Sitting of 28 January 1988

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (NO. 2) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Tuesday 2 February.

  BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL BILL
  Read a Second time, and committed.

  CITY OF LONDON (SPITAFIELDS MARKET) BILL
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Tuesday 2 February.

  DARTMOUTH-KINGSWEAR FLOATING BRIDGE BILL
  Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

  INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT CENTRE FROM BUCKINGHAM BILL
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be a Second time upon Tuesday 2 February.

  LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (NO. 2) BILL
  Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

  SOUTHERN WATER AUTHORITY BILL
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be a Second time upon Tuesday 2 February.

  TORBAY HARBOUR (OXEN COVE AND COASTAL FOOTPATH, BRIXHAM) BILL
  Read a Second time, and committed.

  LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on consideration [10 December]. That the Bill be now considered.
  Debate further adjourned till Thursday 4 February.

  HAMPSHIRE (LYNDHURST BYPASS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday 4 February.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Stalker/Sampson Inquiry
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will meet the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary to discuss the latest implications of the Stalker/Sampson inquiry into allegations involving misconduct by the security forces.
    Mr. Flannery: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received seeking publication in full of the Sampson report on the administration of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): My right hon. and learned Friend announced on Monday that the Director of Public Prosecutions (Northern Ireland) had with his agreement concluded that no further criminal proceedings should be brought in respect of the incidents in 1982 which led to the setting up of the Stalker/Sampson inquiry. The report of that inquiry, being that of a police investigation into possible criminal offences, will, in accordance with practice, not be published.
    However, I would wish to make it clear to the House that this is not the end of the matter. The Attorney-General's statement was concerned with the responsibilities of the Director of Public Prosecutions and himself in the matter of criminal proceedings. He reported that the Director of Public Prosecutions had concluded that there was evidence of the commission of offences of perverting, or attempting or conspiring to pervert, the course of justice, or of obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty, but that, after consideration of the public interest, and in particular matters of national security, it would not be proper to institute crimial proceedings. The next step now is for the findings of the report, including the evidence referred to in the statement, to be considered in the context of the question of disciplinary proceedings.
    In addition, the circumstances surrounding and following the incidents in 1982 gave rise to concern about procedures, responsibilities and control within the RUC. The inquiry report addressed those aspects and recommended a special inspection by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. This inspection, of which I informed the House on 15 July, has now been completed and I received the report on Monday. It is now being urgently studied, and I have asked the Chief Constable for his early comments. I wish to make a full statement to the House as soon as possible on this and any other matters that fall within my responsibilities.
    Mr. Lloyd: Obviously the Secretary of State's announcement that there will be a further statement will be welcomed, and hon. Members on both sides of the House will wait for it with some impatience, given the length of time that has passed. Does the Secretary of State accept that when John Stalker, as deputy chief constable of Greater Manchester, was taken off the case, it was widely rumoured that he had already recommended prosecution against some of the lower-serving ranks and that he intended to question senior RUC officers under
    464
    caution? Because of that, and because it is important that the RUC should be respected throughout the community in Northern Ireland, does the Secretary of State also accept that the Attorney-General's decision earlier this week not to prosecute has left the RUC in a very difficult position in that it will not have the confidence of the whole of the community in the north of Ireland?
    Mr. King: I want to begin by apologising to the House for the length of my reply earlier. However, because of the great concern that exists over this matter, I though it proper not to duck the issue and to try to explain it as fully as I could.
    I understand entirely the issue about the confidence of the minority community in the RUC. I bitterly regret the events that took place in 1982. Contrary to the impression that no one was charged, I must state that four constables were charged with the offence of murder four years ago. Those issues have been the subject of the most exhaustive investigations. The team working under Mr. Stalker largely continued with those investigations under Mr. Sampson. The team carried out an exhaustive inquiry at the request of the DPP, the findings of which, in respect of criminal proceedings, were announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General on Monday. I trust that people will appreciate, not only how long ago the offences took place, but the steps that have been taken since, and will therefore judge the RUC on its present performance, not on certain matters that gave rise to serious concern in 1982.
    Mr. Flannery: Does the Secretary of State agree that after hundreds of years of British occupation of Ireland it is inevitable that the Irish people are deeply suspicious of British justice? Does he further agree that when Mr. Stalker was taken off the case there was no natural progression from Mr. Stalker to Mr. Sampson? Mr. Stalker was removed in the most curious circumstances, and we do not yet know all the details. The minority community and the Government of the Republic of Ireland are deeply concerned about this. Therefore, will he seek a judicial inquiry, under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921? I know that he said he will make another statement, but the fears and suspicions remain and they have been fuelled by the Attorney-General's statement on Monday.
    Mr. King: I noticed during the Attorney-General's statement on Monday that hon. Members on both sides of the House paid tribute to the total integrity of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Northern Ireland) whose decision was announced by the Attorney-General. I remind the House that the Director of Public Prosecutions, because he was not satisfied with the evidence, insisted upon the inquiry being set up in the first place. That point should be remembered. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that part of the Sampson report that I have seen which is within my responsibility incorporates Mr. Stalker's draft conclusions and Mr. Sampson's comments upon them. Therefore, in that respect, there is real continuity.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Are not the safety and continued effectiveness of members of the security forces and of the security services and those who help them an important part of the national interest that the Director of Public Prosecutions was bound to consider? Should not

    465
    responsible Members of this House have a care for that? Is my right hon. Friend aware that we await his further statement with confidence and believe that those in charge of the Royal Ulster Constabulary will be as concerned as anyone else to see that the disciplinary proceedings—if there are any—are carried out to the full to ensure that a proper outcome is reached?
    Mr. King: I heard my hon. Friend commenting on that this morning. He was absolutely correct to say, as I said in my statement, that this is not the end of the matter. It is possible, as he said in his interview this morning, that disciplinary proceedings could have serious consequences for the individuals concerned.
    The difficulty and the challenge faced by the Attorney-General, as well as the Director of Public Prosecutions (Northern Ireland), is that they are constitutionally required to consider the public interest. Very difficult decisions are involved. We have taken — as did my predecessors—the most thorough steps to try to ensure that such matters are as fully investigated as possible. Anyone who honestly considers the progress of this matter will recognise that exhaustive investigations have taken place and respect the integrity of those who had to make decisions on the basis of those investigations.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Does the Secretary of State believe that the action of the Government of the Republic of Ireland in calling off a cross-border security meeting between the Garda Siochana Commissioner and the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary was a vulgar threat, suggesting to the Government that if they did not toe the line there would be no support for cross-border co-operation?
    Mr. King: No, Sir. We attach the greatest importance to cross-border security co-operation. Anyone who has heard today's news of what is clearly a very significant arms find on the shore of Donegal will realise the value that is increasingly being obtained from that close co-operation.
    Mr. Alton: Is not one of the most unsatisfactory aspects the veil of secrecy that has been pulled across the proceedings? Does the Secretary of State not recognise that if confidence in the RUC is to be established among members of the minority community—many of whom ought to be encouraged to join and support the RUC— it will be necessary to publish the proceedings of the inquiry, at least to Northern Ireland Members of Parliament and to the Intergovernmental Conference? Will he consider that? Will he also say what lessons have been learnt for the future, and what changes will be made to ensure that this does not happen again?
    Mr. King: I have referred to procedures, responsibilities and control within the RUC. It is important to remember that the incidents that gave rise to the present concern took place six years ago, and that a number of changes were made soon after that by the Chief Constable in recognition of some of the points of concern. I have no doubt that that is one of the reasons for the increased confidence in the RUC, which has followed the lessons learnt from some of the most unfortunate aspects of those regrettable incidents.
    Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is of paramount importance that this whole sorry affair should not stand in the way of cross-border security,
    466
    particularly cross-border co-operation as a generality? Is it not important that the inquiries are undertaken swiftly and that there is a clear conclusion, so that the public can have confidence in the RUC again?
    Mr. King: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of confidence in the RUC, and I bitterly regret that the events of so many years ago — and the controversy over them — have the potential to damage some of that confidence. That, however, is the reality. One of the problems that we face in fighting vicious terrorists is that issues of national security and the protection of individuals must always be in our minds. That was mentioned by the Attorney-General, who referred to the public interest, and it applies particularly to issues of national security. But we are trying to recognise the lessons that can be learnt.
    Mr. Hume: Does the Secretary of State accept that in most societies the national interest is best served by unequivocal and impartial implementation of the rule of law? Is it not best served by the community as a whole having confidence in both the police services and the administration of justice? Will he tell us what contribution to that national interest was made by the Attorney-General's statement this week? There is evidence of a clear attempt to pervert the course of justice—not in a minor case of theft, but in cases involving the deaths of five people. Does the Secretary of State recall the Prime Minister's statement some time ago that there should be no hiding place anywhere in these islands for anyone who commits a crime? Does he accept that the implication of the Attorney-General's statement is that there is a hiding place for selected people who, in spite of the fact that the incidents happened five or six years ago, are still either in the security forces or the security services?
    Mr. King: First, I know that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that too many people comment on this and blithely ignore the fact that four people have already faced a charge of murder in a court of law. Furthermore, it is simply unacceptable to imply that there has been any attempt to cover up, when my right hon. and learned Friend made it absolutely clear that there is evidence, and when I have made it clear to the House that that evidence will not be suppressed. It will be made available and taken into account in the context of disciplinary proceedings. I made the clearest statement that this is not, therefore, a cover-up to seek to suppress the fact that there is evidence and that that evidence will have to be considered. My right hon. and learned Friend informed the House that in the national interest and in the interests of national security it is not proper for there to be criminal proceedings in these respects.
    Mr. McCusker: What disciplinary action is to be taken against those secret service agents who were up to their necks in this matter, who may well have initiated all the actions and whose presence is confirmed by reference to the national interest?
    Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman will know that it is not for me to comment on the points that he has raised.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Has my right hon. Friend seen the report in today's edition of The Guardian that Mr. Alan Dukes, the Irish Opposition Leader, says that the British Government gave an assurance to Dublin in 1986 that charges would probably be made against senior RUC

    467
    officers following the Sampson-Stalker inquiry? Will my right hon. Friend comment on that statement and say whether there is any accuracy in it?
    Mr. King: If by "charges" my hon. Friend means that prosecutions will be brought, that is a matter not for Ministers but for the Director of Public Prosecutions in conjunction with the Attorney-General.
    Mr. McNamara: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the disciplinary proceedings will be in camera, and not in public, so we shall still not know even part of the truth? Will he also confirm that when he was consulted by the Attorney-General he advised that, on the grounds of public interest and national security, there should not be any prosecutions based on the Stalker-Sampson report, and that that advice was based on the knowledge that, if prosecuted, the officers named in The Times, Chief Superintendent Andy Anderson and Chief Inspector Ronnie Flanagan, had let it be known that they would reveal in the witness box the whole background to the shoot-to-kill allegations and the attempted cover-up, implicating senior officers and others who either formulated the policy or had knowledge of it?
    Mr. King: I understand that it is not the practice of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to comment on whom he consults when determining his assessment of the public interest or national security. Obviously, therefore, it is not proper for me to comment.

    Anglo-Irish Agreement
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next plans to meet Ministers from the Republic of Ireland for discussions under the provisions of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
    Mr. Tom King: I hope to do so very shortly.
    Mr. Allen: First, I thank the Secretary of State, his Parliamentary Private Secretary and the Northern Ireland Office for arranging the visit to Northern Ireland for those hon. Members who had no previous experience of Northern Ireland. I hope that I speak on behalf of those hon. Members of all parties who went on the visit in hoping that that educational experience can be extended so that we can speak from first-hand knowledge rather than from reflex.
    On the Anglo-Irish Agreement, will the Secretary of State place on the agenda of future meetings the question of fair employment? When we were over there, we heard that some progress had been made on electoral boundaries and housing, but that one outstanding factor was fair employment, allowing Catholics and Protestants to have an equal say in employment in the major industries in Northern Ireland. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what progress has been made on that?
    Mr. King: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his opening comments. I welcome those hon. Members who may not be familiar with Northern Ireland but who are willing to acquaint themselves more clearly with the situation there. I think that I speak for every hon. Member representing a Northern Ireland constituency when I say how much we welcome the interest of other hon. Members in such matters. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking the time.
    On the hon. Gentleman's second point, fair employment and equality of opportunity in employment have
    468
    been a live subject in discussions in the Intergovernmental Conference. There is no doubt that as our proposals develop that will continue to be the case.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend point out to the Irish authorities that if they continue to boycott ministerial meetings under the Anglo-Irish Agreement following the Attorney-General's statement, they could find that that boycott is a two-edged sword? If such meetings resume, will my right hon. Friend make it clear to his Southern Irish counterparts that the defeat of the IRA is the first priority and that any political tinkering or change can come only after the campaign against the terrorists has been won?
    Mr. King: There is no question of a boycott. In fact, we have arranged an extra, special meeting and, as I said in my original answer, we hope that it will be held shortly. I certainly look forward to close and continuing co-operation. Furthermore, I would not wish to strike such a note today, when we have heard welcome news of a very substantial arms find on the shore of Donegal. We pay tribute to the Garda's work in that respect. I know that every law-abiding person in Northern Ireland will welcome the news.
    Mr. Mallon: At the next meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference, will the Secretary of State explain to the representatives of the Irish Government how the Attorney-General's decision is compatible with articles 7 and 8 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which the British Government signed? In more immediate terms, what advice has the right hon. Gentleman to offer to all those young people — both Catholic and Protestant — who, through force of circumstance in their own communities, are sitting in gaol? How does he intend to persuade them to have confidence, not just in the police, but in the whole process of justice?
    Mr. King: I should like to think that the hon. Gentleman recognises the progress that has been made in that respect. I have been the first to say that the events of 1982 and the problems that they have posed have undoubtedly cast a shadow over recent attitudes. These are very difficult issues indeed.
    On compatibility with the agreement, Irish Ministers well understand that it is implicit in the agreement that issues of national security have to be borne in mind. That is one of the difficult challenges that we face. I do not think that hon. Members will challenge the integrity of the Director of Public Prosecutions—who, I repeat, set up the inquiry in the first place — in his determination to ensure that he was privy to all the facts, or, indeed, that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.
    Mr. Couchman: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the extradition issue has now been sorted out? If not, will he pursue the issue again when he next meets Irish Ministers so that we can all be sure that there will be no haven for terrorists as a result of technical complications in extradition matters in the Irish Republic?
    Mr. King: We are working very closely indeed with the Irish Government on these matters, and we have made progress. No two cases are ever quite the same and different issues arise from them, but I hope that there will be a continuing improvement in these matters, to which we attach the greatest importance.
    Mr. McNamara: May I make it clear that no one denies the integrity of the Director of Public Prosecutions? However, we say that his decision was based upon evidence, given to him by the Attorney-General, from which he could reach no other conclusion. It is that evidence that we seek to examine. Will the Secretary of State now confirm that what he said in reply to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) represented a denial of what Mr. Dukes stated—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
    Mr. McNamara: That is right, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Dukes said that at the meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference on 8 December 1986 the right hon. Gentleman did not say, or give the impression, to Mr. Peter Barry or to Mr. Dukes that charges would be preferred against senior officers of the RUC following the receipt of the Stalker inquiry and that, on that basis, those Ministers did not press for the matter to be published. Will the Secretary of State also tell the House, on this, the 300th anniversary of the arrival of William of Orange and the declaration of rights, why the Government are breaking the concordat between Parliament and the Crown by suspending and dispensing with the law?
    Mr. King: I shall not respond to the last part of the question, which took the hon. Gentleman into confused waters. As to the first part of his question about would-be prosecutions, which was slightly different in phraseology from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), he knows perfectly well that that is not a matter for me. It is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney-General.
    Mr. Gow: When my right hon. Friend next meets the Irish Foreign Minister and the Irish Minister for Justice, will he comment on, or put forward views and proposals about, the administration of justice in the Irish Republic?
    Mr. King: We have no present proposals to do so.

    Health and Personal Social Services
    Mr. McWilliam: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he intends to increase funding for the purposes of improving health and the personal social services in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): The public expenditure White Paper published last week provided details of the planned increase in expenditure on the health and personal social services in Northern Ireland over the next three financial years. In 1988–89 expenditure will rise to £845 million in total.
    Mr. McWilliam: Does the Minister agree that his Department's recent announcement about the level of health expenditure in Northern Ireland has been widely condemned by those concerned with health care in the Province? Does he accept the calculation of the Province's health boards, which show that they are facing a £20 million shortfall in health expenditure for next year? Will he accept that the Department's announcement completely fails to meet the crisis in health care in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Needham: No, Sir, I will not accept that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is aware that in Northern Ireland we spend 23 per cent, more per year on the Health Service than we do in other regions of the United Kingdom. I understand the difficulties with regard to expenditure by the health boards this year, but I should point out that our record on health expenditure in Northern Ireland is second to none. As a percentage of GDP we spend 12·4 per cent., which is almost twice as much as West Germany.
    Mr. Kiifedder: Despite what the Minister has just said, it has been reported that health authorities throughout Northern Ireland have warned him that a crisis will develop in the Health Service unless more money is made available. Will he reconsider this matter and provide sufficient money? If not, hospital wards will have to close and the people of Northern Ireland will suffer further.
    Mr. Needham: I understand that there are problems with the health boards this year, but I must refer to the high levels of expenditure in the Province. There will be a 5·3 per cent, increase in expenditure this year. Many other countries in Europe are having to cut back on health expenditure.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I acknowledge the amount of expenditure on health care, but does the Minister recognise the greater need of Northern Ireland and that, for cardiac surgery and ophthalmology, there are three times as many people on the waiting list as there were in 1982? A slight injection of funds would be helpful. Will he acknowledge that in the Eastern Health and Social Services Board there will be a shortfall of £8 million and that, as a result, with regard to cardiac care, people will be dying?
    Mr. Needham: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the increased level of need in Northern Ireland, which is why we spend 23 per cent. more. As to the particulars that the hon. Gentleman referred to, I shall have an opportunity to discuss with the chairman and general manager of the Eastern Health and Social Services Board its programme for next year, which is a matter for them.
    Sir John Farr: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, however generous we would like the British taxpayer to be to deserving cases in Northern Ireland, we must continually bear in mind that its Health Service is almost completely funded by mainland money? Such assistance should not be too disproportionate to other similar and parallel benefits in other parts of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Needham: The Government accept that there is an additional need for health care in Northern Ireland, which is why we provide funds for it and will continue to do so at a high level.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: Is the Minister aware that he sounds very much like the Prime Minister in his recitation of statistics? Does he realise that his position is equally as incongruous as that of the Prime Minister, in that the statistics that he relates bear little relation to the needs and requirements of the Health Service and social services in the Province? Since the Treasury is awash with money, will he join us in urging the Chancellor of the Exchequer to increase funding for the Health Service in the Province?
    Mr. Needham: That is the first time that I have ever been compared to the Prime Minister, and I am grateful to the hon. Member. I am sure he is aware that the

    471
    Treasury in Northern Ireland is not awash with money. We have had a very difficult time this year and have made all the money that we can available to the Health Service. We have a first-rate Health Service in Northern Ireland and will do everything that we can to maintain it.

    Children (Cross-community Contacts)
    Mr. Page: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to increase cross-community contacts between children at school in Northern Ireland.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): I introduced a new cross-community contact scheme in September last year which provides additional annual resources of £200,000 to assist schools, colleges, youth groups and reconciliation bodies in the organisation of new cross-community activities for young people under 19. So far 120 applications have been received, of which 52 are from the schools sector, involving a total of 131 different schools.
    Mr. Page: While I warmly welcome this initiative, may I ask whether my hon. Friend agrees that if we can get the two communities to mix when they are youngsters there is a chance that they might mix when they are adults and thus stop the tearing and ripping at each other that has been taking place for centuries?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I agree with what my hon. Friend says and I am heartened by my belief that an increasing number of people in the Province feel similarly.
    Mr. A. Cecil Walker: Is the Minister aware that encouraging the setting up of so-called integrated schools would only contribute to the breaking down and closing of schools within the maintained and controlled sectors? Is he further aware that such action would not result in the cross-community relations that he would wish to see achieved and that pupils who would be attracted towards integrated education will integrate themselves naturally in their daily lives? Does the Minister not feel that it would be better to deploy existing education resources for the encouragement of cross-community activities in existing schools where there is already a co-operative effort towards that end?
    Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman will know that I have done precisely what he urged in the last part of his question and have devoted increased effort and resources to trying to improve cross-community contacts in existing schools. He will also know that I and my predecessors have always said that we would seek to educate the children of Northern Ireland according to the wishes of their parents, and there are many parents — an increasing number, I believe—who would like to see their children educated in circumstances that are different from the traditional ones that have pertained in Northern Ireland for the past 65 years.
    Mr. Cash: The Education Reform Bill is, of course, going through the House at the present time. Could my hon. Friend give some indication of the extent to which, in relation to the curriculum which children in Northern Ireland are experiencing, there is a deliberate attempt to ensure that they are taught on a non-sectarian basis? Surely that would be a great help for the future.
    Dr. Mawhinney: I hope and expect to be issuing a consultation paper on education reform in Northern Ireland in the reasonably near future.

    Job Creation
    Mr. Grocott: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what economic initiatives the Government plan to boost employment in Northern Ireland.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Viggers): In the context of the Pathfinder programme which I introduced last year I set up six task forces to identify strengths and weaknesses in the Northern Ireland economy and to promote constructive change. This has been enthusiastically received. Regional conferences have been held throughout the Province, leading to keen discussion. This takes place against a background of falling unemployment.
    Mr. Grocott: Can the Minister explain an aspect of Government policy that puzzles a lot of us? It is that in Northern Ireland public investment is considered to be a sensible way of boosting the economy and creating jobs, but in the rest of the United Kingdom it is regarded as Keynsian nonsense and a waste of money.
    Mr. Viggers: No. I gather that the hon. Gentleman was recently in the Province and I hope that he enjoyed his visit. I must put him right on the tone of his question. The Industrial Development Board and the Local Enterprise Development Unit will strengthen enterprise in Northern Ireland and will promote investment by the private sector. I am delighted to say that, for the last four years, the Industrial Development Board alone has promoted investment by the private sector of £1 billion in industry and commerce.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best boosts to jobs and the economy of Northern Ireland would be the removal of the iniquities of the protection racket, particularly in the construction industry? Will he bring forward at an early stage fiscal measures to remove those iniquities?
    Mr. Viggers: Although law and order issues are not directly within my field of responsibility, I can confirm that vigorous steps are being taken to counter this threat.
    Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Will the Minister, in his conversations with his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office, ask the Minister responsible for health in Northern Ireland to ensure that when the Antrim area hospital is built—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about employment.
    Mr. Forsythe: —as much as work as possible is given to competent local contractors?
    Mr. Viggers: No doubt the Minister with responsibility for health matters heard the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Barry Porter: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to boost employment in the Province would be to make some progress on the political front? Do he and his right hon. Friend agree that the time has now come to implement the parliamentary tier proposals contained in the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Given the events of the past

    473
    few days, that would at least provide an opportunity for those of differing and sometimes opposing views to come face to face to discuss their differences and to make some positive moves forward.
    Mr. Viggers: The Government have always taken the view that political progress on security and progress on the economy are interlinked. In matters regarding the economy, for which I am responsible, the rate at which unemployment is diminishing now appears to be accelerating. A 1,000 a month reduction in the level of unemployment in the past six months has now accelerated to a rate of 1,400 per month in the past three months. We find this very promising.

    Maghaberry Prison
    Mr. A. Cecil Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many (a) male and (b) female prisoners are in residence in Maghaberry prison; what is the total number of available places; and when full occupancy will be achieved.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Stanley): The female prison at Maghaberry has 56 cells and was designed to accommodate all the female prisoners in Northern Ireland.
    On 27 January, 31 female prisoners were in custody there. On the same date there were 93 prisoners in the male prison at Maghaberry, which has a capacity for 432. It is expected that there will be around 100 male prisoners there by the middle of next month, with the build-up continuing thereafter. At present it is not possible to estimate when full occupation of the male prison will be achieved.
    Mr. Walker: Is the Minister aware that some years have elapsed since Maghaberry prison was supposed to come into service? I would like to make the Minister aware of the grave suspicion that, during the construction of that prison, Republican elements employed there were guilty of certain acts, as a consequence of which the prison is not being opened when it should be. In view of the fact that the Crumlin road prison is grossly overcrowded, as I know from my own experience, will the Minister tell the House whether he will consider moving some prisoners from Crumlin road to Maghaberry if and when that prison is ever commissioned?
    Mr. Stanley: The main reason for the delay in the opening of the new Maghaberry prison was the need to carry out major redesign work following security experience of similarly designed prisons elsewhere in the United Kingdom. As to the hon. Gentleman's comment about overcrowding at Belfast prison, I am glad to be able to tell him that the number of prisoners there yesterday was only 14 above the authorised capacity of 500.

    Rating Reform
    Mr. Gow: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received seeking the introduction of the community charge in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Stanley: The representations that my right hon. Friend has received from members of the public currently amount to one letter.
    Mr. Gow: Why are the inestimable benefits of the community charge to be conferred upon the people of
    474
    Tonbridge and Mailing, and even Eastbourne, but withheld from the people of Fermanagh and South Tyrone?
    Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his enthusiastic support for the community charge, which is certainly shared in Tonbridge and Mailing and Eastbourne. However, my hon. Friend is well aware that the structure of local government and the financial arrangements for local government in the Province are very different from the rest of Great Britain. My hon. Friend will be aware from my original answer regarding the community charge that we believe that it is right to monitor the progress in the Province.

    Security
    Mr. William Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is now satisfied with progress in the fight against terrorism.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in 1987.
    Mr. Tom King: Since I last answered questions in the House on 10 December, five civilians, two members of the UDR and one RUC officer have died as a result of the security situation in the Province. The period has been marked by much effective work by the security forces, but the threat remains high. On 21 January I announced new arrangements for the deployment of security forces in border areas.
    I shall circulate the record for 1987 in terms of the number of people charged with terrorist offences and the amount of weapons and ammunition recovered, both by the RUC and the Garda, in the Official Report.
    Mr. Ross: As the IRA has now been proven, as a result of the find in County Donegal today, to have been running in weapons by the shipload, and since there is evidence in Northern Ireland that Protestant paramilitaries are moving weapons by the carload, is it not pathetic for the Minister to come to the House and read off such a litany? When will he be satisfied with progress and when will he eliminate terrorism? Those are the questions that we want answered.
    Mr. King: I find that a disappointing supplementary question, especially from the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) who, above all, should welcome the fact that such a substantial quantity of arms has been found in Donegal and the fact that those arms will now not be used, possibly against his constituents. The fact that the hon. Gentleman knows about the shipments for the Loyalists is precisely because the RUC achieved the recapture of those weapons.
    Mr. Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that security affects both sides of the border? What cooperation has he had on security matters as a result of discussions with the Government of the Irish Republic lately?
    Mr. King: Such co-operation is ongoing and extremely close. The evidence of today is further proof of its benefit.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Sackville: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 January.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Sackville: Does my right hon. Friend agree that our economic prospects are better now than at any time during the — [Interruption.] That improvement applies equally to the north-west as to the south-east. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is well over £100 million worth of new development currently under way in Bolton town centre? That is the sort of news that we want from the north of England, rather than the doom and gloom from the Labour Benches, which does so much to reinforce outdated prejudices and deter new investment.
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. Enterprise is thriving and unemployment is falling in all parts of the country. I congratulate Bolton on its attitude. It is welcoming private enterprise, and the £100 million is an extremely large investment on any count. The real divide is between those cities that welcome private sector enterprise and those which would rather discourage it and have higher unemployment.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister recall saying, just five weeks ago, on 21 December, that charges for patients in National Health Service hospitals
    "could not possibly come in during the lifetime of this Parliament because I remember very vividly during the election I confirmed we would rule it out. We have introduced extra charges which we think people can afford but we are not talking about extra charges beyond those which we have introduced."
    Does the Prime Minister still stand by those words?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, of course. I made that clear when I was asked a similar question in the House but a short time ago.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is the Prime Minister saying — it is important that she make a formal announcement about this — that there is no possibility in this Parliament of direct or indirect charges for visits to the doctor, for hospital visits, for family planning services or anything else? If she is—and it is what she said in the election— will she be good enough to make a formal announcement, instead of letting it seep out through Bernard Ingham?
    The Prime Minister: I have been asked this question in this House about board and lodging charges, and I have answered it in this House. The statements made during the general election stand. I have said so before, and I say so again. They stand for the lifetime of this Parliament. By the time the next Parliament comes we shall have completed the internal review. We shall then make our promises, which will stand for the following Parliament.

    Decentralisation
    Mr. Fallon: To ask the Prime Minister what steps she is taking to decentralise the work of government.
    The Prime Minister: Over 5,500 Civil Service posts have already been transferred from London since 1979 under
    476
    the Government's dispersal programme, and a similar number of posts have been dispersed on the initiative of individual Departments.
    Mr. Fallon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many private companies previously based in London and the south-east have now discovered the advantages of lower-cost enterprise and the higher quality of life that the north can offer? Bearing in mind the very high cost of London weighting allowance and commuter subsidies, would it not make more sense, where it is cost-effective to do so, to transfer more administrative and clerical work from Whitehall to the provinces?
    The Prime Minister: I have indicated some of the posts that have gone and some that separate Departments are also considering. There are nearly 34,000 civil servants working in the northern region. I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of locating Civil Service jobs outside London and the south-east where possible, because the costs are very high there. This is resulting in separate Departments looking at their plans. By the end of this year, the DHSS will have created a further 500 jobs at its Newcastle central office.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) undertook some time ago to persuade the Prime Minister to move a substantial number of defence jobs from the south to the north. Why has he been so unsuccessful?
    The Prime Minister: I have said that there are nearly 34,000 civil servants working in the northern region, and in fact four out of five civil servants work outside Greater London. There are already a very considerable number of jobs in the northern region, and, as I have said, there will be more DHSS jobs by the end of this year.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is thoroughly refreshing to have a closed question of this kind at this time?
    The Prime Minister: That is a matter for the House. I try to answer the questions that are put down.

    Engagements
    Mr. Buchan: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Buchan: I have been listening with growing astonishment to the right hon. Lady's claims about decentralisation, since only yesterday she intervened to take direct control over education in Paisley. Are not the regulations she announced yesterday monstrous, arbitrary and possibly illegal? Does she realise that her intervention in favour of one school out of six is an attempt to condemn the other five good schools to closure? Will she not follow the advice given by every commentator and every newspaper in Scotland, led by the Glasgow Herald, which used the headline:
    "Government sledgehammer"?
    That is the right hon. Lady; it is a good phrase. The Herald said:
    "Yesterday was a dismal day for what still remains of local democracy."
    Will the right hon. Lady now recognise the evil and stupidity of her action and withdraw it?
    The Prime Minister: Extensive representations were made to keep in existence a very good school, very popular with parents. What the hon. Gentleman cannot stand is that that school gives great opportunity. Parents wanted it to be kept in existence. It is a very popular decision, which will bring opportunity to many pupils. The hon. Gentleman speaks about legislation. One can lay down regulations only under existing legislation.
    Mr. Tim Smith: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the strike proposed for next week by certain nursing unions can only hurt patients? Will she therefore condemn the action and invite the Leader of the Opposition to do the same?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. Friend. Strike action in the Health Service harms the patient and puts heavier burdens on those with higher professional standards who refuse to strike. I condemn such action. I had hoped that it might be condemned by all parts of the House. At any rate, it is condemned by those who care about the Health Service.
    Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Mahon: How does the Prime Minister justify her previous remarks? Why cannot she defend the nurses who are taking action in defence of the National Health Service as vigorously as she defended the workers in Solidarity against the dictatorial rule of General Jaruzelski?
    The Prime Minister: Harming patients is taking action against the National Health Service.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. Friend share my deep disquiet at the disclosure in the House of individual medical histories? Does the unethical practice adopted by right hon. and hon. Opposition Members achieve anything, save adding to the distress of the parents concerned?
    The Prime Minister: I am not aware of a particular case. I would have thought that the general proposition put by my hon. Friend is correct.
    Mr. Steel: Will the Prime Minister recognise that, following—
    Mr. Dobson: It is Vatman.
    Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members must not interrupt in that way.
    Mr. Steel: Following her unsuccessful attempt to divide the nurses' unions, will the Prime Minister recognise that the one thing that she could do to restore morale in the National Health Service would be to state unequivocally that the nurses' pay award will be funded in full, without cuts in the budgets of health authorities?
    The Prime Minister: We had that identical question either last Question Time or the time before. Identical questions get identical answers. As Government we shall
    478
    deal with the proposals from the review body in the way in which we have dealt with them before. When we know what the proposals are we shall decide precisely how they are to be funded.
    Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. Friend accept that our nation led the world in the exploration of land, sea and air, bringing great commercial, political and cultural advantage to our country? Does she believe that our national interest is greatly served by leading in the exploration of the new domain of space? If so, will she please give due weight to Lord Shackleton's report and give a clear indication to the House of precisely what is our national space strategy?
    The Prime Minister: Money spent on research in space has be weighed against the other competing demands for research money. That is what we are doing. We are keeping, of course, the full subscription to the mandatory programme of the European Space Agency. Some of the other programmes are optional. I understand that ESA itself is reviewing some of its programmes.
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Pike: Will the Prime Minister try to find time today to discuss with the Government Chief Whip arid her ministerial colleagues, the hon. Members for Pendle (Mr. Lee) and for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier) the outcome of a meeting that they attended with me earlier this month with Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale district health authority, when that authority listed a contingency plan for cuts within the Health Service which it said would affect patient care and levels of service within the area if nurses' pay is underfunded next year? Does she recognise that Sir John Page, of the regional health authority, said this week that the health authority, which has now withdrawn that ploy, must submit another? Does she accept that the cuts are already at an unacceptable level? Will she make additional funds available now?
    The Prime Minister: I took the precaution of inquiring about the position of Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale health authority. According to our records, the number of in-patients is up by 7·5 per cent.—
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Oh, come on.
    The Prime Minister: I am coming on. Day cases have gone up by 80 per cent., capital building completed has cost £6 million — the phase 3 development of Burnley general hospital. A pharmacy is under construction at a cost of £1·9 million. In the pipeline, it is planned to spend £5·9 million on Pendle community hospital. Waiting lists are down by 30 per cent, since 1983. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to say thank you.
    Mr. Roger King: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. King: Is my right hon. Friend aware that February's edition of the authorative motoring magazine Car has tested 12 cars on a price-quality audit? No. 10 was a Mercedes-Benz, No. 9 was a Citroen, No. 8 was a Toyota, No. 3 was an Audi, No 2 was a British-built Ford

    479
    Fiesta, and the Birmingham-built Metro was at the top of the list? Is that not further evidence that the car manufacturers in the midlands have Vorsprung the world?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. That points to the success of Birmingham and the west midlands as one of the premier car-producing areas in Europe. I congratulate them and wish them well. The west midlands is doing extremely well and the economic forecast is good.

Official Secrets Act
3.32 pm
Mr. Roy Hattersley(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on Government policy on changes to the Official Secrets Act.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I gave the House an account of the Government's intentions in this respect, and of the issues which we are considering, in the debate on the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) on 15 January. In my interview for the BBC "Analysis" programme to be broadcast tonight — during which I discuss in general terms the balance to be struck between the obligations of civil servants and the public's right to know—I set out again some of the ground which we are covering in our review of these matters. In particular, I gave examples of different types of information which might or might not require the protection of the criminal law. The analysis I offer is in accordance with the Franks report and has been common ground since 1972.
As the House knows, we hope to publish our proposals in a White Paper in June, and the House will have an opportunity to debate those proposals before the summer recess. My interview tonight—a full transcript of which I propose to place in the Library of the House—gives no details of our proposals.
Mr. Hattersley: Does the Home Secretary recall that during the dabate on official secrets 13 days ago he claimed that the Government had not yet decided on a new policy? He then went on to dismiss and deride as silly the idea that he or the Government should describe their interim conclusions. Why has he now agreed to say in a broadcast what he refused to say in the House? Does he not realise that by announcing on the BBC, rather than in the House, that the Government do not support the parliamentary oversight of the security services he is guilty of arrogance, which amounts to contempt or to bone-headed stupidity? Will the right hon. Gentleman begin by telling us which it was?
Does the Secretary of State also understand that the central theme of his broadcast — the division of Government information into different categories of sensitivity—is so near to the principle of the Shepherd Bill, the Protection of Official Information Bill, that, had he made his position clear a week last Friday rather than last night, the passage of the Bill through the House would have been absolutely irresistible? We assume that that is why he chose to say it on the radio rather than in the proper place, which is the House.
How many of the ideas that the Home Secretary advanced in his broadcast were canvassed in those parts of his Commons speech which he first circulated to the press and then cut out or had cut out of his speech before it was delivered?
Finally, why does the Home Secretary demean himself in all these ways to pander to the Prime Minister's obsession that the security services are her personal and private property?
Mr. Hurd: In the interview tonight I simply repeat the arguments that I used in the House when we debated the
482
supervision of the security forces a year ago when the right hon. Gentleman had different responsibilities — [Interruption.] On Friday 15 January we were discussing the Official Secrets Act. The right hon. Gentleman is talking about the supervision of the security services. If he looks up what I said in the debate when we discussed that particular matter, he will see that the two are the same.
In our debate on 15 January I sketched out the areas that the Government, and then the House, would need to define for protection from the criminal law. That is exactly what I shall do again in the broadcast tonight. I am not defining Government proposals in any detail. If the right hon. Gentleman and the House were able to establish that I was doing that, I would indeed be guilty of discourtesy to the House. When he, or any hon. Member who is interested, looks at the full transcript of the interview, he will see that I did not do that.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: How will my right hon. Friend canvass the views of the House in respect of ministerial certificate and public interest defence?
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend has written to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister putting forward one suggestion. I am anxious, in the interval that exists now, before we publish the White Paper, when we are completing our own review and thereafter when the House will debate the White Paper, to obtain the views of as many right hon. and hon. Members as possible. I do not think that they will be particularly slow in putting them forward.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Home Secretary says that he is anxious to discover the views of a wide variety of people on the various issues with which I understand he did not deal in the broadcast, about methods of classification, going to the courts and so on. Why not formalise that before the White Paper so that people can perhaps appear before a Select Committee on very difficult issues? That would save time and enable the Government to act with all-party support.
Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman put forward that suggestion in our debate. My feeling, which has been reinforced since then, is that the sensible and logical way to proceed is for the Government to set out their proposals in the White Paper and then for the House to debate it. But in the background to that there will be a continuous exchange of views and ideas, such as the right hon. Gentleman favours. Anyone who looks at the transcript of the "Analysis" broadcast will see the stress that I constantly put on the responsibility of the House in deciding these matters.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: Does my right hon. Friend expect that the Committee stage of any legislation which might result from the White Paper and the subsequent debate will be taken on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Hurd: We have not got as far as that, but I take account of the implication of my right hon. Friend's question.
Mr. David Steel: Are the presss reports correct that the Home Secretary proposes to divide official information into roughly three categories? If so, is that not exactly the same as the principle of the Shepherd Bill which he was so determined to defeat?
Mr. Hurd: In the interview tonight I draw on the basic analysis which stems from the Franks report. I do not put forward detailed proposals; I set out an analysis which has been common ground for a long time. It was not on those grounds that we disagreed with the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd).
Mr. John Wheeler: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the accuracy of the statements made in the BBC news release yesterday, which has been widely reported in one leading national newspaper of record?
Mr. Hurd: It may be that which has led the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) astray. I was somewhat surprised to read, when I was told of this yesterday, that, according to the BBC handout, I was tonight going to talk for the first time in detail about the forthcoming White Paper. Any listener who tunes in tonight in that expectation may well ask for his licence fee back.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will my right hon. Friend go further than that and completely ignore the vapourings of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)? Will he roundly condemn the double-handed attitude of the BBC in so disgracefully releasing a false prospectus about his performance tonight?
Mr. Hurd: I have commented on the BBC. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has to bestir himself; we understand that. The immediate threat may have passed but he has to keep agile and on his pins. I do not blame him for that. I just think that it would be sensible if he were to establish all the facts and looked at the transcript before preparing his adjectives on the matter.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is there not a strange inconsistency in the Government's position in that they can ban a programme, "My Country, Right or Wrong", which contains contributions from a number of hon. Members, including myself—[Interruption.] Yes, our contributions were banned — while, on the other
484
hand, the Home Secretary can take part in this programme, and all this information, which is probably very little different from the areas that I was discussing, can be included and transmitted?
Furthermore, can we have an assurance that when the Minister finally publishes his proposals for reform of the law it will enable us to find out whether it is true that Britain's security services worked with the American security services to undermine the position of Gough Whitlam in Australia?
Mr. Hurd: I have no intention of answering the second point.
On the first point, I do not want to humiliate the hon. Member, but I do not think that it was because of his contribution that action was taken against the programme that he mentioned.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his spirited public interest defence of the leaks in tonight's programme, but will he not understand that there is at least an appearance of illogicality between the position that he took up at the Dispatch Box in the debate of 15 January, which resembled that of a Trappist monk unable to say a single word about the Government's plans on official secrets law reform, and the apparent revelations in tonight's broadcast? If my right hon. Friend goes on like this, he may be up on a charge under section 2.
Mr. Hurd: No. My hon. Friend has laboured that a little, as he did on the wireless this morning. I will simply ask him, when he has the time, to look at the transcript in the Library and to compare it with my speech at columns 585–86 of Hansard on 15 January. He will see similar thoughts there, a description of the area that must be defined and the terrain which must be covered.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must have regard to the fact that we have business questions, a statement, a ballot for notices of motions and other business before the Merchant Shipping Bill.

Business of the House
3.42 pm
Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 1 FEBRUARY — Timetable motion on the Education Reform Bill.
Second Reading of the Farm Land and Rural Development Bill [Lords].
Remaining stages of the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency Bill.
TUESDAY 2 FEBRUARY — Remaining stages of the Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Bill.
Motion on the Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Board) Order.
WEDNESDAY 3 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Licensing Bill.
Remaining stages of the Welsh Development Agency Bill.
Motion on the International Development Association (Eighth Replenishment) Order.
THURSDAY 4 FEBRUARY—Debate on the White Paper on "Human Fertilisation and Embryology: a Framework for Legislation" (Cm. 259) on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 5 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 8 FEBRUARY—Progress on remaining stages of the Employment Bill.
Mr. Kinnock: The Education Reform Bill has been in Committee for only 80 hours, during which time members of the Committee have dealt with 40 clauses and two schedules of the Bill's 146 clauses and 11 schedules. There has clearly been no filibuster. The Government are now guillotining the debate on the Bill, so I want to tell the right hon. Gentleman that there has never been a less justifiable act of gagging of any education legislation that has come before the House. We shall oppose it completely.
Following the Government's decision to cover up the Stalker/Sampson report, when will there be a debate in Government time to provide the Attorney-General and the Secretary of State with the opportunity to try to justify their decision not to take proceedings on the basis of evidence that the course of justice was being perverted?
In view of the public anxiety about the crisis of under-funding in the Health Service, will the Leader of the House inform us of when we will have an opportunity to debate the public expenditure White Paper?
As the Minister of State, Home Office appeared, in the debate last night, to contradict an earlier undertaking, may we have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that, in addition to the debates on Report and Third Reading of the Immigration Bill, we will, in the near future, also have a general debate on the immigration rules?
Can the Leader of the House confirm that the Government are conducting an internal review of child benefit? Will he arrange for an immediate statement on the nature of any review and its terms of reference, and on whether the Government are considering the taxation of child benefit?
As this oil-producing and exporting country now has the worst balance of payments and balance of trade deficit
486
since the oil crisis year of 1974, will the Leader of the House provide time in the near future for a debate on the economic and trading position of Britain, given that our loss of domestic and international markets continues unabated?
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when, at last, we shall have a debate on televising the proceedings in this place?
Mr. Wakeham: The right hon. Gentleman asked me seven questions, and I shall do my best to answer them.
First, the right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of the Education Reform Bill timetable motion. I recognise that there is a certain ritual about these things, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could look back at his own words on 20 July 1976, on a similar occasion. The position is that, up to lunch time today, the Committee has sat for about 84·5 hours and considered about 40 clauses of a Bill containing 147 clauses and 11 schedules. As I said, I shall table the timetable motion later today and it will be seen, from the generous amount of time allocated for the remainder of the Bill, that it is the Government's intention not to curb debate but to ensure that all parts of the Bill are fully discussed.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the position in Northern Ireland and the Attorney-General's statement last week. I have nothing to add, except to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will make a statement to the House on the matter. I think that we should have that first and then see how best to proceed.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the public expenditure White Paper. I believe that the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee will wish to report on it, and it will be for the convenience of the House for the debate to take place when its report is available.
With regard to the immigration rules, I confirm what I said during business questions last week. There will be a debate on the rules separate from the other debates, before they come into effect, so that we can hear the views of the House.
I have nothing to say about child benefit and taxation. It is getting towards the season of the year when these matters are not discussed by me or by anyone else in the Chamber, but I shall refer the right hon. Gentleman's point to the Secretary of State.
I cannot promise an early debate on the economic situation, but the right hon. Gentleman will realise that trade figures are not the only economic indicator at which we should look. I draw his attention to the falling levels of unemployment and inflation and to the record growth that the country is experiencing—
Mr. Kinnock: Falling savings, falling investment levels, falling production levels.
Mr. Wakeham: The right hon. Gentleman will be able to make his own points in his own way. I am trying to answer his seven questions, and I shall continue to do that.
Lastly, the right hon. Gentleman asked about the television debate. I told him last week that it would be held on Tuesday of the week after next, and that is still my intention.
Sir Peter Emery: When my right hon. Friend introduces the timetable motion, will he consider whether he can follow the guidance of the Procedure Committee

487
and try to ensure that every clause of the Education Reform Bill is debated before it leaves Committee? If he could do that he would go a long way towards meeting some of the requirements that the Procedure Committee has asked of this House.
Mr. Wakeham: I take on board what my hon. Friend has said. I pay tribute to his work and that of the Procedure Committee. I intend to see that every clause of the Bill is debated in Standing Committee.
Mr. James Wallace: Will the Leader of the House make a statement to the House next Thursday on the instructions given by the House to the Committee of Selection for setting up the Scottish Select Committee?
Will there be a debate in the House on the prayer tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends about school closures in Scotland, on which there is to be a statement after business questions?
The Leader of the House said that there was always some ritual about guillotine motions. Will he accept that this case is different because I am informed that it is not Opposition Members who have been using delaying tactics, but rather that a great deal of time has been clocked up by Conservative Members in an effort to allow a guillotine motion to be imposed rather than make progress and discuss the substantive issues?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman asked me, first, about the Scottish Select Committee. Discussions are being carried out through the usual channels, and I hope that we can make progress when they are concluded. The debate for which he asked is a matter best discussed through the usual channels.
I have not accused anyone of filibustering during the proceedings in Committee on the Education Reform Bill. I intend to see that the whole Bill is properly debated, and that is why there will be a generous amount of time for the remaining part of the Committee stage.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: When does my right hon. Friend expect to bring in a motion for the re-establishment of the Select Committee on Procedure so that that Committee can consider the difficult question of hon. Members who seek to get themselves suspended?
Mr. Wakeham: Discussions are taking place through the usual channels to discover when it would be convenient to set up the Select Committee on Procedure. There are a number of outstanding issues from the previous Procedure Committee. I am looking for an opportunity for a debate on procedure in the relatively near future.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: Will the Leader of the House ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement in the House next week on the proposed sale of Crosville Motor Services, in view of the wide concern expressed by those employed in the company?
Mr. Wakeham: I shall certainly refer the matter to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Has my right hon. Friend seen this morning's trade figures, which show a further deterioration in Britain's trade with the EEC in comparison with an improvement elsewhere? As that
488
deficit in manufacturing trade is now £11 billion—more than double the total deficit on current account—would it not be helpful for the Minister of Trade and Industry to make a statement about the implications of our chronic trade with the Common Market for the future of the Government's splendid economic policies?
Mr. Wakeham: As I said to the Leader of the Opposition, the trade figures are only one economic indicator. Although the figures may be disappointing, many other figures are showing excellent progress. I shall refer the matter to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Trade and Industry.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Given the continued widespread concern on both sides of the House and in Scotland about the future of Britoil, is it not time that the Government allowed the House to debate the position pertaining to that organisation, rather than hon. Members having to seek information through questions or letters? Is it not time that the whole subject was aired in the House?
There will be a short debate on agriculture next week, but is it possible for the House to debate the importance of agriculture to our communities, particularly in light of the problems facing so many producers—particularly, at the moment, pig producers—as a result of the need for the devaluation of the green pound?
Mr. Wakeham: I take on board the hon. Lady's request for a debate on Britoil, but I cannot promise one in the near future. I agree with the hon. Lady that there is a case for a general debate on agriculture, and I hope to arrange one in the not too distant future.
Sir Trevor Skeet: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to read the House of Lords Select Committee report on space policy? Has he noted that it recommends an expenditure up to £200 million on space matters? Will he arrange an early debate so that that may be discussed in this place?
Mr. Wakeham: I have not read that report as well as my hon. Friend has read it. I listened to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said a few minutes ago about our position on space policy. I cannot add to what she said. I regret that I cannot see any chance of a debate on the subject in the immediate future, but I shall bear it in mind.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Education and Science to make a statement, before Monday's debate on the guillotine motion, on the future of ILEA and on whether he intends to introduce amendments to abolish it? Will the right hon. Gentleman also arrange for time for the Secretary of State for Education to make a statement on the bizarre position of Mr. William Stubbs, ILEA'S education officer, who, having been bitterly opposed to the Bill, has just resigned to work for the Secretary of State in implementing its provisions — although they may seriously damage the future of education in the capital?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise a statement in the House on ILEA, but I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Of course, the issue will be extensively discussed in Standing Committee. My right hon. Friend offered Mr. Stubbs his appointment on merit. Mr. Stubbs served ILEA for 11 years, and said himself that it was time for a career move.
Sir Ian Lloyd: I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet), the Chairman of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, and to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's reply to the question about space. In that reply she suggested that space policy was to some extent a function of the problem of allocating resources across the whole spectrum of science. Does this not reinforce my plea for a debate on this major and central national question, and may we have that debate soon?
Mr. Wakeham: I should like to be more forthcoming to my hon. Friend, because I know that he considers this to be an important issue. It is difficult at this time of year to find a day for such a debate, but I promise him that I shall find one as soon as I can.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Leader of the House confirm that his guillotine on the Education Reform Bill has nothing to do with the proceedings in Committee? Is it not really an attempt to gag debate when the Bill returns to the Floor of the House on Report?
The right hon. Gentleman said that he would provide a generous amount of time for that Bill. Can he tell us how much time he has provided for debate on the argument between the right hon. Members for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and the Secretary of State about the future of ILEA? Will he confirm that that is a major issue and that there ought to be time to debate it? Or is it true, as rumour has it, that the Secretary of State is now running away from the confrontation?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot comment on rumours. The timetable motion that I am proposing will be tabled later today, and the hon. Gentleman will see from it that the time allocated is generous.
Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. Friend accept that our participation in the space race is vital for the future of our nation, and that, if we are to compete with the Soviet Union, the United States and Japan, we must work effectively with our European partners in that race? Important financial decisions are being made in the European Space Agency on 10 February this year, only a few weeks from now. May I reinforce the pleas of my hon. Friends for an urgent debate on the subject, when our national space policy can be made clear?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise my hon. Friend's strength of feeling. However, I can add nothing more except that resources devoted to space must, of course, be considered along with those devoted to other research matters.
Mr. Greville Janner: Will the Leader of the House be good enough to consult his right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Social Services and for Education and Science to see whether we could have a statement from one of them on the great shortage of resources for special schools?
I shall be visiting Weston Park special school in my constituency tomorrow. The staff of that school will be deeply anxious to know whether action is to be taken to help the school, and other schools like it, which are suffering from shortages of physiotherapists and other resources that they badly need.
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the hon. and learned Gentleman's concern. In my experience, resources are not the only question involved, but I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend.
Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Thursday's business, the debate on Warnock, was known to doctors in my constituency as early as Monday or Tuesday? Surely hon. Members and Parliament are entitled to know the business at least at the same time as outside bodies. As I understand that this is probably the result of a leak from the DHSS, will my right hon. Friend cause an inquiry to be made into the leak and thus ensure that the rights of Members of Parliament are safeguarded?
Mr. Wakeham: I deprecate any such leak. It is right that the House should be told first about business. However, the business of the House was not finally settled until the Cabinet meeting this morning, so any rumours that might have been about were just that—rumours.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Social Services to come to the House next Wednesday when Health Service workers will be taking part in a day of action, which is a major indictment of the Government's handling of the National Health Service and shows how unsafe the NHS is in Tory hands? Will he arrange for an early debate on the National Health Service so that the cuts that are threatened in virtually every part of the country can be debated fully and the Government called to account?
Finally, as the right hon. Gentleman has now acquired Lord Whitelaw's mantle of the Prime Minister's candid friend, will he tell her that the vast majority of the British people will never forgive her if, instead of providing the necessary funds to rebuild and improve the National Health Service, she plots and conspires to divide those who dedicate their lives to patient care?
Mr. Wakeham: The Government are continually providing more resources for the National Health Service. The question is not the amount of money that is put in, but the output that we get from it, and that is where we are looking for improvements.
Sir Philip Goodhart: When my right hon. Friend draws up the motion for the debate on Tuesday week on televising the House, will he remember that some of us want to keep the cameras out of this debating Chamber, but would welcome them in Select Committees? Will he tell us whether we can have a separate vote on televising Select Committees?
Mr. Wakeham: That matter is not entirely for me, because the debate will take place on a Back-Bench motion. However, I shall consult to see whether I can get a motion that is as generally acceptable to the House as possible.
Mr. William O'Brien: Will the Leader of the House discuss with his colleague the Secretary of State for Social Services the request from Wakefield district health authority for an inquiry into the proposal to introduce the cook-chill food system into hospitals in my constituency? Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me that tensions are running high and that there are problems? Will he ensure that there is a debate in the House on the introduction of the cook-chill meal system

491
into those hospitals, where only a few years ago an outbreak of food poisoning resulted in 29 deaths? This matter is important, so will the Leader of the House take note of the problems of hospitals in my constituency?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise what the hon. Gentleman says, but I cannot promise a debate next week. The issue that he has raised seems more a matter for the local management to sort out. However, I shall certainly refer it to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Richard Tracey: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the gratitude of Conservative Members, and parents throughout the country, for the fact that he has put down a timetable motion on the Education Reform Bill to stop the aimless meanderings of the Labour party in Committee upstairs? Is he further aware that hon. Members representing London constituencies wish to discuss the future of education for children in inner London?
In passing, will the Government tell Mr. William Stubbs, the recently resigned chief education officer of the Inner London education authority, that they do not consider him to blame for the shambles in the ILEA, but, rather, the Labour politicians on the other side of the river?
Mr. Wakeham: I regret that I have not heard much of the debate in the Standing Committee. I am not accusing anybody of filibustering but just hoping that during the rest of the Committee stage we can make sure that all parts of the Bill are discussed and that the important matters that my hon. Friend has raised are properly debated.
Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Leader of the House tell us how long we will have for the debate on the private Member's motion on the televising of Parliament next Tuesday? Will there be a three-line Whip for the Government Benches? Will the motion be phrased in such a way that it will command the support of all hon. Members? I suggest to the Leader of the House that the best way of achieving that would be to have a dedicated television channel, paid for by Parliament, because that would get us round the problem of editing. Will we have the sort of motion that will allow us to amend it in that fashion, or will it come in such a way as to give us an opportunity to vote?
Mr. Wakeham: I can answer one part of the hon. Gentleman's question. It will be a full day's debate. The question of Whipping is not discussed from this Dispatch Box. The form of the motion and whether it is amendable is not entirely a matter for me, but I take on board what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Sir Hector Monro: Will my right hon. Friend have urgent talks with the Home Secretary about another money resolution for the Firearms (Amendment) Bill? Is he aware that we are unable to table any amendments on compensation unless the money resolution is altered? There will be great difficulty in starting the Committee stage unless we have some assurance on that point.
Mr. Wakeham: I promise my hon. Friend that I shall look into that matter.
Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have a statement next week from the Treasury on the way in
492
which it is squeezing the Department of Transport over the Settle-Carlisle railway? The Department of Transport is trying to blame local authorities for not providing sufficient financial contributions for the line. That magnificent railway, which has been running well and showing a massive improvement in passenger revenue, and which is an important artery, is being set up for the chop by the vicious attitude of the Treasury, which is trying to put the blame on local authorities which themselves are hard pressed for money. The truth is that the Government are to blame for not providing enough resources to keep this magnificent and beautiful railway in existence.
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's interest in, concern for and knowledge of that railway. I do not believe that the position is capable of the analysis that he has put on it, but I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Michael Colvin: My right hon. Friend may recall receiving a copy of a letter that I addressed to the Secretary of State for Transport asking for a debate in Government time on the state of our civil aviation industry. The matter is important, but one item on the national agenda needs the House's urgent attention — the issue of night flights out of Gatwick and Heathrow. As the Secretary of State's consultative document is out for discussion and my right hon. Friend will make a decision on his proposals within the next few weeks, ideally we should like those proposals to be debated in the Chamber and to be voted upon. Although that may not be possible, surely the House should be given the chance of debating what the Secretary of State has in mind before he reaches a decision.
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise my hon. Friend an early debate, but I shall certainly refer the matter to my right hon. Friend. It has just occurred to me that my hon. Friend might try his luck in an Adjournment debate on the subject.
Mr. George Howarth: Given that the Leader of the House accepts that there has not been a filibuster on the Education Reform Bill, and given the widespread feeling in the House and elsewhere about the Bill's implications, what possible justification can the right hon. Gentleman have for seeking to apply the guillotine?
Mr. Wakeham: As I have already said, the main purpose of the guillotine is to ensure that there is an orderly debate on all parts of the Bill.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on efficiency in local government to enable me to raise the problems of hundreds of my constituents who this week received a summons from Ealing council to appear in court next month for non-payment of rates, even though they have paid their rates and received a receipt from Ealing council for that payment, including for the unwanted 65 per cent, element, in addition to which they are asked to pay £14·95 for the service of the rate summons? That has caused immense distress as well as anger to many people.
My constituents are also concerned about the sum of £15,000 that Ealing council is currently spending on a gay and lesbian rights officer to promote positive images of homosexuality. Will the debate be broad enough to enable

493
me to express my constituents' wish to see clause 28 of the Local Government Bill placed firmly on the statute book to stop all that?
Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that we will find an opportunity for my hon. Friend to make his points in various ways. However, I am afraid that I cannot promise him an early debate next week on those specific issues.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 521, which deals with the escalating costs of No. 10 Downing street, as opposed to the amount spent on the National Health Service?
[That this House condemns the Government's treatment of the National Health Service; draws attention to the fact that, if the increase in National Health Service expenditure since 1979 had been at the same rate as the increase in the cost of maintaining No. 10 Downing Street, the National Health Service would this year receive funds in excess of £28 billion, as compared to the £21 billion actual expenditure; and believes that this proves that the Government has looked after itself rather better than it has the National Health Service workers.]
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the cost of maintaining No. 10 Downing street has quadrupled since the Prime Minister went there in 1979, that if the same rate of expansion had been applied to the National Health Service it would this year have received £28 billion, and that if a comparison was made with the amount of money that has been spent on entertaining—a euphemism for boozing—at No. 10 Downing street the amount would have escalated even higher? Fancy paying that amount of money for gin and tonic while writing his Private Eye column.
Mr. Wakeham: One thing that I can say in answer to the hon. Gentleman is that any money spent at No. 10 Downing street is money well spent and that the country gets value for it. I am not so sure that that applies to all parts of the Health Service.
Mr. Tony Marlow: A fortnight ago a complete unknown managed to secure a place on the front pages of our national newspapers and on our television screens by getting himself booted out of the House. This week he had a more notorious imitator. What does my hon. Friend plan to do about the accelerating tendency for third-rate operators on the Opposition Benches to try to curry favour with their local management committees by disrupting our proceedings? Will he bear in mind that in the Division earlier this week the Leader of the Opposition, who had the guts and decency to support Mr. Speaker, had his vote cancelled
494
out by one of his Front-Bench spokesmen, the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts)? That is one of the difficulties with which the House is faced.
Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that both sides of the House deprecate bad order and behaviour. I do not believe that it is my task to give additional publicity to such antics, but I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend said, because we want to keep them to a minimum.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May I ask a question about the administration of government? Do the Cabinet Office, the Cabinet Secretary and the Prime Minister ever issue guidelines to Ministers, not so much on the content of parliamentary answers, as on the way in which they are answered?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not believe that that question arises out of business questions. However, if the hon. Gentleman cares to put down a substantive question I shall do my best to give him a considered answer.
Mr. Tim Smith: Who will propose the motion on the televising of the House? Will my right hon. Friend have a word with whoever it is about the televising of Select Committees, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart)? Although it seems that, unfortunately, there may not be a majority in favour of televising the Chamber, there may be sufficient common ground to get an experiment going in Select Committees.
Mr. Wakeham: I take my hon. Friend's point and I am sure that the debate will be wide enough to cover Select Committees as well as the Chamber. The question of who will propose the motion will emerge in a way that I do not think I could properly explain.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Leader of the House recall that last week, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), he undertook to have a word with the Secretary of State for Social Services about the present crisis in social services departments, arising mainly from the problems of the NHS and calculations for the social fund? Is the Leader of the House aware that since then the all-party panel on personal social services, chaired by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), has asked for a meeting with the Secretary of State because it feels so strongly about the matter? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he had any success, and whether we will have a debate on these very important matters?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise a debate in the near future. If an all-party delegation is to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, it would be best to leave matters there at this stage.

School Closures (Scotland)
4.13 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about school closures in Scotland.
Regulations were laid yesterday which had the effect that, where an education authority proposed to close, change the site of, or vary the catchment area of, any school where the number of pupils at the school is greater than 80 per cent, of its capacity, that proposal shall be referred to the Secretary of State for his consent.
The House will be interested to know that since 1885 the Secretary of State for Scotland has had the power to review all school closures. Until 1981 any proposal to close any school in Scotland had to come to the Secretary of State for his consent. At that time, the House approved a change in the regulations, which left two categories of school for which the consent of the Secretary of State was required if a closure proposal was made — denominational schools and rural schools where the alternative was more than a certain distance from the school to be closed.
We all recognise that a number of education authorities are currently faced with substantial overcapacity in their schools. Understandably, some authorities are contemplating proposals that will involve the closure of a considerable number of schools. This will allow them to use their resources more effectively.
However, that task must be carried out in a balanced and sensitive manner. It is a clear priority of the Government—I would hope of both sides of the House —that education should reflect the interests of children and the wishes of their parents. The Education (Scotland) Act 1981 already places a duty on the Secretary of State and education authorities to ensure that pupils are educated in accordance with parental wishes.
It is therefore reasonable to expect education authorities to take into account parent demand in considering proposals for school closures. Clearly, no one can be surprised when an authority proposes to close half-empty schools. But where a school is full, or nearly full, and by that fact demonstrates that it is good value for money to its community, I believe that it is only right that there should be scope for further review of a proposal to close such a school.
Mr. Donald Dewar: In his statement, the Secretary of State referred to the need for a balanced and sensitive approach. Would he like to comment on the fact that Strathclyde education authority had no intimation of the regulations and that there was no consultation of any kind? The education authority had to gather what it could from press sources. When it finally sent a car to Edinburgh to obtain a copy this morning, it was told that it could have only a photocopy because the Department itself had only one copy.
As a matter of etiquette in the House, is it not deplorable that my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mr. Adams), whose constituency will be closely affected by the decision, has not even been done the courtesy of being sent a copy of the Prime Minister's letter to the headmaster of Paisley grammer school? Surely that would normally be the order of the day. Is this a balanced and sensitive way in which to deal with the matter?
This is an extraordinary initiative, with serious implications for the way in which we conduct our business
496
—implications that go far beyond decisions on any one school. The matter has been presented in the press, and, I suspect, by the Scottish Office machine, as a dramatic personal intervention by the Prime Minister. More fairly, it can be seen as high-handed and arbitrary and designed simply to court popularity. Is a genuine review about to take place, or does the Prime Minister's letter to the headmaster of Paisley grammer school prejudge the issue? It is very important to know that. If it does prejudge the issue, what does the Prime Minister know about the schools in Paisley? What does she know of Merksworth, Stanely Green, St. Aeldred's, St. Mirin's and St. Margaret's? What does she know about their catchment areas and the likely knock-on effect of the apparently arbitrary decision that she has made about Paisley grammar school? Will she at least ensure that there is a ministerial visit before decisions are made about the future of those schools? I do not mean a ministerial visit to Paisley grammar school alone but to the other schools, too. If an education authority had made a decision on such an arbitrary basis, without any proper consultation, it would almost certainly be in the courts—and rightly so.
Is it not a very dangerous precedent that a school should be singled out at a distance of almost 500 miles on the basis of the number of letters received by Ministers? Why should the balance of responsibility, as carefully adjusted by the Government in 1981, now be altered without consultation or rational debate apparently on impulse and on the narrow calculation of political advantage?
This is not an argument about one school, and I note that the Secretary of State did not mention a particular school. The fate of Paisley grammar is a legitimate matter of concern for the community itself, but the decision should be made in the proper context. Even if we took the Government's view on the merits of the matter, we would remember the old and relevant adage that hard cases make bad law. It is outrageous that we should be legislating apparently on the whimsical basis that one particular school has caught the attention of the Prime Minister. How many schools are likely to be referred to the Secretary of State as an immediate result of the passage of the regulations, and are they all in Strathclyde?
What criteria will be applied by the Secretary of State? In the regulations he refers to the percentage capacity of the school, but there must be other wider-based considerations — social considerations, educational priorities and the interests of the communities involved.
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman guarantee that there will be consultation with all interests before he makes his final decision, and that, at least, he will meet the criteria set down for consultation that is imposed on local authorities by the 1981 regulations?
What will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say to the parents of children whose schools may be threatened by the impact of his decisions, and which may face closure as a result of any reprieve on which he decides? Will they be consulted in the process?
The reference to the maximum number attending in any one of the previous 10 years appears to be linked to the calculation of capacity. It has been put to me by a number of senior people in the Education Department that it is possible that a school which in any one of the previous 10 years had met that criterion would be automatically referred to the Secretary of State under the regulations. I

497
do not think that is the position, but for the avoidance of doubt—it would bring many schools immediately within his authority—we must have an answer.
This is a sad way to conduct government. It will maximise confusion and bitterness when some schools survive and others do not; arbitrary dividing lines are always cruel. It is government by impulse and by whim, and I am sad to say that that is normally the mark of an authoritarian regime.
Is the Minister concerned—the Under-Secretary with responsibility for education may laugh—by what today's The Scotsman said:
"If, as Mr. Forsyth said, closing Paisley Grammar would be an act of vandalism, then the regulations devised to prevent it are a greater abuse of local democracy."
The Glasgow Herald described it as:
" A dismal day for what remains of local democracy … unacceptable arbitrary assumption of power …"
The Evening Times refers to,
"The Alice in Wonderland world of the Scottish Office."
It further spoke of
"The naked demonstration of the Prime Minister's hatred of local government."
I shall give the Minister one last quote from the debate on primary education in Scotland and ask him to comment. It says:
"If education authorities are properly to fulfil their accountability to the public, they must take whatever steps they consider necessary to rationalise the provision of school education. Therefore, schools closures, which occur in urban as well as rural areas, should be considered as part of a larger canvas and should not be seen as a discriminating or random measure.
We are committed to the principle of reducing direction from the centre". — [Official Report, 4 April 1985; Vol. 76, c. 1367.]
That was a quotation from the then Minister responsible for education, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who, I suspect, is here to support something that is discriminating and random in its scope. What he said on that occasion is as it should be, but as it no longer will be. The conscience of the right hon. and learned Gentleman should be in tatters. I suspect that he may have been told and not consulted.
Mr. Rifkind: I am astonished by the synthetic indignation of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). He has tried to suggest to the House that this is an attack on local democracy, when the powers represented by the regulations tabled yesterday give the Secretary of State less power in respect of school closures than my predecessors had for 100 years, and, indeed, less than was held during the period of office of the Labour Government.
If that minor extension referred to in the regulations tabled yesterday is an attack on local democracy, we should remember the powers that the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) had to require his consent for the closure of any school in Scotland — powers that had existed since 1885. The hon. Member for Garscadden tried to identify the mark of a dictatorial Government. I suggest to him that the mark of a dictatorial Government is a preference for bureaucratic tidiness over the wishes of parents with regard to schools.
The hon. Gentleman asked why the Prime Minister did not send a letter to the hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mr. Adams). The hon. Member for Paisley, North made no representations on the matter, unlike the rector of Paisley grammar school and 2,550 members of the public.
498
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the regulations are concerned only with one school. He had the grace to admit subsequently that nothing in the regulations or the treatment identifies a specific school. Indeed, there are almost certain to be other schools that will come within this category.
Mr. Dewar: Is it a genuine review? Has the decision, in effect, been taken?
Mr. Rifkind: I shall come to that in a moment.
Neither I nor anyone else can tell the hon. Gentleman how many schools will be affected. It will be for education authorities to decide in the first instance whether they propose to close a school that is full as a result of the wishes of parents. I hope that it will be relatively rare that an education authority, against the wishes of parents, will even wish to contemplate closing a school that is entirely full. That is a fact that the hon. Gentleman should appreciate.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether any decision had been reached. No decision has been reached because there is a requirement that the education authority, as with other categories of school that fall within this category, must come to its own view. If it is a school of the kind referred to in the regulations, it is submitted to the Secretary of State, as it was for 100 years, including during every period of Labour government.
Sir Hector Monro: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, as one who has had the support of Secretaries of State to retain country schools, both denominational and non-denominational, in my constituency against the wishes of the education authority, I believe that it is right that he has taken back these important powers? Will he elicit from the Opposition whether they want Paisley grammar school kept open? I suspect that, from the manner in which they are talking, they do not.
Mr. Rifkind: I agree with my hon. Friend; there is some confusion as to exactly what the Opposition's position is on this matter. If there is no confusion, no doubt we shall soon discover the answer.
Mr. Archy Kirk wood: It seems entirely crazy to consider listing a school such as Paisley grammar school for closure. I hold no brief for the way in which that decision was arrived at by Strathclyde education authority. The Secretary of State must surely accept that it is far better to leave these consultation processes to the local level to enable democratic decisions to be taken. It cannot be right for Government to come wading in with heavy tackety boots, as they did yesterday, to impose the change in regulations. He must accept that that high-handed behaviour raises all sorts of suspicion in people's minds. For example, if he does not know how many schools are to be caught by these regulations and are now listed for potential closure, how did he know to set the capacity level at 80 per cent? How did he know that it was necessary at all if he does not know the detailed figure, apart from one or two highly publicised cases? How does he know that these regulations are required for the vast majority of other schools that will be covered by them?
Mr. Rifkind: I am puzzled by the hon. Gentleman's question. He prayed against these regulations, I understand, but he now tells us that school closures should

499
be left to the education authorities as the final arbiters. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman takes the same view of the current controls that the Secretary of State has for proposals to close schools in rural areas.
Mr. Allen Adams: As the local Member involved, I extend my thanks to the Scottish press for giving me the letter that the Prime Minister sent to the rector of Paisley grammar school. The Prime Minister did not extend me the same courtesy.
Is the Secretary of State aware of the debate that took place in the House in which, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), who was asking about decision-making in local authorities, the then Minister, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), said:
"I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's anxiety, but I believe that the decision must be made by the local authority. It must take account of all the factors involved, and it is responsible to all the electorate of the area."—[Official Report, 4 April 1985; Vol. 76, c. 1365.]
Does the Minister still hold by that or has he changed his mind? Is it simply the case that any local authority that does not agree with his diktat or takes any kind of decision that he does not approve of on any subject at any time will either be abolished, as we have seen in England, or simply have its powers taken away?
Lastly, at any time, did Mr. Andrew Neill, a former pupil of Paisley grammar school and now the editor of The Sunday Times, make any representations to you—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is to the Minister, not. to me.
Mr. Rifkind: As the hon. Gentleman started his question by telling us that he has such good relations with the press, he might like to put that question to Mr. Neill himself, and no doubt he will find out.
With regard to the substantive part of the question, as the hon. Gentleman knows, until 1981, in the case of all schools, the consent of the Secretary of State was required before closure could be contemplated. Since 1981, two categories have still required the consent of the Secretary of State — certain denominational schools and certain rural schools. We have added one other narrow category. Therefore, the number of schools that have to come to the Secretary of State before closure is a tiny proportion of the number of schools that had to go to my predecessors in the last Labour Government.
Mr. Allan Stewart: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on an excellent decision and his speedy response to the representations that he received from my constituents and myself about that particular school, although, of course, his regulations raise a more general point.
Does he agree that the difference between now and 1985 is that in 1985 nobody thought that an education authority would try to close a very popular school as a deliberate political challenge to the parents' charter, which is precisely what has happened? Does he further agree that the longer these questions go on the clearer it becomes that the proposal to close Paisley grammar school is being made on non-educational grounds and basically for political reasons? Is it not the height of absurdity for the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) to
500
demand ministerial visits to schools when at the last Scottish Question Time he denounced the visit of my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) to that school as a disgrace and an outrage?
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is certainly entitled to make that final remark, which I think is entirely valid.
Without commenting on any individual school, I can understand and indeed totally support education authorities which, faced with half-empty schools, are coming to the difficult and painful decisions that are required, which will lead to the closure of a significant number of them. Obviously, if schools are half empty and if, despite the parents' charter, parents do not wish their children to attend those schools, closure may often be a sad inevitability. But it must be sensible, when dealing with schools that are packed to the roof and when parents have expressed an overwhelming desire that their children should attend those schools, that there should be an opportunity to review a decision or proposal put forward by a local authority before a conclusion is reached.
I cannot believe that privately, whatever they may say publicly, hon. Gentlemen can seriously believe in their heart of hearts that it is unacceptable and unreasonable — when the Secretary of State has power to review denominational schools and certain rural schools—that a school which is full and which parents are passionately anxious to have their children attend should be subject to review. That seems to me to be something that should not flow from the ideology or policy of the Labour party. If it does, this is indeed a sad day.
Mr. Norman Buchan: The Secretary of State really must pay a little attention to the truth from time to time. His description of Paisley grammar is totally wrong. He knows perfectly well why there is a high poll in that school. He knows perfectly well why they are fighting against moving to a new school in Merksworth. It is because they would be sharing with kids from working-class housing estates. The Secretary of State knows it very well.
Secondly, he might come to terms—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask that the hon. Gentleman be allowed to ask his question without gesticulations across the Chamber.
Mr. Buchan: Secondly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman might reflect upon the truth when he says he does not know the figures. Every one of us who has looked at the material — and since he has brought in these regulations he had better have looked at the material— knows the figures and knows that 80 per cent, was chosen in order to save Paisley grammar, and nothing else.
Thirdly, he might reflect that there is more than one school in Paisley. There are six non-denominational secondary schools in Paisley. His support for Paisley grammar and the Prime Minister's intervention are condemning the other five. That is the truth of the situation.
Finally, if the Secretary of State wants educational grounds, let him think what effect this disruptive policy has on the whole of comprehensive education in Paisley. The person who raised the question was the Minister himself, who rejected the concept of intervention only in 1985. This has been a squalid and arbitrary intervention by the Prime Minister and her little "Wooden-Top"

501
henchman on the Front Bench. Her interference has been increasing, is increasing and ought to be diminished throughout our social, political and educational affairs.
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman has yet to explain why a power that was available under all Governments for 100 years is unacceptable when it is reintroduced under the present Government.
Mr. Buchan: I will explain it.
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman says that he will explain it. The fact is that he has failed to explain it despite his intervention with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his current intervention. The fact is that the hon. Gentleman may have certain doctrinal objectives when it comes to education, but the Government believe that, when we are dealing with the schools that children attend, the wishes of their parents are a major consideration.
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan), from a sedentry position, call my right hon. and learned Friend a liar. I suggest that he should withdraw that.
Mr. Speaker: I did not hear it, but did the hon. Gentleman say that?
Mr. Buchan: I may have said "a numerological inexactitude" when referring to the figures, I know not. The Secretary of State for Scotland was not—
Mr. Speaker: Did the hon. Gentleman use that word?
Mr. Buchan: I will apologise for saying what I believe to be the truth.
Mr. Speaker: Not only apologise, but withdraw it.
Mr. Buchan: I withdraw.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have two Second Reading debates this afternoon. This issue, as I understand it, is subject to a statutory instrument, which will be debatable. I shall allow questions to go on for a further five minutes, and then we really must move on.
Mr. Bruce Millan: The Secretary of State has behaved in a despicable way. It was his Government who removed the need for school closures to be referred to the Secretary of State and they did so on the hypocritical pretence, as we said at the time, of giving powers back to local authorities. In reality it was to avoid being associated with unpopular and difficult decisions. Over the last few years Ministers have been urging education authorities to go ahead more quickly with school closures. Now we have the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, who has probably never been in Paisley in her life, intervening in this arbitrary, authoritarian but also highly selective way, leaving all the unpopular decisions still to the local education authority. These regulations are, like the Secretary of State himself—unprincipled and dishonest.
Mr. Rifkind: As they are the regulations which the right hon. Gentleman was happy to administer when he was Secretary of State, what does that make him?
Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will recollect that at one time the then leader of the Labour party regarded
502
a week as a long time in politics. Apparently now the time scale has narrowed to 24 hours. Does he not remember that yesterday the Opposition were complaining about the closure of Newbattle, despite the fact that it is practically unattended? It must not be closed because it is unionised. Now they are complaining about keeping open Paisley grammar school — which they probably would not complain about if it were called a comprehensive school — which is full. Does that not demonstrate their ideological hypocrisy and the fact that they are interested not in education but only in a minor ideology in which the people of this country, and certainly the parents of this country, have no interest?
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. and learned Friend is correct. The Opposition find it acceptable that the Secretary of State should have power to require his consent for the closure of schools in all circumstances, but find it an assault on local democracy that he should have power only in limited cases.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Secretary of State reflect a little upon what the Prime Minister said the other day at Question Time when she was asked to meet some nurses? She said that she had an excellent team of Ministers who would meet the nurses initially. In this instance, why has she usurped what has been the normal convention of the House? I hope that all hon. Members will have regard to the Prime Minister's method and approach of writing direct to the headmaster of a school, bypassing the Secretary of State's Office and having no consultation with the local authority. Will the Secretary of State reflect upon his position among this so-called excellent team of Ministers?
Mr. Rifkind: Not in the slightest. I and my colleagues at the Scottish Office decided to introduce these regulations. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wrote to the rector of Paisley grammar school, because he had written to the Prime Minister. That seems to be a matter of elementary courtesy.
Mr. Forth: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that what is causing the irritation and synthetic anger on the Labour Benches is the fact that the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend have proved that they are closer to parents' wishes than the local authority in question? Does he further agree that this is a good example of how Conservative Members are prepared to listen to parents and take into account children's interests far more than the doctrinaire Socialists on the Opposition Benches who will sweep aside parents' wishes to fulfil their ideological requirements? Is that not relevant to the future role of our education policy?
Mr. Rifkind: Absolutely. We shall never apologise for, or be embarrassed by, giving the greatest attention to the expressed demands of parents, shown by the way in which they exercise their rights under the parents' charter.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: If we turn the Secretary's of State's words back on himself, has he not created a bureaucratic tidiness and a bureaucratic straitjacket which is a recipe for conflict and has little to do with education? What is his Office prepared to do if a school, meeting all the other criteria, has only 79·5 per cent, capacity? Will he close those schools? What consideration will he give to education?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Briefly.
Mrs. Ewing: Secondly, and very briefly, what reason can the Secretary of State offer to this House for not having consulted the local authorities before bringing in this decree?
Mr. Rifkind: The power under these regulations does not mean that the Secretary of State will always refuse his consent for the closure of a school. It gives the Secretary of State the right to review a proposal to close a school, just as he has such a right in respect of denominational schools and some rural schools. When I am asked, "Why 80 per cent?", I hope that Opposition Members will accept that there must be a difference when dealing with a school that is full, or virtually full, compared with a school that is half empty. Whatever figure had been given, no doubt the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) would have asked exactly the same question because, basically, he is against people's wishes being taken into account on these matters.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall bear in mind the three hon. Members who have not been called when the statutory instrument comes to be debated.
Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot say any more than I have said. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's point of order does not concern this matter.
Mr. Clarke: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to seek your guidance on the statutory instrument. Four schools are scheduled for closure in my constituency. No Minister has visited any of them.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are talking about one school today. I shall bear the hon. Gentleman's claims in mind when the statutory instrument comes to be debated.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR MONDAY 15 FEBRUARY
Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Robert B. Jones.

Miss Ann Widdecombe.

Mr. Hugh Rossi.

WELSH AFFAIRS
Ordered,
That the matter of the National Health Service in Wales, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration. — [Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

Orders of the Day

  Merchant Shipping Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.44 pm
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This Bill, introduced in another place at the end of October, deals, as the House will know, with a wide range of subjects, all of them important to the shipping industry and to the country at large. I am sure that the keenest interest of the House will be in the impact of the Bill upon marine safety, and that is where I wish to begin my remarks.
  The whole House remembers only too well the appalling disaster at Zeebrugge last year. The House will agree with me that the public has a right to travel in safety. Transport and travel play an increasingly pervasive part in modern life in both commerce and leisure. All those engaged in the transport industry owe it to others to work uncompromisingly for greater safety. But I recognise that it is for the Government to establish the framework.
  The loss of the Herald of Free Enterprise provided lessons in abundance for ship operators, for seafarers and for Governments alike. The Sheen report, which we received a few months ago, has formed in large measure the agenda for the Government's programme of follow-up action. More recently, the coroner's inquest has provided further valuable insights, particularly into the rescue arrangements and emergency procedures on board ships. I was determined to press ahead and implement as quickly as possible the main and most urgent recommendations of the formal investigation.
  The law rightly requires consultation, and that has either taken place or is going on. We have now issued consultative documents on eight major packages of proposals. The first, covering the installation of vehicle deck door indicator lights, closed-circuit television monitoring of the doors and vehicle decks and self-contained emergency lighting, has now passed into law. Indeed, the installation of door indicator lights and closed-circuit television is already a legal requirement.
  Two proposals — the introduction of boarding cards for the control of passenger numbers and the mandatory closing of vehicle deck doors before any roll-on/roll-off ferry leaves its berth, or as soon as it is physically possible to do so—will be dealt with in orders which I shall lay in about two weeks' time.
  Mr. Eric Heffer: Will the Secretary of State explain what he means by "physically possible to do so"? Surely it is important that the doors should be closed before the ferry leaves its berth. It could be out at sea before it is "physically possible" to close the doors.
  Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Perhaps I did not phrase that as accurately as I could. It is mandatory to close the doors as a ship leaves a berth. There is a small number of berths from which it is not possible for some sorts of roll-on/roll-off ferries to leave with their doors in that position. This is a technical matter, and the regulations will make it much clearer. The hon.

