been asked if the funds could be used to increase war widows pensions.

  Pay Scales
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the pay scales currently in force for(a) speech therapists, (b) clinical psychologists and (c) hospital pharmacists; and what were these pay scales in 1983, 1979 and 1975.

  Mr. Newton
  The information is as follows:
  267

  Speech therapists current salary (from 1 January 1988)

  Grades amended from 31 December 1987

  Grade

  Minimum

  Maximum

  Maximum, plus discretionary increase

  £

  £

  £

  Grade A

  8,250

  8,903

  —

  Grade B

  8,570

  10,777

  11,636

  Grade C

  11,198

  14,103

  15,233

  Grade D

  13,058

  15,233

  16,455

  Grade E

  15,233

  17,777

  19,207

  Pharmacists

  Salary from 1 June 1975

  Salary from 1 August 1979

  Salary from 11 September 1982–31 March 1984

  Current salary from 1 October 1986 (pay award pending)

  Pharmacists who give a commitment to provide an emergency duty service

  minimum

  maximum

  minimum

  maximum

  minimum

  maximum

  minimum

  maximum

  minimum

  maximum

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Pre-registration student

  2,580

  —

  3,509

  —

  4,659

  —

  5,388

  —

  —

  —

  Basic Grade Pharmacist

  3,078

  3,933

  4,527

  5,592

  6,428

  8,096

  8,232

  10,344

  9,288

  11,400

  Staff Pharmacist

  4,437

  5,697

  6,228

  7,803

  8,910

  11,887

  10,296

  13,680

  11,424

  14,808

  Principal Pharmacist Grade 3

  5,844

  7,824

  7,995

  10,458

  12,120

  16,339

  14,016

  18,816

  15,216

  20,016

  Grade IV Pharmacist

  6,876

  7,923

  9,275

  10,588

  15,401

  16,994

  17,808

  19,632

  18,720

  20,544

  Senior Grade IV Pharmacist

  —

  —

  9,891

  10,715

  16,331

  17,925

  18,888

  20,712

  19,800

  21,624

  Grade V Pharmacist

  7,665

  8,346

  10,263

  11,118

  16,597

  18,191

  19,188

  21,060

  20,124

  21,996

  Pharmaceutical Officers

  7,368

  9,270

  9,891

  12,278

  16,331

  20,314

  18,888

  23,472

  19,800

  23,520

  Clinical Psychologists

  Salary from1 April 1975

  Salary1 April 1979

  Salary from 11 September 1982 to 31 March 1984

  Current Salary from 1 April 1975

  Minimum

  Maximum

  Minimum

  Maximum

  Minimum

  Maximum

  Minimum

  Maximum

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Probationary/Trainee Grade *A

  2,277

  3,078

  3,486

  4,527

  5,681

  6,759

  7,825

  8,404

  Basic Grade

  3,183

  3,933

  4,662

  5,592

  6,996

  8,349

  8,681

  10,496

  Senior Grade

  4,437

  5,697

  6,228

  7,803

  9,010

  11,649

  11,164

  14,591

  Principal Grade

  5,844

  7,824

  7,995

  10,458

  11,413

  16,010

  14,389

  19,895

  Top Grade

  7,551

  9,198

  10,119

  12,174

  16,090

  19,117

  20,034

  23,978

  Top Grade (with *B Greater Responsibility)

  7,779

  10,386

  10,404

  13,656

  18,285

  21,311

  22,667

  26,624

  Notes:

  *A Title amended 1 February 1987.

  *B Top Grade with plussage prior to 19 March 1982.

  Swimming
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how much his Department spent, in each of the last three years for which figures are available, on the promotion of swimming as a form of healthy exercise.

  Mrs. Currie
  The promotion of swimming is not funded by the Department. The Health Education Authority includes swimming in its promotion of exercise as one aspect of a healthier way of life. It is not possible to quantify the cost of this separately.

  Community Treatment Orders
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received about the possible introduction of community treatment orders for the mentally ill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  Representations are received from time to time on the question of compulsory treatment in the community. Discussions have been taking place within 268
  such organisations as the Mental Health Act Commission, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and MIND. At present, no concrete proposals have been put to the Department.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the number of general practitioners per 10,000 population for(a) England, (b) the Mersey region, (c) the Crewe health district, (d) the Chester health district and (e) the Halton health district.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is collected from family practitioner committees which are not necessarily conterminous with health authority boundaries. Figures, as at 1 October 1986, are as follows:

  Number of general practitioners per 10,000 population

  England

  5·18

  Mersey Region

  5·14

  269

  Number of general practitioners per 10,000 population

  Cheshire FPC (including Crewe, Cheshire and Halton Health Districts)

  5·00

  Meningitis
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will set out, in a table for each hospital in the North-West Hertfordshire district health authority, the number of cases of meningitis admitted for each month since January 1987.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that the information requested is not available centrally.

  Private Health Insurance
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what estimate he has of the proportion of the population of(a) England and (b) Wales which is not covered, in whole or in part, by private health insurance.

  Mrs. Currie
  It is estimated that 91 per cent. of the United Kingdom population was without any form of private health insurance in 1986. The latest available estimate for England only is for 1983, when 92 per cent. of the population was without cover. Information for Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Benefits
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many beneficiaries in the Seaham and Peterlee area have more than one pension, benefit or allowance paid from one book.

  Mr. Portillo
  The number of pensioners receiving a combined payment of retirement pension and supplementary benefit is as follows:

  Number

  Seaham

  571

  Peterlee

  1,222

  Source: 100 per cent. count of cases in action at 28 July 1987.

  I regret that information is not available on the number of claimants receiving any other combination of benefits on one order book.

  Abortions
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish the monthly figures for the cost of abortions carried out under the auspices of the National Health Service in the current financial year.

  Mr. Newton
  Information is not available in the exact form requested. However, the estimated cost of abortions carried out under the National Health Service, excluding those performed under agency arrangements with the private sector in each month of the current financial year, based on the number of notifications received in each of those months is as follows:
  270

  £

  April 1987

  990,000

  May 1987

  967,000

  June 1987

  1,049,000

  July 1987

  1,183,000

  August 1987

  993,000

  September 1987

  1,017,000

  October 1987

  1,062,000

  November 1987

  1,103,000

  December 1987

  972,000

  January 1988

  950,000

  Later information is not yet available.

  Endometriosis
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what assessment he has made of the adequacy of provision in the National Health Service for the diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis and of the suitability of the practice of same-day discharge of laparoscopy patients.

  Mrs. Currie
  Specialist advice and treatment for endometriosis are available in gynaecology departments in all health authorities. Following laparoscopy, patients are discharged when assessed as fit for discharge by their gynaecologist.

  Health Inspectorate
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to set up a health inspectorate to visit acute services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  Not at present, but I will bear my hon. Friend's suggestions in mind.

  St. James's Hospital, Portsmouth
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many patients received in-patient care and attended out-patient clinics for mental illness at St. James's hospital, Portsmouth, for the latest two years available.

  Mrs. Currie
  The table shows the information available centrally on admissions and attendances at St. James's hospital and its subsidiary units. A patient may be readmitted or attend an out-patient clinic a number of times in any year.

  1985

  1986

  Number of admissions, for mental illness

  1,766

  1,609

  Number of attendances to out-patient clinics conducted by psychiatric medical staff

  11,547

  10,469

  Cot Deaths
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what is the latest annual number available for sudden infant death syndrome (cot death) for the United Kingdom and for the two previous years; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what is the latest annual number available for sudden infant death syndrome (cot death) for Hampshire and for the two previous years.
  271
  Mrs. Currie
  The information is shown in the table. Data relate to Great Britain rather than the United Kngdom, since comparable data for Northern Ireland are not available. The latest available data year is 1986.

  Number of deaths under one year of age with any mention of sudden infant death syndrome (ICD 9 798.0) on the death certificate, Great Britain, and Hampshire 1984–86

  Year

  Great Britain

  Hampshire

  11984

  1,383

  45

  11985

  1,444

  63

  11986

  1,654

  62

  1 Provisional.

  Variations to Product Licences
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average length of time taken to deal with applications to variations to product licences in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  Information is not readily available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The licensing authority is currently examining ways in which better statistical information can be produced, using new technology wherever possible. The time taken to process an application to vary a product licence can be days or months, depending upon the nature of the variation (for example, it may require extensive pharmaceutical or medical consideration) or on the number of applications being dealt with by the licensing authority at any one time.

  Atenolol Tablets
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects the following P1 Variations submitted by APS Ltd., to be approved:(a) Atenolol tablets 50 mg and 100 mg, new source of active ingredient, (b) Atenolol tablets 50 mg and 100 mg, new source of active ingredient, (c) Atenolol tablets 50 mg and 100 mg, improved assay method and (d) Stilboestrol tablets 1 mg and 5 mg.

  Mr. Newton
  The licensing authority notified APS Ltd. about its P1 Variations for Atenolol on 5 February 1988 and about Stilboestrol on 22 December 1987. The outcome of the company's applications is regarded as confidential.

  Patients treated NHS hospitals, England 1986

  All specialties

  Discharges and deaths

  Day cases

  New put-patients

  Total out-patient attendances

  England

  6,413,789

  1,050,158

  8,767,788

  37,727,608

  Northern

  441,095

  81,047

  602,318

  2,564,607

  Yorkshire

  525,296

  81,635

  654,945

  2,906,164

  Trent

  592,398

  95,092

  779,739

  3,442,368

  East Anglian

  253,483

  42,022

  335,814

  1,391,156

  North West Thames

  419,008

  67,766

  673,473

  2,676,886

  North East Thames

  530,372

  70,304

  860,602

  3,670,603

  South East Thames

  495,246

  71,323

  778,104

  3,288,125

  South West Thames

  347,089

  56,449

  484,808

  2,043,912

  Wessex

  366,421

  63,297

  468,549

  1,854,115

  Special Payments
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish the formula under which he has calculated the special payment for pensioners and others to adjust for the proper level of inflation.

  Mr. Scott
  In the main, the maximum loss to retirement pensioners and other groups eligible for £8 special payments is £7·85 over the full two years affected by the error in the retail price index. The benefits in question have been 5p a week less than they would have been during 1987–88, a 53-week benefit year, and 10p a week less than they would have been during 1988–89, a 52-week benefit year. Mobility allowance will have been paid at rates 5p a week less than it would have been in each year, yielding a loss of £5·25; a special payment of £5 will be made on this benefit.

  NHS Review
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services with which organisations or individuals he proposes to consult or from which he hopes to obtain views as part of his review of the National Health Service.

  Mr. Moore
  We should like to hear from any organisation with constructive proposals.

  Mental Hospitals (Patients' Money)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he has taken to revise memorandum HM(71)90, published in 1971; and when he will publish the circular which will provide advice to mental hospital administrations on access to, and use of, patients' money.

  Mr. Newton
  We are considering whether a revised circular is needed at the present time to replace HM(71)90. We know that many hospitals are devising imaginative and useful schemes within the existing guidelines to use patients' money for their personal benefit and with a view to enhancing their quality of life.

  Hospitals (Treatment Statistics)
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many hospital in-patients and out-patients were treated in the latest year for which figures are available in each region; how many consultants are employed by each region; and at what annual cost.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is set out in the tables.
  273

  Discharges and deaths

  Day cases

  New out-patients

  Total out-patient attendances

  Oxford

  299,270

  39,901

  397,586

  1,564,003

  South Western

  417,443

  63,375

  516,671

  2,006,240

  West Midlands

  673,375

  93,403

  855,524

  3,840,664

  Mersey

  336,944

  79,098

  446,162

  2,022,898

  North Western

  624,678

  125,564

  789,043

  3,644,682

  SHAs and BGs

  91,671

  19,882

  124,450

  811,185

  Table 2

  Hospital Medical and Dental Consultant staff at 30 September 1986

  whole-time equivalents

  Region

  All Staff

  Costs (£'000)

  Northern

  918

  35,669,000

  Yorkshire

  928

  35,196,000

  Trent

  1,139

  41,719,000

  East Anglian

  544

  20,671,000

  North West Thames

  951

  36,462,000

  North East Thames

  1,260

  48,926,000

  South East Thames

  1,079

  41,095,000

  South West Thames

  804

  28,631,000

  Wessex

  720

  27,131,000

  Oxford

  640

  23,359,000

  South Western

  805

  29,651,000

  West Midlands

  1,384

  51,051,000

  Mersey

  659

  25,390,000

  North Western

  1,204

  48,609,000

  SHA's

  —

  12,832,000

  1 Includes permanent paid, honorary and locum staff.

  Brook Hospital
  Mrs. Rosie Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many intensive treatment unit beds are currently closed at the Brook hospital; and for how long these beds have been closed.

  Mrs. Currie
  As I informed the hon. Member in my reply on 2 February at column 595, at present two of the eight intensive treatment unit beds at the Brook hospital are closed.

  At the beginning of 1986 there was a nursing staff complement of 50 whole-time equivalents (WTEs) for eight intensive treatment unit beds plus six coronary care unit beds. Because of concern about the adequacy of these staffing levels, two of the intensive treatment unit beds were then closed. The nursing complement was also reviewed (using the recommendations of the Cheltenham study report on nurse staffing ratios) and increased to 57 WTEs for the six intensive treatment units plus two coronary care unit beds.

  Mrs. Rosie Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many beds have been closed either temporarily or permanently over each of the past three years at the Brook hospital and Greenwich district hospital; and how long each closure lasted.

  Mrs. Currie
  I am sorry that I cannot give the hon. Member the information she seeks which is not held centrally. Details about the availability of beds at the Brook hospital and Greenwich district general hospital should be available from Greenwich health authority, and the hon. Member may wish to contact the district chairman.

  Hospices
  Mrs. Rosie Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list those district health authorities that do not have a hospice for the care of the terminally ill within their boundaries.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information is not collected centrally by the Department, but information collected by the hospice information service at St. Christopher's hospice indicates that as at November 1987 the following district health authorities had no in-patient hospice unit within their boundaries.

  Northern Region

  Darlington

  Durham1

  East Cumbria

  Gateshead

  Hartlepool1

  North Tees1

  North Tyneside

  Northumberland

  North West Durham

  South Cumbria

  South Tees1

  South Tyneside1

  South-West Durham West Cumbria1

  Yorkshire Region

  Bradford1

  Dewsbury1

  East Yorks

  Harrogate1

  Hull1

  Northallerton

  Pontefract1

  Scunthorpe1

  Wakefield1

  Trent Region

  Barnsley1

  Bassetlaw1

  Central Nottinghamshire1

  Doncaster1

  North Derbyshire1

  Rotherham1

  South Lincolnshire1

  East Anglian Region

  East Suffolk1

  Huntingdon

  West Norfolk and Wisbech1

  West Suffolk1

  North West Thames Region

  Barnet1

  Brent1

  East Hertfordshire1

  Harrow

  Hounslow and Spelthorne1

  North Hertfordshire

  Riverside1

  South Bedfordshire1

  1Districts with home care services or a support team for terminal care.
  275
  North East Thames Region

  Basildon and Thurrock

  Bloomsbury1

  Enfield1

  Haringey1

  Islington1

  Newham

  Redbridge1

  Tower Hamlets1

  West Essex

  South East Thames Region

  Bexley1

  Camberwell1

  Dartford and Gravesham1

  Greenwich1

  Lewisham and North Southwark1

  Maidstone1

  South East Kent1

  Tunbridge Wells1

  South West Thames Region

  Croydon

  Mid-Surrey

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  South West Surrey

  Wandsworth

  Wessex Region

  Basingstoke and North Hampshire1

  West Dorset1

  Winchester1

  Oxford Region

  Aylesbury Vale1

  West Berkshire1

  Wycombe1

  South Western Region

  Frenchay

  Gloucester1

  North Devon1

  Southmead

  West Midlands Region

  Bromsgrove and Redditch

  Central Birmingham

  Coventry1

  Dudley1

  East Birmingham

  Kidderminster and District1

  Mid Staffordshire

  North Birmingham

  North Warwickshire1

  Rugby

  Sandwell

  Shropshire1

  Walsall

  Worcester and District1

  Mersey Region

  Chester1

  Crewe1

  Halton

  Macclesfield

  Southport and Formby1

  North Western Region

  Bolton

  Burnley Pendle and Rossendale

  Bury1

  Central Manchester1

  Chorley and South Ribble1

  North Manchester

  Oldham

  Rochdale1

  South Manchester1

  Tameside and Glossop

  Trafford

  276
  1 Districts with home care services or a support team for terminal care.

  Mrs. Rosie Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what advice he gives to district health authorities with regard to the provision of hospices for care of the terminally ill.

  Mrs. Currie
  The guidance given to health authorities by the Department on the planning and provision of terminal care services, including of hospices, is contained in health circular HC(87)4 of February 1987, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Infant Feeding
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to publish the report on present day practice in infant feeding from the chief medical officer's committee on medical aspects of food policy.

  Mrs. Currie
  "Present day practice in infant feeding: third report" is being published today. I warmly welcome this addition to what has become a notable series of scientific reports on feeding British babies and young children. It has been awaited eagerly by paediatricians, midwives, health visitors, and child dieticians. It breaks new ground for the series because it considers the one to five-year-olds as well as infants.

  The authors are to be congratulated, particularly for their unequivocal statement that breastfeeding provides the best nutrition for babies. I shall make sure that all their recommendations are studied carefully and I am setting in hand arrangements for disseminating their main messages very widely.

  National Health Service
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will detail the increase in the cost of the National Health Service over the years, both in terms of percentage of gross domestic product and of the cost to the average family in constant 1988 prices.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 25 January 1988]: The information is as follows:

  NHS gross expenditure United Kingdom £ million (1987–88 prices)

  Percentage of GDP1

  Cost per annum per family of four2£

  1979–80

  16,248

  4·9

  1,157

  1979–80

  16,531

  4·8

  1,176

  1980–81

  18,102

  5·3

  1,285

  1981–82

  18,544

  5·5

  1,316

  1982–83

  18,852

  5·5

  1,339

  1983–84

  19,106

  5·4

  1,356

  1984–85

  19,628

  5·5

  1,391

  1985–86

  19,602

  5·3

  1,385

  1986–87

  20,417

  5·4

  1,439

  1987–88

  21,454

  n/a

  1,508

  1 ODP(E).

  2 Derived from per capita spending × 4.

  Trent Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many consultants and doctors within the
  277
  Trent regional health authority are currently suspended on full pay on disciplinary grounds; and for how long the individual suspensions have been in operation;

  (2) if he will obtain from the Trent regional health authority, and publish in the Official Report, the cost of the suspension on full pay of three consultants and one associate specialist in the authority, one of whom has been suspended since June 1982; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 29 January 1988]: Information supplied by Trent regional health authority shows there are four consultants and one associate specialist who have been suspended on full pay since respectively June 1982, April 1985, March 1987, April 1987, and January 1986. The total estimated salary costs of the suspensions to date amount to £455,797.

  In the longest case of suspension the Secretary of State confirmed, in February 1986, the health authority's dismissal of a consultant after normal disciplinary and appeals procedures had been followed.

  At cash prices

  Gross expenditure

  Net expenditure

  1978–79

  1987–88

  1978–79

  1987–88

  £

  £

  £

  £

  (estimated)

  (estimated)

  (i) Average expenditure per head

  142

  377

  139

  363

  (ii) Per income taxpayer1

  308

  869

  301

  836

  (iii) Per household2

  400

  998

  391

  961

  (iv) Per family of four3

  569

  1,508

  556

  1,453

  At 1987–88 prices4

  (i) Average expenditure per head

  289

  377

  283

  363

  (ii) Per income taxpayer1

  627

  869

  614

  836

  (iii) Per household2

  812

  998

  795

  961

  (iv) Per family of four3

  1,157

  1,508

  1,132

  1,453

  Notes:

  1Number of income taxpayers 1978–79, 25·9 million; 1987–88, 24·7 million (projected)—Inland Revenue.

  2Number of households 1978–79, 20·0 million; 1987–88, 21·5 million—Department of Environment.

  3Notional family of four = per capita spending x 4.

  4Revalued in line with GDP deflator at market prices.

  All figures relate to the United Kingdom.

  NHS (Waiting Lists)
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what new proposals he has to cut waiting lists for operations within the National Health Service.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 2 February 1988]: The waiting list fund will be increased from £25 million to £30 million for 1988–89. On 18 December 1987 I wrote to the chairman of regional health authorities setting out our objectives for the waiting list initiative in 1988–89.

  We are making the reduction of waiting time our prime objective, giving particular attention to serious or disabling conditions. As a first step, we are asking regions to adopt, as some aleady have, a target-based approach to waiting time.

  We also want to see every district develop a local statement of policy on out-patient and in-patient waiting times, particulary for the major specialties and most frequently occurring conditions. Such a statement can flow only from constructive discussion between clinicians and managers and must take into account local services, rates of demand, facilities and resources.
  278
  The consultant subsequently took legal action which resulted in a divisional court ruling that the Secretary of State's decision was invalid and that the case should be reconsidered. It is now being reviewed and a decision will be taken as soon as possible.

  Because of concern about the length of time taken in such disciplinary cases, a working party including representatives of the Department, the professions and the NHS is currently reviewing the procedures.

  NHS (Funding)
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will express(a) central Government funding and (b) health charges accruing to the National Health Service in 1979 and 1987–88 as a sum per (i) person, (ii) income taxpayer, (iii) household and (iv) average family of four.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 29 January 1988]: The information is as follows:

  The £30 million waiting list fund will be available for allocation to regions for specific waiting list projects. There is considerable scope for the Health Service to make cost-effective use of external sources of treatment for waiting list patients. For 1988–89 we expect the regional programmes to contain serious and substantial examples of projects making cost-effective use of facilities outside the district, whether they be in the private sector, or armed forces hospitals or in other districts.

  Basingstoke and North Hampshire Health Authority
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what have been the numbers of patients, subdivided into convenient categories, waiting for (i) first appointments and (ii) subsequent treatment in the Basingstoke and North Hampshire health authority district each year since 1974–75, expressed also as a percentage increase or decrease on the previous year and on 1974–75 figures; and what were the average times of waiting.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 8 February 1988]: The information available is set out in the tables.
  279

  Number of patients on in-patient waiting list for Basingstoke and North Hants District Health Authority from 31 March 1976 to 31 March 1987

  All cases

  All urgent cases

  All urgent cases on list for more than one month

  Year

  Number

  Per cent. change over previous year

  Per cent. change over 19762

  Number

  Per cent. change over previous year

  Per cent. change over 19762

  Number

  Per cent. change over previous year

  Per cent. change over 19762

  1976

  2,055

  0

  0

  92

  0

  0

  56

  0

  0

  1977

  2,259

  9·9

  9·9

  93

  1·1

  1·1

  67

  19·6

  19·6

  1978

  2,368

  4·8

  15·2

  116

  24·7

  26·1

  92

  37·3

  64·3

  1979

  3,239

  36·8

  57·6

  107

  -7·8

  16·3

  67

  -27·2

  19·6

  1980

  3,556

  9·8

  73·0

  136

  27·1

  47·8

  78

  16·4

  39·3

  1981

  3,178

  -10·6

  54·6

  98

  -27·9

  6·5

  80

  2·6

  42·9

  1982

  3,371

  6·1

  64·0

  64

  -34·7

  -30·4

  47

  -41·3

  -16·1

  1983

  3,511

  4·2

  70·9

  103

  60·9

  12·0

  78

  66·0

  39·3

  1984

  3,436

  -2·1

  67·2

  112

  8·7

  21·7

  94

  20·5

  67·9

  1985

  3,279

  -4·6

  59·6

  132

  17·9

  43·5

  100

  6·4

  78·6

  1986

  3,589

  9·5

  74·6

  134

  1·5

  45·7

  106

  6·0

  89·3

  1987

  2,411

  -32·8

  17·3

  66

  -50·7

  -28·3

  34

  -67·9

  -39·3

  Non-urgent cases

  Non-urgent cases on list for more than one year

  Year

  Number

  Per cent. change over previous year

  Per cent. change over 19762

  Number

  Per cent. change over previous year

  Per cent. change over 19762

  1976

  1,963

  0

  0

  588

  0

  0

  1977

  2,166

  10·3

  10·3

  301

  -48·8

  -48·8

  1978

  2,252

  4·0

  14·7

  470

  56·1

  -20·1

  1979

  3,132

  39·1

  59·6

  608

  29·4

  3·4

  1980

  3,420

  9·2

  74·2

  751

  23·5

  27·7

  1981

  3,080

  -9·9

  56·9

  848

  12·9

  44·2

  1982

  3,307

  7·4

  68·5

  837

  -1·3

  42·3

  1983

  3,408

  3·1

  73·6

  1,045

  24·9

  77·7

  1984

  3,324

  -2·5

  69·3

  1,234

  18·1

  109·9

  1985

  3,147

  -5·3

  60·3

  831

  -32·7

  41·3

  1986

  3,455

  9·8

  76·0

  920

  10·7

  56·5

  1987

  2,345

  -32·1

  19·5

  474

  -48·5

  -19·4

  1 Percentage change figure based on 1982 as no data shown in 1974.

  2 Percentage change figure shown for 1976 as no data shown for 1974.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) to what extent the Basingstoke and North Hampshire health authority has benefited from the Government's special £50 million funding of their initiative to reduce waiting lists, in terms of financial support and additional personnel;

  (2) how many more patients are likely to be treated by the Basingstoke and North Hampshire health authority as a result of additional funding through the Government's special funding to reduce waiting lists; and what categories of patients will benefit.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 8 February 1988]: The Basingstoke and North Hampshire district health authority has been allocated £22,560 from the Wessex regional health authority's £1·4 million allocation from the £25 million waiting list fund for 1987–88. This funding is being used to finance two projects. The appointment of a bed allocation officer in the orthopaedic specialty will have a considerable impact on bed occupancy and throughput in this specialty. The appointment of an additional consultant in opthalmology is expected to enable 200 additional in-patients to be treated by 31 March 1988.

  For 1988–89 the waiting list fund has been increased to £30 million. The regional allocations from the fund will be anounced shortly.

  Waiting Lists (Leeds)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the number of patients awaiting(a) urgent and (b) non-urgent treatment in (i) Leeds Eastern health authority and (ii) Leeds Western health authority on the latest available figures; and if he will give the figures for the previous six and 12 months, respectively.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 1 February 1988]: The requested information is given in the table.

  In-patient waiting lists in the following district health authorities

  Urgent

  Non-Urgent

  Total

  Leeds Eastern

  31 March 1986

  604

  5,059

  5,663

  30 September 1986

  493

  4,651

  5,144

  31 March 1987

  445

  5,619

  6,064

  Leeds Western

  31 March 1986

  587

  3,810

  4,397

  30 September 1986

  443

  4,033

  4,476

  31 March 1987

  357

  4,401

  4,758

THE ARTS

  "Arts in the Inner Cities"
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he intends to publish the report "Arts in the Inner Cities", by Mr. Paul Collard.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 8 February 1988]: I have considered a survey submitted by Mr. Paul Collard and am placing a copy in the Library, together with a working document by the Arts Council, which I warmly welcome.

  The Government do not accept many of the statements or recommendations in Mr. Collard's survey, in particular those elements which over-emphasise central intervention and the role of the public sector. I do not intend to publish it.

  The Government believe that the arts can play an important part in helping to revitalise the inner cities, particularly where they have the support of local and private sector interests. Arts bodies do, however, need to present more clearly what they have to offer. I shall be considering how best to assist this over the next few months.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Disabled People
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what retraining facilities he intends to provide for the disabled unemployed in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Viggers
  Retraining for the disabled unemployed is provided at the 12 training centres operated by the Department of Economic Development and at the Thomas Doran training centre, Dungannon which provides specialised training for the disabled. Where appropriate places are also obtained at specialised training colleges in Great Britain. Rehabilitation-resettlement is provided at the employment rehabilitation centre, Felden, Whiteabbey for those returning to work after an illness or accident. The provision of additional facilities is kept under review.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further action he intends to take to counteract unemployment among disabled people in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  Disabled people are encouraged to use all the facilities provided through the jobmarket network

  District Councils

  1976–77

  1977–78

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Antrim

  2,223

  8,577

  25,065

  18,750

  25,336

  27,375

  40,500

  43,050

  43,875

  47,250

  51,750

  Ards

  5,219

  11,250

  12,500

  15,000

  18,784

  19,950

  22,500

  25,050

  28,125

  32,250

  37,500

  Armagh

  5,789

  7,875

  9,000

  10.875

  12,275

  13,125

  15,750

  17,475

  18,000

  17,850

  18,750

  Ballymena

  6,942

  23,175

  25,030

  31,575

  32,326

  37,500

  40,500

  44,250

  55,500

  56,625

  60,000

  Ballymoney

  322

  2,250

  1,500

  1,350

  874

  2,025

  7,200

  6,150

  6,375

  6,750

  7,500

  Banbridge

  —

  —

  —

  2,250

  4,151

  9,900

  13,500

  16,275

  16,875

  16,950

  17,625

  Belfast

  65,831

  129,975

  211,480

  262,500

  353,839

  479,625

  546,150

  579,000

  600,000

  624,000

  660,000

  Carrickfergus

  4,040

  13,954

  20,485

  22,980

  26,691

  30,000

  31,800

  35,325

  39,000

  40,500

  42,000

  Castlereagh

  10,812

  43,050

  52,420

  45,055

  56,353

  61,050

  68,250

  72,525

  76,500

  81,000

  93,750

  Coleraine

  4,084

  8,520

  12,200

  14,250

  22,148

  24,900

  27,750

  29,475

  30,750

  33,000

  33,750

  Cookstown

  2,138

  5,250

  5,250

  4,690

  4,543

  4,500

  5,400

  5,775

  6,000

  6,600

  6,750

  Craigavon

  31,630

  65,438

  111,800

  107,250

  128,867

  138,750

  161,250

  171,150

  176,250

  183,750

  192,750

  Derry

  17,306

  53,625

  78,375

  92,250

  123,188

  106,500

  117,000

  117,000

  120,000

  124,500

  124,500

  Down

  7,435

  7,782

  13,300

  12,750

  15,726

  15,375

  17,475

  18,975

  22,500

  31,875

  33,750

  Dungannon

  2,351

  4,125

  4,900

  4,875

  5,679

  5,700

  9,000

  9,525

  9,750

  8,250

  8,625

  Fermanagh

  4,222

  8,213

  11,250

  13,275

  21,405

  24,000

  31,125

  34,275

  36,000

  37,500

  40,500

  282
  including the restart and jobclubs schemes. Encouragement is also being given to the employment of disabled persons on Action for Community Employment (ACE) projects. Additional sheltered employment places are being provided with private employers for severely disabled people. Consideration is being given to improvements in the service provided by disablement resettlement officers. Discussions are also taking place with the Northern Ireland Council on Disability to seek further ways of improving employment opportunities for disabled persons.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what training and support facilities are available for the disabled unemployed in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Viggers
  Training for unemployed disabled people is available on an integrated basis at training centres and on employers' premises through various departmental schemes. Specialised training is also available at the Thomas Doran centre, Dungannon. Home-based training in the use of computers has been introduced on a pilot basis for house-bound disabled people. It is intended to extend this form of training.

  Support facilities are available through the disablement resettlement officers based in local jobmarkets.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the unemployment rate for disabled people from 1980 to 1987 inclusive at all social security offices in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Viggers
  Disabled persons claiming benefit do not have to indicate that they are disabled. The proportion of disabled persons who are unemployed is therefore not known.

  Community Services
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the amount allocated to each district council in Northern Ireland for community services in the financial years from 1976–77 to 1986–87 inclusive.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The amounts allocated by the Department of Education for Northern Ireland for community services recurrent costs are shown below. Details of amounts to cover capital costs are not readily available.
  283

  District Councils

  1976–77

  1977–78

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Lame

  5,739

  11,240

  15,100

  14,625

  19,220

  20,400

  24,900

  25,650

  26,250

  27,000

  21,750

  Limavady

  750

  2,287

  4,240

  6,675

  6,640

  10,275

  11,625

  12,750

  15,000

  16,500

  17,250

  Lisburn

  8,838

  17,243

  24,000

  22,500

  31,016

  47,250

  56,250

  60,975

  66,000

  66,000

  69,000

  Magnerafelt

  —

  2,625

  2,650

  2,625

  2,883

  2,400

  4,125

  4,425

  4,875

  5,100

  5,250

  Moyle

  2,160

  3,150

  3,750

  1,915

  2,447

  4,425

  7,050

  8,700

  13,125

  15,750

  15,750

  Newry and Mourne

  4,643

  28,383

  45,450

  46,500

  61,158

  64,875

  75,375

  82,350

  86,250

  91,500

  95,250

  Newtownabbey

  19,871

  29,625

  37,200

  43,405

  45,213

  45,000

  45,900

  48,750

  57,750

  60,000

  57,250

  North Down

  4,978

  14,429

  17,000

  21,225

  25,774

  27,225

  31,125

  34,575

  34,500

  45,000

  50,250

  Omagh

  5,198

  13,425

  18,375

  18,375

  21,842

  27,375

  36,750

  40,050

  43,500

  52,950

  62,250

  Strabane

  11,512

  25,350

  39,750

  42,370

  48,752

  49,500

  57,750

  55,500

  58,500

  66,750

  73,500

  Total

  234,033

  540,816

  802,070

  879,890

  1,117,130

  1,299,000

  1,506,000

  1,599,000

  1,691,250

  1,795,200

  1,897,500

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will consider establishing an equal opportunities unit within the Northern Ireland Council for Disability to be resourced by the Department of Economic Development.

  Mr. Viggers
  This question is currently under consideration.

  Travel to Interview
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what definition is used by the Department of Economic Development of permanent post for the purposes of assessing applications under the travel-to-interview scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  The job must be expected to last for more than one year.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications have been made under the travel-to-interview scheme operated by the Department of Economic Development; how many of these have been rejected on grounds that the posts applied for were not permanent ones; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  From its introduction in October 1986 until the end of December 1987, a total of 1,508 applications were made under the travel-to-interview scheme. Forty-four applications were rejected on the grounds that the posts applied for were not permanent ones.

  School Nurse
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list in the Official Report, for each year over the last five up to the latest year for which figures are available, the following information with respect to school nurses: (a) the total number employed, given as total, whole-time, part-time and whole-time equivalent, (b) the establishment figure and (c) the number of vacant posts.

  Mr. Needham
  The information on numbers employed at 31 December each year is set out in the table. Information on establishments and vacant posts is not collected centrally and is not readily available.
  284

  Northern Ireland

  Total Number of School Nurses 1982–1986

  Year

  Total

  Whole-time

  Part-time

  Whole-time Equivalent

  1982

  97

  60

  37

  82·64

  1983

  96

  60

  36

  81·83

  1984

  96

  60

  36

  81·49

  1985

  97

  57

  40

  80·94

  1986

  92

  53

  39

  76·57

  Private Health Insurance
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has of the proportion of the population of Northern Ireland which is not covered, in whole or in part, by private health insurance.

  Mr. Needham
  This information is not available.

  Cars (Imports)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many of the cars brought into Northern Ireland from the Irish Republic as formal imports in each month in 1987 were recorded as changing ownership within(a) one month and (b) two months of importation.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 9 February 1988]: Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  General Practitioner Trainees
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the numbers of(a) general practitioner trainees per unit of management, (b) general practitioner training practices per population in each health unit of management and (c) candidates for the training programme, in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Needham
  The number of general practitioner trainees per unit of management is not available. The table shows the number of general practitioner trainees per health and social services board area.

  Health and Social Services Board

  Year

  Eastern

  Northern

  Southern

  Western

  1983

  30

  12

  6

  6

  1984

  22

  13

  9

  7

  1985

  28

  11

  8

  4

  1986

  26

  110

  6

  7

  1987

  26

  11

  8

  4

  1 1 resigned from Northern board during the year.

  The number of general practitioner training practices per population in each health unit of management is not

  285
  available. The table shows the number of general practitioner training practices per head of population in each Health and Social Services Board area. The figures for 1987 are not yet available.

  Health and Social Services Board

  Year

  Eastern

  Northern

  Southern

  Western

  1983

  1:21,000

  1:22,000

  1:31,000

  1:21,000

  1984

  1:22,000

  1:24,000

  1:28,000

  1:28,000

  1985

  1: 22,000

  1:21,000

  1:32,000

  1:26,000

  1986

  1:23,000

  1:21,000

  1:29,000

  1:29,000

  Up to 1987 there were two annual intakes to the vocational training scheme, February and August. The numbers applying for each of the past five years are shown in the table. Unsuccessful candidates frequently reapply, thus the numbers given include a substantial degree of double counting.

  Year

  February Intake

  August Intake

  1983

  42

  58

  1984

  31

  78

  1985

  38

  77

  1986

  35

  105

  1987

  43

  112

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the criteria applied in the selection of general practitioner trainees and their allocation to training practices.

  Mr. Needham
  Any medical practitioner fully registered with the Central Medical Council may apply for a place on the Northern Ireland vocational training scheme for general practice. Applications are considered by a selection panel and thereafter successful candidates arrange for 12 months' general practice training with an approved general practice trainer.

  Granting Authority

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Belfast Education and Library Board

  135,465

  130,696

  110,520

  173,600

  197,166

  North-Eastern Education and Library Board

  166,617

  184,547

  230,191

  305,746

  331,465

  South-Eastern Education and Library Board

  82,197

  90,027

  105,459

  117,162

  121,280

  Southern Education and Library Board

  122,361

  182,477

  109,839

  163,630

  195,629

  Western Education and Library Board

  235,411

  234,297

  218,550

  348,824

  247,231

ENVIRONMENT

  Green Belt
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about his most recent planning guidance in respect of the use of green belt land.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  To date I have received no representations about planning policy guidance note 2, on green belts, the publication of which I announced on 20 January in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), at columns 745–46. The new guidance note contains no departure from established green belt policy.
  286
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what figures are available to indicate the allocation of general practitioner trainees to each training practice in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Needham
  It is not possible to provide this information in the form requested. However, over the past five years the average number of trainees per training practice in each health and social services board area was as follows:

  Number

  Eastern Board

  4·5

  Northern Board

  3·1

  Southern Board

  3·7

  Western Board

  3·3

  Higher Education Students
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what figures are available to indicate the number of higher education students in Northern Ireland, excluding overseas students, who did not receive a full value award in each of the past five years, by granting authority.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No figures are available.

  Lesser-value Awards
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what figures are available to indicate the amounts of lesser-value awards, by granting authority in each of the past five years in Northern Ireland.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The latest available information on the total cost of such awards is as follows:

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the dispersal of radioactive waste under the sea and the use of sub-duction zones.

  Mrs. Roe
  The disposal of low and intermediate-level radioactive waste in a repository under the seabed, either with access from a tunnel from the shore or from an offshore structure, are two of the options currently being considered by UK Nirex Ltd. No consideration has been given by Nirex to the use of sub-duction zones for radioactive waste disposal.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy on co-operation with, and provision of information and documentation for, the European Parliament special commission of inquiry on
  287
  problems of nuclear waste and materials management and transport in the European Economic Community member states.

  Mrs. Roe
  I am happy to co-operate with the European Parliamentary committee of inquiry appointed to investigate activities at the Belgian nuclear centre at Mo1.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the proportional increase in the volumes of solid nuclear waste arising at Sellafield from the full operation of the site iron exchange plant.

  Mrs. Roe
  Less than 5 per cent.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what communication he has had with the European Commissioners for Energy and Environmental Affairs over the Commission's internal inquiry over recent problems of handling nuclear waste and its transport in the EEC.

  Mrs. Roe
  None, but I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has been consulted by the European Commission about United Kingdom participation at a meeting of nuclear experts.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by what proportion the volume of nuclear waste is expected to increase annually over present annual production when the thermal oxide reprocessing plant is commissioned for full operation.

  Mrs. Roe
  The volumes of untreated high, intermediate and solid low level nuclear wastes arising at Sellafield are expected to increase by 160 per cent. 40 per cent. and 40 per cent. respectively over present annual production when the thermal oxide reprocessing plant is commissioned for full operation.

  Boxing
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he intends to take to encourage the British Boxing Board of Control to eliminate unnecessary risk to boxers in fights.

  Mr. Ridley
  The Government plan no such steps. The safety of those taking part in professional boxing is a matter for the British Boxing Board of Control. British boxing is subject to stringent medical safeguards and the board's medical advisers take full account of the latest medical research.

  Staff Dispersal
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many divisions within his Department have been relocated out of London since 1979; what plans he has for further relocation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  Some 20,000 of the 32,000 staff in my Department, including PSA are already located outside London. Approximately 60 posts in the Crown Suppliers were moved from central London to Bootle in 1982. Some 70 posts comprising the Department's eastern regional office are to move from London to Bedford later this year. I am actively looking for other areas of work where relocation would be cost-effective and seek to ensure that, where practicable, appropriate work is carried out in the Department's regional offices.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many planning appeals are being considered at this time; and how long before it takes to resolve such an appeal.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  On 31 December 1987 there were 12,090 planning appeals being processed in the Department. For those cases decided in December the median handling time from receipt to decision was 22 weeks.

  Isle of Wight
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) why the Isle of Wight was omitted from the report "Developing the Rural Economy";

  (2) why the Isle of Wight was not included in the areas selected by ECOTEC on behalf of the Development Commission.

  Mr. Trippier
  The ECOTEC report, "Developing the Rural Economy", was an assessment of the general effectiveness of the Development Commission's economic programmes. Only nine areas were selected for study solely to provide a representative cross-section of the rural areas in which the commission operates and the programmes it has provided. No significance therefore should be attached to the inclusion or omission of any particular area.

  Water Supplies
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if refunds of water charges are available to householders who are dissatisfied with the quality and colour of their water supply; and how many disconnections of water supplies have occurred in the last five years where consumers have refused to pay water charges because of poor quality water.

  Mrs. Roe
  No refunds of water charges are available.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to obtain information on the disconnections of water supplies by(a) water authority and (b) local authority area.

  Mrs. Roe
  Information on the number of disconnections for non-payment is collected annually by my Department from each water authority. Latest figures for 1986–87 are as follows. Figures by local authority area are not available centrally.

  Number

  North West

  457

  Northumbrian

  300

  Severn Trent

  1,000

  Yorkshire

  293

  Anglian

  2,268

  Thames

  576

  Southern

  1,152

  Wessex

  0

  South West

  404

  England

  6,450

  Local Authority Services
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement on progress with contracting out local authority services by competitive tendering.

  Mr. Ridley
  [pursuant to his reply, 4 November 1987, c. 735]: It has come to the Government's attention that a number of authorities are considering setting up companies, under their control, whose main function would be to carry out work which, if the Local Government Bill were enacted in its present form, would fall within a defined activity for the purposes of part I of the Bill. It seems probable that the main, or perhaps the only, purpose of setting up such companies would be to circumvent the Bill's competition provisions.

  As the law presently stands, authorities to which section 135 of the Local Government Act 1972 or section 81 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 applies must make standing orders to secure competition for contracts for the supply of goods or materials or for the execution of works, but are not required to do so in relation to contracts for the provision of services. It would therefore be possible, even after enactment of the Bill, for an authority to award to its own company, and without competition, a contract for work which, if carried out by the authority's own employees, would be subject to the competition provisions of part I of the Bill.

  Although we are still considering, in the context of the Widdicombe report, the wider aspects of local authority involvement in companies, we have decided that this particular issue calls for immediate action.

  We therefore propose to make it unlawful for an authority to enter into a contract with one of its own companies for the carrying out by the company of work which falls within any of the activities which are defined activities for the purposes of clause 2 of the Local Government Bill, unless the authority has taken steps for the purpose of securing competition for that work. This requirement is to have effect from midnight tonight.

  An appropriate amendment to the Local Government Bill is being tabled today—its text is as follows.

  The authorities to whom the new provision will apply are local authorities in England, Wales and Scotland (as defined in clause 1(2) and (3) of the Bill), police, fire and civil defence, waste disposal and passenger transport authorities and the Inner London education authority. For the purposes of the new provision, a company will be treated as an authority's own company if, as a result of a
  290
  decision of the authority, either the authority itself, or any member or officer of the authority, or any nominee of the authority is a member of the company or its subsidiary or holding company.

  After Clause 32
  Insert the following new Clause—
  ("Local authority companies.

  —(1) A local authority or relevant public body shall not enter into a contract under which a company which is associated with the authority or body is to carry out work falling within a defined activity, unless, before entering into that contract, the authority or body has taken reasonable steps for the purpose of securing competition for the carrying out of that work.

  (2) For the purposes of this section a company is associated with a local authority or relevant public body if, by virtue of any decision of the authority or body (including that of any committee or sub-committee thereof in the course of discharging any function conferred upon them by virtue of section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972, or, in relation to Scotland, section 56 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973)—

  (a) the authority or body, or

  (b) any member or officer of the authority or body, or

  (c) any nominee of the authority or body,

  is a member either of the company or of another company which, in accordance with section 736 of the Companies Act 1985, is the company's subsidiary or holding company.

  (3) In this section—

  (a) "defined activity" has the meaning assigned by section 2 above;

  (b) "local authority" has the meaning assigned by subsection (2) or, as the case maybe, subsection (3) of section 1 above; and

  (c) "relevant public body" means any authority or committee falling within paragraphs (e) to (j) of subsection (1) of section 1 above

  (4) This section (and, so far as is relevant for the purposes of the definitions in subsection (3) above, sections 1 and 2 above) shall be deemed to have come into force on 11th February 1988 and, accordingly, has effect in relation to contracts entered into on or after that day.")

  Local Authorities (Financial Aid)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to seek to amend the law relating to the powers of a local authority to offer financial assistance to the owner of(a) a church or place of religious observance, (b) a training centre run by a voluntary organisation, (c) health care premises run commercially or by a voluntary body, (d) a small shop, (e) a restaurant, (f) a sports club and (g) industrial premises to make the property accessible for disabled people including wheelchair users.

  Mr. Chope
  No. Local authorities already have powers for these purposes.

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.

Baroness Hart of South Lanark
The Right Honourable Dame Judith Constance Mary Hart, DBE, having been created Baroness Hart of South Lanark, of Lanark in the County of Lanark, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Ross of Marnock and the Lord Jenkins of Putney, and made the solemn Affirmation.

Unemployed and Part-Time Workers
Lord Dormand of Easington: 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 is the total number of unemployed; how many are men, how many women, and how many of each sex are part-time; whether they regard this situation as acceptable; and, if not, what proposals they have to reduce unemployment.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, on 10th December 1987, the number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom was 2,695,800. Of these, 1,878,700 were men and 817,100 were women. In the third quarter of 1987 there were 1,059,000 men and 4,548,000 women in Great Britain in part-time employment.
While the level of unemployment is still too high, adult unemployment has fallen by a record 600,000 since June 1986 and continues on a downward trend. The Government will continue to pursue the sound economic and financial policies which have brought seven years of sustained economic growth and helped to create nearly 1·5 million additional jobs since March 1983.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Secretary of State aware that a figure of 2·6 million people unemployed is a disgrace in a modern society? Is he further aware that the worst feature of unemployment figures is the number of long-term unemployed and that within the past two years two independent reports have shown a distinct link between long-term unemployment and ill health? In view of the fact that the Government have been in power for nine years, what does the Secretary of State think has been the reason for the failure to reduce unemployment to a reasonable level?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I venture to suggest that no one in your Lordships' House is more aware than I of the plight of those who have been out
202
of work for more than a year. I have spent many years dealing with that problem.
We went through a period of considerable industrial restructuring, as a result of which many who had been employed for most of their adult lives in one occupation were forced to find another. Of course long-term unemployment is too high but it has come down faster in the past year than in almost any other industrialised country. I used to stand before your Lordships' House and explain the level of unemployment which at that time was higher than that of most of our partners in the Community. Today I am proud to say that, while our level of unemployment is still far too high, it is lower than that in the Netherlands, France, Belgium, Spain and Ireland and, most importantly, it is coming down here while it is, alas, rising elsewhere. It is a problem and it is being shown that there is only one way to deal with it: sound economic policies produce jobs for people.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is it not the case that the sound economic policies of which the noble Lord speaks have increased the unemployment numbers in this country by at least 1½ million and more probably by 2½ million? Is it not also the case that the reduction in the figures given for unemployed people is almost entirely due, first, to part-time working at low rates for women; secondly, to dead-end jobs in which there is no incentive to use a constructive interest in the work; and, thirdly, to the use of youth training schemes, community schemes, and so on, which are in fact used for the unemployed even if they are not counted as such?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, for once I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, that economic policies were responsible for the considerable increase in unemployment in the early '80s. They were the economic policies we followed in the mid-'70s, which are shown to have had a direct result in our economy not being able to adjust to the sharp change which happened when the oil price rise came and when this country found it had to be competitive in a world in which we had to earn our way or suffer the consequences.
In regard to the other matters, of all the large industrialised nations in Europe we give more jobs to women and 4½ million women work in part-time employment. Many of those women are married, and perhaps the noble Lord should ask them whether or not they value their jobs.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Secretary of State aware that service industry employment is on the increase, that manufacturing employment has decreased and that the production of the wealth of our nation based on manufacturing industry is in the North of England, which is exacerbating the North-South divide? What does the Minister intend to do to rectify that imbalance?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am aware that manufacturing employment has been falling at the rate of 10,000 jobs a month on average, month in and month out, since the middle of 1966. I suspect it will continue to fall in that way as manufacturing

203
industries adjust to modern technology. There has been a similar trend in the United States of America, France, Germany and all industrialised nations with the exception of Japan; and Japan now has lost substantial manufacturing jobs in the past year or two. It is the almost inescapable effect of the change in employment due to modern technology.
I am glad to be able to report to your Lordships' House that in the recent substantial fall in unemployment the way has been led by the North-East, the North-West, the West Midlands and Wales. I ask your Lordships to visit again places like Consett and many places in the North-East and the North-West to see new industries arising. Not all are in manufacturing industry. However, what is important is not the balance between the manufacturing and the service sector but the balance between wealth creation and wealth consumption.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend concerned about the effect on the unemployment figures of the recent sharp rise in wage levels and the strike action by which those have been obtained?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I think all in your Lordships' House should be concerned about increases in wages that are not earned. Where wage increases are accompanied by productivity increases and unit labour costs are under control, we should all welcome that because the ambition of this Government is to have a high wage society, not a low one. However, where industrial action takes place for wage increases for their own sake, without accompanying productivity increases, I fear for the future of jobs.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am rather puzzled by one aspect of the noble Lord's Answer. Is he saying that the recent strike in connection with a rise in wages is unconnected with the claimed rise in productivity? I go on to ask him whether his claim about unemployment falling last year will carry on into the coming year. In other words, will unemployment go on falling at the same annual rate?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I resisted all temptation to forecast the future of unemployment when it was rising and I shall equally resist that temptation when it is falling. I hope that my Answer made clear that I was concerned with strikes about wage increases which were not accompanied by productivity increases. That will affect the future of jobs.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is it not a fact that much part-time employment is very low paid, and is it not also true that there is very little statutory employment protection for part-time workers? Should not something be done to remedy that unsatisfactory situation?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, whether or not part-time work is low paid often depends on the willingness of people to take those particular jobs.
204
We have agreed that there is a correlation between protection of employment and the number of jobs that actually come about. I suspect that if we were to give statutory rights to those in part-time employment we would not be helping those in part-time jobs but would be sharply reducing the number of opportunities.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Secretary of State aware that if unemployment continues to decrease at the rate which he has just given to the House, it will take at least 10 years and probably 15 years, assuming that the decrease continues as my noble friend says, to return to the level which this Government inherited in 1979? Is that anything to be proud of?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am not saying that employment will continue at this rate because I am not making any forecast. However, if I were to take arithmetical proportions, it will fall beneath the 1979 level in about three or four years' time. However, that is hardly the point. We have a vastly increased working population. We have an economy that is the envy of the industrialised world; whereas in 1979, as I hardly need remind any one of your Lordships, we were the sick man of Europe and an object of ridicule by other industrialised nations.

Tax Assessments: Personal Service
2.55 p.m.
Lord Broxbourne: 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 seek to amend Section 29(5) of the Taxes Management Act 1970 by inserting after "person assessed", the words "save where to the knowledge of the inspector issuing the notice the person assessed has a professional adviser or agent to deal with tax matters, in which case service on such agent will constitute a sufficient compliance with this section".
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, no. Assessments need to be sent direct to taxpayers, even where an agent is acting, because the tax due is the personal liability of the individual, and taxpayers are informed of their right of appeal against the assessment.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the courtesy of his reply. However, does he appreciate that I cannot greet its content with unqualified rapture? Is it not illogical to insist on personal service on the taxpayer when the inspector knows that he can act only as a courier or post office? Would it not be more logical to amend the law so that these matters can be dealt with directly and ab initio by persons versed in the esoteric mysteries of taxation matters? This would have the additional advantage of leaving more time for the taxpayer to earn the money required for the taxation.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend is more than interested to know what current demands are being made upon him by the tax man. Where authorised, the Inland Revenue will send copies of assessments to the professional adviser of the taxpayer. It seems to me that it would be dangerous if we had a system whereby at all times the taxpayer could be unaware of the demands upon him. After all, tax due is the liability of the taxpayer; the professional adviser is there to advise.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, are there not some cases, of which the Minister is aware, where especially old people or those suffering from some illness are very upset at receiving demands which are very often in excess of what they should be? In those cases would it not be meritorious for the assessment to be sent to the professional representative, so that the taxpayer is not worried?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I cannot claim to be of an advanced age, but I must claim to be rather upset when I receive an assessment from the tax man. I would rather that it be sent direct to my adviser. However, I believe that in the end I should know about it. Of course, there are difficult circumstances, but perhaps I may suggest that those concerned should, first, authorise the tax man to send the assessment to their professional advisers and, secondly, send the envelope on to them unopened.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, what complaints has the Minister received from professional bodies against a system which has been carried on hitherto quite satisfactorily, as far as my professional memory carries?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, Sperhaps I may tell the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, that to my knowledge no complaints have been received, but I shall certainly inquire.
Lord Bauer: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister whether it can be arranged that copies of the demand notes are sent not only to the taxpayer but also to his or her professional adviser.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, normally that is done, but it is a requirement that the taxpayer should authorise the inspector to send those demands.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, will my noble friend undertake to ensure that, if a request is made to the inspector, as suggested in his answer to the supplementary question from the noble Lord opposite, the inspector will not reply that he is inhibited from so doing by the statutory obligation placed on him by the income tax Act 1970?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, my information is that the inspector is not so inhibited. I am concerned to think that he might be but I am told that, in fact, he can send a copy to the adviser provided he sends it to the taxpayer as well.

Paediatric Intensive Care: Training
3.1 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 what steps they are taking to increase the number of nurses trained in paediatric intensive care.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the Government are aware that some authorities in England do have difficulty in recruiting sufficient suitably qualified staff in particular locations and specialties, including paediatric intensive care. The department is having discussions with regional nursing officers and regional general managers about these difficulties and how they can be overcome.
In addition to the present course at Great Ormond Street Hospital, work is in hand to establish three further post-basic paediatric intensive care nursing courses in Birmingham, Manchester and London.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for giving that information. Is he aware that consultants have been warning the Department of Health and Social Security for a very long time—in the case of Manchester, for five years—that there would be an acute shortage of paediatric intensive care nurses? Is he further aware that the Birmingham paediatric training scheme is not due to produce nurses until 1991? Can the noble Earl say what will happen when children are likely to die or be severely disabled because of delayed operations due to a lack of staff?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, in answer to the first question asked by the noble Countess, the primary responsibility for the recruitment of nursing staff must rest with health authorities. Only they can decide on the appropriate levels of staffing in the light of local needs, priorities and the resources which can be allocated to meeting those needs.
As regards Birmingham, the first intake in training is expected to commence at the beginning of 1989. It is hoped that the first nurses qualifying in paediatric intensive care at the Birmingham Children's Hospital will be available for service in the latter half of 1989.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that in some parts of the country there is a practice whereby general nurses are being crash-trained to serve in the paediatric intensive care wards? The result has been simply that one service has been denuded of nurses and the other not properly equipped. Can the noble Earl look at the position?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I can only take note of the noble Lord's comments.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, are we not now facing a real and long-foreseen crisis with what the Royal College of Nursing today calls an horrendous shortage of paediatric nurses and a drastic closure of intensive care cots at specialised children's hospitals

207
all over the country, including Great Ormond Street, Guys, Brompton, the Alderhey hospital in Liverpool and many others? With only one course at present operative, is it not absolutely essential, in order to prevent deaths as the noble Countess said, to have a special allocation of money to deal with this crisis situation?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the total number of nursing staff employed in paediatric intensive care units in England at 30th September 1986 was 360, an increase of 7·8 per cent. over the figure at September 1985. As I have said, the intention is considerably to increase that over the years.
Lord Hayter: My Lords, can the noble Earl confirm the extraordinary position at Birmingham, where the central Birmingham district has been given a grant enabling the post of a nursing tutor to be established but it cannot get nurses to attend those classes because Birmingham does not have the funds to staff the wards if they were to do so?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I understand that that is not the case. A tutor has already been engaged and he is already starting to teach nurses.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, have the Government any confidence in the management of the health service in the West Midlands in the light of what the Minister himself has said?
The Earl of Arran: I am extremely sorry but I did not hear all of the noble Lord's question.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, have the Government every confidence in the management in the West Midlands in the light of what the Minister himself said about the importance of management in planning to meet the kind of staffing problem with which it is faced?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I think that is somewhat wide of the Question on the Order Paper.

War Widows' Benefit
3.6 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether some of the £9 million resulting from an error in the retail price index, which they now intend should be used for charitable purposes, will be directed to increasing the age allowances in the pensions of elderly war widows.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, no. The intention is to allocate this money to charities broadly helping those who will not receive special payments to compensate them for the error in the retail prices index. War widows will receive special payments. The
208
money will, moreover, be a one-off sum which could not provide for the recurring costs of improvements in any benefits or pensions.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply but I hope that the Government have not yet made up their minds. As the number of these widows is limited and is, of course, dwindling, can my noble friend think of any more deserving cause when consideration is being given to the distribution of this windfall?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I think it would be of interest if I informed the House that the standard war widow's pension is £51·35 a week, increasing to £53·50 in April That is free of tax. is 30 per cent. higher than the taxable National Insurance widow's pension. On top of that, age allowances are payable of £5·50 at 65, increasing to £11 at 70 and £13·85 at 80. The age allowances will be increased in April to £5·75, £11·50 and £14·45 respectively;
Some 85 per cent. of war widows are aged 65 and over. In addition, a war widow may receive a retirement pension if she has worked and paid the necessary contributions.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, while I find my noble friend's reply very discouraging, nevertheless perhaps I may take this opportunity, through him, of thanking the Government for the very sympathetic way in which they have listened to representations made to them by the British Legion, the War Widows of Great Britain and the Officers' Pensions Society.
Is my noble friend aware that the only really satisfactory answer which would please everyone is an across-the-board uprating of all war widows' pensions? Meanwhile, can the Government endeavour to get rid of the gross anomaly to which my noble friend has drawn attention? At the same time, can he deal with a further anomaly concerning elderly war widows who are still on the one-third pension rate, which seems to me impossible to justify?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, no one in this House can or ever will forget the immense debt of gratitude that we owe to those who fought and laid down their lives in defence of their country. With particular regard to their widows and that which they receive, the Government have to temper that which they consider reasonable with the funds available. As regards the age entitlement to war widows, there is no justification for linking the age allowance to the normal retirement age for women. It is essentially intended to recognise the additional needs of elderly war widows as they grow older.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, has the attention of the noble Earl, or that of his ministerial colleagues, been drawn to the anomaly arising from the repayment of some of this money, whereby a person receiving benefits on two books has received two amounts of £8—that is, £16—whereas a person receiving the same benefit on one book has received only £8? If the noble Earl is aware of that anomaly will he kindly do something about it?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, those who have a retirement pension from their own insurance, a widow's benefit or who receive invalidity benefit combined with a higher rate of attendance allowance.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that despite the mitigations of the rule to which he has referred, there are many people who find it very difficult to understand how it is possible to justify paying a lower pension to the war widow pre-1973 than to those widowed after that date? Surely it is the older war widow whose need is the greatest.
The Earl of Arran; My Lords, the level of the war widow's pension is the same regardless of when or where the serviceman died. The disparity in total pension provision is due to improvements made in 1973 by the Ministry of Defence in its occupational pension scheme for servicemen. War widows whose husbands served after 1973 receive an attributable widow's pension under that scheme as well as a war widow's pension. The improvements were not made retrospective because of the enormous additional cost (£200 million a year for war widows), and because of the repercussions for public service pensions as a whole.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, having gratefully received my old lady's £8 from Her Majesty's Government, perhaps I may ask what organisations are being chosen to distribute the £9 million? Are any instructions or guidance being given to these organisations or are they totally to use their own discretion?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as regards the charities, this matter is being considered. Advice is being taken from the Charities Aid Foundation, and a public announcement will made in due course
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I am so sorry to press the noble Earl but I believe that he may have read out the wrong answer to my question. Perhaps I may remind the noble Earl of what I actually asked—why was it that a person receiving certain benefits on two books received £16, whereas another person receiving precisely the same benefits on one book received only £8?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the answer is that I believe I can satisfy the noble Lord on that point. Having two benefits in one book does not automatically mean that the claimant has suffered twice from the RPI error. The special compensation payments fully compensate the great majority of people including those who have combined order books. Fewer than 10 per cent. of people with combined order books would be under-compensated for the error because of the method of payment.

Business
3.13 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, after the end of the short debate on the secret services and before the opening
210
of that on pseudo-religious cults, my noble friend Lord Glenarthur will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Hong Kong White Paper.
I should like to say a word about the arrangements for the short debates standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, and my noble friend Lord Rodney. On the principle that the mover is allowed 15 minutes and that the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, in the case of the short debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, this means that all other speeches should be limited to 14 minutes and in that of my noble friend Lord Rodney to 11 minutes. If any noble Lord were to speak at greater length, it would be at the expense of subsequent speakers in that debate. I should remind the House that when the figures 14 and 11 respectively appear on the clock the speech is already too long.

British Waterways (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
Eastbourne Harbour Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners.
Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 3) Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

The Secret Services
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney rose to call attention to the case for bringing the secret services under a greater degree of control and accountability; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I make no apology for raising again a subject to which I drew attention in your Lordships' House just over a year ago.
In that debate the noble Lord, Lord Dacre, referred approvingly to Dr. Christopher Andrew's magisterial history of the British secret services. Perhaps a quotation from page 500 of that book might serve as my first text:
"The simple fallacy behind the argument that total disclosure is the only alternative to total secrecy (roughly equivalent to saying that a nuclear holocaust is the only alternative to complete pacifism) escaped serious challenge for so long because the intelligence community acquired the status of an unmentionable taboo exempt from any process of rational public or parliamentary debate."
Fallacies breed fallacies. For example, the Master of the Rolls, Sir John Donaldson, in the Appeal Court recently, gave vent to the extraordinary view that the secret services are above the law. I understand that the expression of such a proposition in some

211
countries would involve the immediate retirement from his position of the utterer of those words.
However, your Lordships will be glad to know that the Master of the Rolls thinks that while the secret services may break the law in any other way (he did not exclude theft or violence), they must stop short of murder—unless, I suppose, it happens by accident as is thought to have occurred more than once. Happily an earlier plan to murder a head of state was not proceeded with.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has been kind enough to send me a note saying that on medical advice he has had to withdraw his name from the list of speakers today. I believe that each one of your Lordships will wish to join with me in expressing the hope that the noble and learned Lord will soon be restored to full health and will return to us.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, will not object to my saying that he did not agree with the Master of the Rolls. Indeed he has expressed that view pretty cogently (as is his custom) not only in his report on the subject, but more recently in the Independent newspaper.
Unhappily, the professor of public law at the London School of Economics told us in the Independent last week that the Royal prerogative is regularly used to excuse such breaches of the law and to provide reason for not prosecuting when they are discovered. Everything that has happened—or has not happened—since I last raised this matter must serve to increase disquiet. Nothing has been done; something must be done.
My next text comes from Mr. Peter Wright's book, Spycatcher. That is a book, which, at enormous expense, the Government have publicised so effectively as to bring Mr. Wright almost into the Jeffrey Archer class in terms of financial reward for his efforts—that is if he gets it, of course. Presumably this may do something to compensate a very mixed-up man for what he regards as an inadequate pension. What other reason can there be for the Government's incredible stupidity in this matter, unless it is that there is someone in charge who is both very determined and very unwise?
Mr. Wright says, at page 54—and the quotation is short so I shall read it from my notes rather than from the book:
"For five years we bugged and burgled our way across London"
Mr. Wright thought that it was all great fun but Miss Joan Miller and Miss Cathy Massiter, who were employed in similar ways, found that the game turned their more moral stomachs. Spying on the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament was a typically absurd secret service effort, like sending the night into the day to discover by what mischief all that light is being created. The campaign is a public body. It would have welcomed television into its deliberations without all the havering and fuss they have been making across the way. As one who was both bugged and burgled at our flat in Putney during the time when I chaired the Campaign for Nuclear
212
Disarmament, I can tell your Lordshps that it is no fun to be at the receiving end, to watch the embarrassment of the local police as they examine your home, your proverbial castle, which has been turned upside down with papers spread all over the place but nothing taken. It is a very eerie and strange experience to realise that you are outside the protection of the law.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, says in his report and in his letter to the Independent that, if they break the law, officers of MI5 can be brought before the courts and punished. Theoretically, perhaps, but not in practice, for the police can never find them. They do not exist. Although they break the law as a matter of course—and it is now generally known that they do—they have never been brought before the courts. To put it mildly, it is an unsatisfactory state of affairs.
I am less bothered about bugging. When as chairman of CND I spoke on the telephone to Dr. Cox, a vice-chairman whose telephone, it has since been officially admitted, was tapped, I used to wait for the clicks and then say, "Are you listening comfortably? Then we'll begin". But I fear that the line that Members of Parliament are not bugged may be just another case of a Minister, innocently or otherwise, retailing the usual secret service automatic denial of the truth—unless the policy has changed. We do not know.
My final text comes from my own book The Culture Gap, if I may be forgiven. On pages 13 and 14 I summarise the strange experience of how, having been seconded from the Royal Air Force to broadcasting duties in Burma, I applied on demobilisation to join the BBC and was twice accepted. After completion of the formal application papers the acceptance was twice cancelled. It became all too clear what the cause of the trouble was but, as I say in the book,
"the suspect cannot be told why he is under suspicion".
And of course there can be no appeal, for, as the secret services do not exist, they cannot be admitted to have intervened.
This is not the occasion to detail how in my own case the error was subsequently and tacitly admitted. However, by this time I had decided to be a trade union official, which led me into politics and eventually into your Lordships' House. But for the intervention of the secret services in my affairs I should by now almost certainly be a long-retired disc jockey.
My Lords, there may be those among you who will, perhaps for the first time, perceive that there may be something to be said for bringing the secret services under more effective control. I must get on. Those who are interested to know more about this extraordinary episode must either read my book, which is in the Library, or perhaps get the BBC to let them have a cassette of my radio play "Lost Tune From Rangoon", which was broadcast last August.
Secrecy both attracts and breeds eccentricity. The secret services of the world are full of double agents, potential and actual. They batten on each other. The most valued defectors are spies, though no one can be quite sure whether they have really

213
changed sides as the primary loyalty of those people who are in the secret services of the opposing side, as it were, often seems to be to their wretched trade, which Mr. Chapman Pincher has named treachery.
There are those who think that all secret services should be abolished, and in an ideal world that would be so. But I believe, with the late Lord Butler, that politics is the art of the possible. In the real world the best we can do is to follow the example of some other countries and bring our secret services under more effective supervision answerable ultimately to Parliament. If we fail to do that we shall find that democracy itself has been undermined.
This is no time to detail the way in which we might combine essential secrecy with equally essential accountability to an open Parliament. As I have said, like my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition on another occasion, I would settle for a committee of Privy Counsellors which would report annually to Parliament. As the Labour Party has said, after that what we need is not attempts to treat the sickness of secrecy but the removal of the cause by a freedom of information Act. The present position in which, for example, American congressional committees know more about British intelligence activities than any British Member of Parliament outside the Cabinet, and probably more than most of them inside it, is intolerable.
I do not go along with Mr. Neal Ascherson of the Observer in believing that the answer to the problem is that we must become a republic. He has only to look across the Atlantic to be cured of that illusion. But we must certainly not bring the word "Royal" into disrepute by pretending that when they break the law the secret services are exercising the Royal prerogative at several removes and without specific authority. That is intolerable and indefensible and must be stopped.
The Master of the Rolls has performed no public service by giving such a reprehensible idea the cloak of his office. What the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, says is the case must be given the substance of reality. Secret service officers do break the law. The noble and learned Lord should be given the assurance that what ought to happen actually takes place. It does not, and he must know that it does not. Now the Master of the Rolls says that, short of murder, the secret services are allowed to break the law, and there are those who think that even murder has taken place.
Sir John Donaldson seems to have overlooked the fact that if you remove the penalties of the law from the offender you also remove its protection from the victim. I do not know which is worse. Perhaps your Lordships will judge the question. Is it better to pretend that everyone is under the law knowing that some are not, or is it better to admit the existence of privileged wrongdoers and give them the cover of the Royal prerogative? Your Lordships will know the answer.
It is of course that neither of these things is compatible with a healthy society and that all of us without exception must be equal before the law and answerable to the law. We cannot hold up our heads in the world until this becomes the case, is known to
214
be the case and seen to be the case. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole House when I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, for choosing this important subject, having won a ballot. He won a ballot in 1986 and we had a debate on 17th December in which his Motion was almost the same; it was about the accountability of these services. It gives the House a chance to review the situation and also to hear the Government's latest views upon the subject.
The noble Lord referred to secret services in the plural. As in the last debate, I should like to refer first to the security services, sometimes known as MI5, and to the other intelligence services, secondly, as "British Intelligence".
The Motion speaks of,
"a greater degree of control and accountability".
In the previous debate the concern was merely accountability. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, accepts that there is accountability now through the Home Secretary for the security service, and through the Foreign Secretary for British Intelligence. Of course, the Prime Minister is responsible overall. Those Ministers are accountable to Parliament. I am conscious that I am speaking in the presence of three former Prime Ministers. They are not down to speak in the debate but they have special knowledge of the subject.
Since the previous debate, as I understand it, there has been progress (we look forward to hearing about that from my noble friend Lord Ferrers when he replies) on internal procedures, whereby matters raised, whether they be complaints or anxieties, by members of the security service or British Intelligence can be dealt with by new procedures or by some internal ombudsman.
In general, I am in favour of less secrecy in government. I am in favour of replacing Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act, as I am sure are most of your Lordships. I spoke in the only debate on the Bill, which took place on Second Reading in your Lordships' House in 1979, when the Government were trying to replace Section 2. That Bill was then dropped. I applaud the fact that the Government now propose to introduce another Bill and to have another shot at the difficult task of replacing Section 2.
That section has little to do with the subject with which we are dealing today. There is little application to the security service and British Intelligence of opening up the Official Secrets Act. Those two organisations must operate in secret if they are to do their jobs. Almost everything connected with their work must be secret if they are to be effective. To try to expose publicly their functions and organisation is a disservice to our country and diminishes to some extent the safety of all its inhabitants.
As I see it, the main issue raised today is whether the present accountability by designated Ministers to Parliament is enough. On the principle "the fewer who know, the better", it must be said that at present

215
a small number of officials in the Foreign Office and the Home Office are informed of what are considered to be relevant activities. Ministers are brought in when it seems appropriate. Therefore one must conclude that it is the directors-general and the few officials concerned who decide whether a Minister should be informed or consulted. Those must be delicate and difficult decisions. Ministers are transient. They occupy a position for three or perhaps four years. Doubtless they will give the right political consideration to a secret matter which is put to them, but they may never have had previous experience of the subjects, which would be completely new to them. Ministers are also extremely busy men, with their responsibilities to Parliament, and thus have little time to deal with such matters.
Should there be some new body to take part in the process to help the Ministers with their responsibilities? In the previous debate it was suggested that something like the Security Commission, which already exists, might be established. I agree with the Government's view, which was given on that occasion by my noble friend Lord Caithness, that any new body should not detract from Ministers' responsibility to Parliament; and that the services will suffer and be less efficient if there are two separate authorities attempting to supervise them.
A committee of Privy Counsellors has been suggested. My view is that a conference of Privy Counsellors, as has been convened on a number of occasions, can be usefully set up to act for a particular purpose and with a limited duration. That is the way that such conferences have been used in the past. Some of your Lordships may know that I was involved in the establishment of the first of these Privy Counsellors' committees in 1955. It was called a Conference of Privy Counsellors. I was then, as a Foreign Office official, the private secretary to the Secretary of the Cabinet, who later became Lord Normanbrook.
If there is to be a new body with a role to play with the security service and British Intelligence, I believe that it should have a wider membership than Privy Counsellors who have occupied ministerial positions and served in Parliament. For example, it could contain a former senior official, or a judge or other eminent lawyer, and other people whose knowledge and wisdom of the world would enable them to contribute. The body would not be large, but I believe that the appointment should be something like four years at a time so that it would be normal for a member to serve for about eight years, or perhaps more.
It would be a comforting assurance to Parliament and the public that there was a body in existence available to consider the roles of the security service and British Intelligence. It would be consulted and would be able to give advice to Ministers and the directors-general. It would not be an executive body and would not replace Ministers as responsible to Parliament. Therefore it would meet the objections which were raised in the previous debate.
Is it worth creating such a body, given the necessary limitations? I believe that it may now be
216
worth while, as much has happened over the past few years to produce an apparent conflict between secrecy and what the public and taxpayers should be entitled to expect to be done in their interests.
I have not mentioned the Peter Wright book and such matters, which were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. I do not believe that we need discuss that subject today. Your Lordships will have noticed that I also have a Motion on the Order Paper, down for ballot, which concerns the recruitment process to the security service and British Intelligence and the case for a legally enforceable contract of silence to be entered into at the time of recruitment. However, I suggest that is a subject for another day, if one of us is fortunate enough in another ballot.
My intention has been to speak constructively on accountability and to suggest, if something needs to be done, the way in which I believe progress can be made.
3.39 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, for giving us an opportunity to discuss the security services. I also have great pleasure in following the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, with whose conclusions I find myself in general agreement. I think the subject is an interesting and important one because it strikes at the very heart of democratic politics. It raises in an acute form the doctrine of accountability, as has already been said, and it also raises in an acute form the rule of law.
Unless servants of the Crown are accountable and unless we know to whom they are accountable, we cannot tell when things go wrong (and you can be sure that with the absolute regularity of a metronome things will go wrong) and to whom responsibility should be assigned. The security services by definition fit extremely uneasily within the structure of democratic politics. Indeed, in the early days of the United States of America, the idea of having a secret service was a sign of original sin from which they were going to escape. But the fact of the matter is that as nation states live in a state of nature, as it used to be called, and engage in espionage, and because, as we know today, terrorism is widespread, in these circumstances counter-measures are essential and secrecy is unavoidable. Hence, disagreeable though it may be, in the world we know security services are essential and secrecy is essential to their operations.
This confronts democratic societies with the rather uncomfortable dilemma as to how you reconcile that kind of secrecy and those kinds of operations with accountability. This dilemma has become over the last few years a matter of controversy because of the series of incidents, allegations and revelations which have made people ask themselves whether the security services are properly controlled and properly accountable and if so, to whom. I need hardly list the incidents with which people are very familiar: the long running Hollis saga; the extraordinary story of the recruitment and continued employment of Bettaney; the revelations, true or false, of Wright; and, finally, more recently, the Stalker story. This succession of events has inevitably caused concern and has rightly worried people. They have asked

217
themselves: who are the people employed in MI5 and MI6? To whom are they really accountable in practice? Do they regularly break the law? Are they politically motivated?
The answer given to some of these questions, in particular to the last question, the allegations that there were attempts to destabilise the Government when the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx was Prime Minister, was given in your Lordships' House on 6th May 1987. The noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw repeated a Statement made by the Prime Minister in another place. We were informed that a full inquiry into the allegations of an attempt to destabilise the Government when the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, was Prime Minister had been undertaken by the director general of the security services, who had found that there was no truth in the allegations; that the stories retailed were false; that all the security officers denied being involved in plans to undermine the Government. We were refused any fuller inquiry, despite the request made by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and my noble friend Lord Diamond.
At the same time we were asked to have the fullest confidence in the security services. My Lords, how could we? The air was full of smoke. How could we have full confidence in services which employed people like Mr. Bettaney, on the one hand and Mr. Peter Wright on the other hand? How could we believe that an inquiry into the activities of those services had been rigorous when the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, who was a victim or appeared to be a victim of dirty tricks, had never been involved nor questioned nor even approached? I may add that Mr. Cavendish's recent book confirms or supports both the destabilisation stories and the allegation that the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, was a victim of dirty tricks. So much, therefore, for the anxieties which people naturally felt in the light of these events and the extent to which they raised the question of accountability.
I now turn to the rule of law to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, has referred. It has been alleged that the secret services had breached this on a number of occasions. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, has recently written:
"In English law, members of the security or secret services are as much subject to the laws of homicide, assault, perjury, conspiracy or even trespass as any other of Her Majesty's subjects."
That is a comforting and categorical statement. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, agrees with it.
On the other hand, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, has said, the Master of the Rolls, in a series of extraordinary interjections in a recent case, has put a totally contradictory opinion. He has said that the secret services were not obliged to follow the letter of the law and indeed it was inevitable that they would not; that in those circumstances it was all right to use the prerogative of power not to prosecute intelligence officers. Most extraordinary of all, he said that if there were a plan to assassinate the head of a friendly power, it would be against the public interest for this to be revealed. It makes one worry about the judiciary, let alone the secret services.
218
This leads one to the Stalker case. Who was responsible for stopping the Stalker inquiry? Was it the RUC or MI5 or somebody else? Who was responsible for charging him with offences of which he was subsequently cleared and which would, in a cruder form, be called framing him? Was it the RUC or MI5, or was it authorised by a Minister of the Crown? It seems to me that these are legitimate questions to which one should reasonably expect an answer. It was grossly unjust to accuse a man, if the motive for accusing him was just to stop an inquiry into unlawful behaviour. These worries cause disquiet; they call into question whether the democratic doctrines of accountability and the supremacy of the rule of law are being followed.
Hence we must ask why Her Majesty's Government have continued to refuse proposals made on 3rd December 1986 in another place for a committee of Privy Counsellors on the lines supported just now by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, from both Houses to oversee in some way or another. The noble Lord suggested some of the ways in which it might be done, and my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead elaborated rather further on this matter in another place. This proposal has had support from all parties, from Ministers, from people with experience of office. Of course, there are precedents in this country for committees of this sort and there are analogues in the United States, Canada and Germany for a committee performing precisely this function.
I wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, that this country has too many secrets and is obsessed with secrecy. This Government's passion for secrecy seems to be disproportionate. Their pursuit of Mr. Wright has made this country a laughingstock all over the world. A government keen on economy have spent over £2 million on this wild-goose chase, this self-defeating exercise. A government keen on law and order have stopped or have appeared to stop an inquiry into unlawful behaviour.
Inevitably, one must ask in these circumstances: quis custodiet custodes? The committee which has been proposed in another place, supported today by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, would provide some reassurance to those of us who are worried that the security services which are created to preserve democracy may be exceeding their role.
I should like to end by quoting from Rebecca West in her book The Meaning of Treason, in which she raises the dilemma with which we are concerned:
"If we do not keep before us the necessity for uniting care for security with determination to preserve our liberties we may lose our cause because we have fought too hard. Our task is equivalent to walking on a tightrope over an abyss".
3.50 p.m.
Lord Hankey: My Lords, I feel that this is a subject where angels fear to tread; but in my 38 years as a diplomat I learned a lot about what goes on and I know a certain amount about the matter. There is a very awkward but fundamental reason why the secret services are more important now than they used to be. There are many more guerrilla organisations and terrorists than formerly which are far more

219
sophisticated both in their internal structure (which is hard to penetrate) and in their extremely modern equipment. They also have unprecedented access to funds from abroad.
The army and the police by themselves cannot cope with the terrorist situation. I believe that without the secret intelligence services our whole liberal and democratic civilisation would be at risk. Not long ago the Prime Minister and the Government were nearly blown up in Brighton, and some Ministers suffered terribly. It is not good enough to bring the culprits to trial, although it is sufficiently remarkable that that was done. It is necessary to know in advance what is going to happen and to take preventive measures. That can be done only by superior intelligence involving many clever people and much money.
Whether we are talking about the IRA, the INLA, or Colonel Gaddafi's merry boys, all sorts of people are involved who are in touch with one another across the international spectrum. The people in Italy and Germany are often in close touch. I believe the Action Directe is also in touch with them. This is not something that the army and the police can deal with by themselves.
It is interesting to reflect that Mr. Begin and his guerrillas got us out of Palestine really by defeating us there. Subsequently, it is very strange that Mr. Begin, as Prime Minister, made the mistake of sending the Israeli Army into Lebanon where it came up against Arab guerrillas who knew just about as much as the Israelis did. When Mr. Begin discovered what he had done, he had a nervous breakdown and disappeared from public life, and the army ultimately had to be withdrawn. After our postwar defeat in Palestine it was not by chance that we sent our leading intelligence general, General Templer, to deal with the situation in Malaysia.
In Poland, where I served after the war, it was not the Soviet or Polish armies which destroyed the well-armed guerrillas who controlled the forests and large parts of Poland under the control of the Polish Government in London. It was the Polish secret police under the control and training of the Soviet secret police. They did a most effective and rather brutal job, which was a horrifying affair.
Let us look to see how it is today. The IRA, funded from America and Libya, are really as big a menace to Ireland as they are to this country. Some years ago the Basque movement, Eta, blew up the Spanish Prime Minister. In France the Action Directe is a real menace to the French body politic. In Germany and in Italy it is the same story. In Sweden Mr. Olof Palme, a real democrat for whom I had a great personal regard, was killed by an allegedly Kurdish organisation. He was without his bodyguard, which was very unwise. I do not know what degree of intelligence back-up the Swedish police had, but they never discovered who did it.
I maintain that our liberal and democratic civilisation, for which I have the deepest and most passionate regard, will be in real danger if it is not recognised that to face the modern threat of highly sophisticated terrorist guerrillas effective secret services are a vital adjunct to the police and armed
220
services, and to the effective application of the law. I should particularly like to underline the latter point because the law is the foundation of the civilisation in which we are lucky to live. The secret services are also very important adjuncts to the other departments of government; but I shall not go further into that today.
That brings me to my next point. We have allowed our very essential secret services to be undermined by the media of all sorts and by the lure of financial gain from writing books. Spycatcher has been referred to today. The author was under an obligation not to reveal what he did, and it is really scandalous that he should have been able to do it. Unfortunately, the Government have not got away with stopping the book, and sooner or later we shall all have copies of it, just as my noble friend has. I do not know why previous books about the secret services escaped equal condemnation, apart from the fact that they were not written by former members of the secret services.
As the Middle East censorship authorities discovered during the war, there was not in Britain then and has never been any means of preventing the publication of a book as such, even if it is contrary to the national interest. But the more recent revelations by the media, especially by television, with names, pictures of institutions, persons and buildings, and details of incidents in the secret services have really been much more serious. This has been an inexcusable lapse of national discipline. The secret services must be secret if they are to be an effective protection for our liberal and democratic system, starting with our own democratically-elected Government. There must be better discipline effectively enforced. I am extremely glad that the Home Secretary, (once a member of the diplomatic service himself), is taking so seriously the need to reform the Official Secrets Acts. They are in desperate need of reform. We must have Acts which are sufficiently supported by the courts and by juries to be made effective.
On this background, what conclusion should one draw about the control of the secret services? I have several points to make. First, the need for real secrecy is the primary requirement. Otherwise, the IRA and others will discover what we are trying to do and will be much better able to conceal their own nefarious intentions. That means that only those who really need to know ought to be told. A slip of the tongue in those matters can easily cost the life of one of our agents. I say that to your Lordships quite seriously.
Secondly, whoever controls the secret services at the highest levels must be a person of real wisdom and impeccable common sense, with an unquestionable devotion to our libeal democracy and with real experience of public affairs. Thirdly, I think this clearly points to the tough and experienced characters who rise through Parliament—a splendid training ground if ever there was one—to be Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary. They should clearly consult the Prime Minister and keep him or her informed. Obviously the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland must be kept informed, as must the Secretary of the Cabinet.

221
However, if we want the system to be watertight —and it must be that—then only those who must know should be currently in the picture. I know how awkward that can be. However, we must be aware of even distinguished gentlemen who confide in one another in the bar. Many very sophisticated listening and recording devices that only the secret services used to use are now on sale in London. They are even beginning to get into the commercial community.
I cannot go as far as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, for whose wisdom I have a great and long-standing admiration. I do not believe that an extra advisory body would be sufficiently reliable and secure. It is not that I distrust the reliability of the people. However, the media is so frightfully clever at questioning one person after another and setting off what is innocently said by one against what is innocently said by another. Almost any secret can be winkled out in that manner.
To sum up, if Parliament really does not trust the Government to run the system properly in that way, then it should get a new and better government. I believe that our present Government are eminently suitable and trustworthy to handle the secret services. However, a new official secrets Act is urgently needed. It should be rigidly enforced in the courts.
4 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, tension between the executive and the legislature is an essential part of the history of democratic advance. However, we are living in a new age in which the authority of the executive itself is under threat. Two former Prime Ministers—my noble friend Lord Wilson and the right honourable Mr. Heath—have testified to that fact. Furthermore, a former Lord Chancellor, my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, stated that he:
"thought it more likely than not that MI5 was bugging the telephones in my office."
He further stated that when he had confidential discussions with the Attorney-General, they went out in his car, where his chauffeur had made sure that they could not be bugged.
That is a threat to the authority of the executive and the legislature, as well as to the authority of our democratic system. It suggests that there is the danger of a Fifth Estate being established in this country—the estate of the secret services. That is a national rather than a party issue, although I must say that libertarianism has usually been supported by those on the left of the political spectrum and authoritarianism supported by those on the right. That is still the case.
It is our task as a Parliament—a task which has now become urgent, as my noble friend Lord Jenkins has aptly and amply demonstrated in his speech —that we must define by consensus where the line is to be drawn. The line must be clear between national security and the freedom of information which is essential to a democratic society. That freedom must be based on the accountability of every institution in the state.
222
There has been an increasing tendency towards what my noble friend Lord Jenkins mentioned in his opening speech. He said:
"the intelligence community has acquired the status of an unmentionable taboo exempt from any process of rational public or parliamentary debate".
It was as recently as 1963 that Mr. Macmillan, as he then was, stated to the Commons after the defection of Philby:
"It is dangerous and bad for our general national interest to discuss these matters."
That taboo, which dates from the 1920s when Austen Chamberlain was Foreign Secretary, is still with us. It has been evident time after time during the lifetime of the present Government.
It has been only two or three weeks since the issue was raised in another place. It was raised by a Conservative Member of Parliament, the honourable Richard Shepherd. Cross-party concern over the issue was shown by the fact that when the Bill was debated in the Commons, around 100 Conservative Members either abstained or voted for the Bill, despite the fact that the Government had imposed a three-line Whip. A government which imposes a three-line Whip on an issue of that kind apparently does not believe in consensus.
When we note that in that debate a former Prime Minister—the right honourable Edward Heath—and a number of former or present Cabinet Ministers—the right honourable Members Sir Ian Gilmour, Merlyn Rees, David Owen and Roy Hattersley—all supported the Bill, we have a very clear sign that the Government are opposed to any attack on the secrecy which has disturbed large sections of our nation.
Following the debate on the Bill, Mr. Shepherd and his supporters wrote to the Prime Minister. They stated:
"We therefore request that before publishing proposals in the form of a White Paper"—
which had been promised during the debate—
"the Home Secretary should engage in discussions with representatives of other parties in an endeavour to arrive at agreed structures to replace Section 2 so that these discussions might proceed with the declared support and goodwill of government and opposition".
That proposal was rejected. Why? Do we not want and need a consensus over a matter of such grave national importance and concern?
Mr. Justice Scott said in a recent verdict:
"we can never enjoin anybody to a life-long duty of confidentiality … we are asking them, when confronted with something that goes to the very heart of our democratic processes, which talks to us about the form of our democracy, that they should in no circumstances reveal such information. I hold that to be a dangerous proposition".
So do I, my Lords. One has only to think of the Tisdall case, the Ponting trial and the Wright and Cavendish books to see that that legal judgment has a clear political repercussion.
In the Franks Report it was stated:
that too often the Official Secrets Act was used to protect not the interests of the State or the country but to protect the political interests of the Government of the day".
Again I refer back to the Ponting case, and to the Tisdall case.

223
There are certain practical consequences of this deep, profound and widespread tendency towards secrecy in government and the protection of those who are acting in secret. I shall give three instances. Firstly, we have all criticised the secrecy of the Soviet Union over the Chernobyl disaster, but let us not forget that there was also secrecy over the Windscale disaster of 30 years ago and that that secrecy was exposed only after the 30-year rule had expired. That is the kind of practical consequence of the application of secrecy in government.
My second example is the recent leak of the government document which described as "dangerous" the proposals on flammable foam-filled furniture. That affects the daily life of our people. It was partly because of the leak of that report that the Government were forced to announce a ban on the highly flammable foams which they had intended to leave on the market. The leaked document, which was a memorandum from the Crown Suppliers, criticised the plans of the Minister, Mr. Maude, to phase out a highly flammable foam over a three-year period, replacing it with a foam which was almost as dangerous.
That was a leak; it was a breach of confidentiality. If it had not happened the lives of many people would have been in danger. If it had happened in Australia, Canada, New Zealand or in the United States, where there is freedom of information legislation, the document involved would have been available to the public. It should be available in this country. I am glad that there are public servants who put their moral responsibilities before their political allegiance.
My third example relates to the dangers that accumulated before the war, when government security was neglected and the intelligence services run down. The threat was to national security as a whole because those intelligence services were quite deliberately withholding information on many of the aspects of the threat posed by Nazi Germany to this country and the whole of Western Europe. We know now that during that period there was a very deep-seated conspiracy to persuade the people of this country that Nazi Germany was not as bad as it appeared to be, was really a friend of the West and should be supported against the Soviet Union
I suggest that that is a danger which is present today in the new international atmosphere. It is a danger to the prospects of peace and understanding between East and West which we have all welcomed but which can be sabotaged by the same forces which were working before the war to sabotage those of us who were opposed to Nazism.
I am glad to know that the public is now beginning actively to take note of those dangers and that a campaign for freedom of information has already been established to mobilise a coalition of organisations and of individuals to oppose any restrictive secrecy legislation that it is proposed should be introduced later this year. It is not enough for the Government to say, as they did in the Shepherd debate, "wait and see; give us a blank sheet to draw anything on". After all those revelations the
224
Government have a responsibility to Parliament and to the people of this country to reveal what considerations they are discussing in preparation for the White Paper to be issued in the summer and for probable future legislation. That is a matter which concerns the whole of the country; it is a matter which both Parliament and people have a right to engage in now. I hope that the noble Earl who will wind up this debate will be able to say something more specific than did his friend in another place at the end of the Shepherd debate.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Birdwood: My Lords, I think that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, for raising this subject today. A year ago he was disappointed by an apparent inflexibility of response. Who knows? He may find himself less disappointed on this occasion.
I propose to take up not more than a few moments of your Lordships' time this afternoon to make just one point. It is really a question. In this groundswell of disclosure, who is it who actually benefits? Who would benefit by the creation of an extra mechanism of accountability?
When I saw that this debate had come up for an airing a year after the noble Lord had first raised the subject in this House—with wording which is virtually unchanged—I was curious to know what new arguments we should hear. In the year that has elapsed a lot of column inches have been devoted to the idea of accountability. The Government's emissaries have looked less than magisterial as they have been reported bolting empty stables all over the place. The voices calling for an oversight body have now become almost a clamour.
In my view, nothing has changed from a year ago. Politicians in opposition use accountability as a fine word to goad their opponents. They say that a society's freedom is measured by the openness of its machines of state. They say: "Look at the Americans; look at the Senate Intelligence Committee". Well, we have looked and so have the Americans, and openness does not work. In passing, I should mention that the most consistent feature of Left-wing political systems is a consuming passion for secrecy.
That is what I thought and said a year ago. I pointed out that the oath of secrecy is not some negotiable condition in an employment contract. It is willingly taken, binding and permanent. I remarked that discretion had become mixed up in people's minds with conspiracy. I said then that nowhere did we find an able and cogent case for a permanent programme of accountability. It is not found in the American example, not in the Franks' remodelling of the JIC, not in the Canadian nor the French model, and not in any of our NATO partners. In the past year we have had numerous suggestions for an oversight body consisting perhaps of Privy Councillors from all parties and both Houses; or it might be a panel of judges, (which I favour); or even a committee of three or four individuals drawn from outside Parliament and the law. As it is, we shall have the appointment of a security services ombudsman and that has been broadly welcomed.

225
Returning to the core issue of accountability, surely there is a break in the logic. As I understand it—and my understanding is strictly that of an outsider in these matters—the purpose of the intelligence forces is to gather information using covert means. They have no purpose if it is not that. In order to function, an organisation having such a horizon would need to operate on two timescales, so to speak: that of its ongoing broad objective, and that of the short-term enclosed operation. Which of those would an accountability machine be in a position to monitor?
The ongoing strategy is established by allowing the existence at all of the services, voting them a budget and allowing them access to the Royal Prerogative. I suggest that the short-term operations could hardly be cleared by a committee. As it is, the reporting structure for prior approval is absolutely clear and has been mentioned in the House this afternoon. It entails the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, the appropriate Permanent Under-Secretaries in person and the Prime Minister.
To return to my main point, if not my only one: who benefits from creating a new body of accountability? I suggest that it would do real harm to the people who are serving today in the intelligence community. I am sure that the threat that sometime in the future, perhaps immediately, an operation would have to be scrutinised by people other than professionals would be deeply damaging to effectiveness, morale and recruitment. Our security professionals face the same threat as do we all; namely, a Soviet state apparatus of great age and great sophistication. However brisk and refreshing are the changes at the top—and we welcome them—subversion and secret dealing are built into the constitutional fabric of communist political ideology. Each step away from tyranny is an inch toward an ethical framework with which we in the West can identify. But let nobody be in any doubt about the deepest drives embedded in that ideology: they are conquest.
Our intelligence services and the men and women who work in them are there to gather and assess information. Their mission is to predict intention and present their findings to their political masters. Their mission is not to decide policy, and I submit that it never has been. I hope that it never will be. They must be left alone to do their work. There is accountability enough.
4.22 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. Even though I do not follow him in all his surmises, I think that he has performed a real service in opening out this question. I am bound to say to him that I do not believe that Mr. Wright's book, Spycatcher, is a very good source for the truth. Of course it was not written by Mr. Wright but by a Mr. Greengrass, who embroidered a manuscript of Mr. Wright and did so for one purpose only, which was to obtain the maximum sales. It was not written in order to tell the truth and is a fine line in fiction.
Leaving that matter on one side, I should like to mention just one or two points that were raised by the
226
noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney. The reason why there must be further surveillance, he said, was that at one time the security services had contemplated the assassination of a head of state. According to the best reports, it was the Prime Minister of the day who asked whether that could not be done and in fact it was the secret intelligence service which declined to do so. Indeed, the succeeding head of the secret intelligence service laid it down as a maxim that assassination was not part of the duties of any officer in the service. I am sure that your Lordships will think he was right, though I am bound to say that I personally regret that it prevented a certain just fate overtaking Philby, who sent so many British agents to their death.
I turn next to the noble Lord's reference to Wright "bugging and burgling his way across London". One of the points that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, was that there should be a specific authority for any action of that kind. Am I not right in thinking that if MI5 wants to bug a telephone it has to obtain the express permission of the Home Secretary? Is it not the case that every so often a list of those people whose telephone conversations are being intercepted is laid before the Home Secretary?
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, mentioned destabilisation of a government. That is a story that even Mr. Wright did not believe was true, although he mentioned it as a rumour. Can one really believe that 30 officers of MI5 were engaged in such a plot and that it was unknown in Whitehall, unknown to the Permanent Secretary and even unknown to the Director General of MI5? Really! Credulity can go no further.
I do not think that there is widespread concern in the general public about the security services but there is some concern in what are usually called "informed circles". I should like to suggest two improvements. First of all, I ask the Government whether we cannot move from the age of John Buchan into the age of John Le Carré. Those who read John Buchan will remember that the head of the secret service was an enigmatic, patrician figure, who was known only to a few members of the inner circle who ruled the country. He was known as "C". He signed all documents in green ink. That prototype of the chief of the secret intelligence service has vanished today. As Mr. Le Carŕe tells us, the names of heads of the security and intelligence services are known to the KGB and the CIA; they are also now known to a large number of informed people in this country and have even begun to be mentioned in the press. I suggest that it would be of value if the heads of the services were publicly named.
I think that there would be certain advantages, the first being that the Secretary of the Cabinet would not have to be sent to Australia to give evidence about matters of which he could not have had first-hand knowledge and could not be put in the position of having to decline to admit that he even knew of the existence of a body such as MI6. Another advantage would be that the heads of the services could if necessary speak for any of their members who were attacked in public. One of the most odious spectacles in the Spycatcher case was the sight of as distinguished and patriotic a Member as any in your

227
Lordships' House being slandered and traduced by a Member of another place who made the allegation that the noble Lord was a Soviet spy.
It is all very well for the Home Secretary to say on radio that confidentiality by and about members of the security services should extend to the grave. No member of the services should feel that his reputation cannot be defended by his chief and the head of the service. To give this responsibility to the heads of the services is only to fall in line with the normal responsibility that the executive arm of the Government always possesses.
Secondly, like the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, I have come to the conclusion that it would be of service to the nation if a body of some kind were to be set up. I have an open mind as to whether it should consist of three privy counsellors or whether it should contain a member of the judiciary, but I think that it should be a very small body appointed by the Prime Minister and from nominations made by the heads of the political parties. I think that it would be of service if there were such a body to question the three services from time to time about their activities.
It may be objected of course that we already have the Security Commission, but I think I am right in believing that the commission meets only if some scandal has occurred. A body of the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, mentioned exists in the United States, although there it is much larger and it can be very time-consuming if busybodies get on to the committee. But a body of three or four people would be very different. It would have the effect of legitimising the services more clearly in the public mind and if there were any wild men operating indiscreetly a little gentle probing by such a body would reveal what they were up to.
I realise that any such suggestion will be opposed probably by the Government and certainly by the Civil Service, who will follow the line—I accept that it is an extremely powerful line—put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, that we already have ministries, civil servants and the Home Secretary for MI5 and the Prime Minister for the secret intelligence services. They are the Ministers responsible and they and no one else can exercise surveillance. The trouble is that Ministers and civil servants have many pressing day-to-day matters on their hands. I wonder whether anyone really believes that the Prime Minister exerts a strict surveillance of the affairs of the secret intelligence service or that the Home Secretary can spare a great deal of time for what is actually being done by MI5.
I am not one of those who want the services to be what is called "more open". What on earth is the point of a secret service if it is not secret? The admirable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, put more clearly than anyone in the Chamber has put so far the reasons why the services have to be secret. I sometimes wonder whether those who attack the services and declare that they are out of control have got in mind the activities of some of the Middle Eastern intelligence services operating in this country. Their agents assassinate their own citizens
228
here in London. Would these critics not be the first to complain if there were no surveillance of the agents of those countries?
Although I do not think that his speech had much to do with the surveillance of the security services, the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, suggested that the security services were part of some anti-Soviet conspiracy. Soviet agents naturally come under surveillance in this country, but it is not they who are at the moment threatening the stability of this country. Our greatest difficulties come from the guerrilla organisations such as the IRA to which the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, referred.
I have no sympathy at all with journalists like Mr. Duncan Campbell, who regard it as good fun to try to circumvent the very proper security that surrounds the activities of these services. There is this point to bear in mind. We rely more and more on the press for uncovering irregularities in our institutions. If the security services are, as I believe they should be, an area in which the press cannot operate as it normally does, then there is a case for a quasi-public body to conduct the surveillance of the services, and that case seems to me to be strong.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, I apologise for putting my name down too late: I had to put it on the list of speakers after the printing had been done. I shall take only a few minutes of your Lordships' time.
When I was Shadow Defence Minister in the other place many years ago, my opposite number, whose name was Godber, was a very nice man and we became good friends. I remember talking to him once and saying when we were having lunch, "If you were captured by the Russians and given a truth drug that took your will away so that you had no alternative but to answer anything that you were asked, can you think of anything that you could tell the Russians that would be any good to them?". He thought for a minute and said, "Yes, I can think of one thing that might save their research department anything up to a fortnight." It was the level of secrets. I am sure that the Secretary of State for War would have agreed that security consists of two things, defending our secrets and finding out the other chap's.
Do we really have any secrets that matter? I very much doubt it. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, express anxiety about having his telephone bugged. Anybody may bug mine—I should not care in the least. Perhaps it is just a badge of senility, but it is a very long time since I have had a secret from anybody. I feel that this is a highly priggish point of view, but that the Government's innocence assures most of us that there are not any guilty secrets, certainly none which require protection at the level of expense that is being given.
That is the defensive side. There is the aggressive side. That, in a terrorist and criminal world is highly important. We want to improve our capacity to find out the other chap's secrets. A chap who is going to rob a bank has a secret that Her Majesty's Government want to know and have every business to know. The most valuable members of our secret

229
service are probably the dishonourable company of the grasses and the narks. You want to infiltrate the criminals and you want equally to infiltrate the terrorists. One cannot pretend that those who have many guilty secrets pointed at us are friends.
I was a little alarmed to hear that we would give an assurance that our agents would never kill. There are circumstances in whch they ought to kill. You cannot live in the same world as Libya and say that only our side shall be killed. I hope that the noble Earl when he replies will deal with that attitude. We are in a very tough, terrorist world at present and the job of our secret services is to fight back.
4.39 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I rise to make one point only. Forty years ago when I was a very junior officer in one of the secret services and, for the first time, the names of the heads of those services, their addresses and telephone numbers and so on began to be published, I suggested that it might be a good idea if each service was divided into two parts, one which was visible to the public consisting of two or three people with good manners and a nice bottle of sherry in the front office who were accessible only on confidential terms; the rest being the operational side which remained totally unknown to everybody. It seemed to me that that was the safest way to save the bacon of those services from undue publicity at that time. The proposal was turned down for the very interesting reason that the senior officers did not think that they could find anybody to undertake the very boring job of being in the front office with the sherry!
Later in life I hoped that perhaps something like that was happening, but it is now pitifully clear that it never did and the amount of press floodlight and publications floodlight that is thrown on all the operations is quite paradoxical and negates the whole purpose of the services' existence, as the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, has been saying in other words.
Those who call for greater public knowledge of the secret services are asking for a nonsense. They have only to look at the CIA, most of whose operations are known within a week or two and all of them, I think it is true to say, are known within four to five years now and to consider whether the CIA is really an asset to the national policy of the United States or, on the other hand, a burden round its neck.
I fear that the dilemma will continue as long as the existence of nation states in the condition of total independence and total sovereignty is held to require the existence of secret services of one kind or another. I do not honestly see that a small group of Privy Counsellors, which is an idea put forward by many wiser persons than me, has great merit. What is the difference between a Privy Counsellor and the rest of us? A Privy Counsellor is very experienced in politics, but many other people of course are experienced in other walks of life which would be just as relevant to the job in question.
A Privy Counsellor has taken a great oath which the rest of us have not taken, but the Privy Counsellor's oath contains nothing about secrecy. It is in no way comparable in that respect to the Official
230
Secrets Act declaration that one takes. A Privy Counsellor is special in that he is an experienced person who has never done anything wrong, as far as is known. There is another paradox there, because if the heads of MI5 and MI6 are not also experienced persons who have never done anything wrong, then they ought to be. Merely to make the comparison is to suggest an unspoken criticism of those Ministers, the troika—the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary—who have been responsible for making these appointments over the years.
I do not believe that there is a way forward except an increasing secrecy surrounding the work of these services, which I believe would be a help everywhere, and possibly some internal reform in the mechanisms by which the troika of Ministers exert their control. I do not know enough about that to know what that should be, but one can think of any number of different plans.
Lastly, I also urge that whatever is set up should not simply be a body which sits there like the Security Commission and waits for something to go wrong or for somebody to bring it a complaint from whichever side of the interface—from inside the secret services, or from Parliament or public—but should be a strengthening of the flow of information between the three Ministers whose job it is and the secret services themselves. There are quite a number of structural devices that one could think of to achieve that which would not involve any formal change in the structure.
4.44 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, a year ago I had the privilege to wind up for the official Opposition in the debate that was then initiated by my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney on the self same issue of secret services and their accountability. I thanked him then for bringing a matter of national importance before your Lordships' House and I thank him once again for doing so.
It was an interesting debate. There was one participant, as your Lordships may remember, Lord Dacre who spoke with the unusual experience of having served both in MI5 and MI6. His speech, which I remember was couched in the most beautiful literary English, contained a phrase that one would not have anticipated from his own experience in MI5 and MI6, as a faithful and useful member of those services. This is what he said, referring to the damage that had been done to the security services at that time:
"The root cause of the damage is, I believe, a lack of control, both external and internal, a lack of consistent policy and excessive secrecy.",
After a sentence which is not relevant he went on to say:
"The services need control not only to ensure discipline, but also for their own protection—protection especially from themselves". —[Official Report, 17/12/1986: col. 178.]
One starts off with at least one experienced Member of your Lordships' House who has served in MI5 and MI6, who felt that greater accountability, greater control and greater discipline were necessary. I hope that your Lordships are merely concerned with that issue and that issue alone this afternoon and

231
how we can best deal with accountability and responsibility. I say that for a very definite reason. It is my belief—which I understand is shared by my noble friends and I hope by many in all parts of the House—that in matters of security and national defence we ought to have as much of a bipartisan policy as we possibly can. About that I do not have the slightest doubt.
When matters of principle occur which come between opinions which are honestly held, obviously one adheres to the principles. My party believes that we should have a freedom of information Act. When such a Bill comes before Parliament when my party takes power (as I hope it will in the near future) it will be debated in Parliament. I have an idea that there will be considerable consensus of opinion in regard to what should be freedom of information. But there is bound to be an area where we all ought to agree that the security of our country depends upon the adequacy of a proper security service and a proper intelligence service. We are dealing with the matters, as I assume, that would come outside any freedom of information legislation.
At present, as we very well know, we have covered one aspect—the aspect of complaints within the service, which could not properly be voiced. We were told only a few months ago that an internal ombudsman had been appointed to deal with those complaints. That was a very serious issue because there did not appear to be a way in which, unless somebody went to the media, that person was able properly to explain a material point of view that something was going wrong inside the service.
I ask the noble Earl when he replies to this very useful debate—although I appreciate that the ombudsman has been appointed only since the autumn of last year—whether there have been any complaints? How many have there been? One obviously does not expect to know their nature. Has it been made abundantly clear to the members of both services that the procedure for going to the internal ombudsman is an easy process that does not inflict any sort of penalty upon the member of the security staff involved? I believe that your Lordships will probably be interested in hearing the reply to those questions.
What is it that affects the public? I believe that the noble Lord who said that at the moment the public are not particularly perturbed about all apsects of the security service was absolutely right. My own impression is that in the main the public are concerned about two issues. The first concern is that people should be allowed to earn a great deal of money from breaching the confidentiality of the promise which they made when they became servants of the security services. It is not the breach of confidentiality which causes concern—that is bad enough. It is seeing people gather in fortunes, helped by government legislation which, more than anything else, seems to publicise the product of the author's literary efforts. There is deep concern that people should be allowed to make money from that kind of thing.
232
Secondly, in the past there appeared to be breaches within the confidentiality of the services which appeared to be very worrying. Gratefully, we have not recently heard about such circumstances. In addition, there were among the membership of the security services people who were playing a most treacherous game. We have heard nothing about that aspect recently, and it is a good thing.
As has been mentioned in the debate, I believe that there will be concern about the pronouncement of the Master of the Rolls. I do not like the idea of castigating a new Member of your Lordships' House in his absence. I merely register the fact, which I put in respectful language, that I believe that what he has said needs a great deal of explanation, amplification and possible debate as to whether our law is in such a state that there are people who are permitted to commit crimes and who are outside the law. That does not appear to be right, especially if they happen to be in governmental employ.
I turn to what I believe to be of interest to your Lordships in the debate. Is there lack of control and supervision, as the noble Lord, Lord Dacre, thought when he contributed to your Lordships' debate a year ago? If there is a lack of control and accountability, is there a way of improving it? It was said a year ago, and it was said in this debate, that in regard to MI5 the Home Secretary is in charge, in regard to MI6 the Foreign Secretary is in charge; and over all there is the Prime Minister if needed.
On the last occasion a statement that seemed to make an impression on your Lordships—I believe that it has been repeated in this debate—was that the burdens upon the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary are such that it cannot be pretended that they personally would be properly able to supervise the security services in the way that we have in mind? It was also said that however one may wish to think in terms of a degree of permanency, one knows very well that those holding political positions can change jobs in a short space of time. Given that, is there the continuity of supervision that there should be on a policy level?
At that time the suggestion of Privy Counsellors was put forward to your Lordships. It has been put Toward again today. The objection to Privy Counsellors—not heard this afternoon but mentioned on a previous occasion—is that Privy Counsellors, sitting as they do and as they ought (as we see this afternoon), in privileged places both in your Lordships' House and in another place are not at the time Ministers of the Crown. It was thought to be somewhat unacceptable to have a committee consisting of Members of Parliament other than Ministers dictating to ministers their responsibility as a result of their supervision of the security services. I proffer no opinion. My parliamentary experience does not entitle me to express any opinion in the presence of Members of your Lordships' House who have grown old in the country's service in both Houses of Parliament.
I should like to repeat what I said on the last occasion. It would appear to me that there is some merit in taking hold of an existing organisation which has the respect of the nation; that is the Security

233
Commission. I believe it was said by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, during the last debate that the answer given from the Government Benches to that suggestion was that the Security Commission was outside Parliament. And being outside Parliament, it was not an acceptable body for this purpose. I ask the noble Lord most deferentially to look at the answer given on that occasion to my suggestion by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. It was a different one——
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. We have a little time to spare due to the restraint of earlier speakers. I should like to avoid any misunderstanding and point out that it was not I who said what the noble Lord has quoted. In my speech today I recommended a body similar to the Security Commission. It might contain two or three Privy Counsellors but it would also have other people. I was secretary of the first Privy Counsellors' Committee in 1955. It has always been used for specific subjects, for a limited time and for a limited purpose. I believe that to be its place. However, I agree that a body similar to the Security Commission, but not necessarily that, is appropriate.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am grateful. If I misunderstood the noble Lord, I apologise. I thought that he was quoting an objection from the Government, not necessarily his own, but it may have been that of another noble Lord. The answer to the suggestion made on the last occasion was on a different line. It was that this was an ad hoc body; it was meant to deal with specific matters; and it was not the kind of continuing body necessary for this purpose. I see no reason why it should not be made a continuing body. It contains some distinguished people. I imagine that when their turn comes to cease membership of the Security Commission, equally distinguished people in public life will be appointed in their place. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has said, to add to that body would make it one which would be competent to deal with matters that we have in mind in this debate.
I should like to conclude by saying, first, that nothing—and I repeat "nothing"—should be said which would in any way interfere with the morale, the dignity, or the nation's appreciation of members of the security service. They carry out an extremely brave job for the nation. As in all walks of life, the fact that some do not do credit to the majority is in no way a matter which entitles anybody to cast a slur upon those services. I do not do so at all from these Benches.
I should like to say, based on all the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Dacre, that security services need supervision in the public interest and in their own interest. Somehow the Government must find an appropriate way of dealing with the matter. What takes place at the moment is not sufficient. I believe that all noble Lords will listen with interest to the reply of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers.
5 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I should like to start by thanking the noble
234
Lord, Lord Jenkins, for tabling this subject for debate today. Having said that, I turn to almost the last thing that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, when he said that he felt that nothing should be said which would interfere with the dignity, morale and stature of the security services which we all admire and respect so much. I wholeheartedly endorse that and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is absolutely right.
This has been an opportunity to have a discussion about the security services, the way in which they are controlled and so forth. It is interesting that throughout your Lordships' views there has been the desire to have more openness, which is a perfectly natural desire, and yet there exists a dilemma as to how far that should go.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, said in his opening speech that the Government are obsessed with secrets and secrecy. I think that that view was also reflected by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. I believe that one must start from the premise that there are secrets, that there are bound to be secrets and that some matters will always have to remain secret. I do not believe that any reasonable person would dispute that. The question is where one draws the curtain. What must remain secret and what can be divulged? New techniques and new technologies are sophisticated to such a degree that they confuse the whole area and make the problem of secrecy and non-secrecy even more complicated and diffuse.
The starting point for any discussion must be to acknowledge the vital task that the security and intelligence services perform, on behalf of all of us, in defence of national security. The security and intelligence services play a vital part in protecting the state against external and internal dangers. The threat of espionage from the Soviet bloc is undiminished. Noble Lords and the public have in the past expressed great concern—quite rightly—when our defences have been penetrated by hostile intelligence services. It is a vital function of the security service to build and to maintain our defences against this threat.
There is always a threat to departments of state and our parliamentary democracy from subversion from the far left and the far right. Of particular concern to everyone in this country has been the threat from terrorists who have brought death and misery to our streets. For reasons with which your Lordships are all too familiar, I do not propose to go into details of the work of the security service in these areas.
I hope that noble Lords who are critical of the present arrangements will pause to join me in recognising the crucial part which these services play in defending the nation. Their staff undertake difficult and often highly dangerous work at no small risk to their own safety. When politicians criticise them, these people are unable to answer back. That was a point which the noble Lord, Lord Annan, drew to our attention. He said that he felt people ought to be more known so that they could answer back on behalf of those who are junior to them. It has always been the policy of successive governments that the names of people who run the service should not be

235
known because that compromises the difficulties down the line and in fact creates more problems than it solves. I hope your Lordships' will agree that we should condemn those who decry the work of these services, which can benefit only those who seek to undermine and destroy our society.
It forms no part of the Government's case to suggest that the security and intelligence services should be free from control and should be unaccountable. However, it is axiomatic that their operations, their work and their personnel, along with other matters, must remain secret if they are to be effective. It is idle to suggest otherwise. Indeed, I would go further and say that because it is so obvious, it needs to be re-stated.
It is impossible to conduct any effective counterespionage operation, if the veil of secrecy is lifted. Details, which can appear harmless to those who are well-intentioned, can be—and are—valuable to our enemies, be they hostile intelligence services or terrorist groups. Open government is fine but divulging secrets even inadvertently, is not. The noble Lord, Lord Hankey, referred to this. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, also stressed the need for secrecy and the importance of it. One cannot get away from the fact that even small items of information in themselves may be innocuous but when put together by the professional can open up a whole series of possibilities about which the person who had divulged the original secret would not know.
The work of the security services is like a jigsaw: a piece of information about it can appear meaningless when taken in isolation, but for individuals or groups, who are specialists and can put the information together, it can be invaluable. This is why, like successive governments, we believe that the details of the security and intelligence services, which are known to current or former members of those services must be kept confidential. This is the principle which we have been seeking to protect in the courts.
Like all other people who previously occupied this position, your Lordships would not expect me to divulge any of these particular questions which have been so much at the forefront of our minds. However, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, tried to lampoon the Government over the Spycatcher book, as did the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that Mr. Wright, like all present and former members of the security service, owes a lifelong duty of confidentiality to the Crown, without which there could be no effective security service. I am aware that there have been judgments given in the Court of Appeal today to which your Lordships would not expect me to refer.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, referred to Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act, as did my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy and the noble Lord, Lord Hankey. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, was not quite so lightfooted in his remarks about Mr. Shepherd's Bill which went through in another place. He went in with all burners firing. He said that the Government did not believe in consensus and was openly opposed to attack on secrecy. What the noble Lord said is not
236
really accurate. The Government recognise that the Official Secrets Act needs to be updated, and secrecy is at the heart of government. When a Bill is produced, amendments are bound to be made and put forward in the course of its parliamentary passage, and the Government are obliged to respond. How can the Government respond constructively when their views are not yet clear? The Government are considering all the issues in this very complex, highly sensitive and extremely important area. We have always recognised that the Official Secrets Act needs to be updated but my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said that when the Government's thoughts are clearer, a White Paper will be introduced which will then be open for public debate.
No doubt it will be debated in the Houses of Parliament, though that is a question for the usual channels.
As a result of this discourse about the White Paper, when a Bill is produced it will go through parliament and it will be subjected to parliamentary approval, amendment and discussion. I fail to see how anyone with even a limited desire to be fair could say that it is the explicit intention of the Government to be opposed to an attack on secrecy. We intend to reform the Official Secrets Act, but that is the reason why we have acted in the way that we have. When your Lordships consider that, you will see that it is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, my point was that because this is a national non-party issue surely it would be far better, while the Government are considering their own views and before the White Paper is produced, for them to consider the views right across the political spectrum and outside the political spectrum so that the White Paper can at least approach consensus. That is what the noble Earl's honourable friend in another place asked for after his debate and it was refused.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not want to go too far down that particular line of thought. I have explained at some length why the Government took the action that they did. The reason is because the Government intend to produce a White Paper when their own views are known which can then have the full panoply of discussion which the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, is so anxious to see.
None of this will affect the central point for the purposes of today's debate, which is that secrecy is crucial if security service work is to be organised and is to be effectual. The need for secrecy blurs the arguments over accountability; but the need for secrecy does not imply nor invite a lack of control over the security and intelligence services. The question as we see it is over what are the best mechanisms for control and accountability which are compatible with effective security.
I make no apology for setting out in some detail the present arrangements for the accountability of the security services. As some of your Lordships will know, the security service operates within a framework laid down by Ministers. They are of long standing and have been applied under successive

237
governments. Your Lordships will be aware of the directive issued to the Director General of the service in 1952 by the then Home Secretary, Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, and which was published in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Denning, on the Profumo affair in 1963.
The directive gave the security service a clear remit and made it crystal clear that the Director General is not to regard himself or the service as beyond control. The directive, which still applies today, makes the Director General personally responsible to the Home Secretary for the proper and efficient implementation of the tasks which are given to the service. At the same time the Director General is entitled to have access directly to the Prime Minister on appropriate occasions.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, suggested, as did the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter (and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to it) that some members of the security service may have immunity from the operation of the criminal law because they could be said to be working in pursuance of the Royal prerogative powers. The point of concern was that the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls had made some observations. At no time have the Government asserted that any of the alleged actions concerning security operations could lawfully be done under the prerogative when they would otherwise he criminal offences.
The noble Lord, Lord Paget, said that he would like to see the Government being tougher with terrorists. I entirely agree that we ought to be tough with terrorists; but it is the job of the police to catch them and for the courts to sentence them. The security service is there to collect intelligence and not to take that action.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, will the noble Earl permit me? What is the position when we catch them abroad? When terrorists are operating abroad we have to go and find them.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is an operational matter and I do not propose to be drawn down the line of what we do and how we operate the security services of the country.
I return to the subject of real accountability and control of the security services. It may be helpful if I explain how this process, which is described in the directive, works. When issues arise—for example, about the priorities of the security service—the Director General looks to the Home Secretary for guidance. That does not mean that the Home Secretary is drawn into the particular operations. The rule is that the security service should be kept absolutely free from any political bias or influence.
I want to make it quite clear that the security service is not engaged in collecting information for the party political purposes of the government of the day, whatever that government may be, but in order to protect the country against dangers, both external and internal. Therefore, it is no business of the Home Secretary to become involved in particular operational matters. Those are rightly for the Director General; though the Secretary of State does
238
play a part, by long tradition, in the authorisation of interception of communications.
Putting the operational details aside, on key issues which affect the setting of objectives and the performance of the security service, the service is in practice accountable to the Home Secretary and, through him, to the Prime Minister. In line with those arrangements, perhaps I may assure your Lordships that the Home Secretary is well-informed about the work of the service, its priorities, how it is deploying its resources, and about the overall effectiveness and efficiency of its operations. The Home Secretary receives reports, he asks questions and from time to time he visits the service and meets the Director General for wide-ranging discussions about the direction in which the service is going. Your Lordships will understand that the Prime Minister, too, plays an important personal part in the arrangements for control and accountability.
Therefore, I suggest that the question which arises is not whether there should be control and accountability of the security service but whether the present arrangements are proper and adequate, and whether they could be or should be improved upon. This debate has shown, again, that some of your Lordships feel that the arrangements can and should be modified by the creation of new institutions; but I think it would be wrong to consider this an easy nut to crack. I do not think that it is. There is an underlying dilemma and the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, put his finger absolutely on that dilemma, as did the noble Lord, Lord Kennet.
On the one hand, any arrangements which are devised must preserve the secrecy of the security service's work. That must be a cardinal principle which cannot be compromised. Most noble Lords and most members of the public will agree that we would be paying too high a price for public accountability if, as a result, the security of the security service was imperilled. On the other hand, there would be no purpose in making any change unless an enhanced confidence in Parliament and among the public in the work of the service would result.
Frankly therefore how can these two aims be reconciled? Among the difficulties is this. If a new review body is to be put on the inside, in a position where it can genuinely probe and monitor the internal workings of the security service, the question then arises on how it could be allowed to communicate its findings conclusively to the public while preserving the necessary confidentiality. However, if a new body was to be put in the position merely as an onlooker to the system without internal access, how could it satisfy itself that the service was acting properly and effectively? It would not have access to the sensitive material which would be necessary, as many would see it, for its findings to have any credibility.
Then one comes to the problem of who the members of this review body would be. How would any new system avoid undue interference with the Director General's responsibilities? How would any new arrangements fit in with the Home Secretary's key role in the accountability of the services? These

239
are not simple matters to resolve, but they have to be faced if the well-established arrangements are to be modified.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy referred to the possibility of a Committee of Privy Counsellors being used for the purpose of the security service. He thought that its membership should be rather wider than Privy Counsellors. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, thought that there ought to be a Committee of Privy Counsellors as well.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, just to correct the record, the purpose of my intervention was to say that I thought probably that there ought not to be.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I evidently misheard the important word "not". I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for correcting me over that and I apologise for having put words into his mouth which were precisely the reverse of those he used.
My noble friend Lord Birdwood favoured a judicial body. It is not apparent from what your Lordships have said today how any of these ideas would overcome the problem which I have described of having to put any new body either inside or outside the veil of secrecy. If it is inside, the body which is chosen may still not be acceptable to the wider audience because it would be prevented from disclosing the sensitive material on which its judgments were based. However, if it is on the outside and dependent on more general reports and impressions of the security service, what sort of real monitoring could it hope to achieve? That is the problem.
With regard to the Security Commission, this is a body which has done invaluable work in its investigations into individual cases when there has been a breach of security. Much has stemmed, for example, from the Security Commission's report in 1985 on the Bettaney case. Management and personnel improvements have been made, and a new office, that of staff counsellor, has been created.
At the end of the day, the Security Commission is not a permanent watchdog body, and it is not engaged in the continuous monitoring of the security service. To see it as the answer to the question of accountability is, I believe, to argue not for a modification in the Security Commission's role but for a complete change in the function of the commission and its structure and membership. Our position is not an obdurate, unthinking one. We have taken a constructive attitude throughout the discussion on matters relating to the security services and we have taken initiatives.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy wondered about those and the staff counsellor. The appointment of a staff counsellor for the security and intelligence services is one example of what we have done. He will deal with issues of conscience of individual members of the service. The establishment of this post provides Ministers, Parliament and the public with an assurance that legitimate anxieties of members of the security and intelligence services about their work will not be overlooked or
240
overridden. I hope that your Lordships will welcome the creation of this new post and the fact that Sir Philip Woodfield has accepted the appointment as the first staff counsellor.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked how many complaints had been made to the staff counsellor. The counsellor deals with inquiries in confidence and he would not normally report to the government that he had received a complaint. However, he will report annually to my right honourable friend.
Lord Mishcon: I hope the noble Earl will forgive me but I did ask another question. If the noble Earl is unable to deal with it I shall well understand because I gave him no notice. The question was whether it had been made abundantly clear to the security staff that they would suffer no harm whatever should they register complaints and that the procedure was a perfectly easy one.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if I may I shall take up the noble Lord on his offer. It is a question of detail and I shall find out the exact facts and write to him about them.
Another initiative the Government have taken was the introduction two years ago of the Interception of Communications Act. This created an offence of unauthorised interception of communication and it provided safeguards and remedies. It showed our willingness to act decisively and radically in a peculiarly delicate area when such action is justified and where it can produce a real improvement in the present arrangements.
Under Section 1 of the 1985 Act, interception of a telephone call on the public telecommunications network is a criminal offence unless the interception has been authorised personally by the Secretary of State. This is the exception to the rule, to which I referred earlier, under which the Home Secretary plays no part in operational matters which are essentially and wholly for the Director General of the security service.
The 1985 Act provides for a Tribunal which has full powers to investigate whether an interception has been authorised, where there has been a complaint, and, if so, whether the authorisation met the requirements of the Act. The Act also provides for a commissioner to keep the whole system of interception under review. In introducing this legislation, the Government showed a willingness to have an open and not a closed mind on security issues, and to improve upon the existing arrangements where a clear case had been established that there would be advantage in so doing.
There is in place, at present, a system for controlling the security service and for continuing and ensuring its accountability to the government of the day, which is effective and efficient. I hope your Lordships realise that this is a difficult message to get across to some people because it is a system which is based on Ministerial accountability. But there are some issues which have to have Ministerial accountability and where the buck has to stop with Ministers. These are matters of quite legitimate debate and your Lordships have debated them this

241
afternoon. We shall certainly take account of all that has been said.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, we have used up our time and therefore I cannot reply to the points which have been made. Perhaps I may confine myself to a single point.
First, I should like to congratulate the noble Earl on his return to office. It may be a little belated but he has mastered the art—and it is a valuable one —of replying comprehensively, courteously and affirmatively without committing the Government to anything. This is a Ministerial art which is not always in ready supply, and he has preserved it this evening.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord because I should not like him to be under a misapprehension. I am enjoying his speech so much that I should not like him to confine his remarks to only one point because he has a quarter of an hour of the debate left.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl but I shall not take full advantage of the quarter of an hour available. Other people might wish to be getting on.
I shall take advantage of what he has said to this extent. This debate, good though it has been, has failed to lock its horns. There has been one debate going along here and one along there and it has failed to come into contact. I believe the problem is this. Parliament is supposed to be a watchdog of the executive. It cannot fulfil its function at present in this capacity. It is bound to take what the executive says on this issue. What we are seeking to do is to create a line between the executive and Parliament which at the same time preserves essential security and creates essential accountability. Accountability does not stop at government level; it comes down to this level. In coming down to this level it reaches the people who are represented here and, more effectively, those elected in the other Chamber.
I do not believe that we have heard the last of this debate today. As the noble Earl said, it is a difficult point. One must preserve security on the one hand, but on the other it is not sufficient to be told that things are not going wrong when so many people know from their personal experience that they are going wrong. On the one hand, we have the Government's assurance that everything is all right; and on the other hand, we have a wide and growing body of reputable knowledge which suggests that things are not as they are said to be. I do not think that we can allow this situation to continue.
What I hope will happen as a result of the debate—and this is where I draw what I have to say to a conclusion—is that when the Government produce their White Paper they will extend it beyond the point that they have been thinking about until now which is to deal only with the Official Secrets Act. They must take account of the fact that without breaching essential security it is vital that the people of this country, and their elected representatives, shall be able to assure themselves that we do not have
242
a body of people who though they are within the law—and I was glad to have the assurance of the noble Earl that they are within the law—are pretty widely suspected of operating outside the law. This point has to be tackled. I hope that as a result of our discussions today the Government will agree with the many speakers on both sides of the House that in one way or another this matter must be tackled. I hope that we shall hear rather more of what we have been talking about today on another and not too distant occasion.
Noble Lords: Beg leave to withdraw!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I do not know whether I should beg leave to withdraw. I am only asking for Papers. So far as I can see there is no reason why I should withdraw a request for Papers. If it is desirable to withdraw, I shall; but before I do so, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this informed and at the same time good-humoured debate. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Hong Kong: White Paper
5.32 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement which has been made in another place by my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs about the White Paper on Hong Kong. The Statement is as follows:
"A Hong Kong Government White Paper, The Development of Representative Government: The Way Forward was published in Hong Kong earlier today. Copies of the White Paper have been placed in the Library of the House.
"The publication of the White Paper marks the end of a wide-ranging review of developments in representative government. A Green Paper, published in May 1987, sought the views of the Hong Kong community. It set out a range of options for possible change; none was ruled out in advance. The Green Paper elicited a widespread public response. We were also able to benefit from a wide range of views expressed in this House during the debate on 20th January.
"The White Paper discusses the full range of issues raised in the review. The main decisions which it announces are as follows:

(a) 10 directly elected members will be introduced into the Legislative Council in 1991;

(b) in 1988 the number of appointed members in the council will be reduced from 22 to 20, and the number of members elected by functional constituencies will increase from 12 to 14. In 1991 the present system of election by members of district boards will be abolished; but the urban and regional councils will each continue to elect one member to the council;

243

(c) links between the urban district boards and the urban council will be strengthened;

(d) the governor will continue to be the President of the Legislative Council for the immediate future.

"We are committed to the steady development of representative government in Hong Kong. We believe that the decisions set out in the White Paper mark an important step in that direction; and that they represent a balanced and reasonable response to the views expressed by the people of Hong Kong and their representatives".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement to which we listened with great interest. We are all aware of the natural sensitivity of the Hong Kong community to these critical developments. It is essential that all parties in this country should seek to present a united front in ensuring that the joint declaration is fulfilled in the spirit as well as in the letter.
We must not appear to be abandoning Hong Kong or letting matters drift during this transitional period. I believe this to be the view of Her Majesty's Government. I was glad therefore to note the words in the Statement:
"We are committed to the steady development of representative government in Hong Kong".
We strongly support this reaffirmation. I assume that Her Majesty's Government have kept in the closest touch with the Government of Hong Kong throughout the preparation of the White Paper and on all other developments.
I am bound to say that my first reaction to the main decisions in the Statement was one of some disappointment. I think that the White Paper might have proposed more than 10 elected members in 1991; but it is I concede a step forward. Can the noble Lord say what will be the reaction of the community in Hong Kong to this decision? Has this surfaced yet? Can he also say whether further steps towards democratic rule are envisaged between 1991 and 1997? I presume that this is not the final stage of democratic development.
Finally, we all appreciate that the most important event will be the Basic Law. It is encouraging that China has involved Hong Kong in the drafting process. Can the Minister tell us when the draft Basic Law will be published? What further opportunity will be given to the people of Hong Kong to comment on it? What role will Her Majesty's Government have in relation to the provisions of the Basic Law. I hope that the House will be given ample time to debate these matters in full in due course.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, we agree with both the major points made by the Leader of the Labour Opposition. We are naturally with the Government in their attempts to achieve an orderly handover. We also share the noble Lord's disappointment about how much is planned to be done at present. There has been a recent consultation on which the Government
244
base both their decision on what to do and the speed at which to do it. It has been obvious to anyone who has looked at the questions asked and the pattern of the responses that it is virtually impossible to draw any precise conclusions about what the people of Hong Kong want to see from that consultation.
Naturally we welcome the appearance of directly elected members in 1991. The increase in the functional constituency members is not entirely to be welcomed. This is an element of the corporate state which does not usually turn out to be extremely good in democracies. Obviously the Government fear that what they may do will create a turbulence which will make the handover difficult. Is it not the case that one is more likely to get turbulence from not doing enough than from doing too much? How much confidence do the Government have that they are at present not doing too little and too late, and especially to late? Very precisely, when is it proposed to do more between 1991 and the end of the lease?
Lastly, do the Government have it in mind to look beyond the liaison group and build officials of the Beijing Government into the structure of the Government of Hong Kong at a suitable medium-low level in order to give them a direct, hands-on experience—always under British control—of what it is a government do and must do to maintain the sensitive freedoms upon which the prosperity of Hong Kong depends?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn and Lord Kennet, for their response to the Statement. I am especially gratified that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, should have stressed as he did the need for a united response over this most important matter both in spirit and in the letter.
The noble Lord asked whether the Hong Kong Government had consulted Her Majesty's Government on this matter. I can assure the noble Lord that there is, and has been, the closest consultation between both governments on the subject, and the decisions which the Hong Kong Government have taken in the matter have been fully endorsed by Her Majesty's Government.
As to whether the people of Hong Kong are satisfied with the White Paper and its contents, I must say that we have had no report yet of any media coverage because the White Paper was only debated in LegCo earlier today. However, I can say that the White Paper accurately reflects the result of the review. It contains something for everyone who has made a representation to the consultative process. I sincerely believe that it is a result which is as good as it possibly could be in all the circumstances.
Naturally, there will be some people who will be disappointed, but I think it will be widely accepted by the people of Hong Kong as a balanced decision. I hope that now the White Paper has been issued the people of Hong Kong will rally to the decisions which have been taken and will do what they can to ensure that they work as smoothly as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and to some extent the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, suggested that we

245
might be doing too little too late. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, was most concerned that 10 directly elected seats in 1991 would be too few. I must say in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that the White Paper is a significant step forward. On timing, it is not right to make a major constitutional change in 1988 when opinion is as sharply divided as the noble Lord observed. There are also strong arguments for letting the Legislative Council continue for one more term rather than undergo a second restructuring—because that is what would be required—after only three years. The directly elected seats in 1991 will in fact constitute 17 per cent. of LegCo. It is important to bear in mind that a further 16 seats (28 per cent.) are indirectly elected. Therefore, this is an impressive and significant step forward and it leaves room for possible further development before 1997.
As regards other developments about which the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn and Lord Kennet, asked, the White Paper recognises that representative government will need to continue to evolve to provide continuity and a smooth transition in 1997. Those longer term issues will have to be considered in the light of the provisions of the Basic Law after its promulgation in 1990. The need will be to ensure that structures can develop smoothly up to and beyond 1997. It is important that there should be a clear indication of timing for the next step in 1991, and that is precisely what the White Paper provides.
In regard to the Basic Law and the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, about its publication, I understand that the full text of the draft Basic Law will be formally published, after refinement, in May of this year. The people of Hong Kong will then have four months to comment upon it before it is further revised, after which there will be opportunities for further comment. That procedure, of course, takes place before the promulgation in 1990.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked whether Chinese officials from the People's Republic of China would be included in the consultation structure, and so forth. There can be no question of incorporating Chinese officials into the structure of government for the simple reason—indeed it is a principle which the Chinese share—that it is the people of Hong Kong who rule Hong Kong as agents of Her Majesty's Government. Therefore, I do not think that his proposal is one which even they feel is a realistic possibility.
I turn to the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that we should have a debate on the subject. That is an important matter and one of which I am sure the usual channels will take note.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I am not an international diplomat; so I will put a direct question to which I do not expect an answer. Will the Minister tell us how far we have received assurances from the Chinese Government that some sort of elected representative government will remain after the takeover?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness appreciates that there are exchanges with the Chinese Government on a wide range of matters, including, of course, Hong Kong. That is
246
helpful and beneficial. However, I cannot give an answer to that point, but I can assure the noble Baroness that the consultations we have are extremely fruitful.
Lord MacLehose of Beoch: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. It covers an area of great importance to people in Hong Kong. I, for one, shall want to study it carefully. Meanwhile, there is one point upon which I would like clarification. Is it a firm decision as to what will happen up to 1991? Will nothing change between now and then; or, is the arrangement subject to yet more debate and possible amendment?
Lord Glenarthur: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, whose experience in Hong Kong matters is of course well known to everyone, especially to those who live in Hong Kong. I agree that the White Paper merits the close study which I am sure the noble Lord will give it. As regards further study between now and 1991, the answer is that there will be no change on that particular issue. However, through the auspices of the joint liaison group, there will be further consideration of how the process up to 1997 will be implemented.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I, too, welcome the Statement and wish to study it more closely. However, one aspect worries me a little. I accept the view of our Government and the Hong Kong Government that it is far better to postpone change and have it right, than to introduce something now which is not right. But there will be many people in Hong Kong who will be disappointed that there is a postponement, as the Minister has already said. Can the Minister give the House an assurance that there will not be any further postponements from 1991?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as I said earlier, I accept that there will be those who will feel disappointed because they have a particularly strong view that direct elections ought to be introduced earlier. But certainly the 1984 White Paper did not make a commitment to introduce direct elections in 1988; it merely noted the state of opinion at that time. The 1984 White Paper undertook to review the position in 1987, and that undertaking has been carried out to the full. So the options were left open, including the possibility of direct elections in 1988. I am sure that the noble Lord will accept that a very great deal has happened since 1984; the joint declaration itself was signed, which was a historic event if ever there was one, and the Basic Law to which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, referred is being drafted.
It is only natural that this and other factors should have affected people's thinking about direct elections. However, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, there are means for consultation to take further the whole range of issues involved in the changes which will come about in 1997.
The noble Baroness asked me a specific question earlier and I should perhaps have said that the joint declaration provides that the legislature of the Hong

247
Kong special adminstrative region, when it becomes that, will be constituted by elections. But it is not specific on the mode of those elections. I think that to some extent this answers the point which she raised.

Pseudo-Religious Cults
5.52 p.m.
Lord Lord Rodney rose to call attention to the effect of pseudo-religious cults on family life and young people; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am often asked what constitutes a cult. This may be an over-simplification but I believe that cults have three main common denominators. First, there is someone in charge who may be called a guru, a master, a father, a leader, or whatver he chooses to be called. Secondly, the prime objective is to achieve complete subjugation of the devotees so that they conform without question to the rules and regulations of the leader. In the end this means complete power over their mental and physical faculties.
Thirdly, having achieved this control, devotees are persuaded to sever all their contacts with their families, friends and past pursuits and devote themselves entirely and blindly to the cult, carrying out menial, unpaid work; recruiting new members and fund raising. This is supplemented by surrender of all their own resources when they join the cult in the first place.
I do not know whether noble Lords find this devastating, but if they have met parents whose children have been seduced by one of these cults, if noble Lords have seen their hopelessness and helplessness, wondering where their children are, questioning why they have decided to leave home and live among strangers, giving up all their past pursuits, then noble Lords will begin to understand the harm these cults inflict on family life and young people's futures.
Much attention and publicity have been given in recent years to drug abuse and its effect on family life. I believe that joining a cult is equally destructive to the family. Strangely enough, the symptoms are very similar: an air of secrecy; alienation from the family and friends; frequent requests for money; a general attitude of lack of interest; and finally departure from the home. Happily, there is one important difference—that recruits to cults seldom turn to crime. However, the effect on parents is almost equally devastating. They cannot understand what is happening to their child; they are at their wits' end to know what to do. I accept that numerically the problem of cults is not comparable with drug addiction, but I hope I have succeeded in convincing noble Lords that the effects are almost as bad.
There are of course those who argue that the children are of age, that they are free to follow their own inclinations and that they join the cults of their own free will. But what match is an 18-year-old against the artful and insidious recruiting techniques of these cults? Should not the children be forewarned and should not their parents be made aware of the indications of danger? There is something definitely
248
sinister and underhand about the way recruiting is carried out. I met an ex-Moonie a little while ago who told me that she was hooked—if one can use that expression—over one weekend spent at one of their hospitality sessions.
I could use the whole of the 15 minutes which I am allowed inveighing against these cults, but before passing on to other matters perhaps I may clear up one possible misunderstanding. When bringing these cults into question, I am in no way attacking the established churches or their faiths. It will perhaps have been noted that in my Motion I refer to "pseudo-religious cults" and I stand by that description. Whom do the Moonies revere or possibly worship: God or Moon? Who was the Scientologists' prophet: Jesus Christ or Hubbard? What relationship does the teaching of the Children of God have to Christianity, with their free sex and other abominable practices? I could wish that the established churches took a more robust line and disowned these cults utterly as being in any way kindred churches. Here perhaps I may say, and I am sure I speak for your Lordships' House, how much I am looking forward to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford. I am delighted that he has chosen this occasion and I hope he will be able to say something about the Church's attitude to cults.
I cannot conceal my disappointment that Her Majesty's Government and the authorities have not shown more determination in combating the insidious infiltration of these cults into British public life. The way in which Her Majesty's Government have instituted campaigns to inform people about the dangers of drug abuse has been gratifying. I had hoped that they might mount a similar campaign to expose cults. It is true that certain voluntary organisations such as FAIR and Cultists Anonymous offer advice and support within the limits of their very meagre resources, but it is very much a David and Goliath situation. It is quite certain that if real progress is to be made in exposing these cults, much greater resources are required and the Government must be directly involved.
I do not want to anticipate the speech of my noble friend the Minister, but I am sure he will be mentioning INFORM, which is in the process of being established with the support of £120,000 from the Home Office, spread over three years. I understand that the name stands for Information Network Focus on Religious Movements. It certainly has a reassuring sound about it, but I can tell my noble friend that many of us are very worried about how it will perform. Unlike some people, I do not believe that the Government have backed a Trojan horse, but that they have backed the wrong horse.
From conversations which I have had with members of INFORM's board of directors, I believe their approach will be what I can only describe as an intellectual, sociological approach which will be of little use to a distraught mother who has lost her child to a cult and wants advice and counselling and possibly help in discovering to which country this child has been whisked away.
Originally I had not intended to say anything directly critical of INFORM, but after the statement

249
by the new director reported in The Times last Saturday, my view has hardened very considerably. Perhaps I may quote it:
"The Reverend Brian Jenner said 'We are not convinced the Moonies are involved in activities which should result in the removal of their charitable status"'.
Another disturbing factor is the welcome given by the Moonies to the establishment of INFORM. In one of their news briefs, which incidentally pre-dates the statement I have just mentioned, this is what was said:
"INFORM aims to provide an independent and objective source of information about new religious movements".
That means cults.
"In the past parents have been alarmed by sensational media stories as their only source, and clergymen have been given wrong information and have thus been liable to give wrong advice".
Is it surprising that one is worried about an organisation welcomed by the Moonies and apparently supportive of them and yet financed by Her Majesty's Government and the established Churches?
For a long time, I and many others have worked to achieve government support for an organisation which would genuinely aim to restrain these cults. One must ask why Her Majesty's Government decided to back a completely new organisation rather than build on one which already had considerable experience and information. I hope my noble friend the Minister may be able to throw some light on the matter.
I and many others have been disappointed by the apparent attitude of laissez-faire by the Government and authorities vis-à-vis cults. The response one usually gets is, "Give us proof of law-breaking and we will act". I believe that if the authorities were really convinced of the anti-social aspects of these cults they would take a much stronger line.
Why are Scientologists and others permitted to beg and importune in the streets without a licence? Why is no action taken against the Children of God who practise child sex abuse and prostitution for recruiting purposes? Why do immigration authorities not carry out regular checks on overseas cult members who are often working here without permits? Why are no checks carried out on aspects of slave labour practised by many of these cults? They pay them virtually nothing at all. These are just a few pointers which a determined authority could follow up. I am sure there are many more.
In the few minutes remaining I should like to mention what is happening overseas. Some of your Lordships may be aware that there was an international congress in Spain at the end of November, the first of its kind, I believe. It was attended by some 200 delegates from 12 different countries. To the best of my knowledge all the European organisations represented, with the exception of the British, received some government support. From the reports of the different national organisations it is evident that actions taken in different countries to contain cults vary considerably. But there is mounting conviction that voluntary organisations on their own cannot compete with the large international organisations such as the
250
Moonies and the Scientologists. Countries such as Spain and Austria devote considerable resources to these problems, but I should like to see a more co-ordinated international effort, possibly under the auspices of the European Parliament or the Council of Europe.
Finally, I must express my disappointment that my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General has had to drop his case against the Moonies' charitable status. Of course I respect his decision. It is a victory for them financially—although I doubt if they need it—and psychologically. They have already issued a press release expressing their appreciation of the Attorney-General's courage and integrity. However, I am encouraged to read that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is to take a personal interest in the review of the charity laws. I could have hoped that she might extend that interest and attention to the whole question of cults. It is our experience that where she shows concern action follows. I beg to move for Papers.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am sure the House is grateful to the noble Lord for giving us an opportunity to discuss this very complex and sensitive subject. I hope that what I have to say will not divert the debate from the noble Lord's principal complaints and observations regarding the activities of these pseudo-religious cults. I regret that I cannot follow the noble Lord in that because I have never been a member of a pseudo-religious cult. Indeed, not for many years have I been a member of any religious group or cult at all.
The background to the noble Lord's speech came in his concluding remarks regarding the recent action of the Attorney-General in relation to the case that was still pending after several years relating to the Unification Church. I regret that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, is unwell and unable to take part in this debate today. Some of us can well imagine what he might have said about the Moonies, because in every debate on charities the noble and learned Lord has introduced the subject. That long-drawn-out litigation under the Charities Acts has been brought to an end with the Attorney-General having to admit with reluctance that he cannot proceed further.
I should like to remind your Lordships that the Unification Church secured registration as a charity, claiming to be a religion, and it was registered by the Charity Commissioners. There was a public outcry about some of the practices of that church, and in the end the Government decided to require the Charity Commissioners to cancel the registration. The Charity Commissioners, relying on their statutory responsibilities, refuse to obey any such request from the Attorney-General or from the Government. The litigation that followed has been, in form, an appeal to the courts to declare the Unification Church unfit or unqualified to be registered as a charity and to direct the Charity Commissioners to cancel the registration. All that has collapsed. I read this morning that the Government are paying all the costs, which will amount to at least £50,000. Now that church against which so many complaints were

251
made remains a charity and no court can change it. Now it will depend entirely on Parliament whether the conditions for registration of charities are changed.
All religions are organisations, and in our approach to this matter we must remember the basic freedoms: freedom of association, freedom of religion, freedom to worship and freedom of speech. We must bear all those in mind when we challenge the right of people to espouse causes and to proselytise beliefs and religious doctrines which we may feel are contrary to public policy. I suggest that Parliament alone can deal with this, and even Parliament has to have regard to the charter of human rights and other covenants concerning freedoms to which we have subscribed over the years.
It should also be borne in mind that registration as a charity is an enviable position because the privileges of charities are considerable. The financial benefits of registration are enormous and are growing. The Government are putting fresh opportunities in almost every Budget for additional claims to be made upon the Revenue for charitable relief. Now we have contributions to charities which are deductible under pay-as-you-earn provisions and allowable for tax purposes. We must look very closely indeed at the question of charitable registration.
With the present consideration of the position of charities relating almost wholly to administration, financial control, accountability, and matters of that kind, we have left aside, for the time being, any review of the conditions of registration of charities. Therefore, we are not likely to consider those matters for some little time, although the Attorney-General has said that he will pass on to the Home Secretary the feeling of disquiet which was expressed in another place about the decision which he announced. No doubt he will be saying something in due course about the Government's view of the conditions for charitable registration.
As regards religious charities, I suppose that all charity had its beginning in the religious belief and approach to life. Therefore, religious bodies were in the front row when the state and parliament came—and the monarchs came even earlier—to look at the statutory position of charities. Religious charities probably get on the register more easily than any other type of charity. A religious body does not have to prove to or satisfy the commissioners that it is contributing to the good of the community. All other charities must be able to show that what they are doing is for the good of the community, whether in the fields of education, ethical values, care of animals or in dealing with poverty, as was set out in the Act of 1501.
Religious bodies do not have to do anything of that kind. All they have to prove is that they believe in a supernatural being of over-riding power, authority and responsibility. If they show that they worship a divine being who is over all mortal conditions of life and death, that is a religion. Of course, that definition has been brought lower down the scale of belief and values by politicians. I believe that Nye Bevan said: "Priorities is the religion of socialism". We have
252
heard at different times that Marxism is the religion of communism. However, it does not qualify for registration under charity law. Belief qualifies for religious registration, and not good works.
If anyone is thought to be operating against public policy, then it is not the charity commissioners who can deal with that matter. It is Parliament and Parliament alone. I am bound to say that Parliament will have some very difficult drafting problems to face if it tries to define what group, cult or association of free citizens represents a menace to society in general. When we come to consider charity law, we shall be in a hornet's nest.
The main proposal for changing the registration of charities has been up to now that a charity shall not claim registration and the benefits of being a charity on belief in a divine being alone. Preaching and doctrine alone are not charitable because those are not necesarily good for the community, even though such groups may claim that they are religious and God-given. They are not necessarily good for the community, and in order to qualify for charitable status we look to religious bodies to do good works as well. In other words, such bodies will have to qualify under the condition that they are contributing to the good of the community. I know that many churches think they are contributing in that way. However, not all of us believe that they are. We do not have to drift very far in this debate before beginning to discuss some very large religious cults—not pseudo-cults but real cults of great antiquity with great power and influence in the world.
I should not like to spend even what short time remains to me in telling your Lordships what life was like in a household with a father who was a dissenter. He dissented on religious grounds against almost anything that claimed to be religious. That led the family into serious difficulties. He refused to pay the education rate when contributions were required for the upkeep of the Anglican Church. He went to prison rather than pay. As a schoolboy, I used to meet him outside when he came home. That was the state of my family for years before the First World War. I therefore know what dissent means. I was never christened because my father would not have me christened; that was dissent. He would not have me vaccinated when that became compulsory; that was dissent. I know a good deal about dissent, and I know what price can be paid for it.
I have described to your Lordships the great problem which the noble Lord, Lord Rodney, has raised. It encompasses almost everything that makes for complexity and controversy. I do not think that there is any simple remedy for the complaints which he makes. However, I hope to hear more about the reform of charity law in order to take part in that debate. I shall be pretty hard on religious cults which claim that they act for the good of the community.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rodney, is to be thanked for raising this important subject. I congratulate him on his introduction, which has stirred up our debate, and led to the interesting contribution of the noble Lord. The more

253
the whole subject is brought into the open, the better. If I were preaching a sermon—heaven forbid!—I should use those well-known words of Jesus in the Gospel of St. John:
"Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free".
Perhaps I may also say how much I look forward to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, who I suspect will say some of the things which I shall attempt to say but will say them much better.
I start by raising the matter of freedom, as that is at the heart of the problem. As long ago as October 1984 my honourable friend Mr. David Alton introduced a Bill in another place,
"to control the activities of religious sects and cults".
He made an eloquent speech, after which the Bill was read a first time. However, it made no further progress and was lost in the way Private Members' Bills so often are, despite its obvious merits.
Mr. Alton made it clear that the Bill had one simple aim and provision:
"to allow parents and next of kin rights of access to relatives who have joined religious cults".
He went on to say that he was not codifying the respective merits of different groups and—an important point—he accepted the need to guarantee fundamental religious freedom. The aim of the Bill was to provide worried parents with legal redress where access to next of kin was denied.
We have all read heartrending stories of how young people have been virtually kidnapped, brainwashed and kept from their families. All too often, those who follow a cult are taught that ordinary relationships are evil and that they must never see their relatives again. I believe that the right of access is one of the key issues in our debate and that cult members should be approachable at all times. Otherwise there is tragedy, and, if individuals become social and mental wrecks through involvement in cults, society should not turn its back on them.
Perhaps the noble Earl, when he comes to reply, can tell the House whether there has been any improvement in the arrangements for access over the past three-and-half years since the Bill was tentatively introduced. Certainly the more the media and Members of both Houses of Parliament can expose the dangers of cults, the less potent they will be. I understand that membership of undesirable cults falls dramatically under the light of publicity. In a famous declaration loved by liberals, John Milton said:
"Let her [truth] and Falsehood grapple! Who ever knew truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?"
Where there is nothing to hide, no cover-up is necessary.
A week ago the Attorney-General made the statement about the charitable status of the Moonies to which the noble Lord, Lord Rodney, referred. It would be interesting to know what action the hard-pressed Home Secretary, to whom the buck seems to have been passed, will now take to reform the charity law. I believe that action is required.
254
Your Lordships will recall with deep sorrow the death of Sonia Martin, an ex-cultist found hanging from a signpost in Devon. At best—although that is hardly an appropriate word to use—she committed suicide. At worst, some say that she may have been murdered before she could give evidence as a key witness against the Unification Church. That is a serious allegation, and we need to know the truth.
We need also to consider the European position, which has already been touched on. As long ago as 1983 Mr. John Hume called for the removal of charitable status from the Unification Church. He referred then to what he called:
"the complacent and obstructive attitude shown by the Chief Charity Commissioner".
I do not believe that that criticism holds water today, but there are difficulties with the present law and current needs of society.
In 1984, Mr. Richard Cottrell published his report to the European Parliament on new religious movements in the EC. In that preliminary report, which noble Lords may know, he accepted that different sects could have widely differing levels of acceptability. He stated:
"To describe the majority of the cults as inspired by genuine humanitarianism is facile. Some may well be deeply and insidiously dangerous. If individuals become social and mental wrecks, that is the concern of any caring society: if people are parted from their money, goods, or their property by misrepresentation, those same concerns apply."
Breaking the law should certainly be punished. We need to ask how far the law needs to be changed.
In his report, Cottrell refers to recruitment techniques. He says that those most at risk are aged between 18 and 25 and are often second and third year university students. Some of what Cottrell says is surprising and disturbing. He states:
"Most come from stable, largely traditional middle-class backgrounds, where there is generally an acceptance of Christian belief: there are rarely financial or marital problems within the family. Most recruits appear to demonstrate a healthy idealism common to the young and a willingness to consider and discuss new ideas."
Clearly we have to see that idealism and intelligence are not warped but are wisely directed.
So far, I have dealt with what may be considered the negative side of the matter—evil practices, and how they can be stopped. I now turn to what is being done positively to improve the situation by two organisations, one called Housetop and the other INFORM, to which the noble Lord, Lord Rodney, has already referred. Both are glad to offer advice and seek understanding rather than indulge in fruitless confrontation or, as it has been termed, "cult-bashing"—replying in some cases to evil with evil.
Dr. John Wijngaards, a Catholic priest with some 16 years' experience of living and working in India, heads the Housetop organisation. He makes the following points about someone who has turned to a cult for help (because that is what such people are often doing). First, your friend is searching for something valuable. Secondly, at all costs keep in contact, even if you get no response (something is indeed very wrong if contact is prevented). Thirdly, it is inadequacies in our own Christian response that have given the new religious movements an unprecedented chance to flourish. Fourthly, there is

255
an enormous variation between them; some indeed are positive and can be beneficial. It is therefore important to take the trouble to study the movement in question. Lastly, he emphasises the importance of prayer with your friend, in the conviction that the truth will indeed set him or her free from special emotional problems.
The other counselling service about which parents and children caught up in religious cults should know is INFORM, which the noble Lord, Lord Rodney, has attacked. As he says, it stands, rather ponderously, for Information Network Focus on Religious Movements. It is often depressingly difficult to obtain objective information, and I believe that this organisation offers one way of doing so. INFORM was launched in September last year at the London School of Economics by the sociologist, Dr. Eileen Barker. She said:
"I realised that cults can give rise to a lot of anguish and even tragedy, and objective, value-free science is not going to help if it is not made available".
An article in the Guardian of 16th September said that Dr. Barker was one of the few people to be able to retain a sense of humour in "this highly charged area". As has been said, she has won support from the Government, with a start-up grant of £120,000; the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury is a patron and the Church of England contributes £3,500 a year. Catholics and Nonconformists are also helping. Doubtless the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford will comment on the matter. The article ends:
"Now, thanks to Dr. Barker's diplomacy, governments, churches and academics can act together and settle down to some serious cult-watching and counselling with no vestige of cult-bashing".
I end as I began, by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Rodney, for giving us the opportunity to discuss potential evils and possible remedies.
6.26 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, I believe that we are greatly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Rodney, for proposing his Motion calling attention to the effect of pseudo-religious cults on family life and young people.
There can be few Members of your Lordships' House who are unaware of that problem and, indeed, of particular instances where deep pain and sorrow have been caused through the activities of some of those cults. The noble Lord has described desperate cases and doubtless others will be cited in the debate.
Many of those movements have received adverse publicity for far too long and public concern has rightly been aroused, most recently through the report of proceedings in another place. Both in my last diocese and in my present one, I have had personal experience of speaking with distraught parents, as well as with the devastated spouse of someone who disappeared from the family scene as a result of being brought under the evil influence of one of the most notorious of those cults, which rejoices in the name of The Children of God.
It is hardly surprising that politicians and clergy are besieged with requests to "do something" about
256
this problem, and that we feel the urge to respond. But what can we do? To answer that question we must ask, "What is this phenomenon, and why has it happened?"
We are told that in the United Kingdom there are some 500 new movements which have sprung up in recent years, which may with varying accuracy be referred to as "religious". Most of them have their origins either in Eastern religions or in Christianity. Some have linked those traditional faiths with particular strains of modern philosophy, psychology or therapy. Some of those are genuine religious movements containing insights and spiritual practices of considerable worth; some are superficial, while others are dangerous in their teaching, using dubious, not to say illegal, methods of attracting adherents. Some of those new movements are open, free, and have an infectious joy about them, while others, such as those referred to by the noble Lord in his Motion, are secretive and tyrannical, dividing families and causing deep pain.
We are told that in total probably fewer than 15,000 people belong to such groups in the United Kingdom. Your Lordships may feel that that is not a menacingly large number, but I have to say that the teaching and methods of some of those movements are a shame to those who perpetrate them and cause distress out of all proportion to the numbers involved.
If one looks back into history one finds that it has happened before, particularly at periods of social and cultural upheaval. We should not be surprised. What attracts people to such movements? Evidence suggests that it is not usually their teaching, which is sometimes bizarre, but rather their offer of a new purpose in life, their enthusiastic commitment to a cause and their warm supportive groups. They appeal to idealistic young people who are seeking a cause and an alternative community to which to belong. They attract a middle-aged man when the bottom falls out of his world and he seeks to roll back the years of what seems to have been a pointless life. So, what are we to do?
Desperate situations often lead people to adopt desperate remedies. Your Lordships will have read of young people who, through the efforts of their families, have been kidnapped in order that they might be de-programmed. Whatever the rights or the outcome of such action, surely we cannot see in that an answer which can be of general application. What are we to do? Are we to attempt to legislate against these movements? There are Members of your Lordships' House who are better qualified than I to pass judgment on the practicability of such a course of action.
The British Council of Churches has rightly pointed out the huge problems to be encountered in any attempts to legislate against religious movements as such, even when they are regarded by the orthodox churches as being in grave error and by society at large as either potty or dangerous, or both. Whether one likes it or not, one immediately comes up against the universal Declaration of Human Rights. One could be in danger of playing into the hands of those atheistic regimes in Eastern Europe which are seeking to justify their suppression of religious freedom.

257
However, if legislation concerning religious movements as such is problematical, we can and must watch that they do not contravene the existing law and infringe the rights of others. Moreover, when such infringement occurs, the law should be firmly applied.
I believe that there is room for tightening up in this regard—for example, in the application of the law against soliciting in the streets, which is engaged in openly and frequently by the cults. It may be that new legislation is called for. The present state of the laws governing charitable status certainly warrants some drastic action. The churches have not been and will not be unwilling to help in any consideration of this matter, but of course we must note and accept that such legislation must apply equally to all, whatever their religious beliefs. I noticed this afternoon that tabled for debate in the General Synod is a private member's motion deploring the charitable status of the Unification Church.
However, for the ultimate answer to these pseudo-religious cults it is not sufficient to look only for new legislation. The ultimate answer to these movements is a revitalising of society and a renewing of the Christian Church and the other older religious movements. Very many of the adherents of these cults have been disillusioned with a materialistic, self-seeking and individualistic society and, I have to admit, disillusioned with a Church which appears to be at odds with itself and lukewarm in its commitment. The best antidote to such movements would be an enthusiastic and idealistic church made up of supportive groups of Christians. Where such a church exists, other groups have limited scope.
It is our task in the Church to work for such a renewal of the Church and I believe that that is going on. Moreover, I believe that all of us together have to commit ourselves to seeking to create a society which is not about the pursuit of an and materialism but is a society in which ideas and ideals can flourish; a society where whatever things are true, honest and just and whatever things are pure, lovely and of good report may be safeguarded, nurtured and allowed to fill the thoughts and aspirations of those in all age groups who look for purpose, direction and meaning.
In conclusion, I want to report that the bishops, working with Christians of other denominations, have recently decided to appoint advisers in each diocese who will provide clear information and advice on all matters arising from these movements and who will be ready to put those who need counsel in touch with those who can counsel them. Our initiative has been greatly assisted by what I believe is a unique experiment—a coming together of academics, voluntary agencies, the churches and government to establish an independent body whose task will be to provide objective information on the teaching and practice of these movements and about available counselling. This body, which is called INFORM, has itself recently been the subject of criticism in some sections of the press. The noble Lord, Lord Rodney, has voiced his own misgivings. I am reliably informed that much press criticism is largely due either to a misunderstanding of the role of INFORM or a misguided desire to undermine its work. That is often the fate of organisations which
258
are called to work on the perimeter of the safe and the known. However, the churches intend to work with that body and continue to contribute to its work their own experience and insights. I commend the Home Office for its financial support and continuing interest.
The Centre for New Religious Movements in Selly Oak Colleges, Birmingham, the Centre for New Religious Movements in King's College, London, the Roman Catholic Missionary Centre in London entitled Housetop, Family Action Information and Rescue, are all agencies at work in the bewildering complexity of the new religious scene. We wish them well and we trust that from this debate in your Lordships' House there will come a strengthened resolution to seek to bring to light hidden things of darkness and to offer hope and practical help to those who find themselves caught up in what can prove to be for them an experience of confusion, pain and grief. There is an urgency about the situation. I believe it demands the best endeavours of us all.
6.38 p.m.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, we have been privileged to listen to a most distinguished and authoritative maiden speech from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford. I am sure that the whole House wishes to join with me in congratulating him on his speech. Flanked as he is by his brother bishops on this occasion, he has spoken out on a matter which has so clearly been brought to our attention by all previous speakers, especially by my noble friend Lord Rodney, to whom we are much indebted.
There is a figure absent from the Chamber this afternoon, and that is my noble and learned friend Lord Denning, who unfortunately is ill at the present time and unable to be with us. He has indicated to me a particular matter upon which, although I feel most inadequate correctly to interpret his comments, I feel I shall do well to follow his advice. He suggested that the debate should examine carefully the statement given in reply to question No. 89 on 3rd February in another place by my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General, Sir Patrick Mayhew. I shall quote only that part of the reply which refers particularly to the Unification Church. The Attorney-General said at col. 977 of the Commons Hansard:
"Whatever view may be taken of its tenets, the Unification Church must, as a matter of law, be regarded as a religion. In English law there is a strong presumption that any trust for the advancement of any religion, without distinction, is charitable unless the contrary is proved by evidence admissible in court proceedings. Teachings that are in their very essence contrary to morality would be an example. It is for any challenger to bring forward such evidence: the burden is on him".
Your Lordships will be well aware that the particular interest and repugnance of Members over the situation as it stands today gave rise to no fewer than 12 supplementary questions. I feel that this authoritative statement by the Attorney-General must be based on the four classifications of charity given by Lord Macnaghten in 1891. This means that it is nearly a century old. It lays emphasis most particularly on the need that your Lordships examined as recently as 27th January when, on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale,

259
we considered a very important report by Sir Philip Woodfield on the supervision of charities. Perhaps I may be permitted—I do not wish to weary your Lordships—to quote what the noble Lord said at col. 668:
"Although the scale of misdoing is easily exaggerated, the public is entitled to believe that there are safeguards against misuse both in fund-raising and in actually running charities".
The theme was taken up by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, who said at col. 674:
"Therefore, I must reiterate that the public have a complete right to know what goes on in charities in order to forestall any possibility that they may be used for evil purposes".
Several noble Lords have asked what we should do now. With great diffidence perhaps I may suggest that in discussing the subject one should relate it to the debate that we had two weeks ago and draw attention to three recommendations that Sir Philip Woodfield brought forward. The first is recommendation No. 8, that a graded system of submission of annual accounts with a narrative report under existing legislation if possible should be carried out. This is most important as it is one of the few recommendations in the report that would not require legislation, so far as Sir Philip Woodfield could discover. I wish therefore to draw this fact to the attention of my noble friend Lord Ferrers before proceeding further. Recommendation No. 12 unfortunately requires primary legislation because it deals with the deregistration of charities. Recommendation No. 13, however, does not. It is that the commission should require registration as a precondition for dealing with any business from a registered charity. Any business can require a whole range of matters to be taken into consideration. This is the very tightening-up of the law suggested by many noble Lords, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford.
I hope that these are practical matters, some of which could be put in hand at a very early date. I suggest that recommendation No. 8 falls into that category because it is very clear from what your Lordships have said this afternoon that the urgency is far greater than our ability to reform charitable law as it stands.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, it is indeed useful to open the window wider to let in to this difficult and complex subject more fresh air. I pay tribute to the powerful statement of the right reverend Prelate, which was filled with valuable facts and presented with great force. I hope that we shall hear often from the right reverend Prelate.
We all share the general revulsion at the deplorable abuses of their opportunities by a minority of scandalous organisations. We should all like to see strong measures taken to intervene to make it impossible for this small number of powerful and strongly financed organisations to exploit their members. However, we have to accept, as the noble Lord, Lord Rodney, said, that we deal with a complex set of phenomena stemming in great part from the breakdown of the capacity of traditional values and institutions to satisfy the needs of the
260
younger generation, who have experienced the global communications revolution and cross-cultural interchange. There is an authentic desire for self-betterment in many young people, who have an urge to explore what is new and unusual and to see whether there are any clues for them.
I hope that we do not overreact to the notorious abuses of the minorities. We have to maintain a sense of proportion. How grave is the scale of abuse and how great is the risk of increase of such abuses. Compared to the central threats to society—drugs, crime, violence, alcoholism and rampant materialism—many of the cults are pretty harmless. I would not particularly want to see any of my children dancing down Piccadilly in orange tunics, but they do no particular harm and they give some mild amusement. I recall a respected elderly cousin years ago when I was a youth who had become involved with a group that believed that the end of the world was about to break. The practice at intervals—I think about every six months—was to go on what was supposed to be the next appointed day for this catastrophe to a particular place in Bedfordshire where they donned white clothes in order to be ready to be taken up to heaven. She gave a lot of money to this cult, but it did neither her nor anyone else any harm.
As to the scale of the problem, we hear that 15,000 individuals—I was very interested in this figure— may be exposed to some of these grave abuses. In the context of the major ills of society we have to keep the cult in proportion.
I sympathise deeply with the bewildered parents, unable to get a response from their blinkered and deluded sons and daughters. I hope that it may be possible, by legislation if necessary (as the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, reminded us) to introduce a legal right of access. But there is no easy way to rescue those who have been brainwashed. We are dealing with a psychological condition. I was interested in what the right reverend Prelate had to tell us about the new institutions that the Church has set up to help the captives or those who are related to them. I am sure that that will be of great importance and value.
There is a limit to the extent to which force can usefully be applied in countering force. It will not necessarily change the individual. A zombie can perhaps be converted into another kind of dependent zombieism by modern psychological techniques, but he or she still remains immature, vulnerable and unable to accept full self-responsibility. Only to a limited extent can the problems be tackled by legislation.
By all means may the authorities use all the powers at their disposal now to catch up with and prevent the crime that already gets away with it. But, as noble Lords have pointed out, I am not sure that it is best to look to the Government for anything like direct restraint. One gets into deep water on human rights. It is too difficult to draw the line between harmless innovative groups and those that exploit, dominate and corrupt. Nor do we want to encourage anything like vigilante groups within the community to start making life difficult for these movements. This kind of thing would be bound to lead to cult-bashing and

261
misdirected witch hunts. The media would take it up and gallop away with it.
Those of us who supported Clause 28 last week discounted the risk of witch hunts in the context of the Bill, but in this field—which after all is the classical area of witch hunts—we really have to be very careful. After all, Socrates was condemned to death in a free democratic society for the simple reason that he encouraged questioning of accepted views. There is a lurking monster in every society. We all react against the unfamiliar. We have a tendency to attack and suppress what is different and anything we do not understand.
Tolerance is, we all in this House agree, one of the most rare and fine flowers of human civilisation. There is little enough of it in the world. We tend to underrate it in this country because we probably have more tolerance than any other nation. Outside the former British Empire, United States and Western Europe there is precious little tolerance left.
How is it that young people who see themselves as honestly seeking truth at a higher level than it has previously been presented to them can be trapped? Is it the glamour of different ideas or the need to belong to a group for identity? How is it that, having been sucked in, they close their minds and take a defensive stand against those trying to help them? I think the answer is depressing. The causes are built into our present society: the abdication of parents and too many teachers in schools from their duty to discipline and guide, itself the result of lack of true values and faith. Where children grow up in materialistic and permissive homes and attend weak and uncaring schools they are vulnerable to specious and plausible offers of an alleged path of self-fulfilment and higher values.
The only way a victim can rise above the condition of his entrapment is, I suggest, to acquire the capacity to question his beliefs with an open mind, to grow out of the need for dependence and group support and to make up his mind for himself.
How are we to achieve this? Once a young man or woman has succumbed to his or her weaknesses, it is not easy to rescue that person but it is perfectly possible to inculcate against these infections by the method that most of your Lordships have unwittingly followed. Hence the emergence of your children as good citizens. Young people must be endowed by their training to have such strong and free intellects and such independent and responsible characters that they cease to be vulnerable.
Your Lordships may fairly ask: what is the hope for such a far-reaching transformation of our sadly degenerated society? That is quite right. There is no quick way out. Action against the symptoms of Western social sickness cannot be taken effectively and rapidly, but we can start. The cure lies in better education at home and in schools. If we acknowledge our target and direction and commit ourselves to work for them, there could be a transformation belying our most ambitious dreams.
6.58 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, Members of your Lordships' House and people far beyond will,
262
I am sure, be very grateful to my noble friend Lord Rodney for introducing the debate, however short, this evening. Before I go on I should like humbly to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford on what I consider to be an absolutely brilliant maiden speach. In my opinion, he spoke more for the Church than we have heard in your Lordships' House for a very long time.
For far too long the cults have been escalating in this country and all over the world. My noble friend Lord Rodney is quite right to call them "pseudo" because they are fake and they are phoney. Unfortunately it is the word "religious" that appeals to some of our young people. Often these young people have grown bored with the established religions in this country. They are easily snared into trying something else. The something else might just as well be drugs, drink or crime, so long as it is different.
Many cults are extremely dangerous, both psychologically and morally. Their well-organised and well-trained tentacles reach out and grab the inexperienced young person. Before he is aware of it the child has been indoctrinated and hooked by these organisations. One father, who is a Member of your Lordships' House, has asked me to say that so severe is the indoctrination given by some of the cults that a child can be hooked within 24 hours. If parents then wish to remove their child from the organisation they must also do so within 24 hours. Once hooked, it is the same as having an insidious disease which is almost impossible to cure or shake off.
One thread which seems to run through the teaching of most of the cults is that the family as a unit is wrong. The victim is taught that all the past must be left behind and that the future must be blind obedience to the guru and those in authority.
In this country the concept of the family is one of the fundamentals of society. When parents have brought up their children with care and love it is cruel in the extreme to watch and see them snatched by one of these pseudo-religious cults. The letters which I and other noble Lords have received are tragic and pathetic. They are tragic because of the great unhappiness which is caused to the parents and they are pathetic because the parents are so helpless.
It is about time we actively discouraged these cults, and certainly we should not give them charitable status. We were so grateful when last week, in answer to a Question in another place, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said that the law in this regard needs to be looked at.
Meanwhile, we must do our best through education to warn school-leavers of the dangers of the cults, as the noble Viscount, Lord Thurlow, has said. That means talking to the parents as well as to their children so that both are aware of the perils they may face. The recently formed organisation called the Cult Information Centre is ready and willing to go to schools by invitation to talk to some of the pupils about the meaning of being a member of a cult. Those who go out from that organisation have themselves been members of cults. I should like to ask the Minister about the organisation called INFORM. I hope that one of its objects is to educate and inform people, as I have tried to suggest.

263
Today I received a letter, among several, which I should like to read to your Lordships. It states:
"Our 25 year-old daughter, Mary, was recruited into Scientology during her fourth and final year at music college and as a result failed her final examination due to the demands made upon her by Scientology. She has summoned her 72 year-old partially-sighted father to appear at the High Court early in 1988 to answer to charges of wilful restraint. We cannot afford a lawyer; he will have to defend himself. The law as it stands is unable to deal with these cults and many people long for something to be done. Any support that you can give in this direction will be greatly appreciated."
I hope that as a result of this all-too-short debate people will wake up to the great difficulties faced by many parents and young people due to the present increase in the cults in our country. I should like to express my grateful thanks to my noble friend for having introduced the subject this evening.
7.5 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Rodney deserves the gratitude of the whole House for initiating this debate. It is a subject which knows no party boundaries. I should like to say how much I appreciated the wise and invigorating maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate.
Much is known about the leading cults: the Unification Church, Scientology, the Children of God and Hari Krishna. We are told that approximately 500 others have been established in this country. Frequently none is recognised until a recruit finds himself subjected to the well-known and incredible discipline and strictures. Families are anguished to lose contact with the loved one because the recruit is taught to despise his home and parents and all the familiar home contacts which are said to be evil.
It is not difficult to find a cult. A walk down Kensington High Street soon shows one that; it abounds with folk eager to interest one in their strange ways of life. A 21 year-old Austrian girl whom I knew, and who was usually very levelheaded, suddenly announced that she had fallen hopelessly in love with a young fellow who had talked to her in the High Street. He emphasised to her all the details of the Book of Genesis and after a week she decided to take him home to see her parents and then to marry him.
A visit to his headquarters in Ealing revealed to her several hundred others with his beliefs to be found around the area living under their interpretation of Genesis. It was all very exciting until a telephone call came from his shepherdess reporting that he was sick and unable to recover quickly. Suddenly, in a flash of understanding, my friend became convinced that the cult was wrong. Her sensible mother had been in touch with her from Germany and, mercifully, that was the end of the interlude. My friend was lucky. Those less fortunate who, by devious means, have finally returned to their families are in great need of support and re-introduction into the real world.
Some people wonder how others can be prey to such organisations. If your Lordships will allow me a short anecdote I can give an illustration of how they approach more widely those living around them. One evening there was a knock at my fifth-floor flat. At that time we were having difficulty reaching the fuse
264
of an electric gadget hung high on the wall. Our caller turned out to be a good looking, tall, fresh-complexioned young American. He asked if there was any job we wanted doing around the house. I immediately directed him to our little local difficulty. With immaculate efficiency he carried out the repair. Over coffee it transpired that he was a member of the Church of Unification. When I said that that must mean he was a Moonie he was indignant and told us that we had obviously been duped by the press. His description of how he lived sounded like fairyland where money played no part and much was wrapped in mystery.
The young man said that he had left his parents—his father was a dentist—and family. He had turned his back on a very happy home saying that he was convinced that he had never found real happiness until he met this cult. The mind boggles to think of those who loved him who were so freely thrown overboard.
We can have no illusions about what is happening to youngsters in our midst. For a decade or more we have tried to ignore and forget this potential threat to the family. This debate seeks to recognise and highlight one of today's most insiduous and cruel assaults on families and individuals.
7.11 p.m.
Lord Craigmyle: My Lords, although we are accustomed to short speeches, I am very happy that that has not caused us to drop the custom of first of all thanking the noble Lord who opened the debate and congratulating a maiden speaker. All I can say to the right reverend Prelate is to remind him that Chelmsford is not very far from Westminster and I hope that he will be with us frequently.
I believe it is common ground to all of us that young people who become involved in these cults are seeking something. Presumably they are seeking something good and if they join one of these cults they must—at least at the time of joining—assume that what they have found is good. The question then is how to forewarn them so that they do not take up something as good which everyone else knows to be evil, or once they have made the mistake, how to recover them.
One of the difficulties is that although we speak of pseudo-religious cults—and it is a very useful phrase that my noble friend has used for the purpose of this debate—where does one draw the line? When is a cult pseudo and when is it not pseudo? People can dress up in funny clothes, give themselves funny names, do the most extraordinary things and march around the streets. Does that make them pseudo? If it does, then we could find ourselves condemning the Salvation Army. One has only to mention such an example to see the absurdity of that. Is a cult pseudo simply because it splits up families? It is the tragic splitting up of families to which my noble friend has particularly drawn attention; and some dreadful examples have been given, not least by the two noble Baronesses who have just spoken. However, I remind your Lordships that Jesus himself prophesied that his teaching would split up families: two against three; three against two. That was in a long and emphatic

265
passage, and we know how truly he spoke. We have seen and heard from friends the anguish of Jewish families when one of their members becomes a Christian. Therefore, we are not dealing with a simple matter. Because we can see something to be awful which has appalling results, do not let us believe that we have an easy task in defining it. It will be incredibly difficult.
How should we begin to look at these cults to see whether they really are evil or whether perhaps there is some good in them? I suggest that we bear in mind the saying of St. Francis de Sales:
"True devotion never causes harm".
It may be that the harm that false devotion causes may not show up for quite some time and there may be difficulty in applying that motto; but it is worth bearing in mind. Then I think we can look at the antecedents of a movement. Some spring from esoteric practices like magic, and I do not believe we need concern ourselves too much with them. Some come from the oriental religions and philosophies; and the difficulty there is that very few of us know anything about oriental religions and philosophies. Some may be genuine upsurges and attempts to bring those philosophies into a western picture. Others may be degenerations from them. Then there are the rather quaint human potential cults. I do not think we need waste much time with them. Some of them verge on the ridiculous like little green men from outer space and things like that. However, the greater number of the cults are derived in their origins from Christianity and there are, as has been said, hundreds of them. The majority are quite harmless. That is another great difficulty. If we say that all these pseudo-religious cults are taboo then we shall find ourselves banning quite a lot of comparatively harmless matters as well as the small number of viciously damaging ones.
We can also look at the qualities of the founders and leaders of these groups. Their lifestyles give one some sort of indication of the quality of their philosophies. For example, one thinks of poor Jonah who was so terrified of being told to preach in Nineveh that he ran away to sea. We Christians think supremely of the agony of Jesus in the garden as he prayed for strength to accept the horrors that would come upon him in the next 24 hours. I have never read any text in the Bible or elsewhere where God encourages a budding prophet, "enrichez-vous." However, some of these gurus are among the richest men in the world. That seems to me a tell tale sign of a thoroughly pseudo-religious cult.
The last characteristic I mention is their secretive nature. In ancient times many religions including Christianity kept much of their religious practice secret. I believe I am right in saying—and there are plenty of right reverend Prelates here to correct me if I am wrong—that in the very early church even the catechumens were put out before the mysteries were celebrated; and, unlike the present Church, they would not put up notices outside saying, "all are welcome." Nowadays, if we find that cults are very secretive about what they do and what they believe, then I believe we have good grounds for being suspicious of them.
266
Those are some of the indications. However, we are still left with the great difficulty of telling the gold from the fool's gold, or the sheep from the goats. How to win back someone who has been taken into a bogus cult is quite obviously a problem of enormous human difficulty. Surely the key word is "love". I believe—to revert to one of the sub-plots of this debate—that INFORM have probably the right solution to this rather than the cult-bashing answer. Keep contact, and never fail in love, supported by prayer. Wherever possible—and one of the reasons why INFORM has been criticised so much already, though it is hardly off the ground—is that it does this, and I am sure it is a good thing to do. We must keep in touch with the cults themselves. The extreme cults will not allow that contact, but the more moderate and sensible ones will. That seems to me to be the method of thought of 20th century ecumenism, whereas mere cult-bashing is the line of thought of the 17th century religious wars. We shall make no progress that way. Above all, let us not lose hope that truth will prevail: Magna est veritas, et praevalet.
7.20 a.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, the House always expresses its gratitude to noble Lords who have tabled Motions for debate which are of great public concern. With this Motion we have more reason than usual to be grateful to the mover. The noble Lord, Lord Rodney, has raised a topic which has created much anxiety and to which at the same time there is clearly no simple solution or antidote.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, in an admirable and remarkable maiden speech, gave the whole size of the problem. It was interesting to hear how enormous has been the growth of these movements. He also described the responsibility that the Church is taking on in this regard.
Previous speakers have fully covered the different elements of this subject. All have come together in agreement regarding the pain and anguish that families undergo when their young have been seduced by the more reprehensible of these pseudo-religious cults. Like many other noble Lords, I have received letters from parents whose anger and bitterness and particularly their feeling of powerlessness, has been brought to bear. I have been struck by the way in which the letters describe how the child has suffered a personality change, how he or she has become quite incapable of independent thought. They describe how a young person, once tempted and separated from the reality of his or her natural framework and isolated from the world outside, becomes open to conversion.
One letter from parents in Wales described how, more than eight years ago, their teenage son was picked up by the Moonies while on holiday in America. The letter describes how he is still there, married to a Japanese stranger, who was able to enter the United States on his green card obtained by Moonie lawyers. The whole set-up, says the writer, seems to be a gigantic immigration racket. From what we have read of the Moonies that seems to be quite true.

267
As I said, there is agreement on the pain caused, but what is more difficult is how to inform and protect vulnerable young people while at the same time drawing back from condemning as a cult everything other than the established church. There is undoubtedly a serious definitional problem. That has been brought out by, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Craigmyle. I am sure that many of us have been approached by religious groups who are very worried about being lumped together with those who employ malpractices. However, all those who work towards alleviating the present situation agree that objections to cults are not concerned with beliefs but with practices. Among those practices deception, exploitation and manipulation of the mind are foremost.
Therefore, in my few minutes I should like to make some comments on what is at present being done in this field and what more could be done. First—a point raised by every speaker—why should the Unification Church have charitable status? My noble friend Lord Houghton gave us a full account of the case and made it clear how unreasonable this seems. He also made it clear how this reflects a weakness in our charity law. The Attorney-General, making the announcement of the withdrawal of the case concerning the Unification Church, said that charity law is in the domain of the Home Secretary and that he was unable to speak on the subject. However, I hope that the Minister replying to this debate, who is responsible for home affairs, will be able to make some comment on this extremely worrying subject, which is also topical as the announcement was made only last week.
I should like to repeat what was asked in another place; namely, that if our present law prevents us from taking action against the Moonies, is there not an urgent need for the review which the Home Office is carrying out, following publication of the Woodfield Report, to include strengthening the powers of the Charity Commissioners to prevent organisations whose objectives and tactics are clearly not regarded as charitable by the majority of British people from continuing to enjoy charitable status? The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, made a very good point in the part of his speech relating to that matter. It is extraordinary to all of us and, I am sure, to everybody outside this House, that nothing can be done to alleviate this problem. As I said, I look forward very much to hearing what the noble Earl has to say.
What is being done to inform and counsel young people as to the dangers of the cults and what is being done to assist parents of cult members? First, as the noble Lord, Lord Rodney, said, there is Family Action Information and Rescue; a family-based organisation which clearly gives as much information and guidance as its means permit. However, those means are pitiful. It has extremely little money and what it does is done out of concern and anxiety because so many of its members have themselves suffered from these cults. The organisation receives no assistance from the Home Office. In a letter to me, Mrs. Martin describes FAIR in the following way:
268
"FAIR, like Amnesty International, has always striven to be neutral and impartial. I think it is fairly successful in this, since it is subjected to criticism both from the families it helps—who often consider it is too sympathetic to the cults—and from the cults—who see it as 'anti-cultist'."
Then there is the organisation which, again, every speaker has mentioned. INFORM has Government funding but was only set up in January of this year. Therefore it is too early to discern exactly how it is to carry out its work. What seems to be clear is that it has already attracted a great deal of suspicion and mistrust, both from FAIR and from other organisations working in this field. Therefore, whatever are the rights and wrongs of INFORM, there seems to be little doubt that it needs immediately to acquire a good reputation if it wishes to carry out the important work that the Home Office expects it to do.
I agree with the right reverand Prelate that there may be a misunderstanding of its role. I understand that the Home Office describes INFORM as a cult awareness, rather than an anti-cult, organisation which has been set up to provide high quality specialist and objective information on cults and to provide a counselling service. Therefore, it informs rather than warns. It is perhaps that misunderstanding that has been a worry. Perhaps it would be right for the Government to examine its composition and aims more closely and give some support to the closer harmonisation of the efforts of groups working to inform, educate and indeed warn young people of what cults are actually doing. As I said, if these organisations work against each other, it bodes ill for those young people who might be prevented from becoming embroiled and those others who clearly need counselling and treatment when wishing to become disentangled.
Finally, I should like to comment on the EC inititative in this field which the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, mentioned. I believe that had it been pursued it could have been very useful. This was the Cottrell Report, which was commissioned by the European Parliament and published in 1984. The report dealt with the activities of certain religious movements within the European Community.
What has impressed me most is that in response the chairman of the Legal Affairs Committee at that time, Madame Simone Veil, gave this opinion when writing to the chairman of the Committee on Youth, Culture, Education, Information and Sport:
"At its meeting of 21st February 1984, the Legal Affairs Committee heard Mr. Cottrell speak at length on the activity of certain 'new religious movements' within the European Communituy.
"It shares the legitimate concern expressed by the rapporteur and in the legal sphere it fully endorses the reference made to Article 9 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.
"This article provides an adequate legal framework for a Community solution to the problem raised since it guarantees the fundamental right to freedom of thought and religious belief, whilst specifying the limits which may have to be put on this right if the freedom and safety of human beings are at risk."
That is a very important paragraph. The letter continues:
"Proceeding from this premise, it is also desirable and legally correct to develop political co-operation and try to find whatever kind of agreement may help to prevent acts which jeopardise human freedom, especially the freedom of young people."

269
Unfortunately, although there had been a recommendation for the report to go before the Council of Ministers, this recommendation was rejected and the report has been dropped. Therefore the opportunity to use the European framework to try to solve a problem which certainly must exist in all the European Community member states has been lost for the moment. One wonders why this should not be taken up again or at least whether an ombudsman should not be appointed at European level to monitor and advise. I believe that a retired diplomat or a lawyer would be a more suitable person than someone who is intellectually and personally involved with this particular subject.
One asks whether we are doing everything we can in Britain. One wonders whether the British Council of Churches is fulfilling its responsibility. The right reverend Prelate asked himself this question. Should not the Government show their concern in more practical ways? There is a watchdog committee to watch over the well-being of farm animals. There should be a parallel body set up to focus on or watch over the activities of the pseudo-religious movements which it is clear bring so many human tragedies in their wake.
7.34 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, in concert with everyone else I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Rodney for having introduced this debate this evening. It has been of enormous interest and it is one which I believe has evoked the sympathy of the whole House. It is a debate about which everyone is unanimous in their concern for the way in which young people are brought up and for the way in which people can inadvertently stray or be pulled away from what most of us would consider to be the straight and narrow path.
It is not without a quirk of chance that this evening we have had two debates. The first was about the secret services and the second was on cults. It may be thought that there was a similarity of attitude over the latter one. There is a certain amount of secrecy and people do not know what is happening. At least this debate has given us the benefit of a maiden speech from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford which I believe was of great significance. It was a remarkable speech and a sympathetic one. It was clear, precise and a most moving speech. I was glad to hear from the right reverend Prelate of the initiative of the Church in setting up its own counselling services to try to help with this problem. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will be present often, as we all do, and that he will be able to give us his views in that same clear way on many other occasions.
It is not the first time that my noble friend Lord Rodney has raised the issue of religious cults and their effects on families. I am grateful to him for giving us the opportunity today to debate it and for me to explain the position of the Government. When anything is awry one always says, "What are the Government going to do about it?" I believe that most people recognise that this is a very tender area. Cults are not a new phenomenon. In the 1960s and 1970s there was a growth in their number. They are characterised by the elevation of a leader into divine
270
or semi-divine status. To many of us their claims are ludicrous, but one cannot deny their general appeal to the young and the inadequate, promising as they do to build character and to improve the opportunities of their adherents to succeed in a competitive world.
As a result, wealth has often accrued to these leaders at the expense of their misguided followers, leaving people indebted and disillusioned. I believe that we are all alive to this sad and sometimes tragic experience. We are aware of the consequences which involvement with cults can have for people, particularly the young, and of the distress and alienation caused to parents. There are many distressed relatives and friends who have the experience of young people estranged from their families. We have heard of them this evening. They have been involved with and dominated— sometimes even destroyed—by such cults. Even those who escape may remain permanently scarred by their experience.
We have heard the bad examples given this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and my noble friends Lord Rodney, Lady Macleod, and Lady Lane-Fox, besides others. My noble friend Lord Rodney referred to the Children of God and said that this was an organisation which encouraged prostitution and child sex abuse. Allegations have been made about these malpractices. No evidence has been forthcoming and, if there was, any investigation would be a matter for the police since offences of that nature would be against the criminal law. There is an argument for taking people to court if that happens because it is against the criminal law, but it is not an argument for banning an organisation. It may be wholly distasteful.
My noble friend Lord Rodney referred to the Scientologists with their begging bowls and the right reverend Prelate also referred to them. He said that they are people frequently seen with begging bowls, but in the cases which have been brought to our attention we have found that the devotees have in fact been in possession of valid house-to-house street collection or peddlers' licences which have been lawfully granted by local authorities. If my noble friend knows anything different I should be delighted to hear from him.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, referred to the registration of new churches under Mr. Alton's Bill. The proposal raises difficulties because it limits the freedom of religion guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights and it was opposed by the established Churches. He was also concerned about parental access to the members of cults. We have no information on which to judge whether access has improved over the past three years. To hinder access is unacceptable and can only increase the distress of the parents.
It is understandable that those whose children are involved ask the Government to do something and propose direct intervention. The problem is that we enter that difficult and dangerous territory where order has to be balanced against liberty and where the cure can sometimes be even more harmful than the evil it seeks to remedy. In this country we have a long-standing tradition of religious toleration.

271
Religious freedom—including the freedom to change religion or belief, and the freedom to manifest religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice or otherwise—is guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. My noble friend Lord Rodney said he was disappointed that the Government have not taken action against cults. I must tell him that it is a difficult area. My noble friend Lord Craigmyle put it fairly succinctly when he said that people are seeking something. What are they seeking? There is nothing wrong with seeking something. People are always doing that. My noble friend Lady Lane-Fox asked how people are caught up in these cults. We should all like an answer to that question. However, when one starts to legislate and say, "This one, that one and the other one are unacceptable but the other five are acceptable", one is moving towards a dangerous line of thought. Somebody has to be the arbiter. The Government cannot be the arbiter. It may be that the courts should be the arbiter, but then the legislation must be very clearly defined. That will be a difficult task.
The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, said correctly that this would be a difficult area. He said that we have to be careful not to have a witch hunt. He is quite correct. If we are not careful, if we try to pursue this too far, we shall get into a minefield of problems and may end up with the position being worse than it is at the moment. I shall come on later to what the Government propose to do but I sympathise with what the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, said. It is a difficult area in which we find ourselves wishing, quite understandably, to move and to change.
However, in the end these are very much matters of personal conviction and of the way in which one brings up one's family and children. The Church has a great part to play in this, as do teachers and parents. I suppose that one can only look back on the words of Edmund Burke and say that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
We can keep a close eye on the activities of the cults. We have always urged members of the public who have evidence of any organisation or its members being involved in breaking the law to inform the police immediately. However, where there is no breach of the law we cannot take action against an organisation just because some people regard its activities as socially undesirable. The activities and the views of many organisations are deeply repugnant to most sensible people. That applies to a wider range of groups than those which are normally regarded as cults but we have to live with them. It would strike at the root of our system of law for the Government to attempt to take any action against them. Proposals for a system of voluntary guidelines were accepted by the European Parliament but were criticised not only by new religious groups but also by the established Churches, which considered them seriously to limit religious freedom and also likely to affect the established Churches.
It is not for the Government to adopt an anti-cultist approach. In fact they must scrupulously attempt to avoid being partisan. The public exposure of the true nature and activities of cults will help people to reflect more carefully before being
272
involved. Such an approach, adopting a nonjudgmental stance, seems from the Government's point of view to be the most desirable. To adopt an anti-cultist approach would often, in any event, make matters worse, driving to more extreme positions those whom we would seek to help. We all know that, by warning that some action is wrong or dangerous, a parent or teacher can harden the resolve of the youngster to continue in his or her folly. We also know that the more militant activity of the anti-cultist involves kidnapping and "deprogramming", which can make the cure as distasteful as the disease, let alone being quite unlawful. While we sympathise with anyone who sees his child taken away into an organisation of which he disapproves, one cannot go around the world kidnapping people because they belong to an organisation of which one disapproves. If one has a child who happens to go into a monastery, perhaps against one's wishes, one cannot go and haul him out, especially if he has made that choice of his own free will. The Government are concerned to ensure that in any alteration of the law we do not make the matter worse than it is at present. We are concerned to ensure that all those organisations are alert to the methods and ways of keeping people informed about what these cults do.
The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, asked about INFORM, which is the organisation the Government have decided to help and sponsor. We are currently providing some funds for INFORM, which stands for Information Network Focus on Religious Movements. My noble friend Lord Rodney was apprehensive about it, but INFORM will make available high quality and objective information about the activities of cults in this country. It will operate through a network of experts—mainly academics and churchmen—who keep in touch with the changing circumstances of cults. It is proposed that the information INFORM produces will be available to parents, teachers and to others who are involved with the pastoral care of young people, so that they may be alert to the dangers which exist, particularly for sixth-formers, school-leavers and university students. It will provide a counselling service.
I am sure that that will be welcomed but I am aware that some members of the anti-cultist groups believe that those who have been responsible for setting up INFORM are too closely involved with cults to ensure its objectiveness. One particular target was Dr. Eileen Barker, who chairs the working group responsible for setting up INFORM. Her researches have necessarily brought her into contact with the Moonies. She has attended conferences organised by them both to present papers and to further her researches. I was interested in what my noble friend Lord Craigmyle said. If I may paraphrase his words, he said that one has to understand what other people are doing and one has to be able to have access to these bodies. That is precisely what Dr. Barker has done.
Indeed she has said that it would be nothing short of professional irresponsibility for the sociologists not to attempt to observe and understand the Unification Church's perceptions at first hand. The great thing about INFORM is that the

273
Churches—the Anglican Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Methodists and the Baptists—have all welcomed its establishment and have been represented on the working group. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury has agreed to act as a patron. The General Synod of the Church of England is providing funds and the Methodist Church Office is providing accommodation.
I welcome the involvement of the Churches. They have an important role to play in guiding and teaching. I have no doubt that the cults will flourish only where a spiritual and moral vacuum is left unfilled. I suggest that the Churches should assess their teaching so that they support and encourage those who are most vulnerable. I was glad to have heard from the right reverend Prelate that they are doing that work in the different dioceses. In that way, they should be able to help expose the falseness of the cults' claims.
We regard the establishment of INFORM as a significant step towards healing the harmful side-effects of the activities of cults. We hope that all those who are concerned about the effects of cults on family life, and I am thinking particularly of FAIR and others involved in support of parents and ex-members of the cults, will co-operate with INFORM and will regard it, not as an obstacle, but as a valuable tool in the work of exposing the unsavoury and unacceptable aspects of the cult movement. We shall watch developments carefully and will continue to keep cults under scrutiny. If there is any evidence of illegal activity, we shall ensure that it is referred to the police.
Many of your Lordships, including the noble Lords, Lord Houghton of Sowerby and Lord Hampton, quite understandably, honed in on the subject of charitable status. My noble friend Lady Macleod said that charitable law needs altering. The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, also referred to the charity law. It may be helpful if I were to comment on one or two of those matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said that religious charities should show public benefit. But he will know that one of the four limbs which are essential in order to obtain charitable status is the advancement of religion. Therefore, the proviso is that the organisation has to show that it is advancing religion. To show that something which purports to do that is not doing so is a difficult challenge to undertake.
As your Lordships will know, charitable law is based on common, rather than statute, law, and on precedent built up by the courts and the Charity Commission. An organisation has a legal right to charitable status if its objects are exclusively charitable in law. It follows that the High Court, or the Charity Commission acting in its stead, cannot deny an organisation which has exclusively charitable objects full status as a charity.
Reference has been made to the decision by my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General to discontinue his action in the High Court to challenge the charitable status of the Unification Church. My right honourable and learned friend
274
gave a long exposition from which my noble friend Lord Sandys quoted. I should like to remind your Lordships of the reason for that exposition. My right honourable and learned friend said:
"I have now been advised by leading counsel that it is most unlikely that, if the appeal proceeded to trial, I should be able to dislodge that strong legal presumption of charitable status".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/2/88; col. 977.]
In other words, however much people may wish that that should be the case, if the Government or my right honourable and learned friend had pursued the matter, the chances are that the court would not have found in their favour. If that were the advice given to my right honourable and learned friend, it would not have been prudent to pursue a case which at the outset looked unlikely to succeed and which would have involved much time and great deal of expense.
There is no doubt that the Unification Church must, as a matter of law, be regarded as a religion. In English law there is a strong presumption that any trust for the advancement of religion is charitable unless proved to the contrary. I remind the House that only two weeks ago, in a debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, there was unanimity that the Government should not open up the question of charitable law and charitable status. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said that it would be a hornet's nest. I, too, think that it would be.
I can say three things which I hope will reassure those of your Lordships who feel disappointment and frustration that some of the organisations of the kind we have been discussing receive and retain charitable status. First, the Government have already announced that they are taking major steps to improve the monitoring and supervision of charities in line with the recent efficiency scrutiny report by Sir Philip Woodfield. The report recommends a number of ways in which the running of charities, their public accountability and their fund-raising activities should be much more closely supervised in future.
The Government have already announced that they intend, within the life of this Parliament, to strengthen the powers of the Charity Commission. We are determined to ensure that organisations which register as charities cannot take the public, the Government or the taxpayer, as it were, for a ride.
Secondly, just because an organisation has charitable status and becomes entitled to tax concessions as a result, those tax concessions do not follow automatically. The Inland Revenue has always had powers to scrutinise the way in which charities apply their income and to disallow for tax purposes expenditure on activities which are not fully charitable in law.
Thirdly, we appreciate how daunting a task it is to contemplate any changes in charity law; how long such changes might take to develop and consider; and how careful we must be—this is important—that in dealing with one mischief we do not create many others which are more problematical. However, in spite of all those things, I can assure your Lordships that we will look closely at all the suggestions which have been made during the debate to see whether there is anything more that can be done. I say that, not because I can see an easy way ahead, but merely

275
in recognition of the unanimity of feeling which has been expressed by your Lordships.
I share the concern and disquiet that has been expressed by your Lordships from all parts of the House. That is why, as we consider the legislation which should be put in place to give effect to Sir Philip Woodfield's report, we will study carefully all the points which have been made to see whether any of them can help to improve the legislation.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, perhaps I may first thank all those noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I appreciate the fact that they have stayed until the end of the debate and have shown such interest in the subject. I should especially like to thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford for his reassuring and sympathetic speech. As so many noble Lords have said, I hope that we shall hear him more often in the House. I was most reassured to hear that the Church is to have its own people out in the dioceses to help counsel those who are in trouble with these cults.
I should also like to express my appreciation to my noble friend the Minister; he dealt fully and sympathetically with the subject. My noble friend has obviously taken a lot of trouble to go into all the aspects of the matter. However, I cannot honestly say that I shall leave the House full of joy. However, that was not the point of the debate.
The debate has demonstrated the genuine and deep concern that there is on all sides of the House about this problem. I appreciate that it is not a problem for which there is a simple and easy solution. But drawing attention to it and to the anguish caused by these cults can only do good. I hope that the whole question will not be forgotten but that people will continue to review the problem in order to find some solution for it.
We have heard some reassuring words about INFORM. I thought it only proper that I should express my worries. If it comes up to expectations and fulfils the role for which it is intended, I shall be the first person to acclaim it. I very much agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, said. I hope it will not only inform but also warn. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Agricultural Stabilisers: ECC Report
8 P.m.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Agricultural Stabilisers [9th Report, 1987–88, HL Paper 43].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the presentation of the report by the Select Committee in your Lordships' House is normally a fairly pleasurable occasion because it means that a great deal of reading, some painstaking drafting and various other intermediate problems are now over. When we are
276
accorded the additional accolade of time in your Lordships' House in which to discuss the report, particularly when it is so well-timed as this discussion tonight, I think we are entitled to feel that the work has been truly worthwhile.
However, any pleasure we may feel about that is overshadowed this evening by the sad news of the death of one of our colleagues, Lord De La Warr. I shall say no more than that he was a member of both the sub-committee and the Select Committee and he was valued as much for his personality as for the contribution which he made to our debates.
Agricultual stabilisers by themselves are not particularly significant. They require the complement of set-aside if they are to become in total really significant and to achieve anything like the purpose for which they are intended. It is said that in order to be a true European you need to be bilingual. That means not that you should speak two languages, but that you should have reasonable competence in your mother tongue and have a mastery of technical jargon. Towards that end we have taken the liberty in this report of giving you on pages 16 and 17 a glossary of technical terms. For this we are indebted to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and I acknowledge that debt this evening.
In the glossary noble Lords will find "agricultural stabilisers" defined, as the Commission defined them, as:
"any mechanism to keep market support for agricultural commodities within budgetary limits".
The proposals for agricultural stabilisers were only part of the package proposed by M. Delors for balancing the Community budget and indeed for extending that budget. Even so, they constituted a fairly formidable package running to over 200 pages. Apart from their complexity, they raise economic questions—for example, the use of the gross national product as a basis for contributions to the budget by member states. They also raise the question of improved regional and social assistance for member states in the Mediterranean area.
In making the proposals, the Commission claimed that previous budget measures had been taken to deal with the common agricultural policy. For example, they said that there had been more restrictive pricing. They said that there had been controls on sales into intervention, that quotas had already been imposed on commodities like milk and sugar, that a co-responsibility levy existed for milk and cereals and that there were guarantee thresholds already in existence for cereals and oilseeds. The effect of these measures either in concert or separately has been variable for divers reasons which need not concern us unduly this evening.
Because of this background and the complexity of the proposals, the Select Committee decided to concentrate on the proposals for the arable sector, which we defined as cereals, oilseed and protein crops as well as sheepmeat. The other commodity proposals were not considered by us partly because of the time factor, partly because of the resources available to us and partly because of their nature. For example, tobacco is not a commodity in which we are greatly interested in the United Kingdom. Although we have an interest in fruit and vegetables, it is I

277
believe limited to four commodities, and esoteric things like nectarines and satsumas pass us by.
In the case of sugar there is already a regime which, if properly operated, should be self-financing and ought not to make any claim on the budget at all. It does not; but that is a question of mechanics rather than principle. Neither do we look at wine at all because the Select Committee reported some while back in detail on the wine lake. Although wine is a major source of expenditure to the common agricultural policy, we did not feel it appropriate at this time to go into that question again in any depth. It should however be said in passing I think that the wine regime is in part due to the endeavours of Mediterranean states. As part of the Delors proposal is to increase funding for these areas, the benefits which they already get from over-production need to be taken into consideration.
In the case of beef and milk we were aware that in the final months of the United Kingdom presidency of the Commission in 1986 the UK Government proposals for beef and milk were accepted. Consequently we did not at this time feel that it was necessary to re-open the question of beef where the market is thought to be reasonably satisfactory at the present time. In the case of milk, the evidence available to us is that the quota system is working very effectively, perhaps too effectively, having regard to the closure of creameries throughout the United Kingdom which is now taking place and which is due to take place on a fairly extensive scale.
Mention of milk allows me to suggest also, now that the European Court has decided against Britain in the matter of the use we are making of the Importation of Milk Act 1983, and that we can expect to see milk from other member states entering freely into the United Kingdom, that the question of the enforcement of milk quotas in those member states becomes of even greater importance to us. We have in the past perhaps taken a somewhat lighthearted attitude to non-observance of quotas by certain member states. It would be a thousand pities I think if the doorstep delivery system in this country were badly affected by the introduction of milk from other member states which is over quota.
The tax on oils and fats was also part of the original proposals by M. Delors. We understand that that proposition has now been dropped, but as it was expected to produce a revenue of no fewer than 2 billion ecu for the Community budget, we wondered how the shortfall would be made up in the light of the decision to drop the proposed tax. That is not to say of course that we shall have any sympathy for the proposition as such. We think that the decision to drop it was entirely justified.
Therefore having defined the area in which we were going to make inquiries, the Select Committee asked itself first of all whether the proposed stabilisers would have any effect on spending. If so, would they also limit production? We also asked ourselves—quite properly I think—what effect the stabiliser proposals would have on markets and consequently on farmers. The originally proposed maximum guaranteed quantity under the stabiliser proposals for cereals was to be set annually in the price fixing process. The document which we saw included a
278
figure for 1988–89 of 155 million tons for cereals. This figure, it was said, would take account of the Community's requirements in the year and also allow for the proper level of imports of cereal substitutes.
The idea behind the stabiliser proposals was that if production in any year exceeded the target of 155 million tonnes for 1988–98, as I said at the outset, then one or more of three measures would be taken. First of all, there would be a reduction in prices. Secondly, there would be an increase in the present co-responsibility levy for cereals, but the price reduction and the increase in the levy would be limited to 5 per cent. in 1988–89 and 7½ per cent. in the years after that. In addition, the third arm was that there would be a change in the date when intervention buying could take place. That is of consderable significance so far as the cereals market is concerned. In the case of oilseeds, the maximum guaranteed quantities are already established, but the proposal here was that there would be an earlier phasing of a cut on price limits under the stabiliser regime.
For sheep, the proposed stabilisers are part of an overall review of the sheepmeat regime which is due to take place in 1988 anyway. The Commission is proposing for sheep a guarantee threshold of 87 million head, which is said to be equal to the Community flock size in 1987, with a directly proportionate reduction of basic price if that guarantee threshold is exceeded.
The Commission also envisages phasing out the United Kingdom variable slaughter premium, and consequently clawback, plus intervention with a new annual premium per ewe calculated on the basis of separate coefficients for northern and southern member states. Headage limits were also proposed. Initially, these were to be 500 ewes per farm, with 1,000 ewes in less favoured areas. It is our understanding that in the discussions which have taken place subsequent to the publication of the proposals these headage limits have been dropped. The Select Committee are not displeased about that.
The powers which the Commission was seeking under the stabiliser proposals were of an executive kind, and the Commission sought power to trigger the stabiliser mechanisms across the board, that is to say, for all commodities. Therefore it would not have to rely on a decision by the Council of Agriculture Ministers or on meetings of the various agricultural management committees. This new power and the concept of triggering a mechanism was of importance to the sub-committee, and we sought to take evidence especially on it.
We asked the organisations which gave us evidence, both written and oral, how they thought stabilisers as such would work. Their response in evidence is summarised in the report. Since the report itself—that is volume 1—was published, volume 2, which is the verbatim record of evidence, has also become available. However, for the busy reader, I think the summaries given in volume 1 are adequate. I would express at this stage our gratitude to the many organisations which repeatedly and regularly respond to requests from Sub-committee D for evidence, usually with timeliness, on a fairly wide variety of topics.
Your Lordships will be aware that there was no agreement on the stabiliser proposals at any of the Agricultural Council meetings preceding the Copenhagen Summit. We understand that the whole question is to go before the Brussels Summit to be held on 12th and 13th February. It is also understood that the new proposals on set-aside and extensification, which appeared subsequent to the preparation of our report and which we are now investigating, will also be on the agenda for the Brussels Summit. I shall not say much about set-aside, although I shall not be surprised if other members of the Select Committee who are well informed on the subject choose to do so this evening.
Having taken the evidence and asked what I hope were sensible questions, we reached our opinion, which can be summarised under a number of headings. The Select Committee accepts now, and always has accepted, the need to restrain the cost of the common agricultural policy both in absolute terms and, indeed, as a percentage of budget spending. As a Select Committee we regret that the rolling programme of agricultural price cuts we recommended more than eight years ago, with socially supportive measures for small farmers—repeated many times since we first made the recommendation—has never been acted upon by an Agricultural Council. This lack of political will is undoubtedly the root cause of many of the CAP's problems. We regard the price cutting route as being too late now because the cuts which would be necessary to be effective would be of such a nature that they would be politically unacceptable and would devastate the rural economy throughout the European Community.
We regard the agreement on agricultural stabilisers as only part of a package necessary for fresh budget resources. The original proposals which we considered have been weakened in subsequent negotiations. Even when they were first tabled, we thought they were a second-best solution. The fact that this weakening has taken place raises once again legitimate doubts as to the political will to implement stabilisers and to give executive powers to trigger mechanisms.
We accept the principle of automaticity which is necessary for the use of trigger mechanisms but, in view of the novelty of this concept, we feel it necessary to suggest machinery to allow a regular ex-post evaluation of how the Commission has implemented the trigger mechanisms so far as stabilisers are concerned.
We make the point, I hope legitimately, that stabilisers alone will not freeze budget expenditure. Neither can they control what seem to us the three key determinants of agricultural spending—world market prices, the US dollar/ecu exchange rate and the weather in any given year. We see stabilisers as part of a common agricultural policy and budget strategy. Other parts are not specified because they were not available when this report was prepared. Set-aside is now on the table and therefore has to be considered in addition to stabilisers.
The disturbance to markets which the use of stabilisers may create is significant. These disturbances are not necessarily covered by existing futures markets, which were created for, and indeed exist for, different functions. Therefore, in the opinion of the Select Committee, the effect on farm incomes of the use of stabilisers is unpredictable and depends partly on how large the consequential price cuts are.
As regards the sheepmeat proposals, we would have little hesitation in agreeing that the proposals as drafted discriminate against the United Kingdom. We are told that the European Community is 80 per cent. self-sufficient in sheepmeat. Although we accept that if farmers divert into the raising of sheep an oversupply position is possible and could quickly be reached, we feel that as the sheepmeat regime at present is based on the deficiency payment principle, it is not as such disadvantageous to consumers. As the whole of the sheepmeat regime is due to be reviewed in 1988 in any case, we believe that the present proposals for sheepmeat could well be deferred until that review takes place. However, if there must be a stabiliser for sheepmeat in the meantime the suggestion by the Select Committee is that this should be set on the basis of ewe numbers.
That is the report. I have very much pleasure in moving its acceptance.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Agricultural Stabilisers [9th Report, 1987–88, HL Paper 43.]—(Lord Gallacher.)
8.16 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, before I begin my short speech about the report I should like to add to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, about the tragic death of Lord De La Warr. I knew him as a boy. His father was Under-Secretary for the Ministry of Agriculture when my husband was Minister of Agriculture in the early 1930s, and I have been closely associated with the De La Warr family for more than 50 years. The shock this morning was really terrible, and I am sure we would all like to send our sympathy to his wife and his family for this terrible event.
When I first heard the word "stabiliser" I could not think what it meant. Today, having listened to and questioned so many different societies and agricultural interests, I understand its meaning. It is much the same as what we have recommended in several of our Sub-committee D reports. We have always agreed that there should be a close liaison between what farmers produce and what consumers want to buy. "Do not produce what you cannot sell' is a good principle. Unfortunately, it is not always adhered to.
In the words of the report, the delicate balance between budget production and market needs requires careful attention. That is putting it mildly. I have been stressing that consumer needs are vital to the farmers. We do not think enough about that. If a policy of stabilisers can help, this is certainly the moment to start. There is one thing which I always

281
find it difficult to assess about quotas or restrictions. How can we follow the fluctuations in demand as well as production? Sometimes one is told that milk is overproduced. Then the next day one reads in the Scottish papers that we cannot meet the demand for making cheese because there is not enough milk. How does one cope with that? Agricultural supplies take time to produce. Things cannot be altered in a matter of days, months or even years. If I concentrate first on the subject which I know most about, it is to discuss what has been said about sheep. Your Lordships know that I am deeply involved in that particular section of the industry and I have had very long experience.
First, I think we must realise that there are two very different periods in the production of edible mutton. There is rearing and there is fattening. The main areas for the production of sheep are the areas which are only fit for breeding and grazing. Of the total area, 57·2 per cent. is given over to that type of production. As I think your Lordships know, those areas are called "less favoured"—why, I have never known. To illustrate what enormous importance they have in all our countries, in Scotland they represent 98.6 per cent. of production, in Wales the figure is 79 per cent. and in Northern Ireland the figure is 76.6 per cent. Those figures are in the report.
Without sheep production, those areas would be wasted. The sheep farmer in the United Kingdom has an average of 389 sheep per farm. In the EC, the number is 80. In the real hill country in which I live, and also in Wales, Cumbria and other parts of Scotland (both the Borders and the Highlands), the number of sheep involved on a bigger sheep farm would average between 1,000 and 3,000 ewes.
That system also provides arable mixed farmers with sheep for fattening because we sell our sheep into areas where they can be fattened. The farmers who buy them raise them for the butcher and the public. The industry is tremendously important because it covers such a wide experience in the farming world. That is why we are all opposed to the limited proposal put forward by the European countries. We wish to see that the sheep industry is not overproduced or the public oversupplied. If it were not for the fact that we can produce what we in fact produce, we should go bankrupt. I therefore strongly support the recommendations in the report at paragraphs 59, 60 and 61, which have been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher.
As regards the actual effect of stabilisers on limiting certain produce, I agree with the report that the outcome is doubtful. We can only tell how the various countries will work out the critical introductions from experience. To date, although European countries have talked about the matter for a long time, the will to carry it out has been lacking, and it remains to be seen whether it will be done in the end.
There is one other principle which I feel sure cannot be ignored. If farmers are to crack down on production, there must be some compensation. That brings in the worrying matter of how to provide compensation. Will the set-aside policy help? I think that that will be very difficult to carry out. Our next
282
inquiry will deal with that very matter. I hope that we shall reach some useful conclusions and that our next report will be as useful as I believe some of our reports have been in the past.
8.25 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I join, from these Benches, with the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, in expressing our deep sorrow at the sudden death of Lord De La Warr. I should also like to thank the noble Lord for the way in which he introduced the report and for the report itself. It is not lengthy but it brings out, in my view, all the essentials as regards the suggestions which are coming from Brussels.
All of us in every political party agree on the need to control expenditure on agricultural support. If the Common Market is going to survive, that must be done without too much damage to the agricultural industry. It is a great tragedy that an industry which has excelled in increasing its productivity, both per acre and per man—probably more so than any other industry—should find itself in the position of having been too efficient.
We must also never forget the place of agriculture in creating the countryside which we all love and in providing employment in remote rural areas. There are some of us who can remember the state of the countryside in the 1930s. None of us would care to go back to that.
There is no doubt in my mind that the arable sector of the Common Market produces the greatest problems of surpluses and rising coasts. As the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, has said, the use of the price structure as a means of curbing production is at best an ad hoc response to the problems of a particular year. That was also stated in the report. To be politically acceptable, such responses would have to be minor and followed through year by year. It is therefore a tragedy that the advice of this country was not taken eight years ago when the proposals for using the price structure to prevent the creation of too many surpluses were put forward. Such responses would also have to be introduced in such a way, and be so minor, that they did not impose too great a hardship on the agricultural community.
As the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, has said, to look at stabilisers in isolation will not achieve the desired reduction in production. Those policies must go hand in hand with a policy of set-asides. I am delighted to hear that the committee is now looking at the proposals for set-aside. It is only if the two matters go hand in hand that we can achieve a reduction of surpluses.
I believe that set-aside, in itself and properly introduced, is probably the quickest way of controlling budgetary expenditure while maintaining a reasonable income for the farming community. However, there are dangers, and I make no excuse for talking about the matter because I find it desperately important that we look at it together. There are dangers in a set-aside policy, and I think that compensation should not necessarily be contemplated on a long-term basis. However, it would give the Community breathing space in which

283
to reduce its surpluses. During that period, the Community should concentrate on the marketing of produce to avoid further surpluses, perhaps by the creation of cheap credit facilities for third world countries.
The set-aside policy would have to be adequate to safeguard the farmers' income. But there are problems even there; we only have to look at what has happened in the United States to see that. A straight acreage payment would obviously favour the large farmer and care would also have to be taken that not only the most unproductive areas of land were taken out of production. It might be necessary to think in terms of a sliding scale of compensation under set-aside.
For those reasons, a policy of set-aside should be contemplated to stabilise the market on a short-term basis in the first instance. Stabilisers without set-aside will not work without creating excessive hardship.
As has been mentioned, the most controversial proposal from the Community is that dealing with the sheepmeat regime. Like the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, I should like to question whether it is necessary to introduce stabilisers at this stage when only 80 per cent. self-sufficiency has been achieved within the Community, when Continental Europe is nowhere near achieving self-sufficiency and when in a butcher's shop in France a leg of lamb is twice as expensive as an equal weight of sirloin. In many parts of Europe lamb is still a luxury meat. Therefore, I do not see that it is necessary to deal with the matter now, particularly in view of the fact that the sheep regime will come up for review in 1988.
It would be quite wrong to introduce stabilisers which militated against Great Britain. The whole principle of the CAP is that it is a common policy and the whole of the Community should be treated equally. Britain should not be penalised because it is more efficient.
I was pleased to hear that it is now unlikely that the limit on ewes will be reintroduced. We are quite happy with the acceptance that the premium should be paid on ewes, but we should have been strongly opposed to the introduction of a limit of 500 ewes on good land and 1,000 on hill land. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, I farm sheep—in the Western Highlands and also in Oxfordshire—so I have a personal interest.
The sheepmeat regime at present in force in England, which, as has been said, is a deficiency payment system, has worked well for many years. Perhaps the Government should try to persuade other countries within the EC to accept a similar regime. I believe that farmers in this country feel keenly that they are being penalised in many ways. If we are to have a proper common market all countries within the Community should be able to compete on equal terms.
I do not know whether any noble Lords present tonight watched "Panorama" on Monday. It dealt with what was termed the "rip-off"—fraud in the Common Market. The programme mentioned figures of £2 billion, or 10 per cent. of the Community budget. I have no idea whether the figures are correct
284
or exaggerated, but if the fraud amounts to only half that figure it represents an enormous slice of the Community budget. Fraud occurs on the Irish border, in Germany, and all over Europe. There is no incentive for member states to prosecute because if they do so they have to pay back the levy. In my view the Commission must be given greater power and allowed to set up a much stronger fraud squad than that which exists at the moment, which I am told employs only about 15 people. I mention that point only because the sums involved are so large that they have a tremendous impact on the whole of the Community argricultural budget. I believe that that is also something to which we should turn our attention.
8.35 p.m.
The Duke of Somerset: My Lords, as a member of the sub-committee I find that this report makes rather gloomy reading. That is not a criticism of the drafting but a comment on the Commission document on which the report is based.
Nearly everyone with a passing interest in the countryside expresses dismay at the CAP and its runaway budget. This report makes clear that the stabiliser proposals will not be very effective overall but will have a considerable effect on many individual UK farmers. Onlookers are not impressed by that inability to find a solution; but if there were an obvious answer to oversupply, it would long ago have been implemented. There are no magic alternative crops or enterprises.
There are many commodities in surplus in the EC and tonight we are only considering two—cereals and sheep. Any proposals have to cover such a wide climatic and social range that whatever is proposed will be felt to be discriminatory in some region or country. That is an inherent problem with the CAP.
Worldwide oversupply is unlikely to ease in the immediate term, with the USA also overproducing cereals. Perhaps even more seriously, Chinese peasant farmers are becoming more organised and are likely to become net exporters in the near future. Thus the fact that Community cereal acreage has been reduced slightly since 1984 is dwarfed by that last fact alone. Likewise, the effect of recent inclement harvest weather in Europe is balanced by the great strides that scientists are making to increase plant yields and performance each year.
All those factors call for a more determined policy that looks to worldwide rather than narrow domestic considerations. One member can upset any agreement, as in the example of the infamous guarantee thresholds quoted in the report. There is a great mountain of food in the world, but famine still claims endless victims because political will can override human considerations and group benefits with narrow-mindedness of outlook. Surely this is a worldwide problem calling for larger scale thinking. We have gone from domestic markets into the EC: should we not be thinking now of worldwide markets?
However, to return to the immediate problems and in particular to those affecting many farmers in the UK, there has been a gradual squeeze on income

285
combined with milk, sugar and potato quotas, leaving limited room for manoeuvre. I should like to emphasise paragraph 49 of the report. There is a very real danger that many farmers will see the price cuts,
"as part of the continuing 'cost-price' squeeze which encourages producers to greater efforts to improve efficiency, rather than to cut production."
The obvious move has been into sheep but the Commission is forestalling that move with a maximum guaranteed quantity scheme provisionally set, as we have heard, at 87 million head, the existing Community sheep count.
We have already heard about those proposals, so I shall mention only that fencing is a more basic and expensive difficulty. Another danger for the typical mixed farm is the lack of grain storage facilities. Often grain is held in cattle yards until November and sold just before the dairy cows come in for winter. Intervention buying, delayed until the 1st November as is proposed, would have an immediate effect on the prices that this type of farm could expect to receive. It is the cereal producers who are suffering particularly from the effects of the green pound. A devaluation would greatly help British agriculture.
The conservation, tidyness and prosperity of the countryside are dependent on farmers having a little left over in their pockets at the end of the day for such non-income producing activities. However, there are partial solutions on the horizon in the form of either the government-inspired farm woodland scheme or the EC proposals for set aside and extensification. Either of those could be a help to farmers, but their degree of usefulness is dependent almost entirely on the rate of incentive. It is in this regard that stabilisers, in conjunction with the measures that I have just mentioned, could play a useful role in cutting production but still keep a reasonable rural economy in place.
On a budget level there is a danger that the administrative and policing costs of the alternative schemes will mop up much of the savings of the stabilisers; but it must be right to pay as much attention to safeguarding rural communities and jobs. Our committee looks forward to reporting on set aside. The rates must be high enough to cover fixed costs, meaning at least £300 a hectare; but workable schemes to produce less of the same acreage and encouraging organic farming are most welcome. Whatever combination of stabilisers and other schemes are chosen, I am sure that all farmers will put in a plea for another type of stabiliser; namely, stability of policy. There must be a long-term plan which is stuck to, so that farmers can plan their cropping and budgets and avoid the farcical situation that has developed in the past two seasons, when farmers have deliberately grown more cereal acreage in the fear of some quota system being based on their existing acreage. That has only had the effect of pushing up production of barley and wheat of course.
The farmer knows that he cannot go on producing commodities in oversupply. Let us create a system that will work to cut production and thus eventually cut central costs. The long-term answer must be as stated in the report: price cuts over a period of years with direct payments to small farmers and in addition
286
a financially worthwhile set of extensification schemes.
8.43 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, as a member of the subcommittee I should like to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, for the excellent way in which he introduced this report which reflects the splendid way in which he chaired the sub-committee. With a rare combination of wit and firmness, he guided the committee safely through a very complicated subject.
The report makes clear that stabilisers are one method of budgetary control. They are an attempt to combine production capping with cash limits. Taking the worst view of them, they can be regarded as impractical, unfair and based on very dubious statistics. One obvious unfairness which concerns us as farmers is the difference in harvest performance not just across the Community but within each country. To take the 1987 season as an example of a year's harvest, the north-east of Scotland and East Anglia had one of the worst harvests in living memory, the West Country had a good harvest, and the middle of England, as always, had a fairly average harvest.
That shows what can happen in one country. Let us look at the problem on a European scale. The stabilisers are to be based on an estimate of the total of the European harvests. There could well be a situation in which one country has had a bad harvest and the other countries have good harvests, and the total of the harvests triggers off the stabilisers and cuts in prices. The country with the bad harvest would be hit very hard indeed.
The report also makes clear in paragraph 38 the preferred policy of Sub-committee D.
"The Committee's preferred instrument for controlling agricultural production is a policy of rolling price-cuts sustained over a period of years and announced well in advance with direct payments for small farmers".
Those members of the committee who are farmers must have wondered when that sort of recommendation was produced whether we should not be compared to the proverbial turkeys who voted early for Christmas. We have to agree with this recommendation. It is logical. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, said, it is probably not now politically possible.
Further to confuse a very confusing situation, there are the proposals for set aside. I do not propose to go into this matter in great detail and pre-empt the discussion that we shall no doubt be having on a subsequent report. The proposals, which were produced by the ministry as a consultative document, were overtaken to some extent by the Commission's proposals. In the evidence given to it, the committee was very clearly told that there was a political linkage between stabilisers and set aside. If there is no agreement concluded in Brussels this week—and let us hope that there will be—on the stabiliser proposals and there is a linkage, presumably that means that it will not be possible to have a set aside scheme for the 1989 harvest, or 1988 and planting.

287
If one must await agreement at the summit in Hannover in June, one must wonder whether it will be possible to devise a set-aside scheme and start this autumn. Should that prove to be the case, it will be another opportunity that has been missed in a year when cereal stocks in the Community are declining rapidly.
I must say that I did not entirely understand why there has to be the political linkage. In the long term, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, there has to be such a relationship; but in the short term, if we do not have the stabilisers and cannot reach agreement on them but do have a set-aside scheme which is mildly successful, it would reduce the need for stabilisers. That is the point. If we cannot have stabilisers it will be better to start off with set aside until we can reach agreement on the stabiliser system.
A further complication that was touched on in the report refers to fluctuations in currency and their effects. There was a debate last week in this House on the common internal market in which I made the point that one of the major implications of the common internal market is that MCAs and the monetary and compensatory amounts can be applied:
"only in a way which acts as a barrier to free trade. Therefore the Community is committed to removing all MCAs in four years' time at the latest so as to comply with the Single European Act … It is just not possible to abolish the green currencies and the MCA system unless the market rates of currencies are kept in a very closely controlled relationship, namely the EMS".
I drew the inexorable conclusion that we must join the EMS if the agricultural support system is to survive. That was confirmed by the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, when, replying for the Government, he said:
"MCAs are an integral part of the current system of agricultural pricing in the Community and we should like to see them abolished in a phased way. However, a number of our partners would not be able to accept that easily. The single market will not be achieved while MCAs remain".—[Official Report, 3/2/1988; col. 1154.]
That point should be borne in mind when considering the stabiliser proposals. When the Minister replies, I hope that she will explain to the House exactly how the stabiliser system relates to the paraphernalia of the green currencies and MCAs and how the whole shooting match, with the stabilisers as well, will in turn be affected by the proposals for the common internal market by 1992.
The report refers to uncertainty as something with which we must deal in the Community. Paragraph 62 states:
"The extent to which stabiliser mechanisms are triggered and to which the resulting penalties would impact on the cost of the CAP is not easily quantified, but there are uncertainties as regards harvest yields, exchange rate fluctuations, and stability of markets".
Another uncertainty was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington. She referred to the BBC programme "Panorama" last Monday which dealt with fraud in the common agricultural policy whereby 10 per cent. of the agricultural budget is redirected—it seems towards the Mafia. I shall put this as delicately as I can. There is another form of redirection—insider dealings. Preknowledge of levies and harvest estimates could be very useful commercial information. Given the complications of
288
stabilisers, I wonder whether this is yet another avenue being opened for the redirection of Community funds.
I declare an interest here in oilseed. I was for some years a member of the oilseeds advisory committee of the EC in Brussels. It occurred to me then that people enjoyed great commercial advantage if they had preknowledge of subsidy rates immediately before they changed.
The report is an excellent analysis of a complicated subject. I conclude as I began by congratulating the chairman of the committee, my noble friend Lord Gallacher, on producing the report and so enabling the House to debate this important topic.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I take part in the debate with some trepidation. I am not a farmer. It is a great many years since I looked at the common agricultural policy. In view of what I am about to say, perhaps I should add that I was in favour of the United Kingdom joining the EC on balance. The negative part of the balance was the common agricultural policy. If asked about the prospects at the time we joined, I should have said that by 1988 we would have it reformed and sorted out. I would have thought it unbelievable for the common agricultural policy to be in a greater mess in 1988 than when we joined. I say that to put the matter into context.
We are asked to look at the subject of stabilisers because of the need for curbs on the ever-increasing spending on agricultural support. In other words, our concern is with the budget. It is clear, whatever else one says about the control of public expenditure, that this part is completely out of control. As several speakers including the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, have pointed out, there is a paradox. If stabilizers—or, in my view, any of the other interventions that we are asked to consider—were used effectively to control the budget, they would be so disruptive of the agricultural sector that it would become politically impossible. In other words, the notion is, "Either you use the stabilisers to stabilise the budget, in which case the thing blows up politically" or, "We cannot allow the political ill-effects to occur so we invent stabilisers, but then use them almost as a fig leaf-. That is a matter of serious concern.
To pursue the economics of stabilisers, I am much in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood. I, too, was at a total loss to know what this or any of the rest of the terminology meant. Unlike the noble Baroness, I think I still do not understand what it means. In so far as stabilisers might conceivably have some effect on the budget, the concern is that they would then destabilise almost everything else: they would destabilise farmers' incomes, production and prices—or, at least, there is a danger of that.
This leads to the other aspects that concern me. Here is a set of proposals which the committee has examined but which it is fairly clear the people in Brussels have not thought through. The economics seem to me extremely complex, but we are offered no serious analysis.

289
I have referred to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, on stabilisers, with which I agree. I note that both she and my noble friend Lord Carter mentioned the subject of fraud. Here again I must take a negative view. Within a system as arcane and bureaucratic as the common agricultural policy, fraud is in my opinion inevitable. The idea that one can somehow get rid of some of it by adding to the number of bureaucrats seems to me even more preposterous. Given a system that appears to have been set up in the first place so that smart operators can manipulate it, I am amazed that anyone should be surprised when that happens. It is what any economist would predict must inevitably follow.
I am worried by a point that my noble friend Lord Carter mentioned and to which reference is made in the report. If one views stabilisers or any of the other interventions from the point of view of the farmer, they are really mysterious. If I were a farmer, I would regard them as much more likely to produce difficulties than to assist me. I should be particularly worried about the uncertainties that seem inevitably to follow from them. If one intends to do something of this nature, I am a great believer in having a set of rules. I have a strong suspicion that, if we move in this direction, stabilisers, too, will be manipulated, and not necessarily to the advantage of farmers.
Stabilisers are about the budget. I do not doubt for one moment that the excess spending is an important matter. I hope that, in considering stabilisers and the budget, we will not be led away from what many of us in the economics profession regard as the much more serious faults of the common agricultural policy, namely, that it is monstrously inefficient and unfair. Stabilisers appear to do little to address those problems. Although I do not disagree with the concern of the Prime Minister with the budget, one hopes that it does not overwhelm all other considerations in the assessment of what is going on.
In following my noble friend Lord Carter, one cannot but reflect on the anomaly that we have a Community built around free market principles in which the outstanding topic of the day is unification of markets and the reduction of artificial barriers. Bedded within it, however, is the common agricultural policy, which is an affront to free markets, to efficiency and to equity; and, indeed, we are considering further interventions to effect even more manipulation.
In conclusion, I am bound to say that I believe that your Lordships are right to scrutinise in detail stabilisers, set-aside and any other proposals put forward. None of that is a substitute for fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy or—better still—its abandonment in favour of a more sensible system of agricultural support.
8.58 p.m.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, it must be said that it is not very easy to form a judgment on the latest proposals of the European Commission to curb Community expenditure while negotiations are still proceeding.
290
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, has explained why the Committee concentrated on the measures proposed for just two commodities, cereals and sheep. The proposals for sheep have been dealt with so comprehensively and clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, and by my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood that I shall say no more on the subject save this: I believe that the criticisms of the sheep stabiliser proposals contained in the report—that they would discriminate against the United Kingdom and are therefore not acceptable in their present form—are justified.
As to cereals, we are in a difficulty. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, it is impossible adequately to assess the likely effect of the stabiliser proposals when both the level of production at which they are to be triggered and the price cuts to follow are not yet fixed.
The report weighs up the likely effect of the stabilisers, given the numbers that the Commission believes should be written in to be effective. The report, as we have heard, concludes that the measures proposed are not likely to be very effective in stabilising budget spending. It suggests that they would be unlikely to have significant effects on the levels of production and, finally, it takes the view that as they stand they would bring significant disadvantages in their train.
These are not very enthusiastic conclusions. They have already been greeted by adverse comment, though not, it appears, here tonight. The sense, if not the words, indicate a rather sharp criticism that the report underestimates the need to resolve the financial crisis in the EC and that it is high time for a large measure of support by the taxpayer to be removed from the feather-bedded agriculture industry and a bed of nails provided consisting of really steep and effective price cuts coupled with an immediate curb on the use of fertilisers.
How easy it would be if the CAP could be reformed in such a cheap and simple manner. If that were so Ministers and heads of government would not be locked as they are now in such complicated discussions and negotiations.
I comment first on the fertiliser suggestion. I believe that constraints on production such as a nitrogen quota are economic nonsense. Whatever is done to limit output, one cannot tell an industry which is highly geared to technological advance, as is British farming, that in future it has to produce inefficiently. It would be just as foolish to tell supermarkets that they must go back to selling through the corner shop or coal miners to go back to using picks and shovels or the textile industry to forgo the use of man-made fibres.
I now turn to the question of price cuts. All noble Lords who have spoken tonight agree that the member states, through their Council and ministers, have been negligent in allowing levels of prices that have stimulated production of cereals beyond what was required for home consumption and what can be sold abroad without upsetting the pattern of trade.
The Sub-committee, of which I have the privilege of being a member, has been saying that for years. It would be quite unfair to accuse it of being unaware

291
of the budgetary implications and the urgent need for reform. Because the process of gradual and measured control of prices over the years, which we have long recommended, has not been adopted the savage cuts that are being advocated are actually under way now. As we feared, the brakes are being applied too late and many would say too hard.
I remember quoting the figures when we debated the Commission's 1987–88 farm price proposals last May. Last year cereal prices were cut by up to 12 per cent. and this year by a further 7 per cent. The effective price cuts are greater by reason of the other related measures which were imposed at the same time. Oilseed rape has taken a 25 per cent. price cut this year. One really cannot brush off a 20 per cent. cut in grain prices over two years and say that nothing is happening. Of course the EC expenditure runaway bus must be brought under control, but the methods used must be sophisticated.
The present health of the farming industry and this country's capacity to produce reasonably priced food are not in a state to survive the kind of bludgeoning which I have heard advocated. As our report on prices said last May, there has been an average fall in the purchasing power of net farm income in the Community of 25 per cent. in the past 10 years. In the United Kingdom the fall has been 40 per cent. due to the effect of large negative MCAs, whose malign effects continue to discriminate against our own farmers. The noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, referred to that and so did the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
I have heard a figure mentioned which indicates that at present, because of the green pound, UK cereal producers are suffering from a return that is depressed by about 18 per cent. Last May I quoted some of the Government's figures for farmers' returns. These can now be brought up to date following the publication of the 1988 Annual Review of Agriculture. I think it justifies the rather gloomy picture I am painting and reflects what all of us in farming know very well: that the weather plays a far larger part than is ever allowed for by those who predict future levels of production. For example, Table 30 of the MAFF 1988 review shows that for English farms growing mainly cereals, taking an index figure of 100 for average net farm income in 1982–83, the index figure rose to 134 in the good harvest year 1984–85. The following year it was 23. The forecast index figure for 1987–88 is 10. For English lowland livestock farms it is down to just 5 from a figure of 100.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has reminded us, for those of us who farm in eastern England, all the way from Kent to Northumberland, the 1987 harvest was a disaster and these figures bear out what we already knew. It appears from Table 31 that farmers in Scotland have done better—according to the MAFF review, that is. But we should not forget that in 1985–86 the average result for Scottish cropping farms of all sizes was a loss of no less than £11,000 per farm.
If it is necessary to knock some of the stuffing out of the featherbed (if there is one) then, in
292
recommending how to do it, never let it be forgotten under what hazardous conditions our food is produced. Nevertheless, when that is said, the long-term trend of cereal production must be upwards, though yields will rise probably less steeply and certainly less steadily than was envisaged in the forecast that we had before us when we debated our report on cereals in 1986.
Consideration as to the form of the control that should be imposed on both costs and output is in the forefront of the current debate on the CAP. Stabilisers as now proposed are only one mechanism. I can understand why the Government have accepted the principle. It is perfectly logical that overproduction should lead to price cuts and in our report we state that if such a brake is adopted it should be capable of being applied automatically. It is difficult to agree when to apply the brake and how sharply it should be applied. We draw attention to the unpredictable effect on farm incomes of allowing agricultural stabilisers to operate in an unfettered fashion. We state in the report that stabiliser controls as now proposed for cereals carry with them many disadvantages and by themselves may not be effective.
I believe that the most important conclusion in the report is that contained in paragraph 46. It states that:
"Agricultural Stabilisers should be seen only as part of an overall Budget strategy toward the CAP.".
In the next paragraph we state that:
"Agricultural Stabilisers, on their own, cannot be regarded as the sole mechanism for controlling agricultural spending.".
There are other potential measures in addition to price restraints. There is the transfer of land to nonagricultural use; alternative crops, including forestry; import substitution; the development of industrial uses for farm products; and set-aside, as we have heard tonight. All those and other mechanisms are under discussion and it is our view that budgetary problems must be tackled by a combination of some or all of those.
The proposals for stabilisers can only be effective as part of a package, but that package must be devised with the greatest care. A draconian assault on the farming industry's capacity to produce, such as I have heard advocated, would be very damaging and its effects would reach right out into the nation's economy.
9.10 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, and I are the only two speakers who are not members of the committee. Nevertheless, we can sincerely compliment the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, on the way in which he introduced the report today. He covered a great deal of ground but there is still a great deal of ground to be covered. I note that one of the first matters he mentioned—almost in the second sentence—was set-aside and I shall return to that subject later.
I was intrigued to note that my noble friend Lord Peston is the only person I have heard claiming that the CAP was in a mess in 1973 when we joined and that the whole system was wide open to fraud in any

293
event. Not for one moment do I suggest that he is being wise after the event, but it would be interesting to find his reference for those statements. However, we shall leave the matter there.
We are all agreed—nobody could disagree—that something must be done about the surpluses and their cost. One of the major costs (approximately £2,000 million) is the handling of the present surpluses sitting in store, and that problem must also be tackled. As my noble friend Lord Carter and other noble Lords pointed out, if the job is to have any effect before the budget is bankrupt, it must be done quickly.
This morning I read a report in a newspaper to the effect that it appears that the German Minister of Agriculture and our Minister are a little closer than has been the case in the past, and if something might be achieved this week that is a good sign. However, if the next harvest is planned and planted it is too late for another year and things will be in a sorry state. As was pointed out in the report, there is a lack of political will.
I looked at the report carefully and then turned back to the first paragraph which straightaway sets out almost everything that is required. It is a good paragraph which reads:
"Stabilisers have in the past year become a key feature of CAP reform. The name is new: it refers to any mechanism to keep market support for an agricultural commodity within budgetary limits. The concept is not new: quotas and levies on sugar production are existing stabilisers; so too are co-responsibility levies and quotas for milk. Now the Commission is proposing stabilising mechanisms for a wider range of agricultural commodities.".
That is a far-reaching paragraph.
If one then turns to paragraph 62, which contains one of the most succinct conclusions I have ever seen in a report, one finds that one could have carried out the whole job in two minutes and not bothered to go into the detail of the report at all. However, I should like to make one or two points that I have picked out from the report for discussion. The report picked out sheep and cereals, and that has been emphasised by various noble Lords in the debate. Of course it is also anxious about the Commission asking for more power to deal with the situation.
To put it fairly simply, the Commission wants stabilisers to reduce the price to the farmer by various means, and they have all been mentioned—namely, maximum guarantee qualities and in some cases reducing the intervention periods. The noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, mentioned one technical point, that if you have grain in a cattle yard, you will have to sell it when you bring the cattle in. There is also the point that you often have to sell it for reasons of cash-flow, which is also rather important, and if there is no market and no intervention, you are in a bad way. There is also the question of increasing the co-responsibility levies, and so on.
I presume that the theory behind this is that if the returns are low enough, farmers will stop producing. The committee very ably points out the fallacy behind this. If you do that quickly enough—and we are all agreed that it is necessary to do it very soon—the effect on farm incomes would be disastrous. The noble Lord, Lord Middleton, has given us figures on what is happening anyway in
294
reductions, and there is no sign of anybody going out of production because of that. If it is spread over a long period, farmers will make every effort to increase production—the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, mentioned this—and they are doing that to stabilise their incomes.
I read an article in one of the agricultural papers last week by a young economist from Cambridge. He pointed out the figures for the increase in production that has taken place over the past 10 to 15 years and how there is no sign of that stopping. He gave some figures of how much land could be taken out of production simply by increasing the size of our crop yields, etc. As the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, pointed out, paragraph 48 is headed:
"Stabilisers do not control production".
How right that is! The report is to be commended on that point.
With regard to sheep meat, I suppose I should declare an interest. Although I have no sheep, I have a lot of grain production, oilseed, and so on. Most noble Lords who are interested in sheep meat have pointed out that their main objection is that it would be detrimental against the UK and there seems to be a considerable unfairness in having a separate stabiliser for sheep numbers in this country.
As I said earlier, in its conclusion the committee mention the question of set aside. I have looked at this situation for quite a few years and at one time I was very keen on quotas because on the whole that seemed to be the fairest method. However, when one starts to look at the administration of quotas, particularly for grain, with all the different ways in which grain is disposed of, the amount that is used on the farm and the amount that goes from farm to farm, I came to the conclusion that administratively quotas were almost impossible. They work for milk and sugar mainly because these two commodities go through one source of manufacture, and in that case it can be done.
That brings me to set-aside, particularly for arable crops. My noble friend Lord Carter was right in saying that the only way to control the stock is to control the number of female animals—cows and sheep. Of course, there is no pig regime but they will also need to be controlled if necessary. Therefore, the amount of animals that come on for beef will be controlled. That raises the question—and of course I pointed this out to him—that you can buy Irish store cattle and at one time we brought in a lot of Canadian store cattle. However that could no doubt be controlled. The great thing about that is that both set aside and the control of female animals can be easily administered.
I spent a whole afternoon with the county agent for Minnesota in the United States looking at how they control set-aside. He has a very small staff and although I do not want to give all the details, I will say that they used a helicopter and an infra-red camera. If a field was a colour that it should not be, it was checked. The agent maintained that administration of set-aside was not as difficult as is sometimes made out.

295
The other point I want to make is that whatever we do with set-aside, it must be mandatory. All sorts of suggestions have been made regarding tendering, and so on, but I believe that we must make it mandatory. One does not need to go to 20 per cent. as 10 per cent. would take out about 3 million acres in this country and that would certainly do the job.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, gave figures which I hope can be obtained. He spoke about £300 per hectare. That is £120 per acre. I do not think the noble Baroness will accept that because I tackled her earlier and she suggested a figure of half that amount. I shall be interested to hear what she has to say to the noble Duke.
I look forward to the committee's next report on set-aside because that will be the most important issue in the near future. Like many noble Lords, I hope it will also include the green pound. That certainly will keep it busy.
9.21 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, and my noble friend Baroness Elliot began in the way that they did because I should like to start by saying how poignant it is, today of all days, to see the name of Lord De La Warr as a valued member of the sub-committee. He will be sadly missed.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, on the production of this valuable report on agricultural stabilisers. As your Lordships are well aware, negotiations on the Commission's stabiliser proposals have now been under way for some months. Indeed, the special meeting of the European Council in Brussels over the next two days will be seeking to reach agreement on these proposals as the key part of an overall agreement on the future financing of the Community. It is certainly the Government's firm intention to get this matter settled now, so long as our esential concerns are properly met.
The committee has expressed some doubts about the effectiveness of the stabilisers proposed. With respect to my noble friend Lord Middleton and other noble Lords, I must take issue with that assumption. The stabilisers are surely a major step in the road to CAP reform—the biggest step so far. I believe they could make a major contribution to tackling excess production and expenditure. CAP expenditure must be brought under control, and if action is needed in future to ensure that budgetary limits are respected, we shall take it.
The European Council in Brussels last June gave a clear mandate to the Council to adopt all the measures necessary to complete an overall agreement, including measures to ensure that budgetary discipline is fully observed. The UK has consistently made it clear that we were not prepared to accept any fudging and would not address the question of additional resources until agreement was reached on binding control over Community
296
spending. The stabiliser proposals were one part of the Commission's response to the European Council.
To quote from the report:
"The Committee wholeheartedly support efforts to control the cost of market support under the CAP as a crucial part of the refinancing of the Community budget".
The open-ended guarantees of prices under the CAP, with very little relationship to market realities, contribute to the development of the surpluses which concern us all. The reduction of the present over-high prices is of course what this is all about. It is the Government's firm belief that prices under the CAP must be adjusted to allow supply and demand to play a greater role in agricultural markets and to restore intervention to its original role as a safety net rather than an alternative market outlet. Here we are absolutely at one with the committee: stabilisers work by reducing prices.
Although the term "stabilisers" is yet another piece of Euro-jargon, the concept is not a new one. The committee's report recognises this, and further recognises that there are a number of areas where stabilisers, or some form of stabilisation mechanism, already exist. The difference in the present proposals is their scope. They tackle almost all the major areas of CAP expenditure and introduce more widely the concept of making stabilisers operate more automatically—that is to say, without further intervention by the council. That final point is an important one to which I shall return in a moment.
The Government's firm objective on stabilisers is I believe the same as the committee's and that is to secure agreement on mechanisms that will be effective. By that I mean that they must be quite specific as to the way they operate. They must be workable, legally binding and fair; and they must deal with the problems of surpluses. They must also bring about greater budgetary discipline. I referred earlier to the importance of automaticity. The Commission's proposals for new stabilisers include provision for predetermined adjustments to the support regimes which would take effect if specific production or intervention thresholds are reached. This would obviate the often lengthy council debates on such matters and allow corrective action to be taken quickly, in many cases within the same marketing year. The committee have, rightly, recognised the importance of this aspect and the Government want to see as much automaticity in the provisions as possible.
I understand the reasons why the committee's report focuses particularly on the stabilisers proposed for cereals and sheepmeat. First, the arrangements for cereals. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, stressed the importance of cereals, and the committee has rightly concentrated on this sector which is now probably the most in need of corrective action. My noble friend, Lady Elliot, spoke of fluctuations. Were it not for the poor harvests in the past two years, the position today would be even worse. Your committee has questioned whether stabilisers will be effective in curbing production. This will depend on the mechanism adopted. Certainly sustained reductions in support levels for cereals would eventually lead to lower levels of production. And we have made it clear that we are

297
looking for stabilisers that, over a period of years will provide—and very importantly, will be known by the farmer to provide—a substantial reduction in support levels. Provided, then, that the maximum guaranteed quantity is not set at too high a level, and provided there are realistic cuts in support levels if the MGQ is exceeded, stabilisers should make a major contribution towards controlling production.
As we have already heard, there has been considerable opposition in the council to the Commission's proposals for cereals, and for other arable crops, oilseeds and proteins. The proposals now under discussion for oilseeds and proteins are largely similar to those orginally proposed, but for cereals there are some significant changes. The latest ideas would postpone any price cut until the year following the one in which the MGQ was exceeded; but there would be an increase in the co-responsibility levy at the start of each year. Under this system price cuts would be cumulative.
We continue however to have reservations about the use of the co-responsibility levy as a stabiliser mechanism. Unfortunately, other member states do not share our views on this point and we are likely to have to accept an increase in the levy if we are to secure an effective package on stabilisers. However, we are continuing to press two points. First, the principal weight of any stabiliser mechanism should fall on price cuts, not levy increases; secondly, the Commission's discriminatory proposals that the first 20 tonnes of cereals produced on a holding be exempt from levy should be rejected.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, and other noble Lords, mentioned set-aside. Before leaving cereals I should like to touch on that subject. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, said that we should get on with set-aside even if stabilisers are not agreed quickly. Set-aside must be complementary to stabilisers, not a substitute. The Commission agrees. It will not propose its stabiliser ideas formally until it is sure that there will be satisfactory agreement on stabilisers.
The Commission has now come forward with new proposals on set-aside. These would build on the existing provisions on extensification and if adopted would replace them. The proposals would set up a separate set-aside scheme, covering other arable crops as well as cereals. They would also provide for a separate extensification scheme, which would require a 20 per cent. reduction in output rather than in area. This new approach has been generally welcomed, although disagreements remain on some points of detail.
The Commission has made it clear that its proposals on set-aside complement its proposals on stabilisers; they do not replace them. We have generally welcomed the Commission's new proposals, as we have consistently argued that a tough price policy should be accompanied by a voluntary set-aside scheme designed to encourage producers to reduce levels of production and to cushion the impact of lower prices on those least able to cope. I would not, however, wish to go into the details of these proposals now. I would back up the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, and remind your Lordships that the Select Committee on the
298
European Communities is currently taking evidence on these proposals, but that is for another day.
If one is looking for someone who has great personal experience regarding sheepmeat, one has only to look as far as my noble friend Lady Elliot. I should now like to turn to the stabiliser for sheepmeat. I can only agree with the committee that the separate guarantee threshold for Britain is a most unwelcome proposal. We have argued very strongly that, while we want a fully effective stabiliser for this, as for other sectors, it is quite unfair to single out, as the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, said, one region within the Community to be penalised in this way. But I must warn your Lordships that our views on this point have met with no sympathy from other member states or the Commission.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, and the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, suggested that stabilisers on sheepmeat are unnecessary given that the EC is only 80 per cent. self-sufficient and that the regime is to be reviewed anyway in the course of the year. It would be tempting to excuse the sheepmeat regime from the budgetary discipline implicit in stabilisers but the cost of the regime has rocketed from 500 million ecus in 1985 to a full cost of well over 1 billion ecus this year. We firmly believe that this regime cannot be exempt from proper restraint. Even with a stabiliser the Commission foresees production continuing to rise in the years ahead, as evidence to the committee shows. Community self-sufficiency will therefore also rise.
As for the proposed headage limit on the number of ewes per flock which would be eligible for annual premium, I agree that this proposal too is not in UK's interest, given our structure and flock sizes. We have opposed it, just as we have successfully done in several previous price-fixing negotiations. I am glad to say that it now appears probable that it will not form part of the settlement on stabilisers: I have no doubt, though, that we shall have to oppose it again during the forthcoming review of the sheepmeat regime.
The committee also referred to the additional powers required by the Commission to operate the stabilisers. We have argued that it is necessary for the Commission to have the requisite powers but that these powers should be clearly defined and that the Commission's actions should be transparent. I am, however, hesitant about the committee's suggestion that a new mechanism is needed to review the operation of the stabilisers. There are a number of existing financial committees that can, and should, oversee the stabilisers as part of their budgetary monitoring.
The committee's report touches on the question of direct payments to support farmers' incomes. The Government see income support as essentially a social measure which should be left to member states. It seems perverse to construct a preferential social security system for one section of the population. We are particularly sceptical about the Commission's proposals for income aids funded from the Community budget. Though nominally production-neutral, they could so easily become a very expensive route to increased production. However, the Government welcome the parallel proposal to constrain the national aids which member states can

299
pay their farmers. All member states are unhappy with the Commission's income aid proposals, though for differing reasons, and debate is stalled. It remains to be seen whether the Commission will reformulate the proposals so that discussions can start again.
The committee is quite right to consider the effectiveness of the mechanisms proposed and their ability to constrain expenditure effectively. We have of course pursued very much the same line of approach to the negotiations. For cereals, there are inherent difficulties for effective budget stabilisation when only about 15 to 20 per cent. of production is supported and the major item of expenditure is on export refunds. This means that a 1 per cent. increase in production has a disproportionate effect on costs which could be offset only by a much larger cut in support prices. However, any price cuts will result in a reduction in the level of export refunds and thus expenditure will be lower than it would otherwise have been. For other products, however, effective stabilisation is much more readily attainable within the framework of the Commission's original proposals. Overall, the Commission estimates that its proposals now on the table will save over 600 mecu in 1988 and over 1,400 mecu in 1989.
It is true that levels of CAP expenditure also depend on world market prices which, in part, are influenced by currency fluctuations. The Commission has proposed a monetary reserve of 1 billion ecu which can be drawn on to enhance agricultural spending if the requirement increases due to a fall in the value of the dollar. A certain amount of fall would be allowed to take place before this mechanism would be triggered. We are insisting that the mechanism must work both ways: a rise in the value of the dollar must also be taken into account. The Commission has also suggested that a regular examination of expenditure against average profiles of expenditure over previous years would provide early warning of sectors where spending was not being adequately controlled, and has suggested that it would need scope for remedial action in such circumstances. The Commission has not followed up these ideas with detailed proposals.
There is one further point in the report which was referred to by the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, and which I should like to address—the reference to the serious effect on farm incomes and possible destabilisation of markets. The Committee expressed concern that:
"Were Agricultural Stabilisers to be operated in an open-ended fashion for a major crop such as cereals … the result on farm incomes would be unquantifiable and potentially serious".
That is not the situation, my Lords. The proposals for cereals are not open-ended; they are subject to a ceiling on the extent to which support can be reduced. In addition the proposals on set-aside, as well as the wide range of measures which the UK have brought forward in the last year would provide an alternative for those producers who might be most affected.
I do not want to go down the fraud path referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, except to say that we strongly support any efforts to improve Community financial control—for example, by means of the new
300
anti-fraud unit which has recently been set up in the Commission. I should like to say that my right honourable friend the Minister takes this matter very seriously and has already drawn attention in the Agriculture Council this week to the need to take firm and effective action against fraud. We shall continue to press for recognition of the importance of the fight against fraud.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, gave me a certain amount of warning on the question of the green pound and- my noble friend, Lord Middleton, also mentioned it. We have yet to see what the Commission will propose for further adjustment of green currencies in this year's price fixing. I am aware of the strong feelings on this subject and my right honourable friend the Minister will take these strong feelings into account when considering the extent of any green pound devaluation to be negotiated in the price fixing.
With regard to MCAs, which again I think were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, the abolition of MCAs is the Commission's declared aim, which the UK supports. A good start has been made, but a lot of hard negotiation remains to be done if the timetable of 1992 is to be met. Certainly a common internal market implies common price levels throughout the Community. Membership of the exchange rate mechanism has no automatic effect on green rates. We would not move to the same level of prices as members of the exchange rate mechanism just by joining the mechanism ourselves.
One last point. The noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, spoke of extra land used for cereal growing in case of the quotas coming in. I am told that this is not borne out by the acreage figures available. The area of land devoted to cereals has fallen by some 100,000 hectares from its peak in 1984.
Finally, I note that the Committee touched on the lack of political will which has so often impeded radical across-frontiers reform in the past. In that context, I have already endorsed the Committee's views on automaticity. We in the United Kingdom have been and are vigorously pursuing a fair and effective solution to the vast burden of CAP expenditure which bears so heavily on us all. It is essential that all member states share this burden fairly, and that reforms take proper account of the diversity of farm size and structure throughout the Community. We shall continue to take that line. It would indeed have been interesting to hear what your Lordships would have said had this excellent debate taken place after, instead of just before, the decision-taking talks which will be going on in the next few days and weeks.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I should like to thank both the noble Baronesses and all the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. A particularly pleasing feature of it so far as I am concerned is that there was practically no repetition in any of the speeches made, so that, taken as a piece, this should make useful reading in Hansard.
May I also express my thanks to the noble Baroness the Minister for the detailed reply and the update which she has given us. We shall be watching with considerable interest the outcome of the talks on

301
the 12th and 13th. As I understood it, it appears to be felt that stabilisers plus set-aside equals happiness, and happiness equals agreement. I am a perennial optimist, as is the noble Baroness, but in a good Scots phrase, "I hae ma doots".
In respect of the congratulations which were extended to me personally, perhaps I may say that
302
much of the credit belongs to our clerk, Mrs. Martin, and the specialist adviser, Simon Harris. With those words, I commend the report to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes before ten o'clock.

  HONG KONG: WHITE PAPER
  HONG KONG: WHITE PAPER
  COMPLIANCE COST ASSESSMENTS: PUBLICATION
  COMPLIANCE COST ASSESSMENTS: PUBLICATION
  SPACE RESEARCH POLICY
  SPACE RESEARCH POLICY
  SEVERELY DISABLED WAR PENSIONERS: BENEFIT SHORTFALL COMPENSATION
  SEVERELY DISABLED WAR PENSIONERS: BENEFIT SHORTFALL COMPENSATION
  TREE PLANTING GRANTS
  TREE PLANTING GRANTS
  RADIATION MONITORING
  RADIATION MONITORING
  NCC STAG CULL: COSTS
  NCC STAG CULL: COSTS
  REPLAN SCHEME: FUTURE
  REPLAN SCHEME: FUTURE
  ELDERLY WAR WIDOWS: PENSIONS
  ELDERLY WAR WIDOWS: PENSIONS
  LAMBS: CERTIFICATION AND GRADING METHODS
  LAMBS: CERTIFICATION AND GRADING METHODS