Sitting of 8 March 1988

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  HASTINGS BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL
  Lords amendments agreed to.
  LIVERPOOL EXCHANGE BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

  BRITISH RAILWAYS (LONDON) BILL [Lords]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  SOCIAL SERVICES

    Contract Cleaning
    Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he last met representatives of the contract cleaning industry.
    The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. John Moore): I met representatives of the Contract Cleaning Maintenance Association on 9 November 1987.
    Mr. Jack: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Did he have the opportunity to discuss with the contract cleaners the amount of money saved as a result of competitive tendering in the north-west region and the impact of the savings on patient care? When existing contracts come up for renewal, will he ask regional health authorities to examine the different savings at different units to see what lessons can be learnt, in the interests of further savings and improvements in the quality of cleaning?
    Mr. Moore: Yes, Sir. I discussed those issues with the CCMA, which drew my attention to the fact—my hon. Friend knows this—that about £9 million had been saved in the north-west region. I stress that about 85 per cent. of the contracts have been awarded in-house as a result of the excellent work of the NHS. The arrangements save money, which is put to good effect in patient care.
    Mr. Fearn: Will the Minister allow health authorities to require performance bonds from those who contract? That system was withdrawn by his predecessor, and I hope that he will reintroduce it.
    Mr. Moore: I shall be only too happy to consider anything that will ensure that quality work is done—whoever does it—under the tendering arrangements.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us are baffled at the opposition to competitive tendering for cleaning and other services, given that it works so well in industry and other organisations and that it will obviously benefit patient care because more funds will go direct to the sharp end?
    Mr. Moore: I have to share my hon. Friend's bafflement. I find it difficult to believe that anyone can disagree that any money saved by the more efficient delivery of health care is to the benefit of the Health Service and of patients, which is what the Health Service is all about.
    Mr. Robin Cook: When the Secretary of State met the contractors, did he remind them of the squalor and filth to which many of them have reduced our hospitals? Did he read last month's article in the British Medical Journal, which concluded that with privatisation
    "Cheapness seems to have ousted quality"?
    Did he read last week's report containing a survey of one hospital in which private contractors left uncleaned bloodstains for three weeks in the operating theatre? When he next meets the private contractors, will he tell them that he will give back to health authorities the right—without ministerial interference—to sack those cowboys who put their profits before the patients?
    Mr. Moore: I saw the thoroughly misleading article from the Association of London Authorities, which, among other things, reported criticism of Westminster hospital from more than two years ago. The cause of that criticism has been corrected, as confirmed by a recent community health council visit to the hospital site. I would listen far more seriously to Opposition Members on this subject if one of them, at least, would join me in deploring the postponement in Scotland of 2,447 operations already because of the activities of the unions in relation to this issue.

    Children and Women (NHS Services)
    Mr. Alton: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the provision of children's and women's services by the National Health Service on Merseyside.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): A comprehensive range of services is provided by the 10 local health authorities within the Mersey region, and the local family practitioner committees. Among them, the Liverpool health authority has plans to reorganise its paediatric and adult acute services.
    Mr. Alton: Before the Minister approves those proposals, will she weigh carefully the grave anxieties felt by many people in the Greater Liverpool area about the future of the women's hospital and the Myrtle street children's hospital? Does she accept that both those hospitals provide a much-needed community service? Is the Minister satisfied that cervical cancer screening is being undertaken satisfactorily on Merseyside?
    Mrs. Currie: That sounds like about six different questions. The hon. Gentleman will know that we are at

    173
    different stages in the consultation process. The paediatric facilities have been referred for ministerial decision and I have agreed to meet the community health council to discuss them. Further consultation will take place later this year on services for women and other adults. The hon. Gentleman will know that we issued a new circular on the cervical smear system on 12 January which takes into account the findings in Liverpool.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my hon. Friend agree that, while investment is taking place at Alderhey and other children's facilities, it would be unwise to over-invest, because Liverpool has a declining population and over-investment would be at the expense of growth areas elsewhere in the north-west?
    Mrs. Currie: My hon. Friend is right in his facts. Liverpool health authority now accounts for only 20 per cent. of the population of Mersey region, but over 25 per cent. of its resources, and that does not include any major psychiatric in-patient facilities. However, there are still a lot of children in Liverpool, and developments, particularly the £9 million being spent at Alderhey hospital, will improve their facilities.
    Mr. Parry: Is the Minister aware of the strong opposition to the proposed closures of the two maternity hospitals, the only specialist women's hospital and the children's hospital at Myrtle street in Liverpool, all of which are in my constituency? There is total opposition to their closure from the women of Liverpool and Merseyside, the Health Service trade unions, the community health councils and doctors and gynaecologists. Do the Government really worry about the level of health care for women and children in the inner city of Liverpool?
    Mrs. Currie: Liverpool has about 10 major hospitals within a mile of the city centre, yet it has lost 300,000 people since I lived there, many to suburbs such as the constituency of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). Some of them might prefer to have the services closer to home.

    Disabled People (Discrimination)
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was his Department's expenditure in each of the last three years on education and publicity aimed at reducing discrimination against disabled people.
    The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled (Mr. Nicholas Scott): It is difficult to give the precise figures for which the hon. Gentleman askes. Considerable sums are spent promoting the integration of disabled people through practical measures and assistance to statutory and voluntary agencies.
    Mr. McAvoy: I thank the Minister for his answer, but does he recall that the committee, set up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), which reported as long ago as 1981, called for legislation to end discrimination against disabled people? When will the Government start listening to disabled people in their organisations and stop blocking the legislation that they require on this deeply important issue?
    Mr. Scott: I think the hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is by no means unanimity of view about whether blanket legislation to prohibit discrimination against
    174
    disabled people would be a sensible move, and the Government prefer to take practical measures to improve access for and the independence of disabled people.
    Mr. Wareing: As the Government still set their mind against legislation, that is overwhelmingly supported by all the organisations for disabled people in Britain — the Minister will not be able to mention one that is against — is it not the Government's responsibility to say precisely how much is spent on education and publicity to prevent discrimination against disabled people? Why on earth has that not been done, in view of the disgraceful way in which the Bill that I presented to the House on 18 November 1983 was voted down with the help of the Whips?
    Mr. Scott: It is not possible to give the figures because the Government support a range of voluntary and statutory organisations which undertake publicity and educational campaigns to promote the interests of disabled people. It is not possible to assemble the totality of that support.

    Elderly People
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has on the proportion of gross domestic product expended in the United Kingdom on support for elderly people.
    Mr. Moore: In 1983, 9·6 per cent. of gross domestic product was spent on support for elderly people. This figure includes all forms of support for elderly people, except for health care.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Will my right hon. Friend compare the effect on pensioners' incomes and savings of the high-spending, high-inflation policies pursued by the Labour Government from 1974 to 1979 with the low-inflation, prudent policies pursued by this Government since 1979?
    Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the reality, which is sometimes ignored by Opposition Members, that half pensioners' total net income in the United Kingdom does not come from the state basic pension. The level of inflation under the previous Labour Government was a contributory factor to the fact that the increase in the real net income of pensioners was only 0·6 per cent. a year, compared with 2·7 per cent. a year under this Government. [Interruption.] The comparison is, of course, one that the Opposition would like to shout down as the contrast is so startling, as are comparisons between the successful economic policies of this Government and the appalling inflation level that pensioners faced under the previous Government.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Haynes—and a happy birthday.
    Mr. Haynes: The Secretary of State will not have to bother when he is elderly. He is well-breeched. Government Ministers are all appearing on television and getting fat TV fees, but the elderly people in my constituency and in those of my right hon. and hon. Friends really suffer under this Administration. Why do the Government not pull their fingers out and do something about it?
    Mr. Moore: I know that the hon. Gentleman, who I regard as an old friend—[Interruption.]—will enjoy on

    175
    his birthday my friendship and my concern that, with his undoubted commitment to the interests of those in need, he will not share with me the distress that he must have suffered when Labour was last in office.
    Dame Jill Knight: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to pay tribute to that part of the private sector that provides residential homes for elderly people in Britain? Will he confirm that without that help the National Health Service would indeed be badly stretched to cope with these people?
    Mr. Moore: The support and help for those in residential and nursing homes is a combined effort between the private and public sectors. If my memory serves me aright, about 120,000 old people are in residential homes run by local authorities, and about 100,000 are in private sector homes. We ought to commend all those who seek to give old people decent accommodation, whether public or private.
    Mrs. Beckett: Will the Minister tell us how many elderly people would recognise from his description the fact that the basic pension went up by 20 per cent. in real terms under the last Labour Government and by only 5 per cent. in real terms under the present Government, and that the improvements in general income to which he referred come directly from the new pension schemes introduced by that Government and halved by his Government? Does he recognise that the thrust of Government policy, with its reduction of rights, increased means, testing and direction towards charities, is particularly distressing to elderly people who have been there before?
    Mr. Moore: The hon. Lady forgets, as the Opposition continue to do, that we should be interested in the real well-being of old people and not simply in which Government contribute to it. If, as a consequence, we analyse the real position of old people, it is clear that the Opposition should never have the temerity even to raise the issue in the House. The reality is that old people in Britain were cheated in every sense of the word when the Labour party was in office. Since we have been in office their incomes have improved in real terms and in comparison to the working population, while their incomes declined against the working population while the Labour party was in office.

    Pensions
    Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what advice his Department intends to give to members of occupational pension schemes before 1 April.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Portillo): The Social Security Act 1986 will open up new opportunities for employees to take out personal pensions and for employers to set up new sorts of pension schemes. These choices are explained in leaflets and will be advertised on television and in the press later in the year, but it is not for the Government to offer pensions advice to individual scheme members.
    Mr. Greenway: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's reply. The changes in choices in pension provision are to be welcomed and should ensure that future generations of
    176
    elderly people will benefit considerably from the new choice. Is my hon. Friend aware that there is widespread concern among trustees and managers of pensions funds that if members of occupational schemes opt out of them they may inadvertently lose entitlement to important fringe benefits, such as death-in-service cover and widows' pensions? When publicising the Government's plans, will he take every opportunity to warn the public of those dangers?
    Mr. Portillo: I recognise my hon. Friend's expertise in this matter. The Financial Services Act 1986 contains conduct of business rules that require suppliers to give the best advice to their potential customers. That will include discovering the client's present position and whether the client has an occupational pension. If the client has such a pension, the supplier should advise him or her about what benefits might be lost from the occupational pension and what benefits may be gained. As a spin-off from our reforms, occupational pension scheme suppliers will have to explain the benefits more carefully to members.
    Mr. Cryer: Is not the spin-off from the so-called reforms, which are really highly regressive, an increased cost on local authorities such as the West Yorkshire fire authority? That authority has made representations to me, claiming that the costs of posing alternative, inferior schemes to the present fire authority scheme are not provided for by the Home Office. That means an extra cost on a fire authority that is desperate to maintain the standards imposed by the Home Office. In some areas it cannot meet the Home Office requirements. Will the Minister get together with the Home Office and ensure that all costs imposed by the Government's rotten schemes are provided for?
    Mr. Portillo: I should be happy to explore that point, but I do not recognise it. I believe that the reforms provide a much wider range of pensions choice, which will offer people opportunities in future without shackling them to a particular employer.
    Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: Is my hon. Friend aware that the flow of funds into public sector provision for retirement is on an altogether much more generous scale than for the bulk of people in the private sector? Will he take steps to encourage employers to put far more funds into the provision of retirement benefit for employees in the private sector so that the vast bulk of our population are freed from the risk that they may be obliged to go through the humiliation in retirement of applying for means-tested benefit?
    Mr. Portillo: One of the effects of our reforms is that they will raise the public's consciousness and awareness about pensions choices. That will oblige occupational pension scheme suppliers to explain the benefits more carefully to their members. It will probably encourage members to be more demanding of their occupational pension schemes.

    South East Thames RHA (Chairman)
    Mr. Rowe: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has any plans to replace the chairman of the South East Thames regional health authority.
    Mrs. Currie: No, Sir.
    Mr. Rowe: Is my hon. Friend aware that South East Thames regional health authority is the only authority that

    177
    does not provide teaching funds to its district hospitals? Is she further aware that Medway health authority was promised such funds this year? Does she agree that the failure to honour that promise is a further example of the feeble subservience to the great London teaching hospitals which pays no regard to the shift in population or to the improvement in communications in the south-east?
    Mrs. Currie: I am sure that the regional health authority has taken note of my hon. Friend's views. Medway health authority is now teaching undergraduates, and is doing that very well. I know that the region wants to make an allocation to the authority, but it is waiting until we have finished our review of the RAWP formula, which includes an analysis and recalculation of the service increment for teaching. However, apart from anything else, my hon. Friend should be aware that the region has allocated £60 million to the health authority, and that is a substantial increase on recent years.
    Mr. Fraser: Is it the Government's policy to concentrate health authorities in inner-city areas?
    Mrs. Currie: I must confess that I do not quite understand what the hon. Gentleman means. Our policy is to have 190 health authorities all over the country, to allocate them the resources that they need and to ask them to produce the best services possible.
    Miss Widdecombe: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is deep discontent in South East Thames region in general, and in my constituency of Maidstone in particular, on the part of the district health authority and the consultants and nurses, over the distribution of the South East Thames money that is so generously provided by the Government? Will she note that the chairman was seriously ill for a long time, so the ills of the South East Thames region cannot be laid fairly and squarely only on the chairman? There is something indelibly wrong with the way in which the authority runs itself, and I ask her to look closely at the matter.
    Mrs. Currie: Despite the strictures of my hon. Friend, I am pleased to note that there has been a rapid increase in the number of patients being treated by Maidstone district. She might be interested to know that Mr. Peter le Fleming, who is the regional manager and who has given many years of outstanding service to the Health Service, will be retiring later this year. I understand that the RHA is announcing today the appointment of Mr. Peter Griffiths, the district general manager of Lewisham and North Southwark district, who was previously district administrator in Medway, to the post. I hope that my hon. Friend will enjoy working with him in future.
    Ms. Harman: Is the Minister aware that the South-East Thames regional advisory committee has said that there has been a
    "serious deterioration in the quality of care"
    because of cuts in general surgery, and that
    "it is not unusual for breast cancer surgery to be cancelled four or five times."
    Does the hon. Lady still say that bed closures reflect an improvement in patient care, when the BMA's document, published yesterday, states that 50 per cent. of the acute beds that have been lost in hospitals in the South-East Thames region were lost for financial reasons?
    Mrs. Currie: The hon. Lady may be too young to realise that beds have been lost ever since the Health Service was
    178
    established. [Interruption.] What matters far more, as I am sure the hon. Lady will agree, is that every bed used, every penny spent, and every member of staff employed in the Health Service should produce the highest standards of health. We are impressed with the progress that has been made in that area.

    Eye Treatment
    Mr. Fearn: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make funds available to reduce the waiting list for eye treatment in the Southport-Formby area.
    The Minister for Health (Mr. Tony Newton): We are making an additional £90,000 available from the waiting list fund in 1987–88 and 1988–89 to reduce waiting times for eye treatment in Southport and Formby. Part will be used to train a registrar in Southport to carry out intra-ocular lens surgery. The rest will be allocated to neighbouring South Sefton health authority, which has contracted to treat 200 additional ophthalmology patients from the Southport and Formby list.
    Mr. Fearn: Is the Minister aware that the current waiting list is 700 in the Southport and Formby health authority? Does he know that 37 other hospitals are waiting for lasers? Will there be any more funds for laser machines?
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Southport now has a new Argon laser, which is speeding up treatment by changing the emphasis from in-patient care to day treatment. He will also know that a number of other initiatives have been taken by the authority to make inroads into this problem, some with Government help. This year a large new district general hospital is about to open in that health authority. It includes a purpose-built ophthmalogy unit, which will help further.
    Mr. Favell: is not one of the great successes of the Government the increase in the number of patients receiving eye treatment? Are not people of 80 and 90 years of age, who would never have dreamt of seeing a consultant 15 or 20 years ago, now receiving treatment?
    Mr. Newton: Yes, that is true. We are anxious that still more should be done, and I have outlined some of the ways in which more is being done.
    Ms. Walley: If the Minister is so concerned about reducing waiting lists, what action will he take to deal with the 2,500 people who are waiting for orthopaedic operations in the North Staffordshire district health authority—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This question is about eye treatment.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is an eye-opener.
    Ms. Walley: That is exactly right. It is an eye-opener about waiting lists. People are having to wait a long time for hip operations. We in North Staffordshire want sufficient resources for eye treatment and for hip replacement operations.
    Mr. Newton: Whether the hon. Lady is primarily interested in orthopaedics—that is hips—or in eyes, I assure her that our efforts to reduce waiting lists will

    179
    continue. Shortly, we shall he announcing the distribution of a further £30 million that will be available for that purpose next year.

    Disabled People
    Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to monitor the implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.
    Mr. Scott: The Social Services Inspectorate is exploring ways of monitoring the effects of the Act. It has close links with the services concerned, and its role involves promoting efficient and effective use of resources, identifying good practice and making it known.
    Mrs. Fyfe: That is not much of an answer. Can the Minister explain the delay of nearly two years in the implementation of section 3 of the 1986 Act, especially bearing in mind that section's potential to enable disabled people to make their own voices heard as consumers of these services?
    Mr. Scott: The Government have made it clear that they want to proceed steadily with the implementation of the Act. In advance of implementing each section we have detailed consultations with bodies representing local authorities. We want to make sure that the resources are available to ensure the effective implementation of each section.
    Mr. Boyes: Is the Minister satisfied with his Department's attitude to disabled persons, especially with regard to the employment quota? I have the February 1988 figures, and the DHSS employs only 1·3 per cent. of disabled persons, which is well below the accepted and recommended 3 per cent. quota. The Government's attitude to the disabled is a scandal. The Minister's Department cannot get its disabled employment quota up to 3 per cent. and, similarly, not one Government Department employs the 3 per cent. quota of disabled persons.
    Mr. Scott: I take seriously the responsibility for promoting the employment of disabled people. This Government introduced the fit for work campaign and the code of good practice for the employment of disabled people. However, I take note of the hon. Gentleman's point.

    Pensions
    Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what assessment he has made of the feasibility and utility of comparing the value of basic state pensions between different European social security and national insurance systems; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Moore: The best available comparative measure is the share of gross domestic product devoted to all programmes for elderly people. By that measure the United Kingdom's spending is the third highest in Europe. The United Kingdom basic pension cannot usefully be compared with pensions in other European Community countries, which have very different systems of support for elderly people.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Is it not the case that the figures peddled by the Leader of the Opposition and his friends
    180
    in Strasbourg are grossly misleading and bogus—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Is it not the case that the pension figures are a cruel confidence trick?
    Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is right. The EC report on old-age pensions is worthless as a guide to pensioners' living standards in the United Kingdom because it does not take into account occupational pensions, except for those on twice average earnings. When such pensions are included, the United Kingdom is second in the Community with regard to the level of replacement of earnings by pension. Also, the report does not take into account other benefits to pensioners that alter the picture dramatically. When they are included in the total figure, the United Kingdom is third in the list.
    Mr. Cryer: Is it not clear that, although the Government are boasting about their booming economy within the Common Market, when comparing basic state pensions one finds that nearly every other EC state pays better state pensions than the United Kingdom Government? Is it not the fact that the Government do not want such comparisons made because they expose the rotten deal that they give to state pensioners?
    Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman is, not unusually, utterly wrong. Only three EC countries—the United Kingdom, Denmark and Ireland — pay flat-rate pensions. If one considers the other countries where earnings-related pensions are based on individuals' own average earnings, those pensions do not represent a national average. Therefore, it is clear that low earnings—I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have some interest in this matter—produce extremely low pensions.
    Mr. Roger King: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when comparing state pensions we need to look at the other benefits that pensioners receive in the form of free tranport, housing benefit and so on? If one sought to compare the value of an Irish state pension with an English one it benefits an Irish man only if he buys his beer in this country.
    Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend draws attention to the point that I sought to make that, when one takes the total percentage of GDP given by our country to help the elderly, we are third highest in the European league.

    Home Care
    Mr. McLeish: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the social services departments which provide a seven-days-a-week home care service.
    Mr. Newton: I regret that the information about this local authority service for England is not available centrally. Home help staff increased by an estimated 20 per cent. between 1978 and 1986.
    Mr. McLeish: Unfortunately, my question has not been answered. Does the Minister believe that seven-day home care is the most effective way of keeping the severely disabled and the elderly frail in the community? If so, does he accept that local authorities need more resources to implement such a programme, and will he encourage them to do so, instead of answering as he has done today and giving the wrong information for the right question?
    Mr. Newton: I wish to continue to give local authorities, whether in England or Scotland, the general encouragement that the hon. Gentleman seeks. A recent report by the Social Services Inspectorate showed that local authorities are developing old-style home help services into a more modern home care service, which is a sensible development.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Further to the most important topic of seven-days-a-week care, has my right hon. Friend had a chance to see early-day motion 787, and will he join colleagues on this side of the House in congratulating the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), who recently opened a private nursing home in her constituency? Does that mark a—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That sounds like a business question.
    Mr. Newton: I always welcome signs of conversion to common sense.

    Disabled Persons Act
    Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are his estimates of the additional number of social workers required for the implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.
    Mr. Scott: It is for individual local authorities to decide how best to discharge their statutory responsibilities and how many social workers or other staff are needed. Before any section of the disabled persons Act is implemented, the Government discuss with local authorities the overall costs entailed.
    Mr. Ross: Why is the Minister so apathetic in the face of the growing concern about the adequacy of the implementation of care in the community for mentally ill and mentally handicapped people? When will he implement section 7 of the Act?
    Mr. Scott: Implementation of section 7 of the Act is under discussion at the moment.
    Mr. Wigley: Surely the Minister cannot get away with the two answers that he has just given concerning the Act. Two years have gone by since the Act was passed and the Government are still discussing and prevaricating. At a time when there is £2,000 million to give away in the Budget, surely the Government can afford one sixth of a penny income tax to help disabled people in such need?
    Mr. Scott: It was made clear, when the Act became law, that it would not be implemented at once, but would be steadily implemented, and we are making good progress in that direction.
    Mr. Rowe: As one of the sponsors of the measure, I should like to welcome the fact that we are making progress. However, may I ask my hon. Friend to consider carefully the fact that, when disabled people receive an adequate degree of support, they are frequently no longer a burden on the social services, because they are able to earn? That is one of the most important features of the Act.
    Mr. Scott: It is one of the most important features of the Act, and one of the main thrusts of Government policy, to enable an increasing number of disabled people to have access to employment and education.
    Mr. Ashley: Will the Minister confirm that the Government will not fully implement the Act because they will be embarrassed by the amount of unmet need that will be revealed by implementation? Will he recognise that the Government's failure to implement the Act is damaging to disabled school leavers, to young people leaving hospital and to those who care for disabled people? Why does he not implement the Act?
    Mr. Scott: We remain committed to the phased implementation of the legislation. That always was the Government's intention and we intend to continue the steady progress in that direction.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Is the Minister aware that, despite his reassuring tones, there is grave concern about the Government's clear failure to implement sections of the Act which deal with such matters as advocacy, the scandal of people being discharged from long-stay hospitals and other vital matters concerning the disabled? Many people in local government will take exception to the Minister's implied suggestion most of this afternoon that local authorities are responsible for the delay. Just as the Government refused to listen to local authorities about the Social Security Act 1986, which takes away from disabled persons, they are failing to take on board the strong views of local authorities that it is imperative for the Government to implement fully the decision of the House in terms of this Act.
    Mr. Scott: It is worth reminding the House that by the production of extra resources to help disabled people and by the actions that the Government have taken, in a statutory sense, to provide access to employment, transport, the countryside and elsewhere, the Government have shown their commitment to disabled people. The Act set out the framework for progress, but detailed discussions need to take place about the implementation of individual sections of the Act, and we are engaged in that.

    Hospital Alert
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received from the organisation Hospital Alert over the last three months on the question of the National Health Service.
    Mrs. Currie: I believe that a petition was presented to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware that Hospital Alert represents the authentic voice of men and women throughout the country? [Interruption.] Not the Labour party — Hospital Alert represents everyone, irrespective of political persuasion. How does the Minister respond to the millions of Conservative supporters throughout the country who do not want substantial tax reductions next week? They want part of the money that is available to the Treasury to be spent on developing the National Health Service. How does the Minister respond to those Conservative supporters?
    Mrs. Currie: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I understand that Hospital Alert is supported financially by the London borough of Hounslow, which, despite being rate-capped this year, managed to find money to give to that campaign. However, we take such

    183
    campaigns seriously. My PPS, my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess), booked the Grand Committee Room to meet those people in a lobby recently, and 17 people turned up. As for the hon. Gentleman's question about the Budget, we shall have to wait until next week.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: When considering Hospital Alert, will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that a great delegation from my constituency on the matter of Hospital Alert consisted of two constituents, and that the delegation to our hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) consisted of one petitioner?
    Mrs. Currie: Nevertheless, as my hon. Friend is aware, we take seriously all the points made by his constituents and by the constituents of all other hon. Members. We are putting a great deal more money into the Health Service and are employing a record number of nurses this year. We hope that we will be able to pay them better when the review body has reported.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Among the representations on the NHS, has the Under-Secretary of State seen the letter from Dr. Mitchell of Scarborough hospital, which scores highest on her Department's performance indicators? Has she noted the conclusions of all the consultants at that hospital, that the rate at which they are expected to discharge patients was "positively dangerous", and Dr. Mitchell's observation:
    "it is easy to appear efficient if one is underfunded and understaffed"?
    Does not that letter from the hospital which, by her own standards, is the most efficient, demonstrate why we want more funds for the NHS before more tax cuts for the wealthy?
    Mrs. Currie: I have certainly seen the letter in the press. I know that the doctor sent it to the press. We take all such representations seriously. However, I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that the hospital service is not the entire Health Service and that, with the support of many Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), we are moving to reform the primary care services as well. In that way we think that we can relieve the pressures on the hospitals.

    Central Birmingham Health Authority
    Mr. Favell: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he proposes to take about the performance of Central Birmingham district health authority as disclosed by the CIPFA database's latest performance comparisons.
    Mr. Newton: The CIPFA information relates to 1984 and 1985 and to a very limited number of indicators. Performance indicator information for 1985 shows that the district performed well on throughput and turnover after standardisation for its complex case mix, and the district is broadly in the range of costs of other teaching districts. But the indicators and trends suggest areas for inquiry, and I welcome the fact that the West Midlands regional health authority and Central Birmingham health authority are together monitoring the data on services and costs in the district to ensure that they are being provided as efficiently and effectively as possible.
    Mr. Favell: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the constant consultant clamour that has come from the
    184
    district health authority, which has done so much to undermine the public confidence in the National Health Service. The figures he has given show that the health authority comes 19th out of 23 district health authorities on throughput in beds, and 21st out of 23 on patient attendance, yet it receives more money per head of population than any other district health authority in the west midlands.
    Mr. Newton: I agree with my hon. Friend that those questions must be considered in relation to the health authority, so I very much welcome the work of the regional chairman in discussing these matters with the district.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty The Queen.
    Mr. Butler: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to reconsider her policies on wider share ownership? Research shows that 17 per cent. of Labour party members now own shares. Will she ensure that other sections of the population are able to enjoy that great privilege?
    The Prime Minister: Our policy has been, and remains, a capital-owning democracy, including both the ownership of houses and the ever wider ownership of shares by all sections of the population. Further privatisation will assist in that process. It is a very successful policy and is partly responsible for seeing that the party that believes in a capital-owning democracy is returned to power.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister will know that we have a record trade deficit and that our balance of payments continues to deteriorate. In those circumstances, is she content to see the pound continue to rise against the deutschmark and the dollar?
    The Prime Minister: The only way to deal with that is either to have excessive intervention, which would lead to inflation—and it is not part of our policy to assist inflation; rather, it is part of our policy to get inflation down—or to deal with the matter by interest rates, which would not be in the interests of inflation at the present time.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is the Prime Minister saying that it does not matter, in her view, how high the pound goes?
    The Prime Minister: I am saying that getting and keeping inflation down is the most important thing of all. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that we believe that last month's trade figures were a freak. Indeed, at the same time as last month's figures were announced, a reduction was announced in the deficit of the December figures and in the current account deficit for 1987.
    Mr. Kinnock: When we have the highest real interest rates in the industrialised world, when we have that balance of trade deficit, when the balance of payments is continuing to deteriorate, when we have the lowest ever

    185
    level of personal savings and when we have the highest ever level of personal debt, how long does the Prime Minister think that that condition can continue?
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the figures, he will see that the balance of payments deficit is very small compared with those of a Labour Government. Last year it was £2·5 billion, which is precisely what the Chancellor forecast in the Budget. He was the one forecaster who was spot on.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Will my right hon. Friend explain why, when we are spending more money than ever before on the National Health Service, there are so many complaints? Will she reiterate that the National Health Service is safe in her hands, and can she recollect any time when Budget day was National Health Service day under any Labour Government?
    The Prime Minister: I recall very well that the Labour party Budget days and the control and management of its economic policy led to slashing hospital capital expenditure and cuts in the pay of doctors and nurses.
    Mr. Steel: Will the Prime Minister condemn the attack on the Panamanian consulate in London last night, and will she make it clear that Her Majesty's Government will not recognise General Noriega as Head of State?
    The Prime Minister: There was an attack, and this morning my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary called the ambassador into the Foreign Office to make it perfectly clear that differences of opinion must not be fought out on London streets.
    Mr. McCrindle: Still on the subject of expenditure within the National Health Service, will my right hon. Friend try to find time today to reflect on the fact that, by targeting a relatively small amount of money on the reduction of waiting lists, there has been very considerable success over the past year in reducing them? Will she give further thought to whether the investment of a relatively small additional amount targeted directly on the acute services might very well bear disproportionate benefits?
    The Prime Minister: I am very much aware of what my hon. Friend says. That money, instead of going generally to the improvement of the Health Service, was targeted specifically to get waiting lists down, and this has been very successful. We shall learn the lessons from that method of dealing with increased expenditure.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Ewing: Could the Prime Minister, as a mother and a mother-in-law, spare a thought today for the women in my constituency and other parts of Grampian region? Is she aware that the local health board is proposing to close no fewer than six local maternity units, which means that women in my area and other parts of the region will have to travel 60 to 70 miles whilst in labour to the Aberdeen maternity hospital? [Interruption.] As I am sure that this is not the standard that the right hon. Lady would wish for her family, what assurance will she give the women of my area that they will not have a reduction in their standard of care?
    The Prime Minister: I know of the hon. Lady's concern, and she was kind and courteous enough to give me notice of her supplementary question. As the hon. Lady knows, there has been a recent review of maternity beds in the Grampian health board area, which has revealed problems there, including the widespread under-use of facilities in the outlying and smaller units; hence the proposal to close some of them. [Interruption.] The board has issued a consultative document and asked for comments from all interested parties. The board will consider its proposals again in the light of representations that it receives before reaching a final decision. Any proposals for closure would, of course, require the consent of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, who will obviously carefully consider the representations which the hon. Lady and her constituents have made.
    Mr. Stokes: Going further afield, does my right hon. Friend agree that the United Kingdom has every right to hold a military exercise in the Falklands Islands and that the South American countries have no grounds whatever for complaint?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. We have not merely every right to hold such an exercise in the Falklands Islands, but a duty to see that reinforcement proposals could in fact be carried out, otherwise we should have to keep more of our armed forces down there. It is no one else's business, but is a matter of the defence of the people's rights in the Falkland Islands.
    Mr. Hardy: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hardy: Three or four years and many inexactitudes ago the Prime Minister rejected the request that particular attention be given to the Dearne valley area. Is she aware that we have now had a substantial number of colliery closures: Cortonwood, Wath, Highgate, Kilnhurst, Cadeby, Yorkshire Main and others; that Manvers now faces extinction; that we have lost many jobs in supporting industries in steel; and that Guinness and United Glass now propose a disreputable and deceitful closure of the glass works at Swinton, with the loss of 500 jobs? Is it not time that the right hon. Lady began to recognise that the horrid position that we face suggests that the Government should understand that they have a responsibility to the whole nation and not merely to a few favoured areas, of which the Dearne Valley certainly is not a part?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that throughout the last year, and, indeed, for about 18 months now, unemployment has been falling — [HON. MEMBERS: "What?"]. Unemployment has been falling—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"]. It has in fact been falling in all regions of the United Kingdom during the past few months.
    Dame Jill Knight: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Dame Jill Knight: Has my right hon. Friend seen that, following the reports last week that Haringey council was funding a bookshop selling anarchist literature to five-year-olds—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady's question is in order.
    Dame Jill Knight: Has my right hon. Friend noted the more recent report that infant teachers in Haringey are somehow using Home Office funds to produce videos promoting homosexuality, and terrorism in South Africa? Does my right hon. Friend feel that that is a right and proper use of taxpayers' and ratepayers' money, and can she do anything about it?
    The Prime Minister: The first matter was raised in the House last week. As for the second, concerning the use of Home Office grant, section 11 grant is to help children from the ethnic minority communities in Haringey to achieve their full educational potential. The Home Office is investigating the allegation that the grant has been used for other purposes, and, if that is found to be the case, grant may be withdrawn. The Department of Education and Science is also looking into the possibility that Haringey may have contravened its statutory duties to forbid the promotion of partisan political views and to ensure that political issues are presented in a balanced way.
    The requisite Departments are looking into the matters raised in both parts of my hon. Friend's question, with a view to taking action.
    Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Livingstone: Will the Prime Minister take time in her busy day to reconsider the statement that she made to the House last year about Sir Maurice Oldfield? Will she consider the inconsistency of the withdrawal of his positive vetting while no action was taken against Mr. Peter England, a deputy secretary in the Northern Ireland Office, and Mr. J. L. Imrie, an assistant secretary at the Northern Ireland Office, following investigations into the buggery of young children at the Kincora boys' home? Is she not disturbed that Mr. Imrie has taken no action against the newspaper that named him and his activities four weeks ago, although he continues to work for the Government in the Ministry of Defence? Can she assure the House that she is convinced of Mr. Imrie's innocence?
    188
    If not, will she now finally concede a genuinely independent inquiry into what went on in the homes in Kincora, irrespective of the damage that that may do to MI5 when its role is exposed?
    The Prime Minister: I have nothing further to add to the statement that I made on Sir Maurice Oldfield in the House. I note that the hon. Gentleman uses the privileges of the House to name people who are unable to answer back.
    Mr. Harris: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate all those who played a part in foiling what would have been a dastardly terrorist attack in Gibraltar by the IRA? Does she reject the criticism that is already beginning to creep in? Furthermore, does she agree that this shows the importance of maintaining the Prevention of Terrorism Act?
    The Prime Minister: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. It is very important to retain the Prevention of Terrorism Act. As for what happened in Gibraltar, most of us are very relieved that there was no repeat of the bombing of the Green Jackets, the Horse Guards or Enniskillen, or of the Harrods bombing at Christmas time. We are very relieved that these events did not end in that kind of tragedy.
    Mr. Leighton: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday, 8 March 1988.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Leighton: Will the Prime Minister accept that in the course of a lifetime a person might want to change his or her job? Indeed, we sometimes wish that she would. There might be a variety of reasons why a person finds his or her job intolerable; for example, a young woman being sexually harassed. In the present climate it might be difficult for that person to find another job quickly. As such people have paid their taxes and national insurance, why is the right hon. Lady denying them unemployment benefit for six months? Is that not tantamount to the direction of labour, and why is she being so vindictive and callous to those people?
    The Prime Minister: Title to unemployment benefit in general goes through the House and becomes a statute. In any particular case there is a right of appeal to the independent statutory authorities and not to a politician.

Clyde Ferry Services (Industrial Dispute)
3.30 pm
Mr. Brian Wilson: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the continuing industrial dispute that has halted ferry services operated by Caledonian MacBrayne on the River Clyde."
Several thousand people who live in the island communities that are affected by this dispute are now facing severe difficulties as a result—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Would hon. Members kindly leave the Chamber quietly, please?
Mr. Wilson: Agricultural and feeding stocks are almost running out; some consumer goods are becoming increasingly short in supply; passengers in both directions are stranded; and the Easter tourist trade is threatened. We have had the extraordinary intervention of the Royal Navy on a strike-breaking foray, which is unlikely to encourage an early settlement. Islanders are offended—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) must be listened to in silence.
Mr. Wilson: Islanders are offended by the intransigence that has been shown by the Scottish Transport Group management, are suspicous of the political motivation that might be behind management's hard line and are sympathetic to the seamen who serve these communities well and who now face substantial cuts in earnings along with the imposition of anti-social rosters.
I pay tribute to the efforts of ACAS to bring the parties together. In the light of the Scottish Office's abdication of concern on other fronts, it is perhaps pious to hope that it should care tuppence for the problems being faced by beleaguered islanders. But Caledonian MacBrayne is a state-owned company that is under the control of the Secretary of State for Scotland. A debate on the Floor of the House could help to bring the issue to a speedy conclusion.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the industrial dispute involving ferry services on the River Clyde."
I have listened with care to what the hon. Member has said, but I regret that the matter that he has raised is not appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. I hope that he will find other means of bringing it before the House.

Statutory Instruments, &c.
Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the six motions relating to statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the draft Merchant Shipping (Passenger Boarding Cards) (Application to non-UK Ships) Regulations 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Department of Transport (Fees) Order 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Merchant Shipping (Closing of Openings in Enclosed Superstructures and in Bulkheads above the Bulkhead Deck) (Application to Non-United Kingdom ships) Regulations 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Social Security (Payments on account, Overpayments and Recovery) Regulations 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft State Scheme Premiums (Actuarial Tables) Amendment Regulations 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Social Security Pensions (Home Responsibilities and Miscellaneous Amendments) Amendment Regulations 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c. — [Mr. Lightbow.]

Statutory Instruments, &c.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates) shall apply to the consideration of Estimates as if paragraph (2) of that Order were omitted.—Mr. Wakeham.