  505
  Gentleman and the public can be reassured. He is right to draw attention to this, and, if he is still worried about it he can contact me about it when he has seen the order.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: The Secretary of State mentioned boarding cards. When can we expect that order to be in force, as distinct from being introduced into the House?
  Mr. Channon: I hope that that will not take long. I shall ask my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport to give the hon. Gentleman an exact answer, but we are pressing ahead with the issue of boarding cards for the control of passenger numbers and I hope to lay orders in a few weeks' time.
  Other orders are close behind, covering such matters as the provision of draught gauges, loading computers and emergency escape windows; the provision by managements of comprehensive operating manuals and arrangements for their inspection by my Department; the designation of a person ashore responsible for operational safety; the weighing of heavy lorries before loading; the provision of special emergency equipment; regular checks on lightweight and centre of gravity; the reporting of potentially dangerous incidents; and the checking and recording of draughts and centre of gravity before sailing.
  There are also measures that can be taken as a result of administrative action. One such decision that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and I have taken is, in future, to ensure that formal investigations into marine accidents are not only impartial, but seen to be so. The responsibility for appointing and instructing counsel assisting the court will rest not with the Secretary of State, but with the Attorney-General. More substantially, I have decided to make important changes in the duties of marine surveyors. They are to devote more of their time to work on passenger ships and carry out many more spot and incognito checks than before. The control of passenger ferry operations—
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham rose—
  Mr. Channon: Perhaps I may just finish this point. The control of passenger ferry operations by the Marine Survey Service will also be improved by some of the measures I have already mentioned, such as the requirement for comprehensive operating manuals. I have a lot to get through, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Bermingham: The Secretary of State will recall that, when he made his statement to the House in respect of the Zeebrugge ferry disaster and the Sheen report that followed, I asked about marine surveyors and the numbers employed. He was kind enough to write to me on that matter. Will he now confirm that, bearing in mind the administrative steps that he proposes to take, he will ensure that there is an adequate number of marine surveyors so that adequate and comprehensive surveys can be carried out both officially and incognito? That is the only way in which we shall maintain safety standards.
  Mr. Channon: Of course, there will have to be an adequate number of marine surveyors. The fact that I intend to have a marine investigation branch means that more resources will be devoted to this matter.
  A moment ago my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) raised the important matter of boarding cards. It is my intention that the order
  506
  to make boarding cards mandatory should come into force on 29 February. I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises that that date is before the summer season.
  I come now to the international implications of the programme. I made it clear in July that certain crucial measures would need to be applied to all passenger ferries sailing from United Kingdom ports, regardless of flag. As our programme has developed, we have concluded that the majority of our measures ought to be applied in this way. But I do not wish to leave it at that.
  Marine safety worldwide is dealt with by the International Maritime Organisation. Members will be aware that that organisation is extremely successful. It has had a series of safety conventions and, over the past few years, it has provided a great many benefits to seafarers and travellers all over the world. In November, I personally took an initiative at the IMO's assembly with the aim of obtaining early worldwide agreement—under the IMO's accelerated procedures — to many of the measures we have proposed, without, of course, prejudicing our right to require foreign vessels to conform, when in our ports, to requirements under our own laws pending international agreement. We obtained the assembly's endorsement of a resolution that we proposed and I am hopeful of real progress in the not too distant future. So we are pressing ahead domestically and internationally.
  We have also convened a meeting of shipping administrations of the European countries — the main ferry operators exist in this part of the world — to consider the possibility of their taking action through their own laws. My main aim is to get the safety measures that we are imposing on United Kingdom ships and in United Kingdom ports extended to cover foreign ships in foreign ports as such ships, if bound for the United Kingdom, frequently contain large numbers of British passengers. But my further aim is to get international co-operation in enforcement. We have proposed, and received support for, the negotiation of a European ferry code as a vehicle for such an agreement. There is a lot going on.
  Next, let us consider research. Last July I announced that I would be contributing a further £1 million to research on the safety of ro-ro ferries. A representative steering committee was announced in October and contracts are now being let. One of the first contracts, for completion before Easter, is to assess proposals for new ship stability standards now before the IMO for early adoption. Other contracts will cover the development of lifejackets that are easier to put on, and escape from a partially capsized vessel. But perhaps of greatest interest will be a programme that looks specifically at the basic design of ro-ro ferries. The Government are satisfied that ro-ro ferries are not inherently unsafe as some have alleged: a ro-ro ferry that is properly closed to the sea and intact is as unlikely to capsize as any other vessel. But improvements in the basic design to give a greater margin of safety may well be possible, and it is the Government's intention to complete the first phase of this work by the end of the year.
  Mr. Cormack: Will improvements take into account that such vessels, if they sink, sink extremely quickly?
  Mr. Channon: That is an important point. However, if they are properly closed to the sea they are completely safe. It is extremely important to bear in mind that if there is

  507
  a disaster of this kind—fortunately, exceedingly rare— such ferries sink quickly. My hon. Friend's concern is much in our minds.
  Mr. Heffer rose—
  Mr. Channon: I will give way, but this must be for the last time.
  Mr. Heffer: The Secretary of State will agree that this is the most important matter to consider because, as the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) has said, if such ferries are holed and their design is as it is, they sink within minutes—
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Seconds.
  Mr. Heffer: Yes indeed. That is why this matter is so important. The right hon. Gentleman said that the first phase of the work would be completed by the end of the year. What does that mean? Is that the first stage? How quickly will he move on from that first stage? That is the most important question to consider.
  Mr. Channon: The first stage of the research will be completed by the end of the year, but we are doing other things as well. We are checking the stability factors of those ships and how they measure up to the most modern standards that we have in force at present. Therefore, a great deal of work is being undertaken regarding the stability of ro-ro ferries as well as a great deal of research on their basic design. However, the evidence around the world suggests that if a ro-ro ferry is properly closed to the sea and intact, it is safe. The House will be aware that, in many parts of the world, ro-ro ferries have been sailing for years and years. The important point is that those ferries must be properly closed to the sea.
  Mr. Heffer rose—
  Mr. Channon: I must press on because other areas relating to safety are also dealt with in the Bill.
  The responsibilities of ship owners, managers, masters and crews are terribly important to ensure that a ship is maintained and operated safely. Clause 30 creates a completely new duty on ship owners to ensure the safe operation of their ships..
  Clause 31 tightens up on the duties of masters and crew, requiring them to exercise due diligence in the carrying out of their duties and explicitly stating that a master's duties include responsibility for the good management and safe running of his ship. It also includes new defences that are not in existing legislation.
  Clause 29 deals with a ship that is unfit to go to sea whether because of its physical condition, overloading or any other reason, and affects the owner and master equally. Amendments have been made or will be brought forward to extend clauses 29 and 30 so that they equally cover ship managers and charterers.
  Clause 32, to which I briefly referred a moment ago, also arises from the Herald disaster and provides for the establishment of a new statutory marine accident investigation branch. The new branch will be separate from my Department's marine directorate and will report directly to me. It will therefore be free to take an entirely independent view should an accident raise questions about the regulatory policy of the Department. We also intend that all the branch's reports on the more important or significant accidents should be published.
  508
  The House will have many opportunities in the coming months to debate this programme. After tonight, there will be the Committee stage; and a number of the orders that we plan will be subject to affirmative procedure debate.
  We all know that there is one group of people to whom this programme is of deep personal significance: the survivors of the accident and the relatives of the victims. They, above all, will wish to know that everything possible is being done to avoid a repetition of the Zeebrugge tragedy. I made arrangements to meet the Herald Families Association next week to discuss its concerns and suggestions as I wish to hear what it has to say to me.
  I should refer briefly at this point to the proposal that has been made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) to refer the Bill to a Special Standing Committee. Of course, I have considered that suggestion extremely carefully, but I believe that the problems have already been fully exposed. There has been the Sheen formal investigation and the coroner's inquest, and I doubt that much could be done to add to our knowledge by a further round of hearings. This is not the time to go back to square one. I believe that our priority now must be a more specific, but no less demanding or responsible, task.
  Our duty, which only Parliament can carry out, is painstakingly to consider specific proposals, make clear judgments, and decide what changes should be made to the law. I am sure that the Standing Committee will want to consider the safety proposals carefully. I can assure the House that the Government are willing to listen to constructive arguments on these important matters and to be responsive to them, from whatever quarter they come. But I have no doubt that the right course now is to get down to the task in Committee without further delay. For those reasons, I cannot support the proposal that we should have a Special Standing Committee as well.
  Mr. Frank Field: I apologise for not hearing the beginning of the Secretary of State's speech. I am sure that the whole House welcomed his statement that in the near future he will be meeting families connected with the disaster. What contact did he have with the families before drafting the Bill? He said that in a sense the Bill is a result of that terrible tragedy. The two points that the families put to hon. Members at a meeting the other night were that they were unhappy about the penalties for companies when such a disaster occurred and were concerned about the safety of the ferries still in service. If there is the prior consultation to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, will he give an assurance that if those two points have not already been taken on board he will welcome amendments on them in Committee?
  Mr. Channon: I do not think that there was formal consultation with the families before the drafting of the Bill, but I think that the points that the hon. Gentleman raises are covered by the Bill or by other measures. For example, he will see that clause 30 deals with his point about owners. It says that if an owner fails to discharge the duty imposed on him — the duty that makes him liable for unsafe operation of a ship—
  "he shall be guilty of an offence and liable—

  (a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £50,000;

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

  509
  We may be able to discuss whether that is exactly right, but those are not negligible penalties; they are certainly a great deal more than has been suggested in the past.
  As for safety, there is, as I have said, the research programme going on into the inherent qualities of ro-ro ferries. Following the Sheen investigation, the question of the stability of the existing ferries is being looked at. I dealt with that matter in answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). If the Herald Families Association has further detailed ponts on it I shall wish to consider them when I see the association next week.
  I do not want to take too long, because other hon. Members wish to speak, but there are a number of other important matters that I should like to deal with briefly: measures of assistance with the shipping industry; the registration of merchant ships; and the establishment of a new fishing vessel register.
  All of us recognise the strategic importance of the Merchant Navy. The experience of other developed countries has been very similar to our own, and a complex reality lies behind the crude tonnage figures. Fundamental changes in our trading patterns have taken place. Much of our oil now comes from the North sea rather than spending weeks at sea being transported through the Suez canal or round the Cape. The European Community has replaced the Commonwealth as our major trading partner. We face fierce competition from Third world countries. There is a massive world over-capacity in bulk and tanker shipping.
  But some sectors of the British shipping industry have coped remarkably well with a uniquely rough period in world shipping markets. Our container fleet is about the same tonnage as it was in the mid-1970s. Over half the United Kingdom's international freight earnings come from our liner and container fleets, which account for only one quarter of our gross tonnage. Passenger ships account for only 8 per cent, of our gross tonnage, yet the United Kingdom earns over £800 million from the passenger ship business. So it is a complex matter. The shipping industry's contribution to the balance of payments invisible account grew by £221 million in 1986, the best for some years—and a reminder that tonnage on the United Kingdom register and the industry's value as a source of foreign earnings do not always go hand in hand.
  There is also the development of the Isle of Man and dependent territory registers, which has enabled much tonnage to remain under British registration, with British crews, while taking advantage of the savings obtainable offshore to improve the industry's competitive position.
  Many adverse factors — over-capacity, Third-world competition, new trading patterns—are not within our control, and it is folly to believe we could somehow escape them by erecting elaborate and expensive frameworks of subsidy. What we do must be carefully targeted. There are specific measures provided for in clauses 25 to 28, designed to ensure that we continue to have sufficient trained seamen to meet the defence needs of the United Kingdom in time of emergency.
  On training, we are particularly concerned at the small number of officer cadets at present being trained. The training scheme which we intend to bring into effect this autumn will build on the successful use already being made by the industry of the youth training scheme, and will provide help to ship owners and management companies with the cost of employing Merchant Navy cadets while they are being trained. Details of the scheme will be
  510
  announced as soon as possible. As has already been announced, £2·5 million has been earmarked for this scheme in the next financial year, rising to £3·5 million in the first full year, 1989–90.
  Under the crew relief scheme, assistance will be available to pay a proportion of the cost of air travel for crew changes on ships registered in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man, or the Channel Islands, which take place in distant waters. The objective here is to give companies an incentive to continue to employ officers and ratings resident in the British Isles in those ships which operate in the deep-sea trades. We have earmarked £3·5 million in 1988–89, rising to £5 million in the full year 1989–90, for this programme.
  The third initiative, announced by my predecessor in December 1986, was the establishment of a Merchant Navy Reserve. The reserve will constitute a pool of experienced seafarers who can be drawn upon to supplement crews serving on Merchant Navy ships supporting the defence forces or engaged in supply. Membership of the reserve will be open to former seafarers holding valid certificates. Members will be paid a bounty in exchange for accepting an obligation to serve if called upon to do so.
  Part II deals with the very serious problem of foreign-owned fishing vessels registering in the United Kingdom in order to fish against our EC quotas. This is, I know, a matter of concern to hon. Members who represent fishing constituencies. We are introducing stringent new eligibility requirements for the registration of fishing vessels in the United Kingdom. A fishing vessel would need to be beneficially owned as to at least 75 per cent, by British citizens resident and domiciled in the United Kingdom, or wholly owned by a qualified company. There will be powers to specify additional eligibility requirements.
  These are stringent requirements, but we believe they are essential if British fishing quotas are to be preserved for British fishermen. They have been carefully drawn up in consultation with the fishermen's organisations and widely welcomed by them.
  Part I updates the law on the registration of merchant ships. Hon. Members who are interested in this difficult and complicated matter will find the White Paper, published with the Bill, a helpful guide to this fairly technical area. The main objective of the changes, which I will not deal with in detail, is to ensure that there is more effective jurisdiction in future over United Kingdom-registered ships.
  Importantly, the Bill gives new powers to the Secretary of State to define categories of register for the Crown dependencies and dependent territories. Under the present arrangements it has been possible for substandard shipping to obtain registration as British shipping in a dependent territory and thus to escape rigorous survey and inspection requirements applied to vessels on the United Kingdom register. The new arrangements in the Bill, combined with the substantial efforts which a number of dependent territories are making to improve their maritime administrations, will help to ensure that all ships sailing under the British flag meet the same high standards. In this way we are able to meet the recommendation of the Transport Committee of the last Parliament that early legislation should be brought forward.
  There are a number of other clauses dealing with significant matters. Some of them — liability and compensation for oil pollution damage, lighthouses and

  511
  unfair competition in international shipping services—are very important, but I do not want to weary the House with a detailed exposition of them today. They can be gone into in Committee.
  I have tried to cover the main issues. If hon. Members have any questions, my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be pleased to answer them in his winding-up speech.
  Mr. Conal Gregory: My right hon. Friend referred briefly to light dues. Will he confirm to the House that the Government are still paying half the light dues for southern Ireland, which is a scandal? I hope that the matter will be dealt with in the Bill. The amount charged last year was well above the level required by the authorities.
  Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend is right. We are indeed paying Irish light dues; I would have to check the exact proportion. However, I shall give my hon. Friend a trailer. My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport may have good news on light dues when he replies to the debate. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) will be here to welcome it.
  There is a wide-ranging series of proposals in the Bill. They underline our commitment to maritime safety, help to safeguard our strategic requirements, protect United Kingdom fishing quotas for United Kingdom fishermen and overhaul the legislative framework. The proposed measures have been welcomed by the industry, and they have received general support in another place. I hope that the House will agree that the Bill should be given a Second Reading.
  5.10 pm
  Mr. Robert Hughes: I agree with much of what the Secretary of State said. By and large, the Bill is non-contentious, although it contains some contentious issues. Having been upset earlier by the Secretary of State for Scotland, I must try not to carry my anger forward and vent my spleen on the right hon. Gentleman. There are many points on which there is agreement, but other issues will have to be scrutinised carefully in Committee. There is still much tidying up to be done in the legislation. I hope, as the right hon. Gentleman said to me in a letter, that he will be prepared to consider amendments on their merits.
  I accept that much research is going on; and I welcome the fact that £1 million is to go into research, particularly on the safety of ro-ro ferries. I concede that there is no such thing as an unsinkable ship. The last ship that had that epithet was the Titanic. The right hon. Gentleman said that through ro-ro ferries are perfectly safe so long as they are watertight. That is much the same as saying that the Titanic was safe so long as it did not hit an iceberg.
  I am still concerned about the safety of existing ro-ro ferries. We must consider urgently whether portable bulkheads should be fitted to protect ships. We hope that never again will there be another sinking like that of the Herald of Free Enterprise, which sank because the doors were left open, but we are concerned about a ship being holed. We do not suggest that the fitting of portable bulkheads would make a ferry unsinkable, but it would lengthen the time that the vessel would remain afloat. The time before the Herald capsized was so short that no one had an opportunity to save life. If we can buy time for
  512
  lifeboats and rescue vessels, that may be the best that we can achieve. Certainly we should seek to achieve as much time as possible.
  Mr. Heffer: My question is not so much for my hon. Friend as for the Government. My hon. Friend may agree with my suggestion that all British ships should be brought in, one at a time, to have portable bulkheads fitted. Obviously, in the long-term new ships will be redesigned. In the meantime, ro-ro ferries could have departmentalised doors fitted to ensure greater safety.
  Mr. Hughes: That suggestion is worth pursuing. I cannot remember how many ships of a design similar to the Herald of Free Enterprise are at sea. The majority of ro-ro ferries have a different door-closing mechanism. Most have a bow visor, which is up while the ship is loading, and no one can go to sea with that visor up. I am not running down my hon. Friend's suggestion. Indeed, the number of vessels affected by his proposal might not be large, so the proposal should be considered seriously.
  I am in danger of losing the thread of my speech. Before I come to issues which we will contest vigorously, perhaps I should deal with the Herald of Free Enterprise and with the motion that the Bill should be committed to a Special Standing Committee. When discussing merchant shipping and safety at sea, we all have engraved on our minds the events of Friday 6 March, when we first heard that the Herald of Free Enterprise was in difficulty. As events unfolded, we discovered that it was a tragedy of immense proportions.
  The tragedy could have been far worse. Had the sinking taken place a quarter of a mile, or half a mile, further out, I doubt whether anyone would have survived. I am not minimising the loss of life, nor being complacent by taking refuge in the comfort that things might have been worse. It merely makes us more vigilant in ensuring that we scrutinise safety properly.
  The procedure for referring a Bill to a Special Standing Committee was designed for non-controversial Bills. It has rarely been used. I think that this Bill almost exactly fits the category for which the procedure was tailored. I am sorry that the Secretary of State has turned his face against the proposal. During business questions last week we were encouraged by the Leader of the House to believe that the matter might be resolved through the usual channels. I am grateful to the Minister for meeting my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) and myself to discuss reference to a Special Standing Committee. I wrote to him subsequently, and perhaps I should give the House our reasons for proposing that the Bill be committed to a Special Standing Committee to consider safety at sea.
  We welcome what is being done by regulation and administration. We welcome what is proposed in the Bill. The point I wish to emphasise is that this is likely to be the only major shipping legislation in this Parliament. I cannot see that there will be time for another major merchant shipping Bill. Therefore, it is important that we do not overlook any aspect of safety and that we get the Bill right.
  The Secretary of State is correct. We have had the Sheen report and the coroner's report. We are still waiting to see whether there will be prosecutions that might bring out further evidence. But there may not be prosecutions. There is still a body of opinion that we should not ignore any approach that might shed further light on how to improve safety at sea.

  513
  It is significant that the proposal to send the Bill to a Special Standing Committee came from the Herald Families Association. The association wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford on 21 December about its concern for the safety of existing ro-ro ferries. It drew my hon. Friend's attention to the special procedure and asked whether the Bill could be dealt with in that way. We have no intention of intruding on the grief of the families, or of prolonging or exploiting that grief, but as the initiative came from the families it should be considered seriously. We should bring in experts to answer our questions. Often non-experts or people directly concerned with an incident ask a blindingly obvious question which has not occurred to other people who have been studying the matter.
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: As the Bill includes useful provisions to increase safety, does the hon. Gentleman not accept that a Special Standing Committee would delay its implementation?
  Mr. Hughes: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that point, because it allows me to emphasise what I was going to say. I should be glad to be corrected, but I can see nothing in the Bill that has to be passed by a fixed date to get things moving. We have made it perfectly clear that our proposal to send the Bill to a Special Standing Committee is not intended to delay progress. I accept that if the Bill went to such a Committee, reasonable time would have to be allowed so that people could prepare their questions and their evidence. I recollect that the procedure allows for only three sessions to take evidence.
  I have offered the co-operation of the Opposition in getting the Bill through as rapidly as possible, and I believe that we could proceed along those lines without any great delay. I cannot say that there would be no delay, but there would be no great delay, and I hope that, even now, the Secretary of State will relent and allow us to put the matter to a Special Standing Committee. Today's debate will decide whether we will divide the House on that matter.
  I shall deal with an issue that is not controversial before coming to the controversial matters. I accept what the Secretary of State said about the need for registration for fishing vessels to prevent the abuse of registration and access to the United Kingdom quota of fish under EEC rules. I hope that such regulations will be speedily implemented, but one or two issues need to be clarified.
  The Scottish Fishermen's Federation believes that there should be registration of all vessels, irrespective of length or size, but the line must be drawn somewhere, or rowing boats or small vessels with outboard motors might have to be registered. As far as possible, the maximum number of boats should be registered. There is also the matter of the old register being closed and the period of transition, and whether the title of vessels should always be registered. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation has a point that should be considered in some detail in Committee.
  I join the federation in welcoming the fact that under part III some money is to be provided to assist the training of officers and ratings in the Merchant Navy. That is a good idea, but why are the Secretary of State and the Government steadfastly refusing financial assistance for the training of fishermen? It is expected that the Secretary of State will make regulations under the Safety at Sea Act 1986 requiring fishermen to be trained in survival at sea, fire fighting and first-aid, but he will not give them any
  514
  financial assistance. Why are the two parts of our maritime industry being treated differently? In previous wars fishermen served the Royal Navy extremely well. It was not only the deep-sea fishermen who had valuable experience to give to the nation. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider that point and perhaps take some action.
  I now turn to an issue that is quite contentious and on which there is a great deal of disagreement. I have made representations to the Minister, who will know that I do not believe that the Bill should have started in the House of Lords. I accept that we have a bicameral Parliament and that the other place is perfectly entitled to start legislation, but it is generally accepted that such legislation will nor. be contentious, and that the House of Lords is at its best when reviewing legislation. I assert that it is not at its best when starting fresh legislation.
  I resent the fact that the Government accepted an amendment on Report by Lord Mottistone, supported by the Earl of Inchcape, to remove section 42(2) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1970. Subsection (2) affects the position of seafarers involved in industrial disputes. It is a further restriction of the rights of seamen and it further tilts the balance towards employers.
  The amendment was accepted in the other place after the most cursory examination. Indeed, no evidence was presented that such a change was needed, except for anecdotal evidence. Two of their Lordships thought that the subsection was redundant and that it was not necessary, but no facts were brought forward to support the removal of subsection (2). Lord Brabazon previously resisted an almost identical amendment in Committee. Having said, on Thursday 26 November, that he had no evidence that the change was necessary, 14 days later he accepted the amendment, saying that he had now been persuaded.
  There was no reason for such a rush. It was the first time that the Bill had been aired. Lord Brabazon could have held his fire and asked for the evidence. He could have asked for consultation. He did not consult the trades unions involved or the employers' organisations, and he does not appear to have consulted his own Department. He had to admit that he had not had the time to prepare an amendment of his own.
  That is no way to approach people's rights in industrial relations. It is likely to be extremely provocative. I do not take comfort from the Government's view, put about in the other place, and which no doubt they will put about in the House, that that change only puts seafarers square with other industrial employees in terms of industrial relations. That is no big deal. We know that throughout their terms of office the Government have been redressing the balance, as they would put it, between the unions and the employers. However, in the Merchant Shipping Bill they have gone too far.
  I doubt whether the Government are aware of the ramifications of that amendment. Seamen do not work in a fixed environment. Their environment constantly changes. Perhaps in Committee the Government will be prepared to examine the legislation and change it. The amendment was made without proper consideration, and the Government will see the folly of their ways. We shall certainly pursue the matter vigorously in Committee.
  I now turn to what is not in the Bill. The most glaring deficiency is that it fails totally to address the problem of the decline in Britain's merchant fleet. The Opposition

  515
  have stated that view more than once, and it is shared by the National Union of Seamen and by the National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers. The General Council of British Shipping stated, quite categorically:
  "First, welcome though the proposals for financial aid for training and reparation are, they will not arrest the decline of the UK-owned merchant fleet. If Government and Parliament decide that it is in the national interest — for defence, balance of payments, trade, or employment reasons — for there to be a UK-controlled fleet, manned at least in part with British nationals and available on at least a British Dependent Territory register, much more needs to be done. In particular, action is needed to help shipowners re-invest in shipping when the current aging fleet reached the end of its economic life."
  That could almost be a synopsis of the Labour party policy put forward in the transport document, "Fresh Directions". It is clearly spelt out on page 21 of the document. The Secretary of State often asks what our policy is, and we clearly spell it out that we want to
  "improve coastal shipping facilities along the lines of Section 8 and Section 36 grants (which provide grants for rail sidings and inland waterway freight facilities."
  We want to:
  "Provide tax incentives for scrapping older vessels and building new ships in UK shipyards and for use with UK crews."
  In that, we differ from the GCBS. It says that the ships should be partly manned by British crews. We say that they should be wholly manned by British crews.
  We go on to say that we would
  "Create a discretionary scrap only tax incentive, to reduce the surplus of old laid up shipping tonnage."
  We add that we would
  "Ensure that our shipping policies are co-ordinated with policies to maintain an effective shipbuilding and ship-repair industry."
  The Government have gone wrong in the past because they have looked at shipping in isolation. It is not as though the merchant marine has suddenly declined. It is not as though the decline has sneaked up on the Government so that they were unaware of it. The decline has gone on for far too long.
  The last time that we debated merchant shipping was on 11 March 1986, and the writing was on the wall then. At that time we debated various EEC regulations. I am glad that the loss of tonnage has not been as severe as we forecast at that time, but we cannot take much comfort from that. Indeed, it is rather sad to see that the best headline that the press could produce about the merchant shipping fleet was:
  "Decline in shipping fleet slows down".
  Decline has not been arrested or reversed; it has only slowed down.
  Mr. Gregory: The hon. Gentleman seems to be very much a prophet of doom and gloom today. If we were to follow the Labour party's policy set out on page 21 that he quoted, what level of subsidy would be necessary to arrive at that artificial and protective state?
  Mr. Hughes: If we were in government we would be in a position to decide exactly how far to go.
  An interesting convergence of views is developing. Two years ago the General Council of British Shipping was thought to be relatively satisfied with the answers given by the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). He told us that he could not give us any details, but he did give us a little
  516
  trailer, as, indeed, the Secretary of State did this afternoon. He did not say that we should wait until the end of the debate, but that we should wait a couple of weeks until the Budget. However, the Chancellor did virtually nothing. The fact that the changes made in the 1986 Budget did virtually nothing for the merchant marine is demonstrated by the fact that, certainly up until September last year, for two years not one British shipowner placed an order for a British ship in the United Kingdom. The Budget did nothing. The General Council of British Shipping now accepts that there must be investment, and investment supported by the Government, in the British shipping industry, and we agree on that.
  The second convergence of views is on cabotage. In March 1986 we argued for cabotage to be applied to the British coasts for the reservation of coastal trade to British ships. We include in that offshore vessels plying the North sea oil trade. The then Secretary of State said that that was not necessary, and the General Council of British Shipping said that the best way to go about things was to liberalise on cabotage, and if the European countries who already have it would let us have access to their trade, everything in the garden would be lovely. The General Council of British Shipping is now saying in its document that the time has come when we must seriously think of cabotage.
  I was interested to read in the debates in the other place that Lord Gray of Con tin, and another noble Lord, whose name I have forgotten, were arguing about the need for cabotage. The General Council of British Shipping clearly said:
  "more needs to be done to help British coastal shipping. It is unacceptable that so many of our fellow European Community countries—France, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece — should reserve their coastal trades to their own ships, which at the same time are able to trade freely in British coastal trades. GCBS would like to see all the Community coastal trades thrown open for competition, but it is clear that other member states will not negotiate away their restrictions whilst they can enjoy the best of both worlds. We believe that the Government should take powers to curb the free-for-all on the British coast as a spur to encourage the negotiation away of all EC countries' restrictions".
  We shall not achieve that objective. The countries that have cabotage know exactly how valuable that is, but I am glad to have that endorsement of the Labour party's policy, for which we have argued for some years, that cabotage is necessary. I hope that the Secretary of State will now agree that something should be done.
  We have been given another little trailer. There are rumours, hints, suggestions in the press that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might agree to some rollover relief on capital investment in British shipping. But that is only a hint. We do not know what it will be. If he lives up to his previous record, it will not be any good to us.
  Lord Brabazon said that something needed to be done on a number of matters and that he was concerned about the decline in the shipping fleet. He said that cabotage was a reserve power which remains to be used should the time be ripe. It is no use putting a substitute on with one minute to go, and the Secretary of State should now agree to apply cabotage. We should protect what we have in order to try to move forward, because the situation is perilous.
  The hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) said that I was a prophet of doom. I wish that there was no need to be gloomy, but I doubt whether any Conservative Member will say what a marvellous buoyant state shipping is in and what a great future it has. No one will say that there is no need to worry because everything is going well and that the

  517
  Opposition, the National Union of Seamen and the General Council of British Shipping are wrong; that all is going swimmingly. That is not what was said in the other place, and it is not what the Secretary of State said. We must take action soon and swiftly if we are to save the merchant shipping fleet.
  I hope that the Secretary of State and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will have gathered from my remarks that there is much in the Bill that we welcome, but we believe that it should be probed. We shall not vote against its Second Reading this evening—that would be foolish—but we reserve our position on the Special Standing Committee.
  I promise the Secretary of State that he will have to work hard to justify some of the changes that he has made, and he will have to work hard to review some of the changes that we want made. However, I hope that, in the spirit of co-operation, we can make some real progress in Committee, and I hope that we will have a useful debate.
  5.37 pm
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: There is no one in this country, maritime nation that it is, who is not deeply concerned about many of the matters in the Bill. Some of my colleagues may wonder why I, a Member for Staffordshire, am taking part in this debate. I would just point out that I speak as the son of a master mariner and as somebody who has spent more than half his life by the sea and who has sailed with the fishing fleet out of Grimsby. Therefore, I have a little practical experience.
  But it is not for those reasons that I seek to intervene briefly today. I wished to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because some time before Christmas I received a letter from Mr. Maurice de Rohan, the chairman of the Herald Families Association. I had not at that stage had the pleasure of meeting Mr. de Rohan but I have subsequently met him and his colleague, Mr. Spooner, and other members of the association.
  I was anxious that any help given in Parliament should be on an entirely non-partisan cross-party basis. I immediately enlisted the support of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and we have tried to work together. On Tuesday this week we received, together with a few of our colleagues, members of the Herald Families Association and listened to what they had to tell us.
  No one who met those people who went through one of the most searing experiences, not only losing loved ones but losing them in circumstances almost too appalling to contemplate, could fail to be moved, not just by the stories of tragedy or the terrible accounts of families rent asunder, but by the quiet controlled passion which they have displayed. This is no group of people bent on vengeance or making destructive criticism.
  It would perhaps be appropriate to quote to the House the aims of their association. They say, in the short document that they issued, that the association was established after the capsize of the vessel:
  "It was formed by the bereaved of many of the victims to give mutual help and comfort … It is natural that those who share the same grief should want to help each other. It is as natural that they should seek to ensure that such a disaster as befell their loved ones should not recur. The Association seeks in all its activities to be motivated not by vindictiveness but by the wish to see the lessons of the disaster learned."
  That is an extremely balanced, moderate statement, and anyone who has met members of the association cannot fail to have been moved by their attitude and approach.
  518
  I would like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the association, to thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport for what he said this afternoon, for his promise to meet the association's members next week, for his promise to listen carefully to what they have to say and also for the speedy action that he has taken on a number of matters that have given them and us concern. I was particularly grateful for his assurance that the boarding pass will become a legal requirement by the end of February. That is speedy action and we should all be grateful for it.
  I would, however, like to concentrate my remarks on one of the principal concerns of the Herald Families Association. In its major document, the association points out that one of its immediate objectives is to have the responsibility of the ferry company—P and O European Ferries, previously Townsend car ferries — determined. The members of the association make out a good case for that but you would rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I developed that particular theme this afternoon.
  The second of the association's major objectives is entirely pertinent and relevant — it is to press for immediate action on the safety and stability of roll-on/roll-off ferries, to ensure that they will sink slowly, enabling normal life-saving practices to be followed. They list a number of those ro-ro ferries which have gone down in minutes or even seconds in recent years. Their document has on its cover a picture of a ferry. One immediately assumes that it is the Herald of Free Enterprise. Not at all, it is the Gateway which went down with, thank God, minimal loss of life in 1982.
  My right hon. Friend said that he was devoting money to research. That is splendid. He said that he was most anxious to see that these vessels were the seaworthy vessels that everyone who sailed in them had a right to expect. But there is one point that has already come out in the debate and on which I would welcome further remarks from my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport when he replies to the debate. It may be perfectly possible to ensure that never again will a vessel go to sea with its doors open, but if a vessel is holed, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) so rightly said, if there is a collision in the Channel — which is the busiest waterway in the world—and a vessel goes down as fast as the Gateway and the Herald of Free Enterprise went down, there could be further disasters.
  As we are entering the era of the giant ferry carrying 2,000 passengers or more, one does not like to contemplate the enormity of the tragedy that could ensue if that were to happen. I hope, therefore, that real attention will be paid to what can be done to make these vessels more seaworthy in all normal circumstances.
  Of course, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North was right to refer to the Titanic. He was also right—in what I thought was an extremely moderate passage of his speech, although I did not agree with all his concluding remarks — to say that there is no such thing as an unsinkable vessel. Nor would the members of the Herald Families Association suggest that there was. But these vessels could be made more seaworthy, perhaps by adopting the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer); and, if they could not be made more seaworthy, no more should be constructed. This point has not been sufficiently grasped.

  519
  On corporate responsibility, my right hon. Friend rightly drew attention to the fact that on indictment a company and those responsible for it can be liable to two years' imprisonment and an unlimited fine. That is all well and good, but there ought to be provision in this Bill for a company's licence to be revoked if it behaves in such an irresponsible way in future. Such a provision cannot be made retrospective, and I stress that neither the Herald Families Association nor I seek to be vindictive. But if we are trying to frame shipping legislation for the 21st century there ought to be real penalties, and they ought to include the ability to revoke a licence.
  Mr. Frank Field: Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House about our meeting with the Herald families at which they stressed — and I was surprised by the comment—that safety at sea was not regularly discussed at board level? In this Bill and with its penalties, we must somehow raise that issue to board level so that it is considered regularly, not just perhaps once or twice, on occasions when a disaster like this puts it on the board's agenda.
  Mr. Cormack: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. The families association is right in making this point. I was glad to hear what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had to say about the policing of the regulations and about random checks to ensure that they were enforced. That was a most welcome part of his speech, as was his reference to the supervision of ships sailing under other flags.
  I have two final points. Looking forward, as the members of the association do, and seeking to envisage what could happen in the event of some terrible disaster in the future — and not just a maritime disaster — the Herald Families Association believes that its members' agony and torment would have been less had there been a national disaster unit, able to respond to this sort of calamity and able to ensure that information was more quickly and accurately supplied. It also believes that if a national disaster fund existed, able to cater immediately for the financial needs of those bereaved, it would be a help. While it is not appropriate for me to expand on those points this evening, I would be most grateful if my right hon. Friend would bear them in mind when he meets the association and if he would pass them on to his ministerial colleagues.
  This is a constructive and welcome Bill. The families who have suffered so badly welcome it. Let us ensure that when it leaves this House—and it cannot go back to the other place when it leaves — it is as good a Bill, as unsinkable a Bill, as we can produce.
  5.47 pm
  Mr. Peter Shore: I can well understand why the Secretary of State began his speech this afternoon by referring to the topic of marine safety and to the appalling background of the Bill, the Zeebrugge disaster. A number of the things that he said in the course of his speech will be very welcome news to the House. I do, however, join both my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) in stressing that there is a serious subject for further investigation in the design of ferries. We shall not really be wholly at ease with ourselves and feel that we have
  520
  achieved that degree of seaworthiness which I am sure the industry is capable of attaining unless we tackle the question of ship design and satisfy ourselves that we have the safest form of ferry available.
  Another very important factor in this debate is that we are speaking against the background of a continuing and unprecedented decline in the United Kingdom merchant fleet. The extent of that decline is not, I fear, fully appreciated.
  From more than 50 million tonnes on the United Kingdom register in 1975—I remember the figure well, and some of the special circumstances, because I was Secretary of State for Trade at the time—the fleet had shrunk to 25 million tonnes in 1982 to 16 million tonnes in 1985 and to under 6 million tonnes in 1987. At least some part of the fleet has been flagged out to the Isle of Man and Channel Island registers and to those of British dependent territories, and a small number of ships have been foreign registered, too. Taking account of all those categories of ships that are still British-owned, however, we have still shrunk from 28·8 million tonnes in 1982 to just under 17 million tonnes in 1987. Thus, in only five years, the number of United Kingdom-owned ships has fallen from 1,063 to 635. No other nation — with the possible exception of Norway — has suffered so catastrophic a decline. While most European fleets contracted in the period 1982–87 — the United States actually increased its tonnage — so the scale of the decline of those nations' fleets is not comparable with our own.
  Uniquely, we are an island nation, the vast bulk of whose trade is carried by ships. Of course, major adverse factors have been at work—the sharp fall in the volume of oil trade and the major changes in the pattern of oil trade to which the Secretary of State referred, for instance. He might have added the slump of 1974–75 in world trade, and the further slump that followed another hijack of the oil price in 1979–80. So there were major factors beyond our control, as he rightly said.
  However, some of our wounds are self-inflicted. In particular, the abolition in 1984 of free depreciation against capital costs in the form of a 100 per cent, first-year allowance, carried back, as it then was, against profits for the three preceding years, has had a major adverse effect. No other country has abandoned Government aid toward the capital cost of its ships. As up to 50 per cent, of the running costs of a ship relate to the cost of its finance, the effect on our competitiveness has been catastrophic. Any British shipowner now acquiring a ship for United Kingdom registering puts himself at a significant disadvantage. According to the General Council of British Shipping—I have not seen its figures challenged — the United Kingdom now stands 39th in the world order-book league. We have five ships on order with a deadweight tonnage of 51,000. The General Council of British Shipping is aware of no new ships on order for United Kingdom owners for registering outside the United Kingdom. No ships were ordered from August 1986 to September 1987, when one ship was ordered. That compares with orders in the United Kingdom registry of 363 deadweight tonnes in 1983, the last complete year before the 1984 Budget withdrew the 100 per cent, depreciation allowance.
  There are, of course, costs other than capital costs—especially crew costs—which determine the competitiveness of United Kingdom ships. Nevertheless, United

  521
  Kingdom ships are broadly competitive with those of western Europe and operate at substantially lower costs than those of the United States and Japan. Of course, we are massively undercut by flag of convenience operators.
  It is against this background that the House should examine the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Bill. While there is much that is useful in the Bill on matters such as registration, safety and the fishing fleet, only a few clauses in part III address the issue of United Kingdom competitiveness and the decline in the British maritime fleet. According to Lord Brabazon, who introduced the Bill in the other place on 10 November last year,
  "Their objective"
  —that of the clauses, that is—
  "is to ensure that the shipping industry remains capable of meeting the nation's essential shipping needs in times of emergency or war."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 November 1987; Vol. 489, c. 1293.]
  He then referred, as did the Secretary of State this afternoon, to the three initiatives on assistance with training costs, the costs of crew changes on ships operating in distant waters and the setting up of a Merchant Navy reserve.
  These provisions are contained in clause 25, 26, 27 and 28. I welcome them, as, I am sure, does the House—as far as they go. Just how far is explained in the explanatory and financial memorandum of the Bill. The public expenditure provision for the Merchant Navy training and crew relief costs rises to £3·5 million and £5 million respectively in the full year 1989–90. Costs incurred in relation to the Merchant Navy reserve are thought to be in the region of £1 million a year. In relation to the needs of the United Kingdom Merchant Navy, those sums are peanuts.
  I do not see how the Bill can be easily amended to make more adequate provision to assist our merchant fleet, but at least it would be good to learn from the Secretary of State — or the Minister — that he had forcefully represented to the Chancellor the need to resume assistance towards the capital costs of British shipping. I do not believe that the Government or Back Benchers on either side can be, or are, indifferent to the continued decline of the British Merchant Navy.
  The cost in terms of our balance of payments is already high. We have moved from a national positive balance in the 1970s to a deficit of no less than £1·1 billion in 1985. I do not know what fleet size and composition the Ministry of Defence believes to be necessary in a period of tension or war, but there must be an irreducible minimum. On present trends, there is no reason why our shrunken fleet of 400 ships should not shrink still further to 200 or fewer in the 1990s. At the very least, I hope the Government will take an early opportunity to present to the House a comprehensive policy to prevent the further decline, and preferably to assist in the revival, of the British Merchant Navy.
  5.57 pm
  Mr. Neville Trotter: May I say how much I agree with the speech made by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). He was absolutely right to remind us of the continuing decline of the Merchant Navy, which forms the background against which we are reviewing the Bill. I support all that he said about the need for fiscal measures to help the industry. It
  522
  is relevant that our competitors in the western world are giving assistance of that nature to their merchant navies while we are not.
  The picture is one of a fleet that is increasingly flagged out, manned by foreigners and to an underlying extent composed of aging ships. A difficult decision about replacement lies ahead in the near future for the owners of many of the ships remaining on the British register. Coming as I do from a shipbuilding area, I need hardly remind the House how important it is to obtain more orders for that industry. However, that is not the specific issue before us — we are debating the future of the Merchant Navy tonight. I emphasise the need for my right hon. friend the Secretary of State to take to our right hon. Friend the Chancellor the message that he must not delay the introduction of more fiscal measures to help the Merchant Navy, if we want the necessary fleet renewals, without which an aging fleet will in the near future become uneconomic and unable to maintain even its present size in the near future.
  It is surely not necessary to remind the House why so many of us think it necessary for Britain to have a Merchant Navy. Apart from the economic argument, it is clear that the defence needs of NATO and of our own country necessitate the existence of an adequate Merchant Navy, as part of the deterrent that we must maintain. It is essential that a potential foe appreciates that we have the maritime capacity to sustain ourselves at a time of crisis. If he believed that that was not so, there would be more temptation to start the trouble that we are seeking to avoid.
  I might mention for the benefit of my right hon. Friend that his predecessor in December 1986 referred to inquiries that were being made into the problems of being able—or unable at a time of crisis — to obtain United Kingdom-owned vessels that were flagged out and operating under foreign flags. Would they be available to us in a crisis? My right hon. Friend's predecessor explained it was both a legal matter for this country and also a matter for the other states concerned. I hope that before too long we shall hear what conclusions have been reached as a result of those inquiries. It is a very important issue for the continuing defence and security of this country.
  Another important factor is that our merchant fleet should be able to compete fairly with its competitors. In recent years some ships flying the Red Ensign that have been registered in the dependent territories have not complied with our safety standards. That is wrong, and I welcome the proposals in the Bill designed to prevent that happening in future.
  I want to refer briefly to the Isle of Man. The Select Committee on Transport, on which I have the pleasure to serve, visited the Isle of Man a few months ago. We were delighted to be told that the Isle of Man authorities are determined to impose on the ships registered in Douglas the same high standards that are to be found on ships registered in Newcastle, London or Cardiff. It is one of the few encouraging signs for our Merchant Navy that the Isle of Man register has taken off successfully as in effect a Red Ensign flag of convenience.
  Coming from North Shields, I very much welcome anything to do with fair competition in the fishing industry. While North Shields vessels have not been the main sufferers as a result of the activity by the Spanish in the southern Channel area, it is right that we should prevent the abuse of the registry system that has occurred

  523
  there. Foreign-owned vessels must not be allowed simply to transfer to the Red Ensign so as to obtain part of the United Kindgom quota of scarce fish. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on taking measures to correct that abuse.
  I want to ask my right hon. Friend some questions about the new registry of fishing vessels. I believe that it is proposed that there should be a central registry for fishing vessels instead of the 90 or more port registries that exist at present. I hope that my right hon. Friend will appreciate that fishermen in North Shields and elsewhere do not want to go to Cardiff or deal with officials in Cardiff in order to obtain registration in future. I hope that there will still be officials in the local ports with whom the fishermen can deal and I hope that boats will continue to display the registration letters and numbers of the local ports around the coast as there is a great deal of pride in this local identity.
  One of the greatest problems facing the Merchant Navy is caused by the low wages paid on so many of our competitors' vessels. Those vessels are manned by people who are, on the whole, satisfied with their wages because they are being paid the going rate in their own country. Undoubtedly, this is one of the main problems facing our operators at a time when world freight rates are actually less than they were seven or eight years ago. There is no margin to carry unnecessary costs.
  The Bill contains welcome proposals, but I fear that they are rather modest when compared with the overall scale of the problem.
  The new scheme for assistance for training will be helpful. It is a fact of life that so many of our competitors in the western world do not have to find the high cost of training as do owners in this country. For many years there has been an excellent marine college in South Shields on Tyneside. It has been very disturbing to see the constant fall in the number of young men entering the college for both deck and engine cadetships. There is now a shortage of cadets and I hope that this welcome measure will end that problem. I hope that more can be also done using existing schemes such as YTS or the Manpower Services Commission to assist in tackling the problem.
  With regard to the repatriation of United Kingdom crews, I was interested to be told recently by the owners of a United Kingdom registered cruise ship that when she went on a round-the-world voyage the cost of the air fares for changing the crew en route amounted to £1 million. That is the level of burden that such ships carry to provide a British crew. However, such ships of course also have the great advantage of the highest reputation for the standard of service on board. The measure will be helpful in matching the competition with their lower costs of manning.
  The Bill contains a welcome proposal to establish a Merchant Navy reserve. There is considerable debate whether in an emergency we would be able to obtain the ships that we would need. It can be argued that unless the crisis was worldwide, there would be ships available for purchase if we paid enough for them. I would, however, have been happier to see an additional proposal before the House to establish a reserve not just of men but of ships anchored in our waters. The United States has adopted that policy. It is taking advantage of the low price of modern secondhand vessels and has bought nearly 100
  524
  ships which are kept at anchor and which could be put into service in a day or two should a crisis occur. We should do that in Britain.
  The number of sailors on the Merchant Navy register has fallen from 50,000 to only 25,000 over the past five years. There are probably also almost 7,000 British sailors serving on foreign-flagged ships. Unless we take steps now, United Kingdom sailors to man our ships in a crisis will simply not be available and the new reserve of men is timely.
  Has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State any idea yet as to how long it will take to establish the reserve? What kind of training will be available? As I understand it, the reserve will consist of former seamen who will state that they are willing to be recalled to the colours in an emergency. As time passes, they will tend to become rusty and there must surely be a system to provide regular refresher training.
  I want to refer to unfair restrictions on the market. We have always believed in free trade at sea, and quite rightly so. That was the whole basis for the birth of the Merchant Navy, which involved the carrying of other people's cargoes around the world. Many British companies are still satisfactorily and effectively doing that today. However, 79 per cent, of the weight of cargo coming in and out of the United Kingdom is now carried on foreign-flagged ships and by value the figure is 64 per cent. We can see the temptation of suggesting that we should think of protectionism. However, that is not the answer and it is not what the General Council of British Shipping is asking for. It is right that we should have free trade on the seas and we can benefit from that. However, it is essential that the rules are fair and that our people are not discriminated against as they increasingly have been. I therefore welcome the new powers sought in the Bill to counter unfair competition.
  Finally, I want to refer to the problem of cabotage and to coastal trading around this country and neighbouring coasts of Europe. Different rules seem to apply. Our coasts are open to all, yet a number of our important neighbours' coasts are not open to our ships. That is very unfair and I am sure that my right hon. Friend has that point very much on board.
  6.7 pm
  Mrs. Ray Michie: I also welcome this necessary Bill. I appreciate the fact that the Secretary of State, like other hon. Members, started by referring to the safety aspects, and we would not expect anything else. We all appreciate that they are so important following the Zeebrugge disaster and tragedy.
  I want to draw the Secretary of State's attention to several safety aspects to which he referred with regard to ferries which differ from the ferry involved in the Zeebrugge tragedy. I want to refer to the ferries serving the Scottish islands. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not insist that a six-car ferry should require closed circuit television, when the whole length of the ferry can be seen from the bridge by the master. Perhaps a little money could be saved in that way. I believe that the deadline for installing emergency lighting is July 1988. I am not sure whether approved equipment exists at the moment. Therefore, there could be a problem in meeting that deadline.
  Reference has been made to the registration of fishing vessels. I have a particular interest in the part of the Bill

  525
  that deals with that registration, as fishing is an integral part of the life of many communities in my constituency. Part II provides for a new system of fishing vessel registration which, I am glad to say, would do away with the ability of non-United Kingdom vessels to flag into the fishing fleet and enjoy British quotas. I am glad that the Government have responded to the need to ensure that those quotas are taken up only by United Kingdom fishermen, as they have been fought for long and hard over the years.
  The Scottish Fishermen's Federation, which includes the Clyde Fishermen's Association — of which I am proud to be honorary president—holds the view that, if the exploitation of quotas by non-United Kingdom interests is to be eliminated, all loopholes must be closed. The registration of fishing vessels for title may be a matter of concern. Possibly it is peculiar to Scotland, and it is probably an issue for the Committee to consider. I believe that at present there is an option on whether a boat is registered for title, but in Scotland such registration is recognised custom and practice.
  Another point of concern is the lack of definition on when the old fishing vessel register will close once the new one has been opened. While it is accepted that both registers will run concurrently for a time, it is important that a limit should be imposed, perhaps of four or six months. The federation stresses that that will be necessary if the new register is to be a success.
  The administrative arrangements for the register have already been mentioned. Although I believe that they are being centralised in Cardiff, I nevertheless welcome the Government's recognition of the need for business to continue to be conducted personally at local offices, because local knowledge and expertise must not be allowed to disappear. I was reassured by the answer given by Lord Brabazon in another place that officers will be retained in many ports, including two in my area, in Oban and Campbeltown.
  The Bill provides for financial assistance with the costs of training Merchant Navy officers and rating. However, as has been mentioned, there is no word about assistance for training in the fishing industry. We should give that some consideration. The Sea Fish Industry Authority has provided only limited support, and that is not guaranteed beyond March 1988. Many fishermen are already undertaking training for survival courses, and it is surely reasonable that that branch of the maritime industry should receive some support.
  I was interested in the Bill's definition of a fishing vessel as a vessel
  "used … for or in connection with fishing for sea fish."
  According to the Bill,
  "'sea fish' includes shellfish, salmon and migratory trout (As defined by … the Fisheries Act 1981)".
  I am sorry that eels in inland waters in Scotland are classified as freshwater fish, because they are at the mercy of foreign companies that come over and fish out all the eels, leaving our own eel fishermen with the thought of the dole. That is a tragedy, and I really do not know why eels should be so classified. Perhaps someone will consider the eel fishermen's plight.
  I see no provision in the Bill that makes a serious attempt to arrest the decline of our once large, and always proud, Merchant Navy. Although the financial assistance for training and repatriation is welcome, it will not halt the
  526
  decline of the fleet. I believe that what is required is a package of measures that will put us on more of an equal footing with our competitors.
  The deep concern of many of my constituents about the decline came to light during the last election, when attitudes ranged from astonishment to downright disbelief that this island country could have allowed such a rundown in our fleet. While a Merchant Navy reserve sounds very laudable, I believe that a greater determination to have a viable merclant fleet crewed by United Kingdom seafarers would obviate the need for such a reserve. The continual "flagging-out" has meant that fewer and fewer people have come forward to be trained, and the danger is that we shall soon find ourselves without enough pilots or harbour masters, or enough crews for cross-channel ferries, Caledonian MacBrayne and the large ships criss-crossing the world's oceans.
  I was delighted to learn that a company in Glasgow, Clyde Marine Training, which has 12,000 British seafarers on its register, set up a training schedule only last March. The company managed to attract 50 youngsters to train this year, and hopes for another 100 next year. The young cadets come in with O-grades, the Scottish equivalent of O-levels in England. With the use of existing finance through the Manpower Services Commission, the cost to the shipowner is very much less — about £6,000 over four years—whereas previously it was £25,000 per cadet over four years.
  I referred to the interest of my constituents. That interest extends to the whole of the highlands and islands area, for it was a tradition stretching back to the first world war that crofters and fishermen left the land to join the Merchant Navy in far greater numbers than ever joined the Royal Navy.
  During the depression of the 1930s, when unemployment was so high, highlanders used to come to Glasgow and join the long queue in Jamaica street, where stood the men on the dole hoping to join the Merchant Navy But, because of their fishing and seafaring experience and tradition, those highlanders were often taken out of the queue and given jobs straight away. There is a wealth of knowledge, expertise and dedication among our people. It would be a tragedy if this country were to suffer any more loss, or see any further decline in our fleet and in the crews who man it. I give the Bill a general welcome.
  6.18 pm
  Sir David Price: I detect a desire to make progress, so I shall be as brief as I can. In doing so, I declare both a constituency and a personal interest in the fortunes of the British Merchant Navy.
  This is a miscellaneous Bill containing all sorts of different clauses. It therefore lends itself particularly well to study and debate in Committee. On the Opposition point on whether a Special Standing Committee should deal with it, I should mention that, as I understand the rule applying to such a Committee, it can have only four sittings.
  Let me put forward an alternative suggestion. It might be an education for those of us selected as members of the Standing Committee to go and look at a few ferries, with the safety angle particularly in mind. Perhaps we could pay a visit to the ship tank at the National Physical Laboratory to examine hull designs and other such matters. The alternative would be to set up a Select Committee so that

  527
  we could have proper assessors and advisers. However, I think that that is outwith the scope of what is being proposed.
  I should certainly be sympathetic to any thought that we might have, as it were, hands — on experience of ferries, rather than just talking about them. In the normal Select Committees on which I have always served, I have found that the visits outside Westminster are often more valuable than the formal evidence that we take here.
  I am asking almost the same question as the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), which is: will the Bill assist in reversing the dramatic decline in the size of the British merchant fleet? We must all ask ourselves that. As the House knows, I have found myself in the unhappy and uncharacteristic position of having to warn the House about the steady decline in the size of the British Merchant Navy. I do not enjoy the role of Jeremiah—to be quite honest, I do not think that it becomes me. However, I fear that the figures quoted by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney have proved that, unfortunately, one's fears were correct. The right hon. Gentleman quoted chilling figures to the House, which I shall not repeat.
  The question that we must ask ourselves is the one to which my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth assumed that the answer was generally accepted: do we need a Merchant Navy? I should like to suggest briefly the headings, without developing them, for the reasons why I believe that it is absolutely essential that we have a Merchant Navy of reasonable size. The first, which has been touched on, is national security, not only during war but in situations of emergency that are short of war. All the evidence — again I shall not attempt to detain the House — shows that the total availability of merchant ships to the whole of the NATO Alliance has been steadily declining. That includes those ships that are flagged out to dependent territories and can be reached, and those under Liberian and Panamanian register. It is a matter of serious moment.
  The House must remember that in our case the Merchant Navy is asked to fulfil three roles. The first is direct support for the armed forces. The second is the provision of transport to continental Europe which, in the jargon, is called sealift. The third is to ensure civil resupply of our island economy and, indeed, of western Europe from across the Atlantic or anywhere else. That alone gives cause for deep concern to anyone who cares not only about the Merchant Navy but about the defence of our country. There is also the economic question of control over our own trade. Again, the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney quoted some figures so I need not detain the House, although I wish to make the point that we should control our own trade. Furthermore, the balance of payments argument is a little too lightly swept away.
  In those circumstances, where do we look for improvements? I suggest that there are two areas: first, measures to help reinvestment and, secondly, measures to assist with running costs. Again, the right hon. Gentleman quoted figures showing the dramatic fall in reinvestment in new vessels since 1984. There are various ways in which the position could be restored. At the moment, the preferred solution is roll-over relief for balancing charges.
  528
  However, there should be no doubt that unless the Chancellor restores some form of investment incentive to British shipowners, we shall not get the ships. I hope that my right hon. Friend will talk to the Ministry of Defence and especially to the admirals about that.
  I do not want to tell stories out of school, but when one meets some of the admirals informally on the various all-party maritime groups, one realises that they are clearly concerned about the decline in the British and the NATO Merchant Navies. However, they are fearful of the Treasury and that if anything were done to assist investment in the Merchant Navy it would somehow have to be paid for on the naval Vote. The admirals are a shrewd lot. I repeat that unless something is done we shall not have the necessary Merchant Navy back-up for the Royal Navy.
  Referring to assistance on running costs, we are delighted to have aid for training costs—we shall discuss that more in Committee — and for repatriation. However, there is also the question of income tax for seafarers and the problem of social security changes and the like, all of which, in different ways, get more favourable treatment from other western European Governments, let alone what happens in the Far East.
  We should not be too purist. We should look at what happens in the real world and see whether we can adapt it. I understand that the European Commission is giving serious consideration to some such measures of relief which would have general application. I hope that our Ministers who go the Commission will give such proposals their welcome and support.
  Clauses 27 and 28 deal with the Merchant Navy reserve, which we welcome. However, it is no good having a reserve of sailors if there are no ships for them because, surprise, surprise, just as ships need sailors, sailors need ships. We do not have sufficient ships that might be available to the reserve. We also need the right mix of ships because it is a question not just of tonnage but of the right tonnage. I suggest that my right hon. Friends consider setting up a Merchant Navy strategic reserve. Time forbids me to go into that in detail but no doubt we can do so in Committee. However, it is a well-known concept and means doing the same for merchant ships as the Royal Navy Reserve does for officers and seamen. We must also consider the alternative of a crew-related allowance for those who take on extra reserve commitments.
  I welcome clause 37, but in Committee we shall wish to probe my hon. Friends on precisely what it means. I put in a plea for us to take tougher powers to deal with other European countries over cabotage. I give notice now that I intend to table amendments to strengthen that part of the Bill. In such matters we must play to what I would call "French rules" rather than to the letter of the treaty of Rome. French rules were well illustrated when my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Then we were threatened with being flooded with highly subsidised frozen turkeys, which would have upset turkey farmers in this country. Quite rightly, my right hon. Friend's veterinerary surgeons discovered the risk of a rather obscure turkey disease. That worked admirably and was within the law. I call that playing to French rules. The French play to the rule that they never do anything internationally that is not perceived to be in the interests of France. It is a question of all animals being equal, but French animals being more equal than other animals. Of

  529
  course, we wish to have free access around the coasts of Europe — that has been our steady position — but it is not happening. Incidentally, the Greeks are every bit as bad as the French, and probably worse—
  Mr. Channon: They are worse.
  Sir David Price: Yes. My right hon. Friend says, "They are worse"; and that affects the cruise trade. Therefore, I beg my right hon. Friend that in the matter of cabotage we play to French rules.
  6.29 pm
  Mr. Terry Fields: When we debated the ministerial statement on the King's Cross fire, I was moved to say that it took tragedies such as that to prompt the introduction of legislation. We have discovered that with other legislation dealing with the fire service, which followed the death of firemen and civilians. I doubt whether we should be discussing amendments to a law introduced in 1894 had it not been for the death of nearly 200 people in the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster a short time ago. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said, the importance of this debate arises from the fact that we are not likely to be in the game of making further changes to merchant shipping legislation or discussing it again this Session.
  Two hundred lives have been lost, and in discharging our duties and responsibilities we must take every step to ensure as far as humanly possible that a repetition of the disaster is avoided—albeit in the confines of the concept that it is impossible to ensure 100 per cent, safety in any walk of life.
  We are amending the Act, and any positive change is good. However, we must ask ourselves how good it is, and the importance of the task on which we are engaged will be reflected in the legislation, which should secure the safety of life and property and ensure the future of the British merchant fleet.
  In the debate in another place last year the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport said of the Pilotage Act, which was a forerunner of this Bill, that it
  "provides a framework within which an industry with proud traditions can adjust to modern circumstances and operate more efficiently." — [Official Report, House of Lords 10 November 1987; Vol. 489, c. 1292.]
  It is important to bear those matters in mind.
  I shall centre my remarks on a number of key issues. There is admirable scope, even in this debate, to consider valuable amendments to stiffen up the Bill, which is somewhat suspect in certain aspects. For example, there are anomalies about registration. I shall not wave a racist flag, but, in the interests of the safety of the crew and passengers of ocean-going vessels, we should ensure that vessels sailing under the Red Ensign are covered by legislation that ensures safety, protection and a good standard of shipping. Gibraltar has 150 registered ships. Gibraltar is part of the dependent territories, but last year it had no inspectors to police international regulations. It now has two inspectors—hardly sufficient to cope with the needs of a fleet of 150 ships. Those ships can fly the Red Ensign and thus, in the view of Merchant Navy officers, bring the Red Ensign into disrepute because of the lack of safety measures on those ships. Foreign-owned ships with foreign crews registered in Gibraltar under the so-called protection of the Red Ensign go to the Gulf and
  530
  elicit the support and protection of the Royal Navy. We need to tighten up the Bill, and I am sure that we can make amendments in Committee to do so.
  Last week I met members of the Herald Families Association. One of the deceased was an old friend of mine, and I therefore have close contact with the family and the association, which made a parliamentary sortie last week. I support the families' view. They are not vindictive. In framing legislation, we have a responsibility to ensure that there is no repeat of the tragedy visited on those families. I believe that we could take other measures in that direction.
  The Merchant Navy officers have sought to separate the master from the owner-manager so that the master remains responsible for acts of omission over which he has control. However, the Bill deals with the provision of a suitable ship and suitable equipment and crew, over which he has no control. In those circumstances, there must be a divergence of responsibility and we must insert into the Bill that divergence of responsibility, by means of suitable provisions, to ensure that the law is observed by all concerned.
  The demise of the merchant fleet in this country has been referred to. Tonnage has dropped by 64 per cent, in 10 years. In the same period the number of seafarers employed has dropped by 62 per cent.—from 80,000 to 30,000. Of the 500 deck and engine officer cadets employed in the industry, only 107 serve on British flag ships. That is a critical situation.
  As has been said, if we cannot legislate for safety, there are certain other things that we can do. We can ensure that owners of shipping fleets have responsibilities and discharge those responsibilities, and that discussions on safety take place in company boardrooms, as they have not done hitherto. It is one thing to pass legislation: we must ensure that it is adequately policed. We must ensure that there are inspectors to check that what is laid down by Parliament is practised by the companies.
  The Herald of Free Enterprise disaster was predictable, following as it did the Gateway disaster. Companies could have looked at recent history. Seventeen such vessels have sunk — the Gateway in a couple of minutes and the Herald of Free Enterprise in four. Companies should have acted positively, rather than merely responding to circumstances.
  We must be very clear about what we are discussing in terms of the stability of vessels. We shall need expert advice if we are to ensure that our vessels have that stability. In the last two episodes, two ro-ro vessels went down in a matter of six minutes, collectively, with a loss of human life. That must mean that there is something wrong with the design of the vessels, and we need to correct that design fault. Hon. Members have talked about the use of the marine fleet in war time. We should remember that the Royal Navy refused to man these vessels in the Falklands extravaganza before they had been modified to make them safe. In Committee we must examine the question of stability.
  There is widespread concern about the design of the ships, as the Herald Families Association told us the other day. That concern goes far beyond politics, and far beyond the interests of those who have lost loved ones. The naval architects and experts are all concerned about the matter. We in this House have a duty and responsibility to ensure that in Committee we insert into the Bill safeguards to protect such families.

  531
  Time will not allow me to go into great detail, as I should have liked, on behalf of the families and the merchant shipping officers, although, given the opportunity, I shall raise some of those matters in Committee. Following the death of so many people in the Herald of Free Enterprise and Gateway tragedies, we must remember that the big ferries in operation now carry 2,000 passengers. If 2,000 passengers went down with a ship in a matter of minutes, it would be beyond the wit and ability of the rescue services to extricate them. We must seriously consider methods of evacuation in such circumstances.
  Finally, I refer to early-day motion 176, tabled by me and signed by a number of my hon. Friends. It deals with the Herald Families Association and discusses the corporate responsibility of the shipowner. The merchant officers and others issued dire warnings of the faulty practices on that vessel and others operating on the line. Those warnings were never acted on in the boardrooms. They were never acted on by the parent company. Through neglect, human life was lost.
  My early-day motion calls for corporate manslaughter charges to be brought against companies. It
  "notes the findings of Mr. Justice Sheen, which highlighted the company's refusal of requests for both an additional officer and warning lights to indicate that the bow and stern doors were closed."
  We have heard that some of those measures might be introduced.
  Some Members may not be calling for the setting up of a Special Standing Committee. I would argue that retrospective legislation could be introduced, given the criminal negligence of those shipowners. I have been told that retrospective legislation cannot be introduced. I do not know whether it is retrospective, or ex post facto, but since 1980 the Government have introduced at least eight pieces of retrospective legislation—the National Health Service (Invalid Direction) Act 1980, the Employment Act 1982, the London Regional Transport (Amendment) Act 1985, the Housing and Planning Act 1986, the Rate Support Grants Act 1986, the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987, the Local Government Act 1987 and the present Local Government Finance Bill. All those measures contain retrospective provisions, and some were intended to punish what the Government would call profligate local authorities.
  If we are sincere about redressing the injustice that families have experienced, we should be considering retrospective legislation to deal with those whose criminal disregard for the safety of crew and passengers allowed these tragedies to happen.
  I hope that all hon. Members will be in agreement, so that we can ensure that what has happened does not happen again.
  6.41 pm
  Mr. David Harris: I hope that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) will forgive me if I do not follow the points that he has made but concentrate on two other aspects of the Bill.
  The first matter has been touched on by various hon. Members — the provision in part III to establish the Merchant Navy reserve. Clause 28(2) provides:
  "The Secretary of State may make such payments as he thinks fit in connection with the training and certification of members of the Merchant Navy Reserve".
  532
  Most of us have a vague idea of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has in mind with regard to the training and composition of the reserve. I know that this matter will be raised in Committee, but it deserves a good deal of thought. It is pointless having a reserve if it consists only of former members of the Merchant Navy whose names are on a list somewhere in the Department of Transport. Obviously, there must be training, and we should give thought to the means of providing it, whether on existing vessels or on a special vessel, perhaps chartered by the Department, to provide suitable training.
  It will come as no surprise to you, Mr. Speaker, or to other hon. Members, that my purpose in seeking to catch your eye is to speak about what I regard as the scandalous way in which, over many years, we have allowed foreign vessels to gain access not only to our waters but to our precious stocks and quotas. That has been detrimental to the fishermen whom I represent in Cornwall, which is the nearest area in the United Kingdom to Spain.
  I almost stumbled across this matter when I was the Member of the European Parliament for Cornwall and Plymouth. The practice of what has become known as flag of convenience fishing was just beginning. I was horrified to learn how completely defenceless we were. I well remember going to a dusty office in Plymouth where foreign boats were registered. A very nice lady told me that she had no powers whatsoever and that if someone came in with a set of papers she had to register his boat.
  Under pressure from myself and others, the position was changed and tightened up. In that regard, I pay tribute to Ministers, particularly those in the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, and especially the current Minister of State who has been very concerned about this matter.
  Various measures were introduced — some were holding measures—but the matter developed to such a stage that at the end of the last year my right hon. Friend the Minister of State told me that there were 50 ex-Spanish vessels — flag of convenience vessels that had been transferred from Spain to Britain—on our register. In addition, a further 70 United Kingdom fishing vessels were beneficially owned in part or to a large extent by Spanish interests. Those vessels—whether transferred or bought by Spanish interests—are Spanish-owned. All the benefit that is derived from them goes back to Spain; they are British vessels only in the formal sense that they manage, by one means or another, to get on our register.
  The harm that they have caused to our fishing interests is considerable. At long last we have the legislation for which I and others have been fighting for many years. I hope that it works. It is no good having legislation if it does not.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say how these new powers will be applied. We know that to be on the new register vessels will have to be at least 75 per cent, owned by British interests.
  How will the Minister, or his officials, determine that the provision is applied and obeyed? Speaking from experience, may I point out that the Spaniards are very adept at getting round rules and regulations. I would thoroughly endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) said earlier — that perhaps we need to play by the French rules. It is instructive that, to my knowledge, not one Spanish vessel has been transferred to the French register. The French would not tolerate it for one minute. Their administrators would ensure that it did

  533
  not happen. With this law in place, it is up to our administrators to ensure that Spanish vessels do not come on to our register by any device that they may try to use.
  I well remember that many years ago I discovered one Spanish company that was supposed to be operating from an office over an antique shop in Kensington high street. All that it had on those premises was a little brass name-plate.
  My plea is to ensure that the legislation works. If it does not, the anger of fishermen, particularly in Cornwall, will indeed be great. I hope and believe that it will work. We must ensure that these bogus vessels are completely removed from the register and that they are unable to fish from our quotas.
  6.48 pm
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I appreciate that time is short, so I propose to concentrate on one subsection of the Bill.
  The Secretary of State was kind enough to allow me to intervene and raise the subject of surveyors. He is well aware that I have expressed concern over some time about the quality of the work that has been carried out, but that is no reflection on those who have been acting as inspectors and surveyors. However, because of the sheer volume of the work, there was a failure to carry it out. That may seem a tortuous way of putting it, but it is fair.
  I am glad that an assurance has been given this afternoon that further surveyors will be recruited and that it is accepted that further costs will be incurred in acquiring the number of surveyors that we need if we are to inspect the ships that are currently registered and, indeed, many other ships that sometimes call at our ports on which conditions are anything but satisfactory. Safety extends not only to ships registered under the British flag or the flags of dependent territories, but to ships, which often carry British officers and seamen to the four corners of the world, registered under the flags of other nations. We are all aware of the scandal of flags of convenience over the years.
  The assurance given by the Secretary of State this afternoon is indeed welcome. I can assure him that I shall be watching most carefully in the weeks, months and years ahead and, should I see any delay on his part or any diminution of that undertaking on this subject, I shall be after him. Safety is far too important to be left to political chance.
  It is in that context that I want to raise the problem, as I see it, under clause 3l(8)(b) relating to the duties of a master. While I welcome anything that increases responsibilities and the enforcement of those responsibilities, it really is drafted in a way that leaves a lot to be desired. Under that subsection "duty", in relation to a master, is defined as including
  "his duty with respect to the good management of his ship and his duty with respect to the safety of operation of his ship, its machinery and equipment".
  If one says it quickly enough, it sounds all right. But what exactly is meant by "good management"? Who is to be the judge of that? Who is to give the master of a ship a fair crack of the whip?
  As the Secretary of State is well aware, certain questions have recently been raised about the Surveyor-General's organisation. Indeed, he is probably well aware of the letters from the National Union of Marine, Aviation
  534
  and Shipping Transport Officers to him and to the Surveyor-General reminding the latter that at one time an undertaking had been given, as I understand it, that one of the Deputy Surveyors-General would be a man with nautical experience. Such a person would bring to the Department the practical everyday knowledge which is gleaned not from books, magazines and articles, but from the practical job.
  Somebody in the Merchant Navy once told me that when he left college he certainly knew the rules; when he had sailed for a few years on the high seas he began to learn about the sea. It is that sort of knowledge that should be brought to the Department. In saying that, I am not criticising any of the persons in the Department, for whom I have the highest respect and regard, but Captain Shone, who has retired, has not been replaced by anyone with the necessary nautical experience. Perhaps the Minister, in replying tonight, will give an assurance that somebody with the necessary nautical experience will be appointed.
  I do not want to stress the point too much tonight—I think that the Secretary of State and the Department are well aware of it—but if clause 31(8)(b) is to have any practical meaning and real bite, it is necessary that the surveyors from the Surveyor-General's department, when discussing what is meant by the management of a ship, should have the sort of day-to-day knowledge that comes from practical experience in defining the terms of duty.
  Perhaps a simpler solution would be to teach parliamentary draftsmen — I am sorry that I have to repeat this each time I speak in the House — how to draft so as to convey into words something that is both practical and enforceable.
  The Bill has many good parts, some of which have been mentioned by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. I wish the Bill a speedy passage to the statute book. It is long overdue in many ways.
  I have mentioned one small aspect tonight and I will touch briefly on one other. I have listened to all that has been said about the Zeebrugge affair and, of course, one has nothing but the deepest sympathy for all those involved. If the rules of the sea are obeyed and if ships are surveyed and working practices are looked at carefully, tragedies such as that do not occur. It is necessary to remember that the scars are also borne by those who served on the Herald of Free Enterprise and they will be carried for ever. Perhaps we ought also to have a little sympathy for the members of that crew, many of whom showed such great heroism on that night.
  On that note, I wish the Bill a safe passage.
  6.55 pm
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), having made his point so ably himself, will, I hope, excuse me if I do not directly follow him.
  Having studied this Bill, I have come to the conclusion that it must have been drafted by Sir Humphrey Appleby's alter ego. I can imagine its genesis. It would have started with the Minister stating, "Humphrey, I've got a problem. Members are saying that I am to blame for the merchant fleet having declined by nearly two thirds in 10 years and that I am doing nothing about it. "But, Minister", would have come Humphrey's reply, "It's the Opposition's job to oppose." "No, Humphrey", says the Minister, "you don't understand; even my own side is blaming me. I've made a decision: we must do something."

  535
  Aghast, Humphrey answers, "Do something? Why? Everything is going splendidly; soon there will be no Merchant Navy to trouble you. But we'll still have the staff, we'll still have the budget. Indeed, Minister, we'll need more men and more money to oversee its orderly demise. You, Minister, will have a bigger Department and will be even more important—pictures in the papers, the PM programme, perhaps even Terry Wogan." After a period of silent reflection by the Minister as he sees all these accolades passing him by, he sorrowfully announces, "No, Humphrey. I have to be dynamic. Go away and prepare a Bill."
  And so a Bill was born, but Humphrey's hand had lost none of its cunning. A Bill there would be, a grand title it would have. It would contain many useful measures, but it would singularly fail to address the central problem that we, an island nation, appear to be doomed to maritime obscurity.
  I have never underestimated the problems that confront us in reversing this trend. My right hon. and learned Friends will know that in previous speeches I have fully acknowledged the over-tonnaging, the predatory pricing, the shift in trade patterns and the impact of containerisation. But action can and must be taken not just to protect our commerce but to secure our defences.
  My hon. Friend will have read the Sea Group report. Can he confirm to me today that he is confident that we could mount another major out-of-area offensive? Is he able, even as a paper exercise, to state what ships could be taken up from trade to mount another Falklands-type operation?
  Personally I doubt that we are able to provide the numbers or, just as important, the mix of ships necessary unless we are prepared to rely on foreign powers. We have only to remember the reaction, during the Falklands campaign, of the United Nations, of Commonwealth countries and of some EEC countries to recognise how dangerous that would be. To subordinate our strategic imperatives to myopic considerations is folly.
  In general, I agree with the Treasury view that financial and tax distortions would be counter-productive and that the market should be able to come to a decision based on commercial considerations, not on tax handouts. Therefore, the general restructuring of capital allowances and the reduction in corporation tax was a bold and sensible step by a very able Chancellor, but, when he included merchant shipping in the capital allowance proposals, he made a mistake. He ignored the fact that, unlike other assets such as plant, machinery and buildings, ships are mobile. They will be removed from a hostile tax regime to one that is more accommodating.
  That is what has happened with British shipping, yet, elsewhere in Europe, where crew and capital costs are similar to ours, the evidence is that a more liberal tax regime increases the tax take. More ships paying less produce more revenue than a few ships paying more. The Treasury should not find that concept difficult to understand, because a direct analogy can be drawn between this proposal and that of personal taxation. We have seen that, in English-speaking countries, as the upper bands of personal tax are reduced, tax revenues from the same percentile have increased. This conclusion has
  536
  become so obvious that the Labour Government of New Zealand are proposing to abolish all higher rate bands of personal taxation.
  We look to the Secretary of State for Transport to persuade my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the force of these arguments. The Secretary of State for Transport must defend British shipping from the blinkered, single-year balance sheet approach of the Treasury. He must remind that organisation that the defence of the realm and its strategic interest must be paramount. He must show that these proposals will cost nothing; indeed, for the reasons that I have detailed and by the use of merchantmen as force multipliers, we can expect savings.
  I wish to turn from general considerations to make some brief remarks on specific proposals in the Bill. I welcome the establishment of a Merchant Navy reserve, but I am doubtful about its effectiveness. First, I have yet to be persuaded that there will be ships for them to man. Secondly, if the Bill were ever extended to embrace serving officers, it must be recognised that most British officers are employed aboard foreign-owned or flagged ships and there is no guarantee that the owners would release them from their contracts of employment at this country's request. If the Bill is to include only those who have retired, we must remember that they become time-expired.
  Although the training provisions are useful, I am not sanguine that they will encourage young men to join the Merchant Navy. I challenge my hon. Friend who will wind up the debate to say whether he would encourage another son of his to enter such a profession, given the uncertain future faced by a Merchant Navy officer.
  My next point refers to certificates of competence, particularly those of Commonwealth countries. My hon. Friend the Minister will know that we currently recognise Commonwealth certificates of competence, yet doubts have been raised about whether they are always granted properly. As the United Kingdom had no ability to monitor their award, automatic recognition of Commonwealth certificates of competence should cease. Although, in the main, it is right to make the owner responsible for the safe operation of a ship, I can imagine occasions when such a proposal would be iniquitous, for example, in the case of a bare-boat charter, where the charterer provides the crew and thus the owner of the ship has no control over its safe operation.
  As many hon. Members have dealt extensively with the problem of ship construction and safety, I shall not dwell long on his aspect. However, I ask my hon. Friend, when he winds up, to confirm that he will use his best endeavours to ensure that standards imposed on British ships become common standards. If they do not, British shipping will suffer yet further disadvantage. This is particularly important in the case of major structural changes such as longitudinal or transverse bulkheading of vehicle decks of ro-ro ferries.
  I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State confirmed that he intends to work through the International Maritime Organisation. I wish to pay tribute to that organisation, which exemplifies how United Nations organisations should operate. I wish to record my appreciation of the leadership displayed by its Secretary General.
  I wish to turn now to clauses 36 and 37, which strengthen and widen the Secretary of State's power in cases of unfair competition. Time and again, the House has stressed that, although Britain observes the laws

  537
  against unfair competition, our Community partners and trading competitors do not; indeed, they flout them. Will my hon. Friend explain what action he proposes to take to combat cargo reservation and restrictions on cabotage? If he thinks that that will take up too much time in his wind-up speech, perhaps he will send a full reply detailing the position of our major competitors and partners and what action, if any, he intends to take.
  Clause 29 fails to deal with individual lorry weights. I am surprised about this because they affect loading factors on board ship. I hope that my hon. Friend, either in Committee or by statutory instrument, will make provision for weighing freight vehicles at British ports. We know that about 30 per cent, of all vessels coming from France by ferry are overloaded. As we cannot expect the French to weigh vehicles leaving their ports, particularly when they conform to their laws but not ours, we must weigh them on entry to this country. By the use of a graduated system of fines with severe penalties for major and deliberate overloading, hauliers would not be tempted to take the risk and, consequently, ship safety would be improved and our roads would last longer.
  Finally, I welcome the establishment of a marine accident investigation branch, separate from the marine directorate proposed in clause 32. Both will still be under the same Secretary of State and, although I am prepared to accept that "Chinese bulkheads" will probably be effective, I would have preferred to see the degree of separation enjoyed by the aviation industry.
  If we judge these measures in terms of maritime safety and by the way they plug some holes in previous legislation, this modest Bill is sensible and welcome. However, if we judge it as we should, by what it will do to halt and reverse the rapid decline of the British merchant shipping industry, it fails. Unless we act, we shall rue the day that we watched idly as our maritime heritage and power disappeared before our very eyes. I hope that the Government will show that same ingenuity and effort of will in righting this mistake as they have elsewhere in the governance of this country.
  7.8 pm
  Mr. Brian Wilson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) on an elegant speech which contained a good many home truths and pertinent questions for his Front Bench. There is much to welcome in the Bill, although some points need further examination. However, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, the overall picture is that we have a mouse of a Bill to confront what I regard as a national crisis.
  When the sins of the Thatcher years are finally tabulated, I believe that the destruction of the British Merchant Navy will be high on the list. It is incredible that this island nation, which still relies overwhelmingly on merchant shipping for its trade, should have witnessed a decline from 1,500 ships in 1979 to 400 ships in 1988. There is every prospect, as confirmed by the General Council of British Shipping, that that decline will continue so that, by the early 1990s, there will be about 100 ships left, almost exclusively coasters and ferries. That represents an extraordinary picture of the maritime strength and weakness of Britain in the late 1980s. I believe that those who have been responsible should be deeply ashamed.
  It is a matter of some considerable interest to many hon. Members—if not, it should be—that there is not
  538
  the slightest chance that a Falklands-type merchant operation could be mounted again, because the ships are not there. Recently, in the south-west of Scotland, a major military exercise was mounted—Purple Warrior. There was such a dearth of British merchant shipping that ships had to be hired from all over the western world to make up the numbers. I hope that we do not have a real conflict as opposed to a military exercise; but, if there is one, it seems unlikely that there will be time to organise the hiring arrangements before it is too late in the day.
  Today, Conservative Members would like to create a mood of consensus. They would like to believe that the decline in the Merchant Navy is just one of those things that happened and that there was no political error involved. That is not the case. The destruction of the British Merchant Navy has been a direct consequence of the madness that prevailed in the management of British industry and the British economy from 1979 into the early 1980s.
  When the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) had responsibility for merchant shipping, he said:
  "It seems to me that if British owners can switch their ships to a flag of convenience and as a result increase profitability, then it seems eminently sensible to me that they should do just that."
  One can feel the sneer coming from those words. In the early 1980s, when Thatcherism was in full flood and everything was to be left to the market and laissez faire, such words were extremely fashionable. However, the paean of praise for flags of convenience, when quoted today, does not bring the same cries of "Hear, hear" from the Conservative Benches as it no doubt did in the early 1980s.
  When it suits their purpose, Conservative Members like to cover themselves in the flag. However, in the past nine years they have shown a remarkable contempt for a flag that has served the people of this country well—the Red Ensign. It is not as though the policy advocating flags; of convenience has been entirely abandoned. No one on the Conservative Benches has had the courage today to stand up and speak out in favour of flags of convenience, but the policy of the Government, behind the scenes and through international organisations, is one of support and promotion of such flags. In UNCTAD, the British Government have been in the forefront of resistance against phasing out flags of convenience. The British Government have blocked any move attempted within the EEC maritime policy against flags of convenience. British flags are fine so long as they do not conflict with the profit interests of those whom Conservative Members ultimately serve.
  Because of time I wish to restrict my remarks to flags of convenience. In the Bill the provisional granting of certificates is reduced from six months to three months. I do not believe that that is good enough. Crown territories, such as Gibraltar, Hong Kong, the Cayman Islands and Bermuda, have been turned into disreputable, flag of convenience boltholes. If a disreputable, unscrupulous or careless shipowner can gain British registration for three months, there is nothing to stop him moving that ship to one bolthole and then to the next. He will still continue to fly the Red Ensign without any of the controls that have always been assumed—prior to this Government—to go hand in hand with the responsibilities of that flag, as he travels round the globe. Surely that is unacceptable. Provisional certificates should be done away with because

  539
  if shipowners can register for three months there is no way of getting them out again. I cannot understand how any Conservative Member can defend the principle that those territories, which exercise none of the controls that go with genuine British registration, should be allowed to use the Red Ensign to cover up operations that are patently substandard.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) spoke about the number of inspectors in Gibraltar. The flag of that bolthole covered the Syneta that went down off Iceland a year ago. My hon. Friend said that, in the past year, the number of inspectors had risen from zero to two. That is even less of a step forward than might appear because the last place that most of the ships registered in Gibraltar are likely to be, or within 1,000 miles of, is Gibraltar. All the inspectors can do is check up on brass plates of addresses of convenience. We need an inspectorate system that allows inspectors of this country to insist upon boarding any ship that enters British waters, irrespective of the flag it may be flying and irrespective of the country or statelet with which it may be registered.
  I believe that it is high time that we repaid some of the debts owed to the people who have served in the Merchant Navy over many years. It is tragic that communities which used to rely largely on employment within the Merchant Navy have seen that great industry disappear. Young seamen used to go on to colleges to learn the skills of the maritime industry and would travel the world as a result. Now, those colleges are closing and the courses are disappearing because there is no point in training to be a merchant seaman if there is no Merchant Navy to join. I hold the Government responsible for totally failing in the past nine years to take action because they were imbued with the market philosophy — philosophy callously represented by the words of the right hon. Member for Chingford and his lackey of those days, a gentleman by the name of Sproat, who is best forgotten.
  The formation of a Merchant Navy reserve fills me with no excitement. I would regard it as ineffectual in any crisis. I also believe that that reserve adds insult to injury. In the coastal communities of this country there are thousands of unemployed seamen who would dearly love to be back aboard British ships — Red Ensign ships — working at their chosen career. That option is not open to them because, under the patronage of the Government, the Merchant Navy has come close to being wiped out. To tell those people that they are of no use to the country as seamen in times of peace but that they might get a call to do something in time of war shows additional disregard for them. It adds insult to injury.
  The Government should come back to the House with a real Merchant Navy Bill. In the past nine years they have signally failed to present such a Bill to the House. That Bill should create incentives to build ships and keep them under the Red Ensign. It would act against abuses to the Red Ensign from flags of convenience. It would not give a nod and a wink to British shipowners who take their business where they want, employ Third-world labour at the lowest possible cost and disregard safety and other factors. It would introduce sabotage. I plead with the Government to do something for the Merchant Navy, for, my goodness, the Merchant Navy has done a lot for this country.
  7.19 pm
  Mr. Conal Gregory: The Bill is important, containing major new initiatives. However, they will not fully reverse the decline that we have discussed tonight in our merchant fleet, down from approximately 1,500 ships in 1975 to perhaps 400 last year.
  We are debating the Bill against a background of enormous oversupply in world shipping capacity. But subsidy is not the right way forward. The Opposition introduced a number of red herrings. They were very short on specifics or constructive ideas, which is rather sad.
  We are right to reduce the unnecessary regulation of the maritime industry. Despite red tape, some 60 per cent, of the United Kingdom shipping industry's international freight earnings were made in cross trades in 1986.1 believe that Britain needs a capable merchant fleet in times of emergency or war, so I welcome the assistance the Bill proposes, both in greater safety at sea and ensuring stronger powers against unfair competition.
  I wish to raise two specific subjects—responsibility for safety and light dues. The Bill imposes new statutory duties on owners, management, master and crew. Masters, who are highly trained, surely accept that responsibility, but one of my constituents, a shipmaster who lives in Chalfonts, York, raises the question whether a penalty of £50,000 and/or two years imprisonment for what will be a criminal offence is excessive. The Committee should consider where negligence lies if the owner or manager ignores a dangerous situation. Clauses 29 and 30 appear inadequate in that respect. The responsibilities of the owner and master need to be clarified, as we should otherwise be leaving a void at the mercy of case law.
  The second subject I wish to raise is the imposition of light dues. Under section 634 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 the management of lighthouses and other navigational aids in the sea areas around the British Isles is vested in three general lighthouse authorities: Trinity House of Deptford Strond, the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses and the Commissioners of Irish Lights. Income from light dues is carried to the general lighthouse fund, from which—subject to the consent of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport—the authorities' expenses are met, together with costs relating to certain overseas lights.
  The authorities last year proposed an 18 per cent, increase in light dues, which the Government reduced to 14 per cent. Subsequently a £1 milliom levy on fishing vessels over a certain size was proposed. That increase was strongly resisted by ports and other shipping interests, on the ground that it would distort competition and put a further burden on Britain's port users.
  However, the United Kingdom is competing with other European ports. Antwerp, Le Havre and Rotterdam—to take just three ports across the channel — impose no dues. The average cost of using Antwerp is £2·50 per tonne. Here the average is £7·50 to £15 per tonne, through light dues, the iniquitous dock labour scheme and European port subsidies. Felixstowe and Tilbury, for example, are put at an enormous disadvantage.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can report a real reduction in light dues. A cursory glance at the accounts of the general lighthouse authorities suggests a surplus of £19 million in reserve, with an estimated £12 million at the end of 1987–88. In reality, £31 million is

  541
  expected. The discrepancy arises because of an underestimate of light due receipts, together with expansionist plans by the bureaucracy of the authorities, rather than efficient budgeting.
  Last year's increase was unnecessary. Savings should be passed immediately to Britain's port users to ensure that we are truly competitive. Our food and other industries will benefit as a result. The general formula by which light dues are applied is seriously in need of re-examination.
  Finally, it is scandalous that the United Kingdom is still paying 50 per cent, of the light dues for Eire. British taxpayers should not finance port costs in competitor countries.
  Subject to those qualifications, I welcome the Bill. It is a major step forward from the Victorian era of 1894, the date of our last Bill on this important subject.
  7.24 pm
  Mr. Calum A. Macdonald: I have a twofold constituency interest in the Bill. First, there is a strong fishing interest in the constituency. Secondly, like the constituency of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), the Western Isles has a long tradition of merchant service. But the Bill is important not only to my constituency, but, obviously, the whole country—north and south of the border. That is why it is regrettable that Scottish National party hon. Members have been absent throughout the debate.
  I want to be constructive. I welcome the provisions for registering fishing vessels in order to preserve United Kingdom quotas. That will be welcomed in my constituency as a first step in the right direction. It is not complete, but it is a welcome first step.
  My response to the rest of the Bill must be lukewarm. The background against which the Bill must be judged is a steep decline in the Merchant Navy and the merchant service. In my constituency we do not need statistics to prove the decline. We have seen it happen in a very real way. As recently as the 1950s every family in the islands had one member or even two members serving in the merchant service. My father was a merchant seaman. We have today reached the predicament in which we are lucky to find even one seaman from each village still at work in the British Merchant Navy.
  The crucial question is whether the Bill will help arrest that decline. Unfortunately, I fear that the answer must be no. Indeed, measures such as the establishment of the reserve are no more than an admission of the Government's defeat on this issue. The setting up of "Dad's Navy", as it has been described by the National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers, is an eloquent statement of the Government's despair. It is tragic, not only because of the continuing loss of jobs but the loss of a priceless tradition and history of skills which may prove impossible to replace.
  The present decline cannot be laid at the door of another group of British workers pricing themselves out of jobs. Sometimes an attempt is made to blame that, but it is not true. For example, a French seaman is paid double what a British seaman is paid. A Norwegian is paid three times as much. In fact, a British seaman's wage is on a par with that of a Greek seaman, hitherto regarded as coming from a low wage economy. So I hope we can lay that ghost to rest.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) rightly made clear the crucial importance of
  542
  cabotage in any strategy to arrest the decline. I know that Conservative hon. Members have an ideological objection to any moves towards what they would regard as an artificial and protected state for the merchant service. But, as has already been pointed out, even from the Government Benches, we must live in the real world, and the fact is that France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Spain and Portugal, all within the EEC, all practise cabotage to some degree. Of course in the North sea we have the ridiculous situation of Norwegian supply vessels servicing the British sector, while practically no British ships are able to operate in the Norwegian sector.
  I acknowledge the Government's view that protectionism is generally undesirable. But there is no realistic prospect of a genuine open market in this respect. The Government must surely change their attitude, just as the General Council of British Shipping has been forced to do, and change it soon, if the merchant service is to be saved.
  Yesterday the Secretary of State for Scotland made it clear that he was considering the privatisation of the Caledonian MacBrayne ferry company which serves the inner and outer Hebrides from mainland Scotland. Opposition Members have many reasons to oppose any move towards privatisation but one reason should appeal to all hon. Members. There is at present nothing to stop any privatised ferry owner from turning himself into an offshore company, setting out with a new name and a new flag, and perhaps even a foreign crew.
  We already have the bizarre example of British Channel ferries flying the flags of Bermuda and Finland. What a monument it would be to the Government's peculiar combination of ideological frenzy on privatisation and their hopeless apathy on saving the merchant fleet if one day soon ferries crossing from the Minch to the outer isles of Scotland were flying the flags of Bermuda or Finland. If that bizarre prospect is to be avoided the Government must get to grips with the decline of the fleet. Unfortunately, the Bill will not do that.
  7.31 pm
  Mr. Michael Irvine: The Secretary of State will have noticed that hon. Member after hon. Member has brought home to him the decline in the British merchant fleet and the need for action to combat it. The provisions in clauses 25 and 26 for financial assistance for training and for crew relief are welcome. So is the provision for the establishment of a Merchant Navy reserve. But those provisions go not nearly far enough. They are all addressed to the issue of manpower. However, the issue is not just one of manpower but of ships.
  So long as the British Merchant Navy has to compete against unfair competition, its decline will never be satisfactorily reversed. How can it be fair for the British Merchant Navy to have to compete in a situation where so many foreign states keep their coasts protected, yet here on its own coasts it has to meet full competition from overseas merchant navies? So long as that fundamental unfairness persists, so the decline of the Merchant Navy will continue.
  In general I am much in favour of competition but my support for competition is not of the ideological kind mentioned by the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald). Often allowing market forces to work their course has a beneficial effect in the long run, but if

  543
  competition is to be beneficial it has to be fair and free. The competition that our shipping industry faces is far from being fair and free.
  It should be remembered that in 1985 United Kingdom registered and owned ships contributed no less than £745 million net to our balance of payments. It does not end there because they contributed a further £637 million in import savings. Those are large figures. They underline the importance to the national economy of the shipping industry in spite of its decline in recent years.
  More important still is the contribution that the merchant fleet makes to our national security. In 1983 the then Under-Secretary of State for Trade, the former Member for Aberdeen, South, Mr. Sproat, following a not dissimilar debate when the decline of the British merchant fleet had been raised repeatedly in preceding speeches, said:
  "the adequacy of the merchant fleet for defence purposes is kept under continual review by my right hon. and hon. Friends. In the considered opinion of the Ministry of Defence, the merchant fleet remains capable of meeting defence plans. I cannot emphasise that point too strongly." — [Official Report, 30 March 1983; Vol. 40, c. 433.]
  Since that was said the British shipping industry has lost the advantage of the free depreciation provisions that it previously enjoyed. It lost that advantage in 1984. Since that was said, the United Kingdom merchant fleet has more than halved in strength. Many of us would like to know whether it is still the considered view of the Ministry of Defence that the merchant fleet remains capable of meeting defence plans. Many of us need to be reassured.
  7.36 pm
  Mr. David Shaw: I have two main interests in speaking on the Bill. The first, obviously, is that my constituency is Dover, where we handle about 15 per cent, of the nation's trade as it passes through each year; in addition, some 14 million passengers pass through the port each year. I have also taken an interest in shipping because for a short time I worked in the shipping industry.
  Much has been said today about car ferries and their safety. It is important to place on the record, so that hon. Members can be fair to the many people who work in the shipping industry and in particular on ferries, that until the disaster of last year the record of ferry safety was one of the highest for any means of transport. The disaster of last year is brought home to me every week as I come to the House because I drive past the wood that has been planted in Dover in memory of those who died. I was pleased to take part in the planting of that wood and to meet many of the families and relatives of those who died. It is a memorable place and I hope that many of the family members will visit it over the years.
  The Sheen report on the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster showed that complacency had set in in one operation. The consequences of the complacency were a horrific shock to everyone in my constituency. About half the crew died in the disaster, and half of those lived in my constituency. All of us in Dover have had to live with the aftermath of the disaster. It was a shock to everyone but especially to the 10,000 people whose work is involved directly or indirectly with the port and the ferry companies.
  Since the disaster I have been on board the car ferries at Dover and have looked at the safety features that have
  544
  been installed, including the features on the new ferries that are in operation. Many provisions of the Bill have already been brought into practice. I am pleased to tell hon. Members that a boarding pass system is in operation. There are warning lights and television cameras monitoring the bow doors and the vehicles on the car deck throughout the journey. The new car ferries have special features concerning bulkheads below the water line.
  I commend the approach of the crew and officers on those car ferries, which today is of a very high standard and brings credit to the fleet. The administrative systems now in place have been greatly improved since last year and have been operated safely and efficiently. Much has been learnt as a result of that disaster. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that it is terrible that such a disaster had to take place before the lessons could be learnt.
  Therefore, I welcome the safety measures in the Bill, because they will reassure the public that the voluntary practices now in operation in our ferry companies will become law. My local ferry companies will want to ensure that that law is obeyed.
  I shall raise two matters of concern to our shipping industry. The position of cabotage in clause 37 has been mentioned in the debate. The shipping industry is concerned that the negotiations started by the Secretary of State's predecessor within the EEC were not successful for Britain. I hope that the present Secretary of State will renew the vigorous efforts of his predecessor to get EEC agreement on this point. It is fundamental that we should not keep our markets open for foreign vessels to ply our coastal trade unless our ships can enter overseas markets. We did not join the EEC to be placed at a competitive disadvantage within the Community.
  I also ask Ministers to consider with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the position of investment in the shipping industry in Britain. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) conveniently managed to put together some statements and figures that implied that the Government were trying to do down the shipping industry. Nothing could be further from the truth. The United Kingdom tonnage peaked in 1974 after several successful years under a Conservative Government. The decline of the shipping industry dates from the Labour Government's term of office between 1974 and 1979. Having recognised that decline, it is no good for Conservative Members to say that Opposition Members bear the responsibility for it. We must look at ways in which it can be reversed.
  I draw the attention of the Secretary of State to the fact that, as an accountant, I appreciate the effect of tax allowances suddenly being changed at short notice from 100 per cent, to 25 per cent. The effect of capital allowances is more important to shipping companies than to any other companies. The balance sheet of a shipping company will show that a high proportion of its assets are in large, expensive ships. That is in complete contrast to the assets of companies in manufacturing and other areas of the economy. It means that ships that may depreciate over 10, 15 or 20 years cause accounting differences to the taxable profit.
  An odd effect is that shipping companies can be assessed as profitable for tax purposes when their accounts may show a break-even or loss position. That could result in a rate of tax that could not be achieved, even by a Labour Government. I am sure that hon. Members can work out that, from an accounts point of view, taxation

  545
  can be more than 100 per cent, of the profit. That is the curious effect of 100 per cent, capital allowances being lowered to a rate of 25 per cent, and possibly less in subsequent years.
  If the Department of Transport is serious in looking after the interests of the shipping industry in the next few years, it will carefully examine and communicate the findings of such examinations to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I suggest that this matter needs to be examined.
  7.44 pm
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: The debate has been interesting, if only for the reason that there has been a great deal of self-discipline and that has allowed many hon. Members to make significant and worthwhile speeches.
  It has been suggested that the Bill is not the greatest Merchant Shipping Bill since 1894. As one of the organisations involved in shipping suggested, it is something of a rag bag of measures. We need not apologise for that. Primary legislation provides the opportunity to tidy up various matters, so Opposition Members accept the general thrust of what the Government seek to achieve.
  Two overriding issues have dominated the debate. Safety has been on the minds of all hon. Members because of the disaster to which I shall refer later in my speech. Another important issue is the decline of the merchant shipping fleet. The Bill has no relevance to that problem. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have systematically explained to the Secretary of State why the Bill is irrelevant to the decline of the merchant shipping fleet. Only the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), with an extraordinary and breathtaking display of mental gymnastics, managed to blame the Labour Government for the rapid decline in the merchant shipping fleet. I will consider that deeply, but I doubt whether I shall draw the same conclusion.
  The British fleet has declined dramatically during the past few years since the removal of the initial allowances in the 1983 Budget. The General Council of British Shipping is at one with the parliamentary Labour party and others in regretting that move. It is clear that it did massive damage to the British fleet.
  The Government have allowed not only the flagging out of large sectors of the British merchant fleet, but parts of it to be sold off. I particularly refer to BP. The Government can be described fairly and clinically as the Government of flaggers out and floggers off. That has been a great disadvantage to the British economy, almost to the level of neglect. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) made clear the importance of the merchant shipping fleet to the British economy. Historically, it was much more important, and it could do much more for the United Kingdom economy if the Government adopted measures that allowed for its development, not its destruction.
  Conservative Members were concerned about cabotage. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) pointed out, only two years ago Opposition Members argued that the Government should do something about cabotage, through legislation, the European Court or by applying our own cabotage system. At that time, no voice was raised on the Conservative
  546
  Benches — [Interruption.] I defer to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) who has always been a consistent supporter of that view.
  Sir David Price: I have always been a consistent supporter of it.
  Mr. Lloyd: I shall not argue about the consistency of one hon. Member.
  The Government have consistently refused to consider imposing such measures. It is time that the Government got off the fence. Will they take action through the courts to make sure that the British fleet has equal access to other coasts? Shall we make sure that Italy, Greece, Spain and France allow our merchant fleet to compete on equal terms in their waters, or shall we instead make sure that at least we have protection for our fleet against the sort of unregulated competition in our coastal areas that would not be, and is not, allowed by our competitor nations?
  Those are the important issues. The decline of the fleet is a fundamental issue. Sadly, the Bill is largely irrelevant to it.
  Great play has been made by the Secretary of State and some of his predecessors about the importance of the fleet in time of war. On 10 December 1986 the then Secretary of State, now the Secretary of State for Social Services, in a speech to the General Council of British Shipping, said:
  "We quite deliberately do not take a view of what should be the size or shape of the industry in peace time. Our functions in respect of shipping in war or emergency are altogether different."
  For the life of me I cannot understand how it is possible not to have any plans for the industry in peace time, and yet believe, whether naively or honestly, that vessels will become available in time of war. That matter was also mentioned by Conservative Members.
  As has been pointed out, as recently as last November, during the military exercise Purple Warrior, it was necessary to bring in ships from outside the United Kingdom because they simply were not available from the British merchant fleet. The Minister for Public Transport shakes his head. I hope that he will explain why. On that very issue Lord Brabazon said that suitable United Kingdom vessels are not always available to meet MOD requirements. That is not because, as he intimated, that the British fleet is so successful throughout the world—we all know that that is not true—but simply because the fleet no longer exists.
  Whatever the merits of the Falklands war, the merchant fleet was assembled with some difficulty to supply that military action. All hon. Members know that today it would not be possible to supply the Falklands exercise with the merchant fleet slimmed down to its present level.
  The time has come when the Government must put clearly on the record whether in all seriousness they believe that foreign vessels would become available. In the past, Ministers have always ducked the question of what powers would be used to requisition ships flagged out to British dependent territories. I have tried to discover the mechanism whereby they could be requisitioned, but I am told that no clear answer exists. Vessels flagged out to flags of convenience nations are beyond the Government's control. That is a matter of fundamental importance to our nation's future.
  The hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) said that he was unhappy about clauses 29 to 31, which deal with the balance between masters and owners and the relationship

  547
  of the crew. I do not want to go into the arguments in great detail. I simply give notice that we are not wholly satisfied with the balance between the different parties involved. In Committee, we shall want to examine the relationship between the responsibility of the owner, brought into the legal framework for the first time—we welcome that— and of the master and crew.
  In general, we are not unhappy with the new registration procedure with its several tiers, but that system must guarantee, in the minimum possible time, that vessels sailing under a British flag, whether directly from Britain or from one of the dependent territories, should maintain the highest possible safety standards. I think that the Minister will agree with me on that. Different standards should be allowed only in the short term, and maximum efforts should be made to achieve the best possible standards.
  My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) discussed the history of the surveyors and whether in the past they have been equipped to do the job with which they have been entrusted. I share his view that in the past that has not been the case. I do not make my comments in any party political sense. Every hon. Member is concerned about safety after the Herald of Free Enterprise tragedy. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) who spoke on behalf of the families of those involved in the disaster. I am sure that every hon. Member will want to associate himself in general terms with his remarks.
  All Members will accept that there can be no compromise on safety matters, particularly when examining what went wrong. Things did go wrong and there was a considerable chain of errors. The company has already been thoroughly indicted, and that is right and proper. The Government's response now is to recognise that liability should apply to the owner. However, we have a responsibility to the families of those who died in the Herald of Free Enterprise to make sure, through general safety measures and structures, that such a tragedy cannot happen again.
  It is worth quoting briefly from a letter from J. W. Kime, a United States coast guard, to Mr. de Rohan, chairman of the Herald Families Association. He said:
  "I have already instituted a program to verify that the stability of ships taking on passengers in the United States is in accordance with the International Convention on Safety of Life at Sea. In addition, the United States has been pushing very hard at the International Maritime Organisation for damage stability standards for cargo ships, which under present regulations could sink with a hole in their side only as large as a dinner plate."
  I mention that because I want to refer to the reason why the Opposition thought the Special Standing Committee structure would be worthwhile introducing. It is important to examine roll-on/roll-off ferries, but it is also important that somebody with the experience and professional knowledge of Rear Admiral Kime should be able to say that the safety record of other categories of ships should be examined. That is why we hope that the Minister will be able to reconsider the Government's position on the Special Standing Committee.
  Because safety is of such fundamental importance, we welcome the new independence of the accident investigation department. The hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) reminded me of a point that I had intended to
  548
  make when he talked about the necessity for independence. It is increasingly the view of many in the industry that there is a strong argument for an independent structure for the examination of the safety of shipping.
  The Opposition, with others, believe that the time has come for the Health and Safety Executive to be concerned with maritime safety. The Health and Safety Executive is already experienced in safety in many areas of industrial life. Obviously, there are differences, but they are not so fundamental that an already established independent organisation could not learn and benefit from existing expertise in the Department of Transport to do a job independently of the Department in the same way as applies to aviation. The Opposition would like to put on record tonight the fact that we shall look at it when the Bill is in Committee.
  The very important areas of safety and the decline of the fleet have been touched on tonight. The Opposition will want to examine the Bill carefully to ensure that on safety we are doing all we can within the legislative framework. We accept that much has already been done by the Government about the ferries, though not directly through the Bill. It is our obligation—the obligation of every hon. Member—to make sure that safety standards are put at the top of the list of priorities. We will, therefore, devote considerable time to them in Committee. We still feel that, when it comes to the decline of the fleet, the Bill is largely irrelevant. That is the view of practically every hon. Member who has spoken tonight. Opposition Members will not tonight vote against the Bill, as structured, but we feel that it does not adequately take care of the interests of the merchant fleet in Britain.
  8 pm
  The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): Anyone listening to the debate tonight cannot but have been struck by the breadth of personal experience of the merchant fleet which resides on both sides of the House. The debate has inevitably taken place under the shadow of the Zeebrugge disaster, and on all sides of the House our hearts go out to those involved. In opening the debate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State dealt at some length with the wide-ranging actions taken by Government, both in response to, and going further than, the Sheen inquiry.
  Hon. Members have raised certain points on safety which I would like to turn to now. My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) spoke sensitively on behalf of the association of bereaved families and asked me about the date for the introduction of compulsory boarding cards: 29 February is the date by which United Kingdom-flagged ships will have to comply whether sailing from United Kingdom or from foreign ports. For foreign ships the order has to go through the affirmative procedure of this House, and my right hon. Friend has, therefore, considered it prudent to set the date of 1 April for these ships.
  I should also make it clear that we have no jurisdiction to require boarding cards for foreign ships sailing from foreign ports and that we must look to our negotiations with other European Governments in this respect. The hon. Members for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) asked about the possibility of a Special Standing Committee. Mr. Justice Sheen carried out a most thorough investigation of the causes of the tragedy and made many detailed recommendations, which

  549
  we are following through. His work was valuably supplemented by the coroner's inquest. We need not go back to square one, therefore, and we shall press on to bring these changes into the law as soon as possible.
  Mr. Frank Field rose—
  Mr. Mitchell: I have a lot of points that hon. Members have raised with me. May I just take them a little further? The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) all raised the question of the intrinsic safety of the roll-on/roll-off design.
  Ro-ro ferries, when intact, are perfectly stable. They become unstable only when large quantities of water reach the vehicle deck, which is well above the level of the sea. In the case of the Herald, the water entered through the open bow doors from the bow wave at full speed. The various measures that we have already taken will do everything possible to prevent a repetition of that.
  The Sheen report rightly identified among the proposals that it called "longer term" the need for research into aspects of ferry design. Accordingly, a steering committee set up by my hon. and noble Friend in October has been developing a programme of research to look at all the items on ship stability listed by the Sheen report as longer term items. Portable bulkheads, raised particularly by the hon. Members for Aberdeen, North and Walton, will certainly be one of the possible measures that this research will cover.
  The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) raised the issue of the condition of foreign vessels in United Kingdom ports, seeking that they should be inspected. The system known as port state control carries this out. We have an undertaking to inspect 25 per cent, of vessels coming into our ports, and we inspect more than that. What is perhaps more important—and I can claim some responsibility for this during my earlier activities in that side of the Department — is that it is not done on a random basis. With the aid of the computer based at St. Malo we are operating a system with the western European countries which maintains a comprehensive record of the inspections of ships. If a vessel comes in which has not been checked in some other country for port state control and nothing is known about it, it is highly likely to be checked. A priority system ensures that those which are pretty certain not to be in danger of difficulties are given a lower priority in the system. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that in that way we are doing exactly what he was seeking in his earlier intervention.
  Mr. Bermingham: I am delighted to hear what the Minister has to say and I thoroughly welcome the idea of looking at vessels which have not normally been inspected elsewhere. Will he not agree with me, however, that I sought to press the point that unless we have an adequate number of surveyors we cannot carry out that sort of checking, which is more than welcome?
  Mr. Mitchell: Yes, of course. I entirely accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. The number of surveyors has gone down but not by as much as the number of ships in the United Kingdom fleet, so pro rata the staffing level is better than it was before. It is a legitimate point to make.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: The surveyors have a responsibility not just for the domestically registered fleet but for those
  550
  ships which have disappeared from the British register and have gone elsewhere. Could he give comparative figures for surveyors and vessels to take that into account? It is a much more important figure.
  Mr. Mitchell: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, that is a Committee point. I will have armed myself with detailed information by the time we reach that stage.
  The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) asked about the appropriateness of certain requirements for big vessels in relation to island ferries. I sympathise with the point that she makes and I shall write to her in detail on the matter.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Mr. Sayeed), speaking with the wealth of experience of someone who represents one of our traditional ports, raised important matters. I cannot cover all of them because of the time available but I can say that we have taken on board his point about bare-boat charters and we shall amend clauses 29 and 30 to cover ship managers and ship charterers.
  Several hon. Members raised matters concerning fishing. In paricular, I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) that I am keenly aware of the concern felt throughout the fishing industry over foreign, mainly Spanish, vessels registering in the United Kingdom and then using the United Kingdom fishing quota. This quota-hopping is an abuse of the system. It is no light matter. There are now some 130 vessels which are largely foreign-owned on the United Kingdom register. The extent of their activities is demonstrated by the fact that landings in Spain in 1987 amounted to over half the recorded United Kingdom catch of western hake. That confirms what my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives was saying about the harm that is being done. The new arrangements which will require fishing vessels to be at least 75 per cent. United Kingdom-owned will effectively stop this legalised poaching.
  Part II of the Bill is complex because the new safeguards for the legitimate United Kingdom industry must be watertight. Already leave has been sought from the High Court to challenge the Government's right to introduce this legislation. At a preliminary hearing, the challenge was withdrawn and costs awarded to the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives also asked whether the arrangements would be effective.
  I want to pay tribute to the industry for its co-operation and detailed assistance, and in particular to the Scottish Fishermens Federation, to the Clyde Fishermens Association, whose secretary phoned through his support today, and to Daphne Lawry, the doughty fighter for the Cornish fishing interests, who told me this morning that she was delighted with the thorough work that has been done.
  Mr. Harris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for paying tribute to the fishing industry, which started the whole momentum for the campaign. I pay my own tribute to it also.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the court proceedings in this country. There is some suggestion that if, as I am sure it will, the Bill becomes law, it will be challenged in the European Court. Has he anything to say about that? Is it a real threat to the effectiveness of the proposals?
  Mr. Mitchell: We are confident that what we are doing is wholly within the spirit of the proper way in which the fishing quotas were meant to operate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives also raised a pertinent point about how the policing would be done. Clause 13(6) gives powers to appoint a person to investigate eligibility to the register. He will have the power as an inspector under section 27 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1979. Those powers include powers to enter premises and require production of documents.
  The decision to have a central registry at Cardiff will avoid the possibility of foreigners who are refused at one point going to another to try to register. I hope that we have stopped up the holes in that way.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) and the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute asked about more information on the registry of fishing vessels. Most registered business is already conducted by mail, and fees for the new arrangements will be discounted so as to constitute an encouragement for postal business. For transactions that necessitate a personal appearance, however, a local office service will be available from 23 offices of fishery departments around the coast. Those offices will have stocks of various forms, and by means of facsimile links with Cardiff will be able to provide certified transcripts, access to the registry and place markers on where transactions are to be conducted. Vessels will continue to be registered as belonging to one of the 112 traditional ports of registry. I hope the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute will feel somewhat encouraged by that.
  The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North raised the issue of section 42(2) which was repealed as a result of an amendment in the House of Lords. The reasons behind it are not as dire as the hon. Gentleman feared they might be. That section has now been overtaken by a more general provision in the Merchant Shipping Act 1974 which allows seafarers to take strike action providing that the ship is not at sea at the time. Section 42(2) allows a seafarer to give 48 hours' notice of his intention to terminate his employment on a ship, provided that, at the time, the ship is securely moored in a safe berth in the United Kingdom. During the period of notice the seafarer cannot be compelled to go to sea. This provision opens up possibilities for abuse, particularly on ferries, since by giving notice but not actually going on strike the crew cannot be compelled to operate the vessel. That is an abuse of what was intended by section 42(2), and I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not want to support or sustain an abuse of that sort. I can give him the clear assurance that the other forms of legislation covering strike action to which I have referred satisfy the point that he would otherwise legitimately have raised in this connection.
  As regards the merchant fleet and the national interest, numbers are not the whole story. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth commented on the defence aspect. The other aspect concerns the health of the merchant fleet as a major United Kingdom asset. The Merchant Navy makes a vital contribution to our national defence needs. We need access to ships and trained crew —hence the Bill's provision on training.
  In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth I can say that YTS provides training for 16 to 19-year-olds at officer or rating level. The Bill takes that further with a spend of £3·5 million a year on an additional two-year training scheme to become officers, and four
  552
  years for those who are not ex-YTS trainees. The scheme will start in 1988–89, and also provides some money towards officers who are training to become masters.
  My hon. Friends the Members for St. Ives and for Tynemouth asked for more information about the reserve. As hon. Members know, the Bill sets up the Merchant Navy reserve, which is open to British seamen who are on the Cardiff register, in which their qualifications are recorded. Evidence of health will be sought through the normal seafarers' medical certificate. A bounty of £200 a year will be payable. Members can resign up until an emergency, if they so wish, and the proposed age limit is 55—but we would welcome the advice of hon. Members and of the Committee that will consider the Bill on whether that is the appropriate age.
  I say to the hon. Member for Stretford that, in spite of the decline of the fleet, we still have enough ships to support any likely overseas operation.
  Mr. Frank Field: In previous years we have had clear statements from the Ministry of Defence that it is happy with the size of the merchant fleet. Has the Minister had any conversations with his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence more recently about that? Are they still satisfied with the fleet's size?
  Mr. Mitchell: We are continually having conversations with our friends in the Ministry. If the hon. Gentleman wants to put down a question to my colleagues, I am sure he will receive an answer.
  The hon. Member for Stretford said that the problem with exercise Purple Warrior was that it suggested that there were not enough United Kingdom vessels to be able to mount an overseas operation in an emergency. It is quite wrong to suggest that there was a shortage of United Kingdom vessels; we had plenty but they were gainfully employed in commercial operations. Rather than interrupt those operations for a test of emergency, some Danish vessels were chartered because they were less active at that time. Most hon. Members would recognise that that was a sensible way in which to proceed. There would have been uproar in the House if we had proceeded in the alternative way of requisitioning vessels that were otherwise gainfully employed.
  Mr. Wilson: If the General Council of British Shipping's forecast of a decline to 100 ships — almost exclusively coasters and ferries—is fulfilled, will that still represent a satisfactory military commitment by the Merchant Navy?
  Mr. Mitchell: Of course, we are watching with concern what is happening. We keep a constant eye on that. If something of that sort happened we would take a great deal of interest in it and consider how to react. What matters when mounting overseas operations such as the Falklands war is the type of vessel that is required. Most of the loss of tonnage from the register in recent years has been of giant crude oil and dry bulk carriers, which are not vessels that one would require for the support of the Royal Navy.
  Mr. Sayeed: Will my hon. Friend, in his normal courteous fashion, now accede to the request I made earlier, when I asked him to state, as a matter of paper exercise, what vessels he would take up from trade should there be another Falklands-type episode?
  Mr. Mitchell: On further consideration, I do not think that my hon. Friend would expect me to make that information public.
  There is another aspect to the value of our merchant fleet in addition to defence. The fleet is a great British asset and a huge investment. Some people try to blame the Government for the merchant fleet's decline. The truth is that there are many complex reasons for the decline, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear. Those reasons are connected with shifts in the pattern of world trade and our own trade. For example, when oil is brought ashore through a pipeline from the North sea, there is no need for a vast fleet of tankers to bring oil from the middle east.
  It is important that the United Kingdom fleet should be viable and profitable. Thanks to outstanding management by our shipping companies and the officers and men of our merchant fleet, much of the industry— not all of it — is profitable, competitive, viable and making an increasing contribution to our balance of payments which have risen by £221 million since 1985–86. The overall deficit on the sea transport account is the lowest since 1982.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East, my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney and others commented on tax aspects. Hon. Members will be aware that those are matters for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I will draw his attention to the points that have been made in the debate. I hope that hon. Members will believe that that is helpful.
  It is very important that we should understand the complex reasons why there are shifts in the strength of our fleet in different types of vessels. To achieve a better understanding, we have carried out some research into the short sea trade and we are publishing an assessment of that trade today. The report covers the pressures within that trade and the way in which it is moving. A copy of the report will be placed in the Library of the House and I believe that hon. Members will find it very helpful.
  Of course the Government have an important contribution to make and that is well demonstrated by the Bill. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth that clause 37 strengthens the Secretary of State's powers and the effectiveness of the EEC in co-ordinating action against unfair and discriminatory activity by third countries. The Bill arms us for the first time with a practical means to combat unfair practices inside and outside the EEC. Some 60 per cent, of our United Kingdom shipping international freight earnings come from cross trades and that demonstrates how vital it is that access to those markets should be maintained for the health of our merchant fleet. I want to pay tribute to the officials in the Department of Transport who visit ceaselessly one place after another trying to find ways in which to keep open those trading opportunities that are so important to the health of our fleet.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East asked for details about foreign cargo reservations. As he has tabled a question for answer tomorrow, I hope that he will wait 24 hours for his reply.
  My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) raised the question of light dues and the costs and burdens on the users of our ports. I have some helpful news to announce. Good progress is being made in reducing the costs of the three general lighthouse authorities. The size
  554
  of their tender vessel fleets is being significantly reduced following a consultants report. Progressive savings are being made through the alteration of lighthouses and by other means. In addition, revenue from light dues is buoyant thanks to the increasing volume of trade passing through our ports. Taking all those factors into account, the Government have decided that a reduction of 10 per cent, in light dues for 1988–89 will be possible. The necessary order will be laid shortly.
  Looking further ahead we expect to receive the report of the working party studying the structure of light dues. Hon. Members will be interested to know that I understand that that report will include a recommendation that we should abolish light dues on deck cargo. That will require an amendment to be tabled in Committee.
  Many hon. Members referred to cabotage, including my hon. Friends the Members for Dover, for Tynemouth and for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) and the hon. Member for Stretford. We cannot accept the continuation of the present inequitable situation Matters are moving forward. The German Government now occupy the presidency of the EEC and they have moved quickly to reopen the negotiations on cabotage regulations. The first round of negotiations took place this week. Whereas under the United Kingdom presidency unanimity was required for shipping regulations, with the Single European Act in place, decisions can be reached on the basis of a qualified majority. That gives us grounds for hoping that the problem can at last be resolved.
  The Bill contains 53 clauses and eight schedules. It appears complex, but its purposes are simple and straightforward. They are pre-eminently to improve safety; to close loopholes on ship registration; to deal with fish quota poaching; to provide for a Merchant Navy reserve; to improve training and assistance to ship operators for crew relief; and to assist the merchant fleet with stronger powers to keep open the markets in which it trades. For greater security of our defences, for safety and for the health of our merchant fleet, I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be referred to a Special Standing Committee — [Mr. Robert Hughes.]
  The House divided: Ayes 52, Noes 140.

  Division No. 158]

  [8.26 pm

  AYES

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Battle, John

  Kennedy, Charles

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Lamond, James

  Cryer, Bob

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  McAllion, John

  Fatchett, Derek

  Macdonald, Calum

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Flannery, Martin

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Flynn, Paul

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Morley, Elliott

  George, Bruce

  Mullin, Chris

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Murphy, Paul

  Home Robertson, John

  Pendry, Tom

  Howells, Geraint

  Pike, Peter

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Prescott, John

  Ingram, Adam

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  555

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wilson, Brian

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Spearing, Nigel

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Thomas, Dafydd Elis

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wallace, James

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Mr. Alun Michael.

  NOES

  Amess, David

  Janman, Timothy

  Arbuthnot, James

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Ashby, David

  Kilfedder, James

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Knapman, Roger

  Bowis, John

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Bright, Graham

  Knowles, Michael

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Burt, Alistair

  Lightbown, David

  Carrington, Matthew

  Lilley, Peter

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  MacGregor, John

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Maclean, David

  Cope, John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Cormack, Patrick

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Mans, Keith

  Curry, David

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

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

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Miller, Hal

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Dover, Den

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Dunn, Bob

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Durant, Tony

  Moss, Malcolm

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Neubert, Michael

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Freeman, Roger

  Page, Richard

  French, Douglas

  Paice, James

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Gill, Christopher

  Pawsey, James

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Portillo, Michael

  Gow, Ian

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Price, Sir David

  Greenway, John (Rydale)

  Raffan, Keith

  Gregory, Conal

  Redwood, John

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Ground, Patrick

  Riddick, Graham

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

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

  Rowe, Andrew

  Harris, David

  Ryder, Richard

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hayward, Robert

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Heddle, John

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Sims, Roger

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Hunter, Andrew

  Squire, Robin

  Irvine, Michael

  Steen, Anthony

  Jack, Michael

  Stern, Michael

  Jackson, Robert

  Stevens, Lewis

  556

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Walden, George

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Waller, Gary

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Watts, John

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Wheeler, John

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Thorne, Neil

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Thurnham, Peter

  Wilshire, David

  Trotter, Neville

  Wood, Timothy

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Viggers, Peter

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Mr. Alan Howarth.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from Merchant Shipping Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (i) any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of the provisions of the Act; and

  (ii) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other Act;

  (b) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums required to fulfil guarantees given by the Treasury in respect of sums borrowed by the Secretary of State for the purpose of defraying expenses payable out of the General Lighthouse Fund;

  (c) the payment out of the National Loans Fund of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under section 3 of the National Loans Act 1968.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

  MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL [LORDS] [WAYS AND MEANS]
  Resolved,
  That for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Merchant Shipping Bill [Lords] ("the Act"), it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the imposition by an order under section 14 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1974 (as amended by the Act) of—

  (i) charges in respect of ships entering ports in the United Kingdom, or

  (ii) any tax or duty in pursuance of a Community obligation;

  (b) the charging of fees;

  (c) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund. —[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Welsh Development Agency Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
8.37 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The purpose of the Bill, as effected by clause 1, is to increase the statutory financial limit for the Welsh Development Agency from the present level of £450 million to £700 million.
The limit was last raised by the Industry Act 1981, when it was anticipated that another adjustment would not be needed until 1989. Present forecasts suggest, however, that the limit will be reached early in the forthcoming year. It is therefore necessary to raise the limit now so as not to inhibit the agency's contribution to the redevelopment of the Welsh economy.
1987 has been a fabulous year, not just for the Welsh economy, but for the contribution that the Welsh Development Agency has made to it. Every year since 1981 lettings of Welsh Development Agency factories have increased, but I am delighted to say that this financial year they will reach an all-time record of 2·3 million sq ft, an increase of 12 per cent, on the previous year. The number of jobs created as a result of those record lettings will also be a record.
In every place that I have visited in recent months, the leaders of local authorities, local Members of Parliament and those interested in the growth of the Welsh economy have all expressed to me their deep desire to have more factories built as speedily as possible. The demand for agency factory space has been so high that the vacancy rate is down to a very small level—a sign of success, but also a sign that more action was needed.
It was for that reason that I decided to increase substantially the Government contribution to the Welsh Development Agency for the coming year, and I have provided it with an increase of 37 per cent. Together with the increased factory rents and sales that are taking place, it means that the total potential expenditure for the agency for this coming year will increase to £113 million — 31 per cent. — more than the budget for the current financial year.
As a result, the Welsh Development Agency has today been able to announce a remarkable factory building programme for the coming year. It has decided to invest in new property developments 40 per cent, more than for the present financial year, a total of £44 million of investments during 1988–89. In 1986–87, £27·6 million was spent on new factory building. When my predecessor sanctioned an increase to between £30 million and £31 million—an increase of between 10 and 12 per cent.— for 1987–88, certain political opponents accused him of doing that as a pre-election exercise. I am delighted that in this post-election exercise there is 40 per cent, more than in the pre-election exercise.
This will create 1·5 million sq ft of working space— 75 per cent, more than in the current financial year and 50 per cent, more than was originally planned. Every part of Wales will benefit.
I have also agreed new mechanisms in which the agency can use its finances to attract a considerable volume of private investment into new factory and commercial building. Seeing the document it has published today must
558
bring pleasure to every part of Wales. South Wales, mid-Wales and north Wales will all benefit from the action programme that we are now free to embark upon.
The provision of factories is but one part of the Welsh Development Agency's role. Another vital role is that of attracting inward investment. I am delighted to say that again we have had an outstanding year of success. WINtech, the Welsh Development Agency's operation for attracting inward investment, is likely to secure 90 projects in the current financial year alone, which will bring in £160 million of capital investment and an all-time record of 7,500 jobs. In proportion to its size, Wales is now attracting a larger proportion of overseas projects than any other part of the United Kingdom. Wales is now regularly attracting one fifth of all overseas projects in the United Kingdom. There are many new projects in the pipeline. Throughout the world there is increasing interest in the potential of investing in Wales.
A further vital role is the encouraging of new business activity within Wales itself. Again it is a record of success. There has been a surge of inquiries for business advice and assistance. The business development unit of the Welsh Development Agency handled an incredible 39,000 inquiries during 1987 — way up on the previous year. That unit will now have the responsibility of delivering the Government's new scheme for consultancy assistance announced last week. We want inward investment, we want new businesses encouraged, we want factories made available, but we also, of course, need the application of new technology.
It was early in 1984 that the Government arranged for WINvest to be commenced by the Welsh Development Agency with the aim of stimulating innovation and better use of technology in Welsh business. WINtech has done exceedingly well in a short time. In this year alone it has assisted 40 companies to take advantage of technology transfer deals, and 50 to embark on advance manufacturing technology projects. It is working closely with the University of Wales and others to assist in the creation of centres of scientific and technological excellence. As a result of the increased funds going to the Welsh Development Agency, the activities of WINtech will expand in the years that lie ahead.
Venture capital and the clearance of derelict land are the two other great objectives of the agency, and here, too, the success has been outstanding. The venture capital division of the agency has invested £47 million in over 700 companies since 1979, triggering a massive investment of £220 million and creating 11,000 jobs. Demand for risk capital is buoyant and the agency is set to invest in 220 companies in this financial year alone. It will be able to continue that activity at an increasing pace in the years that lie ahead.
Wales has much derelict land to clear. Since 1979 the agency has been provided with £130 million of resources at today's prices to clear derelict land. It is one of the largest and most sustained programmes in the whole of Europe. When the £28 million programme announced in July 1986, the biggest ever in Wales, is completed, 9,000 acres of slag heaps and dereliction will have been cleared and replaced to the benefit of the communities concerned. The dereliction of today frequently becomes the development opportunity of tomorrow. Throughout Wales there has been a recognition of the fine work that has been done. The Confederation of British Industry, the trade unions, the local authorities, the Institute of

559
Directors, and the chambers of commerce are all at one in welcoming the leap forward in the activities of the agency that will now take place. Providing more factories, encouraging more new businesses, applying more new technology, removing more derelict land and attracting far more inward investment is the route to transform the economy of Wales and the route to making Wales one of the fastest expanding and successful economies in western Europe.
I urge the House to support the Bill so that the agency can continue its fine work and achieve the objectives that the Government have set it.
8.44 pm
Mr. Alan Williams: As the party that established the Welsh Development Agency, there is no way in which we shall vote against the proposal. Indeed, if anything, the way in which the Secretary of State boasted of the achievements of the WDA is a vindication of the stand that we had to take to force the measure through when the Conservative party, including the associate Ministers in his Department at the moment, voted against the establishment of the agency. I hope that we shall at least get some credit for a degree of foresight, with which we were not credited at the time.
When we talk about the amounts of money and changes in the amounts of money involved, it is important that we do not lose sight of the background. Sums of money in abstract can sound enormous, but it depends on the size of the pit that needs to be filled. Despite the Secretary of State's euphoria, unemployment in December 1987 was still slightly higher than in December 1979 despite all the miracles in that fabulous year. Therefore, I advise the right hon. Gentleman that there is still a little way to go and we shall need a lot more money than he is putting forward today.
To listen to the Secretary of State one would not think that 35 per cent, of our young people under the age of 25 are in the dole queue. Of 12 regions, only three have a higher proportion of young people in the dole queue. However, that is not the image that one would gain from listening to the Secretary of State. The spend that the Secretary of State talked about must be considered against that background. Obviously, we are delighted at any improvement, and any improvement is welcome. However, the improvement must be big enough to make an impact on the basic problems. The trouble is that at the moment, as I shall demonstrate, it is not.
One of the WDA's problems is that it will have to operate against what we would regard as the background of inadequate regional funding. The Government tend to ignore that. Indeed, it is interesting that the Secretary of State was the Secretary of State for the Department of Trade and Industry in the early 1970s when that Department set up a regional development grant which, this week, he is in the process of abolishing. The Secretary of State abolishes his own measures, but finds great credit in the WDA and the Labour party's measures. He seems somewhat changeable in his opinions. That regional development grant has been worth £1,600 million to Wales over the years since it was set up. Last year alone it was worth £88 million, but the Secretary of State is planning to abolish it.
Sir Raymond Gower: The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned that the unemployment figures are still marginally above what they were many years ago. Does he agree that the economy is probably more soundly based now than it was then, in the sense that people were then employed in two or three large companies in the engineering industry, for whose products there was little demand in many parts of the world, but now people are employed in a host of new industries, which are forward-looking and have a marvellous chance to expand?
Mr. Williams: It is surprising to note that, at the time when the Government started to impose their miracle on us, that disastrous industry, despite all its shortcomings and warts, was able to earn surpluses of £4,000 million per year in manufacturing trade, whereas now it is making deficits of the same amount in its much more efficient form under this Administration. Those facts answer for themselves.
Turning to the background against which the WDA will be operating, 1987 was the last full year for which we have regional grant figures. I asked the Secretary of State how next year's figures will compare, in constant prices, with those for the last full year that we have. In his reply he told me that the public expenditure White Paper contained planned provision of £111 million for regional aid in Wales for 1988–89. The figure for 1986–87 was £128 million—£17 million more. However, he went on to say that £70·9 million of that covered residual payments for the RDG1 scheme which was ended as a result of the review in 1984. Apparently, we are supposed to ignore the drop of £17 million because there happens to be an element of regional development grant.
The funny thing is that that is in contrast to the view of the Minister of Trade and Industry. When he was challenged on the future of expenditure on regional funds —it was suggested that in future he would be counting figures from a scheme that he was abolishing—he came back with the reply:
"I trust that he is not seeking to claim that, in talking about the total regional spend … we should ignore … RDG." —[Official Report, 25 January 1988; Vol. 126, c. 54.]
So we have the Secretary of State for Wales implying that we should ignore it because it does not suit him and the Minister of Trade and Industry saying that we must count it because it suits him. It might be for the convenience of the House and the public if the two Ministers would get together and at least agree a common line so that we know what we are talking about. Next year, the Welsh Development Agency will be operating against a cut of £17 million of regional assistance compared with last year.
Where, in these depleted figures, is the valleys initiative money to come from? We have heard from the Secretary of State about his intended proposals. We have not seen them yet but I am sure that they will come forward.
Mr. Peter Walker: I know that the right hon. Gentleman has had a copy of the statement and I need not read out the list. An enormous number of new factories will be built in the valleys as a result of the colossal increase.
Mr. Williams: I shall come to the factory building programme in a moment. Surely the valleys initiative comes to more than a couple of advance factories. Is that what it is? Is the Secretary of State seriously saying that,

561
after all that we have heard, the valleys initiative was buried in an announcement by the Welsh Development Agency on its factory building programme?
Mr. Walker: The right hon. Gentleman has a habit of endeavouring completely to mislead and misquote. The remarkable factory building programme announced today for the valleys will bring delight to the valleys. It is a very important contribution to them. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman always sneers at good news.
Mr. Williams: I welcomed the announcement, and I shall welcome the factory announcements later. However, I shall put them in perspective. I shall put my own interpretation on them as the Secretary of State does. I sometimes think that the Welsh Office has recruited Hans Christian Andersen to write its press releases. Will the valleys initiative fall within the figures that have been announced, or will it amount to something extra? Will it be a mere reshuffling of money that is already in Wales, as in the case of the so-called money for the WDA? The WDA money is not extra money for Wales; it is money that is being taken out of other Welsh pockets.
None of us would dissent from the assertion that inward investment in Wales is desirable. We have all supported it. Indeed, in fairness, the Secretary of State — according to the press release from the Japanese embassy—was courteous enough to say while in Japan that not only the Conservative, but also the Labour party had for a long time adopted policies which would encourage such investment, and that there was absolutely no problem arising from any political situation which would obstruct the flow of Japanese investment. We would all agree with that. That is what we have said all along. There is nothing new about getting Japanese investment. In fact, the Labour Government probably attracted more than this Administration. However, I do not want to argue figures; it may balance out, it may not. I do not really care, because that is not the issue. We need inward investment to diversify our industry. We have always recognised that. That is why we gave it such a high priority.
It is interesting to note that, despite the priority for inward investment, the WDA told Labour Members that it spends less than 3 per cent, of its efforts on inward investment. We are only too happy that there is to be a stronger effort. I am glad, too, that the WDA is to build some advance factories in anticipation of inward investment. We welcome the three 50,000 sq ft factories specifically earmarked for inward investment. But does that preclude them from other uses? I assume that it would not if a customer came along. The only other factory of the same size in the programme at Deeside is not referred to as being earmarked for inward investment. Does that mean that Deeside is excluded from inward investment? Those are points of detail which I am sure the Minister will be able to answer.
I congratulate WINvest on the latest three Japanese units — someone else's rabbit pulled out of the hat in Tokyo by the Secretary of State. WINvest has been negotiating for one of those units for 18 months or more, and for another for a full year. It deserves every credit for getting them. However, we need to put matters in perspective. We want more Japanese investment and jobs, but the 17 Japanese factories still provide only 5,000 jobs in manufacturing in Wales. We should be glad to have another 5,000, but let us not run away with the idea that
562
is given in press releases that, because one or two Japanese companies are coming, nirvana lies on the horizon. As I pointed out in the Welsh Grand Committee, we need one a day for a year of the biggest factories that the Secretary of State announced simply to replace the manufacturing jobs that we have lost in Wales.
The abolition of regional development grants will not make the job of WINvest and the Welsh Office in attracting new industry into this country any easier. The Secretary of State knows the procedures very well. He knows what happens when a company first comes to Britain, and his officials, too, are well aware of the facts. That is why they have always accepted in the evidence that they have given that regional development grant is an essential component. They know very well that when a company thinks of coming to Britain, the first thing it does is to discuss the general framework of the programme and the aid that would be available.
WINvest and the WDA are normally the first point of contact; the Welsh Office usually comes in towards the final stage. Until now WINvest has been able to say, "For starters, we can tell you that you will get 15 per cent., and, when we see the final shape of your project, you will get regional selective assistance." Now new companies will be told, "Under the Government's scheme now in operation, we are to give you the smallest amount of money that we can give you to get you to come here." That is not exactly a strong inducement to inward investment.
It was for the same reason that, in a recent speech, the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan), a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury and a former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, made the same point about the importance of that element of predictability. It is a major loss, in terms of negotiating for inward investment, that that predictability has gone. Another element of predictability has gone with the number of changes that we are experiencing in regional aid.
When I looked at the figures in the White Paper, I was encouraged to see that this year the Welsh Development Agency hopes to clear 438 hectares of derelict land. I think that that is the largest clearance that it has ever achieved. Those who represent the old industrial areas are only too pleased that that will happen.
The problem is that about 13,600 hectares of land need clearing in Wales. We do not know the precise figure— there was no survey in 1982, as there was in England, because for some reason the Welsh Office cancelled it— but it is about that level. Even with that record level of land clearance, it will take until 2020 to clear the existing dereliction in Wales. That overlooks the fact that new dereliction is being added year by year. Every time a pit closes—the Secretary of State knows a lot about that— another derelict site is created that will have to be cleared.
An interesting feature is the disparity in spend on these issues between Wales and England. As one would expect, England has two and a half times more derelict land than Wales. Since 1982, or 1983, England's spend has been five times greater than that of Wales. It is putting much more effort into clearance than we are in Wales. I hope that the Secretary of State will bear that in mind when determining the size— [Interruption.] Those are not my figures. The figures for the amount of derelict land that needs to be cleared came from the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor.

563
The figures of spend and for the amount of derelict land that is being cleared are available for the right hon. Gentleman to check.
I am only too happy about today's announcement of 1·5 million sq ft of factory space. We must bear in mind that Wales has a company liquidation rate of one a day throughout the year. We need extra factories, and we are delighted that at last that fact has been recognised by the Government.
It is interesting to note that the 1·5 million sq ft that the Secretary of State talked about is still way below the level for 1981–82, when it was 2·6 million sq ft. There is a long way to go before we return to previously attained levels. We welcome today's announcement as a move in the right direction.
The WDA works within the framework set by Government aid for the regions. We have already said that we regret that regional development grants will be abolished. We feel that that will have a serious impact.
I want to repeat what I said about the new scheme in a debate on Monday. I am concerned that the new scheme for regional investment grants will be grossly ineffective compared with the scheme that it is replacing. The strategy of the WDA and of the Government, other than the occasional large mobile unit — I am not criticising the Government because there is not much mobile industry in Wales—is to concentrate on small firms. Some 80 per cent, of regional development grants already go to small firms. Until the end of this financial year, regional development grants are available at 15 percent, on capital, or £3,000 per job created. Under the new scheme, that generous level will be cut to 15 per cent, up to a ceiling of £15,000 and a maximum of 24 jobs. The £3,000 will become £625, and that £625 will be taxable. That is bound to have a significant impact on the number of jobs created.
I shall remind the right hon. Gentleman, as I reminded the Minister of Trade and Industry in the debate on Monday, of an answer that I received from the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I asked about the new scheme and how it would be monitored to ensure that it delivered new jobs. The Secretary of State for Wales said, in essence, that the new scheme will be more efficient in job creation. The Under-Secretary said that the creation of jobs would not be a condition of the new regional investment grant, but the scheme was expected to have a beneficial effect. In other words, it is not anticipated, even by the Government, that it is going to be a major job creator, and it is not going to be closely monitored against the number of jobs, according to the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
The final point relates to Government funding. The funding that we have heard about today in relation to the WDA is simply money taken from one part of the Welsh budget and transferred to another. The amount of assistance that is going to be given by the Government next year at current prices is £62 million, which the right hon. Gentleman presents as this marvellous achievement as far as the WDA is concerned. But the fact is that in 1978–79, at modern prices, the WDA was receiving £16 million more than that—that is, 25 per cent, more than it is receiving at the moment. In 1979–80 it was receiving £12 million more. In 1980–81 it was receiving £34 million more — 50 per cent, more than the figure that he has
564
announced. In 1981–82 it was receiving £40 million more — 60 per cent, more than the figure that he has announced.
Mr. Peter Walker: The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that there was specific identified payment for certain steel closures which was totally out of the main-line spending of the WDA. The first small package was announced by the Labour Government as a specific commitment. I am glad to say that the succeeding Tory Government put in far more for that specific purpose. The right hon. Gentleman knows that he is totally misleading the people of Wales. He has his research assistant produce all of these statistics for him to try to create a picture that more is not being done, but he knows that a lot more is being done.
Mr. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman has a rather perverse way of deciding what he is willing to accept as evidence. That was the contribution that the Government were making to the activities of the WDA. The WDA was not there just to deal with steel, although it did deal with steel. I remember that in the Welsh Grand Committee the right hon. Gentleman actually had the cheek to interject and complain about the regional development grant figures that I was using for Labour's period in office. He said that it was unfair to quote those because they included Ford. Ford helped our figures, so we should pretend that it never happened and take it out of the figures. Here, because the money his own Government were spending some years ago was far more than what they are spending today, he now wants us to pretend that it never happened. It did happen, it is on record, and his efforts are rather puny by comparison.
We want to see the WDA properly funded because we set it up. It was opposed by the Tories, who have clearly become very reluctant converts. Even today, despite the claims of the Secretary of State, by the standards of past achievements the WDA remains starved of funds and essentially it is starved of funds to deal with the problems that it faces.
9.7 pm
Sir Raymond Gower: I think that the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) is over-simplifying the issue of the funding of the WDA. In its early days, it is true, it put money into a definite project and there was no inflow at all, but the money that is now being deployed is used again and again. It is a different ball game. The WDA is in the nature of being a financial organisation as well as a development organisation, and any big financial organisation deploys its funds and uses them to the best advantage over a period. I think that the right hon. Gentleman should take account of that.
Further the right hon. Gentleman grossly under-stimates the value of the Welsh Development Agency having acquired an expertise which it did not possess, obviously, when it was initiated. It is now able to prepare a package that is attractive to an investor either from abroad or from another part of the United Kingdom. That should not be underestimated in our assessment of the value of the WDA.
As my right hon. Friend said in his opening remarks, this is a relatively small measure with a limited but valuable purpose. Is the Welsh Development Agency of

565
value to the Welsh economy? The answer must be in the affirmative. The right hon. Member for Swansea, West understandably took the credit for the fact that his Government initiated the agency. Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends had doubts about it at the time because it was a new venture and no one was sure what would emerge. I do not suppose that those who set up the agency imagined that it would develop as it has done. They could not predict exactly what would happen. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has catalogued its successes and achievements, but the right hon. Member for Swansea, West is trying to play down a surprising achievement.
In spite of the difficulties, this has been a time of great recovery, but the Labour party does not recognise the extent of it. In Wales the recovery has been more surely based than we could have foreseen. It is dangerous for the right hon. Member for Swansea, West to be over-critical, because other parts of the United Kingdom are jealous of what we have in Wales. If he continues in that vein, he will encourage feelings of apprehension in those parts of the country which believe that they are not getting a fair crack of the whip. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that people in the north-east of England feel hard done by because they have no comparable instrument there. We must be careful how we approach our debates on these matters.
The Welsh Development Agency has contributed to the remarkable achievements in Wales. It is difficult to envisage Wales today without the agency. That is a mark of its success. Without the agency, the task of providing new factories would be much more difficult. Without the agency, we should not have had 1,278 advance factories in the nine years up to last March. It is difficult to imagine how that could have been achieved without the agency. It would have been equally difficult to promote inward investment without the agency and its associate WINvest, which was initiated by this Government. It is worth noting that since WINvest was initiated the remarkable number of 223 projects from overseas have been established. Before Christmas my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a £2·5 million factory building programme, which underlines the WDA's contribution to this work.
We also welcome today's announcement of the agency's new property programme. This provides hope for the valley and rural areas, on which the hon. Members for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) and for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) have commented. The improvements are not confined to the industrial areas, but are spread, as my right hon. Friend said, over the whole of the Principality.
Factories will be purpose-built for specific clients, and I hope that there are plenty of them, because the order must be placed before the factory is erected. Reference has also been made to the advance factories, and in the years that the WDA has existed providing those factories have been its main job. The building of advance factories has been accepted throughout the Principality by all parties as extremely desirable. Starter units may be regarded as one of the most important developments because they tend to assist smaller ventures, and I believe that such ventures and small firms are of particular value to the Principality today. Indeed, there is one in my constituency — the Lion laboratory at Barry. It started in a modest way, making breathalysers, but it now employs a much larger
566
work force than it did even a short time ago. I believe that an organisation of that size has within it the seeds of growth and could provide valuable employment.
I am slightly worried about the lack of building for high technology projects. I do not believe that we have made so much progress as is desirable in this area. I believe that we could lose if we do not have a fair share of such high technology factories and, indeed, Scotland has pushed ahead in that regard. I hope that the Welsh Office and the WDA will devote extra attention to that matter. I believe that high technology is possibly the most important area of all in the context of the present economy, here and overseas.
The right hon. Member for Swansea, West referred to the clearance programme, and this is vital. I note that the garden programme in Ebbw Vale, which is similiar to the one on Merseyside, has been expanded, and I hope that that will be extremely successful. The right hon. Gentleman knows more about it than I do, but I believe that it is being developed sensibly and steadily.
There is one thing that I believe the WDA should do that it has not had the time nor the resources to do in the past. It should assist in the creation of something that we have always lacked in Wales—a capital market and a financial centre. That has always been a tremendous defect. Some years ago Sir Julian Hodge created an organisation that appeared to be something that might have grown into something large. Unfortunately, it did not realise the hopes that had been expressed for it. I hope that that lack will be considered as an urgent need. It is one of the reasons why it was necessary to have the WDA. We did not need it only for factory buildings. We needed it also because we lacked a financial market and financial centre. The provision of those facilities could round off the marvellous achievements of the agency.
As the right hon. Member for Swansea, West has painfully told us, we should not exaggerate unduly what the agency has achieved. I do not think we should say that all is well. However, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the prospects for the agency in the next two years are incredibly brighter than they were even a couple of years ago. We should be encouraged by that. Therefore, when the House passes the Bill — I hope, as the right hon. Gentleman said, without a Division—we will feel that we are giving the WDA a pat on the back and hope for the future.
9.19 pm
Mr. Gareth Wardell: I agree with the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Sir R. Gower) about high technology. A worrying feature of the local economy of West Glamorgan is the county's seeming inability to attract true high-technology industry. Cambridge university research has shown West Glamorgan to be sixth from the bottom of the county league in terms of relative concentration of high-technology industry throughout England, Wales and Scotland. Those with a lower ranking were the Scottish islands, Powys, south Yorkshire, Dyfed and Shropshire.
High-technology jobs are distributed across Britain, with a distinct bias in favour of the south. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that unless we are very careful and attract the high-technology firms to Wales we shall have an additional element in the north-south divide, with a notable absence of high-technology firms in Wales. We must guard against that.

567
I hope that in winding up the Minister of State will explain another vital element in the background against which the Welsh Development Agency is now to operate. It seems that there is an anomaly over the new regional investment grant for small firms. Why should that grant apply only in the development areas, and not in the intermediate areas? In other words, why do not all the assisted areas qualify for the new initiative? There is another point, concerning the importance that the Secretary of State attaches to the WDA relative to the Wales Tourist Board. Whereas the WDA's property development programme is to increase by 42 per cent, between this year and next, the Government's relative contribution to the board is pitifully small. The relative lack of priority that the Government are giving to the industry is a disgrace.
Here I wish to refer to the memorandum by the Midland Bank pic Advisory Council for Wales, starting on page 622, in appendix 82, of the minutes of evidence to the Committee on Welsh Affairs when it considered tourism. The council said:
"the disparity between the level of assistance to the tourist industry and to manufacturing is enormous … the Select Committee are invited to consider whether the balance is still not tilted unfairly against tourism, bearing in mind the importance of tourism to the Welsh economy and, more particularly, the contribution it can make in terms of creating jobs."
I do not want to concentrate on the inward investment of people as opposed to the inward investment of capital. But I am sure I speak on behalf of the whole Committee — because we made firm recommendations on this — when I say that the Secretary of State has made matters much more difficult for the board by still insisting that it shall not promote Wales overseas independent of the British Tourist Authority, as Scotland does for itself.
I turn to the main part of my speech, which concerns the relative contribution of regional development grant and regional selective assistance. Before 29 November 1984 90 per cent, of the working population of Wales lived in assisted areas to which the grant was applicable. That then changed to 35 per cent., and it will now be zero—a major change. Its importance for the WDA was summed up in the evidence to the Select Committee when we did our major study of regional industrial policy in 1984.
I wish to quote one of the chief Welsh Office officials. As he comes from Trimsaran I am glad to say that he has been promoted. I am sure that his elevation is in no small part due to his marvellous contribution, in answer to question 141, page 47, in the evidence to the Select Committee on 14 February 1984. It is worth quoting him to show the position of the Welsh Office which I am sure has changed little since. He said:
"Predictability is an important element. All the available research points to the conclusion that at the stage of investment decision-making a company needs to know what automatic assistance it will attract. It may recognise at that stage that over and above that basic level of assistance it may also be entitled or may also be offered a measure of topping up assistance of a discretionary character."
Here we have the major Welsh Office official, Mr. Owen Rees, making clear in 1984 the view of the Welsh Office on regional development grants.
I do not want to leave the WDA out completely. I will quote what the present chief executive said. Of course, he was the chief executive when the Select Committee
568
conducted its inquiry in 1984. In question 266 on page 87 of the evidence to the Select Committee on 29 February 1984 I asked Mr. Waterstone:
"How can you have on the one hand selectivity and on the other certain automatic assistance?"
He gave a brilliant reply; no doubt he still holds the same view despite comments that he has made in a glossy magazine which probably cost far more than the 85p for the Bill. His reply to my question was:
"To put it crudely, you need the automatic element as a groundbait to attract the fish and have the selectivity to hook him at the lower cost to yourself."
That is the crucial point made by the chief executive of the WDA, a senior Welsh Office official and, of course, in a famous document produced for the Department of Trade and Industry in 1984 by Neil Hood and Stephen Young entitled:
"Multinational Investment Strategies in the British Isles".
It seemed to have limited circulation but, hopefully, it is now available from Her Majesty's Stationery Office. It is a seminal document of research evidence. I want to quote one passage to the Minister in case he has not read the document. On page 169 it says:
"In evaluating the influence of regional incentives (RDG and SFA) more deeply, it is necessary to consider entry methods, since companies entering through acquisitions would be unlikely to attribute any influence to financial assistance. Although not shown here, this comes out clearly from the data: of the 57 greenfield entrants in the AAs, 42·1 per cent, viewed RDG as "very important" and 24·6 per cent, "important" — meaning that two thirds of those building from scratch considered regional development grants as of some significance. The same general pattern applied, albeit much less strongly, for selective financial assistance: here 26·3 per cent, of greenfield entrants rated SFA as important or very important."
Will the Minister tell the House what new evidence— different from the seminal document produced by the DTI and different from what was said by the chief Welsh Office adviser and the chief executive of the Welsh Development Agency—he has, with the wealth of knowledge of the DTI and the Welsh Office behind him, to demonstrate clearly that RDG is no longer necessary as a groundbait to hook the fish? Although I am not a fishing man, the message is loud and clear. The Opposition demand evidence to prove that the situation has fundamentally changed and that the incentives that the Government are offering are no different from what they were before. Unless the Minister can do that, we shall feel very concerned and very cheated.
9.30 pm
Mr. Keith Raffan: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the major increase in resources for regional and industrial assistance that he has obtained — an extra £54 million for the next financial year, representing a massive 39 per cent, increase, together with a promise of further substantial increases in the next two years.
Perhaps the most important component of that package is the increase in the total Government provision for the WDA of one third in 1988–89, allowing, as the Western Mail put it,
"a major boost for factory building."
That was announced in detail earlier today.
Last September I wrote to the chief executive of the WDA, David Waterstone, expressing my concern at the lack of factory space in Clwyd. He replied:
"We are becoming the victims of our own success and the vacancy rate in our estates throughout Wales has now fallen

569
to below 9 per cent., whereas we have always argued that we cannot fall below 10 per cent, without the efficiency of our investment-attracting activities being impaired."
The WDA is the victim of its own success.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Raffan: No. I shall finish my point and then I shall be delighted to give way to a short intervention from the hon. Gentleman, as I am making a short speech.
In the current financial year the WDA is on course to let up to 2·3 million sq ft of factory floor space. That is well up on the record level achieved in 1986–87.
Mr. Morgan: Has it occurred to the hon. Gentleman that there are two possible explanations for the shortage of factory space this year? One is that two years ago not enough factories were started to be ready now. The hon. Gentleman has given the other explanation.
Mr. Raffan: The hon. Gentleman does not want to face the truth, as excellent news for Wales is bad news for his party.
The economic upturn has created that difficulty for the WDA. The WDA and the Government have successfully faced that difficulty today, and that has thrown Opposition Members into a tremendous pickle. They are playing around with statistics, picking them out at will to try to demonstrate that they spent more than we did, when everyone knows that they did not.
In addition to what I said about factory floor space and the tremendous achievements during the current financial year, there is now to be a massive increase in WDA investment in property development of more than 40 per cent, in the next financial year, making a total of £44 million. That will create 1·5 million sq ft–75 per cent. —more space than in the current financial year, and 50 per cent, more than originally planned.
Before today's announcement, despite the significant extra investment made in the factory building programme recently — it has been significant compared with the Opposition's record—the economic upturn has created capacity constraints in certain localities, not least in north-east Wales. I hope that Opposition Members will agree that the massive increase in resources for the WDA property programme announced today will help to ensure that no investment opportunity will be lost in future because of the non-availability of suitable factory premises.
I wish to make three points about the WDA factory building programme. The first is about where the factories should be provided in north-east Wales. The largest concentration of the agency's factory units in Clwyd is in the districts of Wrexham Maelor and Alyn and Deeside. The WDA property portfolio currently shows in Wrexham Maelor 96 units covering 973,564 sq ft and in Alyn and Deeside 110 units covering 889,545 sq ft.
That is in sharp contrast to Delyn, which has just 47 units, covering 248,000 sq ft, and Rhuddlan, which has only 17 units, covering 182,079 sq ft. The figure for Rhuddlan is actually less than in 1985, when the figure was 198,000 sq ft because of the demolition of temporary accommodation in Kinmel industrial park in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer).
The WDA has conceded that
"to some extent development in north-east Clwyd has centred on Deeside industrial park, which",
570
it says,
"serves a wide urban catchment."
That concentration in Wrexham Maelor and Alyn and Deeside will continue even with the WDA's revised property development programme which has been published today.
I am grateful for the major inward investment property project at the Delyn enterprise zone, but there is still too much concentration of property development in Wrexham Maelor and, indeed, in Alyn and Deeside. I shall not encourage an intervention from the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones), who I see in his place, but I could have given the figures for Glyndwr. I am sure that he too would like a few more units.
The Deeside industrial park and the Wrexham industrial estate do not provide an answer to the intense highly localised problems of unemployment in my constituency. As I said when we debated the WDA last in the Welsh Grand Committee on 21 May 1986, the journey from Hollywell to Deeside industrial park, in Alyn and Deeside, is a 26-mile round trip, and the journey to Wrexham industrial estate is a 40-mile round trip. Public transport locally is far from satisfactory, and those living and working in Delyn are largely in the low-income bracket, so that transport costs can represent an intolerably heavy burden on their wage packets.
If accessible location is not a sufficient reason for the WDA now to correct the imbalance and provide more factories for Delyn and coastal Clwyd, closer to those out of work, surely credence must be given to the argument that Alyn and Deeside, and to a lesser extent Wrexham Maelor, are, because of their geographical location, more attractive to private investment. In those areas, commercial pressures are more likely to trigger private investment, and that is not so true of the less accessible, less industrially attractive Delyn and coastal Clwyd, where public sector pump-priming is more necessary. I hope that the property development grant announced today will increasingly recognise that.
The WDA emphasis must move away from south-east Clwyd to Delyn and coastal Clwyd. The Clwyd structure plan revealed a shortage of land for industrial development in that area. Although by the time the structure plan was reviewed there had been an improvement, coastal Clwyd still has the lowest proportion of industrial land in the county, and it still needs more.
Unemployment in Prestatyn remains high, less seasonal than it used to be. The round trip to Deeside industrial park from there is at least 45 miles. We need more industrial development on the coast.
The problem is land and, more to the point, getting our hands on land that could be used for industrial development. I know that the Government have encouraged local authorities to release land that is surplus to requirements; but there is a need for similar encouragement, and, if encouragement does not work, pressure, on the public sector or on those who have just left it. I would refer to two examples of protracted—far too protracted — negotiations with Wales Gas and British Rail in Prestatyn to get them to release surplus land.
Secondly, we need to achieve a much better balance between public and private sector investment in factory building, which today's announcement will help to bring

571
about. That is not easy, as the industrial development officer of Clwyd, Derek Griffin, said in a letter to me last September:
"Involving the private sector in building advance factories is not as easy as has been suggested in some quarters … the problem lies in the rental levels that can be achieved against the returns required by investment funds."
That point has been acknowledged by the chief executive of the WDA — David Waterstone — who has been quoted so much by the Opposition today. But he took a more positive and determined line in a letter to me when he said:
"You may be glad to know that we are currently working on a number of schemes designed to raise private capital for industrial and commercial building in Wales. I am sure it is necessary, and indeed desirable, for us to find a means of supplementing Government funding."
The WDA's announcement today shows that those schemes have come to fruition, and I am glad that the Delyn enterprise zone has been chosen as one place where they will be tried out. I welcome all aspects of the private development initiative, particularly the property development grant, to fill what is called "a viability gap" that could otherwise prevent an industrial development from happening.
Many will agree with Mr. Waterstone that private sector investment is not only necessary but desirable. I know that Delyn borough council believes that there is a real need for the Welsh Development Agency to play a key role in ensuring private investment in factory units, not only through property development grant, but through a rent guarantee—another way to tip the balance so as to ensure private sector investment, which would not otherwise happen because of a much greater growth in values of industrial property elsewhere.
Thirdly, there is a need for a balance between advance factory units and bespoke, tailor-made units. The pros and cons of this were discussed in the debate on the WDA in the Welsh Grand Committee, to which I referred earlier. Different local authorities put the emphasis differently. Clywd's emphasis is on the urgent need for a range of new advance factories to be built to meet the demand and maintain the momentum of attracting new companies to the county. Delyn borough council, from its experience as a landowner and planning authority for the Delyn enterprise zone, puts the emphasis on the need for bespoke, tailor-made units for particular companies.
We need both types. We need a variety of advance factories of 5,000, 10,000 or 15,000 sq ft, but the dangers of building advance factories in sizes larger than that are that they can remain empty for a long time and they are of a standard type that is unsuitable for certain industries, such as electronics.
The dramatic increase in funding made available today should enable the WDA to move quickly to build tailor-made units, designed to meet the requirements of major inquiries. It is often more cost-effective to build tailor-made units than to undertake costly alterations to existing advance factory units. Such tailor-made units can also be built very quickly, within the relatively short period of three to six months. I am reassured by today's announcement that the WDA will continue to give the highest priority to constructing bespoke units for specific clients. It is an area in which the agency has been conspicuously successful in recent years.
572
Even before this announcement, the targeted level of new build was approximately 50 per cent, higher than that achieved during the period 1976–77 to 1978–79. Now we have, in the words of the chief executive of the WDA,
"a radical strengthening of the WDA's resources"
and of
the capabilities"
of the Agency in the industrial property sector.
"Excellent news."
he rightly described this.
I only wish that David Waterstone would pass on his ability to recognise excellent news for what it is to the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). All this good news—today's 40 per cent, increase in the WDA's property programme; the 33 per cent, increase in the overall provision for the WDA; the 39 per cent, overall increase in regional industrial assistance for Wales—has put the Opposition in a right pickle, because excellent news for Wales is bad news for them.
The great mistake of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West was to anticipate, prior to the original statement on regional assistance, an announcement that was never made:
"Planned changes to Government aid packages will hit new business development in Wales,"
claimed the shadow Welsh Secretary in the Western Mail.
"Labour MPs are to demand a special Commons statement … spelling out the implications for Wales of wholesale changes in the administration of regional aid to industry",
thundered the Western Mail again.
We have not heard much of that, not since that Western Mail leader headlined "Remarkable Victory for Walker". We have been left instead with the delectable sight of the right hon. Gentleman limping backwards in full retreat, trying to gather together the tattered remnants of his own credibility with a phrase that will long live to haunt his parliamentary annals:
"If there is an increase,"
he spluttered,
"it is in relation to cuts that they were envisaging".
I say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that he has won, not on points, but on a knock-out. I say to the Labour party that if the present shadow Secretary of State was its third choice, let us have its fourth.
9.43 pm
Mr. Geraint Howells: From my experience in the House—and I have been here a few years — I hold the view that each Secretary of State for Wales in turn deserves credit now and again for what he does for his country. Tonight I take the view that the present Secretary of State deserves to be congratulated on his efforts in fighting for his corner of Wales. It would be very churlish indeed of me and of others if we were to criticise the increase in development money that has been promised to the WDA and the Mid Wales Development Board. I know that the Welsh Development Agency and the Mid Wales Development Board are reasonably happy with what they are receiving. If memory serves me right, they will be getting about £54 million extra of Government money, although the point has already been made that the total falls well short of the value of the regional grant to Wales in 1980.
I welcome today's announcement that there will be a substantial expansion in the Welsh Development Agency's property development and that the agency is now in a position to fulfil all the factory building that it had

573
planned. If that can be done in the years to come, it will be a wonderful achievement, whichever party is in Government. It is important that the excellent work done by the Welsh Development Agency and the Mid Wales Development Board should receive every encouragement. It is refreshing to see a Secretary of State for Wales in this Government acknowledging the value of public spending at last. I hope that he will, in his wisdom, try to persuade the Secretaries of State for Education and Science and for Social Services that there is need for more money to be spent in the public sector. The Secretary of State for Wales has given a lead tonight and I hope that his ministerial colleagues will take heed of what he has done.
However, I want to sound a warning. Although I appreciate that we need to remedy the shortage of factory space and regenerate urban areas and industrial valleys in Wales, there is a danger that not enough money will find its way to rural Wales, to areas that have suffered equal deprivation and equally high levels of unemployment. Unfortunately, the Teifi valley between Cardiganshire, Pembrokeshire and Carmarthen — I do not blame this Government more than the previous Labour Government for this—has had unemployment for the past 15 or 20 years of between 24 and 26 per cent. — the highest in Wales. Something must be done to try to cure that problem.
I urge the Secretary of State to consider giving more funds to the Mid Wales Development Board, in view of the massive problems facing the area that it covers. It should also be given wider powers, and the area that it covers should be extended to include at least north Pembrokeshire. I have consulted members of the local authorities in north Pembrokeshire, who have problems comparable to those in the mid Wales area. It would be a step in the right direction if one of our ports — Fishguard—were to come under the jurisdiction of the Mid Wales Development Board. That is food for thought, and I hope that everyone concerned in the Welsh Office will give further consideration to it.
Eventually, I want the Mid Wales Development Board to become an organisation that will cover the whole of rural Wales—a body that could ensure that rural Wales received its fair share of help from the Government. It could be a development board that would safeguard the interests of our language, heritage and culture. Something should be done about it and more consideration given to that thought of mine and of others.
The Secretary of State will be aware, I am sure, of one particular problem facing people in my constituency at the moment. I refer to today's announcement of the closure of Felinfach creamery, with the loss of more than 100 jobs. That is a real body blow to the economy of Ceredigion and mid Wales. I urge the Secretary of State tonight to take urgent action on this matter. I suggest that he should convene and attend a meeting between the Welsh Office, the Welsh Development Agency, Dyfed county council, Ceredigion district council, the National Farmers Union and the Farmers Union of Wales to discuss and set plans in motion to create jobs to replace those lost at Felinfach today. Unless that is done immediately, I believe that there will be dire consequences for the area and the community as a whole.
I beg the Secretary of State—or the Minister when he replies — to give that assurance to the people of Cardiganshire and the employees at Felinfach. I want to make a plea on behalf of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn
574
(Mr. Jones). We went to see the chief executive of Dairy Crest at the beginning of the week. Unfortunately, neither of us was able to persuade him. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn has a problem at Llangefni in Anglesey similar to the problem that I have in Felinfach. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will give that assurance to both of us.
9.50 pm
Mr. Gwilym Jones: I start on a note of welcome especially for the blinding light on the road to Damascus conversion of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). I was amazed to hear him say that he was delighted to learn of any improvement. If I wrote his phrase down correctly, he said that he felt that we still have "a little way to go" in the economic regeneration of Wales. At the very least, I would agree with that. Is that the first tangible or only tangible result of the new campaign, "Labour Listens"? What a pity he had to spoil it by carping on about the figures. Again, I made a note of what he said. He said that he would "transpose the figures in his own image." I hope that the right hon. Member for Swansea, West will junk that second-hand word processor that he has been using and that we will see more of his new positive approach at Welsh Question Time or in other Welsh debates.
Mr. Morgan: Perhaps, in assessing the nature of the demands made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), the hon. Gentleman forgets that, with half our steelworks closed down, we now have to go in for iron mining in Wales.
Mr. Jones: The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), who is my constituency neighbour, did not follow my point when I said that I would agree with the right hon. Member for Swansea, West that there was still "a little way to go".
I welcome the Bill. The House will welcome the Bill as it increases the financial limits for the Welsh Development Agency approximately one year earlier than was originally expected. In welcoming it, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on having approved a 40 per cent, increase in property investment for the Welsh Development Agency. All of us would agree that, at the very least, that was necessary. There is tremendous demand for WDA property, and that is a signal pointer to the progress of the continued economic revival of Wales.
In turn, I want to extend my congratulations to the Welsh Development Agency on achieving a letting record of 204 million sq ft in 1986–87. The vacancy rate at the same time was below 10 per cent., and that is equally noteworthy. Is that not a far cry from the position in years past when Labour Secretaries of State for Wales scuttled around Wales announcing and opening new vacant advance factories? The trouble was that all too often that is what those factories remained—new, vacant advance factories.
Much good, interesting and exciting work is being done by and with the Welsh Development Agency. However, that is not always the comment that I hear from others. Perhaps others do not give the WDA the same consideration as we give to it. However, Members of Parliament frequently encounter the impression that, if the applicant for help represents large inward investment, everyone involved — the Welsh Development Agency,

575
among others — will do everything possible to try to secure that investment. Naturally, that is what we should do; the trouble is that it seems to be thought that, if the applicant for help is a small indigenous company in Wales, it will not get all the help that it needs.
That is a strange picture, in view of some of the less well-publicised achievements that have been made. Earlier today I noted that professional advice had been given to some 7,700 companies; that a similar number of individuals and companies had received first-time counselling services; that over 1,000 people had received training in business enterprise; and that the small firms centre had responded to 39,000 inquiries from 22,000 individuals and companies. The reality is often different from the perception or the image. We must have regard to that question of image, not solely from the public relations point of view, but so that there are no missed opportunities for those who are contemplating a small expansion or— equally valid—those who need assistance before trouble gets worse.
We need to ensure that everyone is aware of the help that can be offered by the WDA, and that no opportunities of seeking that help are missed. In the last few months, I have received complaints about missed opportunities involving WDA land in south Cardiff, which is part of the proposal for the redevelopment of the docklands. Developers have come to me saying that they have missed opportunities, and that some of them have gone elsewhere because of the present standstill in the Cardiff docklands, which includes WDA land. The WDA is co-operating fully with the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation as the plans are drawn up for the exciting scheme for the redevelopment of south Cardiff. In the meantime, however, there is a standstill and the real possibility of development opportunities being lost.
One complaint that I have received comes from a quarter referred to very positively in the WDA's property development programme, with which all of us, I believe, have been circulated today. Naturally, a question of balance is involved. The proposals for development — which are obviously still tentative, because they never reached the final stage — must be weighed against the need to ensure that the entire plan for the redevelopment of south Cardiff is right.
In all my contacts with the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation, I have been impressed by the corporation's approach. It has a healthy "get up and go" attitude of wanting to take the scheme forward and achieve as much as possible. I have been assured that the planning process will be swift, and I trust that it will be; that we shall have no cause to regret the present standstill; and that, from the earliest stage, every possible assistance will be given to developers, so that we can hear the least possible talk of missed opportunities.
Last week, the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation announced the possibility of the use of compulsory purchase orders to achieve the scheme for docklands redevelopment. That also may affect the WDA's land holdings. Inevitably, any prospect of compulsory purchase orders arouses controversy and concern. In my post this morning, I received a letter from the community support anti-waste scheme, whose members are very worried about the possibility of having to move from their present location at the abattoir in Cardiff. I know of their work
576
in various recycling activities. They say that it would be catastrophic is they were to lose their present site and have no alternative location.
I have been impressed not only by the "get up and go" approach of the development corporation, but by the fact that its planning approach is meant to be flexible. I very much hope that it will be so. However, as it moves forward in redeveloping south Cardiff, I believe that compulsory purchase orders should be used sparingly. Where there is full-hearted co-operation between the landowners, including the Welsh Development Agency, and where it is possible for both parties to go down the road together, I hope that they will do so without unnecessary compulsion so that all will benefit from the south Cardiff development.
Finally, in response to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell)—
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

  Welsh Development Agency Bill
  Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Mr. Jones: Finally, I want to respond to the hon. Member for Gower, because he should not be selective in the evidence that he adduces in condemning selective assistance. He asked what evidence there is for the move towards selective assistance — [Interruption.] In his dwelling, in the hallowed chamber of Room 18 on the Upper Committee corridor, he referred to various pieces of evidence that have been brought before the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. I do not have the page number before me from which to quote, but I recall that the whole thrust of the argument that we were given by the Wales Trades Union Congress was exactly the move towards selective assistance that has now come about. Indeed, I seem to recollect that David Jenkins, the general secretary of the Wales TUC, was very dismissive of alternative arguments for maintaining or expanding automatic assistance. Even in the quotation that the hon. Member for Gower used from the chief executive of the Welsh Development Agency—it was a fishing analogy in which he likened automatic assistance to ground bait —it was described as only ground bait. The relationship between the suitors was finally consummated only by the use of selective assistance.
  Mr. Alan Williams: We should understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) made no such attack on regional selective assistance. He argued for the combination of selective assistance and grants. However, as the hon. Gentleman is so committed to regional selective assistance, will he explain why, if we consider the national figures, regional selective assistance —so loved by the Conservative party—has fallen by 37 per cent, since that party came to office?
  Mr. Jones: I thought that I was responding to the hon. Member for Gower. I was trying to use the evidence that he put forward today, in relation to the quotation from the

  577
  chief executive of the Welsh Development Agency and the omission of the evidence that was brought forward by the Welsh TUC.
  In conclusion, the Bill will be important for south Cardiff, Cardiff and all of Wales. I see it as continuing the economic regeneration of Wales that has been so well begun and that will now continue further apace.
  10.3 pm
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: We welcome the Bill because we welcome the activities of our agency, our Welsh Development Agency. It helps the regeneration and redevelopment of our communities, which we have a right to serve. Although I am sure that over the years my hon. Friends and I have had relationships with the WDA which could sometimes be characterised as creative tension, nevertheless in all my experience the chief executive, Mr. Waterstone, and his team have been utterly committed and dedicated to helping in the development of Wales as best they can, to meet the challenges of regeneration in the communities that we serve. Therefore, we welcome and support the Bill.
  Although the Welsh Development Agency is a major instrument for regeneration in our communities, it is in partnership, not only with the Secretary of State for Wales, but with our local authorities. That is a vital additional element in the trinity needed for progress and development. I am glad that it appears so far that at least this Secretary of State has not brought to Welsh affairs the rather bilious prejudice that English Ministers seem to have towards English local authorities. It is the combination of all three that is helping in the regeneration of our community.
  I shall touch briefly on the three major functions of the agency and on the impact of its work on communities such as mine. Sadly, the Secretary of State touched only briefly on the first function; perhaps the Minister will expand upon his right hon. Friend's remarks. I refer to the role of the agency as a major venture capital agency for our community. That is desperately important, especially when one considers that the agency and Investment In Industry together account for 80 per cent, of all the venture capital that comes into our community.
  Will the Minister tell us what will be the agency's venture capital budget in the coming year? I have tried to go through the figures and have a look at the accounts and I have concluded that that sum will be about £10 million. Admittedly, that £10 million may generate twice as much investment or more from other sources, but we must remember that we are fundamentally dependent on the agency for the promotion and development of venture capital in our society. One of the greatest inhibitions to regional development — not only in Wales but in the north, the north-east, Scotland and elsewhere — is the centralised accumulation of capital in the City. It is dramatically over-centralised: 73 per cent, of all venture capital companies are in the City of London. Some fascinating research done with the support of the agency shows that 80 per cent, of all decisions relating to the investment of venture capital were made by people living within two hours of their office. That means that they are made by people based in the City of London. The concentration and accumulation of our capital—we are talking about our pension funds; it is our savings that go into the Legal and General, the Prudential and the building societies—means that we do not get anything
  578
  like the share that we need to regenerate and support our communities. Therefore, we are desperately dependent on the WDA as a venture capital agency. Will the Minister give us a categorical assurance that that fundamental role will not be curbed, whittled or clipped by Government Departments and, in particular, by the Treasury? I hope that the Minister will reaffirm that it is an integral part of the agency's role to develop and expand its venture capital function because of the over-centralisation of capital in the City. If I am right that the venture capital budget will be about £10 million, I hope that the Minister will tell us how it will be expanded in 1988–89 and beyond.
  My second point concerns the industrial and commercial role of the agency in my community. No one denies that the announcement of the advance factory building programme for my community is welcome. We worked, fought and begged for that. However, we want to go further. I am interested in the future of commercial development. What will be the role of the urban renewal unit created by the WDA? What is the relationship of that unit to urban development grants which, I gather, are still vested in the Welsh Office? Will the urban renewal grant be a lending or a grant-giving body? That is unclear. That unit will have an important function in the broader industrial and commercial development and diversification of our local economies.
  Thirdly, I am interested in the programme of development announced today. With reference to my own community, I am particularly interested in this statement:
  "The regional office identifies the following opportunities locally for possible private sector development: Goal Mill road Merthyr—small factories."
  I live within yards of the Goat Mill road site. Its dereliction is not that of 150 years ago; it is that of factories that have been closed over the past decade as a result of the decline in manufacturing industry in the community. It is a new form of dereliction. I should like to know how the private sector development will take place. What will be the nature of the vehicle by which this development will be made? The area desperately needs redevelopment. The dereliction is a result of the decline in manufacturing jobs in the community over the past decade.
  I should like to consider briefly the land reclamation aspect of the WDA. The Secretary of State visited the community that I represent last week and saw some of the largest areas of historic land reclamation to be seen in any community. He drove up the slip road from Pentrebach up to the top of the Heads of the Valleys and saw the land dereliction on either side of the road. It is an amazing story, because we could widen that road, clear the tips, get some of the coal from those tips washed in the nearby washery and broaden and develop the infrastructure surrounding it to make it infinitely more attractive. It is one of the most vital lifelines in communications between the south of the Heads of the Valleys, the midlands, Worcestershire and beyond. That should be of the highest priority. If British Coal gets its way and we have another decade of open-casting along that road, all our hopes and visions of investing in and around the Heads of the Valleys will be dashed. The Secretary of State will have to take those issues into account when he receives the representations that will follow the local inquiry.
  Land reclamation is one of the most vital functions of the agency. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) spoke not only about our

  579
  historic success in trying to clear as much dereliction as we can but the growing pace of new dereliction. A most interesting survey that was carried out by the Welsh Coalfields Communities showed that, despite the tremendous efforts that have been made by everyone to clear dereliction, we are about where we were five or 10 years ago with regard to the amount of dereliction that we have. A budget of £16 million to £20 million, which is what I assume the agency will receive, is not sufficient. A figure of £25 million a year would make inroads into the rate of dereliction in our communities.
  We welcome the Bill because we believe that a partnership between the agency, the local authority and the Welsh Office is the way in which communities such as mine can be regenerated and redeveloped. We shall support the Secretary of State, whenever he deserves it, to achieve that purpose. I hope that he in turn will recognise that when Labour Members speak we do so with authentic voices of the needs and wishes of the people whom we serve.
  10.12 pm
  Sir Anthony Meyer: I want to respond briefly to the extremely constructive and thoughtful speech of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), which, like the speech of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells), was in startling contrast to what we heard from the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams).
  There is a good case to be made by the Labour party with regard to these changes, but it is not helped by distorting the facts. The facts are that we have had an enormous increase for Wales and an enormously expanded programme for the Welsh Development Agency. It spoils the case altogether to try to gloss over that.
  None the less, I must express a concern, for two reasons. First, the constant changing of the system of regional aid has gone on under successive Governments. It is not that it changes as each Government is elected. Each Government seems to try two or three different approaches to this matter, and the introduction of uncertainty is damaging to inward investment.
  There is a strong case to be made for certainty, and it was made powerfully in the debate on Monday by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw). The abolition of regional development grant removes an element of certainty that is of value in attracting investment, but I am quite prepared in the short term to trade that against the tremendous success of my right hon. Friend in attracting so much more help to Wales.
  I remember that once when my noble Friend Lord Carrington was being interviewed about the Prime Minister he was asked the usual question about what would happen if a No. 11 bus were to run over her, to which he retorted that it would not dare. My concern is that if that No. 11 bus, swerving to avoid the Prime Minister, were to run over my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales there would be precious little, now that we are doing away with regional development
  580
  grant, to ensure that the same battles would be fought so heroically in the Cabinet and that under a less automatic system we in Wales would get our fair share.
  What was a little worrying at the end of Monday night's debate was the failure of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks to get the assurance that he sought from the Minister that the total of aid under regional selective assistance would be maintained and that what is undoubtedly happening for the coming year would happen for the years ahead. Therefore, I have this faint, nagging worry, but as long as my right hon. Friend is there I know how hard he will fight for Wales, and I take this opportunity of congratulating him on what he has managed to achieve.
  10.16 pm
  Mr. Michael Foot: Like all my hon. Friends, I certainly welcome without any qualification and with open arms all of the propositions in this Bill for increasing the amount that we are to get under the arrangements of the Welsh Development Agency. Every time since 1979 that I have visited the Welsh Office or the Welsh Minister has come to my constituency I have asked for more money for the WD A because of the kind of work that it is doing and because I think that it is asinine that all the time it should have to choose between, for example, a new, advance factory that is desperately needed and a new development of land reclamation which is equally desperately needed. So of course we want more money and welcome it. It would be ridiculous for us not to do so. And we need more.
  We are suffering from an accumulation of what has happened in the past, and people do not take into account the economic burden that rests on the shoulders of the people who work in the valley towns, for example. With perisistent mass unemployment, 22 per cent, female and 24 per cent, male, for six, seven or eight years on end, which is what we have had since 1979, soon after which it doubled, the economic burden is enormously increased. If there are cuts in social security such as we are having in the valley towns—and the worst ones are coming into operation in the next few months — that imposes a burden on our people because they have not got as much money to spend as people in other parts of the country.
  All these accumulated burdens of the persistent slump that we have had to bear while other parts of the country have talked about fabulous improvements we are still carrying to a large extent. Therefore, we need every penny we can get in the Welsh Development Agency and we need even more than the Government are providing under these new provisions.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) is quite justified and correct in recalling what happened in 1978 and 1979, when we faced the run down. The people in my constituency wanted the support through the WDA to be sustained on the scale that we were getting then. If we had had that, we should have been able to cut our unemployment during that period and achieve very much greater expansion.
  I am not trying to qualify the compliment I have paid to the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. We have not had any nonsense today about not being able to solve problems by throwing money at them. We have not had any of that kind of drivel from the right hon. Gentleman. He is able to say that he is going to throw a bit more money in and that is why we should cheer him so much. And we

  581
  do so. The point stressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) regarding the alteration in the regional grant process is a serious matter.
  I congratulate the Secretary of State on having visited so many places in the last few weeks and listened to what local authorities have to say on these matters. If the Government had listened in such a way, I cannot believe that the measure changing the provision of regional grant would have been introduced. It is a brainwave from Lord Young and we all know how dangerous that can be. Nobody knows that better than the Secretary of State. I cannot believe that he was ever in favour of this proposition. The questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower are unanswerable. He has all the evidence from people working on the job and the evidence from the Welsh Development Agency. I guarantee that he has evidence from every local authority to which he has put the question. Certainly, he got such evidence when he visited my local authority. It was one of the main subjects that we wanted to discuss with him.
  I do not ask the Secretary of State to reply to the question now; indeed, it might be dangerous for him to do so. If he replies and emphasises what was said by Ministers in the debate a few days ago, we would be landed with it. I would like the Minister to work out for Wales a new formula under which we could give industrialists coming to this area special advance assurance so that there would be no question of selective argument about whether they were entitled to the grant. We would be able to say to them, "We are going to give you a better chance over a long period of the kind of assistance and advantage that we have had over some areas in the past."
  It makes me furious that, in my area, the provision of such assistance was foreseen in 1978 and 1979. It was foreseen that areas in which there was such a fierce rundown in the steel industry and other industries must
  582
  have special provision over and above the normal development assistance. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West worked out exactly what such special assistance should be.
  I do not expect the Secretary of State to deal with this matter at the end of the debate, but it would be advantageous if he could consider the matter before the present provisions expire. It is comical to be told that we shall have a great advantage over the next few months before the system is changed. Many firms will rush in because the future is more assured. There will be a combination of improved grant and a guarantee for the future. I ask the Secretary of State to consider that and to realise that such an advantage for areas which are most seriously hit must be restored.
  I represent an area which continues to be hit. It is not just a question of what has happened in the past seven or eight years. That is why it is absurd for the Secretary of State to talk about the fabulous restoration of the economy. In my area, we still have redundancies and closures in the mining industry on a huge scale. Those closures do not affect just a few hundred people here and there. We have had major closures in the past year and we face more in the future. There are areas in Wales and other parts of the country which need special assistance We shall make every possible use of everything that we can get from the Welsh Development Agency, but we need something in addition to that.
  The Welsh Development Agency has done a magnificent job. I would rather that it made mistakes and spent money than not get on with the job. It has shown how public enterprise can co-operate with private enterprise and with local authorities in the best possible way, but it can do much more. It needs more money and a fresh look and this provision, which was so essential in the past, will still be necessary.
  10.25 pm
  Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: I echo what the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) said about the overall level of regional spending in Wales and the need for an effective regional policy. I take as read what was said from the Opposition Benches in the debate on Monday.
  In a debate of this kind it is difficult to do justice to the broad activity of the WDA. What is clear—apparently this view is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House—is the importance of a public sector agency that ensures partnership between commercial and public finance to ensure development within Wales. That partnership covers the broad basis of existing industry, commercial activity, agriculture and tourism, as well as the more traditional forms of manufacturing investment.
  Of course we all echo the welcome that has been given to the external overseas inward investment in Wales. In real terms, that investment represents a small part of the agency's total work, albeit extremely important in terms of new investment. Most of the work of the WDA is involved in stimulating, maintaining and developing growing and existing industries. In Wales, small enterprises represent a success story. The survival rate of such enterprises in Wales is substantially higher than in other parts of Britain.
  When considering the activities of the agency we need to look in particular at the essential role of small businesses in building up the economy. We have plenty of evidence from other advanced capitalist countries that the small business sector is a major growth area in a mature economy. Certainly, in the past five years it has been evident that, in Wales, there is opportunity for substantial growth in the medium and small business sectors. The WDA must direct its attention to that growth in addition to the support that will be available from the Government under the new enterprise package.
  One thing that is important to destroy is the myth that Welsh people are somehow not enterprising per se. That myth still seems to hang around. My experience is that there is tremendous enterprise. Most people who live and work in my part of the country have at least three jobs —and that does not mean that they are moonlighting. They are actively engaged as contractors, as well as being self-employed in other capacities, or they may take in tourists. It is a diverse economy, and most of us have more than one job.
  However, because of the traditional education system and the reliance on employment patterns in some of the heavy industries, there has been a failure in the take-up of the enterprise idea and the possibility of moving on from an idea to actual investment. Much of the responsibility for that failure must lie with the financial system. I endorse what has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the need for venture capital to be a priority in the role of the WDA.
  There is an important link between the agency and other agencies of development in Wales. The right hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) stressed the role of the Mid-Wales Development Board. I referred to that on Monday night, and I do not wish to repeat what I said. However, it is important that anything that happens within the WDA is parallel, albeit
  584
  on a smaller scale, to regional schemes through the Mid-Wales Development Board. Similarly, some of the social development programmes that the Mid-Wales Development Board has pioneered should also be made available in rural Wales through the work of the WDA. It is regrettable that social packages are available in mid-Wales but not in other parts of rural Wales.
  It is important that there should be a link between WDA work, as the senior enterprising agency and the major source of capital, and the work of the Wales tourist board. The tourist board is aware that the WDA has large sums of capital available to it, yet the tourist board, the promotional body for tourism — a major growth industry — does not have access to the same kind of capital. It must be made clear that, with the development of tourism, the WDA should undertake the role of providing capital and the development of that service sector in close partnership with the tourist board.
  The Wales tourist board knows the needs within the industry and the capacity for promoting development. I emphasise the need for collaboration between the various public agencies and also, on a smaller scale, between the WDA and other agencies in rural Wales, in particular, the National Parks Authority and its development of small craft centres and so on in the countryside.
  The main issue to which I want to refer is the need for the agency to give even higher priority to ensuring the provision of venture capital. Part of the problem of Wales is its need to be a finance centre and therefore self-generating in capital accumulation and economic growth. The agency should be giving the highest possible priority to the provision of risk capital and other business services and the development of a genuine Wales-based entrepreneurship.
  Mr. Raffan: That is a very important point, and the hon. Gentleman is making it as constructively as the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) did in an important contribution to the debate. On the whole question of venture capital, we must get across the fact that we need to build up in Cardiff a financial centre, which does not exist there now. Edinburgh has one, and that is the advantage that Scotland has over Wales — a point that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney did not quite make. It is a very important matter in the controversy over getting more venture capital into the Principality. We must build up a financial centre in Cardiff.
  Dr. Thomas: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have always looked at the Welsh economy in terms of a partnership between the commercial sector and the public sector. The absence of commercial-sector centres of finance capital is the key gap in the regeneration of the Welsh economy.
  If we take the WDA venture capital out of the equation of venture capital available to Wales, we find that there is a substantial gap. The figures made available in the recent study of venture capital show that, if the role of the WDA and its associated Welsh venture capital is ignored, Wales received less than 2 per cent, of investments of venture capital in the years covered by the study 1983 to 1986. That illustrates the size of the problem. With the role of the WDA included, Wales receives more than its share each year by numbers, but less by value. There is a problem not only of the number of investment projects taking off in

  585
  Wales, but of the value of the investments. We can see from the study a preponderance of small investments by the WDA; 60 per cent, of Welsh investments were under £100,000, while the figure for England is a quarter. That indicates the scale of investment in different projects.
  I am not complaining about that. We may well need to have more smaller projects for investment in Wales. It is significant that the role of start-ups and early-stage financing in Wales is substantially greater than it is in England or Scotland. There are various growth tendencies in the Welsh economy. The important thing is to be able to service them, and to see that the WDA has the means to do that.
  It is also interesting to look at the sectoral composition of venture capital: nearly 17 per cent, in electronics; a substantial proportion, 15 per cent., still in energy and mining; and up to 11 per cent, in consumer-related investment.
  As outside commercial investment has increased, so the value of WDA investments has been reduced, but the WDA's role as the major lead agency in the formation of venture capital in Wales, which is recognised by the agency, must also be recognised more fully by other commercial sources of finance in Wales.
  Perhaps the one matter on which I found myself in complete agreement with the Secretary of State's predecessor was his famous lecture to the City of London. He got into trouble for doing it, but it was one of his better speeches, and it is important that such speeches should still be made with regard to the effect, or lack of effect, of capital markets on development in Wales.
  I wish to stress particularly that the agency cannot overemphasise its role with regard to venture capital, and the effect that that can have on the necessary growth and diversification of the Welsh economy.
  The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North referred to agriculture and the position of Dyfed and Gwynedd with a declining agriculture. The agency has shown enterprise here, with the rural initiative, which has taken off in Dyfed. I have been very impressed by what it has done in marketing the incredibly varied cheeses produced in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Here the agency has tackled a sector of development that has been neglected, in terms of refinancing, and set up advice and marketing services to improve the products.
  What we see is a diverse agency touching all aspects of enterprise within the life of Wales. We pay tribute to the work that the agency has done. We welcome very much the additional funding that is being made available to it. But we are also well aware that the work of such an agency can be effective only if it is seen as a partnership. The capitalist sector has not served Wales well in the past. It is high time we got a response from that sector to the public sector finance that is being put in now.
  10.35 pm
  Mr. Martyn Jones: May I preface my remarks by telling the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) that there are still many empty advance factories in certain areas. Conservative Members can start crowing when they exceed the all-time record of jobs in Wales that we had in 1979.
  We see in today's report on the Welsh Development Agency and its boost for the development of property that there is a record demand for industrial and commercial property. Is this why only a few further units of rural
  586
  workshops are planned for the Denbigh area? I wonder. Presumably there is no demand for industrial property in the vale of Clywd or the southern areas of my constituency.
  Of course, the Secretary of State may not be aware of the problems of that area. This would seem likely from the reply I received to a question that I put to him last November. Of the five WDA factories which it was claimed would help replace the jobs lost in the vale of Clywd if the North Wales hospital closed, four were in Corwen, which is not in the vale of Clywd. I suspect that they are still empty, along with the other one that became empty after my question was put.
  Why is the record demand not apparent in south-west Clywd, or indeed in the constituency of the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan)?
  Mr. Raffan: I find the hon. Gentleman's contribution extraordinary, in view of the statement by the chief executive of the Welsh Development Agency today, when he made it clear that the vacancy rate on a total property portfolio of more than 18 million sq ft is currently 86 per cent. He said that anything under 10 per cent, inhibits the ability of the agency to attract companies from other parts of the United Kingdom or from abroad into Wales The hon. Gentleman is inadvertently making the point that some of his predecessors made. Unfortunately, they have left the House and their wisdom is no longer on those Benches. I am thinking of Roger Thomas, the former Member for Carmarthen. He made the point that advance factories were not as good as bespoke units. What the hon. Gentleman is saying is nonsense.
  Mr. Jones: It can hardly be nonsense, as there are empty factories in my constituency.
  For the edification of the hon. Member for Delyn, I was told in answer to another question that assisted areas have an 8·5 per cent, vacancy rate, but unassisted areas have a 15 per cent, vacancy rate; that is, nearly double. I suspect that we have problems in south-west Clywd because 90 per cent, of the area does not have assisted area status, and now no regional development grants.
  The demand will fall further in regions such as mine without assisted status. As I have said, the vacancy rate in unassisted areas is roughly double the rate in assisted areas. In the north of Wales as a whole we have only one property development initiative, at Deeside. Why not have them where jobs are obviously going to be lost, such as in the vale of Clwyd? When will the WDA launch its dedicated programme of advance factory building in areas requiring urban renewal — for instance in parts of my constituency such as south Clwyd, Rhos, Cefn and Ruabon, which desperately need such investment? There is no indication of when it will happen.
  The aims of the WDA's programme, financed by a switch of resources, are, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) pointed out, first, to increase the supply of traditional property in regions where demand is now outstripping available stock; and, secondly, to undertake a range of new and innovatory projects. An innovatory project in the vale of Clywd, at Denbigh, is being ignored. The Pilkington special glass project has no access to grants and is struggling in a very high-tech area. The third aim of the new programme is to help regenerate the more disadvantaged urban and rural

  587
  areas. I submit that this cannot be achieved in my area or any other area in a vacuum without RDG or assisted area status.
  10.39 pm
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I was wondering when we started the debate two hours ago why the Secretary of State was performing this all-singing, all-dancing, barnstorming routine, saying that everything in Wales was wonderful; and why he was putting so much hyperbole into his performance.
  The explanation came to me in the unexpected presence of the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). He made three visits here. I think that the explanation is that Rothschilds is to make a bid for the WDA next week. It is the Secretary of State's job to talk up the Welsh economy. It may even make a bid for Wales. He wants to raise the price-earnings ratio of Wales and the WDA as much as he can before next week.
  Mr. Peter Walker: The hon. Gentleman is always talking Wales down.
  Mr. Morgan: I do not talk anything down.
  What the Secretary of State was engaged in, and may engage in again when he replies—I hope he does not—is the phenomenon familiar to psychiatrists of overcompensation. Since he comes from Gloucester and represents Worcester, but is now the Secretary of State for Wales, he has to try to prove to all of us and to the Welsh population that he is a better Welshman than the rest of us, although he does not come from Wales. Do we really have to go so far as back to his home town of Gloucester and his constituency of Worcester and spray green paint all over the roadsides and write in the old Romano-British names of Caerloyw and Caerwrangm at the entry to those towns? I think that would be going a bit far. He is now known as "Caerloyw boyo" in the coal mines of Wales. Unfortunately, there are not too many coal mines left in which that soubriquet can gain currency.
  If we analyse the figures, without the hype, for which the Secretary of State is becoming well known in Wales, and see what he has announced on behalf of the WDA, and what the building programme that the WDA itself has announced in Cardiff today, and compare that with what has been done in the past 10 years, we get some idea of whether it is a big programme, an about average programme or a small programme. That is what we really want to know.
  Let us look at the average for the last 10 years of the WDA's advance factory building programme. I calculate that to be a shade under the convenient round figure of 750,000 sq ft per year. I hope that the team of officials will now be able to provide that now familiar phenomenon of the slick fingertip-passing from apparatchik to Parliamentary Private Secretary to Chief Whip, sometimes on the mis-move to the Secretary of State, sometimes to the Minister of State for him to run in the tries. I hope that the Welsh three-quarters manage to perform with the same facility a week Saturday. The Secretary of State can show what a good private sector optician he benefits from when he gives us the answer. If the Secretary of State does not like the figure that I have given, I am sure that his officials will correct it.
  588
  What figure has the Secretary of State announced today relative to that average? Is that average a reasonable figure to take? I am sure that when the right hon. Gentleman replies he will say that that average is false because it includes the special steel closure programme which ran from 1978 to 1982. Is it fair to exclude the steel closure area? He obviously wants to exclude it, because that will bring the average down for the past 10 years and make today's announcement and the future programme for which he is now responsible more impressive. But is it really reasonable to exclude the steel closure area special building programme of the years 1978 to 1982?
  There were 30,000 jobs lost in the Welsh steel industry in that period. In the last two years, since the end of the miners' strike, between 11,000 and 12,000 jobs have been lost in the mining industry. Therefore, 30,000 over four years compared to 11,000 over two years is not that different. It is not unreasonable for us to include the average of the whole of the last 10 years when the average figure for advance factory building programmes was 750,000.
  Today's announcement is not on an entirely comparable basis, but in so far as it can be deciphered —I am sure that I will be corrected if I am wrong, as I could easily be — it looks as though next year's completion programme will be 550,000 sq ft. The following year's figure depends on when the 900,000 sq ft that was announced today in Cardiff for the advance factory building programme will be completed. I want to take a charitable view. I do not talk anything down; the Secretary of State is wrong about that. Someone who has been an industrial development officer for six and a half years does not do that.
  If we assume, charitably, that all the factories announced today in Cardiff will be completed by the year after next — I do not think it will happen, but let us assume that that will be the case — we would have a completion rate in the next financial year of 550,000 sq ft and, in the year after, of 900,000 sq ft. If we divide those two, we come out somewhere near the average of the past 10 years of just below the average — 700,000 sq ft. instead of 750,000 sq ft.
  I see the Secretary of State shaking his head, but I am not sure what he is shaking his head about, because the laws of mathematics are the same on both sides of the Chamber.
  Let us look too at the actual performance of the Welsh Development Agency this year. One of the problems—it is in the public expenditure White Paper—is that it was supposed to complete 650,000 sq ft this year but it looks as though it will actually complete less than 500,000 sq ft. So it is 150,000 sq ft down, a 22 per cent, shortfall in the great year of opportunity mentioned by the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) earlier.
  That is why I am inclined to think that this year will go down in the annals of the Welsh Development Agency as the year of the great missed opportunity. It appears to have been the only body, governed as it was by the very strict Treasury rules of two or three years ago, that failed to foresee that in election year there would be an election year boom and that there was likely to be a sharp increase. It did not foresee it or, more likely, was not allowed to foresee it and so to have a balance in hand sufficient for the election year upturn which was visible to almost everyone else.
  Mr. Peter Walker: Why is it that, when my predecessor announced a 12 per cent, increase in spending for election year, he was accused of electioneering by hon. Members on the Opposition Benches?
  Mr. Morgan: I know that the Secretary of State's experience of Welsh affairs is relatively short, but one should not necessarily answer on the basis of one year's change. Over a three-year period of change, we go from about 200,000 sq ft of construction in 1984–85 to 300,000 sq ft in 1985–86, and an attempt is being made to crank the machine back up to 600,000 or 700,000 sq ft.
  It cannot be done. Planned this year is 650,000 sq ft and the actual outturn is 498,000 sq ft, as we saw in the public expenditure White Paper last week. That is 22 per cent, behind planned output, because one cannot crank up a machine just like that. In the old days, five years ago, 2 million and 1 million sq ft of advance factory space was being produced per year; that was dropped right down to 200,000 sq ft, one tenth of the original—and it is being boasted about.
  On page 15 of the Welsh Development Agency's annual report and accounts for 1984–85 — I will read the passage to hon. Members just in case the Secretary of State thinks that I am talking down the efforts of the Welsh Development Agency — it boasted about the fact that advance factories were no longer needed. In fact, it has been a very expensive lesson for the Secretary of State and his predecessor. The report says:
  "The amount of new space created in advance factories was just 7 per cent, of the amount built in the peak year of 1981–82. Advance factories providing low-cost factory space at short notice still fulfil an important function but they are now built to fill identified gaps in the market".
  The problem was that the machinery available to the Welsh Office, the Treasury, the Secretary of State and the Welsh Development Agency, did not spot the market coming; it did not see that in an election year there would be a rise in demand. The machinery was run down in 1985 and it was impossible to build it back up again. The result is that they have all been caught with their pants down. It is very sad. We shall miss a large number of opportunities.
  We hope that, once and for all, those responsible will learn the lesson, that the right thing is to provide the WDA with a steady amount of money for factory building every year, rather than suddenly producing big building programmes, such as that announced in Cardiff today, of advance factory construction of about 1·4 million sq ft over the next couple of years—we do not know when the completion will be at the moment. That will probably catch the next downturn in the market.
  It sounds good to announce it today, but there is no way that it will be on stream for a long time, because the WDA has run down. It no longer has the army of surveyors, architects and so on, and the construction companies no longer have the expertise that they had in 1981 and 1982. Otherwise, we would find that they would have produced the 650,000 sq ft that they were supposed to produce this year. Instead, they have produced 22 per cent, less than that, on the figures given in the Government's White paper section on the WDA, published two weeks ago. That is a sad state of affairs. It is an expensive educational lesson, and I hope that the Secretary of State and his team will learn from it.
  10.50 pm
  Mr. Alun Michael: I shall briefly refer to the relevance of the Bill and today's announcement to the needs of Cardiff, and, more specifically, to those of my constituency.
  I ask the Secretary of State to ponder three things. First, I ask him to have regard for the tradition of local initiatives. The WDA has been at its best when working in local partnerships. There have been local successes, and I appeal to the Secretary of State, when considering ways of putting in money in the future, not to put all the eggs in one basket, which could become too large and bureaucratic. I ask him to consider that small is beautiful and successful, provided that it is adequately resourced at local level.
  Secondly, I refer to the tradition of partnership that we have developed over recent years in the Cardiff area. The Secretary of State will be aware of the sort of work that has been done in partnership between the city council and private developers in redeveloping the city centre, and of the work done by the city and county jointly on helping local and incoming firms. He will also know of the work done jointly by the city, the county and the Welsh Office on a number of economic projects, and by the city, the county and local firms on the establishment of the Cardiff and Vale Enterprise.
  As one of the people involved in founding that partnership I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State's praise for what we have achieved when he opened our new premises last Monday. If I may make one party political point in passing, the establishment of the organisation was opposed by the local Conservatives, although since then we have welcomed their conversion and support. So this is no longer a matter of controversy between the parties locally.
  Hearing the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Sir R. Gower) describing the Conservative party's reluctance to embrace imaginative initiatives, it is tempting to remind hon. Members that, wherever the Department of enterprise may be, the party of enterprise is on the Opposition side of the House.
  Thirdly, I refer to the challenge of the future of Cardiff bay, and here again I emphasise the need for partnership. Indeed, I have emphasised that on a number of occasions, as has the Secretary of State. So far, so good, for the rhetoric used and the way in which things have started off; but vigilance will be needed because it is human nature to prefer to run things in one's own way. It is a human failing to try to dominate; it is a human error to assume that single domination, as long as it is one's own, is more effective — an error committed by every dictator throughout the ages. However, it is a simple fact that cooperation is the approach that produces effective and lasting results.
  I welcome the references in today's announcement to the Cardiff bay development, and agree with the point made about the worries of local people by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) whose interest in my constituency I welcome. Perhaps I shall be able to return the compliment some time. What he said was helpful because it underlined the fact that this is not a party political point giving rise to criticism. It concerns, rather, the best way of going about making the most of the developments in south Cardiff.

  591
  The hon. Gentleman referred to a real fear in the area —that the standstill in development of land for industry and factories has led to the loss of jobs. That may be an inevitable penalty while the planning process is under way, but it is no less a cause for concern because of that. The problem is that the only readily available sites for industrial development in the Cardiff area are those in the bay development area that are in the process—if it is not already complete — of being passed over from the WDA to the bay development corporation.
  I have reservations about the withdrawal of the WDA from the Cardiff bay area. There is much concern at the combination of the lack of land for industrial development in Cardiff and the removal of the WDA's specific involvement in the south Cardiff area. I must add that the land that is available is in the bay area.
  The WDA's publication today refers to the Treforest area which covers some extremely important areas represented by my right hon. and hon. Friends. It includes areas with tremendous job creation problems — for example, the Rhonnda valley, the Rhymney valley, the eastern side of the Taff Ely—Treforest and Pontypridd —and, as an afterthought, Cardiff has been added.
  That is no accident. It reflects the withdrawal of the WDA from Cardiff. If that is the case, it is a matter for serious concern. I do not want to detract from the importance of the areas within what is described as the Treforest region. However, I suggest to the Secretary of State that there is a need to re-examine the WDA's role in respect of Cardiff.
  That need is emphasised by the WDA's 1989 programme. I can find only one entry for the proposals for Cardiff. It refers to a size range of 5,000 to 10,000 sq ft with no reference to numbers. One sentence in the text refers to Cardiff:
  "There is no shortage of industrial land within the Cardiff Area and the Agency will be actively pursuing this issue."
  I hope that it will be encouraged to pursue that issue in partnership with the bay development corporation and the local authorities. I hope that the Secretary of State will encourage those organisations to work in partnership rather than to pursue their own individual paths.
  The lack of land is important. On numerous occasions I have referred to the high unemployment level in Cardiff. Despite our success locally in creating new jobs, there is a gap primarily in the skilled and semi-skilled sectors, and it is precisely that type of job that will be subject to possible relocation as the bay development progresses. At the same time, we are getting the inquiries and the home-grown results. The spaces provided previously by local authorities in partnership with others, including the WDA, have been filled.
  In conclusion, I want the Secretary of State to note these points. First, many of the activities referred to in the WDA's proposals published today have been pioneered by local authorities and in partnership with others. I hope that they will be encouraged to continue. Secondly, I hope that he will note the opportunities and the needs in Cardiff. I want him to support the request for partnership and involvement with the WDA in Cardiff, and specifically I want him to note the need for land, factories and workshops.
  I have many details that I would be happy to follow up with the Secretary of State outside the Chamber. However,
  592
  we must remember that the city of Cardiff has many communities with horrendous levels of unemployment. Despite the success of some of the initiatives, they are suffering extreme levels of unemployment, especially among the young. Those problems are of the same order as those experienced in inner cities. I ask the Secretary of State not to be hypnotised by his public relations or by our public relations locally. We do not want to undersell Cardiff in any way—we have a great deal to be proud of—but we must recognise the employment difficulties and the specific areas that require positive action.
  10.58 pm
  Mr. Roy Hughes: This debate has been about the proposed increased borrowing powers of the WDA and the Secretary of State's announcement of the WDA's development programme. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) welcomed the proposals, and that welcome was echoed by every Opposition Member who has spoken. The purpose of the WDA is to regenerate the economy and improve the environment of Wales. Those objectives are as relevant as ever.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West also reminded the Secretary of State that the WDA, when it was created, was opposed by the Conservative party. It was opposed even by the wets and the soft-soapers, right down to the mavericks—and even they have occasional twinges of enlightenment. Our criticism of this short Bill is based on the inadequacy of the measures contained in it; and, indeed, of the amounts involved, which in any case form only a guideline of the figures that could be spent, because the veto is still with the Secretary of State.
  The problem of unemployment in Wales is massive. We have an Everest to climb. However, we hear from the Government a fanfare of trumpets to herald the most minimal measures. Reading the Welsh press, and in particular yesterday's leading article in the Western Mail, one would have thought that a millennium had been reached. Yet the Government have reached only the foothills: the mountain has yet to be climbed.
  Let us examine the figures. In December 1987, the average unemployment rate in Wales is given as 11·7 per cent., or 40,300. But even that hefty figure is reached after a degree of massaging that would make a physiotherapist green with envy. The Library informs me that the figures are calculated with the use of a wider denominator, expressing the unemployed as a percentage of employees: that is, the unemployed, Her Majesty's forces and the self-employed. All I can say is, "Amen to all that."
  We can compare those figures with the figures in 1979, when the rate was 5·9 per cent., or 73,100. That is half the present doctored figure. Let us look at the league table. I quote the figures for many Welsh districts: Pwllheli, 24·7 per cent.; Cardigan, 24 per cent.; South Pembrokeshire, 23·9 per cent.; Holyhead, 20·8 per cent.; Aberdare, 19·7 per cent.; Lampeter and Abereeron, 18 per cent.; Haverfordwest, 16·8 per cent.; Merthyr and Rhymney, 16·8 per cent.; Machynlleth, 16·2 per cent. I could continue, right down to Newport, where the figure is 12·6 per cent. Newport was once the gravitational point in industrial development for a vast area of south-east Wales.
  What is the reality behind those figures? The facts are even more revealing. The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Sir R. Gower) said that we were recovering. I can only say, "Good heavens, we need to." Nearly 30,000

  593
  men in Wales have been out of work for more than five years or have never worked at all. Nearly 80,000 men and women have been jobless for longer than two years. Some 5,000 people have even given up looking for work. The 160,000 men and women who are out of work face a life of poverty and hardship. The brief facts that I have given are not figments of my imagination; they come from the Welsh Office document of September 1987 entitled, "Health, Wealth and Living Conditions in Wales".
  When the Secretary of State visits the Rhondda, Cynon Valley, Merthyr, and Newport, which I have already pointed out has 12·6 per cent, of its people out of work, perhaps he could take with him Mr. Ian Kelsall, of the Confederation of British Industry, and the new editor of the Western Mail. They could tell the people there, at first hand, how buoyant the Welsh economy is at present. All I can say is that the response to that would not be very charitable.
  Mr. Peter Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman share Newport council's current optimism about how successful it is at attracting new industries and new firms? Does he join that council in its impression that Newport is a real growth area at the moment, or does he think that it is a decadent area in decline?
  Mr. Hughes: I have always had great faith in Newport's ability to attract jobs, because of its favourable geographical location and its transport facilities. However, that does not alter the fact that, even with all those facilities, Newport still has 12·6 per cent, of its people out of work. I hope that more new factories will open, but at present the position is dismal.
  The Secretary of State has a duty to the people of Wales to include social reasons in the development of the WDA, not just market and commercial values which, as I see it, are still uppermost in the new property programme that was announced today. We argue that insufficient financial aid has been given to meet the dire economic and social consequences of the past nine years on the industrial and manufacturing base in Wales.
  The Government tend to say, "Leave it to private enterprise and market forces," but surely that is what has caused so many of the present difficulties, such as the drift to the south-east of England, with its great disparity of wealth and employment opportunities, thus creating massive problems of congestion in that region. Regional policy is certainly good for the south-east of England, and the WDA is very much an arm of regional policy, which is why my hon. Friends and I so firmly support it.
  Let us consider the thousands of jobs that have been lost in Wales in steel, coal and many other industries. Wales was in danger of being turned into an industrial wasteland, but fortunately — directly as a result of regional aid—some new industry has been brought in, although it is not nearly enough. That is why we deplore the decision to end regional development grants. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) so lucidly pointed out, we know the background, as do the officials of the WDA, and, indeed, the civil servants in the Welsh Office.
  The WDA needs to be assisted financially far more substantially than is provided for in the Bill or in the Secretary of State's announcement. Of course we welcome the boost to the property programme. However, let us consider what has happened to Wales and look at the
  594
  outflow of population. Some 169,000 people have left Wales in the past five years. Some of our youngest and brightest have left, and that cannot be good for Wales.
  Mr. Peter Walker: I am interested to hear that 169,000 people have left Wales. Will the hon. Gentleman now give us the figures for those who have come into Wales?
  Mr. Hughes: I do not have the figure to hand. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] What I am trying to say is that among the 169,000 who left were many who we needed to hold on to for the future good of the Welsh economy. Many of those who have come to Wales have tended to be pensioners—not that they are unwelcome.
  The funding base of the WDA is still not sufficient to enable it to meet its statutory duties, let alone fulfil popular expectations of what could and should be done to meet the vicious regional cut-throat competition that Wales has to face in trying to attract new jobs. The agency should be allowed to invest far more than is planned. There is so much to be done. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) rightly pointed out how much needs to be done in his area alone. The investment function is the element most in need of support and change. The WDA requires more funds over a longer period to counteract the fact that Wales has lost 113,000 of its manufacturing jobs — 36 per cent. — since 1979 when the Government came to power.
  Finally, the debate must be seen in the context of the massive unemployment that Wales has to face. Opposition Members support the Bill, but it is only a minimal measure. It tends to confirm our belief that the Government are incapable of expanding the activities of the WDA to meet the real and pressing needs of the Welsh economy.
  11.11 pm
  The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): Wales has had some superbly good news today. While many Opposition Members have acknowledged that, others have found it a bitter pill to swallow. Much has been made of the point that we owe the existence of the Welsh Development Agency to the Act passed by the Labour Government in 1975. However, I remind Opposition Members that today's WDA is a very different animal from the one that they envisaged and we opposed. We changed its functions in the Industry Act 1980. We repealed the provision dealing with the promotion of industrial democracy and substituted the promotion of private ownership of interests in industrial undertakings. As a result, the agency is a much healthier animal than it was when it came into our care.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Sir R. Gower) said, there is widespread approval for the WDA's work in recent years, and agreement that it should be given the resources to build on its successes. The agency has undoubtedly played a full and vigorous part in transforming the outlook for the Welsh economy. Confidence among CBI members has been high throughout 1987, and nearly 910 of them believe that 1988 will be as good, if not better. Export orders have grown at a faster rate in the four months to January than in the previous six, and this upturn is expected to continue despite the strength of sterling. Dudley Fisher, the chairman of the CBI in Wales, is reported to have said that the latest survey reveals the best figures in the organisation's 10-year history.

  595
  However, perhaps the most encouraging feature is that his members' investment intentions are 40 per cent, up on what they were, with the general outlook for Wales being better than that for the United Kingdom as a whole. That exceptionally good news comes on top of the forecast of the Institute of Directors that its members are likely to take on 10 per cent, more staff this year.
  Those two surveys reflect the general upbeat mood now clear to all in Wales — except for some Opposition Members—and provide firm evidence of our new-found ability to face the future with confidence. Even the Western Mail, which has never been renowned for its optimism, makes very pleasant reading these days. Among yesterday's headlines in the Business Mail were:
  "Industry Shakes Off Blues."
  I hope that the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) will shake off his blues.
  It continued:
  "Confident Welsh Firms Plan Investment Spree."
  The leading article, to which the hon. Member for Newport, East referred, was equally sanguine. It was headlined:
  "Yes, Wales is a Going Concern."
  Its very first sentence read:
  "The signs look better and better for a buoyant Welsh Economy."
  The last paragraph was almost ecstatic:
  "It is for industrialists and businessmen in Wales to build confidence on confidence; Wales is a going concern. It is an uncommonly good investment."
  I think that the Western Mail is right. It has got the picture about right. It is against that background of buoyancy that the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) should consider the Government's current proposals.
  The budget that has been agreed for next year for the WDA will be the biggest and best that it has ever had in cash or real terms for mainstream spending. At £113 million—over £108 million at 1987–88 prices—it beats by a wide margin the best that was ever achieved under a Labour Government—in real terms by a staggering £33 million or 45 per cent.
  That is the true measure of what has been secured for next year by my right hon. Friend and of the Government's commitment to maintaining the momentum of development in Wales.
  Gross spending, compared with the agency's budget for the current financial year, will rise by over 30 per cent, in 1988–89 alone and by 36 per cent, in 1990–91. The direct taxpayer contribution will increase by over 40 per cent, next year.
  Across virtually the full range of its activities, the WDA has achieved record levels this year. The 30 per cent, increase in planned spending for next year will mean that further improvement will not be held back for lack of resources.
  Mr. Morgan rose—
  Mr. Rowlands rose—
  Mr. Roberts: I shall not give way, because I want to answer as many points as I can.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) spoke of the misconceptions about the WDA's role in relation to small businesses. We have already heard that
  596
  the WDA's business development unit small firms service is responding to a surge of inquiries for business advice and assistance.
  I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North that the vast majority of the WDA's venture capital activity has been focused on helping small businesses to start up and expand–220 Welsh companies in 1987–88 alone. The average investment was about £40,000.
  For the benefit of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), I can confirm that the venture capital figure is £10 million. The agency's investment generates £4, not £2, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, for every £1 put in.
  The business development unit will be providing access to the business development consultancy services provided through Enterprise Wales, which my right hon. Friend announced on 13 January.
  I advise my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North and the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), to take up specific Cardiff problems with the WDA. Similarly, that advice applies to the constituency problems of other hon. Members.
  The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) referred to the Felinfach creamery closure and the position at Llangefni in Ynys Môn. We obviously recognise the hon. Gentleman's concern, and I am sure that the WDA will do what can be done to alleviate the effects of the closures. The agency's latest factory programme will be of great assistance, with new workshop units being built in key towns in the whole of west Wales and particularly in Narberth, Tenby, Kilgetty, Cillefwr and Pembroke dock, and Mid Wales Development will shortly be coming forward with plans for the area within its responsibility.
  With regard to mid Wales I must tell the hon. Gentleman and others who referred to Mid Wales Development that WDA expenditure does provide some help, but, in addition, my right hon. Friend has added £1·5 million to Mid Wales Development's own budget for 1988–89. That is an increase of 20 per cent.
  Of course, we are very much involved through the WDA in rural initiatives and spending on rural-related schemes. The DRIVE scheme, started in 1986, for example, rose by more than 70 per cent, in the current year.
  Higher resources for 1988–89 will also benefit rural Wales directly and the WDA's budget for its rural affairs unit will be pitched at about £2 million, four times its size in the current financial year. This will obviously supplement the benefits that the area will enjoy from general increases for the agency's full range of programmes, factories, venture capital and advice.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan and the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) said that there was need for more emphasis on high tech. I fully agree with this, and of course the new WDA factory programme includes a wide range of new high-tech units. Specific examples include projects at Llanelli, Gilwern, Newport and Bangor. And of course, WINtech, the agency's new technology arm, is stimulating innovation and having a major impact. Its resources are being increased substantially.
  Mr. Morgan: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has noticed that under the WDA's own building programme it is now constructing only one third as many high-tech

  597
  units as it was three years ago — 150,000 sq ft three years ago and 50,000 sq ft this year. Is that an indication of faith in the high-tech side of WDA?
  Mr. Roberts: Of course, WDA's building plans are based on its experience, its appreciation of the market and the likely level of demand. But there is no doubt as to the importance of high-tech development.
  The right hon. Member for Swansea, West talked about the need for more land reclamation resources. We fully accept this, and that is why the WDA's resources over the next three years for this purpose will include about £75 million for land reclamation, environmental improvement and urban renewal –40 per cent, more than originally planned. A good proportion of this will go to the valleys, about which my right hon. Friend will say more in due course.
  The hon. Member for Gower and my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) referred to the loss of predictability, the switch to selective assistance. I agree that predictability is very important for economic development, but there is also the predictability that arises from having confidence in a sound and growing economy; the predictability associated with the knowledge that modern industrial floor space is available at competitive rates; the predictability of knowing that a good project will secure financial backing; predictability, too, arising from the better and more professional flow of business advice now available to most companies in Wales.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) got his factory completions completely wrong and he has misunderstood the situation. Factory completions, advance and bespoke, in 1987–88 will be 859,000 sq ft, and in 1988–89 the agency has been set the target of completing 1·5 million sq ft.
  Mr. Gareth Wardell rose—
  Mr. Morgan: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Roberts: I do not wish to pursue this matter. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West spent a great deal of time boring the House with the wrong facts.
  WDA's total spend since 1979–80 has totalled £850 million at today's prices — £700 million of this was mainstream spending—that is, excluding that earmarked specifically for the steel closure areas. Private sector investment triggered by this spending is likely to have been about three times higher, providing a massive and substantial boost to the Welsh economy.
  Mr. Alan Williams: Will the Minister give way on that point?
  Mr. Roberts: Let me complete it first.
  The average mainstream budget since 1979–80 has been £78 million at today's prices–13 per cent, higher than that provided by Labour in the previous three years. This is an excellent record that is only bettered by the plans for the next three years. The agency budget for 1988–89—at £113 million—will never have been higher in either cash or real terms for mainstream activities — 45 per cent, higher in real terms than the best mainstream budget under Labour. Those are the facts, and there is no running away from them.
  Mr. Williams: The Minister has just given the figure of £850 million over eight years, which gives an average of
  598
  £106 million. The figure he has quoted for next year is £108 million. Therefore the improvement for next year is, on average, only £2 million. What an achievement!
  Mr. Roberts: The amount of money that we are spending through the WDA in gross terms next year, at 1987–88 prices, is greater than the normal mainstream and special spending on account of steel closures in 1978–79. I have given the facts.
  The agency is, of course, alert to the need to look for and take advantage of any new opportunities. Increasingly the new emphasis is on it becoming a catalyst, a facilitator, rather than a direct supplier. The new property and business development grants are prime examples of the new approach. In their own ways, both represent radical changes, and could well be models for other initiatives.
  Notwithstanding the clear path on which the agency has embarked, the Government fully recognise that there is a need for immediate action to ensure that the economic recovery in Wales is not hampered by capacity restraints, or under-exploited technology. We recognise, too, that the drive to remove the legacy of dereliction associated with the old traditional industries, and to regenerate our older urban communities, must be fuelled by well-targeted resources.
  Mr. Rowlands: I hope that I am not spoiling the Minister's peroration, but I asked for a simple assurance, and I would like it to be placed on the record. Will he assure the House that there will be no attempt to pare or clip the role of the WDA as a venture capital provider? If the budget for the venture capital side of the WDA was £ 10 million last year, what will its budget be for the next financial year?
  Mr. Roberts: I confirm the figure of £10 million. We lay considerable emphasis on the WDA's role in that area. The huge increase in the agency's budget for 1988–89 is proof positive that our commitment to the agency has been translated into action and cash. The new financial limit will provide the WDA with the headroom it needs to pursue the tasks during the lifetime of this Parliament. I urge the House to support the Bill.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Durant.]
  Committee tomorrow.

  WELSH DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Welsh Development Agency Bill, it is expedient to authorise the following, namely—

  (a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase which is attributable to an increase to £700 million of the financial limit specified in section 18(3) of the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 in the sums payable under the said Act of 1975 out of money so provided; and

  (b) the payment out of the National Loans Fund or the Consolidated Fund of any increase which is so attributable in the sums payable under the said Act of 1975 out of that Fund. —[Mr. Durant]

  WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That during the proceedings on the matter of the National Health Service in Wales the Welsh Grand Committee have

  599
  leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet, and that, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees), the second such sitting shall not commence before Four o'clock nor continue after the Committee have considered the matter for two hours at the sitting.—[Mr. Durant.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments &c.)
  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
    CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
    That the Customs Duties (ECSC) Order 1987 (S.I. 1987, No. 2184), dated 17th December 1987, a copy of which was laid before the House on 18th December, be approved.
    HARBOURS, DOCKS, PIERS AND FERRIES
    That the draft Ports (Finance) Act 1985 (Increase of Grants Limit) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 17th December, be approved.

    NURSES, MIDWIVES AND HEALTH VISITORS
    That the draft United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting (Electoral Scheme) (Variation) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 14th January, be approved.—[Mr. Durant.]
    Question agreed to.

National Health Service
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Durant.]
11.30 pm
Mr. Robert B. Jones: In his excellent speech in last week's debate on the National Health Service, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) characterised the speeches from the Opposition Benches as a series of complaints, not as an attempt to address the problems of running a multi-billion pound organisation. I hope not to fall into either error.
First, I want to express my gratitude to those who have significantly improved the NHS in my constituency. In Hemel Hempstead we now have the first phase — the Tudor wing—of a brand new hospital. The other phases are due to start soon. It is worth noting that this is a hospital that was cancelled by the last Labour Government. I am therefore grateful to the Conservative Government for delivering on a promise that others broke. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to take the opportunity of her reply to confirm that the DHSS is not blocking the approval in principle of further phases of that hospital.
Secondly, I should like to express my appreciation of the two top health officials in my area—Roger Stokoe, our general manager, and Nick Tiley, the district health authority chairman. Mr. Stokoe's excellence has convinced me of the benefits of general management—in my district, at any rate. Mr. Tiley has been the driving force behind a thorough examination of costs, which has resulted in the North-West Herts district health authority being among the most efficient in the country. I hope and expect that my right hon. Friend will reappoint him.
On the subject of the NHS management at national level, in recent months we have had in Parliament and in the media a national debate that has highlighted many of the inefficiencies of the NHS, without paying proper regard either to its achievements or to the money that has already been spent on improvement. It is easy to see why we have had such a debate. Headline stories about waiting lists, ward closures and staff shortages have very properly caused us to ask probing questions about the ability of the NHS to deliver the standards of health care expected by our fellow countrymen.
To me, one of the most significant features of these headlines is the fact that they are not universal, but local. The west midlands readily springs to mind as an example of that feature. Analysis reveals many common factors. Some of these headlines are caused by the consequences of the redistribution caused by RAWP, though recipient areas either stay quiet, or, worse still, sometimes claim to be hard done by.
Staff shortages often turn out to be the direct consequences of national pay bargaining. Put bluntly, what is a fair income for living in the north is unacceptably low in much of the south. Therefore, nurse and junior doctor retention, recruitment and motivation become very difficult. As for nurses who specialise in intensive therapy, there must be a case for abandoning national pay bargaining and looking to rewarding their specialties. Other problems are caused by sheer incompetence and inefficiency.

601
Two great questions have never been answered in the history of the NHS. Since both are fundamental, I think that we must at least start the debate by encouraging people to recognise them. First, no one has ever attempted to lay down the medical parameters. Is the NHS there to provide unlimited health care for everybody, regardless of cost, life expectancy or chances of success? The clear and implied answer is no. However, since no guidelines exist against which individual situations may be judged, we inevitably end up with unlimited public expectations every time a case is featured in the media.
Put crudely, we need to know how to answer the question whether an expensive operation with a slight chance of success should be carried out at the expense of large numbers of operations with a high rate of success. While we must pay due attention to the needs of developing medical knowledge, we must not try to hide the ethical dilemmas that actually exist.
Secondly, we must take a more fundamental look at the way in which we budget for the NHS. To some Labour Members, the service should not be cash-limited at all. But it is significant that no Labour Government have ever followed that course, partly because they always end up broke, and partly because they, too, realise that there must be some limit.
Unlike Opposition Members, I do not believe that money alone is the key. If it were, there would be no complaints in Scotland, where NHS spending is about 25 per cent, higher than in England, and that is a greater increase than has ever been asked for by any Opposition spokesman.
Given this apparent conflict between unlimited demand and limited resources, I cannot see how any politician can fail to address the issue of how to get best value from the NHS. Inevitably, being a large organisation, it has a natural tendency towards inefficiency. This is compounded by a lack of effective control and the absence of a competitive framework. The NHS, we are told, is the largest employer in western Europe. It has also doubled its work force since 1960, partly due to a shorter working week, and partly because the NHS is doing more things. Because of this huge wage cost, we must start looking at the efficient use of manpower.
I would start with the consultants. Studies have shown them to have widely differing work rates and work practices that should make them the laughing stock of the commercial world. The trouble with the present system is that they are independent contractors to the NHS. They are contracted not to the authorities that use them—the district health authorities — but to the regional health authorities. One of the simplest reforms which the Government could make, and which would lead to falling waiting lists, would be in consultant contract reform.
Another area, that of competitive tendering, has already been tackled by the Government in catering, cleaning and laundry services. I shall not comment on that, other than to say that private independent quality control on those services would be an even greater boon. The lessons from the exercise are obvious; the NHS benefits from specialist firms in spheres where they are more aware of new techniques and materials.
We should not rest on our laurels. It surely makes sense to involve the same private contractors—for example, in decorating and in the purchase of linen. That is the road to a proper balance between initial costs and running costs, including cleaning. Private companies would in all
602
probability fund the acquisition of such materials, freeing capital for other purposes. The logical extension of this is to look at private management on an experimental basis, and I commend to the Minister the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis), who I see in his place.
One reason for health authorities not grasping these opportunities, except sporadically or under direction from central Government, is the absence of a parallel system to that of the Audit Commission. I believe that investment in a series of best practice units enabled to look at each health authority and make recommendations for action would repay itself many times over. This could be reinforced by a central fund, or perhaps 2 per cent, of NHS spending, which could be directed to individual health authorities in the pursuit of best practice.
The same technique would also repay examination in the capital sphere. At present, overwhelmingly, new projects secure investment at the expense of less jazzy projects which are aimed at reducing running costs. For example, it makes sense to invest in energy-saving equipment and other such measures. This would be greatly encouraged if districts could bid for money from an allocation of capital specifically set aside for cost-saving projects. This sum could be paid back over five years, automatically refilling the pot and ensuring that DHAs delivered on the cost improvements. I find it astonishing that there is no provision for depreciation in the NHS.
These are all limited measures which are intended to improve efficiency within the present framework and are all relatively short-term. In the medium term, we must look at the whole system and introduce some of the disciplines of the market place into the NHS. At present we tend to reward the inefficient and penalise the efficient, sometimes through the lack of effective internal RAWP and sometimes because of the political clout of the teaching hospital system. Thus, in London and the southeast, patients are encouraged by shorter or non-existent waiting lists in inner London to have routine operations there. The trouble with this is that the operations cost more than they do in the shire counties, and we end up treating people in the most expensive way possible.
The best model for an internal market would be for patients to register with the district health authority of their choice and for them to be funded on a per capita basis to cover all routine operations and treatments. The DHAs would then purchase the more complex operations and treatments from teaching hospital boards, which would be encouraged to avoid unnecessary duplication and to bring about further specialisation.
Furthermore—I realise that this is not a point for my hon. Friend the Minister—we need to make sure that people know how much the NHS costs them. Too many people think that the NHS and social security are funded from the stamp. It makes a great deal of sense to me that we should have three levies to pay on income: general income tax, health contributions and a social insurance stamp. That would really hammer home the costs.
I sat through all last week's debate, which was on the whole remarkably sterile. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House attacked the failure of the NHS to deliver the goods, but sadly few, with honourable exceptions, were prepared to address themselves to new ideas. Indeed, the Labour party is opposed to new ideas, which may account for the total absence of any of its representatives tonight.

603
That opposition should not surprise us, because the same has applied in every other policy field. Those on the Labour Benches believe in open mouths; we on the Government Benches believe in open minds.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will encourage new ideas from all quarters and rule none of them out until they have been properly examined, since no thought process should be stifled by presumptions at the start.
I commend those few thoughts to the House and invite other hon. Members to contribute to the continuing debate.
11.42 pm
Mr. John Redwood rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Does the hon. Gentleman have the consent of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) and the Minister to intervene?
Mr. Redwood: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am very grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) for allowing me to participate in this important debate, developing good ideas for the future of our Health Service and to improve the quality of patient care.
There has been much debate recently about the internal market and about increasing efficiency. These are good ideas, but they are not phrased in a way most likely to make them beloved of the British public. If we put across to people what we are after—more patient choice, more and higher-quality patient care — and the fact that we wish to see that happen by the patients having more power within our health system to encourage good practice and good delivery and discourage bad practice, particularly to discourage long waiting, we would release forces that could be most important, not only in delivering a better service, but in delivering a service that gives better value for money.
As my hon. Friend said, a starting point must be adequate information in the hands of managers within the NHS. We are in danger of seeing information systems proliferate and information becoming too complex and difficult to use. What the managers need is the right amount of good information, the basic statistics on quality, on cost, on access and on facilities. Then they can start to ask the right questions and, more important, to deliver the right service to the patients, who should be empowered to move the money with them in order to get the service they seek.
We could do that with some reforms of the structure and with a change in the culture and style of management. I do not believe that we can live with the regions for much longer. There must be a direct relationship between the National Health Service management board, at the top, and the districts and hospitals at the base of the pyramid. Long lines of communication cause fuzzy messages and involve cost and unnecessary resource use, which could be much better employed delivering service to the patient.
I wish to take briefly two topical problems, which have been highlighted in the recent uproar over the National Health Service, to illustrate how this better information
604
and the new culture might begin to work in favour of the patient and the taxpayer, who are, of course, one and the same person.
First, let us take the problem of waiting lists, particularly for acute care, which have been highlighted in a number of noisy exchanges across the Floor in recent weeks. If it had the right information, the NHS management board could ask why so many operating theatres around the country are only half used, or partly used; why some hospitals have a shortage of the necessarily highly trained intensive-care nurses, for example, and others have a surplus or an adequate supply; and why babies or children in Birmingham cannot get immediate access to the care their parents would like them to have, whereas there is no such waiting list in other parts of the country.
It could also ask why district and hospital boundaries should be impenetrable barriers that seem more successful than the Berlin wall in keeping people in or keeping people out. These are the questions that good management information could ask. The development contained in that inglorious phrase, the internal market, is a solution to the problem because it would allow people to go across boundaries to get the care they want.
There is the second important problem of the closure of the small hospital. I am suspicious about the costings and the analyses used in many closures. If we went into it in more detail, I think we would find that very often the community hospital, like the one in my constituency at Wokingham, is not only a much-loved facility for the local community but offers a relatively cheap and caring environment in which basic surgery, cold surgery and maternity services and the like can be supplied.
I think we would find that it is not cost pressures so much as dogma and often management misinformation that lead to the closure of these facilities. I think that a managerial review would bring this to light, as would sensitivity to patient demand, because if patients were turning up with the power of money behind them, they would create a demand for the local hospitals which would thrive.
I know that the Minister wishes to answer in full the points that my hon. Friend has made. So, in conclusion, let us have good information and a simpler structure at the top, and let us empower the patients to deliver the service that we want to see.
11.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) on obtaining the debate and selecting this most important issue. I know that he is a tireless campaigner for the health of his constituents. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who is new to the House, will follow the same path. We might also note the presence of my hon. Friends the Members for Maidstone (Miss widdecombe), Boothferry (Mr. Davis), Ludlow (Mr. Gill), Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), Dover (Mr. Shaw), Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) and Battersea (Mr. Bowis). I think it is worth noting that they are all new Members and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West said, there is not one Labour Member here to listen to this important debate.
The National Health Service is a subject of considerable current interest, if the volume of work coming through the

605
offices of Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Security is anything to go by. As hon. Members are probably aware, this is the 43rd Adjournment debate that I have answered since I was appointed a Minister. Since October, I have met 17 delegations and answered 984 written questions. The total number of what are called yellow jackets — letters requiring a Minister's personal signature—which I have had thrust under my nose for signature since 19 October is 2,964. They are coming in at the rate of 350 a week from Members of the House alone.
As my office tells me that we ran out of our posh new notepaper this afternoon, I hope that I may be permitted to make two points. First, I apologise to any hon. Member or member of the other House who has had to wait more than a week or two for a reply. The replies are on their way. Secondly, I want to put on record my heartfelt thanks to my private office staff, led by Mrs. Grafton, who all work like Trojans. I am very lucky to have them.
My hon. Friend mentioned the future development of Hemel Hempstead hospital. North West Thames region has submitted papers seeking approval in principal for phase 3 of this hospital, which will contain 40 mental illness beds, 40 beds for the elderly severely mentally ill with associated day facilities, a 54-bed obstetric unit and a pathology department and mortuary. The scheme is estimated to cost £14 million, with a further £2· 25 million for land purchase. Therefore, it represents a major capital investment. It needs to be cleared not only by my Department but by the Treasury, in accordance with normal procedures.
There has been a delay in processing the submission, for which I apologise. The region has a number of capital projects with the Department for approval. We have not yet reached a decision; therefore, I am sorry that I cannot give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. However, I will urge the development and I hope that a decision will be taken shortly. My hon. Friend knows, of course, that the new Tudor wing at the hospital opened last year.
As for my hon. Friend's extremely kind remarks concerning the district health authority general manager and chairman, I am grateful for those, and I am sure those gentlemen are as well. We are considering the appointment of district chairmen when the current postholders' terms come to an end on 31 March. We are not yet in a position to make an announcement, but I will ensure that my hon. Friend's views are taken into account in making the decision.
My hon. Friend spoke about some of the problems of inefficiency, and I would not disagree with many of his remarks. However, I should emphasise the extent to which health authorities have already improved efficiency. Over the past four years, they have made cost improvements —that means productivity improvements—worth £600 million. Those savings represent cash released from the running costs of the services, which becomes available for patient care.
In addition, the substantial increase in funding for the Health Service—from £7 billion in 1978–79 to a planned £22 billion in 1988–89, a real terms increase of about 30 per cent.—has enabled authorities to do something very important with all the money that we give; that is, to treat increasing numbers of patients.
Between 1978 and 1986 health authorities treated over 1 million more in-patient cases, nearly 500,000 more day cases and dealt with nearly 4 million more out-patient attendances than under the previous Labour Government.
606
We should make no mistake. Many health authorities have a record of improved productivity which is second to none, and which compares well with industry.
I make no apologies for repeating these figures, as they reflect credit on all our staff and management. However, we expect our health authorities to continue to improve efficiency in all areas, partly by further extensions of competitive tendering, partly by looking critically at current arrangements for the procurement, storage and distribution of supplies to ensure that that is carried out as effectively and economically as possible, and partly by looking, as my hon. Friend suggests, at savings on energy usage. We seek savings of 1·5 per cent, a year, and we are expecting savings of about £ 12 million on energy this year.
Authorities need to ensure that the best possible use is made of the Health Service estate. We expect authorities to look critically at their estate holdings, because sales of surplus land and buildings can generate significant capital proceeds—disposals since 1979 have realised over £370 million and we expect an additional £240 million from land sales this year — and enable authorities to reduce the running costs of the estate. It is worth putting on record that the costs to the Health Service cleaning, maintenance, rent, rates and energy alone is some £48 per sq m, before a single doctor, nurse or patient has walked in the door. In other words, the sheer maintenance cost of our enormous estate is about £1·5 billion a year.
My hon. Friend asked about holding consultant contracts at district level. That was considered carefully when the Health Service was restructured in 1982. Following consultation, it was decided to keep the contracts at regional level. From my personal experience —I was chairman of a teaching district health authority, so I held the contracts—I can tell my hon. Friend that it is no easier to enforce them there either.
Where we think we can make progress is to involve the consultants much more in managing their own budgets, so that they know how much things cost and can make sensible clinical decisions in the light of cost information. We are currently piloting that approach, which is jointly sponsored by the Health Service Management Board, the joint consultants committee and local health authorities, at five acute hospitals and nine community sites. If that produces the sort of result that we are expecting, decisions on the wider dissemination of the approach to other acute hospitals will be made later this year.
Good management, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham said, needs information. We are now making real progress. Each year the Department produces a package of 450 performance indicators which are distributed to the health authorities. Those enable the authorities, and in many cases individual hospitals, to compare their performance with others and to identify areas where there appears to be scope for improvement.
The performance indicators include financial information, such as the cost of treating cases, and non-financial information, for example, on the length of stay of patients and numbers of staff employed. The figures show substantial variations between districts, even after taking out extreme values in the top and bottom 10 per cent., which may result from faulty data, but I suspect result from excessive adequacy—or inadequacy—of management staff.
Let me take two examples from 1985–86, the last year for which we have performance indicators. We shall take out the top and bottom 10 per cent. The cost of treating

607
a patient in a large acute hospital varied by a factor of two, from £560 per case to £960 a case, while the number of patients treated per surgical bed in districts varied from 35 to 54 per year—an astonishing gap.
The latest figures that we have available are for 1985–86. The figures for 1986–87 will be available very shortly, and we hope to produce the current year's figures much more quickly. It occurred to me, therefore, that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West might like to have the latest performance indicators as soon as we have them, and I undertake to send them to him as soon as they are available.
Mr. Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her kind offer, which I certainly wish to take up, but I imagine that I speak for many of my hon. Friends when I say that this will be of much wider interest, and I hope that it will be made available to all hon. Members.
Mrs. Currie: I will take advice on that. I am sure that my hon. Friend realises that these are very bulky things. It may be that I should select some items from among them, to assist colleagues. I am sure that he and others will find, as the district health authorities have found, that they are very interesting indeed.
I would like to go into competitive tendering a little more throughly. Savings from competitive tendering are running at over £100 million a year. We are encouraging authorities to consider its use for other services. Some authorities have already put portering and internal audit out to tender, and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State indicated at the party conference in October, there may be other possibilities.
More generally, we consider that the National Health Service and private health care sector should co-operate to provide the best possible total health care for patients. The private sector offers flexibility to authorities for short-term relief of pressure and long-term contractual arrangements. Co-operation of this kind is not new—it goes back right to the inception of the service—but we think that there is scope for both more, and more diverse, collaboration.
We take on board what my hon. Friend said about best practice units. Existing statutory audit arrangements provide for auditors to ensure that authorities have adequate arrangements for achieving economy, effectiveness and efficiency but we want to go further.
We are establishing a value-for-money unit intended to promote local and regional initiatives. We have taken steps to disseminate guidance on good practice in energy conservation. We have established a small group in support of the NHS management board's property adviser to assist authorities to make the best use of the estate. We have launched a number of central studies in areas with potential for value-for-money improvements — for example, a recent study into the paymaster function, which identified areas for improved efficiency in the payment of salaries, wages and creditors.
608
We are also encouraging authorities to establish their own value-for-money groups, and, as my hon. Friend knows, we are setting up an income generation unit from the centre, to help and advise authorities on the exploitation of commercial possibilities, as set out in clause 4 of the Health and Medicines Bill which is currently in Committee, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham is a most valued member.
I endorse everything that my hon. Friend said about capital management and the need for investment in revenue-saving schemes. I suppose that my hon. Friend may not know that at least one region, Oxford, is already running schemes on some of the lines proposed by my hon. Friend.
As regards capital depreciation, the Department is sponsoring pilot studies in four regions on improving the management of capital assets, including the possibility of introducing depreciation. I must say that I share my hon. Friend's views on this question.
In general, we welcome the suggestions made by my hon. Friends. It is very helpful and encouraging to hear such suggestions made by them, and by others too. I take the points about the barriers, the boundaries and the nurses. Those points are very well made. What we ought to do, in the light of current discussions outside the House, is to agree some very simple propositions.
First of all, we have funded the National Health Service better than ever before, with more money, more staff and more patient care. So more money alone is not the answer —which is what Opposition Members would say if they had bothered to come along. Perhaps I should add that, however much money we have, we still have an absolute obligation to spend every penny wisely.
Secondly, I am sure that we can agree that our ability to provide a well-funded Health Service depends on a strong economy, which will depend, in the future as in the past, on firm control of public spending.
Thirdly, increased personal prosperity makes it possible to look to individual pockets as well as to the public purse for a contribution. The state does not have to do it all.
Fourthly, our objective overall is not endlessly to build more hospitals, whether they are in the constituency of my hon. Friend or not, or just to employ more doctors.
Our objective is the better health of our people. That involves more than the Health Service or the whole health care industry. It involves individuals taking responsibility for their own lives and for those of their families far more vigorously than has ever happened in this country before. I know that my hon. Friend joins me in this belief and endeavour.
With those points, I commend my hon. Friends' remarks to the House as a reasonable and worthwhile contribution to the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Twelve midnight.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Heathrow Airport (Policing)
  Sir Peter Hordern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements have been made to meet the cost of policing Heathrow airport; and whether such police count towards the strength of the Metropolitan police.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The provisions of the Aviation Security Act 1982 require Heathrow Airport Limited to pay the Metropolitan police for policing Heathrow airport and to provide accommodation and facilities for this purpose. Metropolitan police officers stationed at Heathrow airport count towards the strength of the force.

  Michael Ryan
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date the late Michael Ryan made an application for a firearms certificate, or a variation of a firearms certificate; and what was the nature of that application.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to a Question from the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on 22 January at columns 869–70.

  Prison Libraries
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the special prison library grant.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Each year, a payment is made to public library authorities for the provision of library services in prison establishments. The payment is based on a formula agreed with the local authority asssociations and takes account each year of current costs in the public library service. There are no plans to change the basis on which these payments are made.

  Abortion Lobby (Policing Costs)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to how many policemen were involved in policing the demonstration and abortion lobby on 21 January; what was the cost; and what was the police estimate for the number of demonstrators.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that 531 officers were rostered to police demonstrations and lobbies on 21 January at an additional cost (mainly overtime and catering) of £21,580. A further 248 officers were drafted in from other duties on the day. About 9,000 demonstrators are estimated to have been in attendance.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to prohibit all sight deprivation experiments on animals under the terms of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No.

  Royal United Services Institute (Publications)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will list those publications by the Royal United Services Institute which he has approved for publication since 1979.

  Mr. Hurd
  I have authorised no such publications as far as I am aware. A comprehensive check of records since 1979 would involve disproportionate cost.

  Parole
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what percentage of prisoners in England and Wales who were eligible for parole were subsequently granted parole, under section 33 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982, in 1987;

  (2) how many prisoners in England and Wales were eligible for parole, under section 33 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982, in 1987.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  This information is not yet available.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prisoners in England and Wales in 1987, who were eligible for parole under section 33 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982, had not been notified of their release date by the time of their parole eligibility date during 1987;

  (2) how many parole applications, under section 33 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982, have passed their parole eligibility date and are currently outstanding.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The parole eligibility date is the date before which an inmate cannot be released on licence but must have his case for parole reviewed at the prison. The review arrangements a re designed to enable the inmate to be released on parole licence on the parole eligibility date if parole is granted. It is not always possible to meet that objective. Delays can occur for a number of reasons in individual cases. The increasing parole caseload has also led in recent months to a general increase in the number of cases in which prisoners are not informed of the decision in their case until after their parole eligibility date, but the cases which are most affected are those which have to be referred to the Parole Board. In the overwhelming majority of cases of prisoners' sentences of less than two years (known as section 33 cases) the prisoner is notified of the decision to grant parole sufficiently in advance of the parole eligibility date to make release on that date possible.

  Radio
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which frequencies he has in mind to withdraw from the BBC to enable national commercial radio stations to broadcast.
  307
  Mr. Hurd
  I have it in mind, after the enactment of the legislative proposals outlined in my reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) on 19 January at columns 647–649, to reassign the medium frequencies now used by BBC Radio 1 and Radio 3. A VHF network will also be available for use by a national commercial station.

  London City Airport
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the cost of police services associated with the London City airport, and who pays.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 18 January 1988]: It is not possible to identify the total cost of police services which may be associated with the airport. Such costs are borne by the police.

DEFENCE

  Computers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the ICL series 39 computers used by his Department's auditors in connection with fraud cases with IDETOL software are capable of the fuzzy matching of data.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  ICL series 39 computers and INDEPOL software are not used by MOD auditors.

  Building Projects
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of any building projects which are planned by his Department in Angus, Scotland.

  Mr. Freeman
  The only building projects planned by my Department in Angus, Scotland are:

  1. A small new build of single living accommodation at Barry Buddon Training Camp.

  2. Some married quarters improvements and Stage 4 of a project to build single living accommodation and dining facilities at RM Condor, Arbroath.

  HMS Dreadnought
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on plans for the disposal of HMS Dreadnought, now sited at Rosyth.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No decisions have yet taken on the preferred disposal route for reactors from decommissioned nuclear submarines.

  Nuclear Waste (Rosyth and Fife)
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has had any discussions with Nirex over the disposal of nuclear waste in the Rosyth and Fife areas.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No.

  Polaris
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his plans for the siting of the four Polaris submarines once they are decommissioned.
  308
  Mr. Sainsbury
  No Polaris are planned to be decommissioned for several years. No decisions have been taken on how they should be dealt with when they do.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence where he plans to store the nuclear waste that will arise from the decommissioning of the four Polaris submarines.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Decommissioning of the Polaris submarines will not begin until the first of the Trident submarines is ready to enter service in the mid-1990s. Nuclear waste disposal issues will only arise over the reactor compartment and associated components, and will therefore be identical to those raised by the decommissioning of nuclear attack submarines. The first of these HMS Dreadnought, has already been safely defuelled, de-equipped and laid up. Small items categorised as low-level or intermediate-level waste will be removed, suitably packaged and disposed of by routes currently under investigation by UK Nirex Ltd. The ultimate disposal of the reactor compartments themselves is still under study in my Department.

  Channel Islands
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated cost incurred in providing for the defence of the Channel Islands.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The cost of providing for the defence of the Channel Islands is not separately identifiable within the defence budget.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all the costs to his Department of the recapture and occupation of the Falkland Islands for each year since 1982 inclusive.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Total defence expenditure, including campaign and garrison costs, relating to the Falkland Islands from 1 April 1982 to the end of the last financial year is as follows:

  £ million

  1982–83

  780

  1983–84

  637

  1984–85

  644

  1985–86

  572

  1986–87

  402

  BATES Software
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what difficulties arose over the contract let to subcontractors by Marconi for BATES software prior to 1985.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The management of sub-contractors is a commercial matter for the prime contractor and it would not be appropriate for MOD to comment.

  RUSI (Publications)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will list those publications by the Royal United Services Institute which he has approved for publication since 1979.
  309
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Books and articles written by service personnel or Ministry of Defence civil servants should be cleared through the appropriate Ministry of Defence channels before publication by the Royal United Services Institute. A list of books and articles approved for publication since 1979 could only be made available at disproportionate cost.

  Nuclear Testing (Mortality and Cancer Incidence)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will respond to the report of the National Radiological Protection Board into mortality and cancer incidence among United Kingdom participants in United Kingdom atmospheric nuclear weapons tests and experimental programmes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The report by the National Radiological Protection Board on mortality and cancer incidence in United Kingdom participants in the United Kingdom atmospheric nuclear weapon tests and experimental programmes is being published today. A copy has been placed in the Library. The report compares the health of the participants (over 80 per cent. of whom were included) with that of a similar number of matched controls to show whether their health has been affected. The roughly equal number of deaths in both groups (1,600) shows that participation has not had a detectable effect on their expectation of life. Indeed, both groups appear to be somewhat healthier than would be expected from the national rates of mortality, possibly due to the social class distribution and to their having been to some extent selected for overseas duties. The expected number of deaths according to national rates would be about 2,000.

  Compared with the control group, more participants were found to have died from leukaemia and multiple myeloma. Although the excess was only marginally above national rates, because of the association of these diseases with exposure to ionising radiation, even a small increase merited detailed analysis. Investigation showed that it did not occur so strongly among those present at any nuclear detonation, nor among those known to have been exposed to measurable doses of radiation, nor among those for whom inhalation or ingestion of radioactive material was a remote possibility. Consequently, although no cause of the increased leukaemia was identified, this investigation as not proved that the cause was exposure to ionising radiation.

  The Government welcome, and will co-operate with the NRPB in implementing, the recommendation to continue to observe the mortality and cancer incidence of the participants over a further period of 10 years, as a means of testing the three hypotheses which have been formulated. Meantime, however, they regard the results of this study to date as fully vindicating their view that the radiological protection measures adopted were effective and that the chance of anyone suffering harm to health as a consequence of participation is extremely small.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether the order under the Access to Personal Files Act currently under discussion will extend to universities, polytechnics and all schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  No. The draft regulations issued by my right hon. Friend for consultation in October 1987, which would be made under section 27 of the Education Act, 1980, would allow parents access to records of pupils in maintained schoolss and non-maintained special schools. Universities are outside their scope, as will be the polytechnics when the Education Reform Bill is enacted and the polytechnics cease to be local authority-maintained.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has met vice-principals of the universities to discuss the implications of their code of practice and the right of subject access under the Data Protection Act; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  There has been no such meeting. This is a matter for universities, within the law. I understand that the code of practice was finalised in consultation with the Data Protection Registrar's office.

  City Technical College, Solihull
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of applications to the city technical college in Solihull were on behalf of female students; what proportion of female students have been accepted; and what is the total number of applications and acceptances.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Of the total 315 applications which were received for places at the Kingshurst city technology college, 43 per cent. were on behalf of female students. All but one of the places offered to students have been accepted and 47 per cent. have gone to female students.

  Geological Surveying
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science on what date he received a copy of Sir Clifford Butler's report on geological surveying; when he received the comments of the Natural Environment Research Council and the British Geological Survey upon it; and if he will now announce his decision on the recommendation that the British Geological Survey should be separated from the Natural Environment Research Council.

  Mr. Jackson
  The report of the study group into geological surveying, chaired by Sir Clifford Butler, was addressed to the chairmen of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils and the Natural Environment Research Council, who submitted it to my right hon. Friend in June 1987 with a recommendation that it be published. The views of the BGS staff were sent to the chairmen of the ABRC and the NERC and copied to my Department on 10 August 1987.

  The recommendations of the report that fall to be considered by Government are being discussed with the Departments concerned and with the NERC. A decision

  311
  on the future status of the British Geological Survey will be reached in conjunction with decisions on other relevant recommendations in the report.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish in the Official Report a list of local education authorities in England which provide nursery education for children aged three to five years.

  Mr. Dunn
  In January 1987 the local education authorities in England that provided nursery education for children under five in either nursery schools or nursery classes in primary schools were as follows.

  Local education authorities that provide nursery education January 1987

  Barking

  Barnet

  Bexley

  Brent

  Bromley

  Croydon

  Ealing

  Enfield

  Enfield

  Haringey

  Harrow

  Havering

  Hillingdon

  Hounslow

  Kingston upon Thames

  Merton

  Newham

  Redbridge

  Richmond upon Thames

  Sutton

  Waltham Forest

  Inner London

  Birmingham

  Coventry

  Dudley

  Sandwell

  Solihull

  Walsall

  Wolverhampton

  Knowsley

  Liverpool

  St. Helens

  Sefton

  Wirral

  Bolton

  Bury

  Manchester

  Oldham

  Rochdale

  Salford

  Stockport

  Tameside

  Trafford

  Wigan

  Barnsley

  Doncaster

  Rotherham

  Sheffield

  Bradford

  Calderdale

  Kirklees

  Leeds

  Wakefield

  312

  Gateshead

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  North Tyneside

  South Tyneside

  Sunderland

  Avon

  Bedfordshire

  Berkshire

  Buckinghamshire

  Cambridgeshire

  Cheshire

  Cleveland

  Cornwall

  Cumbria

  Derbyshire

  Devon

  Dorset

  Durham

  East Sussex

  Essex

  Hampshire

  Hereford and Worcester

  Hertfordshire

  Humberside

  Isle of Wight

  Kent

  Lancashire

  Leicestershire

  Lincolnshire

  Norfolk

  North Yorkshire

  Northamptonshire

  Northumberland

  Nottinghamshire

  Oxfordshire

  Shropshire

  Somerset

  Staffordshire

  Suffolk

  Surrey

  Warwickshire

  West Sussex

  Wiltshire

  Medical Schools (Recruitment)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list in the Official Report those medical schools which are currently recruiting approximately equal numbers of women and men students.

  Mr. Jackson
  In 1986–87 all medical schools in the United Kingdom, except for the medical schools at Cambridge, Manchester and Dundee universities and the London hospital medical school, recruited between 40 and 60 per cent. of women students. The average proportion of women entrants for all medical schools was 45 per cent. compared with 42 per cent. for all university entrants.

  Advanced Supplementary Level Courses
  Mr. Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools have mounted advanced supplementary level courses in the current year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  A survey carried out by my Department last autumn shows that 407 maintained and independent schools in England have mounted GCE advanced supplementary level courses this year. This represents nearly 15 per cent. of schools with A-level pupils.
  313
  These schools have mounted nearly 1,000 AS-level courses, most frequently in mathematics, computing, French and English. This accords closely with the priorities expressed by higher education.

  In the schools offering AS-levels, 18 per cent. of the first year A-level pupils have also chosen at least one AS-level course. The five most popular subjects are those set out above, together with general studies. In total, over 6,000 pupils are on AS-level courses.

  More than three times as many schools intend to offer AS level courses from September 1988. The survey indicates that 1,300 schools, which represents 50 per cent. of those offering A-levels, will also offer AS-level courses next year.

  The full results of the survey will be published shortly.

PRIME MINISTER

  Gwent
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if she is planing to visit the county of Gwent in the near future.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  North Devon
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to visit north Devon.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  Official Secrets
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what evidence she has as to the extent of public support for more stringent protection of official secrets.

  The Prime Minister
  As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said, we shall be bringing forward proposals for the reform of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 which are effective, enforceable and reasonable. I believe we have general public support for that objective.

  National Health Service
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister what are the terms of reference for Her Majesty's Government's consideration of the National Health Service; and when she expects to bring forward proposals for consultation.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government are undertaking an internal review of the National Health Service, with special emphasis on the hospital service. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services will consider carefully any submissions put to him. We shall be bringing forward proposals in due course.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Prime Minister whether the programme of reviews of non-departmental public bodies, which she announced on 19 November 1984,Official Report, column 57–58, has now been completed; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Yes. I have now received a report on the review programme from the Minister of State, Privy Council Office and the Paymaster General. By April 1987,314
  reviews had been carried out in over 75 per cent. of executive non-departmental public bodies, 75 per cent. of advisory bodies and over 60 per cent. of tribunals. For the period under review, departments reported total savings from their funding of NDPBs of some £30 million and 1,830 staff, as a result of winding up some 150 bodies, rationalisation of others, financial management reviews and other initiatives. Further savings are planned of 290 posts leading in total to continuing savings of some £33 million per year. NDPBs also expect to achieve additional value-for-money improvements from better standards of financial management. In all, there were 524 fewer NDPBs on 1 April 1987 than in 1979.

  For the future, I have accepted the recommendations in the report that the main responsibility for maintaining this progress should be placed on senior management in the NDPBs and their sponsoring Departments. In addition, all NDPBs will be subject to a comprehensive review at least every five years, which will consider the continued need for each NDPB, its objectives and its financial and other management systems.

  For some particular tasks, non-departmental public bodies can be the most appropriate and cost-effective solution, but we shall continue to resist proposals for new bodies unless this can be clearly demonstrated, within a strict framework of financial and management controls. Legislation setting up new bodies should normally contain powers to permit winding up at a later date, if a fixed lifetime is not established at the outset.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 January.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 January.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 January.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 January.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 January.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 January.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 January.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 January.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council last met; and what is Her Majesty's Government's future policy and programme for that body.
  315
  Mrs. Chalker
  The Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council last met in November 1985. It continues to provide a framework for a wide variety of meetings between the two Governments, including those of the Intergovernmental Conference established by the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985. This was explicitly set up within the framework of the AIIC. There will continue to be regular meetings, including those of the AIIC coordinating committee and its cultural and educational working group.

  Rare and Endangered Species
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise with the Chinese Foreign Minister when he meets him in the spring the need to prevent the trade in rare and endangered species of wildlife between the Dongmen market in Shenzhen and Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have already drawn to the attention of the Chinese authorities the concern which is widely felt in this country about this matter. I understand that the Chinese authorities entirely share this concern.

  Kenya and Nigeria (Prime Minister's Visit)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of the extra costs incurred by the high commissions in Kenya and Nigeria due to the recent visits by the Prime Minister.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 15 January at column 416.

  Royal United Services Institute (Publications)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will list those publications by the Royal United Services Institute which he has approved for publication since 1979.

  Mr. Eggar
  The following articles and volume written by present and former officials, have been approved. They are listed by date of publication.

  1981
  Adrian Hill—Whither Pegasus

  1983
  Sir Antony Acland—The Relationship between Foreign and Defence Policy

  1985
  Sir Clive Rose—Campaigns against Western Defence

  1987
  Pauline Neville-Jones —Foreign Policy Objectives and the parameters of military power
  Robert Cecil —The assessment and acceptance of intelligence: a case study.
  John Bruce Lockhart—What is intelligence

  Iran and Iraq (Arms Embargo)
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will support proposals to the United Nations Security Council for an arms embargo jointly on Iran and Iraq.
  316
  Mr. Mellor
  We remain committed to the twin-track approach agreed by the Foreign Ministers of the five permanent members of the Security Council on 25 September 1987. The Secretary-General has our full support as he continues his efforts to obtain compliance with Security Council resolution 598. In the meantime we have begun work with other members of the Security Council on the terms of an arms embargo. It is the responsibility of the Security Council as a whole to determine non-compliance.

  Iran-Iraq War
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will make it their policy to go further than the proposals in United Nations resolution 598 (1987), requesting the Secretary General to explore the possibility of appointing an impartial body to inquire into the responsibility for starting the Iran/Iraq war, and propose that such a body be now appointed.

  Mr. Mellor
  The establishment of an impartial body to investigate responsibility for the conflict is one of a number of elements of Security Council resolution 598 currently under discussion. We are anxious to see both parties comply with the resolution as a whole.

TRANSPORT

  London Coach Terminal
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when and under whose auspices he expects the proposed public inquiry into the proposed relocation of the main London coach terminal at Paddington to take place; when and by what means he expects to publish the detailed plans; and what range of time scale he envisages for the relocation.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The inquiry will be held only once a planning application for the proposed terminal is received. I understand that London Regional Transport intends to submit such an application later this year. The inspector would report to my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for the Environment jointly. The plans for all applications made would be available for inspection at the inquiry and at the office of the local planning authority. Decisions on the time scale for any relocation would be made in the light of the outcome of the inquiry.

  Search and Rescue
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many search-and-rescue incidents involving small boats and non-commercial small vessels have occurred in each of the past 10 years; and how many were concluded successfully.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Search-and-rescue incidents involving small boats and non-commercial small vessels from 1982 to 1986 inclusive are summarised in the table. Information so far available on 1987 incidents is also included.

  As the statistical records kept prior to 1982 were not specific with regard to vessel types, it is not possible to provide figures for the past ten years.
  317

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  11987

  Number of incidents

  1,488

  1,873

  1,662

  2,108

  1,992

  1,680

  Persons assisted

  3,821

  5,095

  4,886

  5,792

  5,064

  4,256

  Lives lost

  41

  54

  42

  35

  45

  18

  Tractor Units (Gross Weight)
  Mr. Biffen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, having regard to safety factors, he will authorise the raising of the 16 tonne gross weight of a two-axle tractor unit in line with the gross weight now allowed for two-axle trucks.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Two-axle tractor units with a minimum axle spacing of 2·7 m have since May 1983 been permitted a gross weight of 17 tonnes provided the vehicle has a total train weight of more than 32·52 tonnes. Statutory Instrument 1987 No. 676 removes that proviso and fixes the maximum gross weight of two-axle rigid lorries also at 17 tonnes. The SI comes into effect on 1 April 1988.

  Traffic (Damage)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will provide details of recent assessments of the damage caused to the environment by the impact of various modes of transport, lorries, cars and other road users.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [pursuant to his reply, 19 January 1988, c. 702]: Information on some recently published reports on various effects of traffic on the environment is as follows. I have arranged for copies of those reports (shown with an asterisk) not already in the Library to be deposited there.

  (1) Traffic-induced ground-borne vibrations in dwellings. TRRL Research Report 102, 1987.

  *(2) The effects of a simulated traffic vibration on a dwelling house. TRRL Contractor Report 44, 1987.

  (3) Public attitudes to drawbar goods vehicles. TRRL Research Report 108, 1987.

  *(4) Pollution levels near a motorway in a cutting. TRRL Paper presented at the International Symposium on Environmental Meteorology in West Germany in 1987.

  (5) Digest of environmental protection and water statistics. No. 9 1986, HMSO.

  (6) The impact of the reduction in the lead content of petrol on airborne lead concentrations in the United Kingdom from January 1986. Warren Spring Laboratory Report No. LR 633 (AP)M, 1987.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Suspension (Pay forfeiture)
  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will further consider seeking to introduce a system whereby an hon. Member suspended from the service of the House should forfeit his salary for a period of up to three months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  This is ultimately a matter for the House to decide. I would, however, refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton. North (Mr. Marlow) during the course of business questions on 14 January at column 460.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Food (Colouring Matter)
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to announce his response to the Food Advisory Committee final report on the Colouring Matter in Foods Regulations 1979.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  We received a large number of detailed representations on the recommendations in the report, and these need to be carefully evaluated before I can come to any conclusion on the issues. We are dealing with the matter as quickly as possible and I shall make an announcement just as soon as we have reached decisions.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Sir Michael Shaw
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress was made towards reforming the common agricultural policy at the meeting of Ministers in Brussels.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on 25 January, at columns 52–53, to my hon. Friend the Member for Wansdyke (Mr. Aspinwall).

  Fishing Industry (Decommissioning Grants)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether Falkis Ltd. has received decommissioning grants for either freezer or fishing vessels.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  No decommissioning grants have been paid to Falkis Ltd.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether Berkeley Sound Shipping has received decommissioning grants for either freezer or fishing vessels.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  No decommissioning grants have been paid to Berkeley Sound Shipping.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether Thomas Hamling Ltd. has received decommissioning grants for either freezer or fishing vessels.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Under the Fishing Vessels (Financial Assistance) Scheme 1983 grants have been paid in respect of four freezer trawlers which were decommissioned by Thomas Hamling Ltd. The details are as follows:

  Vessel

  Grant £

  St. Jason

  537,200

  St. Jerome

  515,280

  St. Jasper

  514,484

  St. Benedict

  581,504

  2,148,468

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what date information
  319
  relating to the awarding of decommissioning grants to Messrs. Putford Enterprise was provided to the National Audit Office by officials in his Department.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Information was available to the NAO on the awarding of decommissioning grants to Messrs. Putford Enterprises from the moment it commenced its examination in spring 1986.

  Pesticides
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action has been taken to ensure the safe use of pesticides on the farm.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Part III of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 gave wide powers which were implemented by the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986 and its consents. When using pesticides operators have been obliged since 6 October 1986:

  (a) to use only products which have been approved under the regulations;

  (b) "to take all reasonable precautions to protect the health of human beings, creatures and plants, to safeguard the environment, and in particular to avoid the pollution of water"; (Consent No. 2, 2nd Condition).

  (c) to ensure that they are competent for the duties they are to perform.

  From 1 January 1988 they must observe certain conditions of use described on the pesticide label, including the target crop, maximum dose-rate and environmental and operator safeguards.

  The consents have also introduced a number of additional conditions upon use with which aerial operators must comply.

  To help farmers to fulfil these obligations we have:

  (i) issued and amended a booklet which lists all pesticides which have approved status;

  (ii) supplemented guidance booklets and leaflets with a first draft of a code of practice on agricultural and horticultural use; a revised text of which will be made available in the early spring;

  (iii) established training standards with the agricultural training board and certification arrangements with the National Proficiency Tests Council;

  (iv) arranged with the Civil Aviation Authority for the guidance booklet which it issues to aerial operators to contain details of the further rules now applicable to aerial operations.

  In order to avoid farmers being inspected by different bodies for different safety legislation, an agency agreement has been entered into with the Health and Safety Executive, and Her Majesty's agricultural inspectors are authorised to enforce the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986.

  Intervention Stocks
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the amount of intervention stocks in the United Kingdom at present in the following commodities: butter, beef, SMP, wheat, barley and rye; and what the figures represent in terms of days' supply.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  A note setting out the volume of United Kingdom intervention stocks of agricultural commodities, and the number of days' supply these stocks represent, is deposited in the Library of the House and updated monthly.

  Pigmeat
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he intends to take to protect United Kingdom pigmeat producers from heavy losses due to the advantage to Dutch and Danish producers receiving monetary compensatory amounts for the export to the United Kingdom of bacon, fresh pork loins and middle bacon.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Improvements which we have secured in negotiations in the Community, together with the strengthening of sterling, have resulted in a fall of 16 points in our pigmeat MCAs over the past year. I shall continue to seek further improvements in the position at every opportunity. I must, however, stress that this is a highly controversial issue in the Community.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will strengthen the present arrangements for controlling pigmeat imports so as to assist in stopping the spread of classical swine fever.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Imports of pigmeat are already the subject of stringent veterinary conditions laid down by European Community directives. Following pressure from the Government, the rules on classical swine fever controls have been strengthened by a package of measures which had to be implemented by 1 January 1988.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to introduce private storage aids to United Kingdom pigmeat producers.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  This is to be discussed at the Pigmeat Management Committee in Brussels on Friday 29 January.

  Intervention Grain Stocks
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will allow feed users to use intervention grain stocks at intervention prices.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Decisions on the sale of intervention grain stocks on to the domestic market are taken by the European Commission; in view of the current surplus of feed grain on the market both in the United Kingdom and in the rest of the Community sales from intervention for use as feed could not at present be justified.

  Windscale Fire
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether his Department retains any unpublished files, information and reports in connection with the 1957 Windscale fire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Various papers held in my Department have some connection with the 1957 Windscale fire; these have been or will be made available for public inspection in strict conformity with the Public Records Acts.

  Surplus Food
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to
  321
  alter the agricultural support mechanisms of the European Economic Community so as to facilitate the release of surplus food for use overseas.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Community's existing commodity regulations contain appropriate provisions enabling food from intervention and from the market to be made available for export and for use as food aid.

  ADAS (Charges)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy towards the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service charging for advice and services following an emergency; and how this operated the severe storm in south-east England in October 1987.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 27 January 1968]: I am always prepared to look at the case for making appropriate information and advice available without charge following an emergency; but each incident must be considered on its own merits.

  In the immediate aftermath of the October storm ADAS provided free general advice on such matters as emergency repairs, ways to preserve produce in cold stores and save damaged trees and glasshouse crops and the financial implications for growers. Advice notes covering the four main horticultural sectors were sent without charge to growers in the worst affected areas and growers in th south-east were also invited to "storm clinics" giving general advice on how to cope with the damage, including the financial implications. ADAS also provided some free help with particular livestock problems.

WALES

  Investigating Accountants (Regional Aid)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, how many investigating accountants he has within his Department to evaluate applications for regional selective assistance; how many cases on average each of them has prepared for the Welsh Industrial Development Advisory Board to consider over the past two years; and how many cases each of them is on average expected to prepare over the next two years.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  There are currently four investigating accountants in my Department regularly engaged in evaluating applications for regional selective assistance. On average, each investigating accountant has prepared 47 cases over the last two years for consideration by the Welsh Industrial Development Advisory Board. The number of cases that each will prepare in the future will depend on the volume of RSA applications received, the amount of the grant sought and the complexity of the cases, and I am unable to give a precise estimate. I am expecting an increase in demand for RSA and will keep the requirements for accountancy staff under review.

  Regional Development Grant
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his most up-to-date estimate of the expenditure on regional development grants in Wales in the next financial years, if there were no changes in the regional aid scheme to industry.
  322
  Mr. Peter Walker
  The 1988 public expenditure White Paper contained planned provision of £63·5 million (net of EC receipts) for regional development grants in Wales in 1988–89. Equivalent provision in the 1987 public expenditure White Paper was £26·7 million. The increase in provision results from a combination of several factors, including the need to provide resources for those RDG applicants who meet the deadline of 31 March 1988 and are thus subject to the transitional arrangements provided for the ending of the scheme. I am not able to make any precise estimate of the cost of such transitional arrangements at this stage.

  Industrial Assistance
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of industrial assistance the Welsh Industrial Development Advisory Board has been considering each month on average in each of the past three years; and how many cases he expects it to be considering on average in each of the next three years.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  In the past three years, the Welsh Industrial Development Advisory Board has considered the following number of cases on average per month:

  Cases

  1985

  8

  1986

  6

  1987

  7

  The number of cases to be considered by the board in future years will depend on the volume of regional selective assistance applications which will be received and the value of assistance sought. I am expecting the demand for RSA to increase in future years. I am unable at this stage to make a precise assessment of the effect of this on the caseload of the board but I am confident of the board's ability to cope with what I hope will be a substantial increase in applications.

  Regional Aid
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his most up-to-date estimate of the increase in corporation tax receipts arising from the switch away from tax-free regional development grants to taxable selective assistance.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The tax position of regional selective assistance applicants is likely to vary widely depending on the circumstances of each company. It is not possible therefore to make any reliable estimate of the tax receipts which may arise from present or potential applicants for regional selective assistance.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the amount of regional selective assistance to be paid out in Wales for each year from 1988–89 to 1990–91.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The 1988 public expenditure White Paper contained planned provision for regional selective assistance in Wales of £45·9 million, £52 million and £61·2 million respectively in the three years 1988–89 to 1990–91. The increase in provision between the years reflects additional demand for RSA, which I envisage as a result of the ending of the regional development grant scheme. There will be a further substantial contribution to regional
  323
  assistance in Wales as a result of the substantial increase in the expenditure of the Welsh Development Agency and the new investment, innovation and business development grants scheme.

  National Museum of Wales
  Sir Raymond Gower
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if the consultants appointed to carry out a financial management and policy review of the national museum of Wales have now submitted their report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I am publishing today the report prepared by P-E Inbucon. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House and the executive summary is being made available to the press. It is a major document. The role, organisation and management of the museum have been critically examined. The Report identifies deficiencies and contains detailed and positive proposals for improvements which will have far-reaching implications for the future management of the national museum of Wales and for its relationship with the Welsh Office. I have had a preliminary discussion with the president of the museum and have asked for a considered response from the museum by 4 March 1988. This is a wide-ranging and penetrating analysis and the consultants' individual recommendations will need careful and thorough consideration. I intend to ensure that the recommendations are treated with urgency and determination. A major task confronts the museum and the Welsh Office. The museum will need additional administrative support and that will be provided. The museum has an important place in the life of the Principality and a major contribution to make to the culture and heritage of Wales and it is important that it should fulfil its role effectively and efficiently. I intend to see that it is able to do so.

  Circulars
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report a list of all circulars issued by his Department in 1985, 1986 and 1987, together with the corresponding numbers of those circulars.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I will write to the hon. Gentleman shortly and will place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report a list of local education authorities in England which provide nursery education for children aged three to five years.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Nursery education is provided in each of the Welsh authorities. Seventy per cent. of the total three and four-year-old population in Wales was receiving nursery education last year.

  Radiation
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he expects that the bequerel counts in sheep in the Llyn Vyrnwy and Ysbyty Ifan areas will fall below(a) 1000bq. and (b) 600bq. within the next 30 years; and if he will make a statement.
  324
  Mr. Peter Walker
  Monitoring of sheep from the north Wales restricted areas during 1987 indicated that some 86 per cent. already had readings below 1,000 bq/kg which is the action level the Government have adopted. Research work is under way on the recycling of caesium from peat soils into different types of pasture and this should enable an estimate to be made of how long restrictions on the movement and slaughter of sheep will be necessary. It does not follow that because the half life of caesium 137 is 30 years, restrictions will be necessary for anything like that long.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest available figures for the number of patients waiting for hospital admission for(a) more than one month for urgent treatment and (b) more than one year for non-urgent treatment.

  Mr. Grist
  At 31 March 1987, 2,639 patients on waiting lists had waited more than one month for urgent hospital treatment; and 9,139 had waited more than a year for non-urgent treatment.

  Education Reform
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how the eradication of surplus school places will be affected by the parental choice provision of the Education Reform Bill, based on 1979 school rolls.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The continuing need for local education authorities to remove surplus school places is not affected by the provisions in the Education Reform Bill on admission to county and voluntary schools, which aim to give additional scope for parental choice.

SCOTLAND

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will publish in the Official Report the recent letter from the Data Protection Registrar concerning the community charge, together with his response; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I have today placed in the Library copies of the registrar's letter of 17 November 1987 and my response of 18 January 1988.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will list those organisations which will not be allowed to obtain copies of the community charge register; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  Under section 20(2)(b) and (c) of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987, access to the full community charges register is restricted to local authorities for the purpose of determining levying and collecting the community charges, and to assessors and electoral registration officers.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) whether the community charge officer will be able to access sources of information other than those data held by a local authority; and if he will make a statement;
  325
  (2) whether the community charge officer will have access to non-clinical records held by health authorities when compiling the register; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) whether Scottish community charge officers will be able to use the data collected during the next census; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  Under section 17(2) and (3) of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987, community charges registration officers will have access, for the purpose of discharging their functions, to information held by the assessor or registration officer for their area and, on request, to information held by local authorities or housing bodies in their area, or other registration officers. The Act gives registration officers no other general right of access to information.

  Under section 17(5) of the Act, registration officers are able to require responsible persons to give them information in respect of premises in their area. In certain circumstances, local authorities and health boards may be responsible persons for this purpose. The information which may be requested is limited to that prescribed for the purposes of section 17(5). Otherwise, registration officers will have no access to information held by health boards. Under no circumstances will they have access to census information.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what advice he will be giving to prisoners just before their release as to their responsibility to pay the community charge from their first day of freedom; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what advice he will be giving to homeless persons which describes their responsibility to pay the community charge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has launched a public information campaign to help ensure that all future community charge payers are aware of their obligations under the new system.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he intends to introduce regulations obliging the community charge officer to seek the consent of individuals as to whether they want their name and address on the community charge register to be sold; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer to the answer I gave on 3 November 1987 at columns 550–551. My right hon. and learned Friend is still considering whether any amendment to section 20(4) of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc (Scotland) Act 1987 is required to provide for any restriction on the parts of the public register which may be made available for sale.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what precautions he is taking to ensure that addresses of members of the armed forces, security services or other public figures who may be at risk do not appear on the community charge register; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend is considering this matter.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has given any instructions or advice to the Scottish new town development corporations on the implementation of the poll tax; and if he will make a statement.
  326
  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 26 January 1988]: My officials have had discussions in the last few months with representatives from Scottish new towns about the implementation of the community charge and in addition the new towns have received copies of the consultation drafts of regulations which have been issued. The role which new towns, as housing bodies, may play in implementing the community charge will depend on the nature of any agency agreement reached by them with the levying authority, the regional council.

  Mearnskirk Hospital (Staff Houses)
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he now expects the sale of staff houses at Mearnskirk hospital to sitting tenants to be completed.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I expect the Greater Glasgow health board to be in a position to make formal offers to the tenants concerned within a month, following the meeting of the board's property and land sub-committee on 27 January. The conveyancing procedures are normally completed within three months of offers being accepted.

  Housing
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of housing projects which are planned to take place in Angus, Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Angus district council's latest housing plan, published in January 1986, sets out its general strategy for housing provision in its area. it is, however, for the council to deploy resources available for capital expenditure according to the priorities it determines on a year-to-year basis, and details of council projects programmed are not held centrally.

  The Scottish Special Housing Association will shortly be starting work on 35 special needs houses in Arbroath. The Housing Corporation in Scotland has approved housing association projects of various kinds in the district. These projects, which are at different stages of development, will provide 300 units.

  No detailed information is available centrally on proposed private sector housing projects.

  Forestry
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of new forestry projects which are planned to take place in the current year in Angus, Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  On the basis of schemes approved to date, it is expected that between 700 and 800 hectares of new planting will take place in Angus in 1988 under the Forestry Commission's grant schemes. Some 60 hectares of new planting will be carried out by the Commission.

  Births
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is the average cost to the local health authority of each baby born; and what are the highest arid current costs of delivery for each health board;

  (2) what is the average cost to health boards of delivering babies born at home.
  327
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I regret that the information requested is not held centrally.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of babies are born in units handling more than 1,500 deliveries a year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The proportion of babies born in units handling more than 1,500 deliveries a year is 79 per cent.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of babies in each local health authority area are born in maternity units which handle under 200 deliveries a year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The proportion of babies born in units handling fewer than 200 deliveries a year is 4·3 per cent.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of babies in each health authority are born at home.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows:

  Percentage of births (live and still) taking place at home in each health board area, Scotland, 1986

  Health Board Area

  Percentage

  Scotland

  0·5

  Borders

  0·9

  Forth Valley

  0·5

  Dumfries and Galloway

  0·8

  Fife

  0·4

  Grampian

  0·7

  Highland

  1·0

  Lothian

  0·5

  Argyll and Clyde

  0·5

  Ayrshire and Arran

  0·3

  Greater Glasgow

  0·5

  Lanarkshire

  0·5

  Tayside

  0·4

  Orkney

  0·4

  Shetland

  1·1

  Western Isles

  1·2

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of babies are born in units which handle fewer than 200 deliveries a year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows:

  Health Board

  Percentage

  Argyll and Clyde

  5·3

  Ayrshire and Arran

  6·2

  Borders

  20·1

  Dumfries and Galloway

  7·5

  Fife

  —

  Forth Valley

  —

  Grampian

  13·8

  Greater Glasgow

  —

  Highland

  9·6

  Lanarkshire

  2·2

  Lothian

  —

  Orkney

  76·3

  Shetland

  —

  Tayside

  8·1

  Western Isles

  9·1

  Dinoseb
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consult the National Farmers Union and local industries in the Angus area, regarding the consequences of his decision to ban the use of Dinoseb.
  328
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  We have been in regular contact with the National Farmers Union of Scotland over the last 18 months on the use of Dinoseb. These contacts will continue as necessary. It is not possible at this stage to make any assessment of the likely consequences on local industries of the decision to ban the use of Dinoseb.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research is being conducted in(a) alternatives to the Glencova variety of raspberry and (b) a replacement for Dinoseb; and if he will produce extra funds for such research.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Two new raspberry varieties bred with Government support at the Scottish Crop Research Institute are already available to growers. Both show considerable promise as replacements for Glen Clova. Work also funded by Government has been ongoing for some time to find alternative means of controlling cane vigour in Glen Clova. There are no signs of any early breakthrough and the grant-aided work is continuing.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimates he has of the economic and employment effects on the raspberry and associated industries of his decision to prohibit the use of Dinoseb.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is not possible to estimate with any degree of accuracy the extent of the losses that will be caused by raspberry producers and associated industries as a result of the ban on the use of Dinoseb. Much will depend on how farmers and others react to the new situation.

  While we appreciate that the decision to ban the use of Dinoseb will have serious consequences for raspberry producers and associated industries, we had no option but to take this decision in the light of the conclusion by the Advisory Committee on Pesticides that Dinoseb and its related products could pose a health risk to people using them.

  Operations
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the arrangements he proposes with private sector hospitals to carry out National Health Service operations; and what money he has set aside in this and the next financial year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I am encouraging health boards in Scotland to consider the extent to which Scotland's private health sector could help them to improve their services for National Health Service patients. I have not set aside money for this purpose in this or the next financial year, but as part of our initiative on waiting lists £300,000 of the additional resources for the current financial year announced by my right hon. and learned Friend on 16 December has been allocated to meet bids from boards to use private sector hospitals to carry out National Health Service operations.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest estimate available to him of the cost of the following operations in(a) National Health Service hospitals and (b) private hospitals in Scotland for (i) hysterectomy, (ii) tonsillectomy, (iii) hernia, (iv) hip replacement, (v) heart by-pass and (vi) varicose veins.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Comparative information on this basis is not available. Information on health service costs
  329
  is not generally held in a form which permits total costs of individual procedures to he identified; progress is, however, being made in improving cost information for resource management.

  Salmon
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the number of prosecutions which have occured in each of the past five years as a result of salmon proprietors(a) failing to provide his Department with statistical returns or (b) being found to have made fraudulent returns.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 14 January 1988]: There have been no such prosecutions.

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Statistical District

  Number of Forms

  Number of Forms

  Number of Forms

  Sent

  Returned

  Sent

  Returned

  Sent

  Returned

  Tweed

  138

  136

  136

  128

  135

  127

  Forth

  70

  61

  64

  50

  66

  58

  Tay

  150

  136

  149

  133

  151

  146

  South Esk

  26

  23

  24

  20

  24

  23

  North Esk and Bervie

  21

  20

  21

  20

  21

  21

  Dee (Aberdeen)

  73

  69

  70

  64

  68

  66

  Don

  49

  46

  46

  41

  48

  45

  Ythan

  21

  21

  20

  20

  21

  21

  Ugie

  13

  13

  12

  11

  12

  9

  Deveron

  53

  52

  50

  46

  49

  47

  Spey

  63

  61

  61

  55

  61

  60

  Lossie

  6

  6

  5

  4

  5

  4

  Findhorn

  22

  22

  21

  20

  21

  21

  Nairn

  28

  28

  28

  25

  28

  27

  Ness

  33

  32

  31

  29

  32

  32

  Beauly

  11

  11

  10

  10

  11

  11

  Conon and Alness

  31

  27

  30

  26

  32

  32

  Kyle of Sutherland

  29

  28

  26

  22

  25

  22

  Fleet and Brora

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  Helmsdale

  6

  4

  6

  1

  1

  1

  Berriedale to Wick

  10

  10

  7

  5

  9

  6

  Thurso and Forss

  12

  9

  11

  9

  11

  10

  Halladale and Strathy

  7

  7

  7

  7

  6

  5

  Naver and Kinloch

  9

  8

  9

  9

  9

  8

  Hope and Grudie

  7

  7

  7

  7

  7

  6

  Inchard to Kirkaig

  12

  11

  12

  12

  11

  11

  Kennart to Gruinard

  16

  15

  15

  14

  14

  12

  Ewe

  8

  8

  8

  7

  8

  7

  Badachro to Applecross

  7

  6

  6

  4

  6

  5

  Kishorn and Carron

  8

  7

  7

  5

  8

  7

  Loch Long and Croe

  14

  12

  13

  11

  13

  13

  Glenelg to Kinchoan

  6

  6

  8

  6

  8

  8

  Morar to Shiel

  17

  15

  17

  15

  17

  15

  Skye and Small Isles

  25

  23

  25

  21

  24

  21

  Sunart and Aline

  8

  8

  5

  5

  6

  5

  Sanda to Creran

  38

  33

  36

  29

  35

  31

  Awe and Nell

  63

  58

  58

  48

  55

  50

  Add and Ormsary

  30

  28

  27

  25

  33

  30

  Island of Mull

  36

  34

  35

  28

  35

  31

  Islay and Jura

  9

  9

  10

  10

  11

  10

  Carradale and Iorsa

  14

  12

  14

  11

  14

  12

  Fyne

  20

  19

  16

  12

  17

  14

  Ruel and Drummachloy

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  Echaig

  10

  9

  9

  7

  12

  12

  Clyde

  13

  12

  13

  11

  14

  12

  Irvine

  7

  7

  7

  7

  7

  7

  Ayr

  37

  31

  37

  33

  37

  37

  Doon

  30

  28

  29

  27

  29

  24

  Girvan

  24

  21

  24

  21

  24

  23

  Stinchar

  41

  37

  38

  33

  37

  32

  Luce

  5

  5

  5

  4

  6

  6

  Bladenoch

  19

  18

  18

  16

  19

  19

  Cree and Fleet

  30

  30

  30

  25

  30

  29

  Dee (Kirkcudbright)

  28

  25

  26

  23

  27

  24

  Urr

  24

  23

  24

  20

  28

  25

  Nith

  56

  47

  52

  42

  54

  48

  330
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give, by district salmon board area, how many riparian proprietors, upper and lower, were required to complete returns for the compilation of Scottish salmon and sea trout statistics in each of the past five years; and how many have complied.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 14 January]: Information related to salmon catch statistics is published by region and statistical district. The number of proprietors and occupiers of salmon fisheries, upper and lower together, who were sent statistical forms and made returns for 1984, 1985 and 1986 are given by statistical district in the following table. Accurate information for earlier years is not available.
  331

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Statistical District

  Number of Forms

  Number of Forms

  Number of Forms

  Sent

  Returned

  Sent

  Returned

  Sent

  Returned

  Annan

  126

  120

  111

  87

  39

  36

  Isle of Lewis

  15

  13

  14

  13

  17

  14

  Harris

  9

  8

  9

  7

  9

  9

  The Uists

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  Orkney

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Shetland

  —

  —

  10

  4

  10

  7

  Totals

  1,707

  1,589

  1,634

  1,420

  1,582

  1,469

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to ensure that future statistical bulletins on Scottish salmon and sea trout catches published by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, contains full information about the levels of non-reporting, and the identity of those responsible for it.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 14 January 1988]: Consideration is already being given to including some indication about levels of reporting in future statistical bulletins. It is not intended that the identity of those who have not made returns will be published.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the procedures used by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland to check the accuracy of catch returns provided by Scottish salmon proprietors, prior to the publication of total reported figures.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 14 January 1988]: The forms are checked to ensure that relevant parts have been completed and that there are no inconsistencies in the entries for example between numbers and weights of fish reported as caught. Any omissions or inconsistencies would be pursued with the proprietor or occupier of the fishery as would any large discrepancy noted between a return and returns for earlier years.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the salmon proprietors, upper and lower, who have failed to make returns of the numbers and weight of fish caught in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 14 January 1988]: No.

  Salmon (Illegal Netting)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many incidents of illegal netting for salmon in Scottish waters by fishermen from the Irish Republic were detected in each of the last five years to the end of 1987.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 27 January 1988]: There have been no such incidents reported by enforcement officers of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland in the five years to the end of 1987.

  Laughing Goose
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to withhold grants for agricultural developments which might endanger the habit of the laughing goose; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 27 January 1988]: Section 17 of the Agriculture Act, 1986 imposes on
  332
  Ministers charged with agricultural responsibilities, an obligation to have regard to the endeavour to achieve a reasonable balance between the interests of agriculture and a number of other considerations including flora and fauna. A blanket prohibition on grants as suggested would be at variance with that obligation: individual cases will be considered on their merits.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Barristers' Clerks
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Attorney-General what consideration has been given to recommendation 34.1 of the 1979 Royal Commission on legal services that barristers should not be required to have a clerk; what representations have been received on the matter; and what proposals he has for implementing the recommendation.

  The Attorney-General
  In its response to the Royal Commission on legal services in a White Paper published in November 1983, Cmnd. 9077, the Government indicated that this recommendation among others was for consideration by the profession. The Government have received no representations on the matter and have no plans to implement the recommendation.

  Family Courts
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Attorney-General what further representations he has received on the time that has elapsed since proposals for a family court were first considered by the Lord Chancellor's Department; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  There is no record of further representations having been received, on the time that has elapsed since proposals for a family court were first considered by the Lord Chancellor's Department, since the hon. Member's question on 11 January 1988, at column 7. I have nothing to add to my answer on that date.

  Kent Police
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he will take legal proceedings against Kent county constabulary requiring it to fulfil its statutory responsibility under section 228 of the Local Government Act 1972 and provide information on the precise nature of items purchased from Q.E.D., Parker Hale Ltd., Hull Cartridge Co. Ltd., royal small arms factory, royal ordnance factory and Longstaff (Rec) Ltd.

  The Attorney-General
  If the hon. Gentleman would care to furnish me with particulars of any case he has in mind, I shall consider the matter.

  Prosecutions
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Attorney-General how many decisions have been taken in each year since 1985 not to prosecute people against whom there was otherwise sufficient evidence to justify prosecution, on the grounds of public interest or the interests of national security.

  The Attorney-General
  In every case where the evidence is in law sufficient for criminal proceedings it is necessary to consider whether the public interest requires a prosecution. There are no records of how many decisions not to prosecute have been taken on the ground that the public interest did not require a prosecution.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Attorney-General in how many instances court proceedings have been instituted in each year since 1985, despite the evidence being otherwise regarded as insufficient to justify a prosecution, on the grounds of public interest or to protect national security.

  The Attorney-General
  No prosecution should in any circumstances be instituted if the evidence is regarded as insufficient to justify a prosecution, and none has been so instituted within my knowledge by any prosecuting authority.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Attorney-General on how many occasions in each year since 1985(a) the Director of Public Prosecutions or (b) the Director of Public Prosecutions (NI) has concluded that, despite advice from the law officers that a prosecution would not be in the public interest, such a prosecution should be instituted.

  The Attorney-General
  None.

EMPLOYMENT

  Employment Service
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement on the progress of the new employment service.

  Mr. Lee
  The employment service now provides under a single management the full range of services formerly provided by the separate unemployment benefit and jobcentre services.

  We are developing new approaches to helping unemployed people, and particularly long-term unemployed people, which take advantage of this single management. We are introducing a number of changes to ensure both that benefit claimants can be offered the most appropriate help available and to enable us to check more systematically that people claiming benefits continue to be available for work.

  We are looking at ways of helping with job-finding and making benefit payments simpler, more accessible and more effective. A current management priority is to test a range of models which will bring together services currently delivered from separate premises.

  Small Firms
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what guidance is given to small firms on the opportunities to do business with the Government; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  This Department has made considerable efforts to open up Government contracts to small firms.334
  We publish a summary booklet, "Tendering for Government Contracts", which gives broad guidance on what the various Government Departments seek to buy and the names and addresses of the relevant contacts. This information is also on Prestel. Departments, including the Ministry of Defence and our Department, also publish booklets providing more specific information on the purchasing opportunities within their Departments. Fuller information can be obtained through the small firms service by telephoning Freefone Enterprise.

  "Building Businesses … Not Barriers"
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to implement the proposals in the White Paper, "Building Businesses … Not Barriers"; if he will estimate the numbers of part-time workers who currently qualify for employment rights but who would be excluded if those proposals were implemented; and what proportion of those excluded would be women.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The proposals and their implementation are still under consideration. As to the effect of the proposals on part-time workers I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) on Monday 7 December 1987 at column 31.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the percentage of the population nationally and in the Rotherham-Mexborough travel-to-work area which is in full-time employment.

  Mr. Lee
  The latest available local area information on persons in full-time employment comes from the 1981 census of population, which found that 43·5 per cent. of all persons aged 16 and over resident in the Rotherham and Mexborough travel-to-work area were in full-time employment. The comparable figure for Great Britain was 45·6 per cent. Later information for Great Britain is available from the labour force survey, which estimated that in spring 1986 43·2 per cent. of all persons aged 16 and over in Great Britain were in full-time employment.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the percentage change in (i) employment and (ii) unemployment in each of the regions(a) from mid-1979 to mid-1986 and (b) since mid-1986.

  Mr. Lee
  [holding answer 25 January 1988]: The figures are give in the following tables.

  Table 1 gives in percentage terms the net changes in the size of the civilian employed labour force (the sum of employees in employment and the self employed) in each region between June 1979 and June 1986 and between June 1986 and June 1987. The figures are not adjusted for the effects of seasonal variation.

  Table 2 gives in percentage terms the changes in the numbers of unemployed claimants in each region between June 1979 and June 1986 arid between December 1987. The figures are adjusted for discontinuity and for the effects of seasonal variation.
  335

  Table 1

  Civilian employed labour force in the regions of Great Britain

  Net changes

  June 1979 to June 1986

  June 1986 to June 1987

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  South East

  1·6

  1·9

  East Anglia

  11·1

  4·5

  South West

  4·6

  1·9

  West Midlands

  -7·4

  2·0

  East Midlands

  0·8

  1·2

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  -6·6

  1·4

  North West

  -12·5

  0·6

  North

  -10·1

  1·0

  Wales

  -12·2

  1·2

  Scotland

  -7·5

  0·7

  Table 2

  Unemployed claimants in the Regions of Great Britain

  Changes

  June 1979—June 1986 Per cent.

  June 1986—December 1987 Per cent.

  South East

  243·7

  -24·2

  East Anglia

  205·9

  -25·5

  South West

  160·4

  -23·1

  West Midlands

  220·3

  -20·4

  East Midlands

  225·7

  -17·5

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  209·7

  -17·1

  North West

  167·6

  -17·8

  1988 European social fund aid requested for Merseyside

  Applicant name

  Organisation

  Beneficiaries

  £ aid

  Article1

  Article1

  Acorn Venture Association

  PB1

  4

  12,451·00

  12a

  41-

  Acorn Venture Association

  PB1

  3

  9,338·00

  12a

  42c

  AP Precision Hydraulics Ltd.

  PB3E

  182

  55,906·00

  12a

  42a

  Beoco Ltd.

  PB3

  175

  120,000·00

  12a

  42a

  CDS Training Ltd.

  PB4

  24

  23,669·00

  12a

  41-

  CDS Training Ltd.

  PB4

  42

  34,020·00

  12b

  41-

  CDS Training Ltd.

  PB4

  16

  14,843·00

  12a

  41-

  CDS Training Ltd.

  PB4

  24

  22,627·00

  12a

  42a

  CDS Training Ltd.

  PB4

  18

  24,008·00

  12a

  42a

  CDS Training Ltd.

  PB4

  14

  14,492·00

  12a

  41-

  CDS Training Ltd.

  PB4

  21

  21,340·00

  12a

  42a

  Eldonian Community Association

  PB4

  4

  16,519·50

  12a

  41-

  Eldonian Community Association

  PB4

  6

  24,775·20

  12a

  42a

  Employment Resource Group (ERG) Ltd.

  PB1

  60

  44,900·00

  12a

  42a

  Fringe

  PB1

  3

  11,879·00

  12a

  41-

  Fringe

  PB1

  3

  11,879·00

  12a

  42a

  Fringe

  PB1

  6

  32,021·00

  12a

  41-

  Fringe

  PB1

  6

  32,021·00

  12a

  42a

  GEC Installation Equipment Ltd.

  PB3E

  26

  37,581·00

  12a

  41-

  GEC Installation Equipment Ltd.

  PB3E

  118

  50,255·00

  12a

  42a

  Greenbank Project

  PB1

  39

  142,726·00

  12a

  41-

  Into Business Project Ltd.

  PB4

  8

  19,785·00

  12a

  42a

  Into Business Project Ltd.

  PB4

  40

  89,060·00

  12a

  41-

  Keyes UK Ltd.

  PB3P

  58

  19,068·00

  12a

  42e

  Kirkby Challenge Community Newspaper

  PB4

  2

  6,800·00

  12a

  41-

  Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  90

  88,536·00

  12a

  41-

  Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  60

  87,118·00

  12a

  41-

  Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  26

  38,327·00

  12a

  42a

  Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  20

  20,658·00

  12a

  41-

  Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  20

  20,658·00

  12a

  42a

  Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  20

  17,800·00

  12a

  41-

  Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  20

  17,800·00

  12a

  42a

  Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  45

  64,990·00

  12a

  41-

  Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  30

  43,382·00

  12a

  42a

  Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  30

  41,643·00

  12a

  42e

  Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  30

  13,473·00

  12a

  41-

  336

  Changes

  June 1979— June 1986 Per cent.

  June 1986— December 1987 Per cent.

  Northern

  130·3

  -15·5

  Wales

  148·9

  -19·8

  Scotland

  128·8

  -9·5

  Social Fund
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment ,pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford, (Ms. Ruddock)Official Report, 21 January, column 807, if he will give similar information on European social fund allocations to Merseyside in the current year.

  Mr. Cope
  The European Commission is not expected to announce its decision on the allocation of 1988 European social fund grants until April 1988 at the earliest. My Department will not be able to inform organisations of the result of their applications until then. The following list details social fund applications and aid applied for which have been submitted to the European Commission for schemes to operate in Merseyside during the calendar year 1988. The list does not, however, include national schemes run, for example, by the Manpower Services Commission, and industrial training boards from which those living in Merseyside will benefit. Separate figures for Merseyside for these national schemes are not readily available.
  337

  Applicant name

  Organisation

  Beneficiaries

  £ aid

  Article1

  Article1

  Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  105

  145,183·00

  12a

  41-

  Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  12

  12,057·00

  12a

  42a

  Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  24

  6,615·00

  12a

  42b

  Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  24

  6,615·00

  12a

  41-

  Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  190

  191,706·00

  12a

  41-

  Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  48

  36,666·00

  12a

  42a

  Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  250

  292,500·00

  12b

  41-

  Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  25

  25,471·00

  12a

  42a

  Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  10

  61,642·00

  12a

  41-

  Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  40

  12,260·00

  12a

  42a

  Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  40

  43,382·00

  12a

  42-

  Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  75

  97,609·00

  12a

  41-

  Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  30

  44,436·00

  12a

  41-

  Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  30

  43,177·00

  12a

  41-

  Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  12

  8,130·00

  12a

  42a

  Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  20

  17,820·00

  12a

  41-

  Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  20

  17,820·00

  12a

  41-

  Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  20

  17,820·00

  12a

  41-

  Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  40

  54,080·00

  12b

  41-

  Landlife

  PB1

  12

  43,105·00

  12a

  41-

  Liverpool Elfrida Rathbone Community Association

  PB1

  21

  68,250·00

  12a

  41-

  Liverpool Appropriate Technology Ltd

  PB1

  28

  107,262·00

  12a

  41-

  Liverpool Mencap

  PB1

  7

  23,674·00

  12a

  41-

  Liverpool Mencap

  PB1

  7

  22,036·00

  12a

  42c

  Liverpool City Council

  LA1

  864

  597,143·00

  12a

  41-

  Liverpool City Council

  LA1

  504

  321,237·00

  12a

  41-

  Liverpool City Council

  LA1

  600

  282,066·00

  12a

  41-

  Liverpool City Council

  LA1

  600

  282,066·00

  12a

  42a

  Liverpool City Council

  LA1

  120

  21,671·00

  12a

  41-

  Liverpool City Council

  LA1

  120

  21,671·00

  12a

  42b

  Liverpool City Council

  LA1

  300

  128,430·00

  12a

  41-

  Liverpool City Council

  LA1

  300

  128,430·00

  12a

  42c

  Lucas Aerospace Limited Power Systems Division

  PB3E

  50

  16,073·00

  12a

  42a

  Merseyside Enterprise Board Ltd

  PB4

  100

  75,472·50

  12a

  42a

  Merseyside Council for Voluntary Service

  PB1

  72

  27,937·00

  12a

  42a

  Merseyside Education Training Enterprise Ltd

  PB1

  300

  106,919·00

  12a

  42a

  Merseyside Education Training Enterprise Ltd

  PB1

  60

  25,974·00

  12a

  41-

  Merseyside Education Training Enterprise Ltd

  PB1

  60

  25,974·00

  12a

  41-

  Merseyside Education Training Enterprise Ltd

  PB1

  100

  95,970·00

  12a

  42e

  Merseyside Education Training Enterprise Ltd

  PB1

  8

  26,405·00

  12a

  41-

  Merseyside Education Training Enterprise Ltd

  PB1

  8

  26,405·00

  12a

  42a

  Merseyside Education Training Enterprise Ltd

  PB1

  8

  26,405·00

  12a

  41-

  Merseyside Education Training Enterprise Ltd

  PB1

  36

  12,220·00

  12a

  42b

  Merseyside Education Training Enterprise Ltd

  PB1

  72

  31,019·00

  12a

  42a

  Merseyside Education Training Enterprise Ltd

  PB1

  60

  20,169·00

  12a

  42a

  Merseyside Education Training Enterprise Ltd

  PB1

  60

  20,169·00

  12a

  42a

  Merseyside Education Training Enterprise Ltd

  PB1

  200

  73,116·00

  12a

  42a

  Merseyside Education Training Enterprise Ltd

  PB1

  48

  20,130·00

  12a

  41-

  Merseyside Education Training Enterprise Ltd

  PB1

  48

  20,250·00

  12a

  41-

  Merseyside Education Training Enterprise Ltd

  PB1

  72

  28,579·00

  12a

  41-

  Merseyside Education Training Enterprise Ltd

  PB1

  48

  21,340·00

  12a

  42a

  Merseyside Education Training Enterprise Ltd

  PB1

  25

  19,308·00

  12a

  41-

  Merseyside Education Training Enterprise Ltd

  PB1

  25

  22,918·00

  12a

  42a

  Merseyside Education Training Enterprise Ltd

  PB1

  25

  20,043·00

  12a

  42a

  Merseyside Education Training Enterprise Ltd

  PB1

  25

  21,066·00

  12a

  42e

  Micro-craft Consultants Limited

  PB3

  5

  56,160·00

  12a

  42c

  NEO Industries Ltd

  PB4

  40

  83,000·00

  12a

  41-

  North Everton Technology Centre Ltd

  PB1

  25

  89,869·00

  12a

  41-

  Parents Apprenticeship Action Committee

  PB1

  35

  89,661·00

  12a

  41-

  Risdon Venesta International Ltd

  PB3P

  65

  11,377·00

  12a

  42e

  Suston Diesels Ltd.

  PB3E

  23

  22,296·00

  12a

  41-

  Suston Diesels Ltd.

  PB3E

  35

  18,360·00

  12a

  42a

  Sefton Community Resource Action Programme

  PB1

  80

  10,000·00

  12a

  42a

  Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  689

  249,650·00

  12a

  41-

  Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  15

  26,186·00

  12a

  41-

  Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  28

  9,341·00

  12a

  41-

  Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  60

  18,588·00

  12a

  42a

  Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  20

  15,600·00

  12a

  41-

  Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  28

  9,341·00

  12a

  41-

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  36

  29,626·00

  12a

  41-

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  30

  24,480·00

  12a

  42a

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  40

  14,948·00

  12a

  42b

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  235

  73,754·00

  12a

  41-

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  51

  44,169·00

  12a

  41-

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  40

  14,793·00

  12a

  41-

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  110

  82,357·00

  12a

  41-

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  30

  14,679·00

  12a

  41-

  338 339

  Applicant name

  Organisation

  Beneficiaries

  £ aid

  Article1

  Article1

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  30

  141,187·00

  12a

  41-

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  30

  7,989·00

  12a

  41-

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  60

  19,101·00

  12a

  41-

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  30

  13,317·00

  12a

  42a

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  150

  51,768·00

  12a

  41-

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  30

  12,642·00

  12a

  41-

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  30

  10,204·00

  12a

  41-

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  30

  10,204·00

  12a

  42a

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  30

  10,204·00

  12a

  41-

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  30

  10,204·00

  12a

  42a

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  40

  16,889·00

  12a

  41-

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  185

  101,159·00

  12a

  41-

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  150

  114,942·00

  l2a

  41-

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  25

  49,518·00

  12a

  42b

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  15

  38,238·00

  12a

  41-

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  40

  28,771·00

  12a

  41-

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  288

  207,281·00

  12a

  41-

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  50

  25,390·00

  12a

  41-

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  309

  254,375·00

  12a

  41-

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  20

  17,841·00

  12a

  41-

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  30

  25,185·00

  12a

  42a

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  40

  12,848·00

  12a

  41-

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  40

  12,848·00

  12a

  42d

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  60

  16,908·00

  12a

  41-

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  60

  16,908·00

  12a

  42c

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  22

  11,223·00

  12a

  41-

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  20

  10,426·00

  12a

  42c

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  24

  12,481·00

  12a

  41-

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  24

  22,835·00

  12a

  41-

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  63

  27,502·00

  12a

  41-

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  60

  20,360·00

  12a

  41-

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  18

  5,976·00

  12a

  42a

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  60

  18,545·00

  12a

  41-

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  36

  30,272·00

  12a

  41-

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  18

  8,566·00

  12a

  41-

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  18

  14,640·00

  12a

  41-

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  18

  12,815·00

  12a

  41-

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  104

  102,500·00

  12a

  41-

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  169

  137,866·00

  12a

  41-

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  30

  25,114·00

  12a

  41-

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  402

  356,971·00

  12a

  41-

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  60

  31,687·00

  12a

  41-

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  12

  39,741·00

  12a

  41-

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  35

  17,178·00

  12a

  41-

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  200

  98,161·00

  12a

  42a

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  70

  78,711·00

  12a

  41-

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  LA1

  70

  74,861·00

  12a

  41-

  University of Liverpool

  LA3

  3

  6,815·00

  l2a

  41-

  Vauxhall Motors Ltd.

  PB3E

  518

  472,773·00

  12a

  42a

  Wirral Borough Council

  LA1

  360

  430,346·00

  12a

  41-

  Wirral Borough Council

  LA1

  120

  61,121·00

  12a

  41-

  Wirral Borough Council

  LA1

  270

  68,976·00

  12a

  42e

  Wirral Borough Council

  LA1

  120

  68,337·00

  12a

  41-

  Wirral Borough Council

  LA1

  360

  196,001·00

  12a

  42a

  Wirral Borough Council

  LA1

  72

  44,740·00

  12a

  41-

  Wirral Borough Council

  LA1

  288

  140,581·00

  12a

  42b

  Wirral Borough Council

  LA1

  40

  120,729·00

  12a

  41-

  Wirral Borough Council

  LA1

  80

  196,128·00

  12a

  42c

  Wirral Borough Council

  LA1

  60

  18,720·00

  12b

  41-

  Wirral Borough Council

  LA1

  240

  260,874·00

  12a

  41-

  Wirral Borough Council

  LA1

  10

  21,090·50

  12a

  41-

  Wirral Borough Council

  LA1

  20

  44,439·00

  12a

  42c

  Wirral Borough Council

  LA1

  12

  40,693·50

  12a

  41-

  Wirral Borough Council

  LA1

  20

  59,308·00

  12a

  41-

  Wirral Borough Council

  LA1

  20

  30,915·50

  12a

  41-

  Women's Technology Training Ltd.

  PB1

  30

  170,148·00

  12a

  42b

  Social Fund

    COMPUTER CODINGS FOR APPLICATIONS
    Organisation Types

    PB1 = Registered charities and friendly societies

    PB2 = Industrial Training Boards

    PB3 = Private companies

    PB4 = Companies limited by guarantee

    LA1 = local authorities

    LA2 = Educational establishments (excluding universities)

    LA3 = Universities

    340

    LA4 = Health Authorities

    NATIND1 = Nationalised Industries

    NATIND2 = Public Corporations e.g. BBC

    MSC = Manpower Services Commission

    DE = Department of Employment

    OGD = Other Government schemes

    Article Numbers

    341

    12a = Vocational training

    12b = Recruitment & wage subsidies

    12c = resettlement & socio-vocational integration in connection with geographical mobility

    12d = services and technical advice concerned with job creation

    41- = Under-25 scheme

    42a = unemployed people over the age of 25

    42b = women over-25 who wish to return to work

    42c = handicapped (over 25)

    42d = migrant workers (over 25)

    42e = people over 25 employed in small or medium-sized enterprises

    Mr. Frank Field
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member

    1987 European Social Fund Allocations for Merseyside

    Applicant name

    Organisation

    Beneficiaries

    £ Aid

    Article*

    Article*

    Acorn Venture Association

    PB1

    10

    8,568·00

    12a

    41-

    Automotive products PLC

    PB3E

    161

    29,239·00

    12a

    42a

    Beoco Ltd

    PB3

    55

    60,241·00

    12a

    42a

    CDS Training Ltd

    PB4

    16

    14,826·00

    12a

    41-

    CDS Training Ltd

    PB4

    24

    19,516·00

    12a

    42a

    CDS Training Ltd

    PB4

    16

    16,053·00

    12a

    41-

    CDS Training Ltd

    PB4

    21

    14,841·00

    12a

    42a

    CDS Training Enterprise Ltd

    PB4

    30

    23,798·00

    12b

    41-

    CDS Training Enterprise Ltd

    PB4

    12

    15,734·00

    12a

    42a

    CDS Training Enterprise Ltd

    PB4

    12

    82,269·00

    12a

    41-

    Eldonian Community Association

    PB4

    7

    27,639·00

    12a

    41-

    Eldonian Community Association

    PB4

    8

    15,97·00

    12a

    42a

    Fringe

    PB1

    6

    29,426·00

    12a

    41-

    Fringe

    PB1

    6

    23,711·00

    12a

    42a

    Greenbank Project

    PB1

    33

    118,544·00

    12a

    42c

    Help the Aged

    PB1

    150

    104,098·00

    12a

    41-

    Into Business Project Ltd

    PB4

    50

    99,016·00

    12a

    41-

    James Halstead Ltd

    PB3P

    19

    5,490·00

    12a

    41-

    Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

    LA1

    20

    67,833·00

    12a

    41-

    Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

    LA1

    230

    267,175·00

    12b

    41-

    Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

    LA1

    120

    108,068·00

    12a

    41-

    Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

    LA1

    14

    9,381·00

    12a

    42a

    Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

    LA1

    120

    160,451·00

    12a

    41-

    Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

    LA1

    30

    21,194·00

    12a

    42a

    Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

    LA1

    20

    9,272·00

    12a

    42a

    Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

    LA1

    20

    8,117·00

    12a

    42a

    Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

    LA1

    12

    4,000·00

    12a

    42a

    Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

    LA1

    20

    12,080·00

    12a

    42a

    Landlife

    PB1

    12

    41,665·00

    12a

    41-

    Liverpool Elfrida Rathbone Community Association

    PB1

    21

    68,692·00

    12a

    41-

    Liverpool Appropriate Technology Ltd

    PB1

    29

    115,815·00

    12a

    41-

    Liverpool Mencap

    PB1

    10

    26,320·00

    12a

    41-

    Liverpool Mencap

    PB1

    5

    10,604·00

    12a

    42c

    Liverpool Education Authority

    LA1

    1,752

    1,257,606·00

    12a

    41-

    Liverpool Education Authority

    LA1

    1,104

    792,035·00

    12a

    41-

    Liverpool Education Authority

    LA1

    1,408

    282,079·00

    12a

    42a

    Liverpool Education Authority

    LA1

    552

    142,173·00

    12a

    41-

    Liverpool Education Authority

    LA1

    840

    107,884·00

    12a

    42b

    Liverpool Education Authority

    LA1

    420

    242,626·00

    12a

    41-

    Liverpool Education Authority

    LA1

    564

    154,668·00

    12a

    42c

    Merseyside Education Training Enterprise Ltd

    PB1

    8

    22,310·00

    12a

    42a

    Merseyside Education Training Enterprise Ltd

    PB1

    75

    23,765·00

    12a

    42e

    Merseyside Education Training Enterprise Ltd

    PB1

    144

    56,186·00

    12a

    41-

    Merseyside Education Training Enterprise Ltd

    PB1

    240

    54,722·00

    12a

    42a

    Merseyside Education Training Enterprise Ltd

    PB1

    48

    21,403·00

    12a

    42a

    Merseyside Education Training Enterprise Ltd

    PB1

    60

    23,327·00

    12a

    42b

    Merseyside Education Training Enterprise Ltd

    PB1

    18

    11,175·00

    12a

    41-

    Merseyside Education Training Enterprise Ltd

    PB1

    8

    27,687·00

    12a

    41-

    Merseyside Education Training Enterprise Ltd.

    PB1

    300

    64,732·00

    12a

    42a

    Merseyside Education Training Enterprise Ltd.

    PB1

    60

    21,306·00

    12a

    41-

    Merseyside Education Training Enterprise Ltd.

    PB1

    60

    21,306·00

    12a

    42b

    Merseyside Education Training Enterprise Ltd.

    PB1

    200

    38,644·00

    12a

    42a

    Merseyside Skill Training Ltd.

    PB1

    30

    88,945·00

    12a

    41-

    Merseyside Enterprise BoardLtd.

    PB4

    100

    37,887·00

    12a

    42e

    NEO Industries Ltd.

    PB4

    40

    80,216·00

    12a

    41-

    NEO Industries Ltd.

    PB4

    40

    59,955·00

    12a

    42a

    North Everton Technology Centre Ltd.

    PB1

    25

    82,217·00

    12a

    41-

    342
    for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), Official Report, 21 January, column 804, if he will give similar information on European social fund allocations to Merseyside in 1987.

    Mr. Cope
    The European Commission allocated the following amounts from the European social fund to projects based in Merseyside for the calendar year 1987. The list does not, however, include national schemes run, for example, by the Manpower Services Commission, and industrial training boards from which those living in Merseyside will have benefited. Separate figures for Merseyside for these national schemes are not readily available.
    343

    Applicant name

    Organisation

    Beneficiaries

    £ Aid

    Article*

    Article*

    Parents Apprenticeship Action Committee

    PB1

    35

    88,554·00

    12a

    41-

    Plessey Telecommunications Limited

    PB3E

    40

    9,367·00

    12a

    41-

    Plessey Telecommunications Limited

    PB3E

    86

    7,523·00

    12a

    41-

    Plessy Major Systems Ltd.

    PB3E

    168

    183,607·00

    12a

    41-

    Plessy Major Systems Ltd.

    PB3E

    463

    52,993·00

    12a

    42a

    Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council

    LA1

    20

    15,488·00

    12b

    41-

    Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council

    LA1

    12

    15,513·00

    12a

    41-

    Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council

    LA1

    7

    7,709·00

    12a

    41-

    Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council

    LA1

    14

    7,796·00

    12a

    42c

    St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

    LA1

    83

    68,754·00

    12a

    41-

    St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

    LA1

    15

    18,282·00

    12a

    41-

    St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

    LA1

    27

    4,083·00

    12a

    41-

    St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

    LA1

    21

    1,254·00

    12a

    42a

    St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

    LA1

    15

    27,255·00

    12a

    42a

    St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

    LA1

    20

    16,808·00

    12a

    41-

    St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

    LA1

    30

    11,199·00

    12a

    41-

    St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

    LA1

    150

    44,783·00

    12a

    41-

    St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

    LA1

    30

    7,641·00

    12a

    41-

    St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

    LA1

    30

    5,691·00

    12a

    42a

    St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

    LA1

    40

    6,383·00

    12a

    42a

    St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

    LA1

    40

    32,881·00

    12a

    41-

    St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

    LA1

    225

    52,268·00

    12a

    41-

    St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

    LA1

    30

    9,467·00

    12a

    41-

    St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

    LA1

    20

    7004·00

    12a

    42b

    St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

    LA1

    30

    42,336·00

    12a

    41-

    St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

    LA1

    153

    108,823·00

    12a

    41-

    St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

    LA1

    135

    109,770·00

    12a

    41-

    St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

    LA1

    30

    69,340·00

    12a

    41-

    St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

    LA1

    45

    37,172·00

    12a

    41-

    St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

    LA1

    25

    26,081·00

    12a

    42b

    St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

    LA1

    303

    218,509·00

    12a

    41-

    St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

    LA1

    30

    10,848·00

    12a

    42a

    St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

    LA1

    259

    175,709·00

    12a

    41-

    St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

    LA1

    22

    10,074·00

    12a

    41-

    St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

    LA1

    13

    2,770·00

    12a

    42c

    St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

    LA1

    50

    16,501·00

    12a

    41-

    St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

    LA1

    15

    21,368·00

    12a

    42a

    St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

    LA1

    80

    25,153·00

    12a

    41-

    St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

    LA1

    30

    4,592·00

    12a

    42a

    St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

    LA1

    30

    8,132·00

    12a

    41-

    St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

    LA1

    48

    22,412·00

    12a

    41-

    St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

    LA1

    30

    8,933·00

    12a

    41-

    St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

    LA1

    40

    6,023·00

    12a

    42d

    St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

    LA1

    105

    98,283·00

    12a

    41-

    St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

    LA1

    450

    337,655·00

    12a

    41-

    Venesta International Packaging Ltd.

    PB3P

    37

    5,076·00

    12a

    42a

    Wirral Borough Council

    LA1

    29

    28,954·00

    12a

    42c

    Wirral Borough Council

    LA1

    40

    33,269·00

    12a

    42c

    Wirral Borough Council

    LA1

    128

    67,971·00

    12a

    42c

    Wirral Borough Council

    LA1

    10

    48,551·00

    12a

    42c

    Wirral Borough Council

    LA1

    280

    192,470·00

    12a

    41-

    Wirral Borough Council

    LA1

    640

    451,590·00

    12a

    41-

    Wirral Borough Council

    LA1

    260

    79,492·00

    12a

    42a

    Wirral Borough Council

    LA1

    60

    45,638·00

    12a

    41-

    Wirral Borough Council

    LA1

    130

    56,338·00

    12a

    42b

    Wirral Borough Council

    LA1

    360

    70,364·00

    12a

    42e

    Women's Technology Training Ltd.

    PB1

    30

    126,435·00

    12a

    42b

    COMPUTER CODINGS FOR APPLICATIONS
    Organisation types

    PB1 = Registered charities and friendly societies

    PB2 = Industrial Training Boards

    PB3 = Private companies

    PB4 = Companies limited by guarantee

    LA1 = Local authorities

    LA2 = Educational establishments (excluding universities)

    LA3 = Universities

    LA4 = Health authorities

    NATIND1 = Nationalised Industries

    NATIND2 = Public Corporations eg BBC

    MSC = Manpower Services Commission

    DE = Department of Employment

    OGD = Other Government schemes

    Article numbers

    12a = Vocational training

    12b = Recruitment and wage subsidies

    12c = Resettlement and socio-vocational integration in connection with geographical mobility

    12d = Services and technical advice concerned with job creation

    41 = Under-25 scheme

    42a = Unemployed people over the age of 25

    42b = Women over-25 who wish to return to work

    42c = Handicapped (over 25)

    42d = Migrant workers (over 25)

    42e = People over 25 employed in small or medium-sized enterprises

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Meacher
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the absolute total of, and the percentage change in the number of, persons unemployed(a) less than three months, (b) three to six months, (c) six months to 12 months, (d) one to two years, (e) two to three years, (f) three to five years, and (g) over five years during the periods (i ) each year since 1979,(ii) over the period since 1979 as a whole, (iii) from mid-1979 to mid-1986 and (iv) since mid-1986.

    Mr. Lee
    [holding answer 26 January 1988]: Direct comparison of unemployment by duration since 1979 are not possible because of the change to the method of compilation. The following is the available information, which is also in the library.

    Table A shows the average number of unemployed registrants in the United Kingdom for each year from 1979 to 1982, who had been unemployed for the durations requested, except of for those unemployed for three to five years and over five years, for which figures were not separately identified together with the percentage change over the previous year. It is not possible to give this change for 1979, as unemployment figures for Northern Ireland are not available by duration for 1987.

    Table B shows the average number of claimants who had been unemployed for each duration requested for each

    Table B

    Average number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom

    1983

    1984

    1985

    1986

    1987

    Unemployed under 3 months

    841,759

    828,089

    843,572

    849,769

    758,572

    Percentage change over year

    n/a

    -1·6

    1·9

    0·7

    -10·7

    Unemployed 3–6 months

    506,929

    490,009

    498,309

    502,283

    447,671

    Percentage change over year

    n/a

    -3·3

    1·7

    0·8

    -0·1

    Unemployed 6–12 months

    639,082

    610,779

    607,263

    606,079

    549,276

    Percentage change over year

    n/a

    -4·4

    -0·6

    -0·2

    -9·4

    Unemployed 1–2 years

    589,339

    557,782

    538,746

    509,233

    463,082

    Percentage change over year

    n/a

    -5·4

    -3·4

    -5·5

    -9·1

    Unemployed 2–3 years

    197,046

    302,447

    299,045

    274,969

    233,984

    Percentage change over year

    n/a

    53·5

    -1·1

    -8·1

    -14·9

    Unemployed 3–5 years

    n/a

    279,052

    345,289

    342,394

    290,877

    Percentage change over year

    n/a

    n/a

    23·7

    -0·8

    -15·0

    Unemployed over 5 years

    n/a

    90,096

    149,178

    227,653

    272,087

    Percentage change over year

    n/a

    n/a

    65·6

    52·6

    19·5

    Table C

    Unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom

    October 1987

    Unemployed

    Percentage change on July 1986

    Under 3 months

    765,816

    -8·4

    3–6 months

    370,192

    -21·0

    6–12 months

    443,140

    -29·4

    1–2 years

    415,998

    -17·1

    2–3 years

    218,373

    -19·4

    3–5 years

    261,411

    -23·7

    over 5 years

    276,454

    18·8

    Dates

    Country visited

    19 July to 29 July 1983

    Netherlands

    23 September to 28 September 1983

    France

    346
    year from 1983 to 1987, together with the percentage change over the previous year. Comparisons are affected by changes in the method of compilation.

    Table C shows the numbers at 8 October 1987, the latest date for which figures are available, together with the percentage change since 10 July 1986. The change over this period is affected by seasonal factors.

    Table A

    Average number of unemployed registrants in the United Kingdom

    1979

    1980

    1981

    1982

    Unemployed under 3 months

    569,221

    753,776

    695,674

    885,109

    Percentage change over year

    n/a

    32·4

    -7·7

    27·2

    Unemployed 3–6 months

    240,878

    331,588

    673,481

    539,324

    Percentage change over year

    n/a

    37·7

    103·1

    -19·9

    Unemployed 6–12 months

    237,121

    284,233

    619,856

    681,917

    Percentage change over year

    n/a

    19·9

    118·1

    10·0

    Unemployed 1–2 years

    n/a

    178,418

    360,744

    657,790

    Percentage change over year

    n/a

    n/a

    102·2

    82·3

    Unemployed 2–3 years

    n/a

    74,056

    97,304

    203,637

    Percentage change over year

    n/a

    n/a

    31·4

    109·3

    Ministerial Visits
    Mr. Leighton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has anything to add to his reply of 18 January,Official Report, column 506, relating to overseas visits by Ministers in his Department.

    Mr. Fowler
    I regret that there was an omission in my earlier reply. The full test should read as follows:

    A total of 25 official overseas visits were made by Ministers in my Department during the period January 1983 to December 1987, excluding short-term visits made specifically to attend conferences held by international bodies, for example, EC, OECD, ILO.

    Details are as follows:

    347

    Dates

    Country visited

    1 October to 7 October 1983

    United States of America

    17 October to 20 October 1983

    Federal Republic of Germany and Belgium

    20 November to 22 November 1983

    Federal Republic of Germany

    25 September to 5 October 1984

    Hong Kong and Japan

    11 December to 8 February 1984

    France

    7 February to 8 February 1985

    Italy

    3 July to 5 July 1985

    Republic of Ireland

    25 August to 3 September 1985

    Federal Republic of Germany/Switzerland/Denmark

    15 November to 20 November 1985

    United States of America

    11 December to 15 December 1985

    Hong Kong and China

    26 January to 28 January 1986

    France

    30 March to 8 April 1986

    United States of America

    5 April to 8 April 1986

    Sweden

    23 May to 1 June 1986

    Japan

    13 July to 16 July 1986

    United States of America

    6 November to 17 November 1986

    Hong Kong and China

    17 November to 20 November 1986

    France

    5 January to 12 January 1987

    Israel

    8 January to 15 January 1987

    Japan

    5 March to 11 March 1987

    United States of America

    23 March to 25 March 1987

    Berlin

    13 September to 15 September 1987

    Federal Republic of Germany

    22 January to 24 November 1987

    Sweden

    Industrial Skills
    Mr. Hood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is at present the average cost of training people in industrial skills.

    Mr. John Cope
    (holding answer 26 January 1988]: The most recent estimate of employer spending on training comes from a survey conducted on behalf of the Manpower Services Commission by IFF research in 1984. It estimated employers invest on average £200 per employee per head on all types of training. More up to date and more detailed information is expected to become available later this year as part of a study of funding of vocational education and training being carried out by the MSC.

    Mr. Hood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the total public investment in industrial skills, for each year since 1974, in 1986 values.

    Mr. Cope
    [holding answer 26 January 1988]: The information is not available in the form requested. However expenditure (at 1986 prices) by the Manpower Services Commission on vocational education and training each year since 1974 has been as follows:

    £ million

    1974–75

    262

    1975–76

    482

    1976–77

    635

    1977–78

    635

    1978–79

    738

    1979–80

    763

    1980–81

    798

    1981–82

    971

    1982–83

    1,070

    1983–84

    1,211

    1984–85

    1,263

    1985–86

    1,295

    1986–87

    1,447

    Mr. Hood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are, for each year since 1974, the figures for people trained for industrial jobs.
    348
    Mr. Cope
    [holding answer 26 January 1988]: The information is not available in the form requested. Estimates are available from the labour force survey for the number of economically active people of working age receiving any job-related training during a four week reference period in the Spring of each year. Those estimates are as follows:

    million

    1984

    2·1

    1985

    2·5

    1986

    2·6

    Estimates are not available prior to 1984.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  COCOM
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster by what percentage he intends to cut the COCOM international lists; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The aim of the Department is to achieve maximum reduction of COCOM's international lists consistent with our national security interests. It is not practicable to express our objectives in percentage terms.

  Insider Dealing
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the investigation appointed on 18 December 1986 to look into the possibility of insider dealing by employees of his Department, the Office of Fair Trading and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is due to report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  The inspectors recently submitted an interim report to the Secretary of State. This has been passed to the Director of Public Prosecutions for his consideration.

  Imports-Exports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give imports as a percentage of domestic sales of motor cars and exports as a percentage of domestic production for (i) United Kingdom, (ii) France, (iii) West Germany, (iv) Italy and (v) Japan for 1975 and each year from 1979 to 1987.

  Mr. Butcher
  So far as the United Kingdom, France and West Germany are concerned, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 26 January 1988,Official Report, columns 143–144.

  Information on Italy and Japan is shown in the tables.

  Trends in Italian car output Italy

  Imports as a percentage of sales

  Exports as a percentage of production

  1975

  n.a.

  49

  1979

  38

  44

  1980

  42

  35

  1981

  n.a.

  34

  1982

  n.a.

  34

  1983

  37

  35

  1984

  37

  33

  1985

  40

  32

  1986

  38

  37

  Trends in Japanese car output Japan

  Imports as a percentage of sales

  Exports as a percentage of production

  1975

  n.a.

  40

  1979

  2

  50

  1980

  2

  56

  1981

  1

  57

  1982

  1

  55

  1983

  1

  53

  1984

  1

  56

  1985

  2

  58

  1986

  2

  59

  Note: NA = Not available.

  Source: Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders Ltd.

  Business Consultancy Initiative
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will estimate, in respect of each region separately, for the years 1988–89 to 1990–91, the amount of money to be spent on the Government's business consultancy initiative announced in the recent White Paper on the future of his Department.

  Mr. Butcher
  The Government expenditure plans 1988–89 to 1990–91, published earlier this month, set out planned DTI expenditure on support for consultancy services under the business development initiative as follows:

  Plans £ million

  1988–89

  74

  1989–90

  91

  1990–91

  109

  No regional breakdown is available. Consultancy support under the enterprise initiative is available to qualifying companies on a first come, first served basis.

  New Enterprise Initiative (Blackpool)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list in the Official Report the forms of help to all types of industry and commerce within the Blackpool travel-to-work area that will be available when his Department's new enterprise initiative is fully implemented.

  Mr. Butcher
  Under the Department's new enterprise initiative, which brings together both new and existing measures of support, industry and commerce within the Blackpool travel-to-work area may currently benefit from the marketing, design, quality and manufacturing initiative, the research and technology initiative, the export initiative and the business education initiative.

  In April 1988, three further initiatives will be available to industry and commerce within the Blackpool TTWA — the business planning initiative, the financial and information system initiative, and the small firms merit award for research and technology (SMART).

  A comprehensive range of further support services is available to all industry and commerce from the Department, either to complement action taken under the enterprise initiative or separately. These include overseas and United Kingdom market trade and business information, company registration advice and information, contract research, testing and analysis services through DTI's own research establishments, and advice and guidance on patent and trade mark issues.

  All the enterprise initiative services to industry and commerce within the Blackpool TTWA will be administered from the Department's enterprise initiative offices in Manchester (75 Mosley street, Manchester M2 3HR Tel: 061–838 5011), supported by a new satellite office at Preston.

  Royal United Services Institute
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will list those publications by the Royal United Services Institute which he has approved for publication since 1979.

  Mr. Butcher
  I have no such knowledge of approving things for this publication and to refer back to 1979 would incur disproportionate costs.

  Consumer Safety
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many prohibition orders and prohibition notices his Department has issued for each of the last five years, relating to consumer safety.

  Mr. Maude
  During the last five years, the following four prohibition orders and three prohibition notices have been made.

  Prohibition Orders

  The Toy Water Snakes (Safety) Order 19831

  The Gas Catalytic Heaters (Safety) Order 19832

  The Expanding Novelties (Safety) Order 19831

  The Scented Erasers (Safety) Order 19842

  Prohibition Notices

  Automatic Rice Cooker (1983)

  351

  Sprint 0·6 T A Scissor Jack (1984)

  Expanding Novelties known as New Grobots, New Grobugs and New Grobeasts (1985).

  Note:

  1 Lapsed, goods having been removed from the market.

  2 Now covered by regulations made under the Consumer Safety Act 1978.

  Consumer Protection
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he has yet reached a decision on the concordat's proposals for regulations on misleading price indications under part III of the Consumer Protection Act 1987.

  Mr. Maude
  After careful consideration, in consultation with the concordat and others, and in the light of revision of the draft code of practice on price indications, I have concluded that there is no need at this stage for further regulation in three of the five areas proposed by the concordat.

  The issues of introductory offers, worth and value claims and substantiation of price indications are now adequately covered by part III of the Consumer Protection Act and the draft code of practice. I have, however, concluded that there is a good case for regulations on the 28-day rule for comparisons with previous prices and on recommended prices, although in different terms from those proposed by the concordat. As required by the Act, my Department is today issuing a consultation paper seeking views on draft regulations to remove any possible uncertainty about whether comparisons which comply with the 28-day "rule" meet the requirements of the Act and to define "recommended price" and similar terms so as to ensure that comparisons with articial recommended prices are caught by the general offence. At the same time, we are seeking views on a revised and I believe much improved version of the draft code. Subject to the outcome of this consultation, I aim to bring the new legislation on price indications into force on 1 September 1988. Copies of the consultation paper will be placed in the Library.

  Investments
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will clarify the definition of investments in schedule I to the Financial Services Act in respect of forward contracts and bank lending.

  Mr. Maude
  I have issued a statement giving the Government's view of the effect of certain of the definitions in schedule 1 to the Financial Services Act, defining investments and investment business. This covers the position of forward contracts and bank lending and certain other issues. I have placed a copy of my statement in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Unit Trusts
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he has taken decisions on the regulations on pricing of authorised unit trusts to be made under the Financial Services Act 1986.

  Mr. Maude
  My Department has had useful discussions with a number of interested parties on this subject, taking forward the consultations started by the Securities and Investments Board. The Securities and Investments Board 352
  has been actively involved in our discussions on these issues and endorses the approach I have decided upon. Our aim has been to achieve a system which is fair to investors and provides as much flexibility for management groups as is consistent with this.

  It was suggested to us that conflicts of interest between the manager's role as market-maker in dealing in units and his role as investment manager for the fund could be resolved only by confining managers to acting as agent in unit dealings. Although I do not intend to require this in the regulations, it is clearly a matter which deserves further study, and I welcome the intention of the Securities and Investments Board to look at it fully, in the light of experience of the new regulations.

  I will shortly be laying regulations before the House, the main provisions of which will be as follows:

  (i) In their dealings with trustees, managers will have to inform the trustee within 2 hours of the valuation point of the number and/or value of units they wish to create or cancel at that valuation. They may not give creation or cancellation orders at any other time. They must request at least sufficient units to enable them to fulfil all purchase orders taken. They must tell the trustee straight away if they revalue the fund.

  (ii) In their dealings with unitholders, managers will be able to choose to deal with unit-holders on a forward basis only, at the price calculated following receipt of their order. If they wish to offer deals on the last valuation (backward basis) they must:

  — decide their spread at the beginning of the dealing period and inform the trustee (this spread must be the one used for forward deals in the previous period)

  — deal at this spread for all transactions except large ones unless they move to a forward basis for all deals

  — cease to deal on a backward basis if they know, or have reason to believe, that the fund value has moved by 2 per cent. or more

  — deal at a forward price if the unitholder requests it or if no price is agreed.

  (iii) For large deals managers will be able to deal outside the spread notified to the Trustee provided that the price used is still within permitted units or deal on a forward pricing basis (within permitted limits). (Large deals will be defined as £15,000 or such larger amount as is stated in the scheme particulars.)

  (iv) If the manager knows or has reason to believe that the fund value has moved by 2 per cent. or more he can as an alternative to complete revaluation, use a revaluation be reference to movements in an Index if the Trustee agrees and the composition of the Index reflects the composition of the fund.

  (v) The manager will be able to choose the regular time of valuation but this must be stated in the scheme particulars and must not be two hours or less before the opening of the main market in which the fund is invested.

  (vi) Unit prices will be calculated so as to reflect the net asset value of the fund on a buying or selling basis, and including any initial charge. Unit prices will have to be accurate to 4 significant figures both for transactions and publication in newspapers. For transactions rounding to the lowest unit of currency will also be permitted.

  (vii) On contract notes and in newspapers, the cancellation price will need to be shown in addition to the ruling bid/offer price as appropriate. In addition on contract notes and at least weekly in the newspaper the initial charge as a percentage will need to be shown. The prices shown in the newspapers will have to be the most recent valuation available with the actual spreads used for deals (other than large deals).

  (viii) Settlement within five days will be required for all trustee/manager dealings for all funds other than money market and gilts funds in which case the requirement will be to settle by the close of business on the next working day. In the case of manager — unitholder dealings the requirement will be to pay out on redemptions within five days of receipt of the relevant documents of title.

  353
  As the pricing regulations are likely to require changes in systems and working procedures, I intend to allow current lawful arrangements to continue until 1 July.

  I have also received representation about the position of offshore funds. Such funds cannot be certain, at this stage, whether their home territory will be able to obtain designation under section 87 of the Act by "A" day, or that applications for their individual recognition under section 88 will have been determined by then. I therefore intend to permit offshore funds which have a listing on the stock exchange to continue, until 1 July, to promote by means of a prospectus.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Economic Strategy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with the trade unions in Northern Ireland on the Government's economic strategy.

  Mr. Viggers
  Since January 1986, Ministers have met trade union delegations on 12 occasions. A range of industrial and economic issues have been discussed.

  Teachers
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any proposals for changing the way teachers are trained in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I do not intend to change the requirement that all courses of initial teacher training in Northern Ireland should meet the criteria of the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education which also apply in England and Wales. In line with my strategy for the promotion of education for mutual understanding in all sectors of education, I have however make it clear that I wish student teachers in the segregated colleges of education to have increased opportunities to meet each other, to undertake joint project work and to spend part of their professional training in cross-community school experience.

  Lignite
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has completed his evaluation of proposals to develop a minemouth power station to utilise lignite resources in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  The evaluation of the proposals for provision of new generating capacity in Northern Ireland, including a possible minemouth lignite power station, has not yet been completed. We are currently awaiting revised bids from NIE and APCL which they have undertaken to submit by 31 January.

  International Fund for Ireland
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what projects in Northern Ireland are currently in receipt of financial support from the International Fund for Ireland.

  Mr. Stanley
  The International Fund for Ireland is administered by an independent board appointed by her 354
  Majesty's Government and the Government of the Irish Republic. Details of applications for assistance and awards made are a matter for the board. A copy of the fund's press notices of 27 August and 10 December 1987 detailing programme allocations of £47·9 million and particular projects it is supporting, together with a copy of the fund's annual report, are available in the Library.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what financial contributions have been made by Her Majesty's Government to the International Fund for Ireland since its inception.

  Mr. Stanley
  None, because Her Majesty's Government already contribute very large sums through public expenditure programmes to the economic and social development of Northern Ireland.

  The International Fund for Ireland is a vehicle for providing supportive Governments in other countries with the means of expressing their support in a practical way for a programme of economic and social development which was envisaged in article 10(a) of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

  However, the cost of the accommodation and secretarial services necessary for the proper functioning of the fund, together with its general administrative and organisational expenses, are met jointly by the Governments of the United Kingdom and Ireland. Her Majesty's Government's contribution to these costs in the current financial year is estimated as £45,000.

  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next plans to meet the Tanaiste, Mr. Lenihan, to discuss the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

  Mr. Tom King
  I hope to do so very shortly.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

  Mr. Tom King
  Worthwhile progress continues under the agreement. In particular, priority is being given to enhancing security co-operation with the Republic of Ireland. This has obvious potential to benefit all sections of the community in Northern Ireland.

  Political Parties (Co-operation)
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received in the current year regarding co-operation between the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Tom King
  I have received a number of such representations from leading members of the community who share my concern that ways should be found to bring about constructive dialogue and co-operation. It was in that spirit that I held a further meeting with the right hon. Member for the Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and the hon. Member for Antrim (Rev. I. Paisley) on 26 January.

  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received from the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland regarding political progress.

  Mr. Tom King
  I have received a number of such representations, expressing a range of views. If political
  355
  progress is to be achieved, there will need to be a constructive exchange of views both between the constitutional parties themselves and with the Government.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to implement in Northern Ireland the recommendations of the Farm Animal Welfare Council on conditions at horse markets and sales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  I have no plans to implement the recommendations of the Farm Animal Welfare Council on conditions at horse markets and sales in Great Britain. This is because the welfare of horses at any sale in Northern Ireland is already adequately controlled under the Welfare of Animals Act (NI) 1972.

  Unemployment
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the trends in unemployment in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Viggers
  In recent months, there has been a firm downward trend in unemployment in Northern Ireland. During the first half of 1987, seasonally adjusted unemployment dropped by an average of 300 per month whereas in the last six months the decrease was 1,000 per month. This indicates that the downward trend has quickened.

  Air Travel (Belfast)
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met the chairman of the British Airports Authority to discuss facilities for Belfast-bound air passengers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the chairman of BAA, on 18 November 1987. The Secretary of State expressed his concern at the facilities at Heathrow for Belfast passengers. Further discussions at official level are continuing to explore ways of improving facilities.

  Education Department
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the Education Department's capital budget for 1988–89.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Almost £51 million.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what expenditure is planned in 1988–89 for schools for children with special education needs; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Estimated expenditure by the education and library boards in the 1988/89 financial year in respect of special education for pupils other than the mentally handicapped, is not yet available. The sum planned for teaching costs paid by my Department, in respect of these pupils is, however, £6·5 million.
  356
  In addition a sum of £8·9 million is planned for all recurrent services required for the education of mentally handicapped pupils, including teaching costs and a sum of about £2 million for capital expenditure.

  Integrated Schools (Maintained Status)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if his Department has any plans to change the criteria for giving maintained status to integrated schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I am currently considering the matter and after deliberations hope to be able to make a statement shortly.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which members of the ministerial team, and which officials from his Department, regularly attend the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference meetings.

  Mr. Tom King
  I and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State usually attend meetings of the Intergovernmental Conference. The joint statement issued after each meeting sets out details of Ministerial attendance. Official attendance varies. It is not in any event the practice to give names of officials attending.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what subjects were discussed at his last meeting with representatives of the Government of the Republic of Ireland.

  Mr. Tom King
  I refer the hon. Member to a reply I gave earlier to a question by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen).

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Ireland; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Tom King
  I refer the hon. Member to a reply I gave earlier to a question by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen).

  Stalker-Sampson Inquiry
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a further statement on his implementation of the Sampson report on matters connected with the administration of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had recently concerning those aspects of the reports by Mr. Colin Sampson and others on alleged misconduct by officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary which fall within his responsibility; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a further statement on his implementation of those parts of the Stalker-Sampson report on the Royal Ulster Constabulary which fall within his responsibility.

  Mr. Tom King
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd).

  Wages Act
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the likely effect on employment levels of his plans to extend the Wages Act to Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Viggers
  The Draft Wages (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 which was laid on 10 December 1987 will introduce reforms similar to those already in place in Great Britain under the Wages Act 1986. Attempts to estimate the effect on employment levels in Northern Ireland of these reforms are unlikely to be productive. However, in my opinion the adverse effects of overregulation on business enterprise, which the order addresses, are such that the provisions of the proposed legislation can only assist employment.

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. Knowles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much he intends to spend on education in Northern Ireland in 1988–89; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Almost £800 million. This represents an increase of £48 million or nearly 6·5 per cent. over the estimated expenditure for the current year. The major increase is yet further evidence of the Government's commitment to education services in the Province.

  Security
  Mr. Molyneaux
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on the security situation.

  Mr. Tom King
  I refer the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross).

  Education Reform
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends to issue his consultation paper on educational reform in Northern Ireland.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I plan to issue the paper next month.

  Health Services
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is satisfied with liaison between the health authorities in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, where patients are transferred between hospitals in the two territories.

  Mr. Needham
  Yes.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what sums have been paid to the health services of the Republic of Ireland as reimbursements for the treatment of patients from(a) Northern Ireland and (b) Great Britain; what are the numbers of people treated; and if he will give any corresponding information for Republic of Ireland citizens treated in Northern Ireland.
  358
  Mr. Needham
  Payments under EC regulation 1408/71 as reimbursement for the treatment of patients from Northern Ireland in the Republic of Ireland were IR£2,191,170 in the financial year 1986–87.

  Payments from the Republic of Ireland were £478,429 in 1986–87. The costs are estimated annually on an agreed formula and the numbers of people treated are not known. Information relating to Great Britain is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

  Equal Opportunities (Report)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends to publish a response to the report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights on equality of opportunity in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Viggers
  The Government has welcomed the report of the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights. The report is being taken fully into account in the formulation of our detailed legislative proposals, and I hope to give a further indication of our views shortly.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if there has been forthcoming any information which has led to the arrest and charging of the terrorists responsible for the massacre at Enniskillen or for any of the other 156 unsolved murders by terrorists in the constituency of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone.

  Mr. Stanley
  The police have received a substantial amount of information from the public following the bombing at Enniskillen on 8 November 1987. A number of people have been interviewed but, as yet, no charges have been brought. RUC inquiries into this incident and other terrorist murders for which no-one has been charged, will continue.

  Administration of Justice
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what initiatives have been taken under the Anglo-Irish Agreement to increase confidence in the administration of justice in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Tom King
  A number of measures have been introduced in the period since the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement as part of the Government's continuing commitment to enhancing public confidence in the administration of justice in Northern Ireland.

  These measures include a reduction since 1985 of nearly 50 per cent. on average in the time between committal and trial; allowing more cases to be heard before a jury by extending the list of offences which the Attorney-General can certify out of the scheduled mode of trial; changes to the statutory guidelines on the admissibility of confession evidence; putting the onus on the prosecution in bail applications; and placing on a statutory basis the rights of a person detained under the emergency legislation to have someone informed of their arrest and to have access to a solicitor within 48 hours.

  In addition, the maximum period that police can hold suspected terrorists under the emergency legislation without further ministerial authority has been reduced

  359
  from 72 to 48 hours; arrest powers under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 are exerciseable only on the basis of reasonable suspicion and the Act itself must now be re-enacted from scratch every five years. There are now also annual reviews of the operation of the Act and the Government are committed to the publication of a code of practice in relation to the exercise of emergency powers.

  We continue to seek any ways in which we can increase still further public confidence in the administration of justice.

  Northern Ireland Police Authority
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with the chairman of the Northern Ireland Police Authority in the last month on operational police activities.

  Mr. Stanley
  None. Police operations are a matter for the Chief Constable of the RUC.

  Milk and Beef Production
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many meetings he has had during 1987–88 with the leaders of the two main farmers unions in Northern Ireland to discuss the problems of milk and beef production.

  Mr. Viggers
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my noble Friend, Lord Lyell, have frequent meetings with farmers and representatives of the farming community at which all aspects of the industry are discussed, including milk and beef production.

  Victoria Primary School, Newtownards
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many occasions since 1 August 1987 teachers at Victoria primary school, Newtownards, have had to accept additional pupils into their classes due to the new guidelines for the provision of substitute teachers.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information sought is not held centrally.

  New Power Station
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further discussions have been held with Northern Ireland Electricity and the Antrim Power Company Ltd. on the next power station for the Province; whether bids to build, own and operate it have been received from elsewhere; and when he expects to announce the result of the competition between the bidders.

  Mr. Viggers
  I met representatives of Northern Ireland Electricity and the Antrim Power Company Limited on 22 December 1987, when I invited them to review their proposals and submit revised bids by 31 January 1988. Decisions will be taken and announced as soon as possible after the revised bids have been received and evaluated. In addition to APCL, five other private sector submissions were received at the outset of the competition, but these are no longer in contention.

  Water Availability (Fermanagh Lakes)
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the general findings of the latest studies available to the Department of the Environment, Northern Ireland, of the quality of the water in the Fermanagh lakes; to what extent those studies have been carried out in co-operation with authorities and organisations across the border; and what are the present factors adverse to the health and quantity of fish and therefore to tourism.

  Mr. Needham
  The report "The Erne System: A Water Quality Study" which was published on 18 January 1988 was prepared by a working group drawn from the Departments of the Environment for Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, An Foras Forbartha and Cavan, Monaghan, Leitrim and Donegal county councils. The study found that most of the lakes in the catchment are moderately to highly eutrophic, it drew particular attention to the over-enrichment due to phosphorus from sewage, industrial and agricultural sources; and has recommended remedial action. The health and quantity of fish did not fall within the terms of reference of this study. A copy of the report is now available in the Library.

  Downe Hospital, Downpatrick
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has received from the Eastern Health and Social Services Board, with regard to provision for the replacement of the Downe hospital, Downpatrick; and if he will give top priority to approving and funding such a proposal.

  Mr. Needham
  None as yet, but the Eastern health and social services board has indicated that it foresees a need for the hospital's replacement at some stage after the end of the current planning period in 1992.

  It would be inappropriate for me to speculate at this stage what degree of priority any such proposal might attract.

  Roads (Skid Resistance)
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will introduce a similar programme to the Department of Transport's SCRIM project, to monitor the skid resistance of motorways and arterial routes; and what amount of extra cash he intends to make available for(a) the programme and (b) resultant remedial works during the next four years.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 27 January 1988]: The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland already makes substantial use of the SCRIM process to monitor the condition of road surfaces. £25·55 million is available in the current financial year for the structural maintenance programme, which includes use of SCRIM. A similar sum is expected to be allocated in future years.

  Republic of Ireland (Car Exports)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has as to the number of new cars which have been imported into the United Kingdom from the Republic of Ireland in each of
  361
  the last 12 months to the end of 1987; where the sales of these vehicles are concentrated in Northern Ireland; and what proportion of the market for new cars these imports represent in these areas.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 27 January 1988]: The information is not available in the form requested. The number of new cars registered in Northern Ireland during each month of 1987, the number of such vehicles which originated in the Republic of Ireland and the percentage of the total which this latter figure represents are set out in the following table. No information is kept on the areas where vehicles are sold in Northern Ireland.

  1987

  New Vehicles Registered

  Rol Vehicles

  Per cent.

  January

  5,881

  9

  0·15

  February

  5·484

  11

  0·20

  March

  5,649

  14

  0·24

  April

  4,895

  22

  0·44

  May

  4,969

  18

  0·36

  June

  5,614

  38

  0 67

  July

  3,996

  18

  0·45

  August

  4,258

  16

  0·37

  September

  4,476

  21

  0·47

  October

  3,793

  17

  0·44

  November

  2,689

  27

  1·00

  December

  1,438

  10

  0·69

  Total

  53,142

  221

  0·46

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what inspection of new cars and other new vehicles imported from the Republic of Ireland are carried out to ensure that each such vehicle meets the standards laid down.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 27 January 1988]: None.

  District

  LG electors

  Domestic ratepayers

  Other ratepayers

  District rate P in the £

  Equivalent amount per elector £

  Product of domestic district rate £

  Product of non-domestic regional rate £

  Antirm

  27,572

  14,620

  1,600

  48·50

  39·33

  1,084,328

  4,359,057

  Ards

  45,266

  24,190

  2,598

  53·00

  44·65

  2,021,036

  3,134,828

  Armagh

  35,417

  16,876

  2,347

  38·00

  25,64

  908,066

  2,277,692

  Ballymena

  39,304

  19,736

  2,435

  39·85

  31·84

  1,251,524

  3,936,617

  Ballymoney

  16,685

  7,842

  1,024

  46·00

  32,36

  539,846

  1,155,942

  Banbridge

  23,600

  11,234

  1,416

  50·98

  36·32

  857,155

  1,600,058

  Belfast

  220,326

  116,480

  20,885

  80·03

  57·36

  12,638,575

  33·670,233

  Carrickfergus

  21,627

  12,012

  980

  59·41

  48·99

  1,059,578

  2,896,270

  Castlereagh

  46,005

  23,342

  1,088

  41·00

  33·10

  1,522,565

  3,555,151

  Coleraine

  34,623

  18,931

  2,526

  50·00

  47·04

  1,628,537

  3,992,904

  Cookstown

  20,551

  9,648

  1,360

  43·00

  27·88

  572,994

  1,358,516

  Craigavon

  51,716

  26,886

  4,092

  63·35

  47·77

  2,470,708

  5,182,400

  Derry

  58,310

  28,476

  3,061

  69·50

  50·36

  2,936,568

  6,260,355

  Down

  37,269

  18,480

  2,452

  60·00

  45·85

  1,708,762

  2·636,116

  Dungannon

  30,991

  14,660

  2,153

  44·00

  26·41

  818,430

  2,041,618

  Fermanagh

  37,868

  18,421

  2,391

  50·75

  30·23

  1,144,723

  2,505,848

  Larne

  21,295

  11,685

  1,203

  52·55

  39·04

  831,333

  1,843,049

  Limavady

  17,514

  8,433

  937

  40·95

  30·84

  540,046

  1,343,320

  Lisburn

  61,551

  32,404

  2,720

  49·75

  44·71

  2,751,956

  6,145,444

  Magherafelt

  24,378

  10,796

  1,504

  41·05

  26·00

  633,859

  1,388,224

  Moyle

  10,210

  5,323

  749

  65·75

  50·04

  510,938

  618,481

  Newry and Mourne

  54,709

  26,161

  3,616

  59·70

  38·65

  2,114,606

  3,722,467

  Newtownabbey

  52,718

  27,500

  2,035

  57·24

  47·17

  2,486,901

  5,436,749

  North Down

  50,089

  27,007

  1,998

  60·90

  64·70

  3,240,534

  3,730,825

  Omagh

  29,884

  13,806

  1,762

  51·65

  32·49

  970,832

  2,216,695

  Strabane

  24,023

  11,172

  1,361

  54·00

  31·76

  762,926

  1,331,844

  362
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he intends to take to ensure fair competition in the sale of new cars in Northern Ireland as between new cars imported into Northern Ireland from the Irish Republic and those which come into Northern Ireland via the manufacturers dealership.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 27 January 1988]: I am satisfied with existing arrangements where all new cars on first registration in Northern Ireland with the exception of personal imports, must demonstrate that they meet prescribed standards. Pricing policy is a matter for the vehicle manufacturers, importers and dealers. I shall reply to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table in the Official Report to show for 1987 (i) the number of (a) electors, (b) domestic ratepayers and (c) other ratepayers in each council district of Northern Ireland, (ii) the regional rate for Northern Ireland, (iii) the district rate for each council district in Northern Ireland, (iv) the sum needed per elector in each council district to raise a sum equal to the sums raised by the district rate from domestic hereditaments if such a district rate were replaced by a community charge, (v) the sums raised from domestic rates in each council district in Northern Ireland, in respect of the local rate, and (vi) the sums raised from non-domestic rates in each council district in Northern Ireland in respect of the regional rate.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 27 January 1988]: The regional rate for Northern Ireland for 1987–88 is 113.53p in the pound. The other information requested is as follows.

  Salmon and Grilse
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what number of salmon and grilse have been taken by(a) rod anglers, (b) draft nets (c) drift nets and (d) other nets in Northern Ireland in each of the last 20 years to the end of 1987.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 27 January 1988]: No information is available for catches by rod anglers. The information requested for catches by commercial nets is shown below. This information relates to Northern Ireland other than the Foyle area:

  Year

  Draft nets

  Drift nets

  Other nets

  1968

  4,510

  2,489

  14,322

  1969

  3,113

  5,258

  8,556

  1970

  3,780

  6,786

  7,884

  1971

  3,258

  6,923

  6,617

  1972

  9,475

  n/a

  n/a

  1973

  4,375

  2,321

  n/a

  1974

  9,104

  n/a

  n/a

  1975

  4,743

  n/a

  n/a

  1976

  7,603

  1,010

  3,992

  1977

  7,623

  1,176

  5,796

  1978

  11,684

  1,980

  7,088

  1979

  6,878

  990

  5,886

  1980

  4,493

  1,179

  9,642

  1981

  2,738

  992

  4,916

  1982

  5,913

  1,041

  8,075

  1983

  5,780

  1,231

  8,106

  1984

  3,416

  662

  9,740

  1985

  1,896

  1,010

  6,448

  1986

  1,759

  479

  9,650

  11987

  1 Not yet available.

  Cars (Pricing Policy)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has as to the pricing policy by the manufacturers of cars in respect of comparable models between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 27 January 1988]:None.

  Vehicle Imports
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what regulatory restrictions apply to the importation of(a) new cars and (b) new vans and other commercial type vehicles from the Irish Republic into Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 27 January 1988]: I shall reply to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Unit Labour Costs
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give United Kingdom relative unit labour costs in normalised currencies, based on the International Monetary Fund spending for 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987.

  Mr. Lilley
  International Monetary Fund measures of actual and normalised relative unit labour costs are published in Economic Trends, page 46.

  Data Transfer
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what will be the purpose and nature of data to be transferred to Customs and Excise from the Department of Health and Social Security, the Inland Revenue, and the Home Department; and how many data records it is envisaged will be annually transferred from each of these three Departments to Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, broken down by Department;

  (2) what will be the purpose and nature of data to be transferred to the Home Department from the Department of Health and Social Security, the Inland Revenue, and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise; and how many data records it is envisaged will be annually transferred from each of these three Departments to the Home Department, broken down by Department.

  (3) what will be the purpose and nature of data to be transferred to the Inland Revenue from the Department of Health and Social Security, the Home Department and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise; and how many data records it is envisaged will be annually transferred from each of these three Departments to the Inland Revenue, broken down by Department;

  (4) what will be the purpose and nature of data to be transferred to the Department of Health and Social Security from the Inland Revenue, the Home Department and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise; and how many data records it is envisaged will be annually transferred from each of these three Departments to the Department of Health and Social Security, broken down by Department;

  Mr. Brooke
  The information is not held centrally. The proposed Government data network is intended primarily for intra-departmental data traffic. Where interdepartmental exchanges or accesses are intended, use of GDN would not alter the requirement for the Department owning the data to authorise transfer.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will constitute the transfer of data in an authorised manner on the Government data network; and how many individual civil servants in the Department of Health and Social Security, the Inland Revenue, the Home Department and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise are likely to be able to carry out an authorised transfer of data.

  Mr. Brooke
  The majority of data transfers over the Government data network will occur within a Department, but whether a transfer is internal or interdepartmental, the data owner will still have to authorise it.

  The number of staff involved will vary according to the system or application concerned. Information will not be held centrally.

  Data Banks
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide a list of all existing or planned computer data banks holding personal information in the Department of Health and Social Security, the Inland Revenue, the Home Department and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, including the number of records, number of terminals and the nature of the information stored.
  365
  Mr. Brooke
  The nature of the information stored is set out in the appropriate departmental entries in the Data Protection Register, a copy of which is in the Library. I regret that the other information requested is not available centrally.

  Privatisation (Accountancy Fees)
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the aggregate of the fees paid to the largest eight accountancy firms in respect of all privatisation issues undertaken since 1979.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  For commercial reasons, it is not the practice to reveal the fees paid to particular advisers.

  Accountancy Firms (Tax Planning)
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide an estimate of the tax lost to the Revenue in 1987 as a direct consequence of tax planning by accountancy firms.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.

  Channel Islands
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated annual loss to the Exchequer in tax revenue resulting from the use of the Channel Islands as a tax haven for individuals and companies.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I regret that it is not possible to provide such an estimate.

  BP Shares
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the BP underwriting agreements with overseas institutions allows the BP shares taken up by such entities to be held by United Kingdom affiliates or branches such that any losses on these shares would be deductible in computing United Kingdom corporation tax or capital gains tax.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Overseas underwriters acquiring shares in BP in their own name were not constrained by the underwriting agreement in the holding of those shares.

  Underwriting Commissions
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide an estimate of the revenue lost to the Exchequer in 1986–87 and 1987–88 through the exemption of pension funds from tax on underwriting commissions.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The taxation affairs of pension funds are dealt with by local tax offices. The information requested is not centrally available and to obtain it would involve disproportionate cost.

  Third World Debt
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has about the total holdings of Third world debt by United Kingdom clearing banks.

  Mr. Lilley
  The clearing banks identify their exposure to a number of developed and developing countries in their 366
  published reports and accounts. The latest such information was published last July by the main United Kingdom clearing bank groups in their 1987 interim results.

  Income Tax Exemptions
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the change in Treasury income during the 1988–89 financial year resulting from confining all income tax exemptions to an upper limit of 20 per cent.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 19 January 1988]: The yield in a full year, at 1988–89 levels of income, from restricting all income tax reliefs to 20 per cent. of income after deduction of personal allowances would be about £2¼ billion. This estimate assumes that the 1987–88 income tax regime is indexed to 1988–89 according to the statutory formula and that there is no change in taxpayers' behaviour.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make an estimate of the change in Treasury income during the 1988–89 financial year resulting from setting income tax rates as follows: nil to £5,200 at 20 per cent., £5,201 to £9,500 at 25 per cent., £9,501 to £13,000 at 30 per cent., £13,001 to £18,000 at 35 per cent., £18,001 to £24,000 at 40 per cent., £24,001 to £30,000 at 50 per cent., £30,001 to £39,000 at 55 per cent., and £39,001 or more at 60 per cent.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 19 January 1988]: The direct revenue cost in a full year at 1988–89 levels of income of the proposed regime would be about £5·5 billion more than the cost of indexation of the current income tax regime, in accordance with the statutory formula. This estimate assumes that the regime would retain the indexed levels of personal allowances and that the wife's earnings election is made where it is beneficial. No other allowance is made for possible changes in taxpayers' behaviour.

  Personal Allowances
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make an estimate of the change in Treasury income during the 1988–89 financial year resulting from setting income tax allowances at the following rates: single person £2,600, married male nil, partners income £2,600, children £1,560, blind £600, widower £1,560, single person aged 60 to 74 years £3,130, married person aged 60 to 74 years £4,950, maximum allowance for people aged 60 to 74 years £10,500, single person aged 75 years £3,350, married person aged 75 plus years £5,230, and maximum allowance for people aged 75 plus years £10,500.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 19 January 1988]: The direct revenue cost in a full year at 1988–89 levels of income of the proposed regime would be just over £1 billion more than the cost of indexation of the current tax regime in accordance with the statutory formula. The estimates assume that the wife's earninings election is made where it is beneficial, but no other allowance is made for posssible changes in taxpayers' behaviour.

  Taxpayers (Statistics)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide a table showing the number of(a) taxpayers and (b) taxpayers with children, in each of the following taxable income brackets: nil to £5,000, £5,001 to £7,500, £7,501 to £10,000, £10,001 to £12,500, £12,501 to £15.000, £15,001 to £17,500, £17,501 to £20,000, £20,001 to £22,500, £22,501 to £25,000, £25,001 to £30,000 and£30,000 and

  (a) Tax units1 with income tax liability in 1987–88

  Gross Income

  Single People

  Married Couples

  2Self-employed

  1All tax units

  £ per year

  '000s

  '000s

  '000s

  '000s

  under 5,000

  3,000

  260

  230

  3,260

  5,000–7,500

  2,640

  1,300

  370

  3,950

  7,500–10,000

  1,840

  1,880

  390

  3,720

  10,000–12,500

  950

  2,060

  320

  3,010

  12,500–15,000

  410

  1,800

  220

  2,210

  15,000–17,500

  230

  1,270

  170

  1,500

  17,500–20,000

  130

  900

  110

  1,030

  20,000–22,500

  90

  500

  80

  590

  22,500–25,000

  40

  400

  60

  440

  25,000–30,000

  50

  430

  90

  480

  over 30,000

  90

  610

  240

  700

  Total

  9,460

  11,430

  2,280

  20,900

  (b) Tax units1 with children with income tax liability in 1987–88

  Gross Income

  Single People

  Married Couples

  2Self-employed

  1All tax units

  £ per year

  '000s

  '000s

  '000s

  '000s

  under 5,000

  60

  100

  30

  150

  5,000–7,500

  110

  510

  120

  630

  7,500–10,000

  110

  930

  160

  1,040

  10,000–12,500

  50

  1,120

  150

  1,170

  12,500–15,000

  30

  1,000

  100

  1,030

  15,000–17,500

  10

  620

  70

  630

  17,500–20,000

  10

  500

  50

  500

  20,000–22,500

  10

  280

  40

  290

  22,500–25,000

  3—

  210

  30

  210

  25,000–30,000

  3

  210

  40

  210

  over 30,000

  10

  310

  110

  320

  Total

  400

  5,780

  890

  6,180

  1 Single people and married couples.

  2 Tax units in which at least one individual is assessed for tax on self-employment income; self-employed tax units are included in the figures for single and married couples tax units as appropriate.

  3 Negligible.

  Mortgage Interest Tax Relief
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will(a) publish a table on restructuring mortgage interest tax relief to different rates of taxation for 1987–88, (b) report how many mortgagors receive relief at rates in excess of the basic rates of income tax and (c) report how many persons currently paying tax only at standard rate would pay tax at a higher rate if mortgage tax relief were removed from higher rates of tax; and what would be the additional income to the Exchequer, in the manner of his answer of 8 April 1986, Official Report, column 100.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 26 January 1988]: The direct revenue yields in a full year, at 1987–88 levels, from restricting mortgage interest relief are as
  368
  £30,000 and over; and if he will further break down the information for each taxable income bracket into the categories: married, single and self-employed.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 20 January 1988]:]: The table gives estimates of tax units (ie single people or married couples) who have some income tax liability in 1987–88. Figures are given (a) for all tax units and (b) for tax units with children for each specified range of gross income assessed for income tax purposes.

  follows. The estimates make no allowance for the effect of any consequential changes to the distribution of outstanding mortgages.

  Rate of mortgage interest relief

  Direct revenue yield

  per cent.

  £ million

  15

  2,240

  20

  1,440

  25

  650

  27

  330

  It is estimated that, in 1987–88, about 930,000 mortgagors will have received relief at rates in excess of the basic rate of income tax. Of these, about 190,000 who are currently liable only at basic rate are kept out of higher rates by virtue of their mortgage interest relief.

  Taxes
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing total taxes as a proportion of gross domestic product in each year since 1978–79.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 26 January 1988]: Following is the information:

  Total Taxes and National Insurance Contributions as a Percentage of Money GDP

  Percentage

  1978–79

  33·8

  1979–80

  35·1

  1980–81

  36·3

  1981–82

  39·4

  1982–83

  38·9

  1983–84

  38·5

  1984–85

  39·1

  1985–86

  38·5

  1986–87

  37·9

  Northern Ireland (Vehicle Imports)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the time lapse between the importation of a new vehicle into Northern Ireland from the Republic of Ireland and the payment of value added tax on such a vehicle; and whether he has any plans to reduce that period.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 27 January 1988]: Value added tax is payable at the time of importation or may be deferred, under guarantee arrangements, until the 15th day of the month following importation.

  There are no plans to reduce the period of payment by deferment.

  Undeclared Taxes
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what was the total value of undeclared taxes other than value added tax and income tax discovered and recouped by his Department in each year since 1979;

  (2) what was the total value of undeclared income tax discovered and recouped by his Department in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answers 20 January 1988]: Records are not kept of the amounts of individual taxes recouped as a result of investigations. However, the total amounts — including, where appropriate, interest and penalties — of income tax, corporation tax and capital gains tax are as follows:

  £ million

  Year to 31 October

  1979

  111·6

  1980

  137·9

  1981

  165·1

  1982

  265·6

  Year to 31 March

  1983

  304·8

  1984

  399·2

  1985

  594·4

  1986

  694·5

  1987

  741·3

  370
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what has been the percentage change in the value of under-declarations of taxes other than value added tax and income tax discovered per tax control officer since(a) 1979 and (b) 1984;

  (2) what has been the percentage change in the value of under-declarations of income tax discovered per income tax control officer since (a) 1979 and (b)

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answers 20 January 1988]: For the reasons given in my earlier replies to the hon. Member, it is not possible to give this information. However the percentage increases in the average amounts of income tax, corporation lax and capital gains tax—including interest and penalties — recovered by each Inland Revenue investigator were as follows:

  Per cent.

  1980 to 1987

  172

  1984 to 1987

  61

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what has been the average increase in the value of the under-declarations of taxes other than income tax and value added tax discovered per tax control officer in each year since 1979;

  (2) what has been the average increase in the value of under-declarations of income tax discovered per income tax control officer in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answers 20 January 1988]: For the reasons given in my earlier replies to the hon. Member, it is not possible to give this information. However, the estimated average increase in the amount of income tax, corporation tax and capital gains tax -including interest and penalties — recovered by each Inland Revenue investigator over each preceding year since 1979 is £20,451.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is his estimate of the ratio of current employment costs of the tax control officers to undeclared taxes, other than income tax and value added tax, discovered and recouped; and what are the figures for each year since 1979;

  (2) what is his estimate of the ratio of current employment costs of the income tax control officers to undeclared income tax discovered and recouped; and what are the figures for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answers 20 January 1988]: For the reasons given in my earlier replies to the hon. Member, it is not possible to give figures for individual taxes. Moreover cost-yield ratios for Inland Revenue investigators have only been produced for the years 1983–84 onwards, and figures for earlier years could not be produced except at disproportionate cost. Figures are kept separately for the Inland Revenue's main investigation sections and are as follows:

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Tax offices

  1:6

  1:6·8

  11:17

  11:13

  Inquiry branch

  1:12·5

  1:17·6

  1:17

  1:16

  Special offices

  1:17

  1:27

  1:25

  1:31

  PAYE audit

  1:4

  1:5·5

  1:5·7

  1:6

  1 An improved way of estimating the yield in Tax Districts from technical adjustments means that these figures are not wholly comparable with those for earlier years. There were also some exceptionally large settlements in 1985–86.

  371
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the increase in the value of under-declarations of income tax discovered per income tax control officer in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 20 January 1988]: For reasons given in my earlier replies to the hon. Member, it is not possible to give this information. However the increases in the estimated average amounts of income tax, corporation tax and capital gains tax—including interest and penalties — recovered by each Inland Revenue investigator over each preceding year are as follows:

  Average estimated yield per Investigator

  Estimated increase over previous year

  £

  £

  1980

  83,122

  —

  1981

  83,978

  856

  1982

  122,622

  38,644

  1983

  122,164

  (458)

  1984

  140,415

  18,251

  1985

  185,692

  45,277

  1986

  212,256

  26,564

  1987

  226,282

  14,026

  Tax Control Officers
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many tax control officers, other than those dealing with value added tax and income tax, are at present employed in the United Kingdom; and what are the corresponding figures for each year since 1979;

  (2) how many income tax control officers are at present employed in the United Kingdom and in Wales and England; and what are the corresponding figures for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answers 20 January 1988]: Inland Revenue investigation officers do not, in general, deal exclusively in particular taxes and it is not possible to give separate figures for those engaged on imcome tax compliance and those engaged on other taxes. Moreover, for many staff, work on avoidance and evasion is only a part of their duties. However, the total number of staff units employed throughout the UK in dealing with avoidance and evasion of income tax, corporation tax and capital gains tax for each of the years 1980–87 (the figure for 1979 is not available) were as follows:

  Number

  1980

  1,659

  1981

  1,966

  1982

  2,166

  1983

  2,495

  1984

  2,843

  1985

  3,201

  1986

  3,272

  1987

  3,276

ENVIRONMENT

  Community Alarm Systems
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to how many local authorities maintain community alarm services for residents in their own homes.
  372
  Mrs. Roe
  The Department does not hold this information.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what specific provision is made in (1) grant related expenditure assessments and (2) Government spending plans for local authority housing or personal services for the maintenance of community alarm services.

  Mrs. Roe
  It is for local authorities to decide what resources to devote to alarm systems. Grant related expenditure assessments and capital allocations take account of authorities' needs to spend on the elderly and disabled.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to make any assessment of the number of residents covered by community alarm schemes, or to offer any guidance to local authorities on their provision.

  Mrs. Roe
  We have no plans to seek information on the numbers covered by alarm systems. Guidance on their provision has been give to local authorities.

  Fuller Peiser (Fees)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his answers of 14 January,Official Report, column 358, and 19 January Official Report, column 603, he will give the fees earned by Fuller Peiser for (a) its commission for the Property Services Agency at Rosyth and Devonport dockyards and (b) its management of the sale of the assets of Aycliffe and Peterlee new town corporation; whether either of these commissions were gained as a result of competitive tendering; and what guidance has been given to the Property Services Agency on competitive tendering for property management, disposal, and consultancy.

  Mrs. Roe
  The commission at the Rosyth and Devonport Dockyards was let to Fuller Peiser in competition with several other firms of agents. The appointment of Fuller Peiser to market the industrial assets of Aycliffe and Peterlee was also subject to competition and my Department was involved in the development corporation's selection of agents. It is not the Department's practice to publish information about the fees paid. It is PSA's normal policy for all forms of agency and consultancy except for minor sales to invite competitive tenders from firms with the appropriate expertise for the task.

  Control of Pollution Act 1974
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to review the operation of section 27 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I see no reason to do so.

  Rating Reform
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate, on the basis of the 1987–88 budgets and consistent with figures published by his Department during 1987, the total fully-introduced community charge bills of households with one, two, three, four, five and six adults for each authority in Great Britain.
  373
  Mr. Ridley
  Yes. The answers are respectively one, two, three, four, five and six times the figures for illustrative community charges published on 29 June in respect of England, 3 July in respect of Wales and 10 July in respect of Scotland. For those on low incomes, assistance will be available through income support and community charge rebates.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate, on the basis of 1987–88 budgets, and consistent with figures published by his Department during 1987, the total fully-introduced community charge bills of households with one, two, three, four, five and six adults, where each of those adults is on maxim um benefit, for each authority in Great Britain.

  Mr. Ridley
  Yes. The answers are respectively 0·2, 0·4, 0·6, 0·8, one and 1·2 times the illustrated community charge figures published on 29 June in respect of England and 3 July in respect of Wales. For Scotland the answers are respectively one, two, three, four, five and six times the illustrative rebated community charge figures given to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) on 1 December at column 520, by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office.

  Local Authorities (Payment of Bills)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance he has given, or will give, to local authorities on the payment of bills from suppliers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The payment of bills from suppliers is a matter for local authorities and on which they have received advice from the Audit Commission.

  My right hon. Friend has not given guidance; nor has he plans to do so.

  County Halls
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of the current use of each of the county halls following the abolition of the metropolitan county councils.

  Mr. Chope
  All the county halls of the former metropolitan county councils are currently used for administrative purposes.

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is yet in a position to give an analysis of the financial and staff savings in respect of each of the abolished metropolitan councils.

  Mr. Chope
  The functions which successor authorities have inherited from the former metropolitan county councils have, in large measure, been amalgamated with their pre-abolition functions. The data which the Secretary of State receives from those authorities does not therefore separately identify expenditure incurred on their inherited functions.

  The residuary bodies established to wind up the affairs of the abolished county councils estimate that some £114·85 million of MCC closing revenue balances and some £47·3 million capital receipts arising from their own
  374
  disposals of surplus capital assets will be available for distribution to all rating authorities in the MCC areas by 31 March 1989.

  We announced in February last year that some 6,300 posts had been saved immediately on abolition. These savings are not available by individual MCCs. However, we estimate that long term savings to ratepayers of some £100 million per annum will result from staff savings following abolition. About half these savings will be as a direct result of the abolition of the MCCs.

  Wildlife Division
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the responsibilities of the wildlife division in his Department.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The functions and duties of the wildlife division are listed in the Department's management information system for Ministers. A copy of MINIS 8 is available in the Library of the House.

  Vicuna
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the Peruvian embassy in London in respect of vicuna stocks in the United Kingdom and Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  In 1987, the Peruvian embassy sought details of the amounts and destinations of trade in vicuna, and stock levels of vicuna available in the United Kingdom market. It was not possible to provide a fall answer because there is a discrepancy between United Kingdom and Japanese statistics. This is being fully investigated and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office advised the embassy accordingly. No representations have been received from the embassy about vicuna stocks in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of all vicuna products exported to Japan in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Full details are not yet available. I will write to the hon. Member.

  Rhinoceros Products
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to implement the resolution agreed at the CITES conference in Ottawa in July 1987 on the trade in rhinoceros products; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The United Kingdom is pursuing a detailed response to this resolution with our European Community partners.

  In the meantime, however, EC regulation 3626/82 which has implemented the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora within the European Community since 1 January 1984, already bans international trade in rhinoceros products for commercial purposes and their sale within the United Kingdom. Only limited exceptions may be made to this ban under the provisions of the regulations and, in deciding whether to permit an exception, the United Kingdom now takes the rhinoceros resolution into account.

  Cumbria (RSG)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the value in money terms of the domestic resource equalisation component in the rate support grant settlement to the county of Cumbria for each financial year since 1978–79.

  Mr. Chope
  The information is as follows:

  £ million

  1981–82

  11·2

  1982–83

  12·3

  1983–84

  14·0

  1984–85

  15·6

  1985–86

  17·6

  1986–87

  20·1

  1987–88

  21·0

  1988–89

  23·8

  Information is not available for years prior to the introduction of the present rate support grant arrangements in 1981–82.

  Rates (Summonses)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what figures he has on the numbers of the issue of summonses for the alleged non-payment of rates to households which have already paid their rates in London boroughs over the most recent period for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Rate collection statistics produced by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy show that in 1986–87, 962 summonses for non-payment of rates were issued by Greater London boroughs. Information is not collected on how many of these summonses were issued to ratepayers who had already paid their rates, but I have no reason to believe the numbers involved are significant.

  Derelict Land
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what resources are being made available under the derelict land programme in 1988–89; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  The resources available for derelict land reclamation under the derelict land grant programme will be about £76·2 million in 1988–89. In real terms, these resources are over 80 per cent. greater than those available in 1979–80 and will maintain the momentum of this programme which, since 1979, has funded the reclamation of nearly 11,000 hectares of derelict land. Additional resources for derelict land reclamation are provided through urban development corporations. As in previous years, more than 90 per cent. of derelict land grant will be spent in the areas of greatest need in the north and midlands.

  I am keen to encourage the growing participation of private firms in land reclamation and I have set aside an allocation of £7·66 million for this sector. But, outside UDC areas, local authorities will continue to play the major role in reclamation and the resources I have made available for these schemes total £68·27 million.
  376
  I have approved a new rolling programme for the reclamation of the extensive areas of dereliction in the Leeds-Liverpool canal corridor, while continuing existing rolling programmes outside UDC areas. Total expenditure on the 13 local authority rolling programmes approved for 1988–89 will be over £21 million.

  I have allocated a further £8·75 million to continue support for the reclamation of the former Consett and Corby steelworks (£3·75 million), and to investigative and remedial works on limestone workings in the black country (£5 million). The non-local authority allocation will allow further work to be carried out on major schemes such as the north Tees power station in Cleveland (£0·495 million) and the former Dunlop site at Speke, Merseyside (£0·4 million).

  My allocations include more than £8 million for the reclamation of coal-mining and related dereliction. This is larger even than year's record figure and shows the Government's continued support for good quality schemes in coalfield areas.

  Priorities for derelict land reclamation remain as set out in my Department's circular 28/85—"Reclamation and Re-use of Derelict Land". This stressed the importance of schemes designed to reclaim urban especially inner-city land for housing, and industrial and commercial end uses. These priorities will be reflected in the schemes which will be supported in 1988–89.

  County Hall, London
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to make an announcement on the future use of county hall.

  Mr. Chope
  I have nothing to add to my reply of 28 October 1987, at columns 275–76, to my hon. Friend for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway).

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale Health Authority
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the current planned levels of establishment for medical staff in the Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale health authority; and what are the current levels of staff in post.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that the information is not held centrally in the form requested. The hon. Member may wish to take his query up with the chairman of the Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale health authority.

  Lancashire Ambulance Service
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the overall percentage change between 1979 and 1987 in(a) the number of patient miles for (i) emergency and (ii) non-emergency and (b) the number of patient journeys on the same basis, in the Lancashire ambulance area.

  Mrs. Currie
  The available information is given in the table.
  377

  AMBULANCE SERVICES 1979–1986

  Lancashire Ambulance Authority

  1979

  1986

  1979–86 percentage change

  Number of patient·journeys (thousands)

  Emergency

  53·8

  56·1

  4·3

  Non-emergency

  601·6

  539·3

  -10·4

  1979

  11985–86

  1979–85/86 percentage change

  Number of patient miles (thousands)

  Emergency

  479·1

  594·9

  24·2

  Non-emergency

  3,316·1

  3,593·7

  8·4

  1 Figures supplied by York health authority.

  Nurses
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many district nurses there were in(a) the Burnley constituency and (b) the Pendle constituency in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Currie
  Information for constituencies is not available centrally. Staff in post figures for the Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale district health authority are shown in the table and have been obtained from the annual census of non-medical manpower.

  NHS District Nurses1 in post in Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale DHAM

  30 September

  whole-time equivalents2

  1982

  99

  1983

  101

  1984

  98

  1985

  95

  1986

  94

  Source: DHSS annual census of NHS non-medical manpower.

  Notes:

  1 Includes district nurses, district nurse practical work teachers, registered and enrolled nurses assisting district nurses, holders of dual posts (district nurse/midwife) and bank district nurses.

  2 Figures independently rounded to nearest whole-time equivalent.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give details for the last five years of average earnings of registered nurses showing what percentage is(a) basic weekly earnings and (b) additions to basic weekly earnings.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 16 December 1987]: Information for the years from 1983–84 to 1986–87 is set out in the table:

  Average gross weekly earnings

  Percentage basic pay

  Percentage addition

  £

  Per cent·

  Per cent·

  1983–84

  140·49

  85

  15

  1984–85

  149·59

  87

  13

  1985–86

  160·08

  88

  12

  1986–87

  183·34

  88

  12

  Information is not available for earlier years on a comparable basis.
  378
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the level of average earnings for registered nurses as a proportion of average earnings for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 16 December 1987]: Information for the years from 1983–84 to 1986–87 is set out in the table:

  Average earnings of registered nurses1

  Percentage of all average earnings2

  £pw

  1983–84

  140·49

  88

  1984–85

  149·59

  87

  1985–86

  160·08

  87

  1986–87

  182·34

  92

  Information for earlier years is not available on a comparable basis.

  Notes:

  1 Source: DHSS.

  2 Source: New Earnings Survey—All full-time adult employees.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many nurses left the employment of each of the district health authorities in each year from 1979 to 1987.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 26 January 1988]: I regret that the information requested is not collected centrally. Some information will, however, become available later this year as a result of the introduction of improvements in National Health Service information systems.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what percentage of nurses up to and including senior nurse 7, in each of the health regions had(a) at least one overtime payment and (b) more than 12 overtime payments, during the year 1986–87, and at what estimated cost in each case.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 26 January 1988]: I regret that information in the form requested is not held centrally.

  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the number of mentally handicapped people who have had their transfer facilitated from National Health Service hospitals to the community since 1978.
  379
  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that I am unable to give my hon. Friend the exact information requested. Information on numbers of mentally handicapped people settled in the community is not centrally collected.

  The table shows the number of people who have been discharged each year into the community after a stay of five years or more in hospital.

  Discharges1 from mental handicap hospitals and units in England after durations of stay of five years or more

  Year

  Discharges1

  1980

  657

  1981

  764

  1982

  764

  1983

  967

  1984

  1,375

  1985

  1,522

  1986

  1,951

  1 Excludes transfer to other NHS hospitals and special hospitals.

  Waiting Lists (North East Thames Region)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will provide a table of waiting lists in the North East Thames regional health authority area for each year since 1979.

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

  Patients on in-patient waiting in North East Thames region

  Month

  Year

  Total cases

  March

  1979

  57,180

  September

  1979

  53,146

  March

  1980

  52,205

  September

  1980

  49,032

  March

  1981

  47,950

  September

  1981

  48,515

  March

  1982

  48,447

  September

  1982

  58,207

  March

  1983

  60,381

  September

  1983

  58,911

  March

  1984

  63,497

  September

  1984

  63,563

  March

  1985

  66,705

  September

  1985

  66,406

  March

  1986

  71,934

  September

  1986

  74,926

  March

  1987

  76,019

  NHS (Special Duties Payments)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) whether he will make a statement on the decision by the National Health Service management to withdraw the proposal for flat rate payments for special duties;

  (2) what are the implications of the decision to withdraw the proposal for flat rate payment for special duties for the future of the current percentage payments to nursing staff;

  (3) what are his proposals for the future of special duty payments for nursing staff.

  Mr. Newton
  The management side of the Nursing and Midwifery Staffs Negotiating Council indicated that, since there was no realistic prospect of agreeing joint evidence on a new structure for special duty payments to put to the Nurses Pay Review Body for its current review, it felt the appropriate course was for the review body itself to be 380
  invited to consider the level of such payments as part of its work on nurses' pay issues as a whole. It will be for the review body to decide whether it wishes to make any recommendations.

  Benefits
  Miss Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how he intends to publicise the major benefit changes due to take place in April, including the replacement of supplementary benefit and family income supplement with income support and family credit; and whether such publicity will be made available in the major ethnic minority languages.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department is taking several measures to ensure that this April's social security reforms receive adequate publicity.

  A series of factsheets on the social security reforms have been produced and are available free of charge to members of the public from social security offices.

  Next month there will be an advertising campaign in the regional press on the new housing benefit scheme. Similar campaigns will follow in March to publicise the introduction of income support (national press), the new arrangements for widows (regional press), and the introduction of family credit (national press). The family credit campaign will also feature a TV commercial.

  Posters will publicise the changes in main post offices and social security offices, and copies of these will be sent to other agencies for display. Leaflets are being redesigned and rewritten in line with the Department's communications strategy of improving the quality of information on social security benefits. The leaflets will be available from the usual outlets.

  There are no plans at present to issue additional publicity in minority languages specifically on the reforms. However, there will be a new translation of the English-language leaflet FB 2 "Which benefit?", which will be published later this year in seven languages. This will provide a general overview of all social security benefits including the reformed ones.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services which categories of recipients of benefits will gain a special payment following the discovery of the error in the retail prices index; and how many claimants of each benefit will so qualify.

  Mr. Scott
  The benefits which qualify a recipient for a special payment in the first week of February and the numbers of recipients of each are shown in the table. A recipient may qualify under more than one benefit.

  Qualifying benefits for February special payment and number of recipients of each (thousands)

  Number

  Attendance Allowance

  635

  Industrial Death Benefit

  30

  Industrial Disablement Benefit

  200

  Invalid Care Allowance

  105

  Invalidity Benefit

  995

  Mobility Allowance

  495

  Retirement Pension

  9,725

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  265

  Supplementary Pension

  1,875

  War Pensions

  265

  Widows' Benefits

  380

  381
  In addition, the few thousand people who receive child's special allowance, guardian's allowance, or benefit under the pneumoconiosis and byssinosis and workmen's compensation schemes will receive special payments.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services which categories of recipients of benefits will not gain a special payment following the discovery of the error in the calculation of the retail prices index; and how many claimants are currently drawing these benefits.

  Mr. Scott
  Affected benefits for which no special payment will be made and the estimated number of recipients of each are shown in the table. Beneficiaries may be receiving more than one of these benefits or they may be receiving them in addition to a benefit which qualifies for the special payment.

  Benefits affected by the error in the retail price index for which no special payment will be made and the estimated number of recipients of each (thousands).

  Number

  Family Income Supplement

  210

  Housing Benefit

  7,000

  Maternity Allowance

  40

  Sickness Benefit

  90

  Supplementary Allowance

  3,285

  Unemployment Benefit

  845

  Thames Health Regions
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the total expenditure on laundry, cleaning and catering services for each of the four Thames health regions in each of the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Currie
  Following in the information requested:

  Region

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  £000

  £000

  £000

  North West Thames

  Laundry

  4,638

  4,604

  4,465

  Domestic/Cleaning

  35,573

  35,557

  30,001

  Catering

  26,958

  26,852

  27,925

  North East Thames

  Laundry

  5,649

  5,709

  5,727

  Domestic/Cleaning

  45,158

  42,612

  41,337

  Catering

  30,991

  30,427

  30,464

  South East Thames

  Laundry

  5,737

  5,571

  5,612

  Domestic/Cleaning

  37,084

  35,087

  33,641

  Catering

  28,858

  29,048

  29,146

  South West Thames

  Laundry

  4,697

  4,361

  4,611

  Domestic/Cleaning

  28,453

  26,404

  24,004

  Catering

  24,256

  24,426

  24,890

  Source: Annual financial accounts of regional and district health authorities comprising the four Thames regions.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the annual per capita expenditure in terms of persons resident within the region for each of the four Thames health regions in each of the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Currie
  Following is the information requested:382

  Hospital and Community Health Services

  Total per capita expenditure

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Region

  £

  £

  £

  North West Thames

  218

  228

  242

  North East Thames

  254

  261

  280

  South East Thames

  229

  240

  258

  South West Thames

  213

  223

  238

  Sources:

  (a) Annual accounts of regional and district health authorities comprising the four Thames regions.

  (b) Mid-year estimates of population 1984, 1985 and 1986 (Office of Population Censuses and Surveys).

  Notes:

  1. Expenditure on family practitioner services is excluded: such expenditure is accounted for by family practitioner committees (FPCs) and cannot strictly be attributed to particular regions. However, prior to 1 April 1985 many of the health districts within each region had an associated FPC and those districts' total expenditure for 1984–85 included small, not separately identifiable elements relating to FPC administrative expenses.

  2. The population figures used make no allowance for people resident in one region who receive treatment in another or for differences in morbidity and age/sex structure of particular populations.

  Rental Purchase Schemes
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his Department's policy on meeting the full cost of weekly payments for the purchase of housing under rental purchase schemes, including capital, assuming all other factors within the housing benefit scheme justify that level of payment.

  Mr. Portillo
  Payments under rental purchase schemes, including payments of capital, have been eligible for help through housing benefit since the introduction of the scheme in 1982. It is for local authorities to decide on the level of weekly rent (including payments under a rental purchase agreement) which should be taken into account in calculating entitlement to housing benefit but we expect local authorities to use their powers under the housing benefit regulations to restrict benefit if the level of the payment is unreasonable in a particular case. We understand that some local authorities have exercised these powers to restrict benefit to rental purchasers.

  The arrangements for helping rental purchasers with their housing costs differ from the arrangements for other people buying their home. Housing benefit is not available for owner-occupiers' mortgage payments. For people who are buying their home with a mortgage and who are not in full-time employment help with mortgage interest payments is available through supplementary benefit but capital repayments are not eligible for assistance. These arrangements will be carried forward in the income support scheme to be introduced in April 1988. In the light of concern about the level of some rental purchase payments and the need to ensure that help given to rental purchasers is fair in comparison with the assistance given to other people buying their homes we are currently reviewing the arrangements for providing help with rental purchase payments.

  Mersey RHA
  Mr. Butler
  to ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the percentage change in the number of day cases in the Mersey regional health authority between 1978 and the latest available year.

  Mrs. Currie
  Between 1978 and 1986 the number of day cases treated in Mersey region increased by 89.3 per cent., from 41,787 to 79,098.

  Hospital Beds
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the recommended level of medical beds in the North Staffordshire district hospital authority hospital complex; and what the actual number was on 8 January.

  Mrs. Currie
  Decisions on the level of provision of medical beds, as for all specialties, are a matter for regional and district health authorities. For further information the

  NHS hospitals in England

  Year

  Average daily number of available beds

  Percentage change on previous year

  Discharges and deaths

  Percentage change on previous year

  Throughput1

  1979

  361,670

  -2·0

  5,400,120

  0·6

  14·9

  1980

  355,978

  -1·6

  5,670,001

  5·0

  15·9

  1981

  351,669

  -12

  5,759,877

  1·6

  16·4

  1982

  348,104

  -1·0

  5,719,634

  -0·7

  16·4

  1983

  343,091

  -1·4

  6,018,585

  5·2

  17·5

  1984

  334,513

  -2·5

  6,177,545

  2·6

  18·5

  1985

  325,487

  -2·7

  6,353,812

  2·9

  19·5

  1986

  315,714

  -3·0

  6,413,789

  0·9

  20·3

  1 Number of cases per available bed.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the number of National Health Service beds occupied and unoccupied by category in the Central Nottinghamshire health authority area for the years 1979 to 1987 inclusive.

  Number of National Health Service beds available and occupied by specialty in the Central Nottingham health authority1 for the years 1979 to 1982 (latest available)

  Specialty

  Average daily number of available beds

  Average daily bed occupation

  Average daily number of available beds

  Average daily bed occupation

  Average daily number of available beds

  Average daily bed occupation

  Average daily number of available beds

  Average daily bed occupation

  1979

  1979

  1980

  1980

  1981

  1981

  1982

  1982

  General medicine

  128·4

  90·7

  124·3

  86·1

  125·0

  84·6

  121·1

  85·9

  Paediatrics

  19·4

  12·5

  20·2

  13·8

  20·9

  14·3

  19·9

  12·4

  Thoracic medicine

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5·1

  1·4

  Dermatology

  16·8

  6·8

  17·0

  54

  16·0

  6·3

  15·9

  5·9

  Rehabilitation

  50·8

  32·3

  49·9

  31·7

  48·7

  29·9

  45·3

  19·8

  Rheumatology

  11·3

  10·3

  12·0

  10·1

  12·0

  9·2

  12·0

  9·0

  Geriatrics

  399·0

  340·9

  395·7

  338·6

  395·5

  345·1

  397·3

  336·0

  Younger disabled

  20·0

  16·6

  20·0

  16·5

  20·0

  17·0

  20·0

  16·0

  General surgery

  160·3

  117·9

  154·5

  115·0

  155·5

  106·5

  151·0

  101·6

  ENT

  26·2

  13·3

  26·1

  13·3

  25·6

  12·2

  26·2

  9·2

  Trauma and orthopaedic

  216·0

  148·6

  218·1

  142·1

  217·2

  156·2

  216·9

  139·6

  Ophthalmology

  19·7

  9·1

  19·9

  9·2

  20·0

  10·4

  20·0

  6·8

  Urology

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Oral surgery

  2·2

  0·6

  2·2

  0·6

  2·3

  0·7

  2·2

  0·4

  Gynaecology

  46·2

  31·5

  45·3

  32·8

  45·6

  32·2

  45·4

  25·2

  Obstetrics

  83·0

  51·7

  79·0

  53·5

  71·1

  51·5

  76·6

  49·3

  S.C.B.U.

  28·0

  14·3

  28·0

  14·0

  28·0

  12·3

  28·0

  12·2

  Mental handicap

  539·0

  470·9

  538·2

  464·0

  532·0

  448·2

  527·9

  422·8

  384
  hon. Member may therefore care to write to the chairman of North Staffordshire district health authority. The latest information held centrally on the average daily available beds in North Staffordshire health authority is given in the table.

  Average daily available beds in NHS hospitals, 1986, North Staffordshire district health authority

  Average daily available beds

  Medical

  442·7

  Total

  3,296·1

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will set out in the Official Report in tabular form the number of beds in use in the National Health Service since 1979; and if he will indicate the percentage increase or decrease each year.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is given in the table, together with in-patients treated over the period.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 15 January 1988]: The information requested is given in the table.
  385

  Specialty

  Average daily number of available beds

  Average daily bed occupation

  Average daily number of available beds

  Average daily bed occupation

  Average daily number of available beds

  Average daily bed occupation

  Average daily number of available beds

  Average daily bed occupation

  1979

  1979

  1980

  1980

  1981

  1981

  1982

  1982

  Mental illness

  84·9

  74·9

  85·0

  76·7

  85·0

  77·5

  85·0

  77·0

  G.P.Maternity

  42·0

  15·2

  29·6

  11·7

  26·3

  10·7

  20·4

  10·4

  Pre-convalescent

  62·5

  43·7

  62·0

  40·1

  25·0

  18·0

  57·9

  33·9

  Convalescent

  29·2

  16·6

  29·0

  18·5

  66·3

  37·7

  28·9

  19·3

  Staff Wards

  4·0

  —

  4·0

  —

  4·0

  —

  4·0

  —

  Unclassified

  2·3

  —

  0·9

  —

  1·1

  —

  1·3

  —

  I.C.U.

  6·0

  —

  5·9

  —

  6·0

  —

  6·0

  —

  TOTAL

  1,997·2

  1,518·4

  1,966·8

  1,493·7

  1,949·1

  1,480·5

  1,934·3

  1,394·1

  1Prior to National Health Service re-structuring in 1982 was Mansfield and Newark health district.

  Number of NHS beds available and occupied by specially in the Central Nottingham HA1 for the years 1979 to 1986 (latest available)

  Specialty

  Average daily no. of available beds 1983

  Average daily bed occupation 1983

  Average daily no. of available beds 1984

  Average daily bed occupation 1984

  Average daily no. of available beds 1985

  Average daily bed occupation 1985

  Average daily no. of available beds 1986

  Average daily bed occupation 1986

  General medicine

  121·4

  87·8

  125·6

  94·6

  124·3

  93·0

  125·8

  94·0

  Paediatrics

  19·5

  12·9

  28·4

  13·7

  26·8

  14·2

  24·0

  14·4

  Thoracic medicine

  5·1

  0·8

  5·1

  1·2

  5·0

  1·0

  4·8

  1·0

  Dermatology

  15·6

  7·9

  9·9

  6·5

  8·0

  5·6

  7·8

  5·3

  Rehabilitation

  56·0

  17·1

  46·5

  19·4

  45·5

  12·8

  36·3

  5·5

  Rheumatology

  12·0

  8·6

  12·0

  9·3

  13·0

  11·3

  12·4

  9·3

  Geriatrics

  399·1

  338·6

  384·1

  334·6

  383·9

  328·4

  382·6

  329·2

  Younger disabled

  20·0

  17·2

  20·0

  16·8

  20·0

  16·0

  20·0

  14·1

  General surgery

  154·7

  109·4

  154·6

  107·7

  145·0

  101·0

  137·6

  86·9

  ENT

  29·5

  14·0

  27·5

  15·7

  26·8

  16·6

  26·5

  15·9

  Trau and orth

  214·9

  148·9

  215·1

  139·4

  213·9

  140·5

  220·1

  144·5

  Ophthalmology

  19·9

  11·2

  19·9

  9·2

  18·8

  9·0

  18·3

  9·7

  Urology

  0·6

  0·6

  0·9

  0·9

  8·9

  6·2

  16·8

  11·3

  Oral surgery

  2·3

  0·6

  2·0

  0·5

  2·0

  0·5

  2·1

  0·5

  Gynaecology

  44·5

  31·1

  43·3

  30·3

  43·5

  30·2

  43·4

  29·1

  Obstetrics

  76·6

  43·1

  77·4

  40·3

  75·6

  43·2

  75·4

  42·3

  S.C.B.U.

  28·0

  8·3

  28·0

  9·2

  28·0

  9·3

  28·0

  10·2

  Mental handicap

  486·0

  414·9

  477·0

  396·0

  427·9

  378·2

  361·6

  311·2

  Mental illness

  85·0

  78·1

  100·8

  87·8

  104·0

  95·3

  104·0

  94·4

  G P.Maternity

  18·5

  10·9

  17·4

  9·6

  18·3

  10·1

  18·1

  10·1

  Pre-convalescent

  39·8

  27·8

  19·0

  12·3

  20·0

  11·3

  18·1

  6·4

  Convalescent

  28·8

  18·7

  29·7

  14·1

  28·9

  13·1

  28·5

  13·8

  Staff Wards

  4·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Unclassified

  0·4

  —

  0·3

  —

  0·3

  —

  0·2

  —

  I.C.U.

  6·0

  2·5

  6·0

  2·3

  5·9

  2·6

  6·0

  2·3

  Total

  1,888·2

  1,411·0

  1,850·5

  1,371·4

  1,794·3

  1,349·4

  1,718·4

  1,261·4

  1 Prior to NHS re-structuring in 1982 was Mansfield and Newark HD.

  Social Security Appeals
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average time being taken for the hearing of appeals by social security appeal tribunals(a) nationally and (b) in Preston.

  Mr. Portillo
  The national administrative statistics for social security appeal tribunals, which are the source for average durations between the lodging of appeals and hearing, are not disaggregated for areas smaller than a social security region.

  In Great Britain for the quarter ending 31 March 1987 (the latest available figures), the average time taken between lodgement and hearing of an appeal was 18·2 weeks. In north western region for the same period, the average time taken between lodgement and hearing was 16·5 weeks.

  Hospital Travel Costs (Cornwall)
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give details of increased claims for his Department's assistance on travel to hospital in Cornwall since the Cornwall hospital car service was abolished at the end of November 1987.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that this information is not held centrally.

  Schoolchildren (Diet)
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has concerning the school campaign for reaction against meat; if the advice given to schoolchildren not to eat meat has been considered by his Department in relation to any advice he may give concerning the diet of schoolchildren; and if he will make a statement.
  387
  Mrs. Currie
  I understand that this is a Vegetarian Society campaign aimed at schoolchildren, but I am awaiting details from the society. The Department's medical advisers make no specific recommendation that schoolchildren should or should not eat meat. However, they advise that meat is an important source of many nutrients and that people who choose not to eat meat should take particular care that their diet compensates for any resultant imbalance.

  Infant Mortality
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the underlying causes of cot deaths in England and Wales in 1985 and 1986 where sudden infant death is not the underlying cause of death.

  Mrs. Currie
  The table shows the underlying cause of death (excluding sudden infant death syndrome) for deaths under one year of age where cot death or a similar term was mentioned on the death certificate for England and Wales for 1985 and 1986.

  Number of deaths under one year of age with any mention of cot death or similar term by underlying cause (excluding sudden infant death syndrome) England and Wales 1985–86

  ICD number

  Underlying cause of death

  Number of deaths

  1985

  007.1

  Giardiasis

  1

  008.6

  Enteritis due to specified virus

  1

  009.1

  Colitis, enteritis and gastroenteritis of presumed infectious origin

  2

  054.9

  Herpes simplex without mention of complication

  1

  055.9

  Measles without mention of complication

  1

  079

  Viral infection in conditions classified elsewhere and of unspecified site

  079.0

  Adenovirus

  1

  079.8

  Other

  1

  254.8

  Other disease of thymus gland

  2

  270.1

  Phenylketonuria

  1

  276.0

  Hyperosmolality and/or hypernatraemia

  1

  277.0

  Cystic fibrosis

  1

  331.8

  Other cerebral degeneration

  1

  343.9

  Infantile cerebral palsy, unspecified

  1

  348.1

  Anoxic brain damage

  1

  382.9

  Unspecified otitis media

  2

  427.5

  Cardiac arrest

  1

  428.0

  Congestive heart failure

  1

  428.9

  Heart failure, unspecified

  1

  429.0

  Myocarditis, unspecified

  1

  437.1

  Other generalized ischaemic cerebrovascular disease

  1

  464.0

  Acute laryngitis

  1

  464.2

  Acute laryngotracheitis

  1

  465.9

  Acute upper respiratory infection of unspecified site

  14

  466.0

  Acute bronchitis

  15

  466.1

  Acute bronchiolitis

  4

  472.0

  Chronic rhinitis

  1

  478.7

  Other diseases of larynx, not elsewhere classified

  1

  480.9

  Viral pneumonia, unspecified

  5

  481

  Pneumococcal pneumonia

  1

  482.3

  Pneumonia due to Streptococcus

  1

  485

  Bronchopneumonia, organism unspecified

  7

  486

  Pneumonia, organism unspecified

  5

  490

  Bronchitis, not specified as acute or chronic

  2

  491.1

  Mucopurulent chronic bronchitis

  1

  493.9

  Asthma, unspecified

  1

  514

  Pulmonary congestion and hypostasis

  4

  516.8

  Other alveolar and parietoalveolar pneumopathy, other

  3

  388

  ICD number

  Underlying cause of death

  Number of deaths

  518.4

  Acute oedema of lung, unspecified

  1

  519.8

  Other diseases of respiratory system, not elsewhere classified

  10

  742.1

  Microcephalus

  2

  742.4

  Other specified anomalies of brain

  1

  745.4

  Ventricular septal defect

  3

  745.6

  Endocardial cushion defects

  1

  746.3

  Congenital stenosis of aortic valve

  1

  746.9

  Unspecified anomalies of heart

  1

  747.0

  Patent ductus arteriosus

  1

  749.0

  Cleft palate

  1

  753.2

  Obstructive defects of renal pelvis and ureter

  1

  761.5

  Multiple pregnancy

  3

  762.3

  Placental transfusion syndromes

  1

  765

  Disorders relating to short gestation and unspecified low birthweight

  765.0

  Extreme immaturity

  1

  765.1

  Other preterm infants

  1

  770.8

  Other respiratory problems after birth

  3

  771.1

  Congenital cytomegalvirus infection

  1

  771.8

  Other infection specific to the perinatal period

  1

  799.1

  Respiratory failure

  6

  E911

  Inhalation and ingestion of food causing obstruction of respiratory tract or suffocation

  10

  1986

  009.1

  Colitis, enteritis and gastroenteritis of presumed infectious origin

  2

  038.0

  Streptococcal septicaemia

  1

  041

  Bacterial infection in conditions classified elsewhere and of unspecified site

  041.0

  Streptococcus

  1

  041.5

  Haemophilus influenzae

  1

  049.0

  Lymphocytic choriomeningitis

  1

  136.9

  Unspecified infectious and parasitic diseases

  1

  276.5

  Volume depletion

  2

  286.6

  Defibrination syndrome

  1

  320.0

  Haemophilus meningitis

  1

  345.9

  Unspecified epilepsy

  1

  348.1

  Anoxic brain damage

  1

  348.5

  Cerebral oedema

  3

  382.9

  Unspecified otitis media

  8

  416.0

  Primary pulmonary hypertension

  1

  428.1

  Left heart failure

  1

  429.3

  Cardiomegaly

  1

  464.1

  Acute tracheitis

  1

  464.3

  Acute epiglottitis

  1

  465.9

  Acute upper respiratory infection of unspecified site

  17

  466.0

  Acute bronchitis

  9

  466.1

  Acute bronchiolitis

  7

  478.2

  Other diseases of pharynx, not elsewhere classified

  1

  480.9

  Viral pneumonia, unspecified

  4

  481

  Pneumococcal pneumonia

  1

  482.3

  Pneumonia due to Streptococcus

  2

  482.4

  Pneumonia due to Staphylococcus

  2

  485

  Bronchopneumonia, organism unspecified

  1

  486

  Pneumonia, organism unspecified

  11

  490

  Bronchitis, not specified as acute or chronic

  1

  514

  Pulmonary congestion and hypostasis

  3

  516.8

  Other alveolar and parietoalveolar pneumopathy, other

  3

  519.8

  Other diseases of respiratory system, not elsewhere classified

  7

  572.8

  Other sequelae of chronic liver disease

  1

  742.1

  Microcephalus

  2

  742.9

  Unspecified anomalies of brain, spinal cord and nervous system

  1

  745.5

  Ostium secundum type atrial septal defect

  2

  747.3

  Anomalies of pulmonary artery

  1

  747.5

  Absence of hypoplasia of umbilical artery

  1

  389

  ICD number

  Underlying cause of death

  Number of deaths

  748.4

  Congenital cystic lung

  1

  749.0

  Cleft palate

  1

  758.0

  Down's syndrome

  1

  765

  Disorders relating to short gestation and unspecified low birthweight

  765.1

  Other preterm infants

  3

  767.0

  Subdural and cerebral haemorrhage

  2

  799.1

  Respiratory failure

  4

  799.9

  Other ill-defined and unknown causes of morbidity and mortality

  1

  E911

  Inhalation and ingestion of food causing obstruction of respiratory tract or suffocation

  9

  E967.9

  Child battering and other maltreatment by unspecified person

  1

  1 Excludes deaths under 28 days of age.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many housing benefit claimants have had their benefit reduced by non-dependant deductions over the past year; and what this represents as a percentage of the total of housing benefit claimants;

  (2) if he will estimate the total number of non-dependants in respect of whom reductions of housing benefit are currently being made.

  Mr. Portillo
  Figures are not available either for the total number of housing benefit claimants or for the number affected by the non-dependant deduction provisions. The available information shows that, as at autumn 1986, 710,000 housing benefit recipients had a non-dependant deduction made in respect of one or more non-dependants. This represents 10 per cent. of the total number of housing benefit recipients.

  Information on the number of non-dependants in respect of whom reductions of housing benefit are being made is not available in full. In 1986 the total number of non-dependants for whom reductions were made in certificated housing benefit cases was 370,000, but I regret that no information is available in this form for standard housing benefit.

  Income Support Scheme
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many claimants, and what percentage of total claimants, will be eligible for transitional payments under the income support scheme at the Huyton and St. Helens offices of his Department.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Operations (Costs)
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the latest estimate available to him of the cost of the following operations in(a) National Health Service hospitals and (b) private hospitals in England for (i) hysterectomy, (ii) tonsillectomy, (iii) hernia, (iv) hip replacement, (v) heart by-pass and (vi)
  390
  Mrs. Currie
  A study carried out by the Department in 1982 found that the average costs of a hysterectomy and herniotomy in a sample of NHS and private hospitals were approximately as follows (in current prices):

  NHS hospitals

  Private hospitals

  £

  £

  Hysterectomy

  1,200

  1,800

  Herniotomy

  650

  890

  The estimates we have for the other operations listed apply to NHS hospitals only and are as follows (in current prices):

  Cost per case

  £

  Hip replacement

  3,300

  based on estimate made in 1984

  Heart by pass

  3,300

  study by Trent Region 1987

  All these figures should be treated as broad approximations only. Clinical practices may have changed since the estimates were made. In particular, cost per case treated has been falling over recent years due to a steady fall in the average length of in-patients stay.

  National Health Service Management Board
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services on what dates during the last 12 months the National Health Service Management Board met; and on each occasion what were the principal items discussed.

  Mr. Newton
  Over the last 12 months the NHS Management Board has met on 16 occasions. Details of the board's agenda and deliberations are not made public.

  Dental and Ophthalmic Services
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what percentage of the total cost of general dental service treatment was derived from patient charges in each of the years 1978 to 1986 inclusive;

  (2) what percentage of the total cost of National Health Service ophthalmic services was derived from patient charges in each of the years 1978 to 1986 inclusive.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is available only in relation to financial years and is set out in the table.

  Percentage of total cost of services met by patients charges, England1

  Year

  General Dental services

  General Optical services

  1978–79

  20

  34

  1979–80

  21

  31

  1980–81

  22

  28

  1981–82

  24

  26

  1982–83

  26

  219

  1983–84

  27

  27

  1984–85

  27

  25

  1985–86

  30

  38

  1986–87

  30

  —

  Notes

  1 Figures rounded to nearest whole number.

  2 Charges fell as percentage of cost on account of arrears payments of fees to opticians.

  3 The supply of NHS spectacles was discontinued from this year for those who paid charges.

  391
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will increase the payment scale of National Health Service dentures to ensure that elderly people can be provided with well-fitting, good quality dentures.

  Mrs. Currie
  Under their NHS terms of service general dental practitioners must supply dentures which fit properly and which are made of first-class quality materials, fit for their purpose. The fees payable are reviewed regularly to ensure that dentists are remunerated sufficiently to meet these requirements for patients of any age.

  Number of notifications of acute and meningococcal meningitis England and Wales, Standard regions, 1984 to 1987

  Area

  1984

  1985

  1986

  11987

  A

  M

  A

  M

  A

  M

  A

  M

  ENGLAND AND WALES

  1,230

  401

  1,531

  549

  2,172

  870

  2,567

  1,090

  North

  44

  17

  56

  20

  127

  59

  153

  73

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  208

  32

  242

  52

  368

  117

  376

  125

  East Midlands

  70

  25

  88

  37

  129

  53

  132

  64

  East Anglia

  38

  16

  61

  20

  49

  15

  58

  19

  South East

  379

  135

  453

  191

  576

  225

  846

  332

  South West

  92

  29

  137

  44

  169

  82

  191

  84

  West Midlands

  98

  37

  125

  49

  237

  93

  280

  105

  North West

  223

  76

  285

  97

  370

  159

  390

  215

  Wales

  78

  34

  84

  39

  147

  67

  139

  73

  1 Provisional.

  A = Acute meningitis (all forms).

  M = Meningococcal Meningitis.

  NHS (Patient Charges)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the percentage of the total cost of the National Health Service derived from patient charges in each of the years 1978 to 1986 inclusive.

  Mrs. Currie
  I refer the hon. Member to table 11.1 (National Health Service Sources of Finance) in "Public Expenditure on the Social Services", Social Services Committee 1986–87 (HC 413).

  Laxoberal
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the cost to the National Health Service of Laxoberal and its generic substitute separately in a full year.

  Mr. Newton
  The generic name for Laxoberal is sodium picosulphate elixir. Under the selected list scheme general practitioners are required to use this generic name on National Health Service prescriptions. In England in 1986, the latest year for which information is available, the net ingredient cost of prescriptions for sodium picosulphate elixir dispensed by retail pharmacists was some £55,000.

  Information about hospital prescribing of this drug is not available.

  Junior Hospital Doctors
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what regulations govern the maximum permitted working hours for junior hospital doctors; and if he has any plans to change these.

  Mr. Newton
  The terms and conditions of service of hospital medical and dental staff have been approved by

  Meningitis
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many cases of meningitis were declared in each region during the years 1984 to 1987 inclusive.

  Mrs. Currie
  Meningitis may be caused by a number of different organisms. The hon. Member may be particularly interested in meningococcal meningitis: the table shows notifications of cases for this and for all forms of acute meningitis.

  the Secretary of State under the National Health Service (Remuneration and Conditions of Service) Regulations 1974. These prohibit regular rota commitments which require a junior doctor to be on duty on average for more than one night and one weekend in two. Health authorities have been asked to avoid, wherever possible, regular rota commitments more onerous than one in three. Officials are currently discussing with the profession's representatives the scope for further progress towards this objective.

  Artificial Limbs
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if, pursuant to his answer of 21 January,Official Report, columns 847–8, he will describe how the Disablement Services Authority is strengthening controls on the quality of artificial limbs and their fitting; and if he will ensure that people attending at all limb fitting centres are told that complaints are welcome and that they will be pursued; and if he will give the number of complaints so far received by the authority.

  Mr. Scott
  These are matters for the Disablement Services Authority, to whom the right hon. Member should address his questions.

  Waiting Lists (Yorkshire)
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will provide a table of waiting lists in the Yorkshire regional health authority area for each year since 1979.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 19 January 1988]: The requested information is given in the table.
  393

  Patients on in-patient waiting in Yorkshire region

  Month and year

  Total cases

  March 1979

  53,540

  September 1979

  47,223

  March 1980

  42,490

  September 1980

  40,982

  March 1981

  41,101

  September 1981

  37,701

  March 1982

  37,764

  September 1982

  53,033

  March 1983

  53,236

  September 1983

  49,363

  March 1984

  48,387

  September 1984

  47,026

  March 1985

  47,211

  September 1985

  45,763

  March 1986

  45,440

  September 1986

  46,597

  March 1987

  47,643

  NHS Funding
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what increase in National Health Service funding would be necessary in the coming year to cover agreed pay rises and to allow over costs to rise by the national rate of inflation; and what additional amount would be needed to cover pay rises from the current year which were not fully funded.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 26 January 1988]: Health authorities plan on the assumption that pay and price increases must be met from within the total resources available to them. It is too early to predict the level of pay inflation in 1988–89. The Government will, however, continue to assess carefully the cost of NHS pay awards and their implications for health authorities.

  Pay awards in 1987–88 will add an estimated £620 million to health authority expenditure. Authorities have met these costs from allocations which have increased nationally by almost £980 million and from cash releasing cost improvements which this year are expected to yield £150 million.

  AIDS
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will seek powers to give directions to holiday tour operations to include within tour brochures advice in relation to protection against AIDS, including that relating to obtaining medical treatment involving the use of blood, blood products and hypodermic syringes.
  394
  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 26 January 1988]: The Department's health advice to those travelling overseas is at present being revised and will be issued in two new leaflets: "The Traveller's Guide to Health Before You Go" (SA40) and "The Traveller's Guide to Health — While You Are Away" (SA41). These leaflets include advice on taking precautions against AIDS and refer to the risk associated with medical treatment requiring surgery, injections or blood transfusions. We are receiving excellent co-operation from travel agents' representatives in the distribution of these leaflets to their member agencies and we see no need for further powers.

  NHS (Pay and Conditions)
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list all the agreements relating to pay and conditions in force in the National Health Service in(a) 1979 and (b) 1988, and if he will place copies, as well as a summary of each agreement's main terms and conditions, in the Library.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 26 January 1988]: I am arranging to place in the Library as much information as possible about current agreements on pay and terms and conditions of service of National Health Service staff, I regret that comparable information in respect of 1979 cannot be provided without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Accident and Emergency Services (Greenwich)
  Mrs. Rosie Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to ensure that there are sufficient beds and medical staff to enable accident and emergency cover at both Greenwich district hospital and the Brook hospital to be open 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 27 January 1988]: The services in question are the responsibility of Greenwich health authority. The authority has taken positive steps to ensure that accident and emergency cover at both the Brook and Greenwich district hospitals is provided round the clock. To that end it has, for example, stepped up specialist nurse recruitment. The health authority is confident that the two departments will be able to cope with all but major emergencies. In the event of a major emergency, contingency plans have been made for other local hospitals, for example, Lewisham and Bexley to provide the necessary cover.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Guildford.

British Airways: EC Fares Policy
Baroness Burton of Coventry: 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 present position of the discussions taking place between the European Commission and British Airways concerning Article 86 of the Treaty of Rome; and whether they will indicate their attitude in this matter, as put forward during discussions with European Community Transport Ministers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I understand that discussions between officials of the European Commission and British Airways are continuing. This is a matter between the Commission and the airline, and it would not be helpful for me to comment while discussions are in progress. Neither I nor my right honourable friend have discussed this matter with European Transport Ministers.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, does the Minister realise that this is a matter of considerable importance both to airlines and passengers alike? Does he additionally realise that it seems not only strange but regrettable that the Government have not even discussed the problem with their European counterparts? Can the Minister enlighten the House on the following point? Is it correct that the Council of Ministers cannot discuss suggestions or proposals on this whole matter until the European Commission itself puts down an item on the agenda of the Council of Ministers?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Commission has distinct and specific powers and responsibilities under the Treaty of Rome, and the competition provisions of the aviation package and its inquiries are still at an early stage. However, if the Commission takes the matter further, we would expect it to take proper account of the views of member states and their competent authorities; for instance, through the advisory committee set up under the package.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, that is not what I asked the Minister. I asked him a very simple, straightforward question and it seems very difficult to get a simple, straightforward answer. Does he recall that I asked him whether it was not possible for the Council of Ministers to discuss this whole affair until
718
the European Commission itself put down such an item for discussion on the agenda of the Council of Ministers?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it is a matter for the Commission and not for the Council at the moment. If the Commission takes the matter further and puts the matter before the Council of Ministers, no doubt it will be discussed. The Council has provided in the competition provisions of the package for the procedures to be followed. I do not think that further action could be expected of the Council at this stage.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I think this is insufferable. The Minister will not answer the question I have put to him. Does he recall that on 8th December he gave me a long Written Answer of several paragraphs which I could paraphrase in one word: yes? It was this particular point that I raised. May I ask him for the third time whether it is correct that the Council of Ministers cannot discuss the matter about which I have asked him today until the European Commission itself puts down such an item on the agenda of the Council of Ministers?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, this is primarily a matter for the Commission in any case, and not one for the Council of Transport Ministers. As to whether the Council of Transport Ministers wishes to discuss this, I would think not at the moment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is not Article 86 one of the few articles in the Treaty of Rome which has supranational effects? Is there not a director-general in the Commission who is responsible for competition policy and responsible to an individual commissioner? If the European Commission decides that any merger attracts its attention and investigates it under Article 86, is it not entitled straight away, without any further reference to the Council of Ministers, to take it to the High Court?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is correct. It is indeed an investigation under Article 86 by the competition commissioner which is at present being looked at. At the moment it is a matter for the Commission.
Lord Morris: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that to ask Ministers to strike a position in the course of negotiations could jeopardise the negotiations themselves?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it is not a question for Ministers at the moment. It is a question between the Commission and the airline concerned. It is not a matter for Ministers. I cannot answer for the Commission in this House.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I am sorry to rise again but does the Minister realise that constant evasion only means that my question is correct and that the. Minister does not wish to say yes? Whether the competition commissioner or the transport commissioner is responsible, is it not

719
essential that before the Council of Ministers can discuss anything it has to be based on an item put down on its agenda by the European Commission?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have tried to explain that this is a matter for the Commission, not for the Council of Ministers.

Agricultural Research: Policy Review
3.12 p.m.
Lord Carter: 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 purpose of their current review of agricultural research, development and advisory work; and what consultations they propose to have with the agricultural industry and those employed in research, development and advisory work.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, the review is taking place against the background of the July 1987 White Paper on civil research and development and of the Government's policy that industry should fund more of the work from which it benefits. It is part of the normal process within government of reviewing policy. Its objective is to reassess priorities so as to achieve the most effective use of R&D resources. We are not formally consulting outside government. But we are receiving views from a number of interested parties which are being taken into account.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. Does she agree that the policy review has some similarities to the review of the National Health Service which was announced this week by the Prime Minister? It is being conducted behind closed doors at breakneck speed and is designed to produce the answer that the Prime Minister and the Treasury want. Will the Minister tell the House what she regards as the Government's own responsibility in agricultural research and development? We hear a great deal about near market research. How near is "near"? Will the noble Baroness also explain how it is intended that farmers as an industry, who are required to fund research and development—which they may be willing to do—are to do that without some form of compulsory levy? As she will know, there is a mechanism for that in virtually every sector in the industry.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, this review is an internal scrutiny of policy, as there are many reviews. However, there have been informal discussions with a number of bodies, such as the AFRC, development councils, producer organisations, research associations and trade unions. As regards the definition of "near market", which I think is what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked me about, it is not a term of art and
720
there is no formal definition. However, part of the purpose of the review is to seek to identify the areas of R&D which should be classified under that heading.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can tell us what is the situation in Scotland at the present time, because it appears to me that the review has been carried out too late and that Her Majesty's Government applied the cuts in Scotland before the review, which appears to be the wrong way round. Is she aware that half the good people have already left the college service in Scotland; and what steps is she going to take to get them back?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as the review is going on, I cannot talk about what will actually come out at the end. However, with regard to various people leaving, I understand that Ministry staff have faced a great deal of change over the past few years, and I pay credit to the high level of dedication and professionalism that they bring to their work. Inevitably, there could be change, but it would be very wrong for me to pre-empt anything that comes out of a review which is in progress at the moment.
Lord Harvington: My Lords, I hope that this question is close enough to the subject matter. I wonder whether my noble friend can say something about the Agricultural Advisory Council, which has been studying for 38 years how to isolate the virus of scrapie in sheep. Does she feel that perhaps we may have an interim report?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is not my wont to talk about scrapie on Thursdays!
Lord Parry: My Lords, that being so, will the Minister tell us whether the review will be wide enough, detailed enough and swift enough to bring some hope to those farmers in west Wales and on the peripheral areas of agriculture, whose livelihood has been threatened by recent changes, including the failure of the milk quota system to give any help to the milk industry of Wales?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I very much take the point about the worries of farmers in Wales and indeed in Scotland, but it is too early to say. We will consider all these items in due course.
Baroness White: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware of the formation of a Select Committee of this House which is embarking on an investigation into agricultural and food research and development? Is she proposing to take cognisance of that? The subcommittee concerned is under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, and we hope that our labours may be of some assistance to the Government, if they are prepared to wait until we have reported.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am aware of the formation of this committee. I should like to point out to your Lordships that the total of MAFF R&D this year is over £200 million, and that is not peanuts.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that because of what has happened in the reviews in the past few years—as she well knows, at her very own doorstep there was the taking over of the PBI, etc.—any review now is looked on as suspect by the staff in all these research stations, in ADAS and elsewhere? It really would be better if they could be given some indication of what is happening as soon as possible, because there is no question that morale is going down again.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, our aim is to ensure a service which provides what the industry wants. The industry itself will therefore have a major role in determining the future size and shape of ADAS. That said, we have no present plans for cuts in the advisory areas.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that over the years ADAS officers have done invaluable work in helping to resolve conflicts between those who live and work in the countryside, and those who visit the countryside for recreational purposes? Does she agree that it is imperative that that work continues, and will she assure the House that it will do so?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to second what the noble Lord has said in his praise of ADAS. I think that I have virtually answered that in my last reply. I accept that industry needs time to adjust, but it is a question of degree. We have always tried to announce future spending plans in time to allow for adjustments to take place. I should especially like to mention ADAS again and thank it publicly for the work it carried out following the gale havoc.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I should like to ask a question on the essential matter of funding. Will the Minister say whether agriculture R&D is to be separately funded as at present, or is there any implication that it will depend on industrial funding after 1991? Is the Minister aware that any move in that direction would be frowned upon by the agricultural community?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Lord's question to me is relevant to the outcome of the present review. I am sorry to sound as though I am stonewalling, but it would be wrong for me to anticipate what the review will bring forth.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell the House whether the review is considering the use of pesticides, especially nitrates, within the industry? Does that come within the purview of the review that she has announced?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, inevitably, pesticides must be considered as part of R&D, but that is not the prime purpose of the review. After all, in the past year we have agreed safety, efficacy and various other measures concerning pesticides. A code of conduct is coming out soon.
Lord Carter: My Lords, from the interest shown in my Question, it is clear that your Lordships' House is extremely interested in the outcome of the review. Will the Minister undertake to publish the review when it is finished?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is too early to say whether we will publish it.

World Economic Growth
3.22 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: 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 latest forecast for growth in the world economy taking into account the fall in share prices round the world.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Chancellor's latest published assessment of world growth prospects was given in the Autumn Statement when he forecast GDP growth in the major seven economies of 2 per cent. in 1988, after allowing for the effect of the stock market falls.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reassuring news. Can he say whether 500 new businesses are still being started each week? Can he also say whether small or medium-sized businesses, to which his department has paid a great deal of attention recently, are contributing to this satisfactory growth?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, yes. On average over 500 new businesses have opened and closed every week of this decade. That process appears to be continuing. There is no doubt that small and medium-sized business are responsible for a great deal of the growth in employment and the economy of the United Kingdom. I am sure that your Lordships' House appreciates that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment is responsible in the Government for looking after small firms. My department looks after the interests of all companies.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, does the Secretary of State accept that, given the still fragile situation following the crash, growth in the world economy, including that of the United Kingdom, could yet be rather lower than has been forecast? In those circumstances, whatever the political case for tax cuts, does he accept, especially as he is Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and given the worry that there is in industry about the balance of payments, inflation and interest rates, that at the present time it would be better to have an increase in public expenditure especially in the field of capital investment?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, over the past few weeks I have spent some considerable time

723
travelling around the country, and I have spoken to many industrialists, but nowhere, I fear, have I met one who would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. Indeed, it is quite the contrary..
In the year from the third quarter of 1986 to the third quarter of 1987 growth in the United Kingdom was 5.2 per cent. higher than it was in any one of the Group of Seven. We are not for one moment saying that that trend will continue. Next year the OECD forecasts -that the United Kingdom will have a growth rate of 2.75 per cent.—that is its figure, not mine—and so far nothing appears to have changed since the reduction in share prices on 19th October.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, can the Minister tell me something that I ought to know? How is growth in world trade calculated? In the estimates of GDPs of various countries, is everything taken into account, including drugs, tobacco and luxury goods, which are of little use to some countries? Is there an index which shows what is happening to the standard of living of the majority of the people in the world, who are extremely poor?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, luxury goods are part of the GDP calculation. I suppose that tobacco would be also, but drugs are surely an illegal activity and form part of the black economy, which is not normally calculated in any assessment of GDP.
If the noble Lord cares to put down a Question—I suggest it would be better asked in the form of a Written Question—I shall be happy to provide him with details of the complex way in which GDP is calculated.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, on the hypothesis that the diagnosis of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, was accurate, his prescription—to increase public expenditure—is the exact opposite of what the situation would require?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I suspect that increased public expenditure would be just as welcome as increased taxation.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the Minister has said that there has been a remarkable degree of growth and the economy has been responding over the past two years, but that growth may lessen in the year ahead. Despite the good growth, there has been a serious diminution in the resources that our National Health Service requires. Does that mean that the cuts that were imposed when we had reasonably good growth will be worse if that growth declines, and that the NHS is in danger?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the funding of the NHS is another question. I think all in your Lordships' House will be aware that the increase which the health service will receive next year is approximately equal to my entire budget.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, am I right in thinking that the Secretary of State said that 500 businesses opened
724
and closed every week? Is it 500 of each; if it is 500 in total, how are the openings and closings divided on average?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am happy to assure the noble Lord that I said 500 more businesses opened than closed each week. There is an average net increase of over 500 a week.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, is it not reassuring that in its latest survey the CBI has shown that, despite the fall in the stockmarket, manufacturing industry is still expecting substantially to increase, to maintain its growth, to increase investment and to increase employment? Would it not be immensely damaging if it were now to be faced by the increase in taxation which apparently the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, is prepared to see?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend. It is significant that the two reports issued by the CBI after 19th October, referring to opinion within manufacturing industry collected after 19th October, should be the two most optimistic reports for the past 10 years.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House how the balance of payments deficit fits into his forecast?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the balance of payments deficit which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has estimated for the year—I say this from memory—will be about £2·5 billion and has long been forecast. It should be taken into account at a time when this country has net overseas investments well in excess of £130 billion.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord inform the House whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer's predictions in regard to the world economy, which after all was the subject of the Question, have taken into account the possibility of yet another fall in share prices throughout the world during the year to which his forecast relates? Will the noble Lord agree that the last crisis of 19th October, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer described as a disastrous aberration, was not forecast by the Government and came as a complete shock to them? In view of the world debt situation, and the probability of further large-scale down-writing of debts, is he prepared to assert that there is likely to be stability in monetary conditions throughout the period to which the forecast relates?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I cannot possibly say what was in the minds of those who built up the detailed forecasts, not only the one which the Government made but the one made by the OECD. However, I notice with alarm that the noble Lord used the word "crisis". I think that all in your Lordships' House should recognise that today share prices on the London Stock Exchange are 3½ per cent. above those of this time last year. That hardly represents a crisis.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, has the noble Lord or the Chief Whip noticed that the time has stopped at the figure 13? Apparently we are going on at incredible length, because the time has not moved on.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Lord say whether his answer to my noble friend Lord Barnett indicates that, as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, he regards the expenditure of public money as money being thrown away rather than it being an investment in British industry?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it depends very much on the way in which the money is spent.

Small Businesses: Loans Scheme
3.33 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: 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 assistance has been provided for small businesses by the loan guarantee scheme since it began.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, since 1981 the scheme has permitted over 18,800 loans aggregating over £600 million to be made to small businesses. These loans have helped the businesses concerned to start up or expand thus creating wealth and employment.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend the Secretary of State for that very satisfactory reply, may I ask whether he agrees that the very complicated administrative procedures to do with applying for loans under the scheme are inclined to put off small firms, particularly in regard to small loans?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am very grateful. There is a new simplified administration covering loans up to £15,000 for smaller companies. I believe that those who apply for loans up to £15,000 will find that the procedure now is much more suited to their purpose.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, could I ask the noble Lord how many women have applied for grants for small businesses? Is he aware that last year alone no less than 2,500 women applied to a voluntary organisation, Women in Enterprise? These women apparently either did not know about, or found it difficult to apply to, the established organisations. Does the noble Lord agree that this is a real growth area to which he should pay attention?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I shall of course look into the matter and, if I may, write to the noble Baroness with the information. Many of these loans come to the Government through the banks, because often it is the banks which apply for the guarantees. This is a matter which should perhaps be
726
addressed to the bank managers of the country as well as to the Government. However, I shall certainly make inquiries.
Lord Somers: My Lords, would the noble Lord say whether the Government are doing anything to persuade certain local councils to desist from policies that make it practically impossible for small businesses to carry on?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, there is little doubt that the rating policies of some authorities in the land have made it extremely difficult for small firms to carry on. We have endeavoured to use persuasion. Today, we are engaged in other matters.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, could the Minister translate for us the global figure which he gave into the number of jobs and the cost per job? Could he also indicate whether it is the Government's intention to carry on with the existing scheme?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, yes. Surveys by the Department of Employment show that the loan guarantee scheme is one of the most effective of all schemes operated by the department. It operates at a net cost per person on the register of jobs created of about £400 per job. That is an extremely favourable figure. A review of the scheme's effectiveness is being carried out by National Economic Research Associates who report during the course of this year. The present scheme runs until 31st March 1989. I have no doubt that we shall wish to look at the report before deciding on its future.

Business
3.35 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Ferrers will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on government policy on changes to the Official Secrets Act. This will be followed by my noble friend Lord Sanderson of Bowden who will, again with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on school closures in Scotland.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Local Government Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Order of Commitment to the Arms Control and Disarmament (Privileges and Immunities) Bill will be discharged.

Official Secrets Act
3.36 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, with the leave of the House I will now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer to a Private Notice Question on government policy on changes to the Official Secrets Act which is being

727
given in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. My right honourable friend's reply is as follows:
"I gave the House an account of the Government's intentions in this respect, and of the issues which we are considering, in the debate on the Bill introduced by my honourable friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Richard Shepherd) on 15th January. In my interview for the BBC "Analysis" programme to be broadcast tonight—during which I discuss in general terms the balance to be struck between the obligations of civil servants and the public's right to know—I set out again some of the ground which we are covering in our review of these matters. In particular, I give examples of different types of information which might or might not require the protection of the criminal law. The analysis I offer is in accordance with the Franks Report and has been common ground since 1972.
"As the House knows, we hope to publish our proposals in a White Paper in June, and the House will have an opportunity to debate those proposals before the Summer Recess. My interview tonight—a full transcript of which I propose to place in the Library of the House—gives no details of our proposals."
My Lords, that completes the reply which was given by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, on behalf of the House I thank the noble Earl for repeating the Statement, which is singularly uncommunicative. It would seem that this great public debate has been removed from Parliament to broadcasting, perhaps not for the first time.
May we have at least the assurance that in any legislation they may propose to repeal Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act which, on common ground, has long been regarded as a mess and was so described in the Franks Report, the Government will ensure that a mere certificate by a Minister that national security was involved would not be regarded as sufficient to prove to a jury the guilt of an accused under a new official secrets Act? That is what the Government did—or they made suggestions along those lines—in 1979. May we have an assurance that we shall have something more satisfactory if and when something erupts from the governmental mind?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, following the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, perhaps I may also thank the noble Earl for having repeated the Statement. May I ask two questions? First, could he discuss with his noble friend the Government Chief Whip the possibility of a debate in government time before the Summer Recess, given that he has indicated that the White Paper will be published in June, a time when this House will inevitably have before it a very substantial amount of government legislation?
Secondly, is he aware that many of us will welcome the apparent statement of the Home Secretary in the
728
broadcast this evening that in the future any civil servant guilty of a breach of confidentiality will be proceeded against under the disciplinary regulations applying to civil servants and that there will be no repetition of the folly of the Ponting prosecution?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the two noble Lords for the welcome, even if partial, that was given to the Statement. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, is ingenious, if I may say so, in asking me to give an undertaking as to what will appear in the Government's White Paper. With the greatest of respect, I suggest that it would be best if the noble and learned Lord were to wait until the White Paper arrives, although his remarks will obviously be taken into account.
With regard to the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, whether or not there is a debate is a matter for the usual channels. I have no doubt that the importance of the matter will be given its due weight. He too was fairly ingenious in asking me to give a commitment. I cannot give any such commitment until the Government's White Paper comes forward.
Lord Peston: My Lords, clearly one does not wish to impose on the noble Earl at this time, but in considering the White Paper and what ground it covers can those of us who have been involved in public life on the official side and who have played according to the rules—namely, that we have not breached confidentiality at any time—be assured that the Secretary of State has in mind that the legislation will also cover Ministers, so that they might also consider sticking to the Official Secrets Act, both in the letter and in the spirit?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am sure that all these matters are high in my right honourable friend's mind, but I merely remind the noble Lord and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that what my right honourable friend was saying was no indication of Government policy. He was merely taking part in a public debate on a matter of public interest and indicating the kind of areas which the White Paper might cover.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the noble Earl will agree that some of the revelations which have been made from time to time by civil servants and others have been revelations of misdemeanours, sometimes amounting to criminality by the secret services. Have the Government any plans to get to the root of the matter? Have they any plans to bring the secret services under more effective supervision, quite apart from the question whether or not it is proper to prosecute those who reveal such secrets?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, has put down a Motion on the secret services for about a week's time. On the general point, I would merely say that the Government have been discussing and considering these matters since April last year and it is right that we should wait until the conclusions on those deliberations are available which should be in about June this year.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, various governments have been considering this issue for many years now without producing anything. Can we take it that the Statement made by the noble Earl now indicates specifically that in the next Session the Government intend to bring forward some form of legislation—particularly in view of their attitude to the Private Member's Bill last week—to alter Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, gives the Government credit for taking action whereas previous governments have not done so. I can only tell him that he must wait until the White Paper appears. It would be quite wrong for me to prejudge it or to give the noble Lord any assurance as to what will happen. I can tell him that the matter is under acute consideration. My right honourable friend is aware of the problems and hopes to put forward the Government's view on how those problems should be overcome. Having done that, it is of course up to Parliament to decide whether or not those views should be accepted.
Lord Annan: My Lords, can the noble Earl give an assurance that in the White Paper there will be some cover of the security services? Will it be of such a kind as to calm the fevered imagination of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney? In such a reference to the security services will it he possible for the Government to move out of the era of John Buchan and into that of John Le Carré in the sense that the heads of the services should be able to be made public and be answerable in a limited fashion for what the services are sometimes accused of doing? If that is not done, serving officers and past officers of the security services will be traduced unmercifully by Members of another place without any kind of redress.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Annan, is competing in the stakes of ingenuity with his other noble friends. I hear what he has to say but I have no intention whatever of saying what will be in the White Paper because neither I nor the Government know. They are still considering.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Earl acquaint the noble Lord on this side of the House with the fact that the fevered imagination that he attributes to me exists only in his own mind?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, not for the first time. I think I am acting as a conduit between the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, and some other noble Lord.

Local Government Bill
3.45 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 17 [Local and other public authority contracts: exclusion of non-commercial considerations]:
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 83A:
Page 15, line 13, at beginning insert ("except as otherwise provided under subsections (5A) to (5E) below").
The noble Lord said: In its present form this clause prohibits local authorities from requiring contractors to pay nationally agreed wage rates, holiday pay, sickness benefit and other benefits. Companies paying low wages have difficulty in recruiting suitably qualified staff. That very often leads to poor quality work. Staff turnover is generally high which may cause delay in the delivery of goods and services to the satisfaction of the local authority concerned.
Poor conditions of work and late delivery of goods and services lead directly to increased costs for local authorities in supervision of work and very often in the rectification of faults.
National agreements on pay and conditions are regulated by employers' federations which require adherence to those agreements by their members and have stood the test of time. Removing the fair wages clause from the contract conditions will disadvantage those companies which pay nationally agreed wages compared with the others and so undermine the work of employers' federations in setting standards for industry.
Local authorities will be commercially disadvantaged in the same way as other contractors paying nationally agreed wage rates. In addition, as clients they will be affected by the deterioration of standards caused by the reduction in control over contractors by employers' federations. We believe that the Bill as it stands could support a further introduction or an increase in the industry of the cowboy contractors who do no good to anybody in terms of service or cost-effectiveness. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: Before I respond to the first group of amendments to Clause 17 I should like briefly to remind the Committee of the thinking behind the provisions of Part II of this Bill. We do not believe that the contractual process between public authorities and the contractors they employ should be the place for political posturing. Nor do we believe that local authorities should take upon themselves the role of extra-statutory enforcement agencies on matters which are already the subject of existing statute and which, where appropriate, have their own enforcement agencies to make sure the law is carried out.
I apologise to the Committee for stating now what I suspect I shall repeat several times during our deliberations on Part II. However, I think it is necessary to put on record at the outset that these provisions are not simply what some would call another attack on the freedoms of local government. The great majority of local authorities will be almost

731
entirely unaffected by Part II, for the simple reason that most authorities have never regarded it as proper to use the contractual process in the way which the Bill will prevent. However, a small minority of authorities abuse the process and that minority is growing. That is why the Government have felt it necessary to act.
Turning to the amendments, while I appreciate that Amendment No. 83A refers to subsection (5D) as proposed in Amendment No. 92D, perhaps it will be for the convenience of the Committee that we should leave discussion of Amendment No. 92D until we reach Amendment No. 84, which deals specifically with the point about wages raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dean.
The arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Dean, in support of the group of amendments have certainly not convinced me that authorities should be inquiring into that sort of detail about a potential contractor and his employees. As regards the record of relationships between management and workforce in the course of the previous five years, certain local authorities have failed to demonstrate a responsible attitude in that area in the past. The Committee may well imagine the sort of mischief which an unscrupulous authority might get up to if the amendment were made. We believe that any firm which is unable to deliver the goods because of poor industrial relations will find that reflected in their performance record. That will be one of the things which local authorities should be looking at.
It would be equally unacceptable for a local authority to take into account the proportion of supervisors to others in the workforce. That would clearly be open to abuse. However, it would not be wrong for questions to be asked about the qualifications of the workforce, providing that the questions were not masquerading as questions about composition or training. Again, any contractor whose workforce did not possess the necessary skills would find that reflected in his performance record. I cannot accept that authorities need to go into detail about the taxation status of a contractor's individual employees. That is surely something which is best left to the Inland Revenue.
The kind of detailed and lengthy inquiries of contractors which would be allowed under the amendment would place a considerable burden on companies—particularly small companies—and would stop them from getting anywhere near the tendering process in the first place, let alone being able to take it a stage further. I hope that the Committee will resist the amendments.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister has properly taken the opportunity which the amendment gives him to refer to a number of issues which are wrapped up in it. He has fairly touched upon four or five separate debates which we on this side of the Committee perceive as being worthy of examination in detail.
The Minister has demonstrated that he does not see a problem. He does not see the need or necessity, as do we on this side of the Committee, to ensure that the recipients of ratepayers' money—the
732
contractors—are following fair, acceptable, equal and non-discriminatory policies. The Minister is entitled to take that view. He is entitled to say that the amendment might lead to political posturing, whatever that means. He is entitled to say that it is not the job of local authorities to undertake extra-statutory obligations. He also said that the Committee could well imagine that the powers which we are seeking could lead to unscrupulous activity.
Of course all of those things can happen. They have not happened, but they can happen. We are speaking of sensible, responsible employers—the private sector does not have a monopoly on sensible employers—who are anxious to get value for money, to ensure that local people are employed and to make sure that the people who get a contract are paying fair wages, have proper safety records and are able to demonstrate that they are so in touch with their employees that they have a good strike policy.
The Minister might feel that all of those things have nothing to do with an employer—the council—before it lets a contract. We on this side of the Committee—and certainly the Trades Union Congress and many local authorities—feel differently. As the day goes on, I shall be pleading the case and giving illustrations in hopes that the Minister will see that what we are seeking to do in the raft of amendments which will be coming forward is not only right and proper but also necessary.
The Minister is entitled to say that good employers who are party to national wage agreements will honour those agreements. The history of industrial relations in this country has a very fair record as regards the way in which sense, more often than not, prevails. The Minister says that the burden involved would be onerous if it were placed upon small employers. The record of local councils, recognising the problems of small businesses and small communities, is not one to be put aside. If there were genuine cases in which paperwork and the need to comply were issues, I am sure that local councils would wish to be reasonable.
However, the Minister must understand that, having discussed each of the issues in detail, there is much evidence that I and other Members of the Committee will be able to adduce to show that the rosy picture may be false. There will be other amendments moved from other parts of the Committee which will accept the generality that employers in the private sector in the main seek to be fair, to do good work, to make profits and to run good businesses. We are not concerned with the generality. We are concerned with a proportion—I should not wish to quantify it—who will get away with what they can.
I know that the unemployment figures are lower than they were. However, there are large areas of unemployment and deprivation. There are large areas of discrimination against the disabled, women and ethnic minorities. The instances of those matters will come to the Minister not from any party political sources but from government papers. It is clear that unless a local authority takes upon itself the responsibility of making sure that ratepayers' money—a phrase which has been used more than

733
once from the other side of the Committee—is spent wisely, it may well get what appears to be a good deal—that is to say, the lowest cost—but unless it has power to make some inquiries of an employer before giving out contracts and before it puts all its eggs in one basket, there may be some very serious consequences.
Perhaps I may give one instance concerning wages. Lincolnshire County Council has handed over most of its school and other cleaning to ISS Service Systems, whose savings over the in-house bid were based entirely on paying £1·70 per hour to cleaners instead of the current £2·24. The Government are apparently quite happy to allow those wage levels. We are talking about miserable levels like that. We arc talking principally about women who will be working a normal working week and going home with less than £70 per week, which will be less by the time it is taxed. We are talking about councils, which spend ratepayers' money, satisfying themselves that they are not a party to allowing such companies to get away with murder.
The Minister may think that irksome and the employer may think it an intrusion upon his right to drive the hardest bargain and to get his labour at the lowest possible level. I honestly believe that, in resisting this amendment, the Minister is simply aiding and abetting a deterioration, albeit on the fringes, in industrial relations.
Let me give another illustration. ICC's cleansing policy is to sack all part-time workers who take tea breaks. The Minister may ask, "What has that to do with the employer—the council—giving out the contract?" I think that the council is entitled to know about practices and policies, especiallly as regards wages, the ethnic mix and ensuring that enough disabled people are employed. The employer—that is, the council—is entitled to have such information. Whether it takes it into account and acts upon it is another matter.
The average weekly earnings of ICC workers in print are £15 a week. Looking at wages—and that is only one issue—or at the question of redundancies and job shedding, it is clear that those are issues which affect the most vulnerable sections of our society, whom I categorise as working women, ethnic minorities and the disabled. Statistics will be put forward to demonstrate that these are not just empty phrases. Government figures will show that it is those sections of our community who are most at risk, if no attempt is made by the responsible authority—that is, the council—to ensure that the ratepayers' money (which is being spent by the private contractor for a service to be provided to the community) is spent in the best possible manner.
The point is very often made that privatisation or the result of competitive tendering saves public money. That is a myth. There may very well be a piece of paper which shows that at a particular time the cost to the ratepayer or the consumer is less, but one must consider the totality of that cost, which includes proper health provision, safety at work and holiday and other entitlements—in other words, all that Members of this Committee have no doubt enjoyed for a great length of time in private or public service.
734
Before we put too many eggs in one basket we ought to be satisfied that the recipients of ratepayers' money are people who are fit and proper persons to receive it.
4 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, is asking for local authorities to have a right to investigate all sorts of matters which have nothing to do with the commercial contract, which should be for the benefit of the ratepayers. He is asking that the local authorities should be allowed to investigate whatever they want to investigate, and to set a long list of questions about anything that springs to mind. One only has to look at the pre-tender form of Leicester City Council and the questions that they seek to have answered before a possible contractor is even allowed on to the list. That has led to a situation which has produced very poor results for the ratepayer. What we are seeking with this Bill is to improve services for the taxpayer and the ratepayer. I think that at this stage I ought to call in aid some words of Councillor Margaret Hodge, the leader of the Islington borough council and an unlikely supporter of my argument, I should have thought, as reported in the Local Government Chronicle of 3rd July:
"A clear message has got to go out from us, which is—the reason we are there is not to service the interests of sectional trade unionists, hut to serve the interests of the people for whom we provide services". [Official Report, Commons, 6/7/87; col. 145.]
That is the purpose of the Bill.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Not for one moment would I disagree with the Minister in that last comment and his quotation from Margaret Hodge. That was always my view when I was engaged in local government. Governments are not elected to serve sectional elements; they are elected to serve the community as a whole. They look after the interests of the community, too, not the interests of any particular group, as I have said.
What do we mean by competition? I mean equal competition. There are grave reservations about cowboys in the building industry, which come not from direct works departments but from the bona fide private building sector. In an earlier observation from the Dispatch Box, the Minister referred to the fact that this was not a question for the Department of the Environment but for the Inland Revenue. I have asked questions in this Chamber and quoted figures given to me by the Building Employers' Confederation, the Federation of Building Trade Employers and the Federation of Master Builders, and other bodies in that industry which are heavily involved in the local sector both at the top and lower levels. They complain bitterly. I understand that the Treasury was being defrauded of billions of pounds by the employment of lump labour. The local authorities were not benefiting; rather, it was the people in lump labour.
We ask that people who are competing shall compete in a proper manner and that competition shall be fair. From what the Minister has said, I am not sure by any means that it would prove fair. Local authorities must attempt to obtain high quality work

735
and value for money when awarding a public supply or works contract. They have to assess the technical ability of potential contractors and derive the maximum value from the contract for which they are invited to tender.
At present it is standard practice for local authority departments to ask tenderers for a breakdown of their workforce by grade in order to appraise the size and structure of the firm—for example, by examining their management and supervisory structure, professional and technical support and the number of skilled employees and their particular trades. This information is important for technical appraisal of firms, to predict whether they are likely to be able to deliver high quality goods and services and the size of contract that they will be able to undertake. Nothing would be worse than somebody putting in a bid for a contract, getting it, and not having the resources to carry it out with the speed and efficiency which the local authority requires.
Noble Lords from all sides of the Chamber who have had experience of ordering for local authorities will remember that the selective tender list worked very well. Under that system, when a local authority wanted work done under various contracts, it was able, under both Labour and Conservative governments, to draw up selective lists of three or four reputable contractors in the area and keep them as its tender list. On that basis, whoever submitted the best tender won the contract, and the authority knew immediately that that contractor was capable of carrying out the work for which it was tendering.
In what the Minister has said, there is no guarantee that the local authority could obtain any such undertaking even if it asked for it. It can ask the contractor to give an undertaking, but what they dare not ask is, "Do you have the resources to do the job?" There is no indication that that information would be forthcoming. If there is a proliferation of this type of activity, I can foresee situations in which local authorities will be left in the lurch by somebody who cannot carry out the work.
I do not want to stay too long on this matter but I can cite very quickly two multimillion pound contracts in Manchester in which the contractor went "bump". Both were specialist projects and the local officers had to bring in consultants at great public expense. One was the completion of the new Manchester assize courts. It was a very large project where the electrical work failed because the person who had the contract finally did not have the resources, knowhow and technical expertise to complete the work for which he had tendered. It was no use the Manchester local authority—as the agent in part for the Government and in part for the judiciary—taking the contractor to court because he went "bump". I know that that example is repeated in dozens of cases.
The Minister has not satisfied me at this point in time. I do not know whether he has anything further to add. I should like to hear him say that he is convinced that open tendering—without the customer having the right to consider whether there
736
are the resources to carry out the commitment that it has undertaken—is so way out that he cannot consider it.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Before the Minister responds, he quite fairly dismissed the idea that councils would be asking prospective contractors to complete questions about their employment practices. He quoted what the Leicester authority is doing—and I do not think he thought much of it. Would the Minister care to comment on the views of the Secretary of State for the Environment in another place when the issuing of questionnaires with regard to compliance under Section 71 of the Race Relations Act was discussed? If we are dismissing the necessity for a council to ask questions about the employment policy of a prospective contractor, then indeed we have a conflict.
In another place at Report stage the Secretary of State said that he would prescribe the questions that local authorities would be permitted to ask tendering companies and that there would be no more than five or six in number. There is a principle here. We have not only the principle that it is right for a council to ask questions; we have the Secretary of State saying that he will prescribe the five or six questions which in his view—nobody else's—are appropriate.
I have received a document from the Commission for Racial Equality. It has listed what it considers to be fair questions. The Minister may decide that this point anticipates later amendments, but he has raised the issue. If the Minister tells us—as may be the mood of the Committee—that discussion on the questions that the Secretary of State thinks are proper would be more properly raised by me at a later stage, I shall do that. But the Minister dismissed the idea of a council asking a prospective contractor questions about how he operated his business. Perhaps the Minister can be helpful to us.
The Earl of Caithness: I hope that I can he helpful to the Committee. The questions to which the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has referred under the Race Relations Act will be the subject of detailed debate at a later stage. They are the subject of consultation at the moment. He failed to draw the Committee's attention to the fact that in the 1976 Act there is a special section which says that it is the responsibility of the local authority to perform certain functions. We are not talking about that in the amendments before the Committee, but about a request by local authorities to look into matters over which they have no jurisdiction, and which are covered by other matters of primary law.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, was absolutely right to say that it is the duty of the local authority to look into the financial competence of the company to complete a contract. I am sure the Committee would agree that that does not necessarily mean it needs to look into the record of the relationships between management and the workforce in the previous five years. Would that have prevented the contractor to whom he referred in the case of the Manchester assize courts encountering the difficulties that he did?

737
The local authority needs to make sure, first, that it writes the correct specification; secondly, that it puts out the right tender documents to ensure that the work it wants done is done to the level required; and, thirdly, that the companies who are tendering for that have the financial ability, either through giving a bond or through insurance—that is a matter that we raised at an earlier stage—or have a track record sufficient to satisfy the local authority.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Perhaps I may very briefly give a hypothetical example that I believe could happen if the Bill is passed as it stands. A local authority puts out a contract for a building containing highly sophisticated equipment. It is a contract requiring large capital. Then the city architect or engineer in charge of the contract says, "One of these contractors here carried out a contract similar to this two or three years ago for city B. We in City A, in the interests of the local authority and the ratepayers, ought to make inquiries as to what happened there".
He takes his other officers, and perhaps his chairman of committees, to look at the first contract, and they do not like what they see. They do not think that value has been given for money. Perhaps they do not like some of the practices that have taken place while that contract was being carried out. Is the Minister saying that the second authority has no right to make such inquiries before deciding on letting that contract? That is what he appears to me to be saying. I believe a local authority has a right to do so in the interests of its ratepayers.
The Earl of Caithness: The local authority has the right to make sure that those who will submit a tender have the financial ability and the competence to carry out the necessary skilled work in order to make sure that the contract is completed.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I must press that last point. The nub of the argument is whether people ought to be investigated when they have carried out similar work for someone else shortly before. The Minister indicates to me that that is not on. He may not be familiar with present ordering patterns in this country. We are always told, if we wish to sell nuclear or coal-fired stations, that before anyone will buy one they have to come over here to see one of ours working to make sure that we can carry out the specification.
The same goes for a wide range of other public contracts that we have carried out abroad. I recall the Tyne and Wear railway, which people from the Far East were brought to see to assure them that the people here had the knowhow and the resources to deliver a railway—I think it was to Hong Kong—to specification. The Minister is denying that facility to local authorities. On that basis, I have a duty to test the will of the Committee.
4.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 83A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 91; Not-Contents, 145.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Amherst, E.

Leatherland, L.

Ardwick, L.

Listowel, E.

Attlee, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Aylestone, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Banks, L.

Lockwood, B.

Barnett, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Basnett, L.

McNair, L.

Blackstone, B.

Mayhew, L.

Blease, L.

Molloy, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mountevans, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Mulley, L.

Brockway, L.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Northfield, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Ogmore, L.

Carter, L.

Oram, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Parry, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Peston, L.

Diamond. L.

Phillips, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ennals, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rathcreedan, L.

Falkland, V.

Rea, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Seear, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shackleton, L.

Grey, E.

Stallard, L.

Grimond, L.

Stedman, B.

Hampton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hayter, L.

Tordoff, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Underhill, L.

Hughes, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hylton, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jay, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Willis, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Ypres, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Aldington, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Alport, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Ampthill, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Arran, E.

Carnock, L.

Auckland, L.

Coleraine, L.

Balfour, E.

Cornwallis, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cox, B.

Beloff, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Belstead, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Bessborough, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Birdwood, L.

De Freyne, L.

Blatch, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Bledisloe, V.

Dilhorne, V.

Borthwick, L.

Dundee, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Elibank, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Elton, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Erne, E.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Butterworth, L.

Faithfull, B.

Caccia, L.

Ferrers, E.

Caithness, E.

Ferrier, L.

739

Foley, L.

Nelson, E.

Fortescue, E.

Norfolk, D.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Norrie, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Gisborough, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Grantchester, L.

Onslow, E.

Greenway, L.

Orkney, E.

Gridley, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Pender, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Hankey, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Harlech, L.

Porritt, L.

Harvington, L.

Portland, D.

Havers, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Hesketh, L.

Reay, L.

Hives, L.

Ridley, V.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Hooper, B.

Rodney, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Ilchester, E.

St. Davids, V.

Ironside, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Jessel, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Sandys, L.

Joseph, L.

Seebohm, L.

Kearton, L.

Selborne, E.

Kimball, L.

Selkirk, E.

Lane-Fox. B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Lawrence, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Stockton, E.

Long, V.

Strathspey, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Terrington, L.

Margadale, L.

Teviot, L.

Marley, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Merrivale, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Mersey, V.

Trafford, L.

Milverton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Mottistone, L.

Westbury, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Whitelaw, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wise, L.

Munster, E.

Wolfson, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Wynford, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, your Lordships may feel that we have reached a suitable moment at which to take the Statement. If so, I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

School Closures in Scotland
4.27 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a Statement about school closures in Scotland.
"Regulations were laid yesterday which had the effect that where an education authority proposed to close, change the site, or vary the catchment area of any school where the number of pupils at the
740
school is greater than 80 per cent. of its capacity that proposal shall be referred to the Secretary of State for his consent.
"Since 1885 Scottish Secretaries have had the power to review school closures. Until 1981 any proposal to close any school in Scotland had to come to the Secretary of State for his consent. At that time the House approved a change in the regulations which left two categories of school for which his consent was required for a closure proposal—namely, denominational schools and rural schools where the alternative was more than a certain distance from the school to be closed.
"We all recognise that a number of education authorities are currently faced with substantial overcapacity in their schools. Understandably some authorities are contemplating proposals which will involve the closure of a considerable number of schools. This will allow them to use their resources for education more effectively.
"But that task must be carried out in a balanced and sensitive manner. It is a clear priority of the Government that education should reflect the interests of children and the wishes of their parents. The Education (Scotland) Act already places a duty on both the Secretary of State and education authorities to ensure that pupils are educated in accordance with parental wishes.
"It is therefore reasonable to expect education authorities to take into account parent demand in considering proposals for school closures. Clearly, no one can be surprised when an authority proposes to close half-empty schools. But where a school is full or nearly full and by that fact demonstrates both that it has the clear and strong support of parents and that it gives good value for money to its community, I believe it is only right that there should be scope for further review of a proposal to close such a school."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I am sure he will be aware from his reading of the Scottish press just how important the Statement is to Scotland and particularly to Scottish education. There is a strong feeling right across the press that the Government are changing the rules in the middle of consultation. The direct interference—it can only be described as that—by the Prime Minister in a specific local matter is surely to be deplored.
The Minister spoke of the power that the Government had but which was surrendered in the 1981 Act. Is he aware that as recently as 1985 the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. Alan Stewart—who, ironically, was the person who tabled the Written Question—when questioned about the closure of local schools prior to the 1981 Act, said:
"Education authorities had no option but to seek the Secretary of State's permission to close. The procedure was wasteful of resources, and bureaucratic".
This next sentence is most important:
"It was also wrong in principle, for it had the effect of passing to central Government a local matter that would more properly have been left to local discretion".—[Official Report, Commons, 4/4/85; col. 1364.]

741
All noble Lords know that behind the new regulation is the case of Paisley Grammar School. The Minister must be aware of the fact that Clyde Regional Council was not considering only one school in the area. There are six non-denominational schools in the Paisley area and some of them had to close. In its wisdom, the council decided that this should be the school to close. It is important to realise that having a capacity of 80 per cent. may be a good measure, but 80 per cent. in an isolated school is different from 80 per cent. in six schools all within a reasonable distance of each other. Hard decisions must be taken if local authorities are to deal with education in a proper economic and effective way, as the Government wish.
This morning the Glasgow Herald summed up the situation in its leader column where it stated:
"Yesterday was a dismal day for what still remains of local democracy".
This action is an appalling interference with local democracy.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, this is an extraordinary way to run a country. We are grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. It is extraordinary that the issue arose because the headmaster of the school referred to—Paisley Grammar School—was told that the regulations that might save his school were to be made before Parliament was told. It is an extraordinary reflection on the failure of the Government to give confidence to local authorities to trust in them and to co-operate. While I am delighted that this old and good school is to be saved, the principle of running the country in this way is extraordinary. I realise that a forceful and youthful Minister is responsible for education in Scotland but that is no reason for the Government to behave in this manner.
I should like to ask the Minister how many other schools the Government consider need to be saved from the local authorities which run them; or is this instance simply a one-off, which would make the situation even more extraordinary? I should like the Government to consider whether it is not a fact that the situation has been caused because of the lack of a decent system of elected local authorities and indeed the House of Commons. One might consider the broader question, when governments must take extraordinary action such as this to produce a regulation to save a school which is threatened by, admittedly, a highly ideological body in Strathclyde Regional Council.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I should like to thank both noble Lords for replying to the Statement. Their reaction was perhaps predictable. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, asked whether this situation would wreck Strathclyde's attempt to rationalise schools. The answer to that question must be that there is no reason why it should. It may need to rethink the details, but in principle it is right that it should remove surplus capacity where it exists.
The noble Lord also mentioned other schools in the area. If Strathclyde proposed to close Paisley Grammar School it would be able to put that point to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
742
If we did not think that there was a good case for Paisley Grammar School we should not have made such regulations. However, I insist that each case will be considered on its merits.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, referred to today's Glasgow Herald. I also read that article, but the noble Lord failed to point out the following statement:
"There was a good case for saving such centres of excellence as Paisley Grammar School".
Turning to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, noble Lords know very well his views on proportional representation, and I shall not comment on that at this stage. He asked how many schools will be affected. The answer is, more than one. This is not a special measure for one school, and the number of cases that arise will depend on the decisions taken by education authorities.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, the Minister of State was not in this House in 1981, but, for my sins, I was. For my sins, I opposed the change that the Secretary of State was than making. Until 1981 no school could be closed without the consent of the Secretary of State. With great flurries of freedom from the party opposite, the Secretary of State gave up that power. But he did more than that.
There are two categories of school in Scotland: the general public schools and the denominational schools. The Government deliberately wrote in a privileged position for the denominational schools where the hierarchy had to agree and there was an agreement that the case should go to the Secretary of State. I later tried to achieve equality between the denominational and the ordinary schools, but the party opposite opposed that. Therefore on two or three occasions it has declared that the Secretary of State is excluded and the matter must be left to the local authorities.
Strathclyde Regional Council embarked on an important and essential job. However, it is an unpopular job, because closing any school is unpopular. That is why the Secretary of State for Scotland was glad to be rid of the power that he had. However, we then had an inexperienced Undersecretary, who, in the middle of the negotiations and decisions blundered through the west of Scotland and made speeches and promises that the Government do not have power to implement. In the middle of that the Government come along with these regulations.
The Minister said that they are to apply all over Scotland. Of course they are, but he knows that effectively they will apply to one school in particular in Strathclyde's case. It may be a good thing that that school is saved, but it probably could have been saved without the blundering intervention of a Minister of State who got people's backs up in local authorities.
The Minister did not mention the fact that we have been concerned with closing schools in order to match the falling rolls with the necessary capacity. In the calculation of the 80 per cent. one can consider the maximum number of pupils in attendance at the school in any one year in the period of 10 years

743
preceding the proposals. Therefore, if they can cite a capacity of 80 per cent. nine years ago the Secretary of State can withhold his consent. This is ridiculous.
I do not know whether it is entirely valid, after using the 1981 Act to remove the powers of the Secretary of State, now to reintroduce them in a gerrymandering way. That is what the people of Scotland object to; namely, the arbitrary way in which the Government have come in seemingly to save one school and not given a proper opportunity for the local authority to reconsider. A school with which I was concerned was involved and I was asked for my views. I said, "No, I am not giving my views". The power has been passed—it was Mr. Younger at the time—from the Secretary of State to the local authority, the education authority. Let them consult; I am sure that people will let their views be known. I am sure that in that instance they came to the right conclusion, and in the end, they would have come to the right conclusion about Paisley as well. However, let the Government realise what they are doing. If they can do it for one school, they will be asked to do it for every school.
We should remember that it is not a case of every school but of one school alone. I see in his place the former Secretary of State who insisted on the creation of Strathclyde, which comprises half the population of Scotland, and probably more teachers than there are in the remaining regions. He insisted, against the wishes of this House, on the creation of Strathclyde. That region has a terrible task. I do not know whether the Government have been helping in this and I do not believe it is good for democracy.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, first, I should like to say how pleased I am to see the noble Lord, Lord Ross, back in this House. Whenever he contributes to a debate, he always gives one food for thought. The noble Lord's remarks are predictable. He questions the whole business of capacity and how that is determined. I think that I have that point. It is for the education authorities to decide in the first instance. The education authorities must have measures of school capacity in any case and, provided that these are reasonable, there should not be any grounds for dispute.
However, when it comes to the overall responsibility for education in Scotland, that must be the task of the government of the day. On this aspect, the Government believe that a clear case has been made out for them to take account of capacity and a full roll, as indeed applies in the case of Paisley Grammar School, as has been mentioned. That is why they have laid this order.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, am I right in thinking that Strathclyde Regional Council commissioned a fairly long exercise by a review group to look at all its schools because it has a very large number of excess places? The review group has reported, and there has been a considerable internal row within the Labour administration of Strathclyde about which schools should be closed. However, it has been possible for them to agree upon only a few schools at the present time. Among those
744
schools—most of which, as I understand it, are schools with rolls which have fallen or with very out-of-date premises—one particular school, Paisley Grammar School, is booming. It has enormous parental support but it has been recommended to be closed on doctrinaire grounds alone. Therefore, does the Minister not agree that all governments have a duty to have arrangements whereby it is possible to come between doctrinaire politicians and the wishes of parents for a booming school and that that is what this particular measure is about?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour for her comments. First, I insist that, although Paisley Grammar School has been highlighted in this debate, this is not a special measure for one school. Paisley Grammar School is only one example. Any school operating at or near capacity will receive the same treatment. My noble friend Lady Carnegy mentioned the review group in Strathclyde which is looking at this problem. The eduction committee of Strathclyde Regional Council still has to make its decision. The order that we placed yesterday comes into effect immediately and it will have to take that into consideration.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, why did the Government not do this at the start? We knew 10 years ago that there would be a problem in relation to the closing of schools. In the very Act that passed the power from the Secretary of State to the local authority is the power in which, effectively, they resurrect the power of the Secretary of State to intervene. We object to the strange use of regulations stemming from an Act which reduced the power of the Secretary of State effectively to sneer at local democracy. Is this doctrinaire? There is nothing doctrinaire about dealing with a situation in which the Government have been asking local authorities to get rid of over-capacity. We are not dealing with one school in Paisley. There are six schools. If you change one then you change the attitude of them all, or will the Government financially support the retention of schools that create the over-capacity? Will they do that?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, with his experience, will understand that schools which have full rolls are in a very different position to those which are half empty or less. That is a matter which the Government quite rightly have to take into account in considering overall education policy. Certain categories of case have already come forward for the approval of the Secretary of State. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, made that clear under the 1981 Act; namely, where closure would involve long distance travel for pupils. This is only an extension of our selective involvement.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, seems to have brought me into this debate. Perhaps I should ask my noble friend if he thinks that the creation of Strathclyde, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ross, referred, has caused the problem with which he is dealing today; if so, that

745
was my decision 15 years ago. It was recommended by the Wheatley Royal Commission which was unanimous that there should be a two-tier system of regional and distict councils. I reduced the size of Strathclyde. It was smaller when it came into existence than had been recommended by the Royal Commission but it is difficult to say that it should not exist at all. The problem is that half the population of Scotland live within about 15 miles of the centre of Glasgow. That is the problem which had to be dealt with in the reorganisation of local government.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, in the presence of two ex-Secretaries of State for Scotland, it would not be for me to enter into an argument on whether or not Strathclyde is the right size.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, it is rather important to consider what the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, said when she talked about a row in the Labour group. There was no row. It was just a normal problem that one has in any group when one is making selections about closing this or that school. All of us who have been in a representative capacity, particularly in the other place, know that as soon as a school is going to close, the people naturally do not like the change.
It is important to realise that in Strathclyde the surplus is such that a number of schools have been turned over to, and adapted for, housing. There is a particular problem at Paisley. I shall read the Minister of State's words very carefully. I believe he suggested that it all started because of Paisley Grammar School. As I have said, and as my noble friend. Lord Ross of Marnock has said, we are talking about six schools, all within a fairly small area, all well within travelling distance one from the other. The education authorities have more than just the numbers in the school to think of. If there are six schools, they are in different conditions as regards repair, age and facilities. I understand, although I have not had much time to look at the details, that one of the schools in the area could quite easily be called Paisley Grammar School. It is extremely well equipped with sports facilities, gymnasiums and, I believe, a swimming pool which the existing Paisley Grammar School does not have.
It is wrong to say that only an ideological point is involved. It has been suggested that this other school, or one of the other schools, could be called Paisley Grammar and continue the traditions. As I said, the local authority has to consider more than just the capacity of the school. There may be a school with a wonderful tradition which is falling about one's ears and it would be wrong to keep that school open if there was another fine school well within travelling distance.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that the condition of the buildings is the least important aspect? Surely it is the excellence of the school that matters.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for his further contribution. I have to say that it is the duty of
746
education authorities, as it is with cases under present regulations, to come forward with their plans. There is nothing for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to consider until the educational committee of Strathclyde makes proposals. It will then have to consult parents as required under existing regulations. If the education committee still wishes to go ahead the case will come to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
We should not pay too much attention to the present case—and I say quite clearly that Paisley Grammar School has raised this point. However, what the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, says about other conditions will obviously be taken into account by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland when he considers that point.
As regards the buildings, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, makes a very interesting and valid point.

Local Government Bill
4.52 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 17.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 83B:
Page 15, line 13, at beginning insert ("except in relation to local employment under subsections (5A) to (5E) below").
The noble Lord said: It would be appropriate to take also Amendment No. 93. To set the scene I should like quickly to read exactly what Amendment No. 93 says:
"The authority may in relation to the functions regulated by this section have regard to the employment (in the case of an inner city area or region of high unemployment) of a reasonable percentage of the workforce from among the local unemployed, subject to the obligations regarding the abolition of discrimination according to nationality, the guaranteeing of free movement of goods, persons and services and provisions for economic and social cohesion.
In this section 'inner city area' and 'region of high unemployment' shall have the meanings as set out by the Secretary of State in regulations.
In this section 'obligations regarding the abolition of discrimination according to nationality, the guaranteeing of free movement of goods, persons, and services and provisions for economic and social cohesion' shall have the same meanings as defined by Articles 7, 30, 48, 59 and 130Aa and B of the Treaty of Rome".
This is a further attempt by these Benches to persuade the Government that there are special cases that need to be taken into account when trying to do what they intend in this Bill. The purpose of the amendment is to allow local authorities in inner city areas or in regions of high unemployment to stipulate in contracts for public works or public supplies that a reasonable percentage of the jobs created is taken by unemployed residents of the area.
Lord Paget of Northampton: I do not understand what has happened to Amendment No. 90, which seems to have been skipped.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: We are dealing with Amendment No. 83B.
Lord Paget of Northampton: I am sorry. I thought the noble Lord said Amendment No. 93.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I do understand. The amendment we are debating is the second amendment on the Marshalled List, Amendment No. 83B. With it we are taking Amendment No. 93. I was simply outlining that one is a paving amendment to the genesis of the other.
The background to this and my deep interest in this amendment is that I happen to be president of the Association of London Authorities, which represents many inner-city areas of deprivation and high unemployment. Of course they are not the only such areas—there are great arguments on the North-South divide. There are pockets of deprivation in other parts of the country and there are pockets of affluence in the midst of a great deal of unhappy circumstance. However, I venture to suggest that Greater London has more areas of deprivation, unemployment and distress in need of economic regeneration than many comparable areas of the same geographical size throughout the country.
With this amendment I wish to draw attention to what I believe are not only genuine reservations but perhaps also areas of profit to be looked at by the Minister and his colleagues. I draw attention also to the impact of this amendment on the rules, regulations and stipulations of the EC. Until recently government Ministers have expressed on more than one occasion support for the concept of a means, a mechanism or legislation which in effect would do exactly what these amendments seek to do.
As recently as August of last year a neighbouring Member of Parliament—Marion Roe, the Member for Broxbourne, which is just to the north of where I live in Enfield and Edmonton, and who is the appropriate junior Minister—visited Broadwater Farm. She looked at the work carried out there and said:
"I am glad to know that the work will not only be undertaken by people living on the estate but will also include a training element for the unskilled unemployed".
That was entirely in accord with the expressions of her ministerial colleagues, not least the Secretary of State in another capacity.
I should also like to plead in aid for the concept that I am asking the Committee to accept the words of Kenneth Clarke. As we know, and as far as I am concerned, he is a highly respected Member of Parliament and a busy Minister with enormous responsibilities. He went so far as to say on a television programme:
"I think I am saying more than that. I think the so-called EEC problem is a very narrow legal point. I do not think there is any inhibition in finding other ways of providing local training, local jobs, out of all other activities: the building activities, the opening of new business and the encouragement of new business that the Government is going for".
There have been other similar expressions, not least by the Minister, Mr. Nicholas Ridley. In an article in New Society, Michael Howard, who is the Minister of State, is reported as saying:
"When I announced in October last year that the Government would bring forward this legislation"—
748
that is, this Local Government Bill—
"I hoped that it would be possible to include a special provision to allow authorities to use the contractual process to promote the employment prospects of inner city residents. Honourable Members will note that Part II of the Bill"—
that is, the part we are dealing with now—
"does not contain such a provision relating to inner city residents. This is because it has subsequently become clear"—
clear to the Minister, but not to me—
"that European Community rules designed to ensure equal conditions of competition for public works and supplies contracts, rules which the Government fully support, do not permit the introduction of that type of measure into the contractual process".
Other Ministers have said the same.
What we need to take head on here is, as I see it, that the Government, the Secretary of State and other Ministers are with us in wanting to generate local employment. On 1st July, Mr. Kenneth Clarke said:
"Mr. Ridley and I are totally committed to the policy of using local labour and getting development to generate more local employment".
If that is the situation, our objectives are not the ends but the means. As people who are obliged and who are bound by EC rules and regulations, what we in fact have to ask the Government—who are anxious to encourage not just employment but the use of local labour—is this: what is it that is inhibiting them?
I have made reference to the various EC regulations, which I will not list. They are formidable. I have in my possession a legal opinion which was obtained by the Association of London Authorities on the impact of EC legislation on local labour clauses. There is a great deal written about it. I do not intend to quote from the document too extensively except for a part of the Opinion. I know that the Minister and his colleagues have a copy of it. I shall simply refer to the passage which is relevant for the purposes of my argument and which I consider to be germane:
"In my view it is quite clear that a contractual clause which requires the contractor to employ the entire labour force involved on a contract from within a particular geographical area (for example Liverpool) would offend the rules against discriminating against contractors from other Member States. On the other hand, a construction contract which required the contractor to employ at least 30 per cent. of the labour force from amongst unemployed persons within Liverpool would not, in my view, offend against the spirit or the letter of the Directives. Quite clearly, such a contractor, whether from Bournemouth or Brussels, may wish to recruit a proportion of the labour force locally or at any rate may have no objection to doing so."
I understand that there may be some observations to the effect that it is very difficult and very dangerous. We know the mood of the Government, which is to interfere as little as possible with those who are the recipients of ratepayers' money—that is, the recipients of contracts. The government view is that they should be left to get on with it.
The Minister should understand that there are others, not least those who serve on councils in inner-city areas and areas of high unemployment, who are not prepared simply to shrug their shoulders but who want to see if they can do something about the problem. Very often the argument will return to the effect that "even if we wanted to employ local labour, it is not of an adequate standard in skill or in other capacities". I can see the merit of that argument. The greatest shortages are not in prospective employees

749
but in the quality of such employees. As an illustration I refer to the London borough of Haringey and the Broadwater Farm Estate. The Council is to be congratulated in this matter because when it was negotiating on the question of the work to be done on the Broadwater Farm Estate it had the legitimate desire to have as much local labour used as possible. The council and the contractor were able to work out a very satisfactory arrangement whereby the contractor was able to train locally unskilled labour to become skilled labour in order to carry out the contract.
I believe that that is a very fine and a very fair illustration of how contractors and large employers—recognising local difficulties and, more importantly, recognising the conscience of the local council—are asking, "How can we help each other?" What we are saying is that there is an obligation upon local authorities to do their best for local people. I give the Government credit for saying what they want to achieve is redevelopment, refurbishment and regeneration of the economy. There are circumstances, when one looks at the mix, where it will contain a high proportion of local people from ethnic minorities; some may also be disabled and in addition there may be women. What we are arguing is, it is legitimate to use any and every opportunity that we can.
The Opinion of Mr. Richard Allfrey from which I have quoted is in the possession of the Government. They are saying that that is insufficient and that they are not prepared to interpret the rules and regulations as Mr. Allfrey has said they can be interpreted. The Minister will know that the governments of other countries such as Holland and Italy are presiding over the operation of their local authorities by stipulating the employment of a reasonable number of local people—not the totality of the employees on the contract but a reasonable number.
I very much hope that the Minister will at least sympathise with the spirit of the amendment. Whether we are going to make more of the argument will depend upon what he is prepared to do about it at the end of the debate. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I very much hope that the Committee will not accept these amendments. Everybody in Committee has enormous sympathy with the plight of people who are unable to get a job in the areas of which the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is speaking. I believe that the whole country, and notably the Government, have been concentrating on trying to design schemes by which unemployed people can return to employment without distorting the local labour market. I believe we all understand that.
It would be a form of distortion of the local labour market to insist that, in tendering for local government contracts—for example, for school meals, local cleansing or street cleaning—it was essential or advantageous for the people tendering to take on unemployed persons. Surely the right way for local councils to reduce unemployment in those areas is to enter wholeheartedly into the job training scheme which is now growing and to enter
750
wholeheartedly—as most of them are—into the youth training scheme. It would be helpful fully to favour the many measures which there are to help business start-ups in local areas, particularly those in relation to small businesses. Those government schemes are for the very purpose of helping the kind of small businesses which would then tender for local government work because they would have been helped to start up, become profitable and so to bid.
It is a complete negation of the whole drift of national policy for at least the past five years to suggest that the local labour market should be distorted in the way that the noble Lord is suggesting. I am sure that all Members of the Committee have very great sympathy with the aims of these amendments but this is quite the wrong way to go about the problem. The noble Lord said that it was not the aims of the Bill he was trying to get at but the means, but this is quite the wrong approach to employ. I believe that we should leave the Bill as it is in this respect and urge local authorities to back the schemes which exist in order to help the firms that the noble Lord has in mind.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I agree with my noble friend. No one would doubt or challenge the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, but he is making that frequent mistake of trying to translate good intentions into the pages of the statute book. Again and again such attempts end in muddle and confusion.
Perhaps I may refer to the argument that has been lurking around behind the Bill. As my noble friend said when he was dealing with the last amendment, there is the allegation that the Government are conducting a vendetta against local authorities. That is a rubbishy allegation. Those who make it go a long way towards undermining their own case. The point is this. A limited number of local authorities have taken to themselves functions and powers which are nothing to do with their duties. Their basic duties are to look after the interests of their ratepayers and those who live in their areas.
If this amendment were to be accepted by the Committee the consequence would be to make them into law enforcement officers, judges and, even worse, managers of the businesses of those with whom they seek to contract. That would be not only a time-wasting procedure but an utterly vain one, since it is very unlikely that any local authority has the detailed knowledge or the wisdom that would be necessary to oversee the details of the businesses of many hundreds of people who engage in contractual relations with them.
I very much hope that the Committee will have little sympathy with the amendment. The purposes are very respectable indeed but it would result in inefficiency, constant interference and increases in costs. It would be detrimental to the interests even of those whom this amendment sets out to help.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield: Whether the amendments are accepted or rejected—and I refer in particular to Amendment No. 93—I hope the Minister will be able to give some sympathetic encouragement to the concerns the amendments reflect.

751
One of the miracles of Sheffield borough over the past year has been the coming together of the council and local business interests in a determined endeavour to restore Sheffield to what it once was. It has been quite extraordinary to see the lion and the lamb sitting down together in such peace and amity.
One of the fruits of that accord has been a readiness by the employers to promise that jobs will be found for all school-leavers. It would be a tragedy if, as a result of this legislation, or a failure to interpret the legislation in a satisfactory way, while Sheffield was rebuilt the rebuilding was watched by the unemployed of our inner city. Whatever happens to the amendment I hope that we can be given some encouragement that that will not happen in the years ahead.
Baroness Blatch: I too think it is a responsibility of this Chamber to be concerned about the unemployed, but I share the view of my noble friends on this side of the Committee that the amendment is not a solution to that concern. Nothing in the Bill as it is presently drafted invalidates the work going on in Sheffield as described by the right reverend Prelate. The co-ordination work done by local authorities with local commerce and industry will continue. If one couples with that all the work on the training front one sees that a great deal is being done to help those who are unemployed and without skills to gain the necessary skills to compete favourably for the vacancies.
It is a statement of the obvious to say that two kinds of people apply for vacancies: those who are already in jobs and those who are unemployed. It is also a statement of the obvious to say that if, by some quota system, the jobs go to the unemployed, some of the people who are employed will be rendered unemployed. The applicants in all these areas of work will be predominantly local; and the jobs will predominantly be taken up by those who are already doing jobs.
I refer to the collection of refuse, the cleaning of schools, old people's homes and other government buildings, catering work and ground maintenance. These jobs are predominantly done now by local people and many of those people in the public sector will keep those jobs because public authorities will win the contracts. If Cambridgeshire, where contracts go to local companies, is anything to go by, almost all the workforce will be taken up by the private companies who win the contracts.
We talked informally with those companies and asked them to give the jobs, on a first-come first-served basis, to those they considered to be appropriate to do the job. We must not do anything to invalidate what I think is the first principle of employing and recruiting staff. One must recruit the most appropriate people to do the work. That does not invalidate the desirability of local authorities doing their bit to see that the training schemes operate and that young people who are unemployed in their areas are made available for work.
I think that the solution suggested in the amendments is wrong. I hope that the way in which
752
competition is sharpened in these areas will result not in artificial jobs but in real jobs both for people in work, who would be put out of work by contracts going from local authorities to private companies, and for the unemployed.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I support the observations of my noble friend Lord Graham and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield. I agree with the noble Baronesses, Lady Carnegy of Lour and Lady Blatch, that training is essential for job regeneration in the inner cities. This is taking place in various schemes—small schemes in the main—for the regeneration of urban areas and the rebuilding of substandard housing. This shows that local labour can be trained.
My knowledge is based primarily on Birmingham. I do not have to explain to the Committee the kind of local labour that will be available in Handsworth. Local labour there has great difficulty even getting on to YTS courses. It is in the Handsworth area that the Minister will see at first hand the value of contract clauses, underpinned by public and private agreement. Part of the agreement is that local labour must be recruited and trained. A well-known building firm, Tarmac Ltd. has decided to come into the scheme. That is not a one-off spiv firm. On the board outside it is stated:
"This scheme is funded by the Handsworth inner city task force".
The task force has direct government sponsorship. The contract is to renovate the whole of one long street of houses that are in very poor condition, but the renovation must take into consideration the training of local labour.
Many people are actually living in the houses being renovated. Not only will this contract compliance make it a better area for those people to live in; it will also generate more money to be spent in an area where there are many local businesses—again satisfying the ethnic minorities living there. So the money spent will be rejuvenating their own businesses, too.
It is very easy for people to be sympathetic towards the unemployed. However, when one lives among them and sees the difficulties that they face, when one finds that they get into all kinds of trouble and come before the magistrates—I speak as a magistrate in Birmingham—one sometimes wonders what we are doing to help. This clause should recognise that there is a definite need for greater help regarding contract labour.
My noble friend referred to the EC directive. I am always interested in EC directives. For four-and-a-half years I was a Member of the European Parliament going from this House. We have all kinds of directives from the EC. The noble Baroness is not here; but how long did it take the Government to put the EC directive about equal pay for women into operation? People had to go to the European Court to make their case. It is the same with the EC directive on carers and the provision of finance for them. People had to go and fight their case because the Government were not putting directives into operation.

753
Now this directive is being hawked around. It has not been tested in the courts. I feel sure that it will be if the Government take this line, because the true interpretation of the directive—I have a different interpretation to that of my noble friend—is that it should not debar labour coming from any EC country to fulfil a particular contract. There is nothing in this clause that would debar people coming from Spain, Italy or Greece. What it says is that there should be some serious consideration given. As my noble friend said, Holland and other countries are trying to do exactly the same to help their unemployed. The noble Earl the Minister should consider this amendment very seriously.
Lord Jay: I should like briefly to support the noble Baroness who has just spoken and to ask the Minister whether he can assure us that he is not doing anything in this legislation to discourage local authorities giving preference in appropriate cases to local labour. He will remember that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has published a White Paper of which he is very proud. On page 31 of that White Paper, he refers to the task forces which my noble friend has just mentioned. He tells us that the nature of these task forces in inner cities is to,
"pull together the combined efforts of a number of Government departments and work with the private sector and local government".
There follows a short passage on the appropriate objectives and methods of these task forces, which are representative of central government as well as local government. The White Paper then says on page 31:
"Experience to date has identified six main areas on which attention should be focused".
The second of those areas is,
"employment of local labour to provide more jobs for people in their own communities by tackling barriers to local recruitment".
and so on. Those are the words of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
I am sure that this Government are so organised that the Minister on the Front Bench will not be in conflict with his noble friend. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is, after all, a Member of this House. Therefore, I hope he can assure us that he is in conformity with the principle laid down in the words I have just read out.
Lord Bellwin: I was very interested to hear the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield tell us that the public sector is now sitting down with the private sector in Sheffield. I remember, in a former incarnation, going along to Sheffield and trying to get exactly that to happen. I was told that it was the first time in 20 years that the local chamber of commerce had gone into the town hall to talk to the elected members. As the right reverend Prelate rightly said, this can only be a move very much in the right direction. I am sure that Sheffield will benefit, as indeed would all other authorities where the same pertains.
As regards the amendment, what is bound to happen in practice is that those who embarked upon this kind of contract would almost certainly employ local labour anyhow. If you think about it, can you imagine a situation where, for the kind of services
754
that are the subject of this Bill, a company which wants to obtain a contract decided to bring in people from outside as against employing local people? The cost would be out of all proportion and would not make sense. In practice, that is what will almost invariably happen.
There is a world of difference between knowing what happens in practice and laying down some directives. That would most certainly lead, as my noble friend Lord Peyton said, to an impossible and intolerable situation. You cannot in practice have all these conditions laid down and then expect the companies concerned to do the job properly in a cost-effective way.
I am sure that it is not the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, to try to insert situations which would lead to the private sector not being able to compete, because that is one of the effects of the long-term projections of what he proposes. In fact, that really would happen; and that is why I most certainly do not feel that it would be helpful to have the amendment in the Bill. Quite the contrary. I know that it is well meant. In practice, however, I have no doubt, as I have already said, that it will be local people who are employed, one way or the other—either those at present in work or those unemployed. But to lay this down as a requirement would be to defeat what the Bill seeks to do.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: It is clear from our very useful discussion that we all understand the motives behind the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. I am grateful to him for the detailed and comprehensive background that he gave. The noble Lord ranged widely over what had happened in the past to hopes of including some special provision and referred to remarks made on Second Reading in another place.
It is absolutely right that I should point out to the Committee that the stumbling blocks are the EC public works directives, 71/304 and 305, and the public supplies directive 77/62, which set out the criteria on which the contracting authority shall base the award of such contracts. Those criteria do not include the area of residence of the workforce.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, referred to the ALA's counsel's opinion which was mentioned in Committee in another place. We have examined that carefully (we were grateful for the opportunity to do so) to see whether it changed our view, but we have concluded that it did not. Indeed, my honourable friend the Minister of State has written a fairly detailed, technical letter to the Members of the Committee that sat in another place. I shall ensure that copies of the letter are available in the Library. I think the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has already seen a copy.
Notwithstanding the legal advice that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has received, our legal advice is that any conditions in contracts which require local labour to be used would constitute an obstacle to equality of treatment of contractors tendering from other parts of the Community. In his amendment, the noble Lord has attempted to qualify

755
the Opposition's local labour provision by confining it to a reasonable percentage of the workforce from among the local unemployed. The Secretary of State would be required to define in regulations the type of area in which authorities could have regard to local labour issues. The noble Lord further attempts to qualify the provision by making it subject to the basic principles of abolishing discrimination inherent in the Treaty of Rome. But I must repeat that the local labour clauses, by their very nature, would constitute an obstacle lo equality of treatment.
As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made clear during the Bill's Second Reading in another place, the fact that local labour requirements are unlawful in no way weakens the Government's resolve to ensure that inner-city residents share fully in the benefits flowing from new investment and new initiatives in the inner cities. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jay, for once again drawing the Government's commitment to the attention of the Committee.
Research has shown that employment growth in inner-city firms, assisted through the urban programme, for example, has been well targeted on inner-city residents. On average, 84 per cent. of new employees lived locally. Admittedly, the jobs did not require especially high skills and the majority needed only on-the-job training; but certain jobs need a particular skill, and to require in a contract that a quota of jobs must be given to local residents, with the rise in costs and the fall in standards which that entails, is impractical, as my noble friend Lord Bellwin has pointed out, as well, perhaps more importantly, as being unlawful.
Clearly, proper training is an essential component of many inner-city projects. We need to ensure that training is well matched to employers' needs and to develop the capacity of small local firms to win contracts. I share the right reverend Prelate's concern about this matter, and was delighted to hear what progress had been made in Sheffield. The right reverend Prelate knows full well the Government's commitment to the inner cities from the number and the coherent nature of the inner-city initiatives. I should like to remind him that within the various initiatives that have been undertaken by the Government, the aim is to raise skill levels so that local people are better equipped to compete for jobs and employers find that it makes sound sense to hire them.
The answer is not to have a blanket requirement that a certain number of jobs must be given to local people, but to ensure that those people are better trained and motivated to grasp the opportunities created by our various initiatives.
Lord Jay: Before the noble Earl sits down, can he answer my question? Does what he has just said about local labour conform with the Secretary of State's statement in the White Paper that special attention sould be given by taskforces to the employment of local labour?
The Earl of Caithness: I can confirm that the Government's initiatives to which my right
756
honourable friend the Secretary of State refers in the White Paper are designed to help local people, by training them to produce a better workforce and therefore to encourage firms to take them on and tender for the contracts for which we hope they will be able to tender under the Bill's provisions. However, what we cannot do, on our legal advice, is to write it in a binding contract; that is where the difficulty is.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Before the noble Earl sits down, I should like to ask him how the Handsworth inner-city taskforce complies with the reply he has just given to my noble friend? The Handsworth inner-city taskforce is the taskforce which was referred to by my noble friend. It is part local authority and part Government. It has contract compliance, as I said. I cannot follow the answer, with all due respect, that the Minister has just given to my noble friend Lord Jay. Perhaps I have misunderstood the Minister. Are the Government breaking what is called an EC convention with the Handsworth taskforce?
The Earl of Caithness: It would be wrong for me to comment on that case, because I have not been able to study it. However, I can assure the noble Baroness that I shall look into it now that she has raised the point. I must repeat to the Committee that our legal advice is that we cannot write a clause such as that proposed in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, onto the face of the Bill.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: I find the situation difficult to follow. The Government say that they wish to revive the inner cities. They also say that they wish to increase employment there. The amendment merely seeks to change the Bill, which now provides that a local authority cannot inquire into the composition of a contractor's workforce.
The amendment makes an exception, where the local authority is in an area with high unemployment, especially in the inner cities, to allow it to say that it would like a reasonable proportion of the workforce to be local. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said that that might happen in any event. The Government keep saying that that requirement is illegal. I find that point difficult to follow for two reasons. The first is the reason that the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, gave. Secondly, there is the example of the building in Birmingham. The Birmingham Convention Centre was built with 30 per cent. of EC money. There was a condition that 30 per cent. of the workforce should be local.
I cannot believe that the EC would have been a part-employer on something that it regards as illegal. Therefore I have great difficulty, especially now that I have seen and heard two different legal interpretations which suggest that is not illegal, in understanding why there is an insistence that the laying down of that condition is illegal.
It strikes me that what is in the back of the Government's mind is not that consideration, but that—the two noble Baronesses revealed the

757
fact—anything, in their words, that distorts the labour market must be prevented. The illustration which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, used, does not hold water. We say that instead of a person coming in from outside to be employed, the unemployed people in the area should be used. When all is said and done, charity begins at home.
If one builds in an area and unemployed people there obtain work—the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, illustrated this point—fewer people are unemployed; fewer people get into difficulties and there are fewer social problems. There is also more money and therefore one is building up the economy and the social fabric of the area. That is an important consideration. I am not sure that all the examples coming from the other side are non-commercial. I should have thought that the state of a local authority's area, resulting from employment gained through the contracts it has entered into, would be a commercial consideration.
I cannot see how the consequences of the contract are not commercial. Of course they are a commercial consideration for a local authority. Therefore, if the Government say that they want to tackle the inner city problems, they want to increase employment in the inner city areas, I cannot see why they resist this amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: Perhaps I may put it in a nutshell. The difficulty which the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, faces is the question of a legal opinion. On the one hand, the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, as a client of the ALA, has asked for a legal opinion and that legal opinion says that it is in order. On the other hand, the Government as a client have sought a legal opinion. The legal opinion which they have received is that it is not legal. As a client one may either disregard one's legal opinion or accept it. We accept our legal opinion that the amendment proposed by the noble Lord would be illegal.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: I should like to know to what depth we are probing. For example, I also saw a letter from the director of the department in the EC which does not suggest it is illegal. Therefore, I find it quite difficult. If the Government are so adamant about this, will they put the legal opinion which they have received on the table in the Library so that we can see it?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: We have had a very good and well informed debate, even though not everyone will have had the benefit that the Minister has had of reading the documents. All the observations have been well meant and the concern is genuine. But if it comes down to a legal opinion, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether he has had the benefit of the advice of the government Law Officers. If we are faced with a legal opinion by someone on one side and a legal opinion by someone else on the other side, we are involved in an interpretation. The Government say they are prohibited from doing what we desire because of a directive. I would hope that part of the panoply of advice which the Government have had is the advice of their Law Officers. Genuinely and without malice,
758
I think that this is an area which needs to be tested somehow or other. I am conscious that I am by no means a legal man, and I think the Minister ought to give us some indication.
Perhaps I may quickly deal with some of the specific points raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, said that what we would be doing is to distort the local labour market. She is quite right; it is the wish of some councils to distort the local labour market so that more of their local unemployed are employed rather than people from some other area.
Those who are in local government will understand that local councils are under severe pressure from local people, local groups, local organisations. They are saying, "We want more of our people involved". I understand the reticence of the Government or of anybody else about doing what is suggested here, but the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, gave us the Cambridgeshire experiences. We have had the Sheffield experiences, the Birmingham experiences and inner London. With due respect to the noble Baroness, there are big differences in both the quality of the problems and the numbers between places like Cambridgeshire and Southwark, Hackney, Sheffield etc. There are differences of quality. I am not making any disparaging remarks. The people on whose behalf I seek to articulate advise me and I can sec why they are motivated in this way. They have the obligation that they must do something and they believe that this is a way of doing it.
I accept that the Minister has told me that it is not possible. I hear what he is saying but I do not believe that it is not possible. if what we are told is that there are things which he wants to do and which we want to do to make local people work and if there is some blocking mechanism (for instance, the EC says that you shall not take a certain step), then how do you get round it? How do you change it? In the meantime, the unemployed people of Hackney, Southwark and Sheffield are sitting there watching the work which they might have been able to do being done by other people. These are people who genuinely want to do the work. That is one of the dreadful circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, talks about practice. It is likely that most of the labour employed on a big contract is local labour because that is cheaper than busing somebody in from somewhere else. That is a fact. But what the local people want from us and from the Government, from legislation, is that due concern should be paid to this. Otherwise we shall have the situations illustrated by the right reverend Prelate where the rebuilding of Sheffield was very often watched by the unemployed of Sheffield who could have done the work themselves. I take the point that not all unemployed people can do the work which is required.
Finally, the Minister said that the Government were not prepared to have blanket, laid-down percentages. With great respect, the noble Earl has not read the amendment. We are not talking about blankets, we are talking about a reasonable percentage which might be 5, 10 or 25 per cent. It is a question of negotiation. So "reasonable" is open to interpretation. I very much regret that the

759
Government are not prepared to say anything kinder than they have said and I intend to test the opinion of the Committee.
5.46 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 83B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 61; Not-Contents, 142.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Kissin, L.

Aylestone, L.

Listowel, E.

Basnett, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Blease, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bottomley, L.

Longford, E.

Brockway, L.

Molloy, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Mountevans, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Mulley, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Nicol, B, [Teller.]

Carter, L.

Northfield, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Oram, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Phillips, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Donoughue, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Dormand of Easington, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ennals, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Shackleton, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Sheffield, Bp.

Gallacher, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Gifford, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Underhill, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hughes, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

White, B.

Jay, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jeger, B.

Willis, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ypres, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Carnock, L.

Airedale, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Aldington, L.

Colwyn, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Cornwallis, L.

Amherst, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Ampthill, L.

Craigavon, V.

Arran, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Attlee, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Auckland, L.

Davidson, V, [Teller.]

Balfour, E.

Denham, L, [Teller.]

Beaverbrook, L.

Denning, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Diamond, L.

Bellwin, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Beloff, L.

Dundee, E.

Belstead, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Bessborough, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Blatch, B.

Elton, L.

Blyth, L.

Ezra, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Faithfull, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Falkland, V.

Brookeborough, V.

Ferrers, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Ferrier, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Foley, L.

Butterworth, L.

Fortescue, E.

Caccia, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Caithness, E.

Gainsborough, E.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Gisborough, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Grantchester, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Grey, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Gridley, L.

760

Grimond, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Onslow, E.

Orkney, E.

Hampton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Hankey, L.

Pender, L.

Hanworth, V.

Pennock, L.

Harlech, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Havers, L.

Porritt, L.

Hesketh, L.

Prior, L.

Hives, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Reay, L.

Hooper, B.

Ridley, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Rodney, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Romney, E.

Joseph, L.

St, Davids, V.

Killearn, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Kimball, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Savile, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Seear, B.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Selkirk, E.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Long, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Stockton, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Margadale, L.

Strathspey, L.

Marley, L.

Swinfen, L.

Mayhew, L.

Teynham, L.

Merrivale, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mersey, V.

Thorneycroft, L.

Meston, L.

Trafford, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Mottistone, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Munster, E.

Ward of Witley, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Westbury, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Nelson, E.

Wise, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Wolfson, L.

Norrie, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.55
[Amendments Nos. 84 to 89 not moved.]
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield The Lord Bishop of Sheffield moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 15, line 26, leave out paragraph (e).
The right reverend Prelate said: This is a simple issue. When I became a bishop I resolved to keep my prejudices in good repair. I have succeeded in doing so. I still will not buy French apples. We buy English Class 1 apples or we go without. I try similarly to avoid eggs from battery hens, but without much success. I try to avoid South African oranges and other South African goods. I am not an economist but I am not actually convinced that what I do or do not buy makes that much difference to the economy of South Africa. However, I believe that it makes a big difference to me.
The old books that we used to use for training people in making confessions used to ask them whether they had shared in another's sin. I care with what I buy. I think that I therefore have the privilege of not sharing in another's sin. I consider that that is important. I believe that that is important not only for individuals but also for local authorities.
In the many speeches that I have listened to on this Bill the thing that I feel is most unsatisfactory is the

761
view of the Government—or their current view, as I cannot really believe that it is their only view—that a local authority is simply about providing local services for local people at the cheapest price. They seem to believe that local authorities are about emptying dustbins and that is it. That flies in the face of contemporary experience and even more of history. We still see in our towns and cities our councillors, the mayor and the corporation—I use an old-fashioned phrase deliberately—as in some ways representing our community. They speak for our town, and to suggest that they should not have a moral view on matters seems to me lamentable, untrue and unjust.
If that were true, who would be prepared to share in such an arid exercise as simply providing local services for local communities at the cheapest rate? Local government surely is more than that. It always has been and, I dare to hope, always will be. I am sorry to use the name of Sheffield again, but I am rather proud of being the Bishop of Sheffield and equally proud of not being a native Yorkshireman; but that is another matter. Sheffield, like many other northern towns, played a part in the slave trade. If I have got my history right, I remember Manchester's determination not to buy cotton from the slave states in the civil war. Those kinds of decisions seem to me praiseworthy of the local authority concerned and to be proper moral decisions for a local authority to take whether or not we agree with particular examples.
The words that I want to see taken out of this Bill deny local authorities that right to make a moral judgment. I do not really mind whether the 162 authorities who at present exercise a boycott—not the tiny handful of which the noble Earl has spoken—are right or wrong. It is their right to do so. That seems to me a moral issue and a proper exercise of a moral conscience by a local authority.
That is a general reason why the matter is important. However, there is a particular reason. In many of our cities there is a significant population which is not white Anglo-Saxon. Their feelings in those matters are particularly and understandably strong. They have a determination and a will that they shall not be forced unwittingly, through council purhasing power, to support South Africa. If we are to take seriously the problems of racism in our cities, it would be outrageous to take steps that seem consciously to make things worse.
Without challenging the whole purpose of the Bill, I beg the noble Earl and the Government to think again about those words and to leave them out of the Bill so that the same moral judgment which has been given to individual citizens may be given to local authorities as well. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Nugent of Guildford): Perhaps I may indicate to the Committee, before I put the amendment, that if it is agreed to, Amendment No. 91 cannot be called.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I support the amendment. My name does not appear on the Marshalled List as regards the amendment only because the method that
762
has been chosen to deal with the matter was deemed best as reflecting the wide concern felt in all parts of the Chamber. Perhaps I may mention that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester wishes to express his regret at not being present. He is regularly here but urgent business prevents his attendance today.
The existing paragraph (e) is confusing in that it combines two very different issues in relation to a particular company—a possible boycott of the company's products, because of its links with, for example, South Africa, or a boycott of the products of a particular country. Few local authorities have implemented boycott actions against companies simply because of their links with South Africa. However, 162 local authorities of all political persuasions have implemented boycott action against products from South Africa. Therefore the consequences of enacting paragraph (e) as it stands would be extremely serious.
The effect of the amendment would be to allow local authorities to continue to implement purchasing boycotts of South African products. Therefore, the amendment would go some way towards meeting the concerns of local authorities in that it would at least allow them to continue boycott policies of South African products although it would make illegal boycott action against Shell, for example.
Support for the amendment does not necessarily imply support for sanctions or for a British consumer boycott of South African products. The issue is that of the right of local authorities to democratically choose to ban South African products, should their constituents so demand. There will be no freedom of choice for those individuals and organisations who will be forced to purchase South African goods.
I take a diametrically opposed view to that expressed by the Prime Minister when she indicated that sanctions do not matter. I ask the Committee to draw a comparison. A short time ago the Prime Minister visited the African continent and was extremely well received there. It was indicated in the press that the Prime Minister was going to demand the release of Nelson Mandela. My view is that our particular stance in an international sense in not supporting sanctions—the Bill represents a minor form of that—is one of the reasons why Nelson Mandela is still in gaol. I support the amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: One understands entirely the generous emotions that move the right reverend Prelate in proposing the amendment. However, with great respect to him, that approach is founded on two fallacies. The first fallacy is that by operating sanctions against South Africa we are in some mysterious way going to improve the condition of the non-white races in South Africa. How one improves their condition by making them unemployed is not a thing that I have ever quite worked out. Why it should be thought that by diminishing the employment-giving capacity and the wealth-producing power of South Africa to perhaps a considerable degree we shall induce changes which otherwise will not take place seems to me a quite extraordinary idea.

763
Anyone who has been in South Africa and knows in particular the Boer element of the white population there knows that in many ways they are the toughest and most obstinate people in the world. If we try to apply pressures of this sort to them, we are going to drive them rather strongly in the opposite direction.
It is a real illusion to think that by sanctions of that sort the non-white population of South Africa—one accepts that the country has enormous problems—will be helped. I say that with great respect. The effect would almost certainly be the opposite.
However, that is not the point of the amendment. The question of sanctions is a proper one for central government to consider. Personally I happen to agree with the view that the Prime Minister and her administration have taken. I fully accept that other people may urge that another line be taken by the British Government. However, it is certainly a matter for the British Government to decide, aye or no, whether imposing sanctions will do any good. It is nothing whatever to do with local authorities. They are not concerned with international affairs. They have a considerable and important job to do in looking after the welfare of the people in their areas, organising local services properly, helping the good administration and the good trade, if possible, of the local area for which they are responsible.
It is one of the harmful aspects of local government nowadays that many local authorities seem to think that dabbling in international affairs is their business. We get all the fantasies of the declaration of nuclear-free zones. I am bound to say that I have often speculated with some amusement on the picture in the planning rooms of the Kremlin where one would apparently imagine that—
Lord Dean of Beswick: Address the amendment seriously!
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: If the noble Lord will listen—not one of the things he is best at; he is much better at talking—he will see that this is highly relevant. If he does not see that it is relevant, then he does not understand the amendment.
To suggest, as the local authorities are doing, that, for example, with the nuclear-free zones to which I was referring, they are doing something which they can or ought to do and which will influence those in the Kremlin one jot or tittle, is wholly off beam. They are wasting their time, energy and the money of the people who have elected them. I suggest to the Committee that it is not the business of a local authority to indulge in discrimination against goods from any particular country, whether on political or other grounds. To do so is to forfeit their very proper independence when they are dealing with local matters.
It must also be remembered that, although a local authority may have a political majority one way or the other, it speaks for all the people in its area. In any local authority area that one cares to name, though there may be a large and vociferous majority—a
764
Labour majority in some—there are also a number of people who think otherwise. In pursuit of its external political objectives the local authority has no right to do anything which could adversely affect those of its constituents who do not share its views. The very fact that noble Lords opposite do not seem to accept that view is the most vivid illustration that I have seen for some time of the reasons why certain local authorities controlled by the hard Left of the Labour Party have done more harm and damage to the interests of the people they represent than has any other single factor.
I hope that the Committee will keep clearly in mind that no matter what view is taken on sanctions, on international affairs, or on South Africa, that has nothing to do with the case for this amendment. It is simply not the business of local authorities and the Bill is absolutely right to make that clear.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield: I should be grateful for some guidance. I think that I may be speaking to the wrong amendment. My amendment quite deliberately says nothing at all about sanctions. It is about the purchasing power of the local authority to buy what it wants to buy—to buy British if it likes. It is quite untrue that I have been advocating sanctions, as the noble Lord has just said. I might or I might not, but that has not been my concern today. My concern has simply been to say that the local authority has a moral right to buy British or whatever else if it so wishes, and it is misleading to say that the authority is interfering in international affairs.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The right reverend Prelate cannot get away with that. He spelt out very emotionally and very movingly that the question of where a local authority bought from raised moral issues and that he for one took the line that one should not buy, on moral grounds, from particular countries. That was the whole point of his speech.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield: Exactly!
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: With great respect, it did not have any other point. The right reverend Prelate cannot now stand up and say, "Of course, this has nothing to do with sanctions". It has everything to do with sanctions, as the right reverend Prelate knows. I think that he would come better out of this debate if he frankly admitted that.
Lord Paget of Northampton: I find myself in agreement with the last words of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Of course this is a political amendment. This amendment suggests that local authorities should have a right to impose sanctions on another country, and that is an act which is plainly one of foreign policy. Equally, I should go on to say that local authorities do not have available to them the information which is necessary to make worth while their views on a question of foreign policy. They have no business doing so. Even less do I feel that it is the business of the Church.
I object to this amendment partly, as I have indicated, because of its provenance, which I do not like, and partly because of its substance. Its purpose

765
is to injure South Africa. I do not want to injure South Africa. It is part of a "down with apartheid" chant. I will join in that when I can find an alternative and better form of government, rather than simply trying to abolish a system which declines to impose a single culture on two peoples who have evolved differently, both physically and culturally. I say, "Show me a better".
So far as I know, government has three primary duties. The first is to feed the people. Alone in Africa—or rather negro Africa—South Africa feeds its people. In every one of the other African states the governments are at the moment dealing with the problems of famine, which result—
Lord Hatch of Lusby: Will the noble Lord allow me?
Lord Paget of Northampton: No. The famines result largely from bad government and were certainly never even considered in colonial days.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: Will the noble Lord allow me to intervene?
Lord Paget of Northampton: No. I have heard the noble Lord's views too often—and mine have been heard too.
The second duty of government is to employ the people. In negro Africa there is not a single country, other than South Africa, where the people are anything like fully employed. South Africa employs not only the whole of its own working population but a high proportion of the working population of its neighbours, so that a breakdown of the South African economy would be a disaster not only for its own black population but also for the black population of its neighbours.
Finally, the third task of government is to protect the people and ensure their safety in the streets and in the home. For two centuries South Africa achieved that. It was a peaceful, safe country. It is less so today because of the intervention of terrorists—mostly from across the border.
A noble Lord: Shame!
Lord Gifford: Will the noble Lord give way? This is a problem (is it not?) of fighting against the evil of apartheid? Does the noble Lord denounce apartheid or does he not?
Lord Paget of Northampton: I have just been talking about apartheid, which has achieved the three main duties of government in Africa where all other forms of African government have failed.
Lord Gifford: So the noble Lord supports it?
Lord Paget of Northampton: I support it, certainly. I would rather have the best available government than no government at all, which is what the anarchists are looking for. That is the terrorists' objective. It would mean appalling chaos if the terrorists won in this field.
Lord Elton: Does the noble Lord agree that the subject of the debate is the powers of local authorities in this country and not the merits of particular forms of government on either side of the world?
Lord Paget of Northampton: The question in this debate is a very simple one: shall local authorities be authorised to impose sanctions on South Africa?
Noble Lords: No, no!
Lord Paget of Northampton: That concerns what is happening in South Africa. Of course what I am saying is in order. There are lots of other people who are interested in this matter.
So far as concerns safety, South Africa was safe until it hit this terrorist problem. I should also like to remind the right reverend Prelate that that terrorism was to some considerable extent financed by the World Council of Churches, whose contribution to peace in South Africa has not been very good.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield: That happens not to be true. I do not think that that remark about the World Council of Churches should be repeated.
Lord Paget of Northampton: We can look at the facts in detail. However, I am glad that that activity is repudiated.
The effect of sanctions can only be this. They will either not work, or, if they work, there will be more idle, unemployed black men and more hungry black women and children. That is the sole effect of sanctions. I do not find them a particularly Christian approach. Even if I agreed with them, I would object very much to a foreign policy being introduced by the local authorities, who have a very full job in their own localities and should stick to it. I thought that we had enough with County Hall and Ken Livingstone and the IRA. We do not want that sort of thing in local government.
I repeat this because this intervention by the Church is highly political. I believe that the universal experience of history has been that the worst of all known forms of government has been theocracy. Where one has had theocratic government at war the atrocities committed by theocratic governments have always been even worse than was acceptable at that period in history. I do not feel that in a lay parliament there is any place for priests, but if they come here they should steer clear of trouble. Not since the days of the prophet Samuel and the Amalekites has the Church been less than brutal in the conduct of war. war.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: Before the noble Lord finishes his speech, will he correct one error of fact which I have pointed out to him before? It is not the case that South Africa is the only African country which can feed its people. Zimbabwe has been exporting maize for the past five years to its neighbours.
Lord Paget of Northampton: Zimbabwe has had three famines to deal with and has come to us and asked for help.
Lord Beloff: I should not like it to be thought that in order to oppose this amendment it is necessary to carry admiration for the apartheid regime in South Africa to the extent that the noble Lord, Lord Paget, has done. The trouble is that, abhor that regime as we must, we do not know how to improve the situation there. What is being urged upon us by the so-called anti-apartheid movement is counter-productive and bound to be so because the refusal to buy goods—whether one calls it sanctions or not—is of little moment. The refusal to buy goods, as has been said by other noble Lords, can result only in unemployment, whatever country one applies it to.
We are always quite rightly told by noble Lords opposite that unemployment is a scourge, that unemployment is the source of many of our social troubles, and that unemployment is the source of much crime. In the last amendment we were asked to look at the possibility of remedying that situation in our own inner cities. I cannot see why noble Lords, and the right reverend Prelate, do not extend their concern for unemployment by refraining from trying to create unemployment in South Africa. Why should it be moral to denounce unemployment and to fight it in this country but immoral to try to flight it elsewhere? That seems to me to be the moral argument.
If the right reverend Prelate believes that it is moral to try to create unemployment in a foreign country which is bound to lead to civil disturbances and to bloodshed, his morality will end up by his having blood on his hands. I do not think that that is a guilt this Committee would wish to share.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: Like the right reverend Prelate, I urge the Committee to recognise that this is not a debate about sanctions. That is not the central issue of this amendment. We have argued about sanctions many times. There are differing views on different sides, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has pointed out. This is not the time to argue about them. The object of sanctions is not to create unemployment. It is not to damage the South African economy. The object is to reduce the power of the South African regime to oppress the majority of its own people. That is the sole purpose of sanctions.
This amendment goes much wider than the question of sanctions. It relates to the right of people within their local communities to take decisions about those communities. We have heard many times from the Conservative Party its plea for decentralisation, for giving people the power to order their own lives. That is what this amendment is about.
If one takes the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, to its logical conclusion, when he says that there are people within local authorities who do not approve of the action of the authorities, there are also people in this country who do not approve of the actions of the national government. That is no reason for that national government not to take a decision on a policy, so long as they can command a majority.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? The distinction is this. In the case of a local authority the action taken—probably approved by a majority but disapproved by a minority—is outside the scope of that authority's function. In the case of central government, that is not so.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: I do not accept that for one moment. As the right reverend Prelate said, a local authority has a moral obligation as well as a set of physical obligations. Any time a local authority exceeds its own authority it can be rejected, just as a national government can. The local authority represents the will of the majority of the people who have elected it. There are many of those people who feel, like the right reverend Prelate and myself, that it is immoral to continue to buy South African goods. There are many who disagree. That is a matter which must be decided at election time, not by this Chamber and not by this Parliament.
If local authorities are to have any kind of power within their local communities and are to be meaningful in representing the views of their local communities, it is wrong for Parliament to take away the power that has been given them by the majority of their electors. That is the issue that we are debating tonight. It is not a question of sanctions. That issue has entered the debate, but there are many others.
This Government imposed sanctions, not against South Africa but against Poland. This Government are on record as being in favour of sanctions. But, again, this is not the issue. The Government could take that decision because they were a majority government. A local authority can take this decision because it is a majority local authority. When one has banks and commercial institutions, are we to prevent them from withdrawing from South Africa? Many of them have done so.
If they can do so—and they are not elected—then surely it is wrong for Parliament to take away the right of an elected local authority to represent the views of the electors until such time as those electors decide that they will throw that authority out. That is the issue on which we are voting and that is the issue which we should keep right in the forefront of our minds when we decide how to vote.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Elton: The effect of the Bill as drafted is simply to take away from local authorities one set of grounds for determining where to award commercial contracts. The effect of either of these amendments is to restore all or part of those grounds. Those grounds include the grounds that the local authority does not like the political regime of the originating country of some goods or services used by the contractor. That is a general statement, not a statement about a view of the political regime in any one country in the world, whether it is South Africa, Poland or Russia. It is a pity that the debate has become polarised about one possible consequence of adopting the amendment.

769
I seek simply to draw the attention of the Committee to two things: first, since we have chosen to concentrate on that country, South Africa, and to regard the amendment as a means of enabling local authorities to bring pressure on South Africa, we should note that history shows that even when such pressure is applied systematically by countries such as our own and other great economic powers, it does not have the effect intended and the result of the Government's banning of imports from what was then Southern Rhodesia and is now Zimbabwe is a diversification and strengthening of the economy of that country.
The other end of the operation is more attractive. If a system such as apartheid is detested with the force which many of us feel and which I share, it is thoroughly agreeable to be able to say things and, more particularly, to do things which appear to be hostile to it. It makes one feel better, but it does not make the other people feel worse. Therefore I do not think that the argument that has so far been addressed in favour of the amendment is persuasive, except in so far as it would enable us to feel better.
Is this a proper way to make ourselves feel better? I return to the main issue: what is the proper function of a local authority? Is it to provide goods, services and local administration in the interests of the local population or is it to express a supposed collective view about something going on outside this country about which there is never unanimity? It seems to me that the institutions of this country are constructed to enable the national view to be effectively expressed and the national economy to be effectively advanced, protected or deployed against other regimes. Given that that deployment by the whole of the United Kingdom against Zimbabwe, as it now is, was ineffective, it does not seem to me to be likely that the deployment of Bootle or Manchester against South Africa will be any more effective. I do not therefore think we discard anything of any great use in the legitimate and right battle of international opinion against the repugnant regime of apartheid.
The right reverend Prelate has suffered many shrewd blows in this debate, some of them not deserved or justified, and has narrowly escaped responsibility for the Crusades in the process. I hope he will not feel that I am abandoning him in a just cause when I say that I could not on the grounds that 1 have heard support him on the amendment, though I applaud his view of the system of which he has spoken.
Baroness Faithfull: I was born in South Africa. I abhor apartheid. I wish to make absolutely clear that I know what it means for I have experienced it. Secondly, I have been a chief officer in a local authority. When I was a chief officer it was my role in that authority to serve the people of the area where I worked. I was first a children's officer and then I became director of social services. I was responsible for the delinquent, the homeless and the difficult children of the city. If it served those children well to have oranges from South Africa, oranges from Spain or oranges from the South of France, I chose the best oranges because I was responsible for giving the best service to the people in my area.
770
I make it clear again that I abhor apartheid and have cause to do so, but I do not support the amendment because I believe we have strayed right away from the Bill.
Lord Gifford: The debate is about the powers that the local authority should have. We must debate it in the context of the duties imposed on a local authority. There is one duty which has not been mentioned recently and that is the duty under Section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976. It is referred to in the next clause of the Bill, Clause 18, in these terms: that local authorities shall have a duty:
"to have regard to [the] need to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination and promote equality of opportunity, and good relations, between persons of different racial groups".
It is in this context that the existing powers of local authorities to take certain limited actions to oppose the apartheid regime of South Africa are exercised. Let us not forget that racism, both in South Africa and in this country, is a live issue exercising the inhabitants of many, many cities in our country. People, black and white, around our cities are crying to local authorities to give a lead in fighting racism.
One of the inevitable implications of that is that people expect their local community leaders to give a lead in opposing the one single remaining racist government, that is to say the Government of South Africa. It is in that context that at present it is lawful for local authorities to take certain actions in their purchasing and contracting functions. Indeed they have a duty. If they think that the improvement of race relations is promoted by taking certain actions against apartheid, it is their duty to take those actions.
They have a duty which can conflict, however. That is a fiduciary duty towards their ratepayers. It is not lawful for local authorities to throw away money in pursuance of something like apartheid. They would be up before the courts at once if they did and they are advised very strictly on that. It is a limited power to take certain action on certain functions. They can take such action in the arts, on sport, in twinning, promoting lectures and conferences, and to a limited extent they can and should be able, if they wish, to promote that function of good relations by their conditions in purchasing contracts, provided that it can be done without betraying that fiduciary duty.
The amendment seeks to maintain that position. If leaders of our local communities are prevented by law from thinking about things, from giving consideration to matters which are burning concerns to large numbers of the electorate, then they are being prevented from exercising a very important democratic function. We are not talking about money being thrown away because that would be illegal, but we are talking about allowing local government to give its lead in a fight which now and over the coming years will concern the world more and more: the fight against the remaining racist regime in South Africa.
Lord Bellwin: I should like to support what has been said by my noble friends Lord Elton and Lady Faithfull. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord

771
Gifford, said, the prime function of local authorities is to provide the highest possible level of service at the most economic cost, and, quite rightly, we are constantly being reminded of that by noble Lords opposite. If we are suggesting—as the noble Lord, Lord Gifford said—that even if we disadvantage the people whom the authorities exist to serve by following a cause, however worthy it may be, that is all right, I say that that is not all right.
Many functions have been lost to local government in recent years precisely because they insist on meddling in national matters which are not their concern. Local government's powers are given by Parliament, which sets down those powers. It is only in the past 10 years that it has moved away from the consensus that previously existed among all parties. As were many noble Lords in the Committee, I was part of that consensus. We knew that we worked within the parameters laid down by national government. Governments must govern and governments set down the powers.
I maintain that it is wrong to say, "We shall not buy this product from this particular company because they are involved with another country, even though that disadvantages our local people". That may not have been the original intention of the movers of this amendment, but it is the effect of it. It is contrary to what local government is about. The more we debate this Bill, and future local government Bills, the more we shall try to take the line that local government is entitled to move away from issues and the more I shall try to point out the purpose of local government. It is to give local people the best level of services at the most economical cost. We should stick to that purpose, because that is what it is about. As we depart from that, nothing is more sure than that one function after another will be eroded and taken away. It happens all the time and it will continue to happen until we return to the basic principle. That is what the Bill is about.
The Viscount of Falkland: We on these Benches view this clause with alarm and we wholeheartedly support the amendment put forward by the right reverend Prelate. We support the amendment because we consider this to be another attempt to draw away from the ordinary citizens of this country the ability to express their moral concerns, and to take from local government the ability to reflect the moral concerns of ordinary people and take them to the centre.
Other noble Lords have expressed the view, with which we on these Benches agree, that one of the prime functions of local government is to seek the best possible value and to take the best possible commercial measures to achieve that. It is perhaps characteristic of our modern life that, as we become more efficient, progressive and able to master production and become better housekeepers, we lose sight of our moral responsibility to express ourselves as individuals. The best way in which individuals can express themselves is through local government because it is the closest to the way people feel and think.
772
We consider the issue of South Africa to be irrelevant, although we feel strongly that one of the most heinous crimes in world society today is the apartheid regime. There are other areas which, in other times, may require a moral stance of some kind. The issue does not concern South Africa alone, and I believe that we are taking a short-term view in concentrating on that. Many people in this country, perhaps the majority, would like to express themselves as regards South Africa. In 10 years' time noble Lords on the other side of the Committee may wish to express a moral view more strongly than noble Lords on this side of the Committee. Times may change.
We consider that people have an inalienable right to express their moral feelings through their democractically elected representatives at local government level, rather than assuming that it is the business of central government to take care of ordinary people, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, suggested. It may be the duty of central government, but who is best placed to do it? I suggest that it is the local authorities, particularly those which have a large ethnic population within their area. Those people feel strongly and emotionally because they have had closer contact with the kind of oppression and attitudes that one finds today in racist South Africa. The same may apply to other groups of people, in respect of other regimes, in other parts of the country where people have come to live and become part of our country.
We feel strongly that this is a damaging attack on the cohesive moral power of our community. That is important to us on these Benches and, I hope, to other Members of the Committee. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will be supported in this amendment which he put forward so cogently.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Underhill: I should certainly like to hear what the Minister has to say about the amendment. I believe that few Members of the Committee would disagree with what the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said about the purpose of local government. Equally, I believe that no one would disagree with the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, in his attitude towards local government. It seems to me that the two views are complementary and I do not know why we are arguing about the rights of local government in this matter.
In the Second Reading debate on this Bill I replied for the Opposition and I should like to remind the Committee of what I said. There are certain countries from which I do not wish to buy certain products, particularly where there is sweated labour. As far as I am able, I shall avoid doing so. For that reason I always buy a car which has been made in Birmingham. That is my preference and I do not want anyone to take it away from me. This clause will remove that right.
I should like to look at the matter positively. So far as possible I want to give contracts to firms which can provide the decent conditions, prices and rates: to British firms making British goods. For that reason, I supported the "Buy British" campaign. Viewing the

773
issue from a positive angle, surely a local authority should have the right to say that it will purchase materials or components from firms in this country where they are made under proper working conditions, at proper prices and with proper delivery. Let us bring the issue hack to the positive side and not concentrate solely on the question of South Africa. As a citizen, I want to do my best for the local people and I want my local council to be able to do that. The Committee has heard that 106 councils prefer to do so and if the Committee does not remove these words from the Bill it will be taking away that democratic right from 106 local authorities.
The Earl of Caithness: If I correctly sense the mood of the Committee it may be that I should respond at this stage. The noble Lord, Lord Dean, said that he was not a signatory to this amendment. I believe that he is a signatory to the amendment which we are discussing, although he is right in saying that he is not a signatory to the amendment tabled in the name of the right reverend Prelate which is linked with it. Of course he is a signatory to Amendments Nos. 96 and 97, which are linked.
Much has been said about sanctions. May I simply emphasise that this Government condemn apartheid? We believe that sanctions only serve to harden attitudes and that they put at risk the jobs and livelihoods of the very people they are intended to help, a point made so ably by my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Elton.
The issue before us is whether public authorities should refuse to have any dealings with contractors or their subsidiary companies solely because of their links with a particular country. The Committee has attempted to justify such discrimination by authorities on the grounds that it is necessary in order to promote good relations between different racial groups in their areas.
Of course, it is true that the primary object of Clause 17(5) (e) is to prevent discrimination against companies with South African links because that is the most common abuse of the contractual process. But the provision is designed to prevent such discrimination in relation to any country or territory to which an authority might suddenly take a dislike.
I commend to the Committee the view of a former Opposition spokesman on local government matters, the member for Blackburn, when dealing with a previous Local Government Bill in the other place. He said that,
"Experience has shown that contract compliance is not an appropriate means of expressing discontent with those who trade with South Africa.".
Apart from disagreeing with the use of the word "appropriate" in that context, I would agree with that view.
When one looks at what the amendment tries to do, I find rather surprising the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, because it is absolutely true, as the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, that is is up to the individual. It is up to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, whether he buys a car which is British made. It is up to the right reverend Prelate whether or not he wishes to eat
774
French apples. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, said that he would be prepared to go as far as agreeing with a local authority putting into a contract discrimination against a contractor who might have had links with France because the authority, like the right reverend Prelate, did not like French apples. That is not something I should have expected to hear from his party and some Members of the Committee may have been quite surprised, too.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield: Can I ask the noble Earl to confirm that it would be illegal under this measure for a local authority to insist on a "Buy British" policy for any of its contractors?
The Earl of Caithness: Under the EC convention, of course. There is the competition.
The Viscount of Falkland: Since the Minister mentioned me personally, could I say that it is not purely a moral issue whether I buy a Golden Delicious apple or a Cox's orange pippin. However, it may be a moral matter if producers of apples arc chaining their workers together in order to ensure that they pick enough. However, I do not think that the question of the choice of apples is relevant to my remarks.
The Earl of Caithness: I do not want to become involved in a technical argument but it may well be that it is a moral matter to the councillors and, therefore, they might try to write that into a contract which would he illegal for an EC contractor. However, the principle of what the noble Viscount said does hold water for the argument I put forward.
Amendment No. 97 seeks to allow authorities to ask questions or include provisions in draft contracts or tenders which are designed to
"promote and protect the reputation of the authority in race relations matters".
We do not wish to see authorities using the contractual process to promote and protect their reputation in race relations or indeed any other matters. We wish authorities to obey the law, to carry out their duty under Section 71 of the Race Relations Act, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, and otherwise to use the contractual process to obtain the best value for money for their ratepayers and taxpayers.
Our position on the activities of those authorities who seek to discriminate in this way against certain companies is quite clear. Authorities should not be using the contractual process to refuse to employ contractors on solely ideological grounds or on grounds unrelated to competitiveness or competence to carry out the work or supply the goods or services required. Such practices distort competition and do not give best value for the taxpayers' and ratepayers' money.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: I am afraid that the Minister has again disappointed me. There is more to it than whether or not the services are provided at the cheapest rate. For example, I would not buy South African goods, and the Committee would expect that. But for years neither would I drink German

775
wine nor eat any fruit that came from Spain. If, in a community, there are large numbers of people who do not want these things, a local authority catering for those people should be able to say, "Yes, you can cater for the children of X school or the schools in my area but because a lot of people in my area do not want goods that have come from X, Y or Z place, you must not use them". That is perfecty in order and is not non-commercial because the customers have to be satisfied.
One has this limited argument about what is commercial. The local authorities have a responsibility for the welfare of the community and they have a responsibility to respect the wishes and needs of the people living there. If you say to them that they cannot do that, of course you have a right, because Parliament has that right. What we are saying is that it is unreasonable for Parliament to use that right because of the consequences of using that right. I hope that the Minister will want to think again on this matter.
The Earl of Caithness: I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, and I differ again. We say that, thank goodness, in this country we can allow the individual to discriminate as he thinks fit. We say it is wrong for the local authority to write such discrimination into a contract.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: Surely, the individual has to use the facilities that are provided by the local authority? He does not have the choice if you are going to prevent the local authority from deciding how it is going to purchase things.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield: I do not think any useful purpose will be served by saying anything further. I believe that the main point has been missed by many speakers—the right of local government to choose. If we follow the line that has been taken by many on this side of the Committee I fear we are putting a firm end to a long and distinguished chapter of English history and I regret it. However, I still want the amendment to go forward.
Baroness Phillips: I hoped that the Minister would make the point. The right reverend Prelate has every right to speak in this Chamber. It is not a question of being political; he speaks as a Christian and we respect him for it.
6.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 90) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 59; Not-Contents, 112.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Amherst, E.

Carter, L.

Ardwick, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Attlee, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Basnett, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Bottomley, L.

Diamond, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Donoughue, L.

Brockway, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

776

Ennals, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Molloy, L.

Falkland, V. [Teller.]

Mulley, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Nicol, B.

Gallacher, L.

Northfield, L.

Gifford, L.

Ogmore, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Phillips, B.

Grimond, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hampton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Hughes, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Seear, B.

Jay, L.

Shackleton, L.

Jeger, B.

Sheffield, Bp.

John-Mackie, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kennet, L.

Tordoff, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Underhill, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

White, B.

Lockwood, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mayhew, L.

Willis, L.

Meston, L.

Ypres, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Kissin, L.

Ampthill, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Arran, E.

Lawrence, L.

Auckland, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Balfour, E.

Long, V.

Beaverbrook, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Bellwin, L.

Margadale, L.

Beloff, L.

Marley, L.

Belstead, L,

Merrivale, L.

Blatch, B.

Mersey, V.

Boardman, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mottistone, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mountevans, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Munster, E.

Butterworth, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Caccia, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Caithness, E.

Nelson, E.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Onslow, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Orkney, E.

Carnock, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Colwyn, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Prior, L.

Craigavon, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Reay, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Ridley, V.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Rodney, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Romney, E.

Dundee, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Eden of Winton, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Savile, L.

Elton, L.

Selkirk, E.

Faithfull, B.

Stockton, E.

Ferrier, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Fortescue, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Gishorough, L.

Swinfen, L.

Grantchester, L.

Teynham, L.

Gridley, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Trafford, L.

Harlech, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Havers, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hesketh, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hives, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Westbury, L.

Hooper, B.

Wilberforce, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wise, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Wolfson, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the, negative and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Arms Control and Disarmament (Privileges and Immunities) Bill
7.5 p.m.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move on behalf of my noble friend Lord Glenarthur that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.6 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.6 to 8.6 p.m.]

Local Government Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 17.
[Amendment No. 91 not moved.]
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 15 line 34, leave out paragraph (h).
The noble Earl said: I can only speak on the Building (Scotland) Act 1959, which was the introductory Act to the Building Standards (Scotland) Regulations which lay down the scantlings of any structure to be erected. Because of these very strict regulations in Scotland dealing with damp-proofing, daylighting, ventilation, construction, etc., the average house costs 10 per cent. more to build in Scotland than south of the Border. I should always advise anybody wishing to build a house in Scotland to make certain that the erection of the house complies with these regulations because that is in the house-owner's interest.
If any building contractor or direct labour organisation, for that matter, employs technical, professional services under Section 31 of that Act, I should have thought that would be in the interests of the client. As a final point, every proposed building has to have a building warrant from the local building authority. This is completely separate from any planning requirement. Before 1974 in any town this was obtained from the Dean of Guild Court. I do not think there was an English equivalent. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling this amendment. It may just help the Committee if I explain the background to Clause 17(5)(h). This subsection will have no effect on the standards with which builders have to comply under the building Acts and associated building regulations. We must continue to ensure that building work is carried out to an adequate standard, and nothing in this Bill will interfere with that.
I hope that is of some relief to my noble friend, because he mentioned the very real concern that there is to make sure that building standards are maintained. Traditionally local authorities have been charged with the job of inspecting building work to check that it complies. This has been done by building inspectors, whom they employ. In order to provide a degree of choice for builders and to encourage greater efficiency through competition, the Building Act 1984 enabled the Secretary of State to approve other bodies as competent to carry out this inspection work. One body has been approved to date—the National House Building Council.
In response to this, a few authorities have started to insist that contractors carrying out work for them must use their building inspection services. We regard this as an unacceptable abuse of the contractual process, and Clause 17(5)(h) will stop it. My noble friend's speech highlighted the differences in the building control system north and south of the Border. While the NHBC does not offer the same alternative to local authority building control north of the Border, its designation to assess the compliance of standard house designs with the building standards regulations on behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland under a new class warrant scheme is under active consideration. Although there is no reason to believe that Scottish local authorities would act improperly, it seems both reasonable and prudent, therefore, that this clause should apply to Scotland. I trust that in the light of what I have said my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: We are concerned with standards in complying with building regulations. Perhaps as a layman I assessed wrongly what the noble Earl said, but I understood him to say that with the work that goes into it a building in Scotland has a 10 per cent. higher value than its counterpart in England. I do not know whether or not I heard him correctly.
It is obviously better to make a good investment in a house at the beginning than to try to make up the leeway afterwards. I have been involved in housing and the building industry over a great many years. There is a great deal of worry in the industry about slippages in quality control. Some of the professional organisations, which are totally independent of politics, express grave concern about the present push—although this point is not directly related to the amendment, there is a connection—for self-regulation, self-inspection and self-certification. The Institute of Clerks of Works is deeply concerned.

779
Only a few months ago, the institute issued a brochure expressing the fear that the role of those involved in maintaining standards would be diminished. I introduced the brochure for the institute and it received full support from Her Majesty's Government. It is completely non-political. I made the point that in other spheres of life higher standards of quality control are always being demanded. When I first went into engineering as a boy the fact that the job was done by a skilled engineer was almost sufficient. During the war, because serious risks could have been involved if the job was not done to a sufficient standard, quality control was greatly increased. If we are not careful this Bill could lead in certain respects to a lowering of standards. I am sure that the Minister and the Government would not wish to see that happen.
I have mentioned the Institute of Clerks of Works. I know that the institute will shortly meet Mr. Trippier to discuss the problem. I also know that the Chartered Institute of Building, which is 200 years old, shares the same concern. If we do not take action in this Bill some of us will come back to it as watchdogs to make sure that the client not only in the public sector but generally gets value for money. I can see nothing worse than allowing self-certification in giant contracts. I believe that there is a role for the public building inspector. I am putting a marker down for the people who, historically, have been the safeguard of our standards, organisations such as the Institute of Clerks of Works and the Chartered Institute of Building. It is essential that we listen to them when they put forward their point of view.
The Earl of Caithness: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dean, that quality control is vital. The clerks of works have an important role to play. I would remind the Committee that the NH BC and local authorities apply exactly the same standards and that therefore there will be no diminution in quality control as a result of this Bill. That is something the Government would not wish to see in any case.
The Earl of Balfour: I am grateful for what has been said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 92A:
Page 15, line 36, at end insert—
("(5A) Nothing in subsection (5) above shall prevent a local authority from making reasonable inquiries of a contractor as to the record of relationships between management and workforce in the course of the previous five years.").
The noble Lord said: Although the Committee touched on the principle involved in the amendment earlier in the evening, I think it is as well to highlight what the amendment means to the local authorities. Clause 17(5)(d) suggests that the activities of contractors in trade and industrial disputes are a non-commercial matter. Local authorities feel that the industrial relations record of certain firms is relevant. We feel that this point should be taken into account.
The amendment would allow local authorities to make reasonable inquiries of a contractor about the record of relations between management and workforce in the course of the previous five years. There are organisations which in contracts with local authorities over the years have a poor record of industrial relations. One rarely comes across this with bona fide companies which service the public sector because they always have a high regard for good public relations on the basis of forward planning and ensuring that they have the workforce necessary for carrying out a programme.
Baroness Blatch: I find it difficult to believe that virtue is all on the side of local authorities. The industrial relations between a local authority and its workforce are of course a prime responsibility of the local authority. I am not so sure that I agree that local authorities should use their precious time and resources in taking a detailed interest in the relationship between the management and workforce of either their potential contractors or even their actual contractors. Their responsibility is to ensure that they get the best possible service as prescribed by the local authority in the form of the specification for the contractor to see and that it is delivered to the standards that the local authority has predetermined.
I think that the way a company employs its staff and looks after them is a matter for the company. The private company, just like the local authority, is subject to all the laws of the land on industrial relations. It seems to me that we should not empower a local authority to become even more involved in a private company except in terms of getting the service that it has paid for, prescribed and wants delivered.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): Perhaps I should intervene at this point. I understand that this group of amendments was decided and rejected on Amendment No. 83A.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: No. With great respect, they were decoupled from Amendment No. 83A. Amendment No. 83A was the subject of the very first general debate of the day, and it is quite clear that these amendments were decoupled from that. They are now listed separately.
The Earl of Caithness: May I seek clarification on that? Amendment No. 83A states:
"except as otherwise provided under subsections (5A) to (5E) below".
We voted on that and overwhelmingly that amendment was rejected. It covered precisely the same ground as the amendments that we are discussing now.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: If that is the case, why did the Minister's advisers agree to decouple the amendments and list them separately in the groupings? The Minister well knows what happens before a debate starts. His advisers make a suggestion as to which amendments should be grouped together. Those of us who are involved make our suggestions. Because we wanted to deal at length with each of the

781
separate issues we indicated that we wished them to be separated so that we could deal with them separately. That is what we have done.
If there has been a mistake either by the Minister's advisers or by ourselves, it is not a matter of moment. But these issues are very important and we have something to say now which we did not say earlier. I started to broach a certain aspect on Amendment No. 83A and, quite rightly, there were noises to the effect that I should deal with the point later. That is what we are trying to do now.
The Earl of Caithness: I am very happy to take advice on this, because that is the right way of dealing with such matters. Of course it was said that we could deal with these points later because they can be raised later. But as I understand it, and I stand to be corrected, the fact that the amendment was then voted on altered the position completely. But I shall he happy to take advice on that.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I understand that what the Minister says is correct. I can only suggest, if I may, that perhaps the points which the noble Lord wishes to raise can be raised on the clause stand part debate.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Perhaps we are being invited to have the longest clause stand part debate in history. Let the Minister be quite clear. If there has been an error, then the way to deal with these matters in detail is to debate them with the general reasons why the clause should not stand part of the Bill.
The Earl of Caithness: There has not been an error at all. The noble Lord took his amendment to a Division and it was settled in the Division Lobbies. I cannot stop him discussing anything on clause stand part. But I think we should obey the Rules of the House, and the advice that I have now received is that it is not in order to speak to these amendments because they have been specifically voted on.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: It is no good the Minister telling me that no error has been made if I have admitted making an error. When we asked for the amendments to be decoupled it was on the basis that we could deal with them separately later. That was our error. What I am saying to the Minister in the light of that error is that we still have a lot to say on the subject matter of these amendments and, as the Deputy Chairman has kindly pointed out, the opportunity will occur on clause stand part. I am not getting excited.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Then we move on slightly at this juncture. I think that Amendment No. 93 has already been discussed and therefore it is not moved.
[Amendment No. 92A not moved.]
[Amenthnents Nos. 92B, to 93 not moved.]
8.30 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 94.
Page 16, line 48, at end insert ("with the exception of bodies, associations or employers' associations of any sort which are designed to promote a particular standard of expertise").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to remove the prohibition placed on authorities by the Bill to ask contractors about their potential or actual membership of trade or employers' associations that are designed to promote standards of expertise in the contractor's trade. The first argument for this amendment is quality of work. Without the opportunity to ask contractors about actual or potential membership of employers' associations authorities will not be able to guarantee that work is undertaken by properly qualified and experienced contractors. As a result authorities will be unable to fulfil their legal duties in this respect.
Many employers' associations operate technical guarantee schemes based on the technical standards of contractors in membership. Membership of such associations is therefore an indicator of quality assurance to an authority. For example, West Lothian District Council, along with the gas and electricity boards, insists that central heating, gas and electricity contractors are approved by the Solid Fuel Advisory Service or the National Inspection Council for Electrical Installation Contractors. If the Bill is passed unamended, the council will no longer he able to guarantee this quality from its contractors.
I want to pause for a moment and remind Members of the Committee that a few years ago a tremendous number of home improvement and repair grants were applied for individually. In the main the properties concerned were older terraced houses and an appalling situation developed in the building industry. Local authorities had then to be brought in and they increased their standard of inspection so that ordinary people who were applying for these grants at the bottom end of the scale were not taken for a ride. But thousands of them had already been taken for a ride—I am talking about grants of between £3,000 and £7,000—by cowboy, do-it-yourself, odd-job men who called themselves builders.
In hundreds of cases all over the country work was left half-finished. Nobody could chase up those people, nobody could find where they went and, as I said, local authority building inspectors were eventually allowed a more robust role. We have to be very careful that we do not get into that situation again because of some of the proposals in this Bill.
There are further items covered by this amendment. For instance, there is public safety. If authorities are unable to secure properly qualified contractors, a clear threat is posed to public safety. A recent study of scaffolding contractors in London conducted by the Health and Safety Executive highlighted a deplorable lack of basic safety practice among many private contractors. Such neglect would spread throughout much of the public sector if the Bill were unamended.
I have first-hand experience of a housing contract in Manchester where some maisonettes were being built and the private builder went broke. We had to call in the building department because of the atrocious standard of scaffolding, which was the absolute minimum to do the job. Every time the men went up the scaffolding there must have been a risk to life and limb.
The building industry records some of the highest accident figures. The rate is far higher than for coal mining. Many of the accidents—I am not saying all—relate to contractors who have the safety of the person on the site as their lowest consideration. That is another matter that we have to be careful about. If contractors want to skimp on a contract, the safety of the building operatives goes by the board.
I spoke earlier about a cowboy's charter. The result of this Bill will be to undermine much of the painstaking work undertaken jointly by employers' organisations and local authorities to eliminate bad employment practices. The way will be open for cowboy operators who have no regard for decent employment standards to undercut good employers. That Mrs. Thatcher was aware of the danger of the bad driving out the good was clear from the remarks she made during last year's freezing winter. She wisely advised members of the public who were suffering from burst pipes to use only plumbers who were members of the Institute of Plumbing. Why, if the Government believe that that advice was good, arc they seeking to outlaw local authorities that are making serious attempts to employ only bona fide contractors?
I mentioned earlier, as the Committee knows, fair competition. If a builder has a low standard of site maintenance, including scaffolding, and does not have much regard for safety measures, he has a much better chance of winning a contract than most responsible builders who give these matters high priority. They start at a disadvantage. They arc prepared to write certain matters into their bills of quantities and contracts, and they cover them. If they are to be undercut by someone who will spend only about one-third as much on site maintenance, which means the safety of the building operatives, the competition is anything but fair. It cannot be fair competition.
The Government's main argument in support of the Bill is that it will increase competition in the provision of local government services. But with its prohibition on asking contractors about membership of trade associations, the Bill has the opposite effect. There have been briefs from the Electrical Contractors' Association of Scotland pointing out:
"Members of this Association who contribute the costs … to the regulation of their industry including training will be given no recognition … and will have to compete against firms who do not meet these obligations".
Last week there was an order before this place. I should have dealt with it, but I must plead guilty to the fact that I mixed up my dates, and therefore my noble friend Lord John-Mackie dealt with it. It was designed to increase the construction industry training board levy. There has been a dispute between the big builders and the small builders. The dispute was not on the principle of the training board, but on how it was funded.
However, let us put that argument to one side. Anyone who is a member of the Building Employers Confederation and the Federation of Master Builders, which caters for the smaller builders, pays substantial sums of money into the organisation. The money can come only from the prices in their
784
contracts, but they accept the levy as an obligation in the interests of training younger builders. The last time the figure was given, I think that the CITB had £6 million in the kitty and the Government were trying to persuade it to plough back that money into the industry to train more builders in quality control, and so forth.
No one knows more about the subject than the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, because he has the reputation of being one of the country's experts on building law and all its implications. If those employers are prepared to accept that responsibility, they risk losing a contract by just a few per cent. to someone who is not a member of either organisation. That is what the Bill means. Is that an example of fair competition? I do not think it is. It is not an example of fair competition.
The Electrical Contractors' Association of Scotland observed that,
"technical standards and public safety levels are maintained … by the stringent entry requirements set by the Association and the high standards which are set regarding the use of trained and graded labour which all firms arc required to use."
The ECA concluded:
"If Local Authorities are unable to select contractors using … membership of an Employers Association as a criterion they will be unable to establish that adequate self regulation of standards will he taking place and public safety will he put at risk."
The Building Equipment Contractors has also expressed its strong reservations over the proposal contained in the Bill. In the Contracts Journal of 16th July 1987, its director of manpower services, Stephen Moon, said:
"It is clear that there is a danger that national collective bargaining agreements will be weakened. That is not what we at the BEC are in business for."
He pointed out that the BEC was already dismayed by the Government's removal of the fair wages resolution. Mr. Moon expressed the BEC's concern about moves which enable some sections of the industry to undercut nationally agreed terms and conditions followed by responsible employers. Those views are supported by associations such as the National Federation of Demolition Contractors.
Cowboy operators with demolition contracts beg a thought. Demolition is probably the most dangerous and worst form of, I was going to say building, but perhaps it should be termed, debuilding. On a well-ordered site, such as the one in the centre of Leeds, where Schofields a large traditional store is being demolished no one can complain about the way it is being accomplished. It is being done with the minimum nuisance to people. One can walk past without fear of being interfered with or inconvenienced. Whoever is doing that is doing a superb job.
However, if a cowboy comes in and does that sort of work—I know that example is in the private sector but, nevertheless, the same applies—anyone walking past could be at risk. As I have said, they tend to use poor safety equipment. The Government must be careful therefore that the Bill does not lead to an increase in such practices. With some of the older and taller buildings that are now being pulled down, there is a high risk if they are not demolished in a proper manner. It is not like knocking down old terraced houses; it is a difficult and dangerous job.
The Opposition, local authorities, trade associations and the public believe that quality assurance underwritten by trade associations provides enormous benefits for the ratepayers and the authority concerned. It would be dangerous to disregard that point. We believe that local authorities should be permitted to continue to support the efforts of conscientious employers to preserve high quality work and good employment practice. We commend the amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Broxbourne: I shall express a few short words of sympathy for the amendment. I should like to make it clear that that sympathy is not evoked by the characteristically over generous comments about myself made by the noble Lord who is himself such a great expert on all building and construction matters.
I think that Ministers should give careful consideration to this amendment because it proposes to modify the definition contained in Clause 17(5)(f) of the sort of associations which are prescribed under this provision. My interest is that I am the undistinguished vice-president and the previously still more undistinguished chairman of the National Housebuilding Council, which, as noble Lords may know, exists in order to prescribe and maintain high standards in building construction.
We look at this clause and see the definition which the amendment proposes to alter and perhaps improve, the words right at the end: "or other associations". That phrase conjures up all the complications and difficulties of what lawyers call ejusdlem generis rule. I had hoped that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, who was in the Chamber earlier, would he here. I pointed out to him that this was an interesting matter and that I myself proposed to say a short word on it. Perhaps for that reason—and noble Lords may think it sufficient reason—the noble and learned Lord has decided that he has a better occupation elsewhere.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will look very carefully at this and at the implications of "other associations" and bring his mind directly to bear on whether this may catch the National Housebuilding Council, which, in spite of its name, does not build anything. It prescribes and enforces good standards, and it would be quite wrong if it were caught by this statute.
The Earl of Balfour: I should also like to say a few more words on this point. I very much support what the noble Lord, Lord Dean, has said, that if a contractor's work is substandard the local authority has very little comeback, particularly if that contractor goes to the wall. However, if you employ contractors who belong to the electrical or central heating or plumbing institutes as a private individual or local authority, I should think the position is the same. You can come back on the association and complain that one of its members did not do the job properly, and in a way you have some sort of insurance.
I am all for putting things out to tender, but let us not place the local authority in a position where it has to accept the lowest tender from a substandard
786
organisation or one from which, if the workmanship is not up to standard, it has no claim. I do not think the building regulations will specify the exact type of jointing you must have on a pipe. They will specify the size of pipe and perhaps the quality of the pipe. But particularly in electrical work, unless the work is done conscientiously and carefully, about the only way in which a buildings inspector might manage to find out that there was a fault is to find that the earth is not earthed or there is no proper neutral somewhere.
I think that is a very unsatisfactory fallback, and we must provide local authorities with the security of being able to employ firms of quality. If they have the back-up of some sort of insurance, that is a safeguard to the local authority or, may I say, to myself as an individual running a small estate. I like to pick men I know are really qualified to do the job.
8.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: Perhaps I may assure the noble Lord, Lord Dean, and my noble friend Lord Balfour that the Government are as concerned as they are over standards. I accept that a contractor's membership of a reputable trade association is often used by authorities as an indication of certain professional standards or competence. But it is not the only method by which authorities should evaluate the merits of a company with whom they are considering doing business. It would indeed be foolish to use such membership as the sole yardstick against which to judge a contractor's suitability for inclusion in an approved list or for the award of a contract. Far more relevant, I suggest, is the contractor's previous work record and financial standing.
While I understand and sympathise with the rationale behind this amendment, I fear that it would provide a loophole which the unscrupulous would be quick to exploit. I hope that noble Lords will have their concerns eased when I say that Clause 17(5)(f) does not embrace regulatory bodies like CORGI who are concerned with the safe installation of gas equipment; or those inspection bodies in the electrical industry who test contractors' equipment; or indeed the concern of my noble friend Lord Broxbourne on the NHBC. Furthermore, the Bill does not prevent authorities insisting that electrical work or any other work is covered by the appropriate guarantees. Nor does it stop authorities specifying appropriate standards in contract documentation.
However, having been and still being a surveyor, I understand the point the noble Lord, Lord Dean, made about building work. It seems to me that it is by no means impossible—indeed, it is very easy—for a local authority to set down the standards, to say that these standards must be met and that when it comes to housebuilding it has to meet the standards required and laid down either under the guarantee scheme by the NHBC or the equivalent. But I believe that work can be done either by the DLO, who I am sure will win a lot of the contracts because they will prove themselves to be efficient, effective and competitive, or by a firm in the private sector.

787
Nevertheless, the firm in the private sector does not have to be a member of a trade association in order to get on to the local authority's list or to be awarded the tender, because that is what has been happening in certain circumstances, limited though they are. There are much more important matters to look at, such as the financial standing and the track record of that company.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am a little sorry that the Minister was not somewhat more sympathetic towards what we were saying and did not give some gleam of hope that he may look at the situation.
Without joining a mutual admiration society, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, for his comments about myself, but I have never claimed to be a building expert because I am not one. My interest in building stems from being a local authority councillor, when I became interested in buildings; but I have no professional expertise to bring to the matter. I know that the noble Lord is recognised as an authority on the legalistic side of building. That is the way I put it.
I was glad that the noble Lord mentioned the National Housebuilding Council, because years and years ago, in my days as a young councillor in Manchester, as chairman of housing I was a member of the council's predecessor, the National Housebuilding Registration Council. It has developed as an organisation which is responsible for the private building sector. There is no question at all that owner-occupiers in this country should be extremely grateful for the way in which that organisation has developed and the people who have served on it, both the professional side who run the organisation and people like the noble Lord himself. They give their time to that sort of thing in order to keep standards high and improving if possible. It goes without saying that I do not think any new house which is built in this country, certainly not in the private sector to my knowledge, will attract a mortgage unless it is accompanied by the appropriate certification of the National Housebuilding Council. I know that from having been involved during the past four or five years in changing homes. I am currently about to move again.
One of the first things that one's solicitor asks one for now is a certificate from the National Housebuilding Council. Even with that organisation I think that there is a worry about overprotection. Some local authorities, after the NHBC has accepted houses as being of sufficient standard, then insist on the right to examine them as well under local authority law. I have never believed in duplication. When an organisation such as the NHBC states that a house is worth buying that is good enough for me. I have not known of a case where anybody has come back on that organisation and said that it has done a bad job or that they have been let down. I think that it does a splendid job.
Having said that let me come back to what the Minister said. This side of the Committee is not saying, and nor are the supporters of the amendment, that everyone must be a member of an association. But what we are saying is that we doubt whether a
788
case can be found of malpractice by a member of a recognised association. The case was mentioned of electrical installations, because they are of course the most potentially dangerous part of any building. I have seen buildings finished and ready for use but awaiting certification from city architects for their electrical equipment. The city architect refused to accept those buildings or to allow his clerk of works to accept them on the basis of an electrical inspection unless he was 100 per cent. sure about the electrical installations. In the case of plumbing one can afford to be less than 100 per cent. sure as it can be repaired at a later date, but if electrical installations are not done properly they pose a high accident risk.
I believe, and I stand by this belief, that in the main people who are members of trade associations—that is the long-standing, bona fide associations—will certainly not be rogues. Those associations would not allow rogue people in their ranks; they would very soon get rid of them if they were found to be so. In some cases such associations are very quick to discipline members if they think that there is a slippage of standards.
I ask the Minister to consider whether this amendment is worth taking back for reconsideration. I am not asking him to promise anything more than that, but in view of comments from Members of the Minister's side of the Committee I think it would be worth that. I have no desire to divide the Committee but I think the amendment is worthy of another look.
The Earl of Balfour: Will the Minister please seek legal advice on whether the last words at the very bottom of page 16 "fraternity or other association", as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Broxbourne, should be left out of the Bill? I feel that the words are really weakening the position of those contractors who arc members of an association. It is too wide a provision and I should like real legal opinion on that.
Baroness Blatch: Could the Minister tell me or ascertain for me how many local authorities that manage direct labour forces belong to professional associations?
Lord Dean of Beswick: Perhaps I could answer that for the Minister. I know that most of the officers who work for local authorities, whether they are city architects, planners, building managers or clerks of works, all belong to their respective professional associations. It is a condition of their employment.
Baroness Blatch: With respect, that really was not my question. I understand that people who obtain professional qualifications belong to their professional associations. We have been talking all evening about plumbers, bricklayers, house builders and the workforce. I simply wish to know how many local authorities that employ people on that level of the workforce employ people who belong to the associations that have been mentioned throughout the debate. In othe words, if we were on the other side as contractors seeking the employment of local authority workers, would we be secure in the knowledge that all local authorities employed as members of their workforce at all levels, and not just

789
the chief architects and the chief officers, people who belonged to associations? Therefore could we be secure in the knowledge that we could employ them because we knew that it was common practice for them to belong to professional associations? 1 doubt it.
Lord Dean of Beswick: With all due respect, I think that the noble Baroness has got completely the wrong end of the stick. In this amendment we are talking about companies that are contractors. The local authorities in some respect do contract work for themselves, but these trade associations are specifically for people in the private sector who are involved in a particular trade. I was referring to officers in local government who are members of their own professional classes. But it does not follow necessarily if one is talking about individuals in any organisation or with any professional expertise that they automatically join their professional association.
I know hundreds of chartered accountants, for instance, who are not members of any association but they still practise. I have never said for one moment that all the good builders are in the Building Employers Confederation or the Federation of Master Builders, but there is an indication that if they are a member of such an organisation they will have already been thoroughly vetted. Anyone who was below standard, I am sure, would not even be in such an association.
Baroness Blatch: I hope that this is my last word on this issue but we have suddenly moved from plumbers, electricians and bricklayers to chief architects, surveyors and the rest. I am talking about people who do work on behalf of the people of this country. Whether that work is done in local authorities on behalf of the public or in private companies on behalf of the public I am simply questioning the present practice of local authorities and comparing that with what we are about to impose on private companies.
Lord Dean of Beswick: With due respect to the noble Baroness, she is not saying why she criticises local authority practice. I know this about local authorities. As regards the standards of the lower level of staff, it is an established and historical fact that local authorities offer the finest training ground for building employees at a young age. They then move into the private sector and progress upwards into the technical and managerial grades. That is an undisputed fact and everyone admits it.
The Earl of Caithness: I wish to answer a couple of points that have been raised particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, who was concerned about the NHBC's role in the private house building sector. With respect, I do not think that that is at question at the moment. We are talking about work for local authorities. The two should not be confused.
It is worth pointing out that membership of the ECA or whatever does not necessarily guarantee 100 per cent. certainty that electrical work is all right. It is perhaps a guide that those tradesmen are more
790
reputable than others who are not in an association but it is not necessarily a guarantee that the work is all right.
I return to the point made by my noble friend Lady Blatch. She had a point in what she said and it is relevant to bring us back to the amendment. Are we seeking to impose more on potential private sector contractors than we are on direct labour organisations? To pick up a point that was mentioned earlier, we must be fair to both.
My noble friend Lord Balfour asked me to look again at the last few words at the bottom of page 16 and to seek legal advice on them. I do not think it would he right for me to seek legal advice. They were put in there for policy reasons to thwart unscrupulous local authorities which have abused the present situation and prevented perfectly reputable contractors from getting onto the tender list by insisting that they are members of associations when they might not want to be.
9 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: It is quite commonplace for people to stand up in this Committee and in another place and abuse local authorities. It may well be that some authorities have behaved badly. However, the Government must have some specific cases in mind. If the Minister cannot mention them, I have to believe that he is on very doubtful ground indeed. If he says that such cases are the reason for the provision, we must have the evidence. We are arranging a hanging before we have had a trial.
The Earl of Caithness: I remind the noble Lord of what I said at the beginning of today's proceedings concerning using the same argument over and over again on all the amendments, because the argument is consistent throughout.
Lord Dean of Beswick: This is a different argument.
The Earl of Caithness: What we are saying is not just another attack on local authorities. I draw the noble Lord's attention to the requirements of, for instance, Sheffield City Council or the council of the London Borough of Greenwich, which have insisted that those that are to be on the tender list shall be members of trade associations.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Does the Minister have any evidence as to why they have done that? It may well he that they have had some unhappy experiences with the private sector such as those we had in Manchester. They have done nothing wrong. They have kept to particular standards and they thought that that was the best way of proceeding. The Minister has told the Committee that he is a surveyor. I ask him whether, if he was putting out some surveying work, he would go to a member of a reputable surveyors' association or to a cowboy if he wanted value for money. However, I know what he would do, with his professional expertise; the cowboy would get the job.
The Earl of Caithness: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his question. I should go to the person who would do the best job and who I was certain would perform in the way that I wanted him to perform. Being a surveyor and a member of the RICS, I can say that when I recently sold my flat in London I did not go to somebody who was a member of the RICS. I went to somebody who could do the best job at the right price. That person did not happen to be a member of the RICS. Although he was perfectly well qualified to do the job, he did not want to be a member of the institution.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am reluctant to divide the House at this hour. However, I think the Minister's case is very flimsy indeed when he says he hopes that the provision will improve the situation. I will come back to this at a later stage because I do not think that the Minister has produced any concrete evidence to support the case he puts. If he wishes to divide the House now, we can have Divisions all night. It is up to him.
The Earl of Caithness: It is up to you!
Lord Dean of Beswick: I shall withdraw the amendment and come back to it later. I am not satisfied.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 17, line 9, leave out ("section 18'') and insert ("sections 18 and (Sex equality matters)").
The noble Baroness said: In the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Platt of Writtle, I rise to move the amendment. Members of the Committee will recall that the noble Baroness is chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission. Unfortunately she is engaged today on important committee business in Manchester where the commission is based and hence is absent. She has written to the Minister to give her apologies.
I move the amendment with the utmost conviction. The effect of Amendment No. 95 is to add to subsection (9) of Clause 17 sex equality matters in addition to the race relations matters which are already included in the Bill. This is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 98, which is designed to treat sex equality on a par with race relations matters, which are already provided for in the Bill. Subsequent amendments, Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 to Clause 19 and Amendment No. 196 to Clause 21, are consequential and I wish to speak to them all.
That series of amendments was indicated by the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, in her speech at Second Reading. The amendments have the full support of the Equal Opportunities Commission. As she indicated in her speech, the Government have accepted the principle of reasonable, properly directed contract compliance through the inclusion in this Bill of the clauses relating to race relations matters and also by similar policies in relation to religious discrimination in Northern Ireland.
The amendments are modest and seek to make in this Bill exactly the same provisions for sex equality
792
matters as are made for race equality matters, using the Government's own terminology, even though that might be thought by some organisations to be too limited. The amendments stick strictly to the terminology used by the Government in the Bill.
It is because I believe it is right that the two issues of race and sex discrimination should be taken in parallel that I move the amendments. The 1975 Sex Discrimination Act was based on the experience of the 1968 Race Relations Act. The second Race Relations Act of 1976 was drafted in almost the same terms as the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act. There were some differences to take account of women's traditional and biological role on the one hand and on the other hand to take account of the need for community relations provisions to be provided in the area of race relations.
However, the positive action provisions and the law enforcement provisions were the same in both acts, with one exception. That is the provision embodied in Section 71 of the Race Relations Act placing a general statutory duty on local authorities to take due regard of the need to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity and good race relations in carrying out their functions.
It was a great pity and illogical in my view—and I said so at the timev—that a similar provision was not included in the Sex Discrimination Act. It is that one difference on which the Government are now relying for not including sex discrimination matters in the present Bill. I suggest that It is unhelpful to use that particular clause to exclude sex discrimination matters from the Local Government Bill and thereby to compound the mistake that was made in 1975. In any case, the intervening 12 or 13 years have brought the two Acts together even more closely than they were at that time. Law enforcement, which is based on case law under either Act, is used by both commissions in relation both to individual cases before tribunals and the higher courts and to formal investigations.
Promotion of equality of opportunity in employment in the two spheres, although under separate codes of practice, is complementary. The growth in the number of companies and organisations following an equal opportunities policy is encouraging. Those bodies do not seek to have two policies; they have a single policy dealing with both sex and racial discrimination and increasingly too with matters relating to disability. It is for that reason that I shall also support the amendments that will shortly be moved.
This approach is actively supported and advocated by the CBI and by the IPM (Institute of Personnel Management). It is supported by those two bodies in the interests of good management practice. The effect of the Bill as it stands at present would impede that approach. It appears to treat sex discrimination as being of less importance, particularly in relation to those employers who are under contract to local authorities. The EOC is not so much concerned with the effects on local authorities but with the relationship between local authorities and the employers that they use. By the question process the

793
minds of those employers will naturally be concentrated on race equality issues and the issues of sex equality will be overlooked and put on one side.
In his response to this matter at Second Reading in this Chamber the noble Lord the Leader of the House said that by virtue of Section 71 local authorities are:
"part of the enforcement process in respect of racial discrimination", —[Official Report, 11/1/88; col. 1031.]
Surely this is a sweeping assertion. I should have thought that local authorities have a general duty anyway to ensure that the bodies that are contracted to them are observing the law. Section 71 underlines that responsibility but it does not give to local authorities the same law enforcement role that the two commissions have, for instance, in relation to discrimination, nor the same power that the local authorities have in relation to consumer protection.
Section 71 seems to be directed to a wide range of discretionary decisions by local authorities about the provision of their services. In making a discretionary decision, local authorities have to take into account relevant factors and must not take into account irrelevant factors. Section 71 says that racial issues are always a relevant factor in every decision. But by saying that, there can be no implication that the elimination of sex discrimination is inevitably irrelevant. However, this would appear to be the effect of the present Bill by confining these provisions to race discrimination matters alone.
I hope that the Minister and his colleagues in government will think seriously of the implications of this for the Equal Opportunities Commission. That body has looked to local authorities for assistance in carrying out its statutory responsibilities, which are exactly the same as those of the Commission for Racial Equality.
The clause has wide support. It has the support of the Women's National Commission. which represents all the major women's voluntary organisations in the country. It has the support of the IPM and of many other bodies. I therefore hope that the Minister in his response this evening will be able to give a favourable wind to these amendments.
Baroness Faithfull: I shall not go into the case again because it has been put by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, but I should like to support this amendment.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Seear: I should like strongly to support this amendment. I think that it was an error that the clause was not included in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. In fact it preceded the Race Relations Act 1976. The Race Relations Act was therefore able to improve on the Sex Discrimination Act.
There is no doubt that there is a need to take positive action—I am not talking about reverse discrimination—to give reality to the elimination of sex discrimination. This is undoubtedly a very useful way of doing so. Evidence in both this country and the United States undoubtedly shows that of all the available instruments contract compliance is by far the best—far better than further detailed changes in legislation. Not only is this a matter of improving the
794
employment position of women and giving greater equality of opportunity to women, it is also a matter of encouraging organisations to make the best use of available resources. That includes making better use of women than at the present time.
There is no doubt that since the Sex Discrimination Act was passed the position of women in the professions has improved greatly. There is much evidence to that effect. But in many other spheres, in the industrial and commercial area, the same is not the case. Unless we are to make better use of women power and to use it at the level at which it is capable of being used, we shall find ourselves in very serious difficulties. We all know that the number of leavers from school is falling. We are very short of skilled people. It is only by encouraging organisations to recruit, train and promote women that we shall be able to fill the vacancies that are becoming more and more difficult to fill. Contract compliance is undoubtedly the most favourable way of doing this. I very much hope that the Government will accept this amendment.
Lord Beloff: The speech just delivered by the noble Baroness is the best argument that I have heard against the amendment now before us. She is saying that individual employers in parts of the country will increasingly need to make use of women in their employment. If that is so, the law does not need to intervene. Everyone is out to get the best possible employees. Everyone is out to give the maximum training to those who are insufficiently trained.
The Equal Opportunities Commission has put back the cause of women very considerably over the years by constantly making it clear that they are an element of the population which requires artificial backing. I find no reason to believe that. In my view, wherever I have had to compete with women in the academic world or in politics I have found them fully equal to the contest. I see no reason whatever to make employers do something by law which is already in their own interest.
Baroness Seear: I really must reply to that. The noble Lord has knowledge of history and the running of universities. But even universities are not exempt from the charge of occasional discrimination in regard to women. He is not close to what is happening in the labour market. I happen to be an area board chairman in Buckinghamshire. There is a very great shortage of skilled people. There is no evidence whatsoever that employers are taking action to train women to fill these vacancies. Again and again employers have shown that they do not recognise that steps of this kind are in their own interests; nor do they take action in time. The noble Lord is a believer that the pure operation of market forces always delivers the goods. The day will come when the Conservative Party realises that that is a myth.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Or a "mythis"!
Baroness Blatch: I rise as a woman to oppose the amendment. I oppose it because I do not think it furthers the cause of women. I oppose it also on

795
another count. It opens up mechanism for local authorities which I think will work against the best interests of all of us. I ask the Committee to witness this. Under this amendment a local authority would have the power to send to companies, in addition to a questionnaire on race, one asking a number of questions, which no doubt will be prescribed by the Secretary of State, on whether they are abiding by the law in relation to discrimination against women. It would be a strange company that came back with the answer "No, we are not complying with the law". So the answer would come back "Yes, we are doing all that we should under the law".
Then a local authority would decide, subjectively of course, with no objective basis for the suspicion, that it was not entirely happy about the answers and would suspect that a company might not be complying because it had a feeling that, although there might be enough women on the staff, they were not all in the right place and not enough of them were reaching the top of the tree. The authority would then write back to those companies, which at that stage would be potentially applying to get on the list, so there could be endless numbers, to ask for written submissions and evidence to justify their original answers.
The local authority would then go into session to consider the answer. It could quite objectively take a view that the companies were not complying with the Act. It could then decide not to put a company onto the list. If that company wanted to do anything about the decision—it could certainly ask for reasons why the local authority had not included it on the list or had not allocated a contract to it—it would have to challenge the local authority in the courts. Under the legislation the company would be reimbursed only for the costs that it has incurred in responding to the tender and not the costs of having to go to the courts. So the burden of having to prove that a local authority had judged it wrongly would be very much on the company.
Private sector companies will simply be unable to bear that financial burden. More than that, an Act is an Act. We are all bound by it whether we are in public authorities or private companies. If I am breaching the law, I prefer to be judged by the courts, not by local authorities based on subjective judgment. I want to be judged by the law of the land. Therefore I believe it is right that we should subject our private companies and our public authorities to the court's judgment. I do not believe that we should give licence to what will become laboured prevarication and I genuinely believe that it will not work in the interests of women and further their cause.
I speak as somebody who believes that women are making enormous strides in competing most favourably in the market place. There is a long way to go, but they are getting there. The one thing that will thwart their progress in an amendment such as this.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I very much hope that in listening to the general debate the Minister will hang on to the central theme. There is discrimination
796
against women at work and in a range of other matters, just as there is discrimination against black people, ethnic minorities, the disadvantaged and the disabled. We shall come to the disabled later. It is all very well for the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, to tell us that she would rather go to court if she transgressed than have to answer to a council. We are not talking about individuals; we are considering companies which would be in receipt of ratepayers' money after obtaining a contract.
It is interesting to find that the other side of the Committee led by the Government is running away from laying on companies any more than is necessary in order to get this part of the Bill off the ground. We are speaking about competitive tendering and privatisation. The Government are willing to allow such procedures as questionnaires because they recognise that there is a need to deal with aspects of race in our society. It is strange that they are prepared to do something about racial equality and equal opportunities, but we are not prepared to do that for women. I think that people outside the Committee will come to that conclusion.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, concluded her remarks by saying that she was heartened by the progress that women had made and were making in gaining entry into the professions, unaided by such assistance. She will know that 4 per cent. of architects are women; that 7 per cent. of barristers are women; that 22 per cent. of doctors are women; and that 8 per cent. of scientists, engineers and technologists are women. That can be viewed by the noble Baroness and noble Lords as satisfactory progress.
It is now 10 years since major legislation was passed in this field in the 1970s—the equal pay and sex discrimination legislation. Women's earnings are still only 74 per cent. of those of men and that is with the backing of the law. Members opposite can say that it is not the law but attitudes which need to change. From my experience, it will take a long time to change attitudes and we need the backing of statutes. Members opposite may shrug their shoulders and say. "Good luck to you. Fight and agitate, but be careful because there are others willing to do the job you are fighting to improve for a lot less pay".
One of the groups most discriminated against is homeworkers. Most homeworkers are women who are working in difficult conditions, receiving low pay and having to accept it because they are unorganised and frightened to ask for more. The present chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission and her colleagues speak with a depth of experience that cannot be touched by any other Member of the Committee. They are saying that those who finally find themselves in the eminent position of being chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission have experience greater and deeper than other Members of the Committee. I do not think that that statement can he challenged. It is not a party issue; it is across the board.
I find strange the fact that the Government are digging in their toes as regards this issue. It is not merely a woman's issue. It is an issue of equality, dignity and civil liberties. When I look at the list of organisations which I am told are in favour of

797
contract compliance procedures for equal opportunity purposes, I find it to be very impressive. It includes the Institute of Personnel Management (I declare an interest, in that I am a member); the Parliamentary All-Party Disablement Group; the Royal National Institute for the Blind; the Spastics Society; the National League for the Blind and Disabled; the Wesleyan Holiness Church. There are other groups but some may say, "He would say that, wouldn't he?", so I shall leave them out. What about the United States National Association of Manufacturers? In this context, this country is dragging its feet.
No one outside the Committee would believe that if this amendment were accepted there would be a transformation, because attitudes count as well as words in an Act. As Members of the Committee know, when it comes to a question of complying with rules, regulations and wages council orders, inspectors constantly find that the law has been ignored and ridden over roughshod by people who get away with it.
I am saddened, not by the remarks of the Minister because he has yet to respond, but by the remarks of his supporters behind who appear to consider that there is no need to provide women with the opportunity of having recourse in the event of their not being fairly treated. More importantly, a council which seeks to look after the interests of all its ratepayers and citizens wants to ensure that the companies that spend and receive the ratepayers' money are going to do it on the basis that they are operating policies which are to the benefit not only of women but of the whole community.
9.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I am well aware of the importance, potential and success of women in this world. My mother is still alive. I have one sister and four half-sisters; the leader of my party is a woman; I have a wife and a daughter, and a dog which is a bitch. My son and I are struggling nobly to support the male race!
Much has been made of the fact that the Bill does not deal with sex and racial discrimination on an equal basis, and while I commend the wording of these amendments. I must remind the Committee that the Bill has been deliberately drafted to reflect the present position regarding local authorities' statutory duties. There is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, said a basic difference in that respect between the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976.
In preventing authorities setting themselves up as extra-statutory enforcement agencies, we have to recognise that, as the law stands at present, local authorities are—by virtue of Section 71 of the Race Relations Act—part of the enforcement process only in respect of racial discrimination.
Let me repeat what my noble friend the Leader of the House said on Second Reading. That was that in the event of the Equal Opportunities Commission deciding, as a result of consultations on its document Legislating for Change to press my right honourable friend the Home Secretary for changes to the Sex
798
Discrimination Act which, among other things, would impose a Section 71-type duty on public authorities as part of a package of changes which the commission would wish to see made to the Sex Discrimination Act, the Government will give careful consideration to such a proposal. If that proves to be the case, and if the Government are persuaded of the need to make such changes, the position with regard to the contractual process would of course need to be reflected in the amending legislation. For the moment, I must emphasise that the provisions of this Bill in no way weaken the duty of contractors to observe the law on sex discrimination or indeed on any other matter.
I believe that my noble friend Lady Blatch has a point in saying that we must obey the laws and statutes as they are. There is no legal enforcement on the local authorities to take note and include in contracts part of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975; there is in the Race Relations Act 1976, which is why it is in the Bill. I can only repeat the assurance I have given this evening that should a change be made as a result of the work being undertaken at the moment by the Equal Opportunities Commission in its consultations, that will be reflected in amending legislation.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: I have read the debates in the other place and I knew that the Government were taking this attitude. I had not expected that they would take it here tonight and I was hoping that the Minister would be willing to look at this matter again.
We are talking about social cohesion. What local authorities do is have a department which deals with equal opportunities, whether it be race, sex or disabilities. What the local authorities are being asked to do as a result of this Bill is to concentrate only on race and to ignore the other two aspects because the other two aspects are not part of the requirement. On the contrary. What I said on Second Reading still holds good—that Clause 17 should never have been introduced.
If we did not have that clause the situation could remain as it is now. However, the Government have included Clause 17 and have therefore limited the matters that local authorities can take into account. They are limiting it further by saying that in terms of looking at discrimination and trying to make society more cohesive, race relations is the only factor they are allowed to use to excuse them and allow them to do the things that the Bill says they should not do. That automatically separates the two.
My noble friend Lady Lockwood said that it would inevitably have the consequence that employers and contractors will be concerning themselves about the state of discrimination in terms of race within their workforces, but they will be less inclined to do it for women. They will he less inclined to push towards the level that they ought to achieve in employing people with disabilities. Therefore, I cannot see why the Government cannot accept these amendments and combine the two.
The Minister says that if the Sex Discrimination Act is changed, as is hoped, the Government will look at the position again, which means we will have yet

799
another amendment. Why cannot we do it now? Why cannot we see the issue not in terms of law enforcement—because that is not the issue—but in terms of social cohesion and what one does to make local society become more as one and remove the discrimination which exists in local society in regard not only to race but also sex and disability? The Committee is being asked to accept that we do something about all of them. I cannot understand why the Minister will not agree to have another meeting with my superiors, my right honourable friend and my advisers, to see whether there is some way of allowing these three aspects to continue together.
Baroness Lockwood: I am very disappointed at the Minister's response. It is the same response that we had on Second Reading from his noble friend the Leader of the House. We know that the Equal Opportunities Commission has gone through the consultative process and is about to put forward recommendations to the Government for amending the Sex Discrimination Act. We know that one of those recommendations is likely to be that the Government should include the Sex Discrimination Act in a provision similar to Section 71 of the Race Relations Act.
Knowing that, I should have thought that the Minister could give more encouragement to the commission in the work that it is undertaking. Does the response to the amendment foreshadow the response that the commission is likely to get when it puts forward its amendments? Surely dealing with the Local Government Bill is an opportunity to take account of this difference. Incidentally, if I may say so, I did not say that it was a basic difference. I said that there is one difference between the Sex Discrimination Act and the Race Relations Act. When you take the similarities in other respects and the duty to eliminate unlawful discrimination, to promote equality of opportunity—the same wording in the two Acts—this one difference is, I believe, insignificant.
However, in the light of the Minister's response, the lateness of the hour, and the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, the chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission, is not here to make a decision herself, I should like to withdraw the amendment in the hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, will decide to bring her amendments back on Report. I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Basnett Lord Basnett moved Amendment No. 95A:
Page 17, line 9, leave out ("section 18") and insert ("sections 18 and (Information required for discharge of obligations under Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944)").
The noble Lord said: I wish to move Amendment No. 95A as printed in the Marshalled List and to speak to Amendment No. 99.
The purpose of this amendment is to allow authorities awarding contracts for public works or public supplies to take account of the relevant legislation and codes of practice concerning the employment of people with disabilities. In other
800
words, it is to assist and help that group which is most disadvantaged in our society; namely, people with disabilities. This amendment is intended not only to do that but to help the employers as well, as local authorities are doing, by advice and counsel.
Market forces will not enable more people with disabilities to work in industry or services. As I shall show shortly, the law is clearly failing to ensure that more people with disabilities are going to work. There is very clear evidence that the only aspect which is succeeding is contract compliance where local authorities advise, counsel and help employers to take into employment people with disabilities. The amendment is designed to ensure not that that state of affairs is created but that it continues.
People with disabilities seek three things. First, they seek to control their own lives; they seek independence and they seek to live their lives as ordinarily as possible. Central to doing that is the question of employment. This was recognised by the Snowdon Report some 10 years ago, which stated:
"The integration [into society] of those with disabilities must include the right to work."
That is not what is happening. The need to promote equality of employment opportunity for people with disabilities has been illustrated in a number of surveys. A report was made this year by the National Audit Office which estimated that, on the basis of the 1985 labour force survey, the rate of unemployment among disabled people is, at 23·4 per cent., over twice that for the rest of the population. The review of assistance to disabled people carried out by the Manpower Services Commission also found that for them the average duration of unemployment was double that of able-bodied people.
If one considers the small group of people with severe spinal injuries, before their injuries nine out of 10 of these people were in work whereas afterwards only half of them managed to find employment. There is discrimination, and the survey carried out by the Spastics Society showed that very clearly. The Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 places a duty on employers to employ a minimum of 3 per cent. of disabled people. The proportion of companies meeting this requirement, however, has fallen dramatically from 35.3 per cent. in June 1979 to just 27.3 per cent. in June 1987. That law is not effective.
It is clear, therefore, that despite the legislation people with disabilities face substantial obstacles to securing their full employment rights. Local authorities have been active in recognition of this problem in attempting to encourage—and I emphasise "to encourage"—employers through contract compliance policies to provide greater opportunities for disabled people. Contract compliance units, working closely with employers, have helped them to develop employment policies and practices which will assist equal employment opportunities. For example, all employers who do not employ the 3 per cent. quota are encouraged to state in their job advertisements that they welcome applications from people with disabilities, and companies which are modernising their sites are encouraged to take into account the needs of disabled people.
The efforts of local authorities to promote equality of employment opportunity in this field have been praised by a Select Committee in another place. In its report Discrimination in Employment, the Select Committee on Employment expressed admiration of equal opportunities policies in some London boroughs, which have a conscious aim of achieving a 3 per cent. employment quota for disabled people.
The Government's response to criticisms of the Bill in respect of employment opportunities for people with disabilities has been confused and contradictory. Their failure to concede the need for positive action to promote these opportunities has drawn criticism even from their own ranks. However, the Government are doing exactly the opposite of what those critics suggest. They are undermining the careful and responsible work of local authorities in this area. To repeat myself, it is only through contract compliance that there has been any expansion of equal opportunities for those with disabilities. We cannot allow this Bill to destroy that hope for those people who are struggling with their disabilities and with the task of trying to find employment.
If this new clause is not included in the Bill a number of opportunities will have been lost. First, the Government will have missed the chance to help one of the most disadvantaged groups in the labour market—disabled people. Its omission will not help them to gain equality of opportunity. Secondly, the chance to supplement the work of the Department of Employment will also have been lost. There is a great deal of scope for allowing local authorities to work more closely with individual contractors and to relieve the pressure on overstretched disablement resettlement officers in the disablement advisory service. Finally, the opportunity will have been missed to put teeth into the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act and to remind employers of their legal obligations towards disabled people.
If the Government are committed to providing equal opportunities for disabled people they should support the amendment. If we pass the amendment, we offend no great principle. If we pass this amendment, we create no breach. There is one already. If we pass it, we incur no cost. What we do is to assist the group in our society which is most in need of our assistance. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: With the purpose of the amendment, which the noble Lord, Lord Basnett, has so clearly explained, I am sure we would all agree. But we have to consider whether this is a way of advancing the interests of disabled people, particularly severely disabled people, or of improving the present legislation. I suggest that we look carefully at what is proposed. The 1944 Act is referred to in the second amendment with the purpose, as the noble Lord has just explained, that it should be invoked in the Bill. The working of the 1944 Act has not proved as simple as we would all wish or as glib references to it suggest.
I should like to speak on the working of the 1944 Act which it is proposed should now be invoked. The Act was born in wartime with the war disabled in
802
mind. I have kept pace with it because I was wounded and left with war disabilities at about the time the Act was made law.
As some of your Lordships know, I was one of a small number of Members of Parliament who 23 years ago started in another place the parliamentary campaign on behalf of disabled people of all kinds, not just war disabled. At that time, someone who was born severely disabled or who was disabled in early youth was not catered for at all in our system of benefits. And if the disability was too severe for that person to be available for work, he did not even enter into the national insurance scheme.
All that has greatly changed in the last 23 years, I am glad to say. The 1944 Act, with its subsequent subordinate legislation, still governs the quota scheme to which the noble Lord referred. That is, and has been, its main provision. An employer of 20 or more employees is required to employ at least 3 per cent. of disabled people in his workforce. There is a system of permits and bulk permits which give dispensation in certain circumstances. For the quota scheme, there are special area registers for the purpose of the Act. Those registers are voluntary. Many disabled people, unfortunately, have declined over the last 40-odd years to place their names on the registers for various reasons into which there is certainly not time to go this evening.
There is a definition of "disabled person" for the purposes of the Act. But you cannot force someone to register against his will if and when you have found that person. The result is that in many areas less than 3 per cent. of the working population in the area has been registered as disabled, making it almost impossible for employers of 20 or more people to comply with the Act. Reputable employers doing their best have found it difficult therefore to reach the 3 per cent. quota and that includes government departments in times of governments of both parties in recent years.
Separate schemes were encouraged by the 1944 Act for sheltered employment. Remploy and other bodies carry out an important and necessary task in employing disabled persons only. That is their purpose. They do not employ able-bodied people. But they have the effect of reducing the numbers of disabled people who can be on the registers. Remploy, for example, which I know well as I visit its factories, does an excellent job; indeed, as patron, I have been on three occasions to the disabled games, which it organises at Stoke Mandeville.
The kinds of work which different firms can offer vary according to the nature of their business. Safety at work is essential. It is a crucial matter. I am sure that every Member of this Committee would agree with that. Nonetheless some firms and industries—I give an example of which I know in the textile industry—are able to make special arrangements. There is a practice of employing deaf and dumb people in certain departments where no safety problems of machinery and other workers arise. So some firms can employ a higher percentage than others.
Another factor is the degree of disability. At this hour of the evening I shall not go into all the

803
definitions involved. But a firm employing, say, 2 per cent. of very severely handicapped people, where a great deal of trouble has been taken, are probably making a better contribution than another firm employing 4 per cent. of very lightly disabled people.
The quota scheme was operated by the Ministry of Labour and then the Department of Employment until 1976. The Manpower Services Commission then took over the running of the quota scheme. Because of the imperfections and problems, some of which I have just outlined, a review was started in 1979 and a report was published and discussed during 1981, which was the International Year of Disabled People. I found my copy of that report today among my international year papers. I was its chairman for Scotland. The report of that review recommended that the quota system should be dropped. That recommendation came from the Manpower Services Commission, which was running the scheme. It said that it should be replaced by new legislation providing for a statutory general duty linked to a code of practice. So there was the MSC, the body responsible for administering the quota scheme, advocating that it should be brought to an end.
During 1981 and later there were wide discussions in the country on that recommendation. On the whole, most of the voluntary organisations were apprehensive about dropping the scheme. I attended their meetings and listened to their apprehension. However, they acknowledged the difficulties of achieving targets in some areas and in some circumstances. The major change recommended by the MSC has not been accepted or carried out by the Government.
As I understand it, the present position is that the Government have decided upon the following:
"Research should be carried out on the size of the disabled population and its characteristics; all interested parties should do what they can to promote the image of the Quota Scheme and registration among disabled people; and further consideration should not be given to any administrative changes to the Quota Scheme until the results of the research are available".
In that research work, the National Advisory Council on Employment of Disabled People is playing its part. The council was established by the 1944 Act. That is the story so far of the consideration of the MSC's report.
It must be remembered that when obligations under the 1944 Act are referred to, as in the second amendment, there are divided opinions about the quota scheme among those most concerned to promote the employment of handicapped people and the organisations representing handicapped people. I have an extract from the MSC report:
"It is one of the MSC's tasks to promote the employment of disabled people in the most effective way possible. The Quota Scheme as operating at present is clearly not helping the MSC to achieve this aim".
The noble Lord, Lord Basnett, referred to discrimination. That is a subject which three or four years ago we were discussing when my Bill passed through this place. My Bill was accepted in all quarters of this place, but of course in the usual way did not find time in the other place. However, I regard that as an important subject but not one that is
804
relevant here. The kind of discrimination that we were trying to stop at that time was when a firm advertised jobs and then put in something like, "ability to drive a motor car required". Then, when someone takes the job it is found that there is no need to drive a motor car; the proviso is only put in to keep out a disabled person who would not have the ability to drive a car. It is that type of discrimination that my Bill would have caught. I do not think that that situation arises in what we are discussing now.
I shall end on a personal note which arises from the remarks made by my noble friend about his being outnumbered by the female members of his family. By a coincidence, while I was a patient for a year and a quarter in St. Bartholomew's Hospital, his aunt was a senior nurse there. She was immediately put in touch with me because, after I was flown back to this country, my noble friend's father, with whom I had served in the same brigade for the previous three years, sent messages to her. I can only say that I can testify that she and her colleagues in the hospital were extremely capable and expert in their profession.
Integration and employing as many disabled people as possible consistent with safety and efficiency are principles for which I have been pressing for nearly 30 years in both Houses of Parliament and outside. There is no difference, I believe, in the views held in different parts of this Committee. However, when it comes to the quota scheme and obligations under it, I think we should be aware of recent history and how the scheme has been operating.
10 p.m.
Lord Carter: I was extremely pleased to have the chance to support the amendment so ably moved by my noble friend Lord Basnett and also to add my name in support of Amendment No. 99. In considering this amendment I think we should first remember the central fact that 2 million of the 3 million disabled people in this country are living on or near the margin of poverty. A number of us were trying to point out to the Government the problems which the disabled will face with the operation of the new Social Security Bill after April this year. I know that a number of noble Lords are active in organisations of and for the disabled. The number of disabled persons seeking employment or who are unemployed is twice the national average for able bodied people. The figure is highest among the disabled long-term unemployed.
I have been listening with interest to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. Obviously he understands this subject extremely well. He seemed almost to be implying that the weaknesses of the 1944 Act, which we all recognise, are responsible for the problems of the unemployed disabled. This is just not the case. The Act is not perfect but it is the only Act we have.
If some legislation is required—and obviously it is—this should be put in train by the Government, who ignored the report in 1981, the Year of the Disabled, to which the noble Lord referred. He mentioned research, the image of the quota. We are waiting for the research. But this Bill is in front of us now and it is the only legislation on which we can rely to improve the chances of the disabled. My God, it is

805
hard enough for them to find jobs as it is and this is the only Bill, the only way in which we can improve the situation. If there is no will, there is never a way.
The intention of this amendment is to allow local authorities to encourage contractors, not to compel them but to encourage them, to meet their legal obligations under the 1944 Act. We know, and the noble Lord said this, that disabled people face great difficulties in the labour market. Discrimination is commonplace and unemployment among people with disabilities is double the rate for their able-bodied colleagues.
The situation is worsened by the lack of enforcement of the legislation designed to help disabled people secure work. The Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 places a duty on employers to have a prescribed quota of disabled employees. We know the problems with the quota. Most employers fail to meet it not because of the problems but because they do not wish to and because they intend to discriminate against disabled people. They see compliance as discretionary and as a result, as we know, disabled people have missed out on their fair share of opportunities.
The situation has begun to improve as a result of contract compliance. It has allowed local authorities to provide positive advice to employers on the best way to promote equality of opportunity for disabled people. They have been able to draw attention to the positive skills of disabled people to help employers develop their recruitment procedures. This has led to an increase in the number of the disabled who are employed, even though the figure for the disabled long-term unemployed is still much too high. We know that the Government have argued that local authorities should not act as enforcement agencies for laws which are already the responsibility of specific departments. The Minister is nodding his head but I am sure that that point will be in his brief when he replies. The 1944 Act is currently in force and is the responsibility of the Department of Employment. We have said that its record is far from satisfactory, with almost one-fifth of companies failing to meet their legal obligations. The intention is that, far from replacing the role of the Department of Employment, the local authorities shall supplement its work and assist the department in encouraging contractors to comply with the 1944 Act.
The Government have also argued that this matter falls outside the jurisdiction of the current legislation. The local authorities will be able to ensure that the requirements of the Race Relations Act are adhered to. Those companies which are tendering for contracts will be asked to demonstrate that they do not discriminate in their personnel practices against different racial groups. In respect of the 1944 Act we say that companies should be expected to comply with the law and demonstrate that they are providing equal opportunities for disabled people as a requirement of the contracts which they have been awarded.
The local authorities could help a contractor develop a strategy which would allow it to fulfil its legal duties. The only circumstances under which a contract could be withheld would be if a contractor
806
refused to be assisted in that regard. The action which has been taken by local authorities in implementing contract compliance is a positive, humane and caring way in which responsible bodies can ensure that companies who wish to provide services and goods to such authorities abide by and carry out a code of practice which is correct and just.
The CORAD Committee which was set up by a Conservative Government in 1981, which was the International Year of Disabled Persons, clearly showed in a report issued in 1982 that disabled people faced discrimination and restrictions in the search for employment. This amendment is designed to ensure that local authorities who wish to take positive action to bring about equal opportunities in employment for disabled persons can do so with the use of contract compliance. For the Government to forbid this by law will inflict an injustice upon disabled persons. I sincerely hope that when the Minister replies he will be able to tell us that he has taken the spirit of this amendment on board.
Lord Dean of Beswick: In rising to support this amendment, with which I am sure all Members of the Committee will be in sympathy in spirit, I should like to mention why I think this particular amendment is so important to disabled people. I spent quite a lot of time in the private sector of manufacturing engineering in a very big factory in Trafford Park, Manchester. In that factory there were quite a number of blind people. They worked machines very well indeed. They did not ask for very many concessions other than to leave five minutes early in order to get their transport home because it was a big factory and they did not want to get knocked about by people running for buses. However they competed very well on the machines and gainfully earned a living.
My other experience was in the public sector, where I happened to be the chairman of the direct works department in Manchester when it employed 4,500 people. I put my political hat on now. That department was in competition with the private sector. I had the privilege of being chairman of that organisation when what is known as the Alf Morris Bill became law.
Our director and his staff were extremely sympathetic to the cause of disabled people. As we gradually worked up to that number of 4,500 employees we took in disabled people. Sometimes we transferred people who had been injured and had become disabled into the sectors where they could be absorbed. We were well in excess of the 3 per cent. which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, referred to.
It is not easy for all employers to talk of 3 per cent. or upwards. It is more difficult for small employers. However, we are talking about local government, which is one of the largest employers in the country. Perhaps it is a smaller employer than central government. However, if the armed forces figures are taken out, it may well be that the balance is tipped in favour of the local authorities. Therefore, even though many of those local authorities may not presently be at 3 per cent., some of them have done extremely well. I shall not mention names. However,

807
some of them are more conscientious and have done better than the minimum.
We may now have a situation where that requirement will be disregarded in the letting of contracts. Make no mistake about it: the objective of the Bill is for the private sector to do much more work. There is no point in saying that we are concerned with good will towards ratepayers. The political consequence could well be that there will be much more work done by private contractors, good or bad. That means that that large pool of employment, which to varying degrees is conscious of disabled people, depending on the area and the opportunities for them, will start to dry up. Figures have been quoted by my noble friends Lord Basnett and Lord Carter to show that places will no longer be available in the same volume. It follows that if, say, 30 per cent. of contracts being taken up by the public sector are taken away or lost because of the Bill without any regard for the disabled people employed, there will be less opportunity for disabled people who are seeking employment and who are already employed.
The Committee will not want me to try to explain the demoralisation that would set in among handicapped people if they felt that the Government did not see them as worthy of consideration. I think that it would be one of the most devastating things that could occur if they were told, "You are doing well with the local authority or a particular contractor, but another contractor who has no regard at all for you and who cannot be compelled to consider you is taking over the contract for the next 12 months or two or three years. Your services will no longer be required". What we would be saying to an overwhelming number of disabled and handicapped people is, "That is it; you have finished for the rest of your working life". I do not think that any Members of the Committee, from whatever quarter of the Chamber, would be very keen to be held responsible for that consequence.
I do not think that I am simply warning of what could happen. I believe that it surely will happen. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask people who are going to be given an expanded market to shoulder their responsibilities. The fact of the matter is that there are bigger opportunities in the public sector for employment for the disabled. Even in the most mundane of jobs, there have been great technological changes. Some jobs are done quite differently from the way in which they used to be done a few years ago because of advancing technology and man's capacity to make work easier for himself. That is to the benefit of employing handicapped people, perhaps on an increasing scale. There is no question about it, for it has been proved, whatever type of handicap is involved. I am not talking about those people who have the terrible misfortune of being mentally retarded and who have to be guided into therapeutic work and work of that kind. In the main we are talking about people who have dignity, who know they can deliver the goods, are doing so, and, we believe, ought to be entitled to continue to do so.
It is with some regret that we have to say that, unless those conditions are extended to the people
808
who are going to move into the public sector, this will be only one of the debilitating effects that this Bill will have on some of the worst-affected sufferers who are at the bottom of the scale. That is something that I am sure the Committee does not want. We are talking about disabled people, and on that basis I support the amendment with pleasure.
Baroness Seear: I ask the Minister when considering this amendment and indeed the other amendments connected with contract compliance, to remember that one of the greatest benefits of contract compliance as a method is that it is accompanied by skilled advisory services to help people to carry out those obligations. I would not support contract compliance unless it were accompanied by skilled advisory services because it is by the use of the advisory services that one gets it right when employing disabled people, for example, and also women and members of ethnic minorities. It means that the job will be done really well. Without the help that goes with the advisory service to companies under contract compliance, companies do not know the variety of ways in which, by quite simple changes and adjustments very often, it can be made perfectly possible to employ productively and economically people whom they think they could not employ productively and economically. That is a very strong argument. I repeat that I have seen it working very well indeed both in the United States and here.
10.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this very important debate. I could not agree more with the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, when he said that we all agree with the spirit of the amendment. Indeed, I have recently had the opportunity of looking at situations where great strides have been made in the provision of work for the disabled which show encouraging signs for the future. However, none of the situations at which I looked resulted from contract compliance.
The key to why we feel that the noble Lord's amendment is inappropriate is the fact that, as drafted, it would enable local authorities to take certain action, if reasonably necessary, for contractors to fulfil their obligations under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944. I was extremely grateful for the contribution of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy with his very great experience on this matter.
Why should any action by an authority in the course of the contractual process be necessary to ensure that a contractor obeys the law in relation to the employment of disabled people? Surely, an amendment which seeks to allow authorities to have regard to such matters is an attempt to usurp the powers which already rightfully belong to the employment service of the Department of Employment? What is at issue here is whether the Committee considers that those powers should remain with the employment service or whether local authorities should assume for themselves a role which they are not properly equipped to carry out.

809
We come back to this same theme, which was consistent with the last amendment that the noble Baroness moved and which I forewarned the Committee would occur regularly throughout the amendments that we would discuss on Part II.
The 1944 Disabled Persons (Employment) Act established a voluntary register of disabled people, and the Act obliges employers who are below the relevant quota—3 per cent. of their total workforce to be registered disabled people—to take steps to rectify the situation. But—and this is crucial—it is not an offence to be below quota. If he is, an employer must not engage anyone other than a registered disabled person—or discharge one from his workforce—without a permit from the Employment Service. The Employment Service, through the information available to it from Jobcentres, is best able to assess whether such a permit would be justified. It will know if there are suitable registered disabled people available or not. I should add that the Employment Service takes its role in this area very seriously indeed. Individual Jobcentres conduct a postal enquiry every year in which employers are asked to provide figures showing their total number of workers and the total number of registered disabled people they employ. That information enables quota inspectors to carry out follow-up work.
Acceptance of this new clause could result in local authorities withholding contracts from perfectly capable and efficient companies for no better reason than that they were below quota, ignoring the fact that registration by the disabled is voluntary and many eligible people choose not to be registered.
That was a point stressed by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. He highlighted some of the difficulties that we were facing at the moment. He stressed that there are no longer enough registered people to enable the 3 per cent. quota to be achieved overall. As my noble friend has made very clear, the operation of legislation concerning the employment of disabled people is a central government responsibility. Questions about how that legislation should be changed or about its operation are for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment.
The research to which my noble friend referred should be completed later this year. We shall then be in a position to look at the matter again. However, we come back to the nub of the problem which we faced on the last amendment and will doubtless face again. This is an area where central government have the enforcement procedure and the guidance to which the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, referred through the Employment Service. This is not a contractual matter for local authorities.
Baroness Seear: Does the Minister think that the services that are available in the Department of Employment through the DRO service, and the numbers involved—we shall not raise any other issues—are adequate to give the kind of advice I am talking about? If he thinks that, I am bound to say that he has no idea what the problem is.
The Earl of Caithness: I am very well aware that the employment service takes its role in this area extremely seriousy. On numbers, I cannot give a figure to the noble Baroness at this moment but the matter having been raised I shall look into it.
Lord Carter: Before the noble Earl sits down, can he explain this? If the local authorities are not the right people to do this job, as he is suggesting, why have all the organisations for the disabled supported this amendment as a step to ensure a few more jobs for disabled people?
Lord Dean of Beswick: On the same point, I am surprised that the Minister is saying that local authorities cannot handle this. Most local authorities of any size have personnel departments of their own that are perfectly aware of this type of problem and are capable of dealing with it. Many services in local government, such as housing, direct labour, and education, are departmental, but personnel departments—what used to be known as establishment departments—have great expertise on the availability and placing of people.
If the Minister is telling me that the personnel departments of local authorities cannot do this unless they are given guidelines on the work that disabled and handicapped people can do and on what to do about it in conjunction with the bodies that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, spoke about, I do not believe him. There is enough expertise in personnel departments, coupled with the agencies I mentioned, to deal with the situation. It is not good enough to say that local authorities are not capable of dealing with this. I believe that they could deal with it if they were given the right guidelines and the opportunity.
The Earl of Caithness: Both the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Dean of Beswick, have raised an extremely important point. I do not dispute the assertion of the noble Lord, Lord Dean, that should local government be given the resources and the extra manpower—
Lord Dean of Beswick: I did not say that. I hope the Minister does not put words into my mouth. I did not mention extra manpower. I said that there was expertise there now that I believe could do the work. I do not know of any legislation unfortunately that this Government have passed over the last few years to help me. An ex-Secretary of State who brought some of it in has just left the Chamber. One of the complaints of local government has been the additional responsibilities the Government have been giving it over the years, coupled with savage cuts in manpower. If personnel departments were able to consider this problem with the right guidelines and the right people from the other agencies, they could probably achieve a solution without increases in manpower. I am not basing my argument on substantial increases in manpower and I hope the Minister does not think so.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: Local authorities are doing this now.
Lord Basnett: Of course they are.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: The Bill will stop them doing it; that is what the debate is about.
The Earl of Caithness: What I was going on to say was that there might be expertise in some areas of local government that has undertaken this work, but for a very great number of authorities there will undoubtedly be extra resource implications if they have to undertake it. However, that takes us back to the crucial point. Do we wish to set up the local authorities as extra-statutory enforcement agencies? Some have not taken on that role and some have, but that is the basic difference between Members on that side of the Committee and the Government. We believe that local authorities should not be setting themselves up as extra-statutory enforcement agencies.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: That is not the issue. There is no talk about enforcement. The talk is about local authorities encouraging employers in their area to take on more people with disabilities. That is what is being done now and that they cannot do under the Bill because it says that they must not take the composition of a workforce into account. If those words were left out none of this would arise. When they could take account of the composition of a workforce they could deal with whether companies were discriminating against women, whether women were getting proper promotion, whether they were discriminating on grounds of race and whether there was a proper distribution of employment. That is done now. The Bill says that authorities must not take it into account. All we are asking so far is that they be allowed to take sex discrimination and discrimination against disability into account to encourage employers to take on more disabled people. I cannot see where the difficulties lie.
Baroness Blatch: As a representative in local government I am finding this debate rather interesting. If the Government had built into the Bill the premise that local authorities on the grounds of race, of discrimination in favour of women and of the disabled would have to go through the process of sending out questionnaires, considering responses, asking for written submissions to substantiate evidence and then considering those, I believe that those people who say that local authorities can do all this, do not need the resources, have all the manpower they need and are doing it now would scream from the rooftops about more resources, more personnel and the fact that local authorities are already working to their capacity in all areas. We are talking about a whole new raft of duties and responsibilities.
Where local authorities are doing it now, they are doing it within the confines of their own authority. The Bill is about operating outside local authorities and having power and responsibility. The noble Lord, Lord Basnett, may shake his head, but we are now talking about empowering local authorities to meddle in the operational day-to-day management of the private sector. We are saying that we shall interfere with the management of private companies in respect of whether they are complying with the Act
812
(and if not, why not?) and that we shall give them work only if they do comply. That is what the powers are specifically about.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Carter: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Is she suggesting that the 1944 Act should be repealed? That is interference in the private sector.
Baroness Blatch: No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that at the moment the case is being made that there is a great deal of capacity in local government to take on the extra work. I believe that Members opposite are the same Members who will argue strongly the other way to say that local government does not have the capacity for extra work.
Lord Dean of Beswick: The noble Baroness has it wrong. The Bill will deprive local authorities of doing something that they are already doing. We are not talking about a new raft of jobs upon which some disabled people can jump. We are talking about the raft that already exists but which will be removed. No other interpretation can be put on the matter.
Lord Carter: It would help if the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, could respond to the points that we are making and not those which they expect us to make. We did not use the word "enforce"; we used the words "supplement" and "assist". I should like to repeat the phrase that I used earlier. I said that the only circumstance under which a contract could be withheld would be if a company refused to be assisted. We are asking to be left on the statute book only what local authorities are already doing. If that is removed from the statute book, it is discriminating against disabled people.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I should like to comment briefly on what my noble friend said in his reply to the amendment. From the debate that has taken place, it is clear that we are all agreed that the quota scheme of the 1944 Act sets up targets. The quotas are not attainable in most parts of the country for reasons which everyone has accepted. I do not propose to enter into them again. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked whether it was suggested that the quota scheme and the 1944 Act should be repealed. I should like to remind him that it was the Manpower Services Commission, which operates the scheme, which suggested in its 1980–81 report that it should be repealed and replaced by other legislation. Although I dealt with that matter in my speech, I want to remind the noble Lord that it was the commission, which operated the scheme, which suggested that it should be repealed and replaced by something better.
Many organisations—and I am an office bearer in some of them—understandably decided that they preferred to hang on to what they had, even though it was aiming at only rough and general targets. It is difficult to try to introduce that kind of scheme into the question of whether someone receives a contract. It is vague and it differs in various parts of the country. While the quota scheme continues, and until it is replaced by something better, it is not attainable

813
in many circumstances. We hope that the MSC, previously the Department of Employment, but now under the aegis of that department, should make sure that all firms, whether tendering for contracts with local authorities or elsewhere, are subject to the same pressure to try to employ disabled people. To employ 1 per cent. may be exceedingly difficult in some areas of the country and in some industries. It is a very satisfactory target if attained. In another industry where it is easier you may achieve 6 per cent. Whether or not they are employed in work connected with local authorities, there should be one agency—the MSC—under one department which is responsible for making that quota system work as well as it possibly can. That, I hope, is what my noble friend proposes.
The Earl of Caithness: I am extremely grateful to my noble friends Lady Blatch and Lord Campbell of Croy because they have absolutely hit the nail on the head. The local authorities can do what they want to do within their own powers for their own workforce, but what we are talking about here is the outside contractual process. All we say is that they should not use that contractual process as an extra-statutory enforcement mechanism. The right people to be doing that, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy said, are the employment service.
Baroness Seear: The Minister must recognise that those statutory forces he talks about have had this ability since 1944, and they have not done it. That is the point: they have not done it. The Minister cannot even tell me how many there are. If the Minister will look up the number of establishments there are in this country and the number of DROs, he will realise he is giving them a totally impossible task.
Lord Basnett: If I expressed disappointment at the replies I have heard from the Minister and other noble Lords, I should be understating my position. really think that the point is being missed. The noble Earl asked a question. He asked why we should seek local authorities to act for state agencies. In fact, we have not asked for that and I do not want that. However, there is a very good reason and that reason has been given; namely, that they are not working. I have given the figures. Contract compliance has come down from 35·3 per cent. in June 1979 to 27 per cent. in June 1987. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is quite right in that the department responsible is undermanned, which is well known, and any of the agencies associated with the Government can tell you that.
Let me put the point again very simply. Local authorities can at the moment advise, help and guide people into employing persons with disabilities. They do that already. We are not asking them to do it if they do not want to do it, though we should love them to do it. What this Government are doing is dousing the one light of hope that exists at the moment for employment of persons with disabilities, because everything else is declining. That exists and is improving, and is based, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, on advice, counselling and help from local authorities. That is all that my noble friend and myself have spoken about. The Government are
814
going to douse that light for people with disabilities. When I say that I am disappointed, my emotions are understated. That is exactly how I feel. However, in the circumstances I withdraw the amendment and hope to come back to it later.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 17 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Before the clause is allowed to pass I should like to say a few words. I believe that we have had, in defence of this clause, an exercise in complacency and arrogance by the Government such as I cannot recall having happened for a long time. We have not even had the grace of crocodile tears. There is not a word in this clause that the Government feel is either wrong or could be improved. Members on this side of the Committee have sought for five or six hours to inject a little bit of humanity, local knowledge and flexibility into the two intentions of the Government, which are to take work away from local authorities and give it to their friends in the private sector.
We on this side of the Committee are saying that it is grossly unfair to a great many people whose representatives have sought today, and will continue to seek, to persuade the Government that this clause can be improved.
I am not going to move that the clause shall not stand part of the Bill, but I am honestly saying to the Government that on a range of matters they have completely misjudged what we have been trying to do. We have sought, as have major organisations outside this place, to say to the Government that we can make this clause work better if they will accept easements and flexibility
For example, take the great cry about the state of training and education in the building industry. We have sought in our amendments to persuade the Government that there is a case for giving a little credit to responsible organisations and associations. The Government have failed to do that. I am extremely disappointed. One must consider the evidence given by such organisations as the Federation of Master Builders. Those organisations, when they have surveys of their members, are given the fact that the economy of the country could be improved with a drive in training, skills and education. It is a crying shame that the Minister, even with support for the case from his side of the Committee, has failed to take the opportunity we have promoted to give responsible organisations a greater role in these matters. I am afraid that the Government have lost the sympathy of a great many people outside this place (they never had the sympathy of many people on this side of the Committee) that existed before the Minister started to defend this clause.
Baroness Seear: In opposing clause stand part I too should like to refer to one or two matters which we have not been able fully to discuss this evening, in particular Amendment No. 92A, which states:
"Nothing in subsection (5) above shall prevent a local authority from making reasonable inquiries of a contractor as to the record of

815
relationships between management and workforce in the course of the previous five years".
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that all organisations, public and private, have to observe the law of the land. Of course that is true. But relationships between employer and employee are by no means solely a matter of the law of the land. Any local authority which wanted to be sure that it was placing its contracts with a reliable contractor would be well advised to make inquiries about matters which are nothing to do with the law of the land; for example, the level of labour turnover. An organisation which has a high labour turnover is not likely to be a good contractor. The ability of that organisation to recruit and whether it is well regarded in the labour market should be considered. What sort of strike record does it have, official and unofficial? Those are all matters which a local authority in diligently laying out its contracts should be able to inquire into.
Of course the Minister and Members on his side of the Committee believe that this is an attempt to promote trade unionism and to exclude non-trade unionists. That may or may not be so, but if a local authority does that it is up to the people who elected it to take action against it.
Behind all this is the belief of the Government that when a local authority is handing out a contract it should consider absolutely nothing except the price and in the most shortsighted way what sort of value it can get for its money. However, in taking rather more than a shortsighted approach authorities will be looking at other aspects. I argue that a local authority in spending ratepayers' money is entitled to take into account the standards that are observed by the people to whom it is giving the contract. I see no reason why that should not be included in the Bill.
If the Government insist on saying that getting the best price immediately is the only consideration, they are denying local authorities and the people who put them into power the right to say how the ratepayers' money is to be used and the kind of employers to be encouraged with their contracts. That is the difference between us. It is probably a difference which will divide us permanently.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, is probably absolutely right to say that I have missed a point that he has been trying to make. However, he knows that I will carefully read the Official Report and, if I find that I have missed a point, then I will apologise, because these things happen.
I take on board what the noble Lord is saying and will look at it very carefully and discuss it with my right honourable and honourable friends, because that is the right way to do it. I am sure that is the way that I will always continue to do it. But to say that, because there is a fundamental difference in philosophy between us, I have been complacent, I find very difficult to accept. I certainly have not been complacent. Both sides have argued their case strongly, but as I said right at the beginning I cannot do maths at this hour of the night, but many hours
816
ago—this was likely to be a theme that would recur throughout our debates. It has recurred throughout our debates, but to call my response complacent is wrong.
I say to the noble Baroness that it is not price alone that interests us, because, as she with her knowledge of the Bill will know, if the local authority goes out to tender, it obtains a range of prices and it does not have to accept the lowest price. It can accept a price above that, but what it then has to do is to justify to the ratepayers accepting other than the lowest tender. Although it has set down in the contract and in the conditions of the tender the standard of service it wants with the specification it wants—which is normal commercial practice—over and above that it can say, "We have not accepted the contract from this company; we have kept it in house for the following reasons and the extra cost is so much." Surely that is not unreasonable.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Public supply or works contracts: the public authorities]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 95B:
Page 35, line 28, after ("in") insert ("section 3(1) of that Act, or established by").
The noble Earl said: It is a nice change to move an amendment. I beg to move Amendment No. 95B. This is simply a technical amendment to correct a printing error in Schedule 2 to the Bill, which lists those public bodies subjected to the provisions of Part II. I must pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Balfour for spotting this error and drawing it to my attention. The amendment merely restores the words descriptive of a police authority and brings the definition into line with the definition of a police authority in Clause 1 of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
10.45 p.m.
Clause 18 [Race relations matters]:
[Amendment No. 95C not moved.]
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 95D:
Page 17, line 22, leave out second ("draft").
The noble Earl said: The draft contract inviting tenders should be so worded that there is no confusion to the individual contractor bidding for the contract. One of the main purposes of this Bill appears to me to prevent any authority from restricting or distorting competition. Therefore, there should not be a draft tender.
When I was a councillor in the old East Lothian County Council, our county clerk, Mr. Gibb, and his successor, Mr. Miller, ruled us councillors with a rod of iron. One of the things that he insisted upon specifying was the date when tenders had to be received and the date and time when the tenders would be opened. These tenders were always opened in his room with the county convenor, vice-convenor, the chairman and chief official of the department involved present. Then the contracts were studied and the lowest or the most appropriate tender was

817
chosen. This was then put to the meeting at the next full council and the result was published in the local press. Within a month all the contractors knew who had been successful. I can find nothing in this Bill that lays down the procedure which before 1974 we councillors so much admired.
I apologise to the Committee if I have taken some time in explaining the amendment but I would ask that this point be noted by my noble friend. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: As usual, my noble friend has raised an interesting drafting point with his Amendment No. 95D, which would delete the word "draft" from the term "draft tender" in Clause 18(2)(b). However, such an amendment would appear to have a consequential effect on Clause 19(10)(b), and I hope therefore that he will agree to withdraw his amendment while I have a further look at it.
The Earl of Balfour: With that assurance I shall happily withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 96 to 97F not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 18 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Blatch: I am reminded of something that was often said to me as a young girl: "Don't you people have homes to go to?" In the light of the hour I am going to be very brief.
A number of times this evening the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, has referred to the anomalous position between the requirements of Section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976 and the position of women and the disabled. One of my difficulties in speaking to the Question that Clause 18 stand part of the Bill is that whatever I say will be misinterpreted almost inevitably as me being racist, anti-women and anti-disabled. I wish to put on record right now that the position is almost the opposite. Very often the mechanisms set up by the Act work the other way, and work not in people's interests but against their interests.
I was particularly moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, when he spoke to the amendment on the disabled. He showed a personal and real interest in their welfare and I believe that what he said was right. In some ways these amendments are patronising and in some ways thwart the real advancement of these groups of people. I was disappointed by something said earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, and I wonder whether I am the only person who picked it up. He referred to paragraph (b) of Section 71, which refers to the promotion of,
"equality of opportunity, and good relations, between persons of different racial groups'".
He referred to the use of paragraph (b) when it came to local authorities' powers and duties under the Act in relation to companies' links with South Africa. In the way that the provisions of the Act are couched I believe that local authorities would be entirely free to do just that.
818
I want to make only one point and I rest my case on it. If I am in breach of the law as an individual, a member of a local authority or as a member of a private company, I want to be judged by the courts and not by a local authority. To make local authorities judge and jury of private companies, and for local authorities only to be required to conform with the legislation themselves, so that nobody judges a local authority other than the courts, is an unsatisfactory position.
I gave an example earlier of what it would allow. The legislation would allow complicated questionnaires to be sent out, detailed discussion of the responses, further requests to be sent out for written submissions, more detailed responses to those and then laborious and costly demands upon private companies to question the judgments of local authorities. This would work against the interests of the ethnic minorities and the same arguments apply in terms of the disabled and for making special allowances for women. I believe that we are all subject to the law, whether we are in private companies or in public authorities. I wish the Minister to allow me at least to question the powers of local authorities in relation to Section 71 and, if it were at all possible, to take us all back to being equal under the law and not give extra powers of judge and jury to local authorities.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: As the Committee knows, I have had a fair amount to do with this subject. I was at the time deputy chairman of the Community Relations Commission. I am always amazed when I listen to speeches like that of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. We were always told—I remember 1964 and 1965—that the law would do more harm than good in terms of helping us. What we did, however, was to pass a law which made it illegal to discriminate in employment. Before that law was passed one did not see black people in any of the shops in Oxford Street, in the banks or anywhere like that. They were firmly discriminated against. They were, and I was involved in those days.
I remember having an interview with a shopkeeper who said "We are not in favour of discriminating against blacks in employment but we did not think that our customers would like it". That is what that firm said to us. The law was passed. People no longer discriminate against them in that form of employment and the customers have not complained.
But we found that we were not getting the integration at local level that was required. It was in order to get that integration at local level that local authorities were given responsibility to take into account the state of race relations in their area and to carry out their duties in a way which would enable the maximum amount of getting together in the area. I used the words "getting together" because I could not think of another word. That is all this is. What happened as a consequence is that local authorities have found, using examples of the United States, that by contract compliance they have been able to improve conditions very much in their area for ethnic minorities. That is the origin of the clause.
This Bill would have made it illegal for the authorities to do that for the simple reason that it

819
states that they cannot inquire about the composition of the workforce. The clause would allow them to continue to do the work that they have been doing. Local authorities are not an enforcement agency. What they are doing is being enabled to bring together the people in their area so that instead of having segregation there is a greater degree of integration. That is what this is all about.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Blatch for her speech and I recognise the sincerity of her view that the provisions of Clause 18 should not form part of the Bill. However, I think it is right that I should point out that Clause 18, which is of course a clause added by the Government at Report stage of the Bill's consideration in the other place, has been included in recognition of various ministerial undertakings that nothing in the Bill shall prevent authorities carrying out their existing statutory duties. Under the terms of Section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976 local authorities have a statutory duty to carry out their functions with due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination and the need to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups.
The Committee will notice that Clause 18 provides that authorities shall be allowed to ask written questions about race relations practices relating to non-commercial matters in Clause 17(5) (a) if it is reasonably necessary to do so in pursuance of their duty under Section 71 but only if those questions are in an approved form specified by the Secretary of
820
State. By specifying the questions to be asked, I believe that we will enable authorities to fulfil their duties under Section 71 without imposing too excessive a burden on contractors, who until now have been faced with different questionnaires from each authority, some of excessive length.
We propose that the questions to be specified should be drawn up after consultations with the industry, the Commission for Racial Equality and the local authority associations. Consultations will take place as soon as possible, so that authorities can take account of the questions once the Bill is enacted. I believe that by drafting Clause 18 in this way we have achieved a sensible balance.
Clause 18 agreed to.
[Amendment Nos. 98 and 99 not moved.]
Lord Hesketh: I beg to move that the House to now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Income and Corporation Taxes Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at one minute past eleven o'clock.

  ARMS CONTROL AND DISARMAMENT: VERIFICATION
  ARMS CONTROL AND DISARMAMENT: VERIFICATION
  STRATEGIC DETERRENTS: COLLABORATION
  STRATEGIC DETERRENTS: COLLABORATION
  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 25TH-26TH JANUARY
  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 25TH-26TH JANUARY
  NORTHERN IRELAND: SERVICES FOR THE TERMINALLY ILL
  NORTHERN IRELAND: SERVICES FOR THE TERMINALLY ILL
  EC COMPETITION RULES: EXEMPTIONS
  EC COMPETITION RULES: EXEMPTIONS