Scottish Constitution (Referendum)
3.33 pm
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the holding of a referendum in Scotland to establish the level of demand for constitutional change.
In seeking the leave of the House to introduce the Bill, my key aim is to enable the people of Scotland to express freely and democratically what changes, if any, they seek in the way that they are governed. At the 1987 general election—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is unseemly to carry on private conversations.
Mrs. Ewing: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In the 1987 general election, 76 per cent. of the voting public in Scotland supported and campaigned for parties with policies that argued for the return of decision making to the Parliament that was closed in 1707. Yet from the Treasury Benches we are continually told that there is no demand within Scotland for constitutional change. One would have thought that 76 per cent. of support for decentralising would have been seen as a demand for change, yet the Government refuse to recognise this as evidence of Scotland's aspirations. Additionally, in every opinion poll conducted on the subject of Scotland's constitutional future, more than 70 per cent. of those asked have indicated their desire to see democratic accountability and decision making returned to Scotland, yet the Government refuse to recognise this as evidence of Scotland's aspirations.
In the debates on Scotland's constitution that have been held in the House since the general election, the vast majority of right hon. and hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies have consistently voted for the decentralisation of power, yet the Government refuse to accept this as evidence of Scotland's aspirations. We therefore see our efforts to respond to democratic demands for change thwarted by a Government who turn their back on the evidence.
What, then, can those of us who seek to establish through democratic means the rights and responsibilities of self-determination do to persuade the Government and the House of the legitimacy of our demands? It is my contention that one way forward is to take the issue back to where it belongs, to the people of Scotland. The Bill, through enabling an objective referendum to be held, will most surely present the Government with irrefutable evidence of the people's views, unfettered by the many issues on which we campaigned at the general election. The arguments could be presented clearly for the various options that are open to us.
For that reason, I propose that the referendum should contain four options. First, there is the status quo, which
192
is favoured by most Conservative Members. Secondly, there is devolution, which is proposed by the Labour party. Thirdly, there is federalism, as proposed by the Liberal party. Fourthly, there is independence, as proposed by the Scottish National party. Each political party therefore could campaign for its particular standpoint. As the referendum is advisory, its major impact would be to present the Government with clear evidence of the Scottish viewpoint.
I hope that no right hon. or hon. Member will oppose the motion. Very basic democratic rights underpin the Bill. Enshrined in international law is a right of all nations for self-determination. No one can deny that Scotland is a nation; indeed, she is one of the oldest European nations, and until 1707 she governed herself. She still maintains many of the trappings of statehood, such as a separate legal system and a different education system. What she lacks is statehood, and that can only be achieved only through self-determination.
Over the weekend we heard the Prime Minister talking about self-determination as it affected the people of the Malvinas. Why, then, should the people of Scotland be denied the same basic principle?
The Bill affords the opportunity to the people of Scotland to exercise the principle of one man, one vote. Surely that very foundation of democracy cannot be denied by the House? We have a responsibility to ensure that genuine political opinions are not stultified, but are afforded a means of expression through the ballot box, in fair and free elections.
The Bill allows for all the options currently proposed in Scotland to be presented to the people. There can be no ideological reason for opposing it. Therefore, the only logical explanation that one could have for opposing my modest proposal is that people would fear the result of the referendum. Surely, as we say in Scotland, being feart is not a good enough reason.
I commend the Bill to the House, and I trust that it will have full support.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mr. Eric Heffer, Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, Mr. Charles Kennedy, Mr. Seamus Mallon, Mrs. Ray Michie, Mr. James Molyneaux, Mr. Alex Salmond, Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas, Mr. Andrew Welsh and Mr. Dafydd Wigley.

Scottish Constitution (Referendum)
  SCOTTISH CONSTITUTION (REFERENDUM)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the holding of a referendum in Scotland to establish the level of demand for constitutional change: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15 April and to be printed. [Bill 115.]

Question of Privilege
3.40 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I wish to call attention to the parliamentary sketch in The Guardian of 2 March, and beg to move,
"That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
Members of Parliament are not noted for being shy and retiring creatures. Obviously, in the clash of ideologies which we have in the Chamber there are bound at the very least to be robust exchanges of view. Much heat is often generated, and strong and sometimes unkind words are used. No one should complain and, indeed, no one on either side complains about that.
By nature I am not a whinger. I am prepared to hand it out and to accept it, but there are clear limits. I maintain that the article by Mr. Andrew Rawnsley in The Guardian of 2 March grossly exceeded those limits. It was gratuitously offensive to named Members and it slandered most other hon. Members on this side of the House.
Mr. Rawnsley's complaint was that in the debate on unemployment benefit changes on 1 March there were only a handful of Labour Members in the Chamber. He failed to notice that there were even fewer Tory Members present, but we shall let that pass for the moment. I understand that Mr. Rawnsley is a new and inexperienced sketch writer, but that is no excuse for not understanding the nature of parliamentary business, or for not attempting to find out how it is organised.
I confess that I am rather saddened that it is a journalist of The Guardian whom I am seeking to refer to the Committee of Privileges. The Guardian is one of the few national newspapers which we could describe as a quality newspaper with certain standards. I would have infinitely preferred that it had been The Sun that we were discussing, but since that newspaper has no standards it would have been impossible for it to have fallen from them.
At the time that Mr. Rawnsley was penning his offensive remarks, no fewer than nine Standing Committees were in session involving 74 Labour Members, plus a greater number of Conservative Members. In addition, a further 27 Labour Members were in Select Committees. There was also that day a major education lobby in which 2,000 people from all over the country participated, and obviously Members of Parliament would have been meeting their constituents.
For my part, I attended the education lobby and then went directly to the Standing Committee on the Housing Bill, which did not adjourn until 12.45 the following morning. In the Division on the unemployment benefit motion at 10 pm, about 90 per cent. of the parliamentary Labour party voted, a fact unlikely to have been observed by a sketch writer who no doubt was safely tucked up in bed, as any Guardian journalist would be during opening time. In conjunction with my hon. Friends, I would have much liked to have been in the Chamber to participate in the debate on the unemployment benefit changes, but I could not, for the reasons already stated.
In all the circumstances, on the day in question it was an insult for Mr. Rawnsley to state that "drink, laziness and incompetence" were the reasons for the absence of hon. Members from the Chamber. For Mr. Rawnsley, when he realised how foolish he had been, subsequently to have written that it was all meant to be light-hearted,
194
merely added insult to injury. I wish to tell Mr. Rawnsley and any other journalist that the best kind of humour is that based on truth. There is nothing very funny about common abuse based on an imperfect understanding of the truth.
The House would be foolish to become over-sensitive to criticism, but fair criticism is as far from vulgar abuse as I thought the journalistic standards of The Guardian were from those of certain other newspapers. If the reputation of Parliament is to be maintained, there are times when our procedures must be defended in the face of ill-informed and malign attacks made upon us by journalists or anyone else. I do not seek to be vindictive towards a particular journalist and I am not interested in this House having privileges that are not justified by the duties and responsibilities placed upon us by the electorate. However, journalists should not be allowed irresponsibly and unjustifiably to attack MPs—or any of our citizens.
In view of what I believe to have been a gross contempt of this House by a newspaper journalist from The Guardian, I ask the House to accept the motion and to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges for further consideration.
3.47 pm
Mr. Ian Gow: I am not one of those who read The Guardian out of choice. It is true to say that before this I had never heard of Andrew Rawnsley, and it is only fair to add that I am sure that he has never heard of me. The article in question was totally unknown to me until the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) was kind enough to hand it to me when he and I were both absent from the Chamber in the Public Accounts Committee a week ago today.
However, I note that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) had occasion to address the House on 19 June 1984 when my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) sought leave to refer a matter to the Committee of Privileges. The hon. Gentleman opposed the motion moved by my hon. Friend, and this is what he said on that occasion:
"I believe that this motion represents an unpardonable waste of parliamentary time."
He went on:
"All Members of Parliament, Mr. Speaker, must accept the consequences of their actions and not whinge afterwards."—[Official Report, 19 June 1984;Vol. 62, c. 160–61.]
Let us examine the allegations made, mercifully, not against my hon. Friends but against Opposition Members:
"Labour MPs appear to be slowly vanishing from the Chamber—
Mr. Robin Corbett: I am just going myself.
Mr. Gow: The hon. Gentleman has underlined the truth of what was said by the sketch writer.
The question is then posed:
"Where are they? … The latest theory is the oldest. At work, once again, is the Westminster Triangle: drink, laziness and incompetence."
I have no wish to forfeit the methodist vote in my constituency but I have to confess that during my short period in the House—and, indeed, before I arrived here—I have had more than one glass of white lady. I have given up drink for Lent, but let us examine the nature of the allegation and the Labour party's response to it. There are sins graver than to have a drink.
Mr. John McAllion: Being a Tory.
Mr. Gow: Laziness is a vice that has afflicted parliamentary sketch writers and Members of Parliament down the ages. To object to the charge of incompetence that was levelled at the Labour party is an objection with no foundation whatever.
Therefore, I conclude that the article, which was described as a sketch, has provoked the most unworthy response, notably from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West. He is the custodian and trustee of some of the silver that used to be the property of the Greater London council. Whether it was incompetence that led him into the role of trustee, whether it is laziness that has prevented him from giving it back, or whether, at the moment of taking it or at the moment of putting it where it now is, he was under the influence of drink are matters which should not detain the House any further. I for one will be voting against the motion.
3.51 pm
Mr. David Steel: The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) omitted one important fact in moving his motion, and that is that the newspaper has apologised, not once but twice. Although I found the article offensive, that should be the end of the matter and the Committee of Privileges should not waste its time on it.
3.52 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: I regret the terms of the motion because, in the words of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), it shows a degree of over-sensitivity that does the House and hon. Members little justice. If we are to resort to this device every time we felt sensitive about something writen by the press, the Committee of Privileges would be in constant session. There is nothing to be gained in pursuing this matter.
The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) has just mentioned the fact that the journalist involved apologised twice for what had been said and that leads me to reflect on the fact that in the past few days the conduct of an hon. Member was drawn to your attention, Mr. Speaker, and, although a matter of privilege may have been involved, the hon. Member apologised and the matter was not pursued any further.
Here, a journalist has been accused of a breach of privilege, he has apologised and yet the House is in danger of taking the matter further. That suggests to me that there is one rule for Members of Parliament and quite a different rule for journalists. That is patently unsustainable and I hope that the House will pause long and hard before accepting the motion.
If the matter were to be referred to the Committee of Privileges, we could be open to the accusation not just of over-sensitivity but of seeking to defend ourselves against any accusation or criticism in the press. Since we take to ourselves the very privilege of criticising anyone whom we please, under cover of our own privilege, it ill becomes us to use such a mechanism against members of the press. For those reasons, I hope that the House will soundly reject the motion.
3.53 pm
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Like most of my hon. Friends, when I read the column by the journalist from The Guardian I was furious. I felt that it was quite
196
unjust that a Labour Member who was ill should have been named in the way that he was and that other Labour Members who were in various Committees should have been attacked for not being in the House when, in fact, more Labour Members than Conservative Members were in the Chamber. I felt furious. Indeed, I almost phoned Mr. Ian Aitken about the matter. I did not phone him because I reflected on the issue and I realised that if we are in the House of Commons, we are bound on occasion, whether we like it or not, having stood for Parliament and come to the House, to be attacked and traduced, sometimes quite wrongly.
I remember The Sunday Times saying that I would cheerfully see off my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) because I was the Stalin of the Labour party. I did not raise a matter of privilege. I took the paper to court. Having taken it to court, I had quite a nice holiday in Italy. We have to accept that whether we like it or not, on occasions we will be wrongly attacked.
I think that the young journalist on The Guardian who wrote the article was absolutely wrong, but the House would make the position far worse if we decided to make it a matter of privilege. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), whose anger I understand—I feel as strongly as he does about the matter—to accept that The Guardian has apologised to my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis).
Even if we are not absolutely happy with that apology, the House should accept it and hope that in future other people will take a little more notice of what actually happens in the House of Commons, and understand that hon. Members cannot be here on every occasion because we have to attend Standing Committees, Select Committees and internal party committees. I worry about television in the House precisely because some people outside the House will not understand that.
I do not wish to say much more, except to give some advice to the young gentleman who writes for The Guardian. There used to be a journalist here called Frank Johnson. He pilloried me regularly, but in such a way that I used to roar with laughter. I hope that the present sketch writers will follow the example of Frank Johnson and write in a way that is not harmful or nasty and which right hon. and hon. Members can fully appreciate.
3.57 pm
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Many Conservative Members probably accept that the offending piece in The Guardian was gratuitously offensive and probably untrue, but surely that should not be the cause of any surprise to Opposition Members and should not cause them to behave like coy little political virgins and feign surprise that The Guardian for once is not the sole repository of the truth. After all, surely a paper that is so forward as to propound the fact that it takes an independent, non-partisan line and stress the strength of its profession on that score should arouse our suspicion in the first place.
The Guardian has already given two whingeing apologies, so it is wrong for hon. Members to waste the House's time in trying to extract a further pound of flesh. If hon. Members honestly believe that they have a case, they have the option to seek recourse in the courts and sue for libel. They should do that rather than waste the time of the House. What surprises Conservative Members about this shameful little episode is the way in which

197
Opposition Members cringe like delicate little flowers at the first onset of a late frost in spring. After all, are they not the very same hon. Members who daily trade insults and invective across the Floor of the Chamber? Perhaps we should not be too surprised by the inconsistency of their attitude. In recent years we have seen how they are prepared to use the most vile invective against my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, yet they cry, "foul" the moment my right hon. Friend uses even a mildly harsh word in reply.
I hope that this unpleasant little episode may have a mildly cathartic influence on the Opposition. I hope that they will now realise the idiocy of using gratuitous insults. I hope that they will take the opportunity to brush up their debating skills and limit themselves to real arguments rather than ignorant abuse.
4 pm
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I find it very difficult to follow that magnum opus. I am bound to say that the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) has almost made me change my mind.
I begin by declaring an interest. I drink and I have been known to take a catnap in the Library. Indeed, when I once appeared as a barrister before the Lord Chief Justice of England, he said to me, "I can see you are doing your incompetent best, Mr. Sedgemore."
Nevertheless, I hope that we will take the motion seriously. It is serious for The Guardian, that radical newspaper—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: What?
Mr. Sedgemore: A radical newspaper, which is not only short of money and a decent layout artist, but if I may paraphrase Swift, is in danger of dying by swallowing its own lies. Having said that, I want to defend The Guardian and the right of journalists to abuse hon. Members.
All my life I have had the misfortune to be laughed at. You will understand, Mr. Speaker—well, perhaps you will not, because perhaps no one has ever laughed at you—that it hurts. The position became unbearable when I was at the school debating society one year and one of my opponents described me as "a long streak of spit". I thought, "Well, this cannot go on." I was lying in the bath and I had a brilliant idea. I said to myself, "I know what I'll do to stop it,; I'll become an MP. Then I'll get the protection of the all-powerful, all-party Committee of Privileges. No longer will anyone in this life be able to hold me up to hatred, ridicule and contempt." Imagine my surprise when only last week, as a result of something that I said during proceedings on the Education Reform Bill in Committee, a journalist who is sitting in the Reporter's Gallery described me as "Derek Jameson's voice coming out of Kerry Packer's body."
I do not know how hon. Members can worry about 200 Members of Parliament being called "incompetent, lazy drunks" when a tender, delicate soul like myself is being likened to Sid Yobbo.
I am not claiming that Andrew Rawnsley is entirely innocent. I am not sure how I am supposed to respond, as a paid-up member of the National Union of Journalists, when he argues in his column, as he argues every day, that politicians are even more odious than journalists.
198
You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that I am not one of those hon. Members who believes in vulgar, personal abuse—[Interruption.] I prefer to leave such abuse to the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber. I understand that at this very moment he is seeking to raise the standards of artistic appreciation in our country by trying to persuade The Sun to set up a Kelvin MacKenzie room at the Tate gallery to house a permanent collection of nipples. That is the kind of abuse that we could do without. If the right hon. Member for Chingford had not become a Member of Parliament, I am sure that he would have become a PPE—not a graduate in politics, philosophy and economics, but a purveyor of pornography extraordinaire.
I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) will agree that we should judge political abuse by three standards. First, abuse in politics must be treated as an art. Secondly, abuse is at its best when it is in thoroughly bad taste. Finally, — this was the only point that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West picked up himself—abuse should at some stage hint at reality. That is where poor little Rawnsley up there in the Press Gallery, the fearless scribe from Farringdon road whose goolies are about to be tweaked today, got it wrong.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman seek to use language that is more parliamentary?
Mr. Sedgemore: You are absolutely right. Mr. Speaker. I am getting carried away. Obviously Mr. Rawnsley came to the House and was hard-pressed, like the rest of use, to earn a crust. He did not have a story, and the classic story to make up in the Reporters' Gallery is the "empty Chamber" story.
Before I finish, I want to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West two questions. I want my hon. Friend to consider some of the best abuse down the ages and I want to give one example from across the Atlantic and one from this side. When my hon. Friend replies and withdraws his motion I want to know how he would respond to such abuse.
How would my hon. Friend have responded to these comments made by Harry Truman?
"Richard Nixon is a no-good, lying bastard. He can lie out of both sides of his mouth at the same time and if he ever caught himself telling the truth, he'd lie just to keep his hand in."
Also, how would my hon. Friend have responded to the classic 18th century argument between Lord Sandwich and John Wilkes?
"'Pon your honour, Wilkes, I don't know whether you'll die on the gallows or of the pox."
To which Wilkes replied:
"That must depend, my Lord, upon whether I embrace your Lordship's principles or your Lordship's mistress."
A serious point is involved. It is important to preserve the freedom of the press, and that necessitates the freedom of journalists in the Press Gallery to abuse hon. Members down here on the Floor of the House.
4.6 pm
Mr. Robert C. Hughes: The final comments of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) were important. We must remember that in this relatively comical exchange across the Chamber there is an attempt to hound a journalist. We may well be inexperienced, but he has an absolute right to

199
report this Chamber. I regard—[Interruption.] It was patronising for the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) to remark upon the journalist's age and to suggest that he does not know what he is talking about. That was particularly patronising when we consider the offensive remarks that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West has made in this Chamber and in other chambers in which he has spoken in other guises.
I cannot compete with the historical analogies drawn by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch. However, I wonder why the hon. Member for Newham. North-West is so sensitive about one particular column in one newspaper. Why was it more offensive for Andrew Rawnsley in The Guardian to say what he said and for complaints to be made in the House about those comments when we consider comments made in the columns in various newspapers last week?
For example, The Daily Telegraph called my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley)
"A restaurant critic who … occasionally visits the Commons."
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen)—[Interruption.] wait for it—was described as "sadistic" in The Times. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) was reported in The Times as bearing
"a remarkable resemblance to a member of the Munster family."
The Daily Telegraph reported that the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) was
"glad of a further opportunity to practise his vocal impersonation of the late Gracie Fields's hairdresser."
Such comments are made day after day and have been made about almost every hon. Member.
There is no need for apologies from The Guardian, despite the fact that it has offered one twice. There is no need to complain about the words that are used to describe hon. Members. There is no need for the fuss and bawling across the Chamber that we have heard from Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West can dish it out, but he cannot take it—he has proved that today.
4.10 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I cannot add to the analyses or jokes about this motion, but, in asking my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)—he is one of my favourite colleagues—to pause, I speak as one who had the misfortune to be investigated by the Privileges Committee 21 years ago. Whatever anyone who has been investigated by that Committee may say, I can assure the House that it is no joke to have been investigated by Lord Elwyn Jones, Duncan Sandys and others.
The Privileges Committee should be reserved for the most important and weighty matters. It is a senior Committee of the House, and the swings and roundabouts of journalism should not take up its time. The Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), is nodding in agreement. As one who has been before the Committee of Privileges, I say this with some vehemence. If the Committee is to consider anything next week or the week after that, it should consider what is happening between British Coal and the South of Scotland electricity board—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not the motion before the House.
Mr. Dalyell: It would be a far better subject. Or, as the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) has raised the subject, let the Privileges Committee turn its mind to the subject of question 10 on the Order Paper to the Prime Minister. It concerns Mr. Bernard Ingham and Mr. Charles Powell—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us try not to widen the motion. I ask the hon. Gentleman to keep to the motion.
Mr. Dalyell: I say to my hon. Friends that if they vote for the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West they will be going down a path that many of us may later regret having entered upon.
4.12 pm
Mr. Brian Wilson: This has been a useful debate. I should have thought that the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) about Richard Nixon would have earned him an honorary knighthood.
I shall speak in three capacities: first, as one who was not here a year ago and who therefore read the sketches avidly as a political activist in the country—and tended to believe what was in them. I can well remember reacting to the scathing references to hon. Members in the sketches. I would certainly have wondered, a couple of weeks ago, where the other 200-odd Labour Members were, on the basis of what I read in the sketch. So I can well understand the sensitivity of Opposition Members — and Conservative Members—to the sort of dishonesty that appeared in Andrew Rawnsley's column.
My second capacity is that of an hon. Member who now knows the truth of what happens. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said, virtually all Opposition Members—and probably most Conservative Members — were engaged in proper parliamentary business at the time when Mr. Rawnsley suggested they were engaged in less worthy business.
My third capacity—this is the only reason why I speak in the debate—is as a member of the National Union of Journalists who until recently earned his living by writing for newspapers, including, from time to time, The Guardian. When I wrote for The Guardian, I was more worried about whether the typographical errors would extend to getting the football scores wrong.
On the whole, it is much more important to safeguard the rights of journalists and to take account of the freedom of the press than to get too worked up over this sort of thing. It is absurd that for the past hour or so we have been talking about The Guardian and one of its writers when all hon. Members know that there are standards of journalism in this country that are a hundred times worse than anything that appears in The Guardian or in Mr. Rawnsley's column.
If we want to discuss freedom of the press and the right of reply, of which this is one aspect, by all means let us do so; but let us not pillory one journalist for one bad column on a thin day. Let us address ourselves to the wider issues of freedom of the press and ownership and control of newspapers.
I am less worried by what Mr. Rawnsley wrote than by a little thing that happened last night, when an incident took place, or did not take place, in the Chamber, and the Secretary of State for Scotland went running out to tell The Sun and the BBC, to name but two outlets—
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I bring the hon. Gentleman back to the subject? He should confine himself to the motion.
Mr. Wilson: To adduce motives for behaviour in the way that the Secretary of State—and Mr. Rawnsley—did comes from the dirty tricks kennel of Mr. Bernard Ingham. Let us not hear about Mr. Rawnsley without hearing the same about others who try to operate a regime if disinformation about what goes on inside, as well as outside, this House.
4.15 pm
Mr. Tim Rathbone: Would it not be wise for the hon. Members for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) to remember the old Chinese proverb which goes—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us hear it.
Mr. Rathbone: I remind hon. Members of the old Chinese proverb: "A little is all very well, but enough is too much."
4.16 pm
Mr. Peter Snape: I have been a reader of The Guardian for many years. In the 1960s, before my goods train got under way, I used to lean back in the guard's van and read Mr. Norman Shrapnel, who wrote entertaining stuff about the activities of hon. Members in the House. Since those days the parliamentary reports in The Guardian and other newspapers have appeared to take second place to the witticisms or otherwise of the sketch writers.
There is a serious point in what my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said. I have been a fan of various parliamentary sketch-writers for years. Mr. Michael White and Mr. Frank Johnson, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) alluded, were probably two of the better sketch writers in the Gallery. I was also a fan, although I did not always agree with his politics or philosophy, of Mr. Edward Pearce. I tabled an early-day motion about him 18 months ago. When Edward Pearce, a sketch writer, criticised the Conservative party, he was removed from the Press Gallery by the proprietor of The Daily Telegraph, who said that he did not buy The Daily Telegraph for it to be full of anti-Conservative propaganda—a sentiment which would appeal enormously to Conservative Members, if they were capable of reading or assimilating a parliamentary sketch in The Daily Telegraph or anywhere else.
So a serious point arises from my hon. Friend's motion, although I hope he will not press it to a Division. I know that he is a great traditionalist about matters concerning the House, although the Trappist philosophy of the Whips Office does not appear to appeal to him greatly at present. I hope that he, like me, will consider the article unworthy of the blunderbuss of parliamentary privilege. I am sure that my learned Friends have given my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) suitable advice, and that he, like my hon. Friend the Member for Walton will spend the summer on the Italian riviera at someone else's expense. I must confess to a dash of envy about that.
I have never met Mr. Andrew Rawnsley, but, judging from his picture in The Guardian, he is only about 14 years of age. Indeed, he appears to be almost as callow as the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) who,
202
despite his reference to debating skills, appeared to be nothing other than the spokesman for pre-pubescent youth.
I hope that, in making my plea to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West, I do not sound too much like a sketch writer. I should think that, arising from the debate, there will be an opportunity to write tomorrow's sketch if only to complain about the lack of impromptu debating skills demonstrated by most Conservative Members. It is bad enough that the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) looks like a barrow boy, but he does not have to sound like one too.
I trust that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West will reflect that, to turn out the brigade of guards of parliamentary privilege to arrest a wolf cub such as Mr. Andrew Rawnsley, is not what this House should be about.
4.21 pm
Mr. Roger King: All hon. Members like to listen to or to read parliamentary sketches and to note whether we have been mentioned.
I believe that it was unfortunate that Mr. Rawnsley mentioned the absence of the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) during Prime Minister's Question Time. We are now aware of the reason for his inability to ask his question. Naturally, any sketch writer may draw a certain conclusion from that absence and judge that the hon. Gentleman is one of the disappearing masses of the Labour party. The writer has apologised for that one particular misdemeanour.
At some stage we all, I hope, get into the sketch writers' columns. I am proud of the fact that I was in one entitled "Creep of the Year". That article also mentioned my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). I am proud of the fact that we were associated, because no one represents principles better than my hon. Friend. However, he was accused of trying to sacrifice his soul for a gong. I am not aware that he has done so on any occasion. Since my hon. Friend has admitted that he has never read The Guardian I am not sure whether he has written to condemn the newspaper for that approach.
My claim to fame as creep of the year is that I believe I am the only person who has successfully driven my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) out of the Chamber as a result of what I said. If that is correct, I am prepared to accept that achievement in the manner in which it was meant in the article. We have to learn to look at sketches and laugh at them as appropriate.
I accept that Mr. Rawnsley's article was slightly excessive, but I hope that we will consider his article in the knowledge that he has learnt a lesson. We look forward to reading much more accurate sketches in future.
4.23 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: I always believe that the House is at its worst when it is being its most pompous, and it is usually at its most pompous when it is talking about its rights and privileges. However, today— bless the House — it has not been particularly pompous. One wonders what would have been the reaction of some Conservative Members if the abuse in the article had been directed at the Conservative Benches.
You ruled, Mr. Speaker, that the article was, prima facie, a breach of privilege. Therefore, that gave my hon.

203
Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) the opportunity to propose a motion to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges.
Privilege, as you are aware, Mr. Speaker, has taken many forms over the years. It was not long ago in the history of the Parliament that it was a breach of privilege to report the happenings in this place, whether such reports were accurate or not. As long ago as 1699 the House resolved that misreporting the proceedings of Members was a breach of privilege.
It is worth noting that the motives behind my hon. Friend's motion do not introduce any elements of novelty regarding the requirements that we would wish the people in the Press Gallery to meet. Their predecessors who attempted to report this place, when such reporting could result in imprisonment or worse, justified their desire to report on the basis that the accurate reporting of elected Members' actions was a sound basis for democracy and accountability. There is absolutely no occasion in history when those reporters suggested that the misreporting of Members was a sound basis for accountability or democracy. My hon. Friend, in wishing for some accuracy and even a lack of malice in such reporting, is not introducing into our discussion, or into any discussion about the freedom of the press, any new elements.
I must admit that, initially, I had not read the article by Mr. Rawnsley because I find it almost impossible to find any article in The Guardian since it redesigned its layout. When the article was drawn to my attention, it appeared to me that, again, The Guardian was falling somewhat short of the standards that that paper laid down in the days before fancy layout became more important than reporting the facts.
If my hon. Friend is asking The Guardian to subscribe to its old standards, I believe that he is, in fact, asking its reporters to remember the world-famous dictum of C. P. Scott—The Guardian's most famous editor—rather than being free with the facts and even freer with its comments. C.P. Scott said:
"Comment is free but facts are sacred."
Nothing could have been further from the basis of Mr. Rawnsley's article. I shall read out what Scott said in detail, but I must be careful not to read the wrong quotation, or I might find myself in breach of privilege. The next quotation in the "The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations" is from Captain Robert Falcon Scott, who said:
"Great God! this is an awful place."
C. P. Scott said:
"Its primary office"—
that is, of a newspaper—
"is the gathering of news. At the peril of its soul it must see that the supply is not tainted. Neither in what it gives, nor in what it does not give, nor in the mode of presentation, must the unclouded face of truth suffer wrong. Comment is free but facts are sacred".
We cannot just blame Mr. Rawnsley for his article. The people who purport to edit that newspaper must also accept the responsibility. Mr. Rawnsley and his editor must realise that they have fallen far short of the standards to which that newspaper used to subscribe.
There is one new element in our discussion. Recently we voted to set up a Select Committee to consider all aspects of televising the proceedings of the House. One of the tasks of the Committee is to come up with guidelines to provide safeguards for the House and individual Members, which must be followed by the television authorities and its
204
employees. Even now both sides of the House doubt whether the television authorities will stick to any guidelines that are laid down.
I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West will not press his motion, but those who are enthusiastic for that course of action should bear in mind the effects of television. The television authorities will not be keen to follow any guidelines for their coverage of the House, and if they see we are not even prepared to refer to the Privileges Committee the guidelines for the scribes in the Gallery which were laid down about 150 years ago, they will think that, if they push, they will get their way whatever they do.
We must bear in mind the consequence of our actions today. On balance, I believe that, to take terrible retribution against Mr. Rawnsley—I must admit that appearing before the people likely to sit on the Privileges Committee would be terrible retribution—for a sloppy, second-rate article of which he and The Guardian should be ashamed, might be going too far.
4.29 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): Just as I believe that you, Mr. Speaker, were right to give this matter precedence in debate over the business of the House set down today, so I believe that we should have regard to the important debates that are to follow, and therefore I shall be brief in my remarks.
It has been a good-natured, humorous and entertaining debate, but there are some serious points to be made, if only for consideration for the future. Your decision, Mr. Speaker, to give the matter precedence—this is an important point, because the hon. Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) did not quite get this right—does not imply that a prima facie breach of privilege or contempt of the House has occurred. For that reason, our task today is not to examine exhaustively all the arguments as to whether that has taken place, but simply to decide whether there is sufficient cause to refer to the Committee of Privileges the article in The Guardian newspaper of 2 March, as the hon. Member for Newham, North-west (Mr. Banks) proposes.
The purpose of parliamentary privilege is to enable hon. Members to carry out the job for which they have been elected. To enforce that privilege, the House has penal powers which it may decide to exercise in any particular case where there has been a breach of privilege. In deciding whether to make use of that power, the House would doubtless wish to take account of the recommendations that it approved on 6 February 1978. These derived from the report of the Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in 1966–67, which took the view that, in general, the House should exercise its penal jurisdiction as sparingly as possible and only when it was satisfied that it was essential to do so to protect itself from substantial interference in the performance of its functions.
That leads me to the first set of arguments against accepting the motion, which were first made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) and others—that the House would be behaving in a pompous and over-sensitive manner to bring in the full weight of the Committee of Privileges over this parliamentary sketch, for which some apology has already been made. The supplementey argument is that the House should he wary

205
of entering into a process where the penalties at its command are too draconian sensibly to be imposed and, therefore, that it would look foolish by having caused a fuss for no effect.
I appreciate the concerns revealed by those two lines of argument, and I am sure that they would have great force, but the logic of raising the matter on the Floor of the House is to refer it to a Committee of Privileges for two reasons. First, there is a general view that irresponsible criticism of the House may, over time, damage its standing and impair its effectiveness. No one is saying that the House should be immune from adverse comment, but, if our effectiveness is not to be damaged, there is a point beyond which legitimate criticism cannot go. In those circumstances, the House should properly be concerned about what is said in the press.
Mr. Dalyell: Are there not matters with which Privileges Committee should be much more concerned, such as the misbehaviour of the most senior Minister in such matters as Westland and the bombing of Libya?
Mr. Wakeham: That is the hon. Gentleman's view, and I might have my own view about that, but we are not dealing with that this afternoon.
The immoderate tone of the article, its perhaps wilful lack of understanding of, or reference to, the work done by hon. Members outside the Chamber, and its irresponsible focusing on the absence of the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis), apparently with no check on the true position, raises, in one view, sufficient reason to justify consideration by the Committee of Privileges.
The second reason is that referring the matter to the Committee of Privileges is the best way to provide the House with a further means of considering the matter. In that referral the House is asking the Committee to consider, first, whether a breach of privilege or contempt of the House has taken place and, secondly, if so, what action should be taken against those who have committed it.
A range of options are open to the Committee of Privileges in the consideration of the article. The
206
Committee would make a judgment as to the appropriate response and report to the House. If, however, the matter is not referred to the Committee of Privileges, the question of the attitude of the House to the article would rest at the end of this debate on the fact that we do not think it worth referring the matter to the Committee.
I am content either way. If the hon. Member for Newham, North-West presses his motion, I shall support him. If he withdraws it, I shall be perfectly content and that will be the end of the matter.
4.34 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I am grateful to the Leader if the House for his comments. The debate has been useful and it has certainly been entertaining, with a serious content as well.
The House must be mindful of the fact that wilful abuse of hon. Members in this place will, in the end, undoubtedly undermine any public confidence that people might have in the House and how we operate our procedures. However, I believe that referral to the Committee of Privileges is perhaps heavy-handed. One would like, perhaps, to have referred the matter somewhere else, but, as the Leader of the House will know, there is nowhere else that one can refer such a matter.
I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) for his contribution to the debate. Indeed, I was most impressed by the arguments put forward by Labour Members. I was particularly grateful to the hon. Member for mentioning Mr. Ed Pearce. In one of his sketch articles in The Daily Telegraph, when I was chair of the arts and recreation committee of the GLC, Mr. Pearce referred to me as
"the snarling czar of culture in London".
I was less than amused by that comment, but I should like to report to the House that I shall be having dinner with Mr. Pearce later this week, which shows that I am of a very forgiving nature.
In view of what the Leader of the House has said, as the House has made clear its feelings, and in eager anticipation of a champagne supper with Mr. Andrew Rawnsley, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Estimates Day
[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]
Estimates Day
  Supplementary Estimates, 1987–88
    CLASS IV, VOTE 3

      Storm Damage
      [Relevant document: First Report from the Agriculture Committee (House of Commons Paper No. 272-I of Session 1987–88) on Storm Damage of 16 October 1987]
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1988 for expenditure by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on market support, grants and loans for capital and other improvements, support for agriculture in special areas and compensation to sheep producers, animal health, arterial drainage, flood and coast protection, and certain other services.—[Mr. Donald Thompson.]
      Mr. Speaker: May I remind the House that the Vote chosen for the debate was recommended by the Liaison Committee, as far as it relates to the storm damage recovery scheme 1987.
      The House agreed to the Liaison Committee's report of 3 March, and the Standing Order No. 131 recommendations of the Liaison Committee thereby have effect as if they were orders of the House. The debate should be confined, therefore, to the storm damage recovery scheme in 1987.
      4.37 pm
      Mr. Jerry Wiggin: As a result of what you have announced, Mr. Speaker, the House will already know that sub-head 3(c) of the Supplementary Estimates provides a mere £350,000 for the storm damage recovery scheme, but I should not wish the debate to be diverted to that technical point, as we have rather more to say about the storm damage.
      On the night of 16 October 1987, the country was hit by a hurricane so damaging that there has never been one so great in either living or recorded memory. The damage is estimated, in insurance terms alone, at over £900 million and the total damage is likely to be well in excess of £1 billion. It was infinitely the worst natural disaster that this country has ever seen. The storm blew down some 15 million trees and has left lying on the ground over 4 million cu m of wood.
      At the beginning of the Session, the Select Committee on Agriculture resolved that it would investigate in the long term forestry and land use and it proposed that, in the circumstances of the disaster and of the problems already being experienced by December among those afflicted by the damage, we would do a rapid study of the matter and see who was affected and in what way.
      Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Before my hon. Friend starts making magnificent exaggerations about the worst disaster that this country has ever seen, I remind him of the floods in Scotland in 1942 and 1947 and
      208
      of the gales in 1950, 1958 and 1968 in which our timber crop was decimated; but we were not so greedy as to ask for help and we were not so selfish as to demand it.
      Mr. Wiggin: I shall have something to say later about the merits, or otherwise, of Government assistance for storm damage and natural disasters. However, I advise my hon. and learned Friend that, in financial terms, none of the disasters he mentioned were of anything like the same scale as the storm in October. There is a precedent for Government assistance in that the last great storm in Scotland—I think that it was the 1968 storm that he mentioned—achieved a Government grant for the transport of fallen timber—[Interruption.] I am afraid that my hon. and learned Friend is not correct—there is a precedent for assistance. It is not a question of competition. The Committee dealt with one particular matter and we have looked at it in considerable detail.
      I begin by dealing with some of the modest and less important aspects as they pertain to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It is true that the Government responded by producing greater flexibility under the agricultural improvement scheme. We believe that that will be of some assistance to some farmers, providing that they do not rub up against the overall limits that have been imposed by the Community. We should like the Minister to exercise some flexibility about the deadline for notifications under the storm damage recovery scheme as the closing date approaches.
      We fully acknowledge the comments of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State who gave evidence before the Committee. I am sorry that he is not with us this afternoon, but I am certain that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will reply to the debate with great competence. There is a feeling in the affected counties that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has not absorbed the seriousness of the storm, its extent or the damage that it has done, not only to landowners, but to tenants and to many other people involved in horticulture and agriculture.
      Mr. Tim Rathbone: Without interrupting my hon. Friend's train of thought or anticipating what he is about to say, may I ask him to confirm that it is estimated that each acre of woodland that has been affected will cost over £1,000 just in terms of clear felling, let alone replanting? I am sure that my hon. Friend will come to that point.
      Mr. Wiggin: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend although I do not think that "clear felling" is the right phrase for timber that has already fallen; my hon. Friend means clearing up the damage. I agree entirely with the figure that he has quoted, but I think that in some cases it will be rather higher.
      The Ministry of Agriculture commendably produced the storm damage recovery scheme, about which I was speaking and £1 million allocated to it. The purpose of the scheme — I am sure that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will elaborate on this—was to assist farmers to cope with environmental damage, such as fallen trees in hedgerows, and damage to the countryside—separate from forestry and local authority damage. We believe that £1 million is likely to prove totally inadequate and, as we gain experience I hope that the Government will remain flexible and revise the figure if the Select Committee should be proved correct.

      209
      We then turned to the problem of glasshouses. I fully accept —as does the Committee—the principle that insurable risks should not be assisted by central Government in such circumstances. It is normal practice for glasshouse growers to insure their glasshouses, as even minor storms can affect glasshouses and most growers take out insurance to cover that risk. However, the damage was so widespread and so huge that it seems that the figures used for insurance purposes have almost universally proved inadequate.
      We were told that, perhaps not unreasonably, glaziers working on 15 October would charge, with overheads, about £10 per hour, but by the following morning that figure had risen threefold to £30 per hour or more—that is, if anybody could be found to do the work. That is market forces. If one had insured one's glasshouse for £10 per hour for repair costs, finding that one had to pay £30 per hour would be a serious imposition. We received substantial evidence, from responsible bodies such as the National Farmers Union of England and Wales, that the majority of glasshouse growers were at least 20 per cent. under-insured.
      I do not have to remind my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary of the competitive nature of the glasshouse industry. It faces competition from across the water. Indeed, many of us believe that it faces unfair competition, especially from Holland. Because of the magnitude of the storm, the ability to replace fallen glasshouses was much reduced. Manufacturers' order books are full and, of course, they are unlikely to wish to expand their capacity too greatly because this is a one-off. I hope that sympathetic attention will be given to the needs of that important sector of the horticultural industry.
      We commend the grant that was given to those whose fruit trees were knocked over—£2 per tree is welcome assistance. I know that the Government will he assiduous is seeing that only those who suffered genuine storm damage can receive that subsidy. However, it seems unfair that if, instead of growing apples, pears, cherries or whatever, across the fence one grows gooseberries, strawberries, vines or even hops and suffer the same damage, no subsidy is payable on those crops. That is a point of equity which I am sure that the Government will consider.
      Perhaps the most important evidence that we took was that from the Forestry Commission. The House knows that the Forestry Commission is the agency of my hon. Friend's Department in England. We examined the Forestry Commission in some detail and endorsed its policy of restraining the production of pine and hardwoods, so far as it could. The huge surplus of fallen timber in the south-east has not only reduced prices but completely consumed the capacity of all the mills in the area.
      We commend the service and advice that the Forestry Commission has given. It has put its experts into the area to provide assistance to all woodland owners who were affected by the storm. We recommend that the proposals put to the Government on tax concessions for woodland growers who were badly affected are considered sympathetically, although at this time of the year I do not expect the Minister to respond to that in any detail.
      I turn now to the most important aspect, which was emphasised to us wherever we went and by all those who
      210
      gave evidence to us. Many of my hon. Friends have spoken to me about it. I refer to the problem of clearance. The difficulty of clearing timber that has fallen in such circumstances has to be witnessed to be understood. It is not a question of trees falling in line, which can be neatly recovered. Trees have fallen higgledy-piggledy, with their roots torn up and boughs smashed. In some cases the impossibility of even getting inside the woods to assess the damage makes the cost of the operation infinitely greater than in any other circumstances.
      I once saw the damage done by the explosion at Mount St. Helens, where hundreds of thousands of acres of trees were flattened, but they were flattened in the same direction. In this case, trees have fallen in different directions. Indeed, it reminds one more of the battle of the Somme than of a former grand forest.
      Owners are assessing their position. Many find that the sort of figures that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) mentioned earlier of £1,000 per acre or £1,200 per acre for clearing the fallen wood are simply beyond their means, let alone the practical business considerations that would merit such expenditure. For that reason we take the recommendation of the action committee — a rather unfortunate name for the committee, but it was set up promptly with the Forestry Commission's assistance. A timber merchant was the chairman and timber growers were well represented.
      The committee argued, we believe too modestly, that a grant for clearance would he best in the form of a transport grant to move fallen timber from the afflicted area to mills elsewhere in the country that had the capacity to process the wood.
      It came up with suggestions for doing that, just before Christmas. We are now into March, almost six months after the disaster, and not one peep has been heard from the Forestry Commission and not one comment has been made by the Government.
      In the interim, the fallen beechwood, which stains very rapidly, is deteriorating, possibly to the point of having no commercial value. It is expected that fallen pine will be consumed within the next few months by some avaricious beetle that attacks fallen timber of that type. By the end of the summer, if nothing has been done, a large natural resource will have been allowed to go to waste. That is another reason for sympathetic consideration by the Government for getting things moving.
      The Committee examined, although it was not strictly within its purview, evidence from the Department of the Environment, which is charged with dealing with smaller woodlands. We came across a sorry story. The Government have used the Bellwin proposals drafted by Lord Bellwin, who was a Minister in 1981, when he was asked—
      Mr. Ron Davies (Caerphilly): It was 1983.
      Mr. Wiggin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He was a Minister from 1979. In 1983 he was asked to draw up a formula to deal with natural disasters to recompense local authorities that were forced to go out the next morning and deal with a massive disaster. Some 87 authorities were affected by the storm. They went forth and spent £98·6 million on clearing storm damage in the immediate aftermath of last October's storm.
      Under the formula provided—based on figures from the Association of County Councils, which sent formal

      211
      evidence to the Committee on 24 February — the Government will provide a special grant of £18·3 million, but on expenditure below the 1p rate threshold the authorities will lose block grants of £9·8 million. The Government's net contribution will be £8·5 million, so their approach to the enormous burden facing local authorities is to give a grant of less than 20 per cent. and then to more than halve the benefit of even that level of support by clawing back block grants. The association claims that 24 local authorities expect to lose more in grant than they receive in special grants. I am sure that the House will find that unacceptable.
      Although the Secretary of State for the Environment made a statement on the matter, it did nothing to put right the problem, and although the Government said that their basic principle was that authorities should not profit from the storm, they will hardly be seen to be generous if they give away with one hand and take back with the other.
      Sir Peter Hordern: I do not know whether the Minister will reply to that important point, but in West Sussex the authority spent £8·5 million, which will generate an estimated £4 million net of additional grant. There is no question of central Government making a profit out of our storm damage expenditure.
      Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. We cannot have an intervention on an intervention.
      Mr. Wiggin: I gave way to my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern), but both my hon. Friends were seeking to intervene.
      Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I have great respect for the authenticity of the Committee report, but on this matter my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) has been overtaken by events, as I will make clear in my speech. There is no question of the Government making a profit out of East Sussex, but at the time my hon. Friend was doing his preparatory work, that was the impression.
      Mr. Wiggin: I am prepared to accept that in the case of East and West Sussex, as I believe that both authorities are relatively satisfied. I have a letter dated 24 February, which is not so very long ago, from the Association of County Councils. It has not been questioned subsequently by those who have had access to the letter, and it says that 24 local authorities are worse off. I am glad that the authorities my hon. Friends represent are not, but none should be. The whole idea of assistance after a storm is to help out.
      Mr. Michael Lord: I represent the county of Suffolk, which falls very much into the category my hon. Friend describes. We have suffered a penalty, by being allowed to spend only up to a 1p rate on storm damage, which means that the Treasury will benefit from Suffolk's misfortune.
      Mr. Wiggin: That confirms what I have been saying. I do not wish to be drawn into this matter, because I believe that the rate support grant basis is bonkers and I have consistently voted against it. It shows that the Bellwin scheme for assistance does not always apply as it ought to. We strongly recommend that the Government should put right the wrong in relation to the storm and should devise a formula so that criticisms are not made in the future.
      212
      The French Government have indicated that they will spend some £15 million on storm damage. We have received evidence that they are considering how they can help with the recovery of second quality wood which is proving almost unsaleable. The French lost about twice as much woodland as we did. My Committee wishes to keep an eye on the matter as it progresses and, if there is little action or if complaints continue to be made, we shall investigate the matter. We will follow the progress of the French to see how our Government compare with theirs in the matter.
      We strongly urge the Government to take account of the evidence from local authorities about the scale and timetable of the clearance problem. Government strategy to support general amenity restoration can be meaningful only if it is based on realistic, realisable objectives. It must be properly financed over an orderly, five-year programme.
      I am fully seized, having sat in the seat that my hon. Friend the Minister now occupies, of the Government principle that public money is not always readily available to assist in all disasters. A substantial principle is involved. On the other hand, the Government have breached the principle—in my view justifiably, and with the support of all Conservative Members — in recent disasters. Donations were given after Bradford and Zeebrugge. When I had a serious disaster in my constituency the Government did not contribute, but they have changed their view and there may be a necessary humanity in that, which I am not criticising.
      With a natural disaster of this size, where people may not be able to do anything about the damage, in a civilised and responsible country we have a duty to consider our countryside and resources and to look after people who, if we do not assist them, will leave the shambles to deteriorate, which will affect wildlife, scenery and our natural resources. For those reasons, my Committee has made the recommendations it has.
      I should like to conclude on a happy note, by commending very strongly the immediate reaction to the storm by the various Government Departments, in particular the Ministry of Agriculture, the local authorities, the electricity boards, the Army, the police and various private organisations, which acted so promptly and efficiently in the immediate aftermath of the storm.
      We believe that the Government must have a more thorough and more long-term strategy in this matter. They can help with advice, but in this case they must now help with some finance. It would be unforgivable if, 10 years from now, we could still see the wreckage that that disastrous night produced in such a very large part of the south-east of our country.
      5 pm
      Dr. David Clark: Opposition Members, accept Mr. Speaker's guidance at the beginning of the debate that it should be restricted, as the Liaison Committee recommended, to the storm damage recovery scheme—a very narrow topic indeed. But I must place it on record that, while we accept that ruling in its entirety, we do not find this method of debating the Estimates the most satisfactory one.
      It seems to us that one of the most important roles of Parliament is to monitor the Estimates, and those before us are very important indeed, covering as they do such issues as the dairy outgoers' scheme and, the storm

      213
      damage, and revealing the fact that the Government had no contingency moneys to deal with compensation for the Chernobyl-affected farmers in this financial year. However, we are not able to discuss those issues; we are restricted by the Liaison Committee's ruling. Therefore, we must accept that we can only debate the storm damage recovery scheme and, of course, the Select Committee's report.
      Mr. Terence L. Higgins: In the light of the hon. Gentleman's comments, perhaps I should say that the House, through its Select Committees, can look at the whole range of Estimates. It is then up to the Houue, through the Select Committees, to decide which ones to examine and which to suggest for debate. So there is no reason why any of the Estimates should not have been debated if the Select Committees had looked at them.
      Dr. Clark: I thank the right hon. Member for that comment, but perhaps I should explain why it is particularly inappropriate today. Alongside the debate on the storm damage recovery scheme, we are debating the report of the Select Committee on Agriculture. I suggest that this is not the most appropriate time. The report was published on Thursday. The evidence is not yet available; it has not yet been published. We still do not have the Government's response, and we have placed a very unfair burden on the Parliamentary Secretary in that, within 72 or 100 hours, he will have to give the Government's response on this very complicated issue. This is a very important issue, as the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) has said, and we are not doing the work of the Select Committee justice by discussing the report today. But we have no option; that is all that we can do.
      Mr. Wiggin: I confess to being a beginner in this matter—this is the first Select Committee that I have attended, let alone chaired—but I thought that it was highly commendable that not only were we able to come forward very quickly with our report but that hardly was the ink dry on the paper than we could debate it on the Floor of the House. The alternative, I suggest to the hon. Gentleman, was that it should lie on a shelf gathering dust while other Select Committees made reports that the Liaison Committee might consider more important. So I grasped the opportunity for a debate and welcomed it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be churlish, because the Chairman of the Liaison Committee is sitting here listening and he may not let me have another go next time when we deal with Chernobyl.
      Dr. Clark: I take that point, but I find it rather strange that the Liaison Committee recommended to the House that we should debate this report before it was published. It may be a matter of prophecy on the part of the hon. Gentleman, but it is a very strange phenomenon indeed.
      I welcome the debate, but the hon. Gentleman has the advantage, as have his fellow members of the Select Committee, of having had an opportunity to see the evidence. We in the House have not had that advantage. Therefore, we must make our judgment on the report itself, which, I am sure the hon. Gentleman will admit—and I understand the reason—is a short, quickie report.
      214
      It is five and half pages long and there is not a great deal in it to debate. Nevertheless, that is what we have to try and do.
      I have made my point and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members who have an influence in this will take the point on board. We are not criticising the way that it is done; we are criticising the timing. I am sure that everyone of good will will understand the point that I am making in this respect.
      I congratulate the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare on his presentation, on his analysis of the Select Committee's work and on explaining to us the reasons why it came to the conclusions that it did—conclusions with which, in general, I concur. It is a very worthwhile report. It is short, and I understand the reasons why, but even that short report provides evidence of the Government's lack of will to help alleviate the effect of the storm damage, which will affect our landscape for years to come and the livelihood of many farmers and horticulturists in the south-east of England, who are in great difficulty as they struggle, in many cases, to get their businesses hack on an even keel and start earning their living.
      The Select Committee has produced this worthwile report and it is the duty of the House to press the Minister today to give us some reaction to the submissions put forward. Perhaps I might add the voice of the Labour party to that of the Select Committee in commending the speed and initiative of all the public servants concerned in their efforts to tackle the immediate aftermath of the storm. I only observe that it is a great pity that, as the report shows, their efforts were not reflected later in the Government's action.
      However, the great storm, as it is now called, of 16 October will remain a non-event for the vast majority of people in this country. For those of us who live in the more temperate climes of the north of Britain it was a complete non-event. As the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) reminded us, there have been very many great storms, certainly north of the border. I well remember the 1968 wind-blow, which left many forests in Scotland completely flattened. The right hon. and learned Gentleman got it slightly wrong. There was Government aid on that occasion, to the extent of 75 per cent. I do not grumble. That was quite right, and it was a Labour Government who provided that finance to try and help put the matter right.
      Not having experienced the storm at first hand in the south, I paid a visit to Kew gardens and other parts of the south of England in the days following the storm. I was shaken by the extent of the damage, as indeed was my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), who accompanied me. It was a stark reminder of the terrible force of nature and of how small are the works of man. The sight of trees not only flattened but with their centres completely taken out as if by a corkscrew is something that I shall remember for many years.
      I was also impressed by the fortitude of the farmers and horticulturists whose years of dedicated labour and whose investment were often lost in the force of that hurricane on that single night. The effect was traumatic.
      I wish that the Government had been more generous in their response. I draw the attention of the House to paragraph 24 of the Select Committee's report, in which it rejects the applications of the Bellwin formula. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare said that this was perhaps the main bone of contention that his Committee

      215
      had with the Government, and it is a bone of contention which Opposition Members share. We agree with the sentiment, because we find it reprehensible that even by accident the Treasury should make a profit out of this disaster.
      We have heard from Conservative Members that certain counties have lost, and certain other counties have not been penalised by this formula. I remind the House that the Government agreed to grant-aid the local authorities in their efforts to deal with storm damage at the rate of 75 per cent. in excess of the penny rate levy. However, any expenditure within that amount would count for penalty, and would therefore be subject to a clawback by the Treasury. The letter from the Association of County Councils, dated 24 February and read out by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare, is worth repeating. The association was referring to the general application of the rule as it affected the totality of councils, not individual councils.
      Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Let me mention a bone of contention in this important matter. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment constantly assured the House, and wrote in letters, that there was no question of the Government making a profit out of the disaster, and I believed him. Then I heard from the leader of my county council that that did not seem to be the case: there was some dubiety about it. I am assured that it has all been cleared up now. I cannot believe that there is one law for East and West Sussex and another for the rest of the country, so that we do well and no one else does, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can reassure us.
      Dr. Clark: I hope so as well, but I should like to express my anxieties. An up-to-date letter received only today or yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) from the Secretary of State for the Environment may clarify the position.
      The Association of County Councils made the point that on an expenditure of a penny rate threshold the 87 authorities concerned would lose the block grant of £9·8 million. It is worth quoting the last sentence of the association's letter:
      "In other words, the Government's approach to the enormous burden facing local authorities is to give a grant of less than 20 per cent., and then to more than halve the benefit of even that level of support by clawing back block grant."
      Let me also quote from a letter from the chief executive of the London borough of Barnet, an area to which, I understand, every Minister is to pay special attention for some reason. On 23 November, the chief executive wrote to the Secretary of State:
      "For Barnet, the scheme requires a local contribution equal to the product of a penny rate, after which the Government will contribute 75 per cent. The effect of this is that the Council will have to finance the first £612,000 of the cost of rectifying the storm damage, together with 25 per cent. of the balance if the ultimate bill is above that figure. As the Council's budget is in excess of its GREA, all additional expenditure will bring a grant loss of £70,000 for each further £100,000 spent. Thus even at a one penny rate level, the effective cost to the Council could exceed £1 million."
      Let me spell that out in my own words. The Barnet experience shows how the Department of the Environment and the Treasury together will profit to the extent of £70,000 for every £100,000 spent by the council on storm damage repair. Barnet ratepayers, in common with many
      216
      others, will have to raise £170,00 to spend £100,000 on storm repairs. That is a deliberate and established feature of Government controls on local authority expenditure.
      The Barnet chief executive continued:
      "The Council feels that the Government's scheme of special financial assistance is quite inadequate to meet the circumstances of this natural disaster and moreover considers that the severity of this storm was such that the ratepayers of the Borough should not be put to a considerable extra burden."
      That point was also exemplified by the Select Committee.
      We have had assurances and counter-assurances, and I hope that the Minister will give us the definitive assurance tonight. But in a letter dated 8 March headed
      "Storm damage: agricultural committee report",
      to my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland, the Secretary of State for the Environment explained why he believed that there would be no penalty:
      "I continue to believe that prudent authorities should have budgeted for a contingency up to the threshold, including the block grant consequences, and that it is right therefore for them to bear these costs."
      What the Secretary of State is saying is that every local authority in the country should have had contingency funds to meet any emergency. The Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) says that he agrees with that, but the view of the Select Committee and of the hon. Member for Western-super-Mare is that the storm was not a normal contingency, but a national disaster par excellence. They believe that the Government should recognise that as well.
      Under the Government's formula, those authorities will be penalised, because it is a fact of life that almost every local authority in the country did not have sufficient contingency funds to meet the effect of the disaster. That is why authorities such as Suffolk have openly come out and said that they had been penalised. I ask the Minister to examine the matter, and, if he cannot answer today—it is very complicated—to try to get to the bottom of it. If there is any chance of anyone losing out, let us put the matter right. That, I am sure, is the will of both sides of the House.
      Paragraph 10 of the Select Committee report deals with the scale of damage affecting the glasshouse industry. As the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare rightly pointed out, immediately after the disaster the laws of the market were brought into play. Money to pay for new glass, and the skilled labour required for the reconstruction, were found to be in short supply.
      Given that problem, and the exceptional difficulties in which growers will be placed in the coming season—for the storm damage was not limited to one night; it will affect their livelihoods and production in the ensuing weeks, months and, in some cases, years—will the Minister reconsider the possibility of providing extra help for horticulture? I remind him that it is of tremendous value to the country, providing high-quality products such as fresh vegetables and fruit, and is often neglected. It is the Cinderella of the agricultural industry, and is facing severe foreign competition, which will take every possible opportunity to squeeze out of the market many of those affected by the storm.
      Mr. Lord: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the horticultural industry is also one of the least subsidised, and does not depend on Government grants for anything in the normal course of events? An extraordinary event such as this surely justifies the provision of help.
      Dr. Clark: I happily take the hon. Gentleman's point. Indeed, I shall take it a stage further. I believe that the scheme drawn up by the Minister was too narrow, and I find it difficult to understand why hop and soft fruit growers were excluded. That point was seized on by the Select Committee with some force. Why are the Government not prepared to help growers who were affected by the storm?
      I hope that the Minister will not reiterate the evidence of his colleague to the Select Committee that the Government could not support growers
      "on the grounds that overall damage to these sectors was not great"
      although he acknowledged cases of individual hardship. That is no excuse for meanness. Even if only one person had been affected on that night, he would have to claim.
      In its report, the Select Committee paid much attention to the subject of timber. As the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare reminded us, we lost approximately 15 million trees on the night of the storm, which represents approximately 4 million cu m of timber—about seven or eight years supply. Some 20 per cent. of the woodlands in the worst affected areas of East and West Sussex, Kent and Suffolk were destroyed.
      On top of the ravages of the Dutch elm disease, the significance of those losses is even more poignant. Woodland owners in the private and public sectors are faced with the formidable task of clearing up and replanting trees and with a financial loss as a result of the glut of timber on the market.
      It is only right and proper for the House to put on record its debt of gratitude to the Forestry Commission for the policy that it has adopted. It has reduced the amount of its timber to be felled to help to keep up the price of timber for the private woodland owner. However, it is still quite likely that the price of some timber will fall by 30 per cent.
      The Forestry Commission's flexible approach has shown the nation the value of having a mix of privately and publicly owned woodland. The Forestry Commission, because it is publicly owned, was able to limit the supply of timber in the national interest. None of us would have expected the privately run forestry industry to make such a sacrifice because its investors would not have permitted it. In essence, the Forestry Commission has created an intervention store to manage a surplus product.
      That example is one good reason why we should attempt to achieve a consensus on forest policy and obtain the right mix of private and public forestry. For many years there was agreement among hon. Members on this matter. I regret that the Government have seen fit to renege on that policy. I hope that the lessons of the storm will persuade them to think again.
      One general matter that is repeatedly referred to in the Select Committee's report is the need for flexibility. The effects of the storm were far greater than anyone imagined. I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to the Select Committee's proposals to exercise flexibility, especially in relation to the deadline for notifications under the storm damage recovery scheme.
      We accept that such storms are rare. However, there is evidence from eminent scientists that the way in which we are treating our natural environment could result in many more natural disasters. Those eminent scientists are saying that the greenhouse effect could result in more climatic changes that will lead to more hurricanes, floods and
      218
      droughts. Dr. Karas and Dr. Kelly of the climatic research unit of the university of East Anglia are working on a thesis and they expect proof within the next few years of whether the increase in the global temperature will surpass natural variations. On three occasions during this decade alone that has happened. They claim that one result could be more natural disasters.
      We must spend more time considering how we cope with natural disasters. The House is right to question the Government about whether they have learnt from the experiences of the storm or from those of Chernobyl. They have manifestly not learnt the lessons of Chernobyl, and I am sceptical about whether they have fully learnt the lessons of the storm.
      I associate myself and the Labour party with the concluding sentence of the Select Committee report, which says:
      "A more thorough and long term Government strategy, particularly financial, but advisory as well, is now needed."
      5.25 pm
      Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) give such warm-hearted and generous support to the Select Committee report. His concluding remarks rightly drew attention to the lessons that need to be learnt, particularly given the possibility of climatic changes. However, whether there are climatic changes or not, there is a need to develop a more comprehensive strategy to deal with natural disasters.
      I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) and the other members of the Committee on producing a report that is thorough, comprehensive and objective. Its conclusions bear no hint of a political compromise in an effort to present a united front. Sometimes Select Committees pull their punches to present a united front, but on this occasion there was no need for the Committee to approach the matter on a political basis because the report is not concerned with political theory or party politics. It is a fact-finding report and it is a pity that we do not have much of the evidence to support the report. Fortunately, I have some of the evidence with me and I know the people who presented some of it. However, it would have helped the House to have that evidence.
      I have no doubt that the Committee has produced a thoroughly good fact-finding report about the physical impact of the hurricane which swept through the south-east on the night of 16 October. It was the most ferocious hurricane for 285 years.
      I have no doubt that the report tells the truth, because I was present on the night and I saw the storm's devastating effects the following morning. I have spoken to many people who suffered the most grievous damage to their farms, woodlands and houses. Therefore, there is nothing that I can or wish to say that would embellish or seek to exaggerate the effects of the hurricane on a county that was in the path of the storm and which bore the full brunt of it. Its countryside is the most heavily wooded in England.
      Largely because the storm struck at about 4 am, there was no loss of life. I dread to think what would have happened if it had arrived earlier when people were about. Communications broke down. I know that this matter was not dealt with at length in the report, but it is part and parcel of the lessons that we should learn to help us to

      219
      develop a strategy. There was a catastrophic lack of communication, and had there been loss of life it would have had serious effects on our ability to deliver suitable aid.
      I said that there was no loss of life, but that is not quite true. While reconnecting the essential electricity services, which was often a hazardous operation, two men lost their lives—Ian Rice of the Merseyside and North Wales electricity board and Gordon Marsh of the East Midlands electricity board. I am sure that the House would like to express its deepest sympathy to their families. They, and other electricity board employees, did a sterling job. They responded quickly and came front all over the country to help. British Telecom managed to obtain aid from elsewhere to help it to carry out its very complicated job.
      I am sure that all hon. Members will endorse wholeheartedly the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare in the report, that the public authorities and the Government played their part as best they could, bearing in mind the suddenness of the onslaught and the fact that communications had broken down.
      Before I deal with the measures recommended, and which have been taken to help farmers, the orchards and woodlands, I should like to say a few words about the cost facing East Sussex county council. The report says in paragraphs 23 and 24 that the Government have not honoured their pledge not to make a profit out of the clawback arrangements operating under the rate support grant formula. The hon. Member for South Shields spoke of that.
      We have been very fussed about it in East Sussex. My understanding, having met the leader of the county council who has been persistently pursuing the matter, and having met Ministers, is that the Government are not making a profit out of this heavy disaster. To that extent, the Government have been as good as their word. But there remains the vexatious problem of the closing date for eligibility for financial assistance. The date was originally the end of January and it has been extended until the end of February. In no way could East Sussex put in its bid to meet such a deadline. The scale of the damage precluded it from doing so.
      There is not time for me to give details of the damage, but it has been costed at about £5 million for East Sussex. Fifteen schools were wholly or partly closed, and more than 500 pupils are still away from their usual schools. Repairs were needed to roads, footpaths, and street lights, of which 4,000 were damaged, and 2·8 million trees were lost in the county. I could go on.
      The damage caused by the storm in the county of East Sussex cost about £5 million, compared to £2 million for West Sussex, £500,000 for Surrey, and £4·5 million for Kent. There is little doubt that even in a town like Brighton there is much work still to be done, although it did not bear the brunt of the storm damage. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) has asked me to make that point on his behalf.
      The scale of damage to many schools means that the cost of transporting pupils and hiring temporary accommodation, will continue through the summer term. Work to reinstate all highways, embankments and footpaths will take even longer. None of that cost could have been known to the county or the Government at the outset. In my judgment, it is vital to change the time scale for financial assistance.
      220
      I move on to the rural scene generally. There, too, the question of time scale for financial assistance applies. Under the storm damage recovery scheme, the closing date for notification is later, on 31 March this year. The report rightly focuses attention on the costs of clearing up the damage caused to hedges, trees and farm buildings and emphasises the need for help.
      The Agriculture Committee was told by almost all the witnesses that the amount of work to be done had been severely underestimated. The Committee reported that officials from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food seemed to rely rather lukewarmly on the farm and countryside initiative, which the Committee did not regard as a necessarily adequate response. I went to some meetings of the East Sussex National Farmers Union, and its members did not regard it as very adequate. No doubt, ground has been made up since then.
      I know from my own experience how difficult the problem is. I have two fields, one of which is 4 acres, but there are 12 trees across it. We shall clear them up, of course, voluntarily out of our own pocket. But the Government must recognise that it was only possible for people to move around the county to estimate damage and to start work after volunteers had cleared the damage. The report rightly recommends that the Government examine their policy of minimal support for clearance in the wholly exceptional circumstances following the storm.
      The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture rightly recognised this fact in a letter to me on 24 February. He said:
      "Extra harvesting capacity has already moved into the area, but it has to be recognised that the scale of the windblow was such that it is likely to take years, not months, to clear all the fallen trees. I know that the Forestry Commission is doing its best to see that priority is given to clearing those species—pine and beech—which will begin to deteriorate if they are not lifted quickly."
      The Minister added:
      "I am very conscious of the problems that many woodland owners have to face, and I do see how real has been the devastation in respect of your constituency."
      How right he was.
      The report is correct to recommend that the Government should re-examine their policy of a minimal approach, but they need to do more. For the owners of commercial and non-commercial woodlands, the scene is a physical tragedy and a financial disaster. Their priority is not so much payment for replanting, about which we have heard a great deal, as money and labour to clear up the mess. Again, the report rightly recognises this difficulty. It says:
      "On our tour of Sussex we could see the problems of getting into the centre or thick of woods which have become virtually impenetrable because of fallen trees."
      That was underlined by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in his letter to me.
      The practical difficulties of clearance are immense. In my judgment, the variety of tasks that must be undertaken by woodland owners could not have been foreseen by those in London. For instance, the Ashdown forest, which is in my constituency, is not run for commercial use. The conservators who are responsible for its maintenance have special obligations to preserve the ecology of the forest.
      In their judgment, if they are to do that job properly, it will take two or three years. 'The financial implications of that decision, as the clerk and forest superintendent said to me, are that expenditure on clearing up after the storm

      221
      will be spread over three years and cannot be spent in the next few months to take advantage of possible Government grants.
      The Minister must address himself to that practical point, and if he cannot do so tonight I hope that it will be dealt with later. In the Ashdown forest, an area of outstanding natural beauty which is especially preserved, the conservators cannot do the job of clearance unless they are given more time. It is ludicrous that the time scale is to be so short that they are effectively forbidden from doing so.
      For the owners of large commercial woodlands who have run their woods for decades as commercial enterprises, the task is every bit as difficult. I should like to quote from a letter sent to me by an owner.
      "No one will be applying for grants to replace fences, shelter belts, woodlands, anything, if we do not clear the timber that is on the ground."
      He goes on to say that that would cost about £1,500 an acre, and that the estimated cost for his estate is £1·4 million, which he says
      "is clearly beyond my pocket."
      He goes on to say that there is a time element relating to cleaning softwoods:
      "We are in the middle of a wet winter and there will be a fairly short window between the end of the wet weather and the brambles taking over by which time we need to have got our access roads for timber tug … built."
      He asks whether it is possible for the Minister to give a grant at least towards that and adds:
      "At the moment our rights of way are closed because of the danger from fallen timber, some of which is fairly precariously balanced. We would undertake to reopen all the rights of way within, let us say, nine months if we could get some assistance to do so and use the money also to give us the sort of access that we have to have."
      He is not the only one who has drawn my attention to the difficulties of getting access to the hinterland of their woodlands.
      I understand that the Government are not prepared to consider this a disaster zone because of the possible repercussions. Nor are they prepared at the moment to consider giving assistance where there was an insurable risk. The firm of Dolwin and Gray, which gave evidence to the Select Committee, manages about 3,500 acres of woodland in the south-east. It estimates that 95 per cent. of woodland owners were not covered for storm damage to mature hardwoods.
      Why should they be? Was their judgment so wrong and were they so short-sighted, bearing in mind that the previous hurricane took place 285 years ago? Or could it be that the rates and conditions of insurance are ludicrously impractical? A woodland owner who is a constituent of mine inquired a few years ago about insurance. He was told that it was available, at a price. The only thing that he could insure against and would be paid out on was a tree that was completely destroyed—not a tree that had been badly damaged and would no longer grow or was leaning at 15 degrees. It would have to be totally destroyed.
      It is little wonder, bearing in mind the climatic conditions, that in such circumstances people do not think it worthwhile insuring on a vast scale. The Government claim that they do not give assistance where there is an insurable risk, but they gave transport assistance following the 1968 storms in Scotland. Why, therefore, have they so
      222
      far refused to do so in 1988? I ask the Government for their estimate of the cost of a reasonable insurance policy when dealing with woodlands such as I have described. Do they consider it commercially rational to insure against freak hurricanes of a kind which we last experienced in the south-east in 1703?
      There is another point on the extension of time. Did the Government feel that they should not extend the time because people would sit on their backsides and not do anything or invent claims? Did the Government think that people would make false claims if they were insured or, if they were not insured, that they would gang up together against the Government? Anyone should know how difficult it is following a hurricane to work out exactly what needs to be done and how much it will cost. Certainly people were not helped by the wet weather which followed.
      Timber Growers United Kingdom Ltd. and the Sussex branch of the Council for the Protection of Rural England agree on the need for special action. I suspect that many of those people do not have a direct axe to grind and should know the nature of the problem. The Forestry Commission, through its forest windblow action committee — we are masters of the under-statement, but windblow is a real masterpiece—has recommended that a restoration supplement should be paid in addition to standard grants. Because the trees were blown down, owners are under no legal obligation to replant. Those who cannot afford to do so will not undertake the work of clearance and replanting.
      Bearing in mind some of the whispers about taxation policy in respect of woodlands, and given the high cost of clearance, I wonder whether the Government believe that the timber growers organisation is right when it recommends that the schedule D taxpayer should be allowed to carry forward losses over five years, as restoration will have to take place over a prolonged period. In any case, as the organisation says,
      "any changes in the tax structure which prevent owners setting off costs against income will make the task of restoration practically impossible."
      As the Country Landowners Association rightly points out, these are not all big landowners who own vast forests; many of them own small woodlands and have modest resources. I have little doubt that the tax regime needs to be benevolent if we are to get done the job which is so essential.
      There are many other matters which one could raise, but other hon. Members want to take part in the debate. There are many activities whose needs have not been adequately met. There should be a fresh look at the glasshouse sector. The NFU is right to point out that some of the inequities and complications of the glasshouse package could have been avoided if there had been a special storm recovery scheme similar to that introduced in the orchard sector. The NFU was also right to point out that the omission of plastic structures and their products from assistance is very short sighted.
      In his eloquent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare mentioned the value that we attach to the beauty of our countryside. One feature on which we pride ourselves is our farm architectural heritage. Old farm buildings are not always suited to modern agricultural requirements, but they are still used for farming purposes. To try to insure a 17th or 16th-century building is prohibitive and many of them suffered grievously. If we want to preserve our architectural heritage, surely such

      223
      buildings should be eligible for special help as listed buildings under the Local Authorities (Historic Buildings) Act 1962.
      Those are some of the comments and opinions which have been put to me and which I hope I have reflected adequately. I believe them to be based not on special pleading or on the begging bowl philosophy but on basic need. I agree with the Select Committee that the Government are to be commended for their swift response, but with all the benefit of hindsight we can see, with the help of the report, that the scale of the problem has underestimated by the Government. I therefore urge them to take the necessary further remedial action.
      5.44 pm
      Mr. Geraint Howells: May I remind the House that in 1948, 40 years ago, hon. Members agreed unanimously to set up a disaster fund after the snowstorm of 1947, which was one of the worst in the history of the country? I was at home on the farm in those days, and we were cut off for seven full weeks. All the villages in Wales were under severe strain and we could not get food into the local communities.
      The disaster fund of 1948 was similar to the fund that has been requested by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) and the other members of the Select Committee in their plea to the Government. In 1947, it was sheep that were important. In 1987, it was trees. The disaster fund of 1948 safeguarded the future of many small farmers in Wales and other parts of the country and enabled them to keep farming going for many generations. Many of us who were on the land in those days are indebted to the Government of the day for securing the future of many viable units which were under financial strain because of the storm.
      I congratulate the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare and his colleagues, who worked very hard in the Select Committee on Agriculture to try to persuade the Government to give financial aid to the unfortunate people who lost many of their assets, which often comprised trees. We cannot blame the Government or the Opposition for what happened. When a storm of such magnitude hits a country, there is very little that any of us can do. I travelled through Hyde park the following week, and all the trees that were down were a sight that I will never forget.
      I believe that the Government, in their wisdom, will consider again the recommendations of the Select Committee. I shall not try to cover all the ground that has already been dealt with by other hon. Members. I have here the Committee's 16 recommendations, but I shall refer only to the eight that need top priority. The first recommendation is
      "that the measures for greater flexibility under the Agricultural Improvement Scheme should achieve the objective of relief to farmers with improvement plans."
      I am in favour of that.
      The most important recommendation is No. 3:
      "we conclude that it is now quite clear that the overall allocation, just over £1 million, is still entirely inadequate. It should be urgently revised."
      That recommendation should take precedence over all the others. In 1948 the Government reviewed the position and gave an extra sum of money. I believe that the Government will do the same today.
      224
      Recommendation No. 4 is also very important, as is recommendation No. 5, that
      "the Minister looks again at possibilities of greater support for an important sector of the horticultural industry while its producers attempt to re-establish their businesses in the face of constant and fierce foreign competition."
      Recommendation No. 9 should also be noted. Recommendation No. 11 deals with the clearance problem that will face many farmers who have big trees on their farms. Recommendation No. 13 is very important, and it has been suggested by hon. Members on both sides of the House that the Government should consider it. Hon. Members have also referred to recommendation No. 16:
      "A more thorough and long-term Government strategy, particularly financial, but advisory as well, is now needed."
      I have always held the view that the Government should have a contingency fund at the ready to help when disaster hits our forests, farms or ports. We are a very wealthy nation and we should have funds ready to safeguard the interests of those less fortunate than ourselves when a storm hits. I hope that the Government will consider the pleas of hon. Members on both sides of the House, because those who were unfortunate in the storm badly need help.
      5.50 pm
      Sir Peter Hordern: I add my congratulations to those expressed to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) on his Committee's report. The report was commendably brief, following a thorough examination carried out very swiftly. This is our first opportunity to debate the matter fully, so I thank the Leader of the House for making it available to us.
      On the morning following the night of 16 October, there was a scene of devastation in West Sussex and the other constituencies in the south-east affected by the hurricane. The storm was a complete catastrophe, which affected not only woodland owners. It had an almost universal effect on trees in the grounds of large and small houses throughout the counties of Sussex and Kent, and further afield. It was a catastrophe whose effects will be felt for many years to come. We talk about compensation, but there can be no financial compensation sufficient to repair the damage caused by the storm. Even when the trees have been replanted it will be many years before they reach anything like their previous stature.
      When I say that the face of West Sussex was changed completely, I mean it. Some old familiar landmarks, such as Chanctonbury Ring, will take many years to restore to their former glory. The storm was not just a local but a national tragedy. Like my hon. Friends I congratulate the public authorities — especially Seeboard and British Telecom — on their wonderful work in repairing the damage and restoring normality so quickly.
      We should be aware that the damage affected not only woodland owners, but small householders—a topic not mentioned in the report. I was struck by the number of letters that I received from pensioners who had been charged up to £2,000 to have one or two large trees removed from their gardens. Cowboys charged elderly people with no means of payment colossal sums at that time. Therefore, while we talk about relieving the anxiety of woodland owners with large acreages of woodland, we must bear in mind the real privations suffered by small householders. I remind the House that they had no choice

      225
      in the matter. They had to remove the trees very quickly, whereas a woodland owner could at least choose how and when to have them removed.
      May I ask my hon. Friend the Minister what will be the loss of grant, if any, to county authorities. I have it in writing from the county treasurer that
      "For West Sussex our £8·5 million will generate an estimated £4 million of net additional grant. There is no question of central government making a profit out of our storm damage expenditure."
      That comes from an authority that has not always been very pleased with the Government. My hon. Friends and I have been known to vote against the Government on the rate support grant settlements—for very good reasons. We are not in the habit of congratulating my hon. Friend the Minister, but West Sussex appears to have nothing to complain of in this respect. Therefore, I congratulate the Government on their speedy response to our representations.
      We should be aware of the full cost of implementing the recommendations in the report. I do not suppose that it is possible to estimate exactly how much that will be—unless the Government can make an informed guess—but I should think that it would be a substantial sum. Before agreeing that large sums should be given to forest, woodland and landowners, we should consider the effect of such grants on the many small householders who suffered commensurate hardship as a result of the storm. I should not like to think that the Government favoured large landowners at the expense of small householders whose properties suffered damage.
      Many large woodland owners plant trees as a form of investment. I recognise the hardship that they suffered, but many people with other forms of investment suffered greatly as a result of black Monday last year, and they are not asking for or expecting compensation. I have met many large landowners in my constituency and, to my knowledge, they are not asking for extra special help. They recognise that theirs is private land in which they have made a substantial investment and they do not blame the Government for what has happened. The only request that I would make is that, with large woodland areas open to the public, such as Chanctonbury Ring, there is a strong case for granting assistance to repair the ravages of the storm so that people can continue to enjoy the woodlands.
      I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not only consider sympathetically the plight of large landowners—I hope that those with properties and woodlands open to the public will receive some assistance—but will bear in mind the plight of small householders and woodland owners who have asked for no compensation at all.
      5.57 pm
      Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I am essentially a townie boy and I have very little knowledge of the farming community, although I enjoy the countryside from time to time and I should like to express my great sympathy for those in horticulture and farming who suffered a loss of livelihood as a result of what was described as the hurricane of 16 October. It was, indeed, a devastating storm and although I understand that it fell just short of a hurricane in ferocity, it was nevertheless a phenomenon that we hope we shall not see again in our lifetime.
      226
      I recall that I toured my constituency because I was extremely worried about the extent of the damage and the possibility of injury. I agree with the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), who described it as nothing short of a miracle that no one was killed. People would certainly have died if it had happened at another time of day, but many people were in bed, and sound sleepers were quite unaware of what was happening in the early hours of the morning. People just thought that the wind was getting up a bit. But it was indeed devastating and something we hope not to see again. I hope that the Government, in looking at this excellent Select Committee report, will not be all that worried if they have to arrange with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take a more generous attitude. It is not something that is likely to recur every year; that possibility is quite remote.
      I join in congratulating the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) on his excellent report, to which the Government should pay very close attention. I checked with the hard-pressed London borough of Ealing, which has just been rate-capped by the Ministers concerned—quite unjustly and unfairly, I think. It should not have to shoulder almost the entire burden of all the activity that resulted from the storm.
      I entirely support paragraph 24, which reads:
      "We entirely reject that decision by the Secretary of State. We urge him to reconsider his policy on the Bellwin Scheme in the light of the evidence we had which shows that its effects on financing emergency work by local authorities are quite unacceptable."
      I feel that, despite party political differences in other directions, that view would be reflected in almost every local authority.
      Given the locality of my constituency, I particularly endorse paragraph 29 of the report, which states:
      "We put on record our commendation of all those in various government departments, local authorities, the electricity boards, the army, police and various private organisations who acted so promptly and so efficiently in the immediate aftermath of the storm."
      I recall from where I live a tree which had fallen across three houses. It was a miracle that it did not fall the other way and destroy roofs and possibly take the lives of a number of people. I saw the effects, and it is truly a miracle that the effect on human life was much less than it might have been.
      Had the storm occurred at 4 O'clock in the afternoon, I am sure the story would have been different, because in numerous places the roads would have been cluttered up with traffic and many people would have suffered as a consequence. I recall that on the route that I take to this place every day there was concern about falling branches or timber, so lanes were shut off in the interests of safety.
      I conclude with this thought about the matter, which is proficiently dealt with in the report and which calls for a proper reply today. There should be proper consideration of the mean attitude taken by central Government. We are coming near to the time of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech—a long-winded speech, I may say—and one hopes he will be able to include in it some reference to the hurricane disaster and what he suggests might be done financially to assist those who have been so severely affected and those local authorities that could do with a hit of a handout—particularly the London borough of Ealing.
      6.3 pm
      Mr. Anthony Nelson: I follow others in paying a hearty tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) for compiling an impressive and compelling report for the House. Mine was one of those constituencies most badly affected by the great storm on 16 October. Its impact was immediately apparent, though only to those in the locality, for much of the area was cut off and unapproachable.
      My own home, which is just outside Midhurst, in the middle of my constituency, was typical of the communities that could not be approached by any road because of the fallen woodlands surrounding it. There was hardly a family or household in the whole district that was not affected in one way or another by the disaster.
      There was among the people there, as is often the case after a disaster, a feeling that they wanted to tell others what had happened. It was not so much that they wanted immediate relief; they wanted others to listen, and to tell them of their own experiences. Indeed, I found that one of the traits amongst my constituents was the remarkably public-spirited way in which many of them—with the Dunkirk spirit—immediately took up chainsaws and helped to clear public roads as well as their own land, and went to the assistance of the elderly in the community who were not fully able to look after themselves to ensure that their lifelines were open.
      In the ensuing period, which lasted many weeks in some cases, when there was no lighting, electricity or fuel available to many houses, particularly in the northern part of my district, there was a stoic attitude among many of my constituents which should be recorded during this debate.
      Like many other Members of Parliament in the areas affected, I made it my business to try to see for myself the impact of the damage. My constituency, which comprises a very large agricultural district, reflected a wide range of damage. There was damage to virtually every household in Chichester and the other major towns of Selsey, Southwater, Midhurst and Petworth in the form of missing roof tiles and fallen trees. In many cases there were personal and sometimes tragic injuries.
      There was also agricultural and horticultural devastation in particular. In horticulture, dairy farmers were unable to have their herds milked adequately and promptly. There was also the problem, well publicised, in horticulture of having to clear away large amounts of broken glass and losing the crop being grown at the time. That caused serious cash-flow difficulties, as well as personal problems in getting the work done.
      It was not simply agriculture and horticulture that suffered. Many commercial businesses suffered because of the breakdown in communications and people's inability to get to work for a long time. The environment also suffered — not just the natural environment but the architecture and heritage of ancient Roman cities such as Chichester, with their Georgian image of the present time, and also the great estates and fine houses. Although they are not typical of those occupied by the majority of my constituents, they are a national treasure and a feature that people from throughout the country enjoy. Great homes such as Petworth house and Goodwood house, which have large woodland estates, suffered enormous damage—as did Westdean and the estate on which I live, which is Lord Cowdray's estate at Midhurst.
      228
      I pay tribute to many of those estates and estate workers who worked then, who continue to work, and who will have to do so for many years, to clear the enormous damage, which I believe was never sufficiently recognised nationally at the time. Indeed, because many areas were so unapproachable, many people did riot appreciate the extent of the devastation.
      For all those reasons, when my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare and our hon. Friends on the Select Committee undertook their visit, it was very welcome. I took the opportunity to speak to my hon. Friend, before and after, about his visit. Pictures of him, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and others appeared in all the local press and on television, and I can tell them now, as I have said since, that their visit was very much appreciated in my constituency and elsewhere. It showed that our problems were being taken seriously, were being understood and were being given a sympathetic ear by the House.
      When later I joined my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) and other colleagues from west Sussex to meet my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to gain assurances that the Treasury would not make a profit and that we would not lose out in terms of rate support grant from any financial assistance, I was encouraged by governmental, as well as by parliamentary, response to believe that our problems were receiving more serious consideration and understanding than I felt they were in the immediate aftermath of the crisis.
      Therefore, I join others in broadly welcoming the Government's response and their sympathetic ear to the problems that have been discussed. I still feel that there is an element of Catch 22 for many constituents and sectors adversely affected by the crisis. Many of my constituents were told, when I raised the matter with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister immediately after the storm, that, for understandable reasons, the Government would not consider subventing or paving for damage which was insurable. One understands the reasons for that, but when one looks at the damage that is not insurable one finds that in many instances it is not eligible, and could not be eligible, for Government support or local authority recompense.
      When the glass falls down in a newly-built glasshouse the large cost of clearing that glass, which is time-consuming, is not covered by insurance, even though replacement of the glass may be. Similarly, as many growers have told me—this is just one example—when a glasshouse which is, say, 12 or 13 years old collapses, the insurance company will pay only for the insurable cost of that, bearing in mind the age of the glass. Yet the grower is faced with replacing that glass at the modern-day cost. Very few insurance policies, even for those who have sought to cover such liabilities, cover the cost of reconstruction.
      Happily, the financial state of horticulture is a good deal sounder today than it was a few years ago. I welcome that, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall), who is a neighbour of mine. He cannot be here today, but he has asked me to associate him with my remarks. Two weeks ago we visited, with the West Sussex Growers Association, some of the glasshouse industry in the area which had been devastated by the storm, and which still shows serious signs of that damage. It will take time and money to recover from that, but the Select

      229
      Committee's report has gone some way to drawing to the Government's attention what can reasonably be done to alleviate the problems.
      The only other aspect that I want to mention is the ingenious and positive suggestion of the transport subsidy on trees. I welcome that recommendation, despite all its problems. I can see why there may well be reluctance to use public funds to transport wood from one end of the country to the other, perhaps to sell it at a different price. I can see why that might not appeal to a free market approach, but the fact is that we have a serious tragedy on our hands in my corner of Britain, and just as other parts of Britain would look to us to play our part and be sympathetic and constructive were a natural disaster to strike them, so I say that that proposal should be given a fair wind.
      I hope that the Government will seriously consider spending what I think will be a relatively small amount of money, but which will go a long way towards assisting the viability of many of the concerns and ensuring that there is tree clearance, so that many of the woods, particularly the pine woods, do not rot more than is necessary and so that some order is brought to a market where there has already been a massive collapse in prices in the south. That is in nobody's interests and we can take some action in the short term at relatively minor cost which will have long-term benefits.
      For all those reasons, the House has been done a service by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) and the Select Committee, and I look forward, with my hon. Friends, to hearing the reply of my hon. Friend the Minister.
      6.14 pm
      Mr. Martyn Jones: As a member of the Select Committee, I endorse the findings of the report, but I want to stress several aspects.
      We learned that 87 local authorities consider themselves significantly affected, and although it is difficult, for all sorts of valid reasons, to estimate the total cost to those authorities, it is expected to be in excess of £98 million.
      It is typical of the Government that what they give with one hand they take away with the other. Their special grant of £18·3 million will be reduced to £8·5 million. The disparity between the effects on counties obviously depends on how near such authorities are to their grant-related expenditure ceiling.
      The £1 million for hedges and shelter belts will, as the Minister said he intended, have to be flexible, but it will have to be flexible upwards since the estimate of damage will be finalised only on a time scale of years, not months, as areas become open to examination.
      A transport subsidy is the largest omission from the Government's reaction to the disaster. There is no sense in providing a replanting subsidy to commercial fruit growers, whether insured or not, yet leaving hop growers, soft fruit growers and vineyard owners to fend for themselves.
      I hope that efforts will be made to direct replanting in such a way as to preserve the environment and the ecology of the areas affected in the long term.
      I endorse the commendations of the public services, especially the electricity boards. I strongly suspect that,
      230
      had they been broken down into competing private companies with different equipment and employment priorities, they could not have reacted in such a coordinated and publicly useful way.
      6.17 pm
      Mr. Roger Moate: I understand that the hon. Member for Clywd, South-West (Mr. Jones) is an expert on the brewing industry, so I am glad that he took the opportunity, as I would have expected, to mention the position of hop growers. That gives me the chance to mention the specific problem affecting, not a large number of people, but a number of hop growers and soft fruit growers, who, inexplicably, in terms of all equity, have been excluded from assistance. The amount is not great, but the principle is considerable, and I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister replies he will say that there is some scope for making the scheme more flexible in order to help people such as the hop growers and soft fruit growers who have been hit. They are not many, but the position is serious for them.
      The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the work of the electricity boards. I repeat what has been said, because the compliments are not empty ones. The work done by many of the emergency services and organisations was stupendous. Some of the woodland areas were devastated, with telegraph poles and trees entangled, with lines down for miles and villages totally isolated, and the work of the telephone companies and electricity boards in particular was stupendous. I suspect that we all saw the pictures of the Gurkhas cutting their way through some of the undergrowth. In many ways, that symbolises the work done by the defence authorities, the police, local authorities and others in a short time. We are grateful for and proud of their work.
      An immense amount of voluntary work was also undertaken at that time. Because the farmers had the heavier equipment and the cutting equipment, it was often they who came out to clear the roads. They have not asked for payment for that. If they get some, I shall be delighted, but, generally speaking, it was in a spirit of voluntary enterprise that the farming community cleared the roads and gained access to areas that were otherwise cut off.
      Let us pay tribute to all those who did so much, particularly during the weekend after the catastrophe and the weeks that followed. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) said. He stressed that the farmers are not asking for very much. He referred to the estate owners. Very few estate owners are demanding total compensation for the damage that they sustained. In view of the total estimate of damage of £1 billion, it is clear that the amount that is being offered by the Government, or asked for on top of the amount from the Government, is very small indeed.
      The orchard growers in my constituency welcome the £2 a tree scheme, but, even if they receive that, many of them face immense losses which they are taking on the chin. They do not expect to receive payment for barns that in effect were uninsurable because of their structure. They do not expect to get very much payment for clearance and other work. They do not expect compensation for the loss of income that they will sustain for many years to come.
      We are grateful to the Government for what they have done. Equally, we must recognise that the industry, individual private householders, estate owners and land-owners will carry immense losses for many years to come.

      231
      I was glad to hear the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) say that he had toured the area and had been shaken. If one lives in one part of the country, it is easy, when a national disaster occurs in a different part of the country, to he oblivious to it. It was shattering and devastating and the damage it has done will leave scars on the countryside for decades to come. Unless one saw and experienced it, one could not know how great was its scale.
      However, the damage could have been so much worse. That is hard to believe, when one sees woodlands shattered and devastated and one cannot get access to hundreds of acres of woodlands, and one does not know how to clear it because the cost of clearing could be hundreds of thousands of pounds. Had the storms continued for another day or two, many trees that were weakened but still standing would have been flattened, and many more buildings would have been flattened. Had the storm occurred when there were standing crops across a larger area of the country, we would have been measuring the costs not in terms of the report, but in terms of billions of pounds more of uninsured and insurable losses.
      It worries me that our response to disasters is always ad hoc. In my years as a Member of Parliament, in my constituency we have had major flooding and major snow damage on a national disaster scale, and we have now had the hurricane. Every time, it comes as a surprise. It will come as a surprise next time and after a month, two months or three months of consideration, the Government will offer some modest assistance. However, the time could come when the damage and the loss go beyond that. It worries me that we never seem to have thought about how we could cope. Geologists and seismologists say that we cannot have earthquakes in Britain. I hope that they are right, but how would our great insurance companies cope with a national disaster that inflicted billions of pounds worth of damage?
      I particularly welcome the report and the opportunity to debate it today because it gives us a chance to say to the Government that we do not know whether a disaster fund is the right way to handle it, but surely the Government should he doing a great deal of thinking about how to react to major disasters and not always be taken by surprise. We are grateful to the Government for their response, but I have to say that a tremendous amount of debate between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Treasury was generated before we got what we were offered. If there were such a debate on a disaster of that scale, how much longer would it take if the damage was on a totally national scale, or on a more serious level?
      I urge the Government to take up the point in the report about the need for a proper structured response and to follow one of the conclusions in the report, recommendation 30, which states:
      "A more thorough and long-term Government strategy, particularly financial but advisory as well, is now needed."
      That is fundamental. Let us please take it on board.
      Another more modest point is the need for flexibility. I support absolutely the point made in the report about the need for a more flexible approach to the grant already on offer. The Government would spoil what they are doing if they maintained the 31 March cut-off date. I hope that when my hon. Friend replies he will say that that deadline will not be applied.
      I ask the Government to provide total flexibility in the administration of this scheme. Let us extend it, if we can, to certain growers who are currently excluded in the
      232
      horticulture industry, which is a very precarious and tough business with very small margins. Let us make it more flexible. Above all, will the Government devise a long-term strategy for responding to such disasters?
      6.25 pm
      Mr. Jacques Arnold: As a Kentish Member who slept through the eye of the storm until half my roof blew off, I can say that that experience at my home and further afield was indeed traumatic. In my constituency, which was in the main path of the storm, some of the most beautiful woodland in south-east England has been reduced to aspects of a lumber yard. Many ancient barns in our farming community were completely destroyed and blown away. The horticultural industry has seen far too many hundreds of trees uprooted and pushed aside with an immense amount of work involved for people on those farms to replace the trees even if they had not had to bulldoze the trees completely away and start afresh.
      I should like to pay tribute to the work of the staff of Kent county council and its sub-contractor, Gravesham borough council, for their sterling work in overcoming the problems of dangerous structures and leaning trees which were causing danger to the public. I should like to include in that tribute the work force in the electricity industry and in British Telecom, who worked around the clock to restore public services to our part of Kent.
      I should like to take up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) because he put his finger on a major problem. Relatively modest householders who had large trees in small gardens suddenly, literally overnight, found themselves with an urgent and very expensive problem in dealing with those large trees. The cowboys certainly were at work, and many of my constituents had to pay over the odds to bring safety to their homes by the removal of such trees. I should like to refer to one particular example.
      In my constituency there is a development known as Vigo village which consists of 786 houses built during the past 20 years literally in the middle of a wood. In the height of summer it is a beautiful place to live and in the winter it is bleak, dark and shadowy. In that storm, more than 20 per cent. of the trees were made unstable. That must have been a very frightening experience. The village was developed in such way that there are many walkways and communal lands throughout the development of housing which were not conveyed to individual householders. They were conveyed to a newly established organisation, the Vigo village trust. Every householder pays £25 a year towards the maintenance of the wooded area and the walkways.
      However they did not, and could not, provide for the fact that more than 20 per cent. of those trees would become unstable and need to be felled and cleared away, apart from the trees from the communal areas of the trust that were leaning on the houses. It has been calculated that the cost of removing the trees and making them safe amounts to £20,000.
      The householders have already spent £4,000 on making the trees safe, and they have an immense way to go. However, no cash is forthcoming from the public authorities to assist in that task. While I note that the Government are providing not ungenerous support of 75 per cent. of costs to local government, subject to the 1p rate proviso, is it not rather straightlaced for that kind of

      233
      support not to be available to other corporate bodies that represent the community at large such as the Vigo village trust? At the end of the day, the borough and county councils represent and serve the people in a particular area. Exactly the same function and service is provided by trusts like the Vigo village trust. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider that point to discover whether organisations like the Vigo village trust can be given assistance with this exceptional problem.
      Many of my hon. Friends have referred to the welling up of public spirit brought about by the tragedy. Like other hon. Members, I travelled around my constituency to discover what could and was being done. I was very impressed to see groups of people voluntarily using chain saws and the like, making dangerous trees and dangerous structures safe and opening up the roads in support of the public authorities. We should commend those people on their work and be aware that public spirit has not been lost in our communities.
      6.31 pm
      Mr. Eric Martlew: I begin by saying how much I enjoyed serving as a member of the Select Committee on Agriculture. As a Back Bencher, it felt good to be seen to be doing something useful rather than simply participating in sterile debates.
      I speak for my Labour party colleagues when I say that we did not approach this matter in a political way. We did not intend to ambush the Government. In fact, we produced a unanimous report. We praised the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when that was necessary, but we were critical of the Government on occasions. More than that, we pointed the way to the future. We recommended what should happen instead of concentrating on what had gone wrong. That was a useful approach and I hope that it will continue to be the approach in Select Committees, especially in the Select Committee on Agriculture.
      Paragraph 28 of the Select Committee report states that the
      "£2·7 million was planned for replanting in the current financial year only."
      We included that to emphasise that the Government seemed to concentrate their minds on the following year only when they were questioned. If we had not raised the issue, the £2·7 million or the grant for next year would not have been considered. That was certainly an achievement on our part.
      More important, we explain in paragraph 19 that an immediate decision should be taken about the transport grant. It is essential that we discover very soon how much will be available to transport trees from the storm-damage areas to the sawmills in the midlands, Wales, Cumbria and Scotland. If we do not transport those trees at one end of the country, they will rot, be attacked by pests or become stained there, while the other end of the country will be importing timber—and we are all aware of the current balance of payments position. In fact, trees will be cut down at the other end of the country unnecessarily. That would be a terrible waste. I hope that the Minister will tell us that he will agree to the transport grant.
      I realise that other hon. Members want to speak, so I will be brief. I believe that the Government have
      234
      underestimated the problem that was created last October. Therefore, they have underestimated the funds that will be necessary to put matters right.
      6.33 pm
      Mr. Tim Boswell: As I am probably the last member of the Select Committee on Agriculture to be called to speak today, I want to thank the House for the courtesy that it has shown to the report and the kind of comments that have been made about it. If it is not invidious, I want to commend my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) for his leadership of the Committee and also mention our Clerk, Malcolm Jack, who served the Committee well and helped us to produce the report. He is due to carry out other business in the House. I also want to mention those who arranged for the early publication of the report, albeit without its voluminous appendices, which has allowed us to have an early debate in what must be record time. That is entirely appropriate in view of the urgency of the situation.
      When we visited areas south of the Thames, I was struck by two particular points. Little comment has been made about the first. I was struck by the extremely capricious nature of the storm. I live only a county and a a bit away from the areas most severely affected by the storm's impact, yet the problems that I experienced were typical only of a normal severe storm. The position in the south-east was diabolical, awful and "shocking"—the word that we all used to describe the scenes.
      There was no uniform effect in the south-east. In what had been a row of trees, half were standing and the other half had been felled. One glasshouse might have been demolished and three left standing, and the wind might have taken another one out on the other side of the nursery garden. Those effects are extraordinary and extremely difficult to assess, compute and calculate for loss.
      My second point is more familiar. In a sense, the storm was unprecedented. With respect to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), we do not know when the next storm will occur, but we know that it is nearly 300 years since a storm on this scale hit this part of the country. That has major implications for what private citizens and the Government can do to meet almost unforeseen contingencies.
      It is not a common practice for Conservative Members to argue for the expenditure of more public money, but there is a contingency fund. What is the point of a public contingency reserve unless it is used for contingencies of this kind? I have great sympathy with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and it is distressing that when the need to approach the contingency occurs the matter must be picked over with the Treasury, item by item, before appropriate measures are taken. That may be the way of the world, but we must address that matter and improve the procedure.
      In making my case that the scale of the disaster overwhelmed our provisions, I am in no sense attacking the emergency provisions of the public authorities. Indeed, the Committee made no such attack. Those emergency provisions were most commendable, and appropriate reference has been made to them today. I want to add to that the evidence that we received about the work carried out by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of the Environment, local authorities and public utilities. In particular, I want to state that the

      235
      Forestry Commission set to work straight away and established the windblow action group. All those measures were businesslike and brisk and intended to deal with an unprecedented situation.
      There are four things that could not have been foreseen and can be dealt with only after the event. First, I want to consider the impact on glasshouses, and reference has already been made to this. No prudent nurseryman could have insured to cover, not simply the replacement cost of glass today, but the expected replacement cost if a significant proportion of the industry was taken out. The House may not fully appreciate that accidents and natural disasters frequently affect one or two glasshouses or growers. Indeed, we visited a site at Barnham where such problems have occurred several times recently. Storm damage on the scale that we are considering could not have been anticipated, and that damage must have had a direct effect on the market for replacement glass and the labour to replace that glass.
      Secondly, I want to consider the deadline for the Ministry's storm damage recovery scheme. In particular, I am referring to the impact on orchard trees. In its evidence, the Ministry referred to the extreme difficulty of assessing the damage at this stage, and that fact has not been sufficiently highlighted. The trees are still in bud and have not come into full leaf. In some cases they may not come into full leaf because of latent damage from root disturbance or salt spray. It is extremely difficult to assess the real damage now, only three weeks before the deadline. Will my hon. Friend the Minister give us a report on the progress of applications under that scheme to date and, better still, tell us that he is prepared to lift or delay the deadline for applications?
      The third matter concerns the Department of the Environment and the Bellwin rules. The Committee was privileged to meet that rare individual, the official who fully understood those rules. In the mind and experience of some local authorities there is still a residual feeling that even if they have not lost out, which they probably have, they have not received Government grant commensurate with the tremendous costs and problems that they face.
      Finally, there is the issue of forestry and the Forestry Commission, which I have already commended. It gave us a most valuable contribution, as did the timber growers and private interests. I must mention, first, the age structure of trees that were blown out of the ground or whose tops were snapped off in the storms. It was evident in places such as Slindon woods of the National Trust, which we visited, that to some extent, in the parklands at least, many trees in the south-east were over-mature. To a certain extent we have killed our landscape with kindness.
      I know that I would feel that the beautiful trees and fine oaks on my land, which have not yet gone completely stag-headed, let alone started dying down the centre, should be taken out in time only with the greatest reluctance—even more so if they were part of an avenue. It is an agonising decision for any landowner, public or private, to know what to do. Tree preservation orders are there in the background. We must all take this experience back and think about it again and try to obtain a better age distribution and balance in our hedgerow timber and woodland provision.
      This means that the chaos of the clearance operation presents us with an opportunity. The difficulties that there will be in restocking the woods are perhaps a benefit. We
      236
      will not be able to restore them physically all in the twinkling of an eye. It will take years and decades, but perhaps there is wisdom in that. I have heard the storm described as "God's felling licence." We must think about how to restore these landscapes.
      In doing so, and in calling for some public money, I stress the modest proposals made by the windblow action group. Members of the Committee felt that the group could have gone further. These are small sums compared with the scale of the damage. I remind the House of the cost of the proposal in the windblow action group report. There is a proposal for a transport subsidy to be applied over 15 months at £2·5 million, and for a restoration grant to be applied to replanting thereafter, supplementing the existing planting grant, of about £4 million—
      Mr. Wiggin: Over five years.
      Mr. Boswell: Over five years, as my hon. Friend reminds me. These are modest sums compared with the damage incurred. It is incumbent upon the Government at least to fund these amounts, because they would go some way towards removing the problem.
      The problem remains awful. It seems awful to us on the outside: how much more so to those who live in and experience it every day? I share the opinions of my hon. Friends and of Opposition Members who have mentioned the problems of small growers. Perhaps the larger greenhouse nurseymen are kitted up to meet these disasters, but many people's businesses and morale will literally have been destroyed.
      There can be no criticism of the initial action of the official bodies, which was commendably prompt. However, there is a residual doubt about the ability of the Government to wheel themselves in and respond on a structured basis to these disasters with cash, without people having to fight each and every battle with the Treasury. When there is a contingency such as this, a better way should be found. The scale of the storm overtook and overwhelmed the prudent provisions made by private individuals and public authorities.
      No mechanisms were in place that could cope with the disaster. The Bellwin rules are not bad in principle, but they cannot cope with a hurricane of this sort. The storm brought grievous private loss and great private grief. There is a public interest in effective clearance and recovery of the woodland areas and in learning the lessons for the future, so that in due course—it will take time—the glory of these forests and areas of beautiful countryside will be even greater than it was.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Calum Macdonald: I shall be brief because I want to give the Minister time to respond to the many points made in the debate.
      It might appear strange that the hon. Member from the Western Isles, the furthest north-west corner of the country, should speak about an event that occurred in the south-east corner, but there is a connection, apart from the fact that I was also a member of the Select Committee.
      I wholly endorse the Committee's findings and associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) about the conduct of the Committee and the non-partisan way it went about its

      237
      business. I also agree with the tribute that has been paid to the guidance of the Chairman and the work of the Clerk of the Committee.
      The Committee's report praised the work of the public and local authorities and all in the public services who helped to tackle the damage caused by the storm. As has been mentioned, two electricity board staff died while working to bring back power to the south-east. That shows something that we too often forget—that much dedicated, hard and sometimes dangerous work is done in the public service industries. Sometimes we focus on the more glamorous public services such as the police or the Army, but in many industries there is an undercurrent of constant danger and it is good to acknowledge that and praise the people who work in spite of it.
      Although Conservative Members frequently prefer to support the notion of unfettered market forces, they have recognised here a case for public intervention and support and for positive policies by the Government to help the hard-pressed growers, horticulturists and people in the south-east who were affected by the storm. That irony was justified by referring to the major natural tragedy caused by the storm which, it was said, necessitated public support and intervention. I certainly agree with that.
      On later occasions, when I rise to seek public support intervention for areas of the country that are naturally disadvantaged throughout the year rather than as a result of one storm, I hope that I will receive equal sympathy from the Conservative Benches. What happened in the south-east of England on one night was a concentrated form of the natural disadvantages that are suffered in other areas throughout the year, especially in my constituency and the rest of the Highlands and Islands.
      Although it may have appeared strange for me to contribute to this debate, given my geographical origin, I hope that Conservative Members will appreciate that there is a connection, will take the lessons of the storm to heart and will consider other parts of the country on other occasions.
      6.50 pm
      Mr. Ron Davies: The contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. MacDonald) has brought our debate to a delightful conclusion and I am sure that it was appreciated by all hon. Members.
      The debate has been fair and informed and it has allowed us to arrive at a considerable measure of consensus. As my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles pointed out, it has united free marketeers calling for greater public subsidies and Socialist planners arguing the case for the Country Landowners Association.
      The contributions from Conservative Members representing rural areas have been reinforced by the contribution for the urban areas from my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell), who I am sure will join us presently. Hon. Members who have spoken with great concern on behalf of their constituents have had their views reinforced by, dare I say it, provincial Members in the shape of my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones), the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells), who has tendered his apology for his absence as a result of another engagement, as well as by my hon. Friend the Member for
      238
      Western Isles. The north of England was represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew). Therefore, there is a wealth of pressure on the Government and we look forward with interest to the Minister's reply.
      I thank my hon. Friends who served on the Committee for their presence in the Chamber and I am aware that the Chairman, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) appreciated their presence on the Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle has already said that its report was unanimous, and that adds additional weight to it.
      I have no doubt that the consensus that has been arrived at is, in large part, due to the considered and careful way in which the Committee approached its task. Among its members there has been general unity in taking issue with the Government. It is general unity because there was one lone voice—it was the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), of course—who gently prodded the Government. He declined to join his colleagues in pressing the Government more forcefully.
      Mr. Boswell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Davies: If the hon. Gentleman will let me finish making my insulting comments, I shall, of course, give way.
      The hon. Gentleman gently prodded the Government, but otherwise he was his usual faithful self in his support for them.
      Mr. Boswell: I always enjoy listening to the hon. Gentleman's comments and criticisms of me. Would he please accept that I stand by every word of the Committee's report? I notice that there are certain points in that report that are more than mildly critical of the Government and, in common with the hon. Gentleman, I look forward to my hon. Friend's reply.
      Mr. Davies: I am delighted to have that confirmation of the unanimity of the House and of the Select Committee. I note that the Minister is having a quick word with the representative from the Whips Office—doubtless he is looking for some sustenance for times to come. It is worth reminding him that the House and the Committee are united in support of the 16 conclusions and recommendations of the report, 12 of which are critical of the Government and call for more Government action.
      If there is one message that the Minister should carry with him at the conclusion of the debate it is that there is a great deal of concern about the way in which the compensation scheme has operated and the way in which it has been laid before the House. However, I am not seeking to criticise that scheme unduly.
      The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare introduced the Committee's report—the first report under his Chairmanship—with a graphic description of the events of last October and of the havoc and destruction that befell this corner of the south-east of England. We are not debating our concern about those events, but the nature of the Government's response to that concern and its adequacy.
      We await with interest the considered response from the Government to the evidence submitted to the Committee. That evidence is not yet available and there is only one "unproofed" copy of it in the Library. I know that some of my hon. Friends have managed to look at it, but the House will appreciate the particular difficulties involved

      239
      when there is only one copy available — and that evidence is voluminous. We await with interest the Government's response tonight, as well as their response after they have had the chance to read the evidence submitted to the Committee and evaluate what has happened.
      The debate is restricted to the scheme that the Government have laid before us. In common with other hon. Members — I single out the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) because he was the first to express his sympathy — I should like to express sympathy to those families who lost someone either through accident or in service to others, to people who suffered injury—perhaps not grabbing headlines at the time—and to those who suffered domestic upheaval, many of them in isolated rural areas, who were without power and access for many days. We all wish to pay tribute to their fortitude and that of' the public services that attempted to ease the situation.
      The economic losses have been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), who mentioned the damage to horticulture, and the hon. Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord). The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) spoke movingly about the problems for growers in the southern part of Sussex. We all recognise the problems that they face. It is adequate for me to say that those problems have been described and I would be labouring the point if I made any further mention of them.
      It is ironic that, give the attention that most of the day's proceedings have been afforded by the Press Gallery, it falls to me, at 7 o'clock, when the Press Gallery is empty, to put the case for the hop growers and vineyard proprietors. I am afraid that I will receive no plaudits tomorrow and no special treats during the summer.
      Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Committee's report forcefully put the case for glasshouse growers, the soft fruit growers, the hop growers and the vineyard owners. Their case was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West. We agree with the conclusions arrived at in those paragraphs.
      Hon. Members who have read the Committee's report in detail will recognise the inescapable fact that the compensation scheme is inadequately funded. Can the Minister tell us how much the Government are prepared to make available in compensation at this stage? Will that sum be cash-limited? How many applications have been received? What percentage of those applications have been processed? How many of them have been accepted? In the event of a high proportion of applications not being accepted, and if cash limits are introduced, will the Government be prepared to revise those limits? Those are realistic questions to which the hon. Member for Chichester, for one, seeks answers.
      I hope that the Chairman and members of the Select Committee will listen with interest to the Minister's answers, but, if he is unable to provide those answers tonight, I hope that he will arrange for them to be sent to me in a letter, and I shall ensure that my hon. Friends receive the reply.
      I wish to turn now to an issue which, I confess, has a personal interest, and on which I see almost eye to eye with the hon. Member for Daventry—the damage inflicted on trees, either as individuals or as stands, and on woodlands. There has been an economic impact, through the loss of timber, and a visual impact on the landscape.
      240
      I have toured the counties of Kent, Suffolk and Sussex and seen much of the damage which was horrific and beyond imagination. There has been a considerable effect on the landscape and a considerable loss of wildlife habitat and sporting and recreational facilities.
      We must be aware of those considerations and I hope that, when the Minister considers his woodland policy in future years, he will recognise that his policy should be guided not only by economic loss but by those other considerations.
      I wish to make two particular points to the Minister. First, recommendation 3 refers to the environmental damage. There has been much debate about the impact of the Bellwin scheme and I do not propose to go over that ground again. We endorse without equivocation the finding in recommendation 3 which describes the extra amount for environmental damage as entirely inadequate. The Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare, drew attention to the fact that, with a timber loss of some 4 million cu m in the United Kingdom, the compensation fund amounted to £1 million whereas, in France, for a timber loss which was almost double, the compensation made available was 15 times greater. Those are significant figures
      Mr. Wiggin: We are in a slight danger of confusing different schemes. The £1 million to which the hon. Gentleman refers relates to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food scheme for farmers. There is also the Department of the Environment scheme and others. Although we have criticised that £1 million sum, it would be wrong to say that that is all that the Government have given and to give too much emphasis to it, when it is simply one part.
      Mr. Davies: I accept that, but I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the money available from the Department of the Environment was substantially for a different purpose and not for the type of woodland loss that we have seen in the counties of the south and east.
      Secondly—I was interested in the comments made by the hon. Member for Daventry on this point, both earlier and in Committee — I should like to draw to the attention of the House a point which arose from the evidence given by Mr. Francis of the Forestry Commission in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Daventry. He was referring to the factors which affected the extent and nature of windblow damage. He said:
      "The other factor which is, in my mind, quite significant on this occasion is the fact that the population of trees which existed was, in a sense, a very vulnerable one, because it had a high component of trees which were over-mature and whose quality was often much deteriorated. Like any other living thing, trees as they get older become more susceptible to a variety of things, including in this instance stormblow. So that I think one of the implications of the storm in the long term is to consider that perhaps on occasions we might be keeping trees for far too long, simply because we treasure the appearance of them in the landscape—as we do—and that we do not readily accept the challenge of taking them away and replacing them."
      The hon. Member for Daventry stressed that point. It is a difficult matter, which will have to be addressed.
      I do not want to pre-empt next week's debate on the farm woodlands scheme, but it is worth saying that we must all consider the record of the Forestry Commission. I am not criticising officials who cannot defend themselves. In a sense, I am criticising politicians from both parties for the policies that they required and

      241
      encouraged the Forestry Commission to follow. Certainly, until the present decade, it was an accepted Forestry Commission policy to allow, with the encouragement of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the clearance of broadleaved woods and the conversion of that land to agriculture. That is not a criticism of the present Minister, but of all Governments of the past 20 or 30 years. It is ironic that, in 1988, the Government are embarking, with our full support, on a programme of taking that land out of agriculture and reconverting it to broadleaved woodland. That is one aspect of policy that the Forestry Commission had got wrong.
      The second aspect that the Forestry Commission had got wrong was its policy of allowing the clearance of broadleaved woodlands and their replacement with coniferous afforestation. The third aspect that the Commission had got wrong was the fact that it gave little attention to the use of woodlands for wider purposes, either for the enjoyment of the environment, for habitat creation or for the recreation of those natural woodlands. Those are major areas where forestry policy has been wrong.
      One of the consequences—it may well have been a Freudian slip on the part of the hon. Member for Daventry when he referred to timber preservation orders—has been the overwillingness of all of us, on both sides of the House and of all shades of political opinion, to think that tree preservation orders are the answer. Those orders preserve individual species and allow the woodland area to go without protection. It is a difficult matter. We do not want to lose the existing protection, but we should be looking to expand our forestry policy. The events of last autumn provide an opportunity for such reconsideration.
      I wish to ask the Minister one particular question. Has his Department considered allowing management grants to be available under the Farm Land and Rural Development Bill for new woodlands which will be created by replanting in those areas where the existing woodland has been destroyed by windblow? The answer to that question would be interesting because it would show Opposition Members how the Government intend to approach future forestry policy.
      By and large, I endorse the evidence given by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds to the Select Committee on Agriculture when it said that, in some of the areas damaged — the hon. Member for Wealden referred particularly to the problems of access—there must be a strong case for allowing some of the timber which has fallen to remain and to rot in its place because it will have immense benefits for wildlife conservation and for the creation of a variety of wildlife habitats. That will he difficult, but, when the six-month period has elapsed and the timber starts to deteriorate on the ground, there must be a case for making the best of a bad job and leaving the timber there to provide environmental benefits.
      I hope that the Minister will consider the opportunities in planting schemes generally for the creation of new habitats for flora and fauna. I hope that he will consider particularly the issue of phased stocking because, if there is agreement that one of the problems is the over-mature, even aged, nature of our timber stocks, one of the solutions must be a phased programme of restocking. I hope that the
      242
      Minister will carefully consider the possibility of extending support under the existing scheme so that planting can take place over a five, 10, 15 or 20-year period.
      My conclusion is that which many hon. Members have reached and which was put in a paragraph 16 of the Committee's summary of conclusions and recommendations:
      "A more thorough and long-term Government strategy, particularly financial but advisory as well, is now needed.'
      All I can add is that Opposition Members warmly endorse that final recommendation from the Select Committee. We will certainly offer our political and nonpartisan support to the Government if they are prepared to embark on that programme of rethinking their financial and advisory support.
      7.9 pm
      The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Donald Thompson): This has been a good, most interesting and full debate.
      I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) for chairing his first Committee so effectively that he has managed to get its report debated in the House so urgently and so quickly. That cannot be bad. I shall mention in a moment all those hon. Members who have had experience of a Select Committee for the first time. Back in 1979, I served on what was then the new Trade and Industry Select Committee. I enjoyed every minute of it, although I am not eager to return to it.
      I should like to thank the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) for the way in which he responded to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare and I shall deal later with the various points that he made.
      As the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) has just said, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) dealt with the important matters of taxation, insurance and time in his usual urbane way. I shall try to take up many of the points that he made.
      The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells), representing the alliance, has left his apologies because he has had to leave the debate to go to another meeting. He mentioned horticulture and what happened in 1947. Unfortunately, some of us remember the days of 1947, although we did not know what the Government were doing. Indeed, I am not sure whether we were grumbling or cheering at the time.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) raised the subject of householders and how bravely—I think that that is the right word—they met the disaster and managed to sort it out for themselves. I took his comment about points of public awareness relating to public areas of beauty.
      I think that it was the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) who said that I should give the Government's full and proper answer tonight. I cannot give the Government's full and proper answer tonight because the Government have not yet considered every aspect of the evidence that was collected by the Committee. I act in what is perhaps one of my proper roles as a sponge and a listener. If anybody else had said that, I think that we would have had another question of privilege.
      Mr. Higgins: I wonder whether my hon. Friend can clarify a point about timing. We fully understand his point about the need for consideration of the report before the

      243
      Government give a full and considered reply, but at the beginning of the debate the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) asked why the debate was taking place now. My hon. Friend will appreciate that the debate is taking place on an Estimate, which is a request by the Government for money and that that necessarily has a tight timetable so that the money can be provided. That is why the debate is taking place now. If we had not taken this opportunity, it would have been a considerable time before we could raise the matter again. The report has been produced at short notice—I am sure that it is worth while—but that is the reason for the hurry with which it has been produced.
      Mr. Thompson: I thank my right hon. Friend. I could not have put it better myself. I cannot say for one moment that I was coming to that, so I thank my right hon. Friend, who, as Chairman of the Liaison Committee, has cleared up that point efficiently.
      The hon. Member for Caerphilly mentioned the years to come. I fully agree with a great deal, if not with all, that he said about the years to come. I am talking not especially about paragraph 16, but about the way in which we must plan our forestry provision in the years to come. We must harvest it and use it as a resource. Planners and other people must not be surprised when a wood is suddenly chopped down tree by tree and when saplings and new trees are planted in their place. We must use all our present knowledge of woodlands to ensure that we leave cover for animals, the natural habitat and for the flora and fauna that the hon. Member for Caerphilly mentioned. That was a point well made and I am sure that he will make it even more forcefully to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who sends his apologies tonight from Brussels—[Interruption.] Well, I am sure that he would have been here if he had known that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) would be here.
      I was surprised by the devastation when I recently went to look at woods in the south. I was surprised at the way in which whole swathes had been cut and trees had been broken up, smashed and twisted. I was also surprised at the neglect of some of the woods. This point was mentioned by the hon. Member for Caerphilly and by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell). I had not realised that there was such neglect. Now, when travelling home on the train — I travel by public transport whenever I can—I look most carefully at the trees and the woods and notice the amount of neglect and that they represent a great deal of money lying around that could be used in all sorts of ways. I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry raised that point.
      The hon. Member for Southall spoke about London. I am sure that we were all surprised to see the devastation in London parks and on London commons and to see the great trees that had been blown down. My hon. Friends the Members for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) and for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) were among the first into my office after the great disaster. I was pleased to hear my hon. Friends make their points so clearly and promptly. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) was also helpful at the time, although perhaps he would now like to be an astrologer.
      I will not follow my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) at present in what he said about
      244
      the village of Vigo, but I should like him to write to me about that and we shall see what we can do, without making any promises.
      I was glad to hear that the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) had enjoyed his first Committee. I am sure that he will enjoy many more. I shall not follow him or be teased by him on the political points that he raised. I was glad to see the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) in his place, emphasising the unity of the United Kingdom, with the Western Isles supporting those in the south and casting a doubt on the ten-minute Bill this afternoon. I was glad to hear that.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry contributed in his usual efficient way and I have no criticism of what he said, even if the hon. Member for Caerphilly has.
      We have had a useful debate. Last week Task Force Trees produced a beautiful document. It is available free from the Countryside Commission. I commend it to those who take an interest in trees, even to the hon. Member for Southall. The document is superbly produced. I had begun to think that the Department of Trade and Industry had a monopoly on such productions, but this is a very good document.
      The Government were anxious to make clear at the outset their determination actively to encourage the restoration of our damaged landscape. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced on 21 October that £2·75 million would be available for tree planting through the Countryside Commission. At the same time, he was able to announce the intention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to offer grants of up to 60 per cent. for the replanting on lowland farms of hedges, shelter belts and windbreaks, and for the replacement of stone walls in traditional materials. The rates are double those normally available in those areas under capital grant schemes.
      On 30 November, we introduced the storm damage recovery scheme, which not only provided grants for the replacement of the damaged environment but introduced a new payment of £2 per tree for damaged fruit trees—and that payment is not cash-restricted. Additional assistance will be provided to the glasshouse sector, which was particularly hard hit.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare referred to the French Government's offer of 280 million francs. At the new improved rate of 10 francs to the pound, that is £28 million. The Government have provided, or will provide, £32 million, so the French still have £4 million to go. I wish we could do as well at rugby.
      We have provided £3 million for the Countryside Commission to plant amenity trees; £250,000 for the royal parks; £250,000 for Kew gardens; £2 million for I he replacement of orchard trees up to 1991; a significant amount for glasshouses; £1 million for replacement of hedges, shelter belts and windbreaks up to 1990; £200,000 for the farm and countryside initiative; £250,000 for English Heritage; an additional £800,000 to the Countryside Commission for 1988–89—we are reviewing the need for a long-term programme; £400,000 for the National Heritage Memorial Fund; and £300,000 for historic gardens.
      I am delighted to say—it will not be said often at the Dispatch Box—that the Treasury has been very good.

      245
      Once the scheme was agreed upon, the Treasury has not nit-picked or gone through it with a fine-tooth comb, as other people have sometimes experienced it doing.
      Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Tell us more.
      Mr. Thompson: I do not have time to go into details.
      Many hon. Members have been concerned about the £25 million provided to local authorities under the Bellwin formula. Opposition Members have been wound up by their local authorities to shout foul and to say that the Government are making a profit. I know how much local authorities abhor the word "profit", even more if the Government are making it. Fortunately, in this case the authorities are not right.
      We wrote to 200 local authorities and the Government made available a substantial and generous package of measures to assist them with storm damage. Special financial assistance is available at 75 per cent. of eligible expenditure above a threshold amount. Additional capital allowances are available for 1987–88 and authorities have been relieved of block grant lost on all storm-related expenditure in 1987–88 above the threshold and on loan charges resulting from capital expenditure incurred up to the end of 1988–89 for the remainder of the present rate support grant period.
      Dr. David Clark: I am grateful for that reassurance. Is the Minister telling us that the London borough of Barnet will receive no penalty at all on its storm damage expenditure? The matter is of interest to all hon. Members.
      Mr. Thompson: It is indeed. I was pleased to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in the Chamber while Barnet was being discussed, and I will put to him again the question of the hon. Member for South Shields. I cannot answer it in detail, but I reiterate that the Government do not intend to make a profit out of the storm damage.
      The problem of clearance is enormous, and clearance cannot be accomplished overnight, as the primary responsibility rests with landowners, whether they be local authorities, public utilities or private individuals.
      The report of the Agriculture Committee may have given a slightly misleading impression about the Government's contribution through the farm and countryside initiative. Many people think that the initiative has been of small import, but work is being done on sites which stretch across the wind belt, and a good job is being done. The initiative is being used as wisely as possible to clear up the damage.
      I have heard what hon. Members have said about a transport subsidy to move trees, to find more readily available markets in other parts of the country. I will pass the concern of right hon. and hon. Members to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
      I welcome the Committee's endorsement of the special measures taken by the Government to help glasshouse growers. We will consider carefully the recommendation of the Committee and consider what more may be done, but I underline the help already offered. Glasshouse growers benefit from a higher rate of grant than other production sectors. For the past five years, we have paid
      246
      grants of 50 per cent. of replacement for heated glasshouses, up to £136,000, which far exceeds the rate of grant provided under the relevant EC legislation, and we have been able to operate only on a special time-limited derogation from those rules.
      Insurance plays some part and is the norm. Most growers are prudent men and were insured. I recognise that, given the extra demand arising from the storm damage, the cost of materials and labour may have increased considerably. However, insofar as the costs increase the amount of grant payable, which is fixed as a percentage of the total, that will increase. We recognise also that growers who already had improvement plans could face difficulty in meeting their commitments under those plans because of the shortage of labour and materials, so we have extended by six months the deadline for insurance claims.
      The date for notification of claims under the storm damage recovery scheme is set at 31 March, but that does not mean that all the i's must be dotted and t's must be crossed by that date. People can make a general claim and then we can go through it afterwards. It would be impossible for people to go into such detail when, as hon. Members have said, the trees are still growing and their businesses are still flourishing. It is peculiar how quickly things come in at the end, and we are asking claimants not to make definite notification but to let us, have their schemes.
      There is a need for a longer-term replacement strategy. The programme of assistance by Task Force Trees has made a useful and immediate contribution to that. For the longer term, the Government will take careful note of the Committee's observations.
      My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is already discussing with the Countryside Commission the need for the continuation of its special programme of grants and to assess how this will fit in with the efforts of local authorities, other bodies and individual owners. The Government will make a statement of their intentions in good time for the start of the next planting season. They will be aided by the report, expected shortly, by the technical committee chaired by the Department of the Environment, which is preparing a comprehensive assessment of the damage caused to trees. We shall also take continuous account of the need to ensure that adequate advice is available on planting and aftercare. As an important step, we have the action pack.
      This has been a wide-ranging debate and I am sure that it has given hon. Members a valuable opportunity to look at and talk through many of the problems caused by the great storm. I hope that I have been able to allay some of the fears expressed today, partly on what hon. Gentlemen were expecting to be the rigidity of the Government—it is clear that there is no such rigidity—partly on what was seen as the parsimony of the Government—obviously, in the light of the magnificent record and other action being considered, there has been no parsimony—and partly on how we shall treat other sectors.
      I am going to see the vineyard owners myself—[AN HON. MEMBER: "The hon. Gentleman will not be going on public transport after that."] With any luck at all, I shall only be fit to go on public transport after that!
      I have heard what has been said about the soft fruit and hop growers. There is, of course, aid available under the AIS plan for both those sectors—for polythene tunnels at the rate of 25 per cent. and for stakes and wirework for

      247
      hops and cane fruit at the rate of 15 per cent., with a ceiling of £50,000. No special help has been sought by the NFU for that sector, but I have heard what hon. Gentlemen have said about it.
      I once again thank all hon. Members for a very good debate.
      Question deferred pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates).

    CLASS VI, VOTE 1

      Coal Industry
      [Relevant document: Second Report from the Energy Committee (House of Commons Paper No. 306 of Session 1987–88) on Spring Supplementary Estimate: Assistance to the Coal Industry.]
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £162,277,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1988 for expenditure by the Department of Energy on assistance to the coal industry including grants to the British Coal Corporation and payments to redundant workers. — [Mr. Norman Lamont.]
      7.32 pm
      Sir Ian Lloyd: The House has been listening to a most interesting debate, introduced with his characteristic good humour and geniality by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, on the hurricane that blew through the fair forests of England. I wish that I had an equally interesting and congenial subject to present to the House, but I fear that I have not. I apologise for the fact that it is unavoidably dry and technical, although I think not unimportant.
      The object of my Committee's report is the examination of a particular aspect of expenditure. The Committee's prime responsibility, under Standing Order No. 130, is to examine expenditure generally. This is a responsibility that we discharge with some assiduity and, I hope, accuracy.
      Support for the coal industry continues to he a major segment of public expenditure. As the Secretary of State told the House not long ago, the Government are spending about £2 million a day on new investment in the coal industry. The particular subject of our report was a Supplementary Estimate for £162 million, made up broadly as follows: £100 million towards the increased deficit which is anticipated in the current financial year, and £60 million towards what is broadly defined as restructuring, but which is essentially the redundancy lump-sum arrangements which have been made by the industry. That is exactly what it means.
      My Committee has been concerned with both these subjects and with three aspects of them. The first is the scale of the provision, and I shall come back to that in a moment. The second is the under-provision in the Main Estimates, despite our warning to the Government last year that we suspected that there would be under-provision. The Government were somewhat contemptuous of our view and said so quite openly. The third aspect with which we are concerned is British Coal's failure to achieve its goals, although we are fully aware of the size of the problem that the board has to face and of its recent achievements.
      There is in the public expenditure White Paper a forecast of loss before deficit grant of £195 million. The latest Government memorandum suggested that this would be significantly in excess of £200 million, so Parliament voted £414 million in 1986–87 for deficit grant and a further £114 million in a Supplementary Estimate. The public expenditure White Paper has projected another £195 million loss in 1987–88 and warned that it could be substantially greater than £200 million.

      249
      The question is: when is this going to end, if ever? We know that during the first world war the men of the line were known as the Old Contemptibles. There is a group of beneficiaries in the Budget which I think we could call the "old reimbursables". It includes, certainly, British Coal, British Rail, Girobank, the common agricultural policy, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, British Shipbuilders and a number of others.
      So, when we look at the figures for British Coal in particular, we must realise that this is but the tip of a very substantial iceberg indeed. The total Treasury operating subsidy to British Coal from 1982 to 1987–88 was the staggering sum of £6,025 million—roughly £120 per head of the population, or £300 per family. If that target subsidy figure is met, it will cost each family £42, and if the subsidy that is concealed in the CEGB's purchase-of-coal arrangement is added, both those sets of figures are very substantially increased.
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: The hon. Gentleman refers to these massive subsidies. I think he ought to bear in mind that many things are subsidised in this economy of ours. For instance, would he consider that the £550 per annum that is paid by every family in Britain to assist farmers, not only in this country, but indirectly in West Germany, France and elsewhere, is a massive subsidy? That is far in excess of anything relating to the coal industry.
      Sir I. Lloyd: I quite appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). If we look at these massive documents, the public expenditure White Papers and analyses, we see a wide range of subsidy. I do not wish to comment on the merits of any particular one, but it seems to me that in making judgments, as we are trying to do, about the scale of public expenditure, these figures cannot be neglected. Some are very large indeed, and all of us have views on the merits, or indeed the demerits, of particular subsidies, but I do not think that we can escape the obligation to look at them sanely and sensibly and to recognise and appreciate their scale and significance.
      When Sir Robert Haslam was giving evidence to my Committee two or three weeks ago, he made the claim that by 1988–89 British Coal should effectively be operating out of the red and he in profit. He suggested that three fundamental conditions must be fulfilled if British Coal was to achieve that position. First, the dollar should not weaken; secondly, international coal prices should remain firm; and thirdly, there should be harmony in industrial relations.
      Within the last few days it has become clear that, far from going in the direction that Sir Robert wishes, the dollar is falling, thus aggravating the problem. There is no sign of international coal prices firming. They, too, are tending to fall. And, sadly, industrial relations harmony is not exactly what everyone would hope. None of Sir Robert's conditions has been fulfilled.
      What provision for deficit grant will the Government be likely to have to make in the main March Estimates this year? That question greatly concerns my Committee, and I believe that it should concern the House and the country. We would be grateful if my hon. Friend would give us as precise a figure as he can.
      250
      Let me deal next with restructuring. The Summer Supplementary Estimate for the redundant mineworkers payments scheme was £39 million, which covered the closure of 16 pits, with five expected in that year. The payments would be made to some 15,000 miners who left the industry. The Committee understands the reasons for that, but what future provision is now required? In his evidence Sir Robert Haslam predicted a further 20 closures and a further 15,000 redundancies, on the favourable conditions that he postulated. Even if the Government do not share the Committee's gloomy prognosis on the last occasion — which, unfortunately, seems to have been justified — our pessimism may have to be repeated on this occasion, and the Government may take a different view.
      The Coal Industry Act 1987 provided about £300 million for restructuring grants, with a total limit of £700 million. The restructuring grants order will increase that sum to £500 million. If the protection of long-term contracts does not continue and dramatic increases in productivity do not occur, the number of closures could clearly increase. The Committee is, I think, entitled to ask what will be the cost to the nation. As the House has already discovered this week, that question has a particular, immediate and much more local application to Scotland.
      The Committee reached two key conclusions in paragraph 10 of its report. The first was that, if there were more closures, there would have to be more restructuring support than appears to be anticipated at present. The second was that, if there were no more closures there would have to be more support of the deficit on the operating grant as the coal industry endeavoured to meet what are undoubtedly likely to be severe and challenging market conditions.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: I do not wish to lead the hon. Gentleman into the current great Scottish problem, but has he any objective view on the use by an electricity board of short-term marginal costings?
      Sir I. Lloyd: Whether short-term or long-term marginal costing is the appropriate technique for pricing electricity is a complex and difficult subject, and would lead me down many avenues and cul-de-sacs, so I do not think that I wish to pursue it tonight. The Committee will undoubtedly explore the subject with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and with other witnesses, and we shall return to it.
      Can the Government now define the limits of the claims that they are prepared to allow the coal industry to make on the taxpayer, whatever the circumstances? As we know, those circumstances are widely unpredictable. The financial consequences of meeting the downside risk are prodigious, and it is for that reason especially that my Committee wished to bring the subject to the Floor of the House this evening.
      7.44 pm
      Mr. Alexander Eadie: It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd), as I have done on many occasions in these debates, for he always argues his case fairly and objectively.
      I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has seen the headline in the Financial Times which, perhaps, described the position more dramatically than he did. It read, "More

      251
      subsidy or close pits"—or perhaps it was, "Close pits or more subsidy". I may not have got it exactly right, but I have got the sense right.
      The hon. Gentleman has told the House that it will be the responsibility of his Committee to examine the matter in greater detail. I wonder whether he has had a chance to glance at Hansard of 23 February, when his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy answered a question put by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas). I do not intend to give details for every year, but if the hon. Gentleman examines the answer he will find that other nations pay massive coal subsidies in comparison with us.
      In 1987, for instance, the subsidy in Belgium—which has a much smaller coal industry—was £57·55 per tonne. France, which has a slightly larger coal industry, paid £22·16 per tonne. The Federal Republic of Germany, whose coal industry is more comparable with ours, paid a subsidy of £29·45 per tonne. The United Kingdom subsidy is £10·12 per tonne. West Germany pays nearly three times as much. If we are to view the matter objectively, we should do so by taking into account what happens to other coal industries.
      I remember hearing Sir Robert Haslam tell us that if we were to draw comparisons between our coal industry and others, West Germany was probably the fairest comparison in Europe. He said that our coal industry costs were 35 per cent. better than those in West Germany. He was also able to tell us that West Germany is not allowed to import a single tonne of coking coal.
      Other nations take steps to protect their coal industries. For whatever reason, West Germany has decided to do so. A tremendous argument is taking place about this at present. For example, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) said yesterday that if the policy of electricity privatisation were pursued, it would mean the complete demise of the coal industry. That was not said by one of my hon. Friends.
      I should like, however, to deal with other aspects of the fine contribution of the hon. Member for Havant. Many doubts have been expressed in the coal Estimates. One was based on the decline in the value of the dollar, on which the hon. Gentleman commented. In 1987, the gap between the prices of British and foreign coal increased by 25 per cent., or £6 a tonne. As Sir Robert Haslam said in his evidence, it led to the loss of about £500 million-worth of sales. He is on record describing that loss of £500 million as
      "pro rata to our size equivalent to wiping out the entire profits of ICI: one has only to imagine the effect of that on the United Kingdom's industrial and financial scene to recognise the severe problems we are facing."
      One of the doubts expressed in the Estimates — I think Sir Robert Haslam said this—was based on the hope that the dollar would stabilise at about $1·50. There was a hoo-hah on the radio this morning about what has happened to the pound. It was said that the pound is leaping forward and that there is no restriction on it. For some hon. Members who recall 1981, when we experienced the massive slaughter of a large section of British industry, that statement will be of little comfort. I do not think that there is a hope in hell of the dollar reaching !1·50.
      That doubt about the dollar is overshadowed by the doubt about British Coal breaking even, and I do not think that there is a chance of it doing so. The Government
      252
      have left themselves open to the charge that they are anti-British Coal and, together with the Estimates, that is what we must debate tonight.
      To some extent, we are having the same debate as we had last Wednesday. We are talking about finance, restructuring and deficit grant. I confirm what the hon. Member for Havant said. At the end of the miners' strike there were 169 pits. British Coal contemplates that by the end of March 1988 there will be 66 pits, even taking into account the three new pits in the Selby complex. Total manpower has fallen from 220,000 to 127,000 — a reduction of 93,000, of which 78,000 were miners.
      Those figures do not tell of the misery and pain that the closures have caused mining communities. Those closures were carried out under the name of restructuring. Those job losses are without parallel in recent times in any industry in the United Kingdom.
      The figures that I have given are not entirely accurate because more pits will be closed and more jobs will be lost. When considering the Coal Estimates and the Select Committee's report we must consider the serious position in which the coal industry finds itself. The present average age of miners is 34. The perception of the coal industry among much of the public is that pit closures have involved aged men being offered an opportunity to leave on generous redundancy terms. That ceased to happen some time ago.
      Further, much of the public's perception is that all the pits that have been closed were clapped out and were using mining technology of yesteryear. On the contrary, pits have closed that were not old and used modern technology. In general, they were not closed because of exhaustion of coal seams but because of market conditions.
      Those closures have been accelerated by the promise of cheap foreign coal, much of which is heavily subsidised and sold at below the cost of production. I dealt with that matter in some detail in my speech last Wednesday.
      Parliament must be made aware of the changing pattern that will emerge. British Coal has claimed that during the massive contraction of the industry all the redundancies have been voluntary and have been carried out under the Government's redundant mineworkers payments scheme. However, when the Government abandoned that commitment, redundancies proceeded under British Coal's own scheme, which was not so generous. It made offers to miners to stay in the industry, and some did.
      The new dimension that overshadows the debate is that that offer has been withdrawn. For the first time since the 1930s, coalminers will be shuffled on to the dole. Many of those 34-year-old kids are faced with the prospect of their working lives ending because there are no other employment prospects in mining communities, and that is a scandal.
      I used the phrase "those kids"; they are 34 years of age. I could say "my kids", because this year I will be 68 years old. Never in my wildest dreams did I dream that I would have to make a speech in this Mother of Parliaments while people are cold and dying of hypothermia. Those kids will end up on the dole and will be unable to find a job for the rest of their natural lives. What a prospect that is. It is a scandal.
      All the evidence in the dispute between the South of Scotland electricity board and British Coal points to the fact that there was Government connivance in it. The Secretaries of State for Energy and for Scotland laid

      253
      themselves open to a charge of conspiracy. The international coal report in the Financial Times said that the Secretary of State for Scotland gave assent not once but twice to Donald Miller to negotiate contracts for foreign coal. The Secretary of State for Energy, who is supposed to be the Minister with responsibility for coal, made it clear this year that he supports the British electricity supply industry being entitled to buy its coal from whatever source it chooses. The proposed slaughter of the deep-mine coal industry in Scotland or the fact that 3,500 jobs would be lost did not bother them one bit.
      I have done various calculations about the effects of the slaughter of the British coal-mining industry, and we are talking about a loss of 7,000 to 10,000 jobs. Railway workers' jobs, and the jobs of those engaged in other aspects of the transport industry and in the light engineering industry, are in peril. When we look at the Scottish economy, we see nothing but a desert of hopelessness.
      The matter took a further twist when British Coal took the SSEB to court on the basis that it had a valid contract for coal burning at the Cockenzie and Longannet power stations. It obtained an interim judgment from Lord Prosser. His judgment was based on the fact that the effect of that on the Scottish coal industry would be "catastrophic and irreversible." The learned judge showed more concern than the Secretary of State for Energy. Despite that judgment, the SSEB is to import 1 million tonnes of coal from China, Australia and the United States. That is why there was anger in the House last night. The Secretary of State for Scotland did not tell the House what had already happened in relation to that order for 1 million tonnes of coal. Some of us understand what happens in the machinery of government.
      The Secretary of State for Scotland issued a press release on Sunday—an unparalleled action—and said that he would be winding up the debate on electricity privatisation on the following day. He gave the impression that when he did so he would give some hope to miners in Scotland. But he made what I have described as a sixth-form debating speech, and he gave no hope to Scotland's miners. All he could say was that he hoped both sides would come together and resolve their differences.
      I remember the interjection by my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) who said that we faced a similar situation when we were in government. He described how he brought both sides together. There was some knocking of heads, and agreement was arrived at. He forgot to say that I was present at that meeting as the Minister responsible for coal.
      I could go on and quote what The Scotsman said, but I will say instead that what distinguishes the Secretary of State for Energy from the Secretary of State for Scotland is that, by virtue of his office in the Department of Energy, he meets the chairmen of the Central Electricity Generating Board and of British Coal. We understand, however, that the Secretary of State for Scotland will deal only with the chairman of the South of Scotland electricity board. Time and again he comes to the Dispatch Box and mouths its case. He has never seen representatives of British Coal in Scotland. The charge that I am making in relation to the coal industry in Scotland is that he has not
      254
      been even-handed in his approach. It should be the duty and responsibility of a Minister to be even-handed in dealing with this great crisis.
      I have described what happened in the privatisation debate last night. The Minister cheated by putting out that press release on Sunday and then saying that there was very little that he could do. There is little doubt that the future of the coal industry is tied to the future of the electricity industry, as the hon. Member for Havant said. More than 75 per cent. of sales go to the CEGB and SSEB, and since 1982–83, 70 per cent. of its total output has gone there.
      It is a matter of public record that the CEGB told the Select Committee on Energy in 1986 that it could import 30 million tonnes of coal within three years. Since then, the Secretary of State for Energy has helped that process by giving permission for an 8 million-tonnes-a-year deep-water port at Fawley, Southampton. We know that there are two Bills before the House now to seek approval for two ports on the Humber, each for importing 5 million tonnes a year. We know that the SSEB claims that it has facilities to import more than 1 million tonnes.
      I told Conservative Members on Wednesday that when one examines what it is possible to achieve and the international market, it is very difficult to see how we could indulge in importing coal. But I am not prepared to predict what will happen to coal imports in view of the way in which this Government are carrying on.
      Mr. Peter Rost: I have much respect for the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) when he is speaking in coal debates. He has been easy and liberal in his criticism of the Government's policy towards the coal industry. Perhaps he would like to put it into perspective and tell us about the time when he was a Minister in the Department of Energy in the previous Labour Government. How many pits did he close, and how much less did he invest in the coal industry than we have invested since we took office?
      Mr. Eadie: I shall have pleasure in telling the hon. Gentleman about that. I have already described, for example, what we did in relation to Scotland when there were problems in the coal industry. The hon. Gentleman asks what we did when we were in office. We started research and development into the coal industry. We started projects for making oil and gas from coal. Indeed, when I became Minister for energy—in answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about what the Government did then for the coal industry—the Labour Government introduced "Plan for Coal" to revitalise that industry, which was at the undertakers. We have nothing to be ashamed of in our attitude to the coal industry.
      The Government seem to encourage these initiatives but they can see what will happen to British Coal and its long-standing arrangements with the electricity industry, and say that the free market is the optimum mechanism for planning the production of coal and electricity, despite the fact that Sir Robert Haslam among others has warned that the international coal market is not a free market and is unlikely to become one.
      Mr. Allan Rogers: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He was faced with the question of how many pits were closed under the Labour Government. Would he not accept that during that period many coal mines needed to be closed?
      Mr. Philip Oppenheim: Oh.
      Mr. Rogers: If the hon. Gentleman knew anything about the coal industry, he would realise why I am saying this. The seams were too small for the technology used today to operate in them. There was a need to close pits even on safety grounds, and on the basis of reorganisation so that central pits could do the winding. It meant that pits were more efficient.
      But at present, efficient pits are being closed. They are productive, raising a profit and operating the most modern technology. The only reason why they are being closed is that there are sudden movements in the market price of coal, as a result of coal being produced in South Africa by slave labour and produced in Colombia by children. If that is what Conservative Members want, they must live with that on their consciences for the rest of their lives.
      Mr. Eadie: I must come to what is at the back of what my hon. Friend is saying about the noises we are hearing from Conservative Members. I know that there is a lot of talk on Conservative Benches about 30 million tonnes of coal being imported into this country. I have already told them my analysis of the facts and that such a plan does not make much sense. Tonight, I want to fill in the scenario of what would happen to the British coal industry with that extra 30 million tonnes of coal coming in.
      In Scotland, there would be no pits left. In the northeast, where there are six pits, one would be left. In north Yorkshire, eight pits would be threatened and they would have only six left. In south Yorkshire, eight pits would be threatened and there would be 11 pits left out of 19. In Nottinghamshire, nine pits would be threatened out of 19 and there would be 10 left. In the centre, and north of Derbyshire, five out of nine would go, and four would he left. In the western division, five would be threatened and six would be left. In south Wales, nine pits would be threatened out of 14 and there would be five left. Of course, the Kent pits would be wiped out.
      I must ask why importing foreign coal is advocated. It is provided, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) has said, by the sweat of South African labour and the work of eight-year-old children in Colombia. It comes from Poland, who are concerned only about getting currency, or from China or the Soviet Union. How can this Government even contemplate wiping out the coal industry to the extent that I have suggested? Are they advocating that we should import 30 million tonnes of coal? It would be the height of idiocy.
      At Question Time yesterday and in the electricity privatisation debate, the Secretary of State for Energy said that we had to have a nuclear power industry because it was in the strategic interests of the country. Yet he does not believe that it is in the strategic interests of the nation to have a coal industry. He concedes that we may require 90 million tonnes or 80 million tonnes of coal and wondered what we were worrying about, but he did not say where that coal would come from. That is why I make the charge that, although the Government may say that they are pro-coal, they give every indication of being anti-British Coal.
      The debate gives us the opportunity to talk about the coal industry. The Government seem to be financially conscious. I could give them figures to show what the slaughter of the coal industry would mean in Scotland. We would he talking not about millions but about billions of
      256
      pounds, and not just that but the human misery that would go with it of 34-year-olds being flung on the scrap heap. I welcome the opportunity of opening the debate for the Opposition.
      8.11 pm
      Mr. Peter Rost: I feel that I have been here before, year after year after year. Debates about Supplementary Estimates for the coal industry remind me of the debates which we used to have about Supplementary Estimates to prop up British Leyland. I am not making a point about whether it is right that we should approve the Supplementary Estimates. The question that we should ask is whether the endless subsidies of the past have helped to produce a more efficient, competitive coal industry. Have those subsidies helped to produce cheaper coal which could have saved hundreds of thousands of jobs in the rest of British industry which has suffered job losses and uncompetitiveness because our energy prices have been too high?
      The answer has to be that huge subsidies have not helped to make the coal industry more efficient, but over more recent years there has been a change of policy, with the subsidies having had a few strings attached. The Government have insisted that the industry also plays its role and gets its house in order. That is the big difference.
      When we consider the huge amount of taxpayers' money which has gone into the coal industry, we could say that it was justified if it had achieved a coal industry which could now produce a product which could compete not just in our own market but in Europe, our natural market. Unfortunately that has not happened because too many of the subsidies have been granted too freely by the House, without the proviso that the money went into the development of more efficient new faces, more automation and more restructuring.
      Too much money has gone on featherbedding inefficient pits which should have been closed. Restructuring could have resulted in more coal being produced at a lower price, which would have meant more secure jobs in the coal industry. That is the tragedy of the endless, repetitive sessions which we have had year alter year in debating the provision of more money for the coal industry. Thanks to the Government—my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm this shortly—at long last we are ensuring that we are getting value for money from the subsidies. The industry is becoming more competitive and more efficient.
      Mr. Ronnie Campbell: As the hon. Gentleman knows so much about subsidies to British coal, can he tell me what subsidies there are on foreign coal coming into the country?
      Mr. Rost: As the hon. Gentleman will know, imports of foreign coal have to comply with fair trading rules. If there is evidence of dumping, as there has been in the past which has led to unfair prices, and if it can be identified, it will be stopped. The coal board is happy to insist on that policy and I am sure that the Government support it. Certainly within the EEC the fair trading rules would ensure that there is a competitive market.
      The point I want to emphasise is that British coal could be the cheapest in Europe. We can produce coal at about £20 a tonne in our most efficient mines. All we have to do is concentrate on opening up and developing more of our

      257
      enormous reserves. We could have lower-cost production with more automated machinery. The work would be less hazardous and less risky, with higher rewards for those who work in the industry. As a result, coal could be produced in excess of our demands. British Coal could compete against all imports and we could re-establish some of the long-lost export markets. That should be the Government's target, and I hope that my hon. Friend will confirm that that is the strategy. If it is not, the House should not approve further subsidies without ensuring that they are being put to good purpose.
      Mr. Jack Thompson: Is the hon. Member suggesting that coal reserves should be abandoned if the coal costs more to extract?
      Mr. Rost: I am grateful for that intervention because I was coming to that point. As Opposition Members will no doubt agree, far too many pits which still have good reserves have been closed. Those pits could still be open. They were closed not because the subsidies were not generous enough but because they were too generous. Those subsidies allowed the industry to relax in a featherbedded atmosphere instead of improving its management and its industrial relations, as it has done in the last two years.
      British Coal's overheads and wasteful bureaucracy have been got under control, with an improvement in productivity. That has happened only because the Government have insisted that subsidies should have strings attached, that the industry had to make a contribution, that working practices had to improve, that restrictive practices had to end, that there should be flexible working and that the coal industry should operate in the industrial relations climate in which every other industry had to learn to operate to survive. There is nothing special about the coal industry which means that it should be protected from the natural forces of world competition. It would not need such protection if it continued to improve its productivity in the way advocated by management and more enlightened union leaders.
      Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman says that there is a natural market for coal, but the energy market is not a natural market in any way. He talks about featherbedding and support for the British coal industry. Does he not accept that it receives the least support of any coal industry in Europe, while its efficiency and production are the best in the world? Does he further accept that there has been considerable dumping? The hon. Gentleman talked about the Government taking action against dumping. That is codswallop. The Government have never taken any action against dumping—even when the European Community asked them to take action against dumped American and Polish coal.
      Mr. Rost: I rather regret having given way to the hon. Gentleman because he appears to have used that opportunity to make his own speech. I think it might be appropriate if I got on and expressed my own thoughts rapidly so that hon. Members can make their own contributions. The hon. Gentleman is wholly wrong. He has completely missed the point. Subsidies are relative. One needs subsidies if one does not have the enormous
      258
      potential coal reserves that we have in this country. With our opportunities for low-cost coal production, we do not need subsidies.
      We have had subsidies only because the industry has not got its act together and because management has not been allowed to manage and trade union leaders have refused to co-operate in achieving higher productivity and threfore lower-cost coal as well as a better living standard for those who work in the industry. That is what has to happen now. I believe that the Government will insist that it does. One way of doing that is to make the industry face reality at long last, as every other industry has had to do. That does not necessarily mean more pit closures or lost jobs. It could mean the opposite.
      If the industry seized the enormous opportunities that it now has—not just as a result of the privatisation of the electricity industry but as a result of the enormous future of new coal technologies—instead of trying to resist them, it could make the most stupendous comeback and could be exporting coal and creating more employment and more wealth.
      I do not believe that that can happen entirely within the present structure of British Coal. I accept that enormous progress is being made with British Coal, and undoubtedly the industry will become more efficient so that it will be able to compete against imports when the electricity industry is privatised. However, I believe that something more has to happen. I regret that the Government have not responded to the Select Committee's report of last year.
      We went into the coal industry in great depth and studied coal industries in the private sector abroad. We examined the potential of improved productivity. Our recommendations were not unanimous, and no doubt Opposition Members will express the opposing view. The majority view of the Committee was that we have suffered a handicap because we have handcuffed ourselves and prevented the private sector from contributing to coal production.
      I have always maintained that it is not just ridiculous but an absolute scandal that major companies such as BP, which have worldwide experience in coal production and which produce almost as much coal as British Coal, although they have to produce it abroad, should be prohibited by statute from investing in the British coal industry. Think of the enormous opportunities that could have been opened up if we had allowed British private enterprise, with mining expertise, to go into partnership with the nationalised industry to open up new faces more quickly than British Coal has been able to do, and to help to produce more competitive coal. If we had done that, we would have a flourishing coal industry.
      That does not necessarily mean that we have to privatise British Coal. However, by now, we should have allowed competition from the private sector to develop alongside British Coal. We should have allowed new investment from the private sector to come in. As with oil and gas, licensing should be with the Department of Energy and not under the patronage of British Coal.
      Already, one or two area boards are interested in operating coal mines. An individual electricity generator may well wish to participate in the investment of British Coal. Opportunities from the private sector should be encouraged and not prohibited under the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946. Licensing of coal reserves

      259
      should lie with the Department of Energy and should be given to those who wish to have a go on a competitive basis.
      When British Coal decides that it wants to close a pit and abandon reserves of coal—it has done that only too often—the private sector should have the opportunity of taking that pit over and making a go of it. We know that private sector consortia — they could be mining co-operatives—would like to have a go at proving that some of the pits that British Coal has said are not economic are, indeed, profitable when run with less bureaucratic management and improved working practices. [Interruption.]
      The hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) is shouting. I hope that he will have an opportunity to shout in a moment, when I finish my speech. Perhaps he has not visited one or two of the private deep-mine pits, as I have. I can give him an example of one such pit in Stoke, which is limited to employing only 30 miners because that is all that the law allows. As a result, that mine can work only one shift. It wants to work two or three and take on another 30 or 60 miners. There are unemployed miners in the area made redundant by British Coal yet the private operator is not allowed to take them on and operate two or three shifts thus creating more coal reserves at a competitive price.
      The Government still force the British coal industry to work under such artificial restrictions. The restrictions should be removed and the private sector given the chance. The coal miners made redundant by British Coal should be given a chance of alternative employment opportunities, which many of them want.
      Too many pits have been closed that could have been economic. British Coal alone has decided that they are uneconomic. The opportunities for the private sector have been frustrated when they should have been opened up and liberated. The British coal industry has an enormous opportunity to compete. The new technologies such as the fluidised bed, combined heat and power, city district heating and coal gasification are contributing to electricity production and energy supply in other countries, but are not going ahead in this country because we have a monopoly that is not as efficient as it should be and restricted competition from the private sector at the edges. When the electricity industry is privatised, the opportunities will begin to open up—if British Coal takes advantage of them.
      I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us that at long last the matter is being reviewed and that the British coal industry will now be given an opportunity to participate in a future as exciting as anything that it has experienced since the industrial revolution.
      8.28 pm
      Mr. Terry Patchett: I promise to be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I know that many of my hon. Friends who have constituency interests in the debate wish to speak. One item, which is of concern to me, has cost the coal industry much more than the grant is worth. Although I welcome the assistance to the coal industry, I have grave concerns about the Government's attitude to that industry.
      Although the miners have been working very hard and producing record tonnages, their morale is very low. Why? Basically it is because of the Government's lack of a clearly stated energy policy that defines their prospects. In many
      260
      cases it seems that the only reward for hard work is closures. I ask the House to remember that there has been a 60 per cent. increase in productivity. Why has there not been an increase of 60 per cent. in wages?
      I am concerned that the money being contributed to the industry will be wasted by the chairman of British Coal, who seems more interested in manoeuvring trade unions into taking industrial action and using his public relations department to make the people of this country think that the unions are evil and irresponsible. In recent weeks he has successfully created unrest in a union renowned for its moderation. Like the Secretary of State, he harps on about the leader of the National Union of Mineworkers, accusing him of scaremongering about the present situation in the industry and flexi-hours.
      Similar charges were made by a previous chairman and by a previous Secretary of State for Energy before the 1984 strike, when Mr. Scargill referred to 70 pit closures if the strike was lost. History has proved Mr. Scargill absolutely right: there was a pit closure programme. It was a strike that Sir Ian MacGregor himself has since admitted was manipulated, just as the problems in the industry are being manipulated today.
      My concern is that a great deal of money is being lost by the arrogant bloody-mindedness of the chairman of British Coal, acting on behalf of the Government, to propagate anti-trade union political dogma. He appears to be desperately trying to attain the Prime Minister's beloved Victorian values, making himself the master whom the miners may serve subject to his will and without themselves having any say.
      The proof of that lies in the chairman's heartless attitude to sacked miners and his insistence on a new code of conduct in place of a well-tried and fair one, which makes the board alone the sole arbitrator.
      The chairman of British Coal has sought also, without consultation, to inflict weekend rosters on the deputies' union to replace another workable procedure. He dictated a small pay rise, again without any consultation, which illustrates his masterly arrogance. He is also refusing to backdate it to November, as has always been the procedure.
      How can anyone on the Government Benches fail to see that deliberate manipulation on the part of British Coal, which has a public relations department of which Goebbels would have been proud? I include in that the Secretary of State for Energy, who I assume condones the chairman's behaviour. I condemn his attitude and that of the Government in their running of an industry as vital to the nation as the coal industry. I hope that British Coal and the Department of Energy will see sense and will ensure that this financial contribution to the industry is not wasted by their attitude towards the trade unions and the nationalised industries.
      8.33 pm
      Mr. Bill Walker: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate and should like to place clearly on record my views concerning coal. I see coal as an important, essential and strategic national asset. I believe that we in this House, and as a Parliament and Government, have a duty to ensure that the nation maximises this great national asset.
      There is no doubt that there will be differences of view and opinion as to how that should be achieved. I do not doubt the integrity of Opposition Members and of the

      261
      views that they hold. I hope they will be generous enough to accept, and will not doubt, my integrity. I have a high regard for the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie). He brings enormous experience to the House. He will not be surprised if I say that one of the lessons I have learnt is to look at the mistakes made by others and try not to repeat them.
      Some of the mistakes which were made were, sadly, made under the Government in which the hon. Gentleman was a Minister. He must face that. Of the 295 pits that were closed during the stewardship of the Labour Government, not all were worn out and required closing. I accept that many of them were worn out—let me make that clear.
      What I cannot understand is how Labour Members can argue that closing pits on that scale is somehow acceptable if done by a Labour Government, but that any closures under a Conservative Government are made because we have a vendetta against the coal industry. It would be an odd sort of vendetta that required the British taxpayer to pay, because it is the taxpayer who pays, not the Government. The Government use taxpayers' money, or they borrow it, as did the last Labour Government. Fortunately, the present Government have not been borrowing, but have been spending £2 million a day to modernise our pits.
      If I have any comment to make in that regard, it is that our massive reserves of coal should be exploited to the maximum. If any aspect requires to be looked at in greater detail with the hope of obtaining greater rewards, it is that of opening up areas of greatest potential.
      Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that, when he talks about the Labour Government closing the pits in the 1960s, what actually happened was that the small pits were closed so that there were then super-pits in the same areas, mining the same coal? The miners from the small pits went to the super-pits, but under this Government the super-pits are closing, leaving reserves in them.
      Mr. Walker: Sadly, unlike the hon. Gentleman, I am not an expert in the detail of these matters, but I assure him that I can understand the mathematics of investment, return on investment, productivity, and soon. Sadly, "super-pits- is a description given to something that happens to be bigger. Unfortunately, as anyone with any business experience knows, bigger does not always mean more efficient. That is one of the great tragedies.
      The hon. Member for Barnsley, East (Mr. Patchett) spoke about a substantial increase in productivity—I acknowledge that that has happened—and asked why there had not been a similar percentage increase in wages. That is the economics of the madhouse. Nobody expects to increase productivity by a given percentage and for wages to increase by a similar percentage, because it all depends on the gearing ratios. Anyone who wants to work out the mathematics in that way ought not to be promoting any industry.
      As I said earlier, I see coal as an essential, strategic national asset. There are massive oportunities to produce low-cost coal. Here I have to declare an interest, because in my constituency there are companies which use electricity on a substantial scale. Because of that, they want electricity prices to be held at the most competitive level so that they can compete in world markets.
      262
      Included among those companies—although it is not the largest user, it is a big user—is the whisky industry, which employs many more people in Scotland than the coal industry. In terms of the return to the taxpayer, that of the whisky industry is massive, because the taxpayer makes no direct investment in it, unlike in the coal industry. The taxpayer enjoys a return of £1,000 million per year from the whisky industry, which is obtained through revenue and taxes.
      Labour Members know that we have recently taken an extensive look at the whisky industry, because Labour Members and I have combined to bring a Bill on that subject before the House. It is an all-party Bill and we have the same interests in common. We are concerned that our whisky industry should continue to prosper and survive. When I visited the whisky research laboratories, the cost of energy was discussed on two occasions. Until then I had not realised just how important energy costs were.
      Perhaps the most emotive subject with regard to employment in Scotland is the steel industry. I think that all in Scotland are united in the belief that it is essential that we continue to ensure the well-being of Ravenscraig and all its associated suppliers. It is imperative that Ravenscraig continues to receive energy at competitive prices. Indeed, that is probably the most important single area affecting coal and electricity.
      Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Ravenscraig must watch out, not for cheap coal, but for cheap steel, coming into Britain?
      Mr. Walker: I happen to think that Ravenscraig—
      Mr. Campbell: Answer the question.
      Mr. Walker: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's question, if he will only listen. One great problem, which was noticeable last night, is that Opposition Members do not want to listen. They think that they are the only ones who care. We care. We care very much about the whole of Scotland, not just about one narrow sector of it. We recognise that Ravenscraig, by its increased productivity and the way in which its work force has responded to the challenge that it has faced and to the miners' strike—we must remember that—has shown clearly that the men deserve to retain their jobs. We have a duty to ensure that the way in which coal is produced in Britain is not an impediment to the retention of their jobs.
      That can be achieved through new work practices. I welcome the fact that miners at Longannet are prepared to consider the introduction of flexible working. The miners there, contrary to the advice that they are getting from some sources, recognise that their jobs can best be retained if they change to meet the changing times. The Government are prepared and willing to continue to invest taxpayers' funds on a substantial scale. No one can say that there has not been substantial investment. I am not opposed to helping any industry at any time. I am not opposed to what, in the House, are roughly called subsidies. I am opposed to a continuation of subsidies where there is no change and no willingness or preparedness for change, but where workpeople are used as an instrument to achieve political ends, whatever they may be and whoever is practising them.
      No one should play God with other people's jobs and futures. No one should play God with other people's families. Anyone who imagines that the Government can

      263
      somehow create and continue to keep jobs in being on the false basis of continuous subsidies is not living in the real world. It is necessary to ensure that there is change in return for the massive investment of taxpayers' funds.
      There have been substantial changes within the coal industry, on which it should be complimented. Productivity in some sectors of the industry now compares favourably with many other sectors overseas. Such returns are the only real yardstick.
      The difference between the United Kingdom's coal industry and many others is that, sadly, our coal industry has been used for political ends at the sharp end of political activity. That is sad because miners, like many other tightly knit groups of people in Britain, are loyal to their mines and country, as they demonstrated effectively in two world wars. There is no question but that the mining communities have contributed handsomely to Britain's well-being. I believe that that loyalty has often been abused — [Interruption.] The problem of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) is that he does not believe in anything. I speak from conviction. The hon. Gentleman does not know what he believes in and has no conviction. He persuades no one and convinces no one.
      In any consideration of Scotland's coal industry, one must first acknowledge that at least half, if not more, is now opencast. The public are not concerned with how coal is obtained, but the industry is interested in the technicalities, and the experts can explain just why there is that great interest. I have a tremendous admiration for individuals who are prepared to go down the mines. It is not something that I would wish to do. I have been down a mine only once—
      Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you are aware, many Labour Members with vital constituency interests want to speak before 10 o'clock. Is there any way in which you can ask the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), garrulous as he is, to draw his remarks to a conclusion, perhaps on the basis of tedious repetition?
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): What I can do is to advise the House that, with fewer interventions, more hon. Members would be called.
      Mr. Walker: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have attempted not to repeat myself. I have attempted to cover widely the areas of genuine concern in Scotland. There is no doubt about the genuine feelings of concern that were demonstrated by hon. Members last night. I can understand the deep feelings of the hon. Member for Midlothian. If I had his long experience of and attachment to the coal industry, I would feel as deeply about it as he does, and I respect that genuine concern and feeling. However, I have little respect for what I call the engineered feeling that one sometimes gets. I make it clear that I exclude the hon. Gentleman from that.
      There is no question but that the Government have backed British coal massively since 1979, and any attempt to claim otherwise is to ignore the fact that over £8,000 million of taxpayers' funds have found their way into the coal industry in different forms. Consequently, I have no hesitation in saying that the taxpayers have every right to
      264
      expect the United Kingdom's coal industry to respond to requests for changes in work practices and for a continued increase in productivity.
      Other United Kingdom industries have responded to such requests. I have mentioned the steel industry, which has shown that it can compete effectively with its overseas competitors. We can prevent steel from coming into the United Kingdom by showing that other people cannot produce steel of the quality, and at the rate and the price, that we do. I am confident that the United Kingdom's huge reserves of coal can, must and should be exploited to the benefit of the industry and the people who work in it, but, more important, to the benefit of the nation.
      Miners in the high-productivity areas who are now working flexible hours and a six-day working week are enjoying substantial pay returns. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley shakes his head. I have relatives in the Nottingham area who are miners. That gives me no knowledge of the mining industry, but they tell me what they are earning and how they have paid for nice new cars, houses and so on. They have explained to me that that has happened because they have been able to increase their earnings substantially since the introduction of the new scheme. I can say only that I have seen with my own eyes how their standard of living has improved and how they want it to continue to improve. [Interruption.] I wonder whether Opposition Members ever go anywhere. I wonder whether they have been to the mining community in the Nottingham area.
      I am trying to explain as well as I can that in some parts of the United Kingdom there are high-productivity pits and the individuals who work there are reaping the benefits and the rewards. I should like other parts of the United Kingdom to enjoy the same benefits and rewards, because eventually the taxpayers, the users of energy and electricity, will benefit. It is essential that our electricity industry continues to improve and to provide manufacturing industry with electricity at competitive prices.
      I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. I conclude by saying that I found yesterday's activities quite distasteful. Opposition Members were not prepared to listen to the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who was continually interrupted when he replied to the debate. As you, Madam Deputy Speaker, pointed out this evening, that has an effect on the debate. I also feel that it was in bad taste to suggest that somehow my right hon. and learned Friend does not care. He does care. I know that he cares.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying quite a way from the debate. Last night's debate is over. I ask him to confine his comments to this debate.
      Mr. Walker: I was responding to the opening comments made by the hon. Member for Midlothian. When you, Madam Deputy Speaker, look at Hansard, you will see that the hon. Gentleman began his speech with comments about my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and you will also see what occurred during the debate. I thought that I should place it on record that I believe that that was in bad taste. My right hon. and learned Friend does care. Like me, he believes that the long-term future for coal and for the energy and electricity industries lies in the two sides getting together and making sure that they can produce a viable answer. In that way, we can see a future and a way ahead.
      8.53 pm
      Mr. Richard Livsey: I shall do my best to make a short speech in the limited time that is available, as a number of hon. Members wish to speak.
      In my constituency, some working miners have been made redundant as a result of colliery closures. The Supplementary Estimate of £162 million for the industry includes a deficit grant of £100 million and a restructuring grant of £62 million. It is fair to ask why this money is needed.
      The British Coal memorandum says that the money is needed because of additional colliery closures and industrial action by the NUM. I believe that it may also be needed because of the overtime ban, but I do not intend to dwell on that except to say that I think that the NUM was ill advised to take such a step. British Coal says that colliery closures are due to poor performance and prospects, to financial pressures—which I believe are as a result of phoney costings—and to deteriorating market conditions.
      The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), for whom I have the highest regard, has said enough about subsidised imports. Suffice it to say that those imports are coming from Australia, China and Colombia. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) indicated that to some extent that is the result of slave-type labour. In other times, when we in Britain took a better moral stance, that would have been totally unacceptable.
      Mr. Neil Hamilton: Will the hon. Member give way?
      Mr. Livsey: No. I shall not give way as there is little time available and many hon. Members wish to speak.
      The question that remains is what effect that will have on the coalfield communities. In my area in Wales, two pits are to close — Abernant and the Lady Windsor colliery at Abercynon — and 1,600 jobs will be lost. Some miners from Abernant live in my constituency.
      Abernant mine has some of the best anthracite in the world, and the pit is only 30 years old. It would be a travesty to close the pit because it has enormous reserves. Millions of tonnes of first-class anthracite are still in the ground at Abernant. It will not be mined because of a lack of investment and 650 men with an average age of 36 who are all family men will lose their jobs. A Welsh-speaking community which is very precious to Wales will disappear overnight.
      There is also the threat of the site being used for opencast mining. That will occur because of a combination of suspicious accounting and inducements through redundancy payments to weaken the resolve of the men working in that pit. British Coal should invest in the Margam pit and give opportunities for the 900 jobs that could be created there. The attitude of the south Wales NUM has been constructive in that regard and it should be given the opportunity to open that pit and create more jobs in the south Wales coalfield. What is happening is the destruction of communities and the butchery of the south Wales coalfield by British Coal.
      Do the Government have an energy strategy which includes coal? The Minister should listen to my remarks. Is there a policy which is a balanced mix between deep-mined coal, opencast coal, oil, nuclear power and alternative sources of energy? I do not believe that the Government have properly thought through their policy
      266
      at this time. The truth is that there is a reliance on imported coal. The electricity privatisation has driven a coach and horses through an energy strategy.
      It is not as if the Government have merely moved the goalposts. They are beginning to saw them down as well. A short-term temporary gain in free-market coal will destroy our coalfield communities. Have the Government a conscience about the people in their prime who are being put on the scrapheap? From some of their remarks tonight, I do not think so.
      Deep-mined coal should have a future lasting at least 200 years and I sincerely hope that the Minister will give us assurances about that when he replies. What about the position in Scotland with coal imports and the South of Scotland electricity board and privatisation? Four thousand Scottish mining jobs are on the line and there is electricity over-capacity in Scotland. Indeed, as the Torness nuclear power station comes on stream, it will add to the problems. The nuclear industry is subsidised and more pressurised water reactors are in the pipeline. Yet coal remains less well subsidised in comparison with the nuclear industry. The loss of indigenous energy resources in the coalfields will be great as many pits are being closed.
      Electricity privatisation will also put the south Wales coalfield on the line. At least 12,000 direct jobs in the industry could be affected by subsidised coal imports. We believe that opencast is a blight and destroys the environment. It also destroys communities. In our part of the world it destroys villages and even chapels.
      Referring to what might be regarded as the Government's hidden agenda, as elaborated by the hon. Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) how could the Ryan company in south Wales have holdings invested in it by Consolidated Goldfields, which operates in South Africa, where it has an extremely dicey reputation in employment? It could be one of the companies involved in the privatisation of British Coal once it has removed some of the uneconomic mines.
      Opencast mining produces a £500 million profit. We must settle the balance between opencast and deep mining. Deep mining is labour-intensive and that remains extremely important.
      The effect on communities of the loss of jobs and closures will be immense in future. Reference was made earlier to the fact that 96 pits are left. Page 21 of the Select Committee on Energy report states that the standards that British Coal employs have an
      "increasing emphasis on the £1·50/GJ parameter … we therefore regard British Coal's rules as robust."
      There are 96 pits at present and when we consider the figures in the Select Committee report it is obvious that 36 per cent. of the coal produced in Britain costs more than £1·50 per gigajoule. That means that at least another 30 pits will close if the rules are to be applied strictly.
      Underground coal reserves in Britain are immense and we believe that they should be worked. The coalfield communities believe that morale should be higher in the industry. They ask that the communities should not be destroyed and that sensible accounting methods should be used to judge the profitability of mines. Let those communities survive with collieries that pay. They should survive with support commensurate with the level of support given to subsidised coal that is now being imported into this country.
      9.2 pm
      Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: The Order Paper tells us that the Select Committee on Energy report is relevant to the debate. Apart from the speech made by the hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd), the Chairman of the Select Committee, that report has hardly been mentioned. I will attempt to bring it to the attention of the House.
      The Select Committee on Energy produced a unanimous report and there were a majority of Conservative Members on the Committee. It is constructive and I am grateful to the Select Committee Chairman for the way in which he led the debate and for his constructive speech. He told us that the Estimates were equivalent to £162,277,000. I will not go into the figures in too much detail.
      We are facing the probable demise of the coal industry. I do not want to appear to be going over the top or to be over-egging the pudding, but I believe that that threat exists. Hon. Members who are familiar wih the energy debates will be aware that the White Paper on public expenditure estimated that British Coal's loss before deficit grant would he £195 million in 1987–88. The Government's latest figures have increased that significantly to more than £200 million, which is different from the £414 million to be voted by Parliament in 1987–88 for deficit grant. That difference arises from the Treasury's practice of paying money to support British Coal in both cash and accruals. The Select Committee recognised that in paragraph 3 of the report.
      The Committee went on to express some concern, and concluded paragraph 4 by saying:
      "However, we would welcome a further indication in the debate on the Estimate from the Government of their current thinking as to whether any new legislative provision for deficit grants will be necessary before the end of the next financial year."
      Surely the industry requires such information. It needs to prepare. It has not been able to do that while the mining industry has been run down in the past four years. The Select Committee has never been as confident as the chairman of British Coal that British Coal would break even by 1988–89. It says as much in the report.
      As recently as 3 February, Sir Robert Haslam continued to he optimistic that British Coal would achieve that target. As the chairman of the Select Committee pointed out, Sir Robert said that three things would be necessary for British Coal to achieve it: first, the dollar should not weaken further against the pound; secondly, international coal prices should be firm; and thirdly, there should be industrial relations harmony in industry.
      The House will recognise, as did the Committee, that the first two factors are outside the control of the industry. On the third one, the Committee took the view that it was not its job to become involved in the details of industrial relations, but it did not detect much flexibility or evidence of the two sides working well together. It stressed its worry about that in paragraph 5.
      The problems of industrial relations are always two-sided. I speak as one with 39 years of experience of the mining industry before being privileged to come to the House. For 10 of those years I was an NUM official, and for another 10 an industrial relations officer. So I think I can claim with due modesty to have a little experience of mining and its industrial relations.
      268
      Especially since the strike, there has been little harmony between management and men. If I had the time, I could highlight many incidents of deliberate provocation. A recent example of that caused me concern. It happened at the country's major pit, Kellingley colliery. After the pit deputies' union had been to the national reference tribunal, the judge had requested both sides to go back and work normally until further investigations took place.
      The manager of the pit instructed the deputies to carry out duties that increased the area of the mine for which they were responsible from 3,000 to 6,000 m. The deputies took the view, shared by their union, that such an extension of their responsibilities was an unsafe practice and could possibly put men's lives at risk. Given my experience in the industry, I agree with them. Record after record of production achievements have been gained at that pit. In the previous five weeks before the dispute it was producing 55,000 tonnes of coal per week. If the manager's instructions are not provocative and an example of bad industrial relations, I do not know what is.
      Sir Robert Haslam told the Select Committee that, without good industrial relations and without the prevention of disputes, there would be further pit closures next year. He said that up to 20 pits could close. If that is the case, surely Sir Robert Haslam should first put his house in order.
      The Select Committee mentioned the restructuring grants. We are all aware that colliery closures result in a need for such grants. The increased provision for those grants has been necessary because of the increased number of colliery closures. Hon. Members will be aware that that increased provision is the second increase this financial year. In 1987–88, 16 pits were closed or merged, compared with an anticipated total of five. The manpower employed has fallen by 15,000. Paragraph 6 of the report acknowledges those figures.
      Sir Robert Haslam told the Committee that it was possible that there could be 20 pit closures and 15,000 jobs lost. He said that at least a handful of pits—five—would certainly be closed. As Sir Robert Haslam has said that it is possible that another 20 pits will be closed, what sort of money will be needed in grant if the pace of pit closures continues? Indeed, the Committee was mindful of other factors that could create a mass pit closure programme.
      The Committee was aware of the proposed privatisation of the electricity industry and expressed certain views about it. It is well aware that the privatisation could—I am not saying that it will—be the death gong of the mining industry. Whatever fancy clothes or fancy names are given to such things it is a fact of life that, unless there is a statutory agreement between the two major industries—coal and electricity—the result could be further colliery closures.
      I am not suggesting that the supply of 80 million tonnes of coal to the electricity industry will be wiped out overnight—of course not. Nevertheless, some of the demand for coal from British mines will be withdrawn and there will be imports. Unless the Government are prepared to place a statutory obligation upon both industries regarding the supply of coal there will be further pit closures. There is no need to take it from me; read what Sir Robert Haslam had to say as recently as Monday this week.
      Although Sir Robert Haslam braces himself and makes noises about his optimism for the industry, which is

      269
      welcome, he goes on to warn that, without such an obligation, further job losses and pit closures will follow. We all know that, without such an obligation, the privatisation of the electricity industry will wipe out the major part of the coal industry.
      Indeed, when the Select Committee was taking evidence for the previous report, Professor McClusky gave evidence to us that he forecast that mining production would be down to 60 million tonnes by 1992. It looks to me as if Professor McClusky will be right.
      I shall wind up my comments as other hon. Members wish to speak. I hoped to have the opportunity of saying much more tonight, but, unfortunately, that has not been possible. I should like the Minister to say whether he will take into consideration the views and fears of the Select Committee regarding the protection of the supply of British coal to British power stations and whether he will take the advice of Sir Robert Haslam on the matter. Both the Select Committee and Sir Robert Haslam have listened to expert advice and gone into the matter in depth. Sir Robert, with his great knowledge of the industry, warns that, if there is no statutory obligation on the coal industry to supply the electricity industry in this country after privatisation, there will be no protection or future for the coal industry.
      9.16 pm
      Mr. Michael Brown: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) because, like me, he is a member of the Select Committee on Energy, although I do not agree with his final words, and because the debate refers in part to the report.
      Let us consider the motion upon which the debate is based. Tonight, in a quiet, civilised manner, we are having a sensible debate in which Opposition Members can put forward their fears and concerns, but it is not a major parliamentary occasion. Many hon. Members are elsewhere and yet, by the end of tonight, we shall have voted through quietly the sum of almost £136 million-worth of additional resources to British Coal. That is not an insubstantial figure and it shows the Government's commitment to the coal industry. A Government who were not committed to the coal industry would not come along here on a fairly quiet parliamentary day and ask for approval to spend £136 million just at the drop of a hat. The Government's commitment to the British coal industry is beyond dispute.
      It is up to each member of the Select Committee to work out his interpretation of the Committee's conclusions. One can be in favour of a Select Committee report whether one is a Labour Member or a Conservative Member. We can all quote various parts of the report and pray those parts in aid of our own arguments. However, the report is quite clear in its conclusions and states, in paragraph 10:
      "The presentation of this Supplementary Estimate is an opportunity once again for the House to receive an account from Ministers of policy towards the coal industry."
      We shall all look forward to my hon. Friend the Minister's response to the debate.
      The report continues by saying that British Coal
      "has made welcome improvements in productivity,"—
      hon. Members on both sides of the House have noted that—
      270
      "and the Committee hopes that these will continue."
      However, here is the important point. The report states:
      "the industry's deficit and the number of closures necessary have both been considerably higher than was anticipated at the beginning of the financial year."
      The Supplementary Estimate is in itself evidence of that.
      "We do not believe that the coal industry should be sustained whatever the cost to public funds".
      That is a major conclusion of an all-party group of Members of Parliament who have deliberated on the matter. Some have brought to bear their personal experience and knowledge of the coal industry, but we have all put our signatures to that important conclusion. The report makes certain qualifications which, obviously, represent the broad consensus among Members. In it we reiterated the conclusions of our previous report that the industry's future cannot be left wholly in the invisible hands of market forces. The Government are not doing that. The fact that the Government are putting £163 million of valuable public expenditure into the industry is a clear indication that this Conservative Government recognise the difficulties facing British Coal.
      However, we have to put British Coal on notice. When I first came into the House nine years ago, I represented a steel constituency and from my experience of that I know that however much a Government—whether Labour or Conservative — are willing to support an industry through difficult times, the long-term future of that industry cannot for ever be secured by or be dependent on the begging bowl approach to its problems. As we vote through this considerable sum of public expenditure, we must be sure that there is a clear prospect of British Coal being able to succeed in the future.
      Nobody, least of all me, who represented the steel industry for four years in circumstances that are not dissimilar to those facing British Coal in what was the Brigg and Scunthorpe constituency, which included the steel works town, can derive any pleasure from either Labour or Conservative Governments constantly coming to the House for large sums of public expenditure, because that is not good for the long-term future of the work force in that industry.
      I fully accept that Opposition Members, with their long tradition of direct involvement in the coal industry, are genuinely concerned with the future welfare of the miners working in the industry. However, from my experience during my first four or five years in this House, I advise them that eventually their mining communities will thank them, as the steel workers of south Humberside thank the Conservative Government, for ensuring that the long run for the steel industry—and for the coal industry—is not based on the ability of the industry to persuade the House of Commons to pick up the tab when there are substantial losses. The long run for those industries, and for the secure future of the miners, is dependent on their being able to participate in selling their product at a price which the customer is prepared to pay and which competes in world markets.
      With the efficiency and the high quality of management in British Coal, and with the high quality of mining expertise among the miners, there is no reason why Opposition Members should fear competition. There is no reason why it should be impossible for British Coal to compete on international terms.
      I remember being told eight or nine years ago, by Opposition Members who took an interest in the problems of the steel industry, "British Steel will never be capable

      271
      of facing the world environment. We will always have to protect it." That has been proved not to be the case. For the first time, I sat this morning in a Standing Committee which is bringing that industry to the full benefits of a secure future.
      I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be able to say anything about this — possibly not — but if I were a miner I would look forward to the day when I, my future and that of my family, would not be dependent on the will of the House but on the abilities of the company in which I should like to have a say and be a direct owner—a shareholder. The prospects of the British coal industry are best secured in the long run in the private sector.
      One day, Opposition Members who represent mining communities will come to realise, as have their colleagues who represent steel working constituencies — although they may not be able to say so—that their constituents' long-term security is best determined by a private company, answering to shareholders and customers. In that way the attitude and atmosphere will change.
      British Coal does not need to fear privatisation, as sufficient coal resources are available to furnish the country's needs. The potential for opencast mining has not been fully developed. Resources are available, and it is important to recognise that we have the potential to reduce British Coal's costs by exploiting to the full the opencast resources so that we can meet the international threat. There is no use insulating ourselves from the international threat. We are a trading nation and we have proved that industries that we did not think would be profitable can be made to stand on their own, make a profit and face the international threat.
      It is folly for us to say that the only role for British Coal is in the public sector, dependent upon the good will of Ministers and upon supplies of deep-mined coal. [Interruption.] I have said this many times, but unfortunately it must be emphasised time and again. I have said this about the steel industry in my constituency. It was difficult for my constituents to appreciate what I was saying, until they realised that their long-term job security was being affected.
      The statistics show what has been achieved by British Coal. Since 1979 the Government have supported capital investment in the coal industry, with over £5·5 billion of public funds, and £2 billion of further support is planned for the next three years, so the Government are not turning off the tap. The industry must face up to the challenge of international competition and to the fact that its security and that of its workers ultimately will be best secured in the private sector.
      9.27 pm
      Mr. Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley): I hope that the nuclear industry can face the challenge that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) said the mining industry must face with the subsidies that it gets from the Government. Until two years ago I was a miner at the coal face. It is a great privilege to be elected and to come to the House with a knowledge of the mining industry, which Conservative Members do not have. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes talked as though the mining industry were a car factory, with a production line that runs all the time. Miners in the coal industry work
      272
      in the bowels of the earth, where anything can happen. Geological conditions cause constant changes, and it is not an easy industry in which to work.
      About 70,000 miners have lost their jobs in the past four or five years under the Government, and 71 pits have closed. I begin to wonder why Arthur Scargill was criticised, because the man was darned well right.
      Mr. Rost: He caused it.
      Mr. Campbell: He was right in what he said before the strike, and he is saying it again. Sir Robert Haslam, who appeared before the Select Committee, in answer to a question about privatisation and foreign coal, said, "Well, life is uncertain." The Secretary of State for Energy said that British Coal would have to compete in the market place; in other words, on the foreign market. Foreign coal is coming in and competing with British coal, so the figures quoted by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes will go out of the window.
      We do not know what our competitors' figures are. The other week 1 asked the Secretary of State for Energy what direct subsidies or direct help foreign coal gets in South Africa, Australia, Colombia, America and Poland, and I was given a completely negative reply. When I collared him afterwards he asked me, if I got to know, to tell him. So we do not know what we are competing against.
      What we do know is that deep-sea ports in this country are being changed into coal-importing ports. That is a fact. There is Fawley in Southampton, one in Bristol, one on the Mersey and two on the Humber. That sounds the death knell of the Nottingham coalfield. Once foreign coal gets a hold, once we become blind to foreign subsidies, we must be prepared to see the demise of our coal industry, because once the electricity industry is privatised it will go for the cheapest coal.
      If South Africa can offer one of the electricity companies a price for the next five years that is better than British Coal can match, that will be the demise of nine to 10 pits in Nottingham and Yorkshire, making 20 in all. It will be the demise of all industry in the north-east and in Scotland as well. That is the danger facing the coal industry.
      Another danger is that which is faced when a country destroys its own industry and is left in the hands of its foreign competitors, just as we were left in the hands of the Arabs during the oil crisis. We relied on oil, and Joe Gormley said that the Arabs would not always live in tents. We ignored him, to our cost, because up went the price.
      The same will happen with the coal industry, because men cannot go back to a pit once it has been closed. Our foreign competitors will put up the price, and then we shall see what the cost of electricity will be to the consumer in this country.
      9.33 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): I know that a number of hon. Members, particularly Opposition Members, want to speak and I am rising at this point because last week I was left by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) with three minutes in which to answer a three-hour debate. If I am not provoked, I shall attempt to sit down before 10 o'clock to give some other hon. Members a chance to join in the debate.

      273
      The Government welcome the attention given by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) and the members of the Select Committee on Energy, and indeed by hon. Members generally, to the finances of the coal industry. The finances are characterised, as the Select Committee has commented, both by their weakness and by the unsatisfactory nature of past forecasts of outturn. For reasons that I shall give in a moment, I cannot guarantee the validity of present forecasts. I can, however, give a firm statement of intent. I can also illustrate the consequences of failure to meet the targets that we have set.
      There is no doubt that, as has been said, a great deal of taxpayers' money has been spent during the lifetime of this Government on the British coal industry. Expenditure of £9 billion in nine years is a rate of spend far higher than that of any other Administration.
      Mr. Ronnie Campbell: The Minister has mentioned subsidies. Can he tell us what subsidies are paid by our competitors?
      Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman rightly said that the figures are not available for subsidies outside the Common Market. However, as the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) pointed out, other Common Market countries such as West Germany give higher subsidies to their coal industries.
      We do not model ourselves on the West Germans. The West German industry is increasingly looking to this country as a way of getting its coal industry out of the mess that it is in. There is no question of comparing ourselves with the countries mentioned by the hon. Member for Midlothian in determining our future policy on this great industry.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Havant asked where it would all end. That is a pertinent question, which, I believe, was also asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). There is no doubt that this cannot continue indefinitely, especially if those employed in the industry, and those who lead them—through misplaced ideology or a mistaken appreciation of the strength of their position—repay the taxpayer with go-slows, overtime bans, marches to commemorate past strikes, as at Kellingley colliery yesterday, and a refusal to work properly the new equipment with which they have been provided. All that has this year cost British Coal £100 million in lost operating profit—enough to develop the new pit at Margam.
      Yes, we will allow a privatised electricity supply industry to buy coal in the best markets, for two reasons: first, because we will not come between the electricity supply industry and its customers who want cheap electricity; and, secondly, because, having put vast sums into the coal industry and knowing that the industry is investing £650 million a year, we are confident that, if its employees so will, it can stand on its own feet against all comers.
      We do not share the pessimism of Opposition Members. Hon. Members should contrast the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Erewash (Mr. Rost), for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and for Brigg and Cleethorpes with any speech from the Opposition. My hon. Friends the Members for Erewash and for Brigg and Cleethorpes, for instance, talked of the prospects for
      274
      British Coal to improve its costs so as to be able to compete in the world market. By contrast, the hon. Member for Midlothian, with his deep and highly respected knowledge of the industry, seemed to be saying that it was all hopeless, and the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) — whose knowledge is massive—talked of the industry's probable demise.
      Mr. Foulkes: The Minister says, and I agree with him, that British Coal can compete against all comers, provided that the all corners are competing on the same basis. The Minister has already admitted that he is completely unaware of the subsidies given to the coal industry in all the countries outwith the Community. Some of my hon. Friends have said that in South Africa it is slave labour, and in Colombia it is child labour. That is not fair competition, but it is the kind of competition that the Minister is forcing British Coal to fight with its hands tied behind its back. Will the Minister not concede that?
      Mr. Spicer: This country imports a minuscule amount of coal from the countries to which the hon. Gentleman referred. From South Africa, for instance, we are talking about 200,000 tonnes of coal, against a total rising to hundreds of millions of tonnes.
      Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister say what the subsidies are in Australia, the United Stated of America, China and Poland? He admitted earlier that he was not aware of them. We are not proposing to import minuscule amounts of coal from those countries.
      Mr. Spicer: This country substantially supports and subsidises its coal industry and imports a minuscule amount of coal from other countries. Therefore, it is capable of competing fairly against those countries. If it proves to be the case that there is unfair competition, the Government will take that matter seriously and will deal with it. At present, the industry is faced with little import competition.
      Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Spicer: I should like to get on with my speech; otherwise other hon. Members will not have a chance to speak.
      British Coal—this is the reason for our optimism—has vast commercially mineable coal reserves and all the advantages—perhaps this is the answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes)—of proximity to power stations that are enjoyed by other indigenous coal industries in the world. It is also serviced by the finest mining engineering in the world.
      Coal, so far as it is possible to foresee, will continue well into the next century to fuel most of the electricity generated in this country. The cards are stacked in favour of British Coal, if only its workers will play them.
      The Government demand that the industry should begin to pay its own way without a continuation of the present massive support of the taxpayer, about which the Energy Select Committee is understandably showing increasing concern.
      We expect British Coal to break even in 1988–89 after payment of interest, and after that to generate increasing profits and cash flow to fund a greater proportion of its capital investment programme.

      275
      Having said that, we recognise that there are factors affecting the industry that are hard to predict. For instance, the need to meet competition from imported coal and other forms of energy will no doubt involve price concessions on a scale that cannot be forecast with certainty. Since April 1986, British Coal has had to reduce its prices by more than £500 million. Contrary to a belief of the Select Committee, that reflects the fact that British Coal is free to reduce prices to maintain market share.
      A fair criticism has been made by the Committee that some estimates of British Coal's sales revenue have erred on the side of optimism. The Department of Energy frequently discusses that matter with British Coal. It is a fact of life that the coal market is volatile and uncertain, as is the market for bulk sea freight.
      There is also uncertainty about costs. In recent years, British Coal has consistently increased productivity to record levels, reaching over 4 tonnes per man shift in December, and it has redoubled its efforts to reduce costs. Among other things, that has required the acceleration of the closure of high-cost capacity. It is expected that by the end of March there will be 96 pits in production, compared with 110 at the start of the year.
      The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) made a brave fist of distinguishing between pit closures under a Labour Government and those under a Conservative Government. The main difference between the two is that there were 285 closures under the Labour party and 127 under the Conservative party. I have a list that begins with "A" Winning and ends with Ynyscedwyn. I would not be able to complete my speech if I were to read out the long list of names. In the interests of clarity, I shall place in the Library the list of pits closed under Labour. It will clarify the matter once and for all.
      Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Let me tell you why the pits were closed in those days and start with my own pit as an example. I want you to listen carefully.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he must refer to the hon. Member and not to me.
      Mr. Campbell: I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member is getting me confused.
      My pit, Bates's colliery, was classed as a super-pit and around it were three small pits or little holes in the ground, as we called them. They were closed under the Labour Government, and all the men were transferred to the big super-pit, where we worked the seams that they were working. The idea was to cut the costs, as Conservative Members have been saying all night. We were closing the small pits to make super-pits. Now this Government are closing the super-pits.
      Mr. Spicer: The hon. Member has had a good try and a good run, but the fact is that his reasoning behind the closure of pits is really the same as ours, or British Coal's reasoning. It has to do with the increased efficiency and productivity of the industry.
      The idea that there is some kind of immorality about the Conservatives closing 30 per cent. of the pits and some kind of morality about Labour closing 70 per cent. of pits eventually gets down our throats.
      This accelerated restructuring has led to an additional depreciation charge of £150 million during the year, of which over £50 million has arisen in the past two months.
      276
      We have discussed on three recent occasions in Adjournment debates Seafield, Wooley/Redbrook and Abernant. In each case the main factors were a combination of unexpected geological factors—and this is an answer to the hon. Gentleman — and difficult industrial relations, which is a euphemism. The write-off of Woolley/Redbrook alone accounts for some £70 million, which is nearly half of the extra charge this year.
      Associated with these closures has been a policy of voluntary redundancy, which has contributed to an expected fall in manpower of over 20,000 between March 1987 and March 1988. As the Select Committee said, the cost of these redundancies has required the use of a significant proportion of the existing £750 million of restructuring grant facilities.
      However, some of the redundancies this year arose out of an acceleration of events that would have come about anyway — for example, through the exhaustion of reserves. I see no need for further legislative provision for restructuring grants, although the position will be kept under review.
      Returning to the deficit for the current year, the other major factor that has affected it has been industrial action by the NUM and, latterly, by NACODS. That has caused a loss of production of over 3·5 million tonnes and lost operating profits of more than £100 million. These losses were certainly not predictable when the Estimates for 1987–88 were prepared. In partial answer to the Select Committee on the matter of inaccurate estimates, it is not right to seek the approval of the House for expenditure on Votes for anything other than reasonably certain expenditure.
      Mr. Foulkes rose—
      Mr. Spicer: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but he is wiping out the opportunity for other hon. Members to speak.
      Mr. Foulkes: Unpredictable expenditure is an important matter. If the Secretary of State for Scotland does not intervene in the dispute between SSEB and British Coal and that results, as has been widely predicted by British Coal, in the closure of at least three deep mines, would not all the redundancy payments and extra cost involved be a catastrophe for Scotland and for British Coal and its finances? Therefore, does the Minister and the Secretary of State for Energy, who is sitting beside him, believe that it is the view of the Department of Energy, as the coal ministry—my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) has said this before—that the Secretary of State for Scotland has a duty to intervene to get the dispute resolved so that the SSEB can use British coal rather than coal from overseas?
      Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman makes a point on behalf of one of the sides which are discussing the issue. Each has its own interests which it feels are in the public interest.
      Mr. Foulkes: What about the national interest?
      Mr. Spicer: That point was made last night. The atmosphere was inflamed—synthetically, I expect. When the question of a trade-off between the interests of the coal industry and the interests of the electricity consumer, particularly Ravenscraig which is a major employer, was

      277
      discussed, there was uproar on the Opposition side. I still cannot understand what motivated it because there is a balance of interests.
      Of course, it is understandable that the respective organisations and institutions representing the differing interests should be in discussion and should debate with each other. The point was made yesterday by a number of Ministers, including myself, that we would prefer the two interests to be sitting at a table discussing the matter rather than fighting each other in the courts and in the press. Surely that is common between us. To say that there is only one interest involved cannot be true.
      Mr. Foulkes: I accept that. Of course there are interests on both sides, but because it has been fought in the courts and in the press it is difficult to get people round the table. Things have been said which perhaps would have been better not said. Surely in the national interest the Minister responsible has not just a right but a duty to try to get the parties together, even if it means appointing a conciliator or using the Government's good offices, to try to get an agreement in the interests of Scottish industry and Scottish miners. Does the Minister agree?
      Mr. Spicer: I agree entirely that things have been said which people will regret and, I suspect, very much so on the Opposition side. I am sure that chickens will come home to roost for Opposition Members who are intent on inflaming the issue; that is what they are doing, a little synthetically in view of the conflicting interests which undoubtedly exist. When will Members from Scotland or elsewhere defend the consumer of electricity and saying that his interest should be paramount? How can Opposition Members say that on one occasion and on another occasion jump up with almost orchestrated violence, as was the case last night—[Interruption.] What will we do about it? We will encourage the two sides to discuss the matter and to come to a reasonable agreement which is in the interests of both. To that extent, I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Foulkes: I think that the Minister has been very helpful. What I understand him to say is that he wants the two sides to come together to get an agreement which ensures that the SSEB continues to purchase Scottish coal. Is that what the Minister says?
      Mr. Spicer: No, I was not saying that precisely, because that would be an unbalanced view. What I am saying is that there are interests on both sides. Certainly it is in the interests of British Coal to sell its coal to a customer. It is in the interests of the electricity supplier to make sure that he buys the coal at a rate which gives the best possible price for his electricity to the consumer. Those are two conflicting views. I am saying nothing peculiar or exceptional when I say that we would like the two sides to be talking to each other and trying to find a common position.
      Mr. Bill Walker: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State last night—that the crucial point is the steel industry in Scotland and the future of Ravenscraig? It is vital that we are not taken in by the synthetic interest of the Opposition, who will scream if anything happens to Ravenscraig.
      Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend makes his point extremely well, and I agree with him. He has reminded me of a point that he made in his excellent speech—in which he spoke as the authentic voice of Scotland. At one point he said that parts of the coal industry were now engaged in flexible working and that if more of the industry was engaged in flexible working it would find it easier to become competitive, north or south of the border.
      In that context, I have to say that unfortunately we do not know of anyone currently working flexible hours, although there has been some talk of flexible working north of the border. That is a problem; there is no question about it. The fact that the industry and those who work in it are apparently unwilling fully to utilise the equipment provided for them at the taxpayers' expense is a matter of great seriousness to anyone who wishes the industry well for the future.
      Supplementary Estimates are the vehicle provided by Parliament for obtaining funds for expenditure that could not reasonably be foreseen when the Main Estimates were submitted. The financial effects of possible industrial action cannot be included in the Main Estimates. They are rightly a matter for a Supplementary Estimate.
      The Select Committee raised a number of other points about future Estimate provisions and the financing of British Coal. As the House knows, the full amount of deficit grant available under the Coal Industry Act 1987 will be paid out this year, subject to approval of the relevant Supplementary Estimate. There is therefore no statutory authority for further provision of deficit grant.
      Looking ahead, it seems to us that as long as the industry avoids gratuitous and damaging industrial action, British Coal has a realistic prospect of breaking even in 1988–89. Of course there are risks that it will not do so—for instance, as the hon. Member for Midlothian said, if international coal prices or the value of the dollar fall further. On the other hand, the restructuring and cost reductions undertaken in this financial year will enhance the prospects of break-even in 1988–89.
      In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Havant I would point out that if the corporation breaks even, the question of fresh legislative provision for deficit grant in next year's Main Estimates does not arise. Nevertheless, the Government very much take the point made by the Select Committee in this context and will continue to keep the financing of British Coal under careful review.
      I must emphasise that the Government will not continue to provide funds indefinitely, irrespective of circumstances. The current rate of capital expenditure in the industry cannot continue unless fuller use is made of the existing equipment. The refusal of certain trade union leaders to consider modern methods of flexible working and their senseless industrial actions are jeopardising the industry's prospects and their members' jobs. [Interruption.] Opposition Members need to be reminded of that time and time again. [Interruption.]
      I have told Opposition Members time and again that this Government have put more money into the industry than any other. To say that we do not care is a distortion of the facts, which the Government cannot accept. Having put that money behind the industry, we believe that it is about time that the industry and those who work in it accepted that backing for what it is and started to make full use of it.
      Mr. Patchett: How much of the money given by the Government has been spent on redundancies rather than on the industry?
      Mr. Spicer: I have been through the figures last week and this week. Of course, of the restructuring grant element, which is only one element, a large amount has gone on redundancies. But £650 million has been put into investment this year alone.
      A sound thriving future faces British Coal. Apparently, the Opposition do not believe that. I agree entirely that our reserves of coal constitute a great national asset. That is why we have put so much of the taxpayer's money on the table. It is now up to those who work in the industry to allow the machinery which has been bought for them to be fully worked to the benefit of the industry, the country and themselves.
      The Question was deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates) and order this day.
      It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates), to put forthwith the deferred Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings on Supplementary Estimates, 1987–88 (Class IV, Vote 3 and Class VI, Vote 1).

    Class IV, Vote 3
    Resolved,
    That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1988 for expenditure by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on market support, grants and loans for capital and other improvements, support for agriculture in special areas and compensation to sheep producers, animal health, arterial drainage, flood and coast protection and certain other services.

    Class VI, Vote I
    Resolved,
    That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £162,277,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1988 for expenditure by the Department of Energy on assistance to the coal industry including grants to the British Coal Corporation and payments to redundant workers.
    MR. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions which he was directed to put pursuant to paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 53 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.) and order of 3 March.

    Class VI, Vote I

      ESTIMATES, 1987–88 (ARMY), VOTE A
      Resolved,
      That during the year ending on 31st March 1988 an additional number not exceeding 8,000 all ranks be maintained for the Individual Reserves.

      ESTIMATES, 1987–88 (AIR), VOTE A
      Resolved,
      That during the year ending on 31st March 1988 an additional number not exceeding 800 all ranks be maintained for the Royal Air Force Reserve.

      ESTIMATES, 1988–89 (NAVY), VOTE A
      Resolved,
      That during the year ending on 31st March 1989 a number not exceeding 69,100 all ranks be maintained for Naval Service.

      ESTIMATES, 1988–89 (ARMY), VOTE A
      Resolved,
      That during the year ending on 31st March 1989 a number not exceeding 179,450 all ranks be maintained for Army Service, a number not exceeding 5,000 for the Home Service Force, a number not exceeding 112,000 for the Individual Reserves, a number not exceeding 85,150 for the Territorial Army and a number not exceeding 5,000 for the Ulster Defence Regiment.

      ESTIMATES, 1988–89 (AIR), VOTE A
      Resolved,
      That during the year ending on 31st March 1989 a number not exceeding 96,700 all ranks be maintained for the Air Force Service, a number not exceeding 8,000 for the Royal Air Force Reserve and a number not exceeding 2,260 for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force.

      SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1987–88
      Resolved,
      That a further supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,311,899,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray charges for the Defence and Civil Services which will come in the course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1988, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 284 and 341.

      ESTIMATES, EXCESSES, 1986–87
      Resolved,
      That a sum not exceeding £48,461,353·69, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to make good excesses on certain grants for Defence and Civil Services for the year ended 31st March 1987, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 282.
      Bill ordered to be brought in upon the four foregoing resolutions relating to Supplementary Estimates, 1987–88 and to Estimates, Excesses, 1936–87 by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. John Major, Mr. Norman Lamont, Mr. Peter Brooke and Mr. Peter Lilley.

      CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 3) BILL
      Mr. Norman Lamont accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31 March 1987 and 1988: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to he read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 104.]

  General Assistance Grants (Northern Ireland)
  10.1 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Viggers): I beg to move,
  That the draft General Assistance Grants (Abolition) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 1st March, be approved.
  The purpose of the draft order is to abolish the standard capital grants scheme by the repeal of part IV of the Industrial Development (Northern Ireland) Order 1982. Under this order grants are payable towards new fixed asset investment undertaken by businesses engaged in qualifying activities—in practice most manufacturing sectors—in Northern Ireland. The standard capital grants scheme is similar, although not identical, to the regional development grants scheme in Great Britain.
  As announced in the recent Department of Trade and Industry White Paper, the regional development grants scheme will also be abolished, and indeed the Regional Development Grants (Termination) Bill has received its Second Reading and has just completed its Committee stage. Under the provisions contained in that Bill, no new applications for regional development grant will be accepted after 31 March 1988. Similarly, the draft order now before the House provides that standard capital grants will not be payable in respect of expenditure incurred after 31 March 1988.
  We have been concerned for some time about the appropriateness of the standard capital grants scheme as a means of assisting industry in Northern Ireland. Indeed, my predecessor announced significant changes to the scheme in 1985 and made it clear at that time that those amendments marked only the beginning of a change in emphasis in the form of support to industry in Northern Ireland.
  Our concerns related particularly to the high degree of deadweight and displacement that we saw in the scheme. Deadweight in a scheme means that the investment would have taken place in the company without the grant being made available to it, and displacement is a technical term that means that the Government are subsidising companies to compete with others in the local market. We saw a high degree of deadweight and displacement in the scheme, evidence of deliberate abuse from some quarters and the fact that the legislation for the scheme restricted its application to manufacturing industry in a rigid manner which took no account of the increasing difficulty of distinguishing between manufacturing and service activities.
  We therefore commissioned a consultancy survey of standard capital grant recipients to assess awareness of the scheme and to obtain more detailed information about the nature, objectives and impact of the investment being assisted. The survey showed that about 70 per cent. of assisted projects would have proceeded in the absence of standard capital grant and revealed that the grant has largely aided Northern Ireland companies to compete against one another in a limited local market, rather than encouraging them to compete in markets outside the Province. These findings, together with the fact that the grant is not job-related, demonstrated that the standard
  282
  capital grants scheme is no longer an effective means of stimulating the Northern Ireland economy and therefore does not make the best use of public resources.
  While there are several differences in form and effect between the standard capital grants scheme in Northern Ireland and the regional development grants scheme in Great Britain, the decision to end the regional development grants scheme was based on similar conclusions about its effectiveness. This reflects a general and international trend away from automatic and poorly targeted capital grants.
  On 12 January I announced the Government's decision to close the standard capital grants scheme in respect of capital expenditure incurred after 31 March, subject to parliamentary approval of the draft order currently before the House.
  Northern Ireland, like its competitor regions, will concentrate increasingly on assisting strategic business developments that help companies to perform more successfully in national and international markets. The assistance will go beyond aid for capital investment and will develop the human capital of business through, for example, marketing, management and product quality development.
  Together with existing selective assistance from the Industrial Development Board and the Local Enterprise Development Unit, the new forms of assistance will ensure that business in Northern Ireland continues to have the most comprehensive system of support to industry and enterprise in the United Kingdom. Public funds will be used more effectively on strategic business developments and on those firms which can compete with producers outside Northern Ireland.
  Many companies which would otherwise have claimed standard capital grant will now turn to the Industrial Development Board or the Local Enterprise Development Unit for assistance, and those good projects which would not go ahead without assistance from Government will be eligible for consideration. I am satisfied that the revised framework for assistance will strengthen industry and enterprise in Northern Ireland.
  I confirm that there is no wavering in the Government's determination to have the strengthening of the economy of Northern Ireland as one of their highest priorities. Subject only to the overriding requirement to work for an improvement in law and order, the improvement of the Northern Ireland economy remains our highest priority.
  10.7 pm
  Mr. Jim Marshall: We welcome the Minister's statement on the need to continue to encourage and promote economic development in Northern Ireland. The whole House shares the concern about the high levels of unemployment and poverty in the Province. The only way to overcome that is by containing, and eventually defeating, terrorism and unrest, and by the promotion of a healthy authority in the Province.
  I should like to take up a couple of issues which the Minister mentioned. He referred to the terms deadweight and displacement. I was certainly pleased to hear his definition of those terms. I found it difficult to find definitions in the summary that the Department of Economic Development gave me on the report by Coopers and Lybrand to which the Minister referred.
  In regard to deadweight, the Minister said that 70 per cent. of the investment which benefited under the standard

  283
  capital grant scheme would have taken place anyway. Even with my lack of knowledge of arithmetic, that leaves a substantial percentage—30 per cent.—on which no comment was made. Are we to believe that the 30 per cent. would not have gone ahead without the standard capital grant? If it had not proceeded, what further disadvantageous effects would that have had on the Northern Ireland economy?
  I want to press the Minister further on his remarks about strategic business developments. I accept the need for greater targeting and selectivity in grants, but will he develop further his ideas and concepts about strategic business developments?
  The Minister and the House will be pleased to know that we do not intend to divide the House. We are saddened by the demise of the standard capital grant system. My view and that of the Labour party can best be summed up by the announcement of the Confederation of British Industry in Northern Ireland on 12 January 1988:
  "We are saddened to note that an old friend which has served the Northern Ireland economy well for many years is to he wiped out … The impact of the standard capital grant scheme has been very significant. Standard capital grant has supported development of many new manufacturers, helped existing companies expand and has been supportive of re-equipping much of Ulster's industry."
  Mr. Roy Beggs: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that the removal of standard capital grants will convey to the few people who would consider investing in Northern Ireland the idea that Northern Ireland is less attractive now than it once was? Is it not imperative that the Minister and the IDB ensure that the message goes abroad loud and clear that selective financial assistance will more than compensate?
  Mr. Marshall: I am grateful to give my assurance to the hon. Gentleman on that point. I intend to press the Minister further on that later. There is a need to assure prospective investors in the Province and prospective investors throughout the world that the Government mean to assist investment within the Province.
  I hope to receive an assurance from the Minister when he replies that the abolition of standard capital grant in no way undermines the Government's desire to continue to invest in the Province. I want an assurance that the Government will ensure that the level of financial investment available is not reduced as a consequence of the abolition of SCG. I share the hon. Gentleman's belief in the need to convey that opinion throughout the world so that we can provide encouragement and so further bolster the Province's economy.
  We share the sadness felt by the CBI in Northern Ireland. However, we are prepared to reconsider the evidence which shows that the SCG system has obvious limitations and that refinements are needed in the grant system in the North of Ireland.
  The order is the analogous legislation for the Province to the Regional Development Grants (Termination) Bill to which the Minister referred earlier, which applies to Great Britain. While we will permit the order to pass without a Division, we strenuously oppose the Regional Development Grants (Termination) Bill. We are convinced that the existing level of industrial assistance in the Province and the reasonably high levels of public financial support for industry there mean that there is a clear difference between the Government's commitment to economic development in the North of Ireland and their
  284
  view of the need to encourage further industrial development in the less well-off regions of Great Britain. That is why we shall not oppose the order.
  Before we permit the demise of the standard capital grant system the House should again be made aware of the contribution that that system has made to the economy of the North of Ireland. Since 1982, about £250 million has been injected into the economy in support of fixed capital investment. That is a large sum of tremendous significance, in view of the fragility of the economy The Minister should also bear in mind that figures show that the return on invested capital in the North of Ireland is substantially lower than that in the rest of the United Kingdom. The existence of standard capital grant, and, I hope, its successor, will overcome the reluctance of entrepreneurs, because of the return on capital, to invest in the Province. We must ensure that there is enough return on capital to encourage inward investment.
  We accept some of the criticisms of standard capital grant, of which I shall mention three. The first relates to Government decisions over the past two or three years. The decision to cut the rate and scope of grant in 1985, and again in 1987, greatly reduced its potential impact on encouraging investment. Secondly, we understand and accept the reservations expressed on all sides of industry, and particularly by the trade unions in Northern Ireland, to the effect that the standard capital grant system is not the most efficient use of public resources for industrial development. In particular, we accept the criticisms of the system that relate to its limited value as a stimulus for the creation of net additional jobs, because of its nondiscriminatory nature.
  Thirdly, the shortcomings of the scheme are confirmed in the report by Coopers and Lybrand, to which the Minister referred. Apparently, the report finds that the standard capital grant system has done little to encourage import substitution or stimulate exports, and that much of the investment would have been undertaken in any case. I think that that is the displacement that the Minister mentioned. We accept that these criticisms highlight the disadvantage of non-targeted, non-specific financial assistance.
  I was grateful, as I have said, to receive a summary of the report, but I wish the Minister would relent on his insistence not to publish a full report. If we are all to he convinced of the need for change and of the statistical value of the report, it is essential that it be published in full and that hon. Members be aware of its findings, the methodology on which it is based and the assumptions and statistics on which it arrives at its conclusions. I press the Minister again to place a copy of the report in the Library so that all hon. Members can read it in full.
  Turning to the future, we realise that there are advantages in having an industrial strategy that gives greater emphasis to development effort. We also recognise that the potential stimulus to the economy can be much greater with selective financial assistance and the setting and achieving of agreed expansion plans and employment levels. In that regard and in common with the Government, we recognise the achievement of the industrial development board and NEDO.
  Given the need for further capial investment and in the light of the relatively low return on capital in the Province, will the Minister consider retaining the standard capital grant in certain industrial sectors where firms have proven their export capabilities and potential? The Minister may

  285
  recall that I put that question to him in our written submission on the draft order. The Minister kindly replied to it as well as to other questions, but I believe that he was rather negative. Perhaps with a little further prodding and encouragement he may yet see the need and desire to continue some form of standard capital grant for those areas of the economy that have shown that deadweight and displacement are not the main reasons for the distribution of that grant. I hope that I can elicit an answer from the Minister about that.
  We believe that if we are to get the best out of the economy of the North of Ireland, it is essential that the work force of the Province, through their trade unions, should be involved in the decisions and discussions that are allied to the dispersal of the new selective financial assistance. I asked the Minister about that in our written submission and I have already received a reply from him, but, needless to say, I am not satisfied.
  The Minister said that the trade unions are involved through the Industrial Development Board, but we believe that that involvement should be extended so that trade unions are able to make representations on behalf of their members in small firms. We believe that it is in the interests of the work force and the trade unions for the selective assistance to succeed. We believe that there is a greater likelihood of success if the work forces are directly involved in the negotiations.
  Even if the Minister is not prepared to accept my argument, and even if he gives a negative answer to my question, he must accept that the work force of the Province have most to lose from the failure of the Government's economic strategy there. Therefore, as they have most to lose or most to gain, I believe that it is only fair and proper that their voices should be heard at all levels of negotiations.
  In common with the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) I must press the Minister further regarding the level of financial assistance that will be given on investment. I have pressed the Minister on this matter before and he has been somewhat equivocal. It would be dreadful for the North of Ireland if, as a result of the passage of the order, the level of capital investment in the Province was diminished.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the House and Northern Ireland that the order and the abolition of the standard capital grant system will not result in a reduction in the global sum of money available for industrial development in Northern Ireland. Such development is of paramount importance if we are to encourage further investment in Northern Ireland.
  We believe that the Minister should use the opportunity to provide the House with an unequivocal statement on this matter. The people of Northern Ireland and the elected Members from Northern Ireland deserve nothing less.
  10.24 pm
  Mr. William Ross: It appears that an order a night is becoming the standard for Northern Ireland, as we debated another Northern Ireland order last night. In that debate, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), whom I am glad to see has joined us, said that, because Labour Members had
  286
  opposed the parallel legislation for Great Britain, they had to stay and oppose the corresponding order for Northern Ireland.
  The House will appreciate that I listened with some surprise to the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) when he said that the Labour party would not oppose this order. As I understand it, from a perusal of the debate and of the voting list on 25 January, when the almost parallel legislation for Great Britain was discussed, 212 Labour Members voted in force against it. Although we were grateful for Labour Members' support last night, we should be even more grateful if they would support us on every occasion by opposing legislation for the United Kingdom as a whole, as is their duty as a national party.
  As the House will appreciate, we are here purely and simply because of the misrule, or direct rule, under which Northern Ireland suffers. When I compare the situation of Northern Ireland today, in every aspect, with that which prevailed 16 years ago, I confess that I do not see much improvement. Indeed, I see a great deal of movement in the other direction. That is the clearest proof possible of how sadly the present system of government has failed.
  The order is important. It should be a Bill. I would have preferred a United Kingdom Bill, so that we could probe the matter, in conjunction with other hon. Members who represent the rest of the kingdom, but if the legislation for Northern Ireland is so different that it cannot be encompassed in a United Kingdom Bill, there is no good reason why there should not be a Northern Ireland Bill for it. We would have an opportunity to contribute to that debate, just as I am at present participating in the debate in Committee—on a Bill that affects Britain but not Northern Ireland.
  The Minister knows perfectly well that he cannot change a jot or tittle of the order. If he managed to persuade the House that the final date should have been 31 December 1987, or that it should be 31 December 1988, the Minister simply could not do anything about it. He would be completely stuck. If we had a Bill which dealt with all the nuances and problems, such an exploration in depth might have been sufficient to change his mind. However, that would be difficult, as the Government are not normally ruled by reason and logic. Despite the failures of the direct rule system, they continue to pursue the wrong policy.
  I recently had an interesting conversation on a plane journey between Washington and Minneapolis-St. Paul with an American business man, who said that it did not matter two balls of blue what monetary inducements were offered. He said that the only thing that mattered was whether there was terrorism. He could not see many people shoving a great deal of money into Northern Ireland until that problem was resolved.
  That is a matter with which the Government have steadfastedly refused to deal in the manner in which they dealt with it the other day, when another part of the British Crown colonies and dominions was affected. The Government must forsake the mistaken policies that they have pursued hitherto and get on with governing Northern Ireland properly.
  After all, Mr. Haughey has recently made it perfectly plain that the Irish Republic has given the thumbs down to a devolved Government, so what is the point of trying to flog a dead horse to life? After all, the Government have now put themselves in the hands of that Government to a large extent in matters relating to the constitutional

  287
  position of Northern Ireland. Therefore, there is no point in trying to pursue these matters in direct opposition to Mr. Haughey's view that they should not come into operation at all.
  I think that I have spoken for long enough on this matter, for I see no reason to help the Government in their efforts to put across the appearance of democracy, fair play and discussion by the procedure that we have followed so consistently for 16 years. This whole thing is a farce. It mocks and diminishes democracy, and the sooner that it is done away with the better. I see no point in, and have no intention of, trying to put clothes on this naked Government when it comes to legislation for the reduction of grants for Northern Ireland.
  10.30 pm
  Mr. Eddie McGrady: Once again, as the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) said, it is now the hour for Northern Ireland debates. I am getting used to speaking and thinking on my feet at this hour of the night. However, at least tonight we are spared the 39 pages of detailed legislation, the five schedules and the rest, because all that we are dealing with is paragraph 3, which is two lines. That is a simple thing to deal with when compared with the tremendous difficulty that we had with last night's legislation.
  I intend to devote my remarks entirely to the subject at hand rather than to the constitutional and political issues of Northern Ireland. I suppose that the order is not unexpected in the wake of the changes in legislation that occurred in Great Britain earlier in the year. However, it is significant that the thought processes that have produced the Minister's introductory proposals seem to be those that have been fostered in many agencies in Northern Ireland over the past 12 to 18 months.
  It is significant, for instance, that the Department of Economic Development produced a document entitled "Pathfinder" which has been adopted as a child by LEDU—the Local Enterprise Development Unit—and peddled with great courage and enthusiasm. It contains the ethos and the thinking behind the abolition of the standard capital grant for Northern Ireland. Indeed, it removes what is probably the only major remaining differential in grant aid between Northern Ireland and the rest of Great Britain. That means that an area that, because of its endemic and gross unemployment, was previously treated with some favour or encouragement in the way of extra grant is now having another prop removed from it.
  The Minister's argument and presentation seem to be that the effectiveness of the standard capital grant is nonexistent. I suggest that he considers the consensus of industry and manufacturers in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) quoted the Confederation of British Industry. I am not used to quoting the CBI but I go back earlier than did my hon. Friend.
  When the Government were changing the rate from 20 per cent. to 12·5 per cent., the consensus in the CBI was that that was
  "nothing short of crazy and destructive".
  It also stated:
  "Over the years, the SCG scheme has been used to install the most modern machinery available. This has enabled Northern Ireland to turn in excellent productivity figures. This process must not be halted. This decision"—
  that decision was to reduce the grant to 12·5 per cent., not tonight's decision to reduce it to zero—
  288
  "now reduces the capital grant rate below that available elsewhere. From today"—
  certainly from tonight—today, then, was 13 October 1987—
  "Northern Ireland is less attractive to investors in comparison with other development regions".
  That is the consensus of manufacturing and engineering industries in Northern Ireland. We should take seriously the fact that that reduction was described as "nothing short of crazy".
  I have a copy here of a letter dated, 26 November 1987 sent by the chairman of the CBI, Harold A. Ennis, to the Minister commenting on the proposed changes. Some comments made tonight have been relatively selective and I shall select the counter-arguments in the same paper.
  The CBI did a survey of its membership and it was placed against a survey done by the Department of Economic Development. It reached, strangely enough, exactly opposite results and it makes a number of comments by way of example. It says:
  "Four companies reported that investments totalling £1·8m were under serious threat due to reduction in Standard Capital Grant and another has cancelled a planned investment of £533,000."
  Again, comparing the Department's figures with its own survey, it says:
  "Whichever of our figures presents a truer picture, the fact remains that the companies having to find the extra 7½ per cent."—
  now 25 per cent.—
  "will be in weaker financial position to respond to other demands."
  It goes on to point out that the main thrust of the Minister's and the Department's argument was that SCG was not job-targeted, but SFA — selective financial assistance—was no more targeted to job creation than SCG was.
  That is the CBI's considered opinion, and the Department should be looking at not the creation of jobs coming out of the particular one-off grant-aid investment, but the totality of jobs coming out of the general basis of grant that is being applied.
  The Minister referred to the fact that selective financial assistance would be managed through the Industrial Development Board and the Local Enterprise Development Unit. What has been said now is that, instead of being entitled to grant to assist production costs, employment ratios, and so on, schemes will have to be prepared and submitted to the IDB. But that can take up to two years. The norm is about 12 months, but it can take up to two years. Even small industries cannot work in that way. And even then the applicant is subject to vetting and interpretation. The CBI perceives that there would be a considerable amount of what it calls "non-qualification" of applicants.
  If we examine the type of industry in Northern Ireland generally, forgetting for a moment the major industries—the shipbuilding and the engineering in Belfast and Derry—we are talking mainly of a work ethos which is small industry, with four or five to 10 employees, perhaps 20 at the outside, scattered in the rural countryside which comprises most of Northern Ireland. These are the people who the Government say are going to produce jobs; this is the area in which we are to get a decrease in unemployment. But it is precisely the small industry that is under attack through the withdrawal of SCG. The small

  289
  man will have little time and little ability to do cash flows and balance sheet forecasts into the next millennium, as is sometimes required.
  For the Minister to say that industry in Northern Ireland will be assisted by the redirection of the funds released from SCG into research and development and marketing is all very well, but it will be even less job-oriented than the present system.
  Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: If the hon. Gentleman came from an area such as mine in the west midlands, he would know that Northern Ireland gets five times the amount of help per person that we do, so why do the Northern Irish go on whining as they do?
  Mr. McGrady: I apologise if I was whining. I thought that I was just stating facts. I am not aware of the economic statistics relating to the hon. Gentleman's constituency; I can only talk about life as I know it in Northern Ireland. The figures are there to show, for Department after Department, social deprivation, unemployment and the consequences of terrorism. All are indicators. If the hon. Gentleman is interested, he should read the report of the Adjournment debate on 24 February, where he will see a significant number of factors that make Northern Ireland an area that requires particular assistance.
  I have mentioned in other debates the requirement of extra money for the IDB. In an area that is acknowledged to have the worst housing conditions in Europe, budgets are reduced to such an extent that the automatic cost will be 3,000 jobs in the next year. We can add to that the unknown number of jobs that will be lost through budget cuts to health and social services, with ward and hospital closures. The current 21 or 22 per cent. unemployment figure will no doubt shoot up dramatically.
  This seems a very regressive step towards helping industry in Northern Ireland to recover. I know that—as the hon. Member for Londonderry, East has said—my words will not change the Government's attitude, or the legislation, by one iota. However, I feel that the withdrawal of subsidies, coupled with other factors—such as the 9·2 per cent. increase in electricity prices about to be imposed in Northern Ireland, for no good reason—will impose a considerable burden on a struggling economy.
  Apparently, I have caused annoyance by my repeated references to the high unemployment rate, for which I make no apology. That high unemployment will be exacerbated by this problem.
  When the legislation goes through—as it obviously will—I ask the Minister to consider whether there is a better method of applying the funds available. Perhaps it would be possible to help the people I am talking about by providing an extra job or two—not 200 jobs—in a way that will cut out the massive bureaucracy involved in going through LEDU and the IDB. Perhaps a compromise scheme between SCG and the new financial assistance is possible. I ask the Minister to consider it as a matter of urgency.
  10.42 pm
  Mr. Viggers: I shall try to respond to the points that have been made during this short but significant debate.
  290
  The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) has studied the abolition of selective grant in some depth, and we have been in correspondence about it. The hon. Gentleman asked: if 70 per cent. of investments using standard capital grant would have been made anyway, what about the 30 per cent. that would not? The answer is that selective financial assistance will still be available in Northern Ireland, and can be given in all the cases to which SCG would be appropriate. Similarly, the Local Enterprise Development Unit has had a further 10 million allocated to it in the past 12 months, encouraging just the kind of smaller operation to which the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) referred. Those are two of the forms in which assistance will still be available.
  Mr. Jim Marshall: I am grateful for that information. I had half-expected the reply. Does the Minister not accept that the new system will be far more labour-intensive, in the sense outlined by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) the need to go into detail with individual firms far more than with the standard capital grant? Will that mean that the length of time before approval will be greatly extended, or will more people be employed to make more rapid decisions?
  Mr. Viggers: The hon. Gentleman is entirely correct to say that an automatic grant is the simplest form of grant which no doubt is why it is popular with business people, who want to be certain that their applications will be accepted. I have taken special steps to ensure that there is speed in response to the applications, and I shall deal with that matter later.
  I mentioned two ways in which grants will be available to those for whom standard capital grant will no longer be available. We have undertaken that no worthwhile project will fail for lack of support from the Industrial Development Board, which is an important commitment.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, South asked for some idea of the way in which we propose to spend the money that will not be spent by way of standard capital grant. Standard capital grant is being phased out, but a number of applications will perhaps be bunched around the period ending 31 March 1988. At present, standard capital grant is available to companies that can show that they have incurred the expenditure before that date.
  I am very proud of the schemes that have been introduced during the past 18 months, during which time I have been responsible for the Department of Economic Development for Northern Ireland. I have a list of 21 schemes that have been introduced over the past 18 months, and I shall deal with the larger of them in terms of financial commitment. There is a quality initiative scheme administered by the IDB and the LEDU—the research and development grant scheme—to which £5·6 is allocated. The local enterprise programme concentrates on smaller operations, in which the hon. Member for South Down showed special interest. It is intended to develop one, two or three-man businesses, and it will generate considerable business. About £1·6 million has been allocated to local enterprise programmes.
  The Technology Board for Northern Ireland has been allocated £500,000 and it is trying to promote further technological advance. About £1·6 million has been allocated to the IDB's marketing scheme, and £3·6 million has been allocated to the Antrim technology park, which

  291
  is proving to be a centre of excellence for high-technology firms. Some £500,000 has been given to the pilot manpower training scheme.
  We are allocating more funds to specialist schemes that promote management, marketing and awareness of exports. The phasing out of standard capital grant will not lead to a diminution in our commitment to the growth of industrial development in Northern Ireland.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, South asked why we could not make the Coopers and Lybrand report available. The survey was carried out on a confidential basis. The 300 companies questioned appreciated that they were being asked questions on a confidential basis. If we wanted to publish the whole of the report it would be necessary to seek the permission of those companies first, because they gave information which they expected to be used solely for the purposes of Government research.
  Further, it would be easy to identify a number of the companies from the results if they were published. It would not be right to publish without their authority or to seek their authority purely for the purpose of publishing the whole of the report. We have published a summary, which we hope will show the way in which the survey was considered by the Government, and it is intended to provide the basis on which our action was taken.
  Mr. McGrady: Is the Minister aware that the companies that were questioned—the CBI has confirmed this—had no idea that the research was in respect of capital grants?
  Mr. Viggers: I am not sure whether that shows that the survey was carried out well, or badly. If the people who were questioned were not aware of the purpose of the survey, it shows that it was done in a canny way, if I may import a word from another part of the United Kingdom. Quite often, the purpose of market research is not to allow the person being interviewed to know the purpose of the interview. If the person being interviewed knows the purpose of the interview, it sometimes influences his response. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to discuss that matter further, I shall be happy to do so outside the Chamber.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, South made the point in correspondence that we should retain the standard capital grant where companies have proved their export potential. As selective financial assistance is already available, and as his proposal would require the Government, or one of their agencies, to inquire whether a company had been diligent and successful in pursuing exports, that would import selective financial assistance similar to the existing scheme. The hon. Gentleman's proposal would not add anything, because we already have the opportunity, through selective financial assistance, to do more through the medium of standard capital grant. Therefore, I can assure him that nothing is lost and that his proposal would not add anything for companies in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Jim Marshall: I do not know whether to be grateful to the Minister for that reply: I am sure that I am not. The Minister will agree that we are talking, not about particular firms, but about sectors of the economy in Northern Ireland that have shown that they are able to use the standard capital grant system and be involved in
  292
  import substitution or in stimulating exports. If the old system were to apply to industrial sectors, the criticisms that the Minister makes of my suggestion would not apply.
  Mr. Viggers: I think that we are going wider than the hon. Gentleman wants. Standard capital grant is restricted to manufacturing, and the line between manufacturing and the service sector is increasingly blurred. Who is to say, for instance, that someone working on computer-aided design and manufacture is in manufacturing or in the service sector? There is much more freedom within the selective financial assistance system than within standard capital grant. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that his proposal would add nothing to what is already available under selective financial assistance.
  Mr. James Kilfedder: I am grateful to the Minister, who has shown great concern about unemployment and industry in Northern Ireland since he took over his job. As he knows, there is a need to attract more high-tech industry to the Province, and as he is also aware, the Irish Republic is doing its best worldwide to bring high-tech industries to the Republic. Can the Minister say whether this change will put Northern Ireland at a disadvantage in attracting foreign firms?
  Mr. Viggers: The purpose of the change is to promote further investment in Northern Ireland and to assist the efforts of companies within Northern Ireland. We hope that it will be possible for further assistance to be made available for companies such as those within the North Down development organisation in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, which I have visited twice in the past four months. It will be of benefit to us all if we can support enterprise in this way.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, South asked for trade union representation and contribution to discussions. There are two trade union members on the Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland and trade unions also have their members on the Northern Ireland Economic Council. There are trade unionists on the Local Enterprise Development Unit. They make a welcome and significant contribution to the work of those bodies, and they well reflect the views of trade union members.
  Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked whether there would be any diminution of our commitment to industrial development in Northern Ireland. I repeat that that is not our intention. We intend to strengthen the economy of Northern Ireland.
  The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross), who is not in the Chamber at present, raised again the manner of dealing with Northern Ireland business by way of orders that cannot be amended in any way and which tend to be discussed in debates the latter part of the evening. The Government recognise that the way in which Northern Ireland business is discussed is by no means satisfactory.
  We do not pretend that this method of legislation is perfect, and for that reason our existing procedures provide for extensive consultation in Northern Ireland, which took place in this case. We appreciate the difficulties posed by unamendable Orders in Council, but we believe that the problem is best addressed in the context of discussions about the future government of Northern Ireland, and we are always willing to talk about the issues to all interested parties and to consider constructive suggestions.

  293
  The hon. Member for South Down made the point that standard capital grant was the only distinctive advantage held in Northern Ireland and implied that phasing it out was a diminution in our commitment. I repeat that there is no question of our diminishing our commitment to economic development.
  The hon. Gentleman also quoted responses from the CBI. I quote back to him a report from the press in Northern Ireland, where the director of the CBI was reported as saying that changes in the national level of regional development grant, which are similar to our abolition of standard capital grant, represented a bold shift in the way that the Department of Trade and Industry supports industry in Great Britain. In many ways the Industrial Development Board, the Local Enterprise Development Unit and the Department of Economic Development are ahead of the game in the DTI. We certainly have a more generous support system.
  I was asked by several hon. Gentlemen whether it would be possible to assure them that future applications for support would not be held up by red tape or bogged down in delay. The hon. Member for South Down mentioned periods of delay which he alleged were experienced by applicants to the IDB and the LEDU. I was concerned that that should not be the case, and I have personally reviewed with the IDB and the LEDU their procedures to ensure that they are as fast and as flexible as possible.
  I am told, and we have checked, that the average time taken by the IDB to process an application from the time of first full application through to the time that the grant is awarded is an average of 16 to 17 weeks. It has a special, so-called green channel appraisal system which enables it to deal with matters much more rapidly. We are dealing with public money, and it is appropriate that there should be proper checks and balances in the application system.
  The LEDU, with its business start-up scheme in enterprise grant cases, has an average application to completion time of three to four weeks. The possible delay in servicing the applications concerns the IDB and the LEDU, as well as the Government generally. I can assure the hon. Gentleman, who perhaps has been told by the occasional disgruntled applicant of an exceptional delay, that I have personally investigated every case that has been put to me and I have not found any cases of unjustifiable delay.
  Mr. McGrady: The figures that I quoted were not my own, but those published by the CBI.
  Mr. Viggers: I should like to see those figures. The figures were put to me by the CBI in Northern Ireland in the presence of the IDB, and we discussed them. We have been through the figures in question and I was satisfied that the IDB was performing differently from the manner suggested by the CBI. If there were undue delay, I would be concerned. As I said, I have personally investigated every case that has been put to me and I have not found an example of unjustifiable delay.
  294
  The Industrial Development Board and the LEDU have recognised the need to focus management attention on total quality, and both bodies have introduced programmes in the past year directed towards that end. I have already referred to the IDB's marketing support assistance. The LEDU is in the process of simplifying and streamlining its grant for research and development, marketing, management development and quality development, and will shortly launch these in a revised form, better shaped to stimulate firms to undertake projects with real potential for future increased employment.
  Similarly, in industrial development, the Department of Economic Development has successfully tested a unique and effective aid to business development in the form of its pilot manpower training scheme. I am currently examining whether this scheme should be operated on a permanent basis. I am particularly anxious that small companies should not be disadvantaged by the change from standard capital grant to selective assistance.
  Following consultation with business interests, the LEDU has devised straightforward arrangements for the smallest firms to apply for assistance on small projects that will create employment or have significant wider economic benefits, and these arrangements will be in place early next month. I have also asked both the IDB and the LEDU, as I have mentioned, to ensure that their procedures and resources will enable them to respond speedily and effectively to any increased work load.
  Several hon. Members have mentioned the commitment that Government have to industry, energy, trade and employment in Northern Ireland. I can give the figures to reveal the extent of the Government's commitment. Northern Ireland has 268 per cent. of the average United Kingdom identifiable expenditure per head, and it is entirely right that Northern Ireland should receive that benefit during these times. I am satisfied with the quality of the investment that is being made at the moment, and I am satisfied that unemployment is falling. I believe that the proposals will assist in improving the economy of Northern Ireland, and I commend the order to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft General Assistance Grants (Abolition) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 1st March, be approved.

  General Assistance Grants (Northern Ireland)

    EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND THE ARTS
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Jack Thompson be discharged from the Education, Science and Arts Committee and Hilary Armstrong be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Ray Powell, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at to-morrow's sitting, the Motion in the name of Mr. Neil Kinnock relating to Tribunals and Inquiries may be proceeded with, though opposed, for one and a half hours after it has been entered upon, and if proceedings thereon have not been disposed of at the end of that period, Mr. Speaker shall then put the Question.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

PETITION

  Rating Reform
  11 pm
  Mr. John Home Robertson: I come to the House to present a petition signed by 879 people in the burgh of Musselburgh, the "honest toun", calling for the repeal of the poll tax legislation in Scotland. The House should be familiar with the case against this grossly unfair and inefficient tax, and I have no doubt that people in Scotland will treat the latest publicly funded propaganda exercise by Scotland's minority Tory Administration with the contempt that it deserves. I join more than 2,800 of my constituents who have so far signed petitions calling upon the House to repeal this dangerous legislation before any more harm is done.
  Before I lodge the petition, I should like to raise a point of order with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I said, the Scottish Office is in the process of spending about £250,000 on distributing propaganda material supporting the poll tax legislation in Scotland, yet I have received a card from the Clerk of Public Petitions at the Journal Office saying that the Secretary of State for Scotland is refusing to respond to petitions lodged by my hon. Friends and myself against the poll tax legislation in Scotland. What can we do with a Department of State that refuses to respond to petitions lodged in the House? Is that not an abuse of the House and of the public petitions procedure?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The hon. Gentleman knows that the Chair has no responsibility for ministerial replies. However, I can call upon him to present his petition.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Derbyshire County Council
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]
  11.2 pm
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The debate is intended to draw attention to the extraordinary spending levels of Derbyshire county council. The county council has already responded in its usual hysterical way in a press release issued today, in which it accuses me of hiding behind parliamentary privilege. I wonder how I can be accused of hiding behind parliamentary privilege before anyone knows what I am going to say. The county council's response is strange but we in Derbyshire have become accustomed to strange responses. If the county council thinks that that is how it will gag us so that we do not expose what we regard as some of the most serious abuses of local government expenditure, it is mistaken It will have exactly the opposite effect.
  The last time that I was fortunate enough to secure an Adjournment debate, it was on the future of Ecclesbourne sixth form school. Again, the county council was trying to destroy an excellent school of proven worth for the sake of following Socialist dogma. I am very pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science refused the application and that the sixth form school has survived because of the efforts of a Conservative Government to ensure that good education is made available.
  I believe in the role of local government, which has an important part to play in British democracy. Local government is there to provide services. The problem with so many Left-wing county councils is that they try to become not a provider of services but an alternative to the Government. We are not a federal but a unitary Parliament and power is devolved from the Government to local authorities.
  The spending levels of Derbyshire county council have caused its ratepayers nothing but distress over a number of years. We are now left with the highest precept in England. It is a staggering 297·5p this year. That increase was announced last Friday.
  The county council is saying that that is not its fault, but the fault of the Government. The Government's proposals towards the end of 1987 implied that if Derbyshire holds its current expenditure broadly constant in real terms, its grant will increase by £17 million—over 13 per cent.—to £149 million, the third highest increase of any shire county. That would be consistent with a very low increase in its precept—less than half of 1 per cent. That is on the assumption that Derbyshire will increase its total expenditure by 3·9 per cent. to £435 million, which will be over 5 per cent. more than—
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why does not the hon. Gentleman give the House the facts? The Tory Government have robbed Derbyshire county council of £107 million in the last seven years and £20 million in this financial year. They have cut the rate support grant from 61 to 46 per cent. That is why the ratepayers in the hon. Gentleman's constituency have had to pay more money.
  Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I shall deal with his important point. However, let me continue.
  The total expenditure will have increased by 3·9 per cent. to £435 million, which will be over 5 per cent. more

  297
  than is needed to provide the standard level of local services—the grant-related expenditure assessment of £413 million. The GRE will increase by over 8 per cent. this year, reflecting the priority given by the Government to education and the police.
  If Derbyshire county council was being treated unfairly by the Government, one would expect other county authorities to suffer in the same way. Therefore, I want to take a few minutes to compare Derbyshire with Staffordshire county council.
  I had the privilege of serving on Staffordshire county council for some six years from 1981. The comparison between Staffordshire and Derbyshire is a good one. Staffordshire has a population of 1,021,000 and an area of 271,000 hectares. The population of Derbyshire is 916,000 and it has an area of 263,000 hectares. Both have a city within their county boundaries. Derbyshire has the city of Derby and Staffordshire has Stoke-on-Trent.
  If the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is so interested in the subject, perhaps he should listen. Derbyshire county council's rate in 1981–82 was 111p, Staffordshire county council's rate in that year was 112·5p. Derbyshire county council's rate for 1988–89 is 297·5p and Staffordshire county council's rate for 1988–89 is only 215p. Derbyshire county council's rate has increased over that period by 168 per cent. while Staffordshire county council's rate increase has been 91 per cent. Inflation over that period has been 52 per cent.
  If there is any logic in what the hon. Member for Bolsover said, one would think that those county authorities had been controlled by different parties, but both authorities are controlled and run by the Labour party. Is the hon. Member for Bolsover saying that somehow the Government have made specific legislation for Derbyshire county council? That is nonsense. The Government legislate for local government throughout the United Kingdom. They do not legislate only for Derbyshire county council. We need to get across to our constituents in Derbyshire the fact that the Government have treated county councils equally.
  Why is it that we in Derbyshire have such a high level of rates? As we all know, education takes up the biggest percentage of the rates. As Derbyshire has a higher level of rates than Staffordshire, one would think that Derbyshire would be spending more than Staffordshire on education, but what are the facts? The latest figures available, the cash figures for 1985–86 from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, show that spending on a pupil in a primary school in Staffordshire is £815, and for a pupil in a secondary school it is £1,125. In Derbyshire, where the county council should be spending more, it is spending less—£780 on primary education and the same as Staffordshire on secondary education. However, the rates in Derbyshire are far higher.
  Derbyshire county council, together with its usual propaganda, has tried to make the case that ratepayers in Derbyshire do not pay the highest rates. The latest leaflet it put out last week after the county rate meeting says that in Buckinghamshire people pay more. On properties with a rateable value of £150, with Buckinghamshire's county precept, a ratepayer would pay £341·55. In Derbyshire, on the rate precept for the coming year the cost would be £446·25. It is only Socialist logic that says people in Buckinghamshire are paying more rates than people in
  298
  Derbyshire. It is quite disgraceful that we have the highest shire precept county rate. There is no good reason for it. It is higher by a substantial margin.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McLoughlin: I have given way once already. This is only an Adjournment debate. If the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) wishes to apply for an Adjournment debate to put the case for Derbyshire county council, which I am sure his constituents would love him to do, he is entitled to do so.
  The sooner the present rating system is changed, the better. It cannot happen soon enough for me or for my constituents. The important factor in the new system is accountability. I believe that Derbyshire county council is the highest and the most reckless spending county council in England. It is falling in line with some of the loony London boroughs with which we have to put up.
  I want to draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to what I believe is a blatant abuse of ratepayers' money to further the political ends of an election candidate. I understand that it is possible, under the county council's rules, to hold surgeries and that they can be charged to the county council. The level of £250 a year is allowed for that. Mr. David Bookbinder seems to have held quite a few of those surgeries. I understand that he has held 12. It is disgraceful that only four of them were held in the county division that he represents. The others were held in the parliamentary constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) where Mr. Bookbinder happened to be the prospective Labour party parliamentary candidate. That is a blatant abuse of ratepayers' money to further the political ends of one man. That abuse should be investigated by the Audit Commission. That kind of abuse is absolutely disgraceful. Despite Mr. Bookbinder holding all those surgeries, my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley achieved a most incredible election result. He secured a 9,500 majority in a seat which the Labour party expected to win. The House is better off with my hon. Friend's presence than it would have been with the presence of Mr. Bookbinder.
  As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said last week, we could go on for ever and a day talking about some of the mad things being done by Derbyshire county council. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley wants to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I will be brief.
  I want to refer to a leaflet produced by the county council and given to schoolchildren to take home to their parents. I have received a number of letters about the leaflet. Far from the county council's propaganda reaching parents, it has had the opposite effect. To illustrate my point I will quote from some of the letters that I have received. For example:
  "I enclose a letter that my son aged 15 brought home from school yesterday. I am sure you will have read it like others and I would like to ask you the following questions: Are the county council within their rights to send political propaganda via pupil post in an unsealed manner?"
  Another letter that I have received states:
  "Frankly I was disgusted that my son aged 5 was used to further"—
  Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The subject of this Adjournment debate is the

  299
  Government's monitoring of Derbyshire county council's spending levels. We have heard nothing yet about the Government's monitoring of those levels.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I remind the House that the Adjournment debate is a very wide debate. I have heard nothing out of order so far.
  Mr. McLoughlin: I can well understand the embarrassment that Labour Members must feel as they try to defend the indefensible. The fact that Labour Members have tried to score cheap points instead of answering the points that I have put before my hon. Friend the Minister shows that they have no idea what to do about Derbyshire county council.
  I will continue to read from some of the letters that I have received from parents in response to the leaflet sent out by the county council:
  "Frankly I was disgusted that my son aged 5 was used to further the Socialist ends of the county council in bringing home this letter and leaflet both of which give a very biased view of the possible effects of the Government's proposed legislation."
  The sooner the legislation comes into force the sooner we shall be able to control Derbyshire county council.
  Another letter states:
  "Why was the letter delivered to me through my 7-year-old daughter bringing the letter and pamphlet home without the same even being put in an envelope? Was it intended that my daughter should read it? Was it intended as political indoctrination?"
  Yet another letter stated:
  "Our daughter returned from school today clutching among other circulars from her headmaster the enclosed piece of political propaganda. This method of delivery implies that the headmaster and school support this policy and it raises two important questions. Is it legal for the council to require a headmaster to distribute political propaganda to the school children in this way?"
  We find that unacceptable. Is ratepayers' money being spent on the printing and distribution of such propaganda when it should be spent on books providing educational facilities for students and pupils in Derbyshire, who have to go through the state school system and who are being failed by the county council, not by the Government? A number of councils with precepts far lower than that of Derbyshire have already been rate-capped. It is high time the Government stood by the people of Derbyshire and considered rate-capping the county council.
  Mr. Phillip Oppenheim rose—
  Mr. Skinner rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) or the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) have the agreement of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) and the Minister to intervene?
  Mr. McLoughlin: My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan)indicated assent.
  11.21 pm
  Mr. Oppenheim: I welcome the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to the Opposition Front Bench—a most unusual position for him. I suggest that he does not get too comfortable there because he is unlikely to stay there for long. While we have the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for sport, I want to
  300
  say that when I recently turned out on the right wing for Amber Valley rugby club's third XV to play Bolsover rugby club, I was surprised to find that Bolsover thought it wise to send its first XV to play our third team. Imagine my disappointment not to find the hon. Member for Bolsover playing on the left wing against me. I f he had played, the game would have been replete with possibilities and opportunities.
  I know that the leader and members of the Derbyshire county council feel that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) and I have some sort of vendetta against the council, but I assure them that we have not. We believe that it is our duty to represent our constituents. I hope that the council leader will listen to what we say tonight, will carefully consider our arguments and will agree that his council may be wanting in some areas.
  On many occasions, the leader of the county council has professed that he is a great friend of freedom of information. He spent a large sum of ratepayers' money fighting a case in the courts to establish whether the banned book "Spycatcher" could be stocked in county council libraries. So one would expect him to be more than ready to purvey information about his county council as freely as possible.
  Unfortunately, this is far from the truth. Last year, against the specific advice of investment experts, Derbyshire county council decided to invest £305,000 of county council pension fund money in a newspaper called News on Sunday, which was a cause célèebre among Left-wing councils and trade unions, which thought it would be a Left-Wing flagship newspaper.
  Needless to say, the newspaper quickly ran into difficulties and was the subject of a rescue bid by a northwestern estate agent by the name of Owen Oyston, who apparently bought a large share of the News on Sunday company, diluting the stake of the original investors, which were largely county council pension funds. I understand that in the process, Mr. Oyston, who is obviously a bright and assiduous business man, paid himself a consultancy fee of £4,000 a week for running the paper. So much for Socialist brotherhood.
  The injection of cash kept the News on Sunday going until shortly after the election, when it ran into more embarrassing trouble. It appeared that the company concerned would have to go into liquidation and that all the money that the various pension funds had invested would be lost. But—surprise, surprise—Derbyshire county council managed to sell its stake back to Mr. Oyston for £400,000. What it did not say was that it had agreed to invest a further £400,000 of pension fund money in another of Mr. Oyston's ventures, with the possibility of another £2 million of pension fund money being invested by the council in another of his ventures called "Telemags".
  I have written to the leader of the county council on several occasions to ask whether the repayment or £400,000 to the county council pension fund by Mr. Oyston was in any way linked with the council's commitment to invest another £400,000 of the pension' fund in another of Mr. Oyston's ventures plus a further £2 million that it has agreed to consider investing. Despite those letters and several reminders, the county council leader has steadfastly refused to give the information. So much for the great friend of freedom of speech.

  301
  In many other areas we have found that the wasteful council has been most unwilling to give information. In council-run libraries in my constituency the only national newspapers that are stocked are The Guardian and the Daily Mirror. I have written to the county councillor responsible, councillor Lennox, on no fewer than six occasions asking why a wider range of newspapers is not stocked. After the sixth letter the councillor wrote back and said that he did not seem to have received the previous five letters. I know how gullible the Opposition are and they can believe that excuse if they like, but my credulity was stretched by that reply.
  There are many examples of waste by the county council and all too often it falls back on the spurious claim that the Government have cut rate support grant. All the figures demonstrate that, since the Labour party came to power in Derbyshire in 1981, far from cutting that grant, the Government have increased it substantially in excess of the rate of inflation. Indeed, that county council has been treated far more generously than many southern Tory-controlled councils. The claim that the Government have cut the rate support grant is total nonsense.
  In common with most of my constituents, I believe that the improvement and proper management of our education system is essential to our recovery as an industrial nation. I wish to highlight one of many possible examples of what I consider to be political interference and mismanagement of state education by the county council. Recently it decided to close down a school in the neighbouring town of Ilkeston in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost). The council decided to use loopholes in the law to pack the shadow governing body of that school with as many of its supporters as possible. Four of the five parent governors from the previous board were appointed, but virtually all the remaining appointed governors were strong Labour party supporters. The county council was trying to pack that shadow governing body with as many of its political supporters as possible to ensure that its political will was imposed on that school against the obvious wishes of the parents and children concerned and against the best interests of the children and people of Derbyshire.
  I have no vendetta against the county council. However, some of my constituents—retired miners—who live in small, terraced houses, ex-coal board houses and bungalows in areas such as Somercotes and Alfreton are paying between £500 and £700 in rates whereas in the next-door county of Staffordshire they would be paying between £300 and £400 only.
  I appeal to the Derbyshire county councillors to be less profligate and less political in their spending and to consider, for once, the legitimate interests of the ratepayers and people whom they are meant to serve.
  11.28 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): Before replying to the many interesting and important points raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) and for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim), I should like to tender the apologies of my ministerial colleagues who normally deal with local government finance matters for not being here this evening. Hon. Members will be aware that they are unavoidably detained
  302
  elsewhere with the members of Standing Committee E in considering the provisions of the Local Government Finance Bill.
  As the Leader of the House said last week, we have, sadly, reached the stage at which nothing done by Derbyshire county council causes much surprise, but what continues to grow unabated is our disappointment. Derbyshire is the sort of authority that would seek praise from its ratepayers for increasing its precept by a similar percentage to other authorities, but omit to point out—although its ratepayers probably need no reminding—that this was only because the county's precept was already the highest in the country.
  Last week, and again this evening, attention has been drawn to what may be yet another example of this council abusing its publicity powers to peddle Socialist propaganda. It is wholly inappropriate to use public funds for such a purpose. It is even more disgraceful if the council has used schoolchildren to help distribute such material.
  I am pleased to say that both Houses of Parliament have now approved measures in the Local Government Bill which, when enacted, will reinforce the statutory ban on party political propaganda at public expense. These measures will also ensure that local authorities must have regard to the practice which Parliament recommends in the field of publicity.
  Returning to the main issue under consideration, under the rate support grant settlement for the coming year, which was debated and approved by the House before Christmas, the county council stood to receive about £17·5 million more grant than it does this year if it fixed its budget in line with our spending assumption. That spending assumption would have allowed the authority to keep its current expenditure roughly steady in real terms, and it made special allowance for the extra cost of teachers' pay arising from the pay agreement made last year.
  The county was also fortunate in having an 8 per cent. increase in its spending needs assessment, arising largely from the priority that we gave through the settlement to extra spending on county level services such as the police and education. Hon. Members present who do not represent the Derbyshire area may be surprised at, and perhaps envious of, the fact that we calculated that the extra grant would have enabled the county to increase its precept by less than a penny.
  However, my Department has just learnt that Derbyshire decided on Friday to increase its precept by 35·5p—or, as it might say, "only 13½ per cent."—and thereby retained the doubtful honour of having the highest county precept. In so doing, it has fixed a budget nearly £18 million above our spending assumption and thereby chosen to forgo nearly £7 million in block grant, adding £25 million in all to the amount financed from the rates.
  I wonder how the county's publicity machine will decide to present such uncomfortable facts to local people this year. Even as the Minister with responsibility for sport, I should perhaps not risk the controversy that offering dietary advice can sometimes arouse, but I feel bound to say that a change to a hard fact diet in Derbyshire would do a lot to improve the health of local democracy.
  There must be many people in Derbyshire who believe that the county has already gone too far and would like to see some direct action by the Government to redress the

  303
  balance. Many may think, as my hon. Friend suggested, that rate-capping would be the most obvious course. Although the county has the highest precept in the country—and certainly very much higher than Camden's—that on its own is not enough to allow such exceptional action.
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes to Twelve o'clock.

WALES

  Bistre Nursery School
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will pay an official visit to the Bistre (Buckley) nursery school to meet members of staff, members of the parent-teachers' association, members of the governing body and committee members of the voluntary bodies that use the school out of hours; if he will take steps to ensure that Bistre nursery school will remain open for the school years 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answers I gave him on 12 January.

  Rate Support Grant (Fire Stations)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to increase the rate support grant for Clwyd to enable the county to avoid both the closure of fire stations and cutbacks in fire stations, with specific reference to the Buckley and Queensferry fire stations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  It is primarily for the local authority to determine its own spending priorities from within available resources. However, the Home Secretary's approval under section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947 (as amended by section 7 of the 1959 act) would be required before any reduction in fire cover in Clwyd could be implemented.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisons (Worship)
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what extra staffing will be required to make sure that at least two principal Sunday services are available to prisoners between the hours of 9 am and I am on Sunday mornings if proposals to close Roman Catholic chapels in prisons are implemented;

  (2) what consultation there has been with all denominations, both within the prison service chaplaincy and within the local hierarchies of the denominations concerned in areas where prison establishments are situated, on the proposals to close Roman Catholic chapels in prisons;

  (3) what proposals there are to close Roman Catholic chapels in prison establishments where there is more than one dedicated worship place.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Since the early 1970s, with the full agreement of the Prison Service Chaplaincy and the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches, a single shared chapel has been provided in all prison establishments except those very large prisons where two separate chapels 110
  are considered operationally necessary. There are no proposals for closing any of he existing Roman Catholic chapels and the question of extra staffing has not therefore arisen.

  Prisons (Development Value)
  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether any consideration has been given to the development value of the present sites of Her Majesty's prisons at Cardiff, Reading and Swansea in the context of the prison building programme;

  (2) what are the current site values as such and for development purposes of the present sites of Her Majesty's prisons at Cardiff, Reading and Swansea.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is recognised that sites such as those mentioned may have considerable redevelopment value. Under present rules the proceeds of any sale would not be available for prison building. Moreover, each establishment is well placed to perform its function as a local prison. The population pressures on the prison system are so great that there can be no question at present of selling any of them. Current site values have not therefore been assessed.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Cohen
  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 on whether the police force order relating to domestic violence has been fully implemented, and as to whether a local referral point and nearest refuge to each police station has been identified; if he will list the number of domestic violence incidents for each police division since the police force orders to the end of February; in how many such cases police transport was provided; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Implementation of force orders within the Metropolitan police district is the responsibility of the commissioner. I understand from the commissioner that the implementation of the force order relating to domestic violence is being evaluated.

  I also understand that local referral points for victims have been identified, together with a centralised emergency line to find the most appropriate refuge in each case; and that police transport is provided for victims wishing to go to a refuge. I regret that statistics in the form requested by the hon. Member are not available.

  Oxford Prison (Syringes)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the recent amnesty on syringes at Oxford prison; whether any of the syringes surrendered contained the AIDS virus; whether it is proposed to extent this amnesty to other prisons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There has been no such amnesty.

  Prisons (Conjugal Visits)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review current prison rules and regulations to allow conjugal visits; what information he has on the practice in this respect in prisons in other countries; and if he will make a statement.
  111
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. We do not have comprehensive information about the position abroad, but officials keep in touch with developments in other countries with respect to many aspects of prison administration, including visiting arrangements.

  Prisons (Toilets)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the provision of toilet facilities in Her Majesty's prisons.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  All accommodation at new prisons has access to night sanitation. At existing establishments there are some 22,000 places without access to night sanitation out of a total of about 42,000. The refurbishment programme is steadily reducing the number of places without access.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the provisions of toilet facilities in the remand wing of Her Majesty's prison, Lincoln.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Refurbishment of the toilet facilities in the remand wing of Her Majesty's prison, Lincoln is due for completion this summer and will increase their provision by 75 per cent.

  Applications resolved

  Awards made

  Staff

  Board Members

  1964–65 (8 months)

  130

  114

  11

  4

  1965–66

  1,375

  1,164

  30

  6

  1966–67

  2,717

  2,404

  40

  6

  1967–68

  3,869

  3,490

  58

  7

  1968–69

  5,985

  5,060

  58

  9

  1969–70

  6,817

  5,614

  65

  9

  1970–71

  5,893

  4,901

  65

  9

  1971–72

  9,449

  8,102

  79

  9

  1972–73

  9,837

  8,322

  99

  9

  1973–74

  10,564

  9,024

  99

  9

  1974–75

  12,506

  10,708

  106·5

  10

  1975–76

  13,599

  11,500

  119·5

  13

  1976–77

  16,393

  13,951

  116·5

  13

  1977–78

  16,432

  14,052

  126

  14

  1978–79

  19,607

  16,357

  132·5

  15

  1979–80

  21,113

  17,460

  156·5

  16

  1980–81

  26,277

  20,138

  155

  19

  1981–82

  22,557

  17,350

  163

  19

  1982–83

  26,098

  19,733

  163

  19

  1983–84

  29,705

  21,133

  182

  20

  1984–85

  27,450

  19,771

  189

  22

  1985–86

  29,965

  22,534

  203·5

  25

  1986–87

  29,605

  21,925

  214·5

  26

  Offenders (Electronic Tagging)
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on plans to evaluate electronic tagging as an alternative to custody.

  Mr. John Patten
  The next step is to make a technical assessment of the various systems in use in North America and those which could be produced by British firms. This is being set in hand.

  TV-am (Franchise)
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ensure that

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases are currently being considered by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

  Mr. John Patten
  The latest available figures from the board show that about 76,000 applications were awaiting resolution at the end of January 1988.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many cases have been(a) considered and (b) awarded payments by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in each year since it was established.

  (2) how many staff and assessors have been employed by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in each year since it was established.

  Mr. John Patten
  The following table lists the numbers of applications resolved and awards made by the board in each year since its inception in August 1964. Details of the numbers of staff in post at 1 April each year are available from 1977 only, and are set out in the table with details of staff complements from 1964 to 1976. The table also shows the number of board members at 1 April each year.

  the Independent Broadcasting Authority carries out the terms of the Broadcasting Act 1981 in relation to the TV-am franchise and Saudi Arabian investment in that company; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  It is for the Independent Broadcasting Authority to determine the way in which it discharges its responsibilities under the Broadcasting Act 1981.

  Television Franchises
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy not to reach any final decision on the method by which independent television company franchises are to be allocated in the
  113
  next round until (a) the Home Affairs Select Committee has reported on its present inquiry into broadcasting and (b) consultation has taken place on his proposals in the form of a White Paper.

  Mr. Renton
  The Government are considering a range of matters on the future of broadcasting, and we have in mind the possibility of a White Paper. We shall take careful account of the views of the Home Affairs Select Committee. Legislation will be required to give effect to any changes in the existing broadcasting structure, including any changes in the method for awarding ITV franchises.

  Custody
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to try and reduce the use of custodial remands in England and Wales.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 1 March 1988]: Work is being done by the probation service and the Vera Institute of Justice on providing better information on defendants to magistrates through bail information schemes; resources are being provided over the next three financial years for about nine new bail hostels; and my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is preparing improved training on bail decisions for magistrates. My right hon. Friend has made clear the Government's view that custody should be used only where it is necessary. The extension of custody time limits to all of Wales and a number of counties in England, with effect from 1 April, will provide a discipline against undue delay in bringing to trial those defendants who are remanded in custody.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Industrial and Provident Societies
  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he will take steps to require any industrial and provident society which competes commercially with bona fide customers which announces a scheme to secure a stock market flotation, to ensure that the promotion of such a scheme complies with the provisions of the Companies, Financial Services and Prevention of Fraud (Investment) Acts;

  (2) if he will take steps to prevent any industrial and provident society from issuing misleading advertisements relating to the stock market value of its shares when (a) its members have not been consulted on a change of status to enable a stock market flotation to proceed and (b) its campaign creates a major distortion of competition between it and other properly constituted commercial enterprises;

  (3) if he will refer to the Director General of the Office of Fair Trading the question whether the issue of discounted bonus shares over a three-year period linked to tied customer purchases distorts open market competition and therefore should be ruled an anti-competitive practice, with particular reference to the issue of such shares by an industrial and provident society;

  (4) if he will consider taking action under the Prevention of Fraud (Investment) Act 1988 against Unichem Ltd. in respect of its proposal to offer additional shares to members at £1 each which it states will be worth not less than £12 when Unichem is converted from an industrial and provident society to a plc.
  114
  Mr. Maude
  My Department has received and is considering allegations that the issue of certain advertisements by Unichem Ltd. may have infringed the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958. It is for the Director General of Fair Trading to consider whether the issue of bonus shares on the terms proposed would constitute an anti-competitive practice under the Competition Act 1980.

  David Abell of Suter
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on investigations undertaken by his Department into the affairs of David Abell of Suter.

  Mr. Maude
  It is not my practice to comment on the affairs of an individual.

  Restrictive Trade Practices
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the Green Paper on reform of the restrictive trade practices legislation will be published.

  Mr. Maude
  The Green Paper, "Review of Restrictive Trade Practices Policy" has been laid before the House today. It proposes fundamental reform of the current legislation in order to control seriously damaging cartels more effectively. Together with the conclusions announced in the departmental policy paper on mergers published on 3 March, this concludes the review of law and policy on mergers and restrictive trade practices announced in June 1986, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon).

  In particular, the Green Paper proposes a general prohibition of business agreements whose effect is to prevent, restrict or distort competiton. This concentration on anti-competitive agreements means that the scope of the law is at once consistent with its objective. By contrast, the present legislation covers agreements of a particular legal form; it is therefore possible for it to cover agreements which have little effect on competition. This disadvantage and the present statutory requirements to furnish details of agreements of a specified form to the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) makes the present law unduly burdensome on business. The new law proposed in today's Green Paper, which is aimed at the effects of agreements, will be more precisely targeted on those agreements which are genuinely anti-competitive, and will have the added advantage for firms of being closely aligned with European cartel law.

  There will be provision under the new system for the exemption of agreements which, though anti-competitive, are on balance beneficial. Applications for exemptions will be judged against a broad test, along the lines of article 85(3) of the treaty of Rome. Guidance notes will be published to help firms and their advisers.

  It may be appropriate to draw up "block" exemptions for some categories of agreement, such as franchising, whereby agreements which satisfied certain conditions would become automatically exempt. This would allow some element of self-policing by firms.

  As a general rule, it is our intention that exemptions will be granted sparingly; it is a central objective of the Government's economic philosophy to promote competition as far as possible — not to sanction anti-competitive behaviour. The same principle applies to

  115
  economic sectors and professional services which benefit from exemption from the present legislation. These exemptions will not be automatically carried across into new legislation without the merits of each case being thoroughly re-examined. The Government intend to end as many of the existing exemptions as possible.

  We propose that decisions whether agreements are anti-competitive and decisions on applications for exemption will be taken by an administrative competition authority. This will be based on the OFT although the new legislation would require changes to the OFT's organisation and procedures. For this reason, the Green Paper simply refers to an "authority" throughout.

  There will be rights of appeal from the authority to the Restrictive Practices Court, and provision for private actions.

  The Green Paper also proposes more effective powers of investigation and enforcement and potentially heavy fines—up to 10 per cent. of total turnover—for those who breach the law. This is a particularly important feature of our proposals and an approach strongly urged on us by many of those who submitted comments during the review. It is envisaged that the authority will impose the fines, although decisions on fines would also be subject to appeal.

  I hope that the business community will support these proposals; they reflect many of the comments made to us over the last year or so. This is a crucially important area for business and I believe that our proposals will benefit from thorough public debate. We are allowing a further period (up to 30 September) for comments on the basis of the Green Paper proposals, which I hope will be widely read.

  Automotive Industry (Research and Development)
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what incentives are being proposed to promote research and development in the United Kingdom auto industry.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 7 March 1988]: The automotive industry is eligible to receive assistance through all the Department of Trade and Industry initiatives for innovation which were announced in the White Paper "DTI — the department for Enterprise". This was placed before the House on 12 January 1988 by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  North-east (Investment)
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what measures and initiatives are being undertaken to attract investment capital and industry to the north-east: and if he will provide a table of capital investment in real terms, showing the percentage increase this sum represents from May 1979 to the latest available date.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 7 March 1988]: My Department offers a range of incentives under its recently launched enterprise initiative which are designed to encourage industrial and commercial development in the north-east and elsewhere. The information sought by the hon. Member about capital investment is as follows. For the standard economic planning region of the north (which includes Cumbria as well as Northumberland, Tyne and Wear, Durham and Cleveland), the figures in the table
  116
  imply the following percentage changes in manufacturing net capital expenditure from the 1979 base year figure of £613 million:

  Calendar year

  Expenditure £ million (1979 prices)

  Per cent. change since 1979

  1980

  428

  -30·2

  1981

  284

  -53·7

  1982

  256

  -58·2

  1983

  279

  -54·5

  1984

  356

  -41·9

  1985

  403

  -34·3

  STRIDE Programme
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement as to which regions of the United Kingdom are included within the European Commission's STRIDE programme.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 3 March 1988]: The European Commission has yet to make any proposals for this programme.

EMPLOYMENT

  EC (Internal Market)
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the extent and impact of the proposals contained in the European Commission's White Paper, "Europe without frontiers; Towards a Large Internal Market", in so far as his Department is concerned.

  Mr. Cope
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given him by my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade on Thursday 3 March 1988, at column 643. This Department has a particular interest in the employment effects arising from the removal of trade barriers, the effects on small firms, and proposals concerning the health and safety of workers.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many members of staff within his Department are located within each region outside London; what percentage this constitutes of staff within his Department; and what were the comparable figures, in absolute and percentage terms in 1979.

  Mr. Lee
  It is estimated that the following numbers and percentages of staff were employed within the regions of the Department of Employment group at 1 January 1988. Comparable data for 1979 and a disaggregation of central London staff from those in the south-east as a whole are not available without disproportionate cost.

  Department of Employment group staff in post at 1 January 1988

  Number

  Percentage of all staff

  Scotland

  6,120

  10·2

  North-West

  8,641

  14·4

  Northern

  4,080

  6·8

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  7,740

  12·9

  Wales

  3,420

  5·7

  Midlands

  8,641

  14·4

  117

  Number

  Percentage of all staff

  South-West

  4,020

  6·7

  London and South-East

  17,341

  28·9

  All

  60,003

  Note:

  The Department of Employment (DE) group comprises the Department itself (including the employment service), the Manpower Services Commission (MSC), the Health and Safety Executive and Commission (HSE and HSC) and the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS). There are some minor variations in regional boundaries between different parts of the group.

  Local Enterprise Agency Grant Scheme
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to change the local enterprise agency grant scheme.

  Mr. Cope
  The local enterprise agency grant scheme (LEAGS) was introduced as a five-year pump-priming scheme to develop a network of viable enterprise agencies (LEAs) led and supported by the private sector. There are no plans to extend the scheme or alter its basic structure. However, it remains our intention that a network of viable agencies should be created which will continue with private sector support.

  Following the announcement of Government plans in respect of the inner cities and representations from business in the community and several enterprise agencies, some modifications to the scheme will come into effect on 1 April 1988.

  The changes are:

  (i) The income ceiling up to which LEAs are eligible for LEAGS will be raised to £100,000 pa and will remain at this level for the remaining three years of the scheme:

  (ii) During the year of a merger, newly merged LEAs will be allowed an income ceiling of £150,000 and will be able to receive up to 50 per cent. additional grant—for that one year only.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Economic Development
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what studies his Department has sponsored on the role of private enterprise in fostering economic development.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  In recent years the Department has sponsored studies covering the role of multinational corporations in assisting small-scale enterprises, privatisation in developing countries, and the role of British commercial banks in Commonwealth development. Related studies include trade and industrial strategies of the newly industrialised countries, export diversification for the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, and the promotion of Indian handicrafts for export.

ENVIRONMENT

  Trafford Park Development Corporation
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has had from the Trafford Park urban development corporation for trade union representation on the board.
  118
  Mr. Trippier
  None. Urban development corporation board members are chosen for their ability to do the job, not as representatives of particular interests.

  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of the dwellings built or started in the area of the London Docklands development corporation is for rent.

  Mr. Trippier
  Of the 8,000 dwellings completed in the LDDC area by 30 September 1987, a total of 16 per cent. were built for renting.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the average worth of land per acre when vested in the London Docklands development corporation; and at what average price it is now being sold to developers.

  Mr. Trippier
  The average value of land when it was vested in the UDA, including water areas and reflecting liabilities transferred, was approximately £50,000 per acre. Land prices currently range from £250,000 per acre to £3 million per acre, depending on size, location, planning use and LDDC expenditure on site preparation arid infrastructure.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the remit of the London Docklands development corporation's social facilities programme unit.

  Mr. Trippier
  To carry forward the corporation's commitment to improvements in education, training, health, tourism, leisure, the arts and community development in docklands.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the enhancement of land values accruing to the London Docklands development corporation arising from the Beckton extension of the dockland's light railway and the approximate proportion of that increase which will need to be devoted to fund the construction of that extension.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 3 March 1988]: The Secretary of State and the LDDC are satisfied that the enhancement will be sufficient to meet the costs of the railway's construction. Precise forecasts of land receipts are not possible and the estimates used are confidential for commercial reasons.

  Isle of Dogs Enterprise Zone
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the effective tax subsidy for businesses locating at the enterprise zone of the Isle of Dogs, calculated as a percentage.

  Mr. Trippier
  Industrial and commercial property in enterprise zones is 100 per cent. exempt front local authority rates. The rate revenue thus forgone by the authorities is reimbursed by the Government: up to 31 March 1987 a total of £10·5 million had been paid to the local authorities in whose areas the Isle of Dogs enterprise zone lies.

  In addition, there is an allowance, for corporation and income tax purposes, of 100 per cent. of capital

  119
  expenditure on the construction, extension or improvement of industrial and commercial buildings in an enterprise zone. Not all businesses that locate in enterprise zones are in a position to avail themselves of this benefit. Information about tax revenue forgone as a consequence is not kept for individual zones.

  Neighbourhood Revitalisation
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what additional funding his Department has allocated for neighbourhood revitalisation schemes.

  Mrs. Roe
  The National Home Improvement Council has been allocated grant in aid of approximately £2 million towards the costs of setting up neighbourhood revitalisation services schemes throughout England.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those local authorities which have received allocations in their housing investment programme for neighbourhood revitalisation schemes.

  Mrs. Roe
  No specific capital allocations have been given to those local authorities co-operating with neighbourhood revitalisation services in setting up agency services schemes. The Department's regional controllers take the establishment of the NRS scheme into account in exercising their discretion over housing investment programme allocations.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department has assessed the effects of the use of chlorofluorocarbons, used as a blowing agent in the manufacture of food packaging.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Scientific assessment of the effects of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) undertaken by the Department's stratospheric ozone review group is concerned with total emissions not individual uses. Rigid polystyrene foam, which is widely used in the food packaging industry, uses approximately 5 per cent. of global production of CFCs.

  Ozone Layer
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he is having with the industries concerned in order to bring about an urgent voluntary agreement to ban substances and activities likely to damage the ozone layer.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Officials in the Departments of the Environment and of Trade and Industry hold regular meetings with representatives of British industry on implementing the Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer. These meetings enable producers and users of chlorofluorocarbons and halons to report their plans for reducing the emissions of these chemicals and for switching to environmentally safe substitutes.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any estimates of the effect of the alternative system of local government finance proposed recently by the Association of London Authorities on the level of local taxation outside London.
  120
  Mr. Howard
  The ALA document does not itself offer estimates of the effect of its proposals on particular local authority areas, and does not provide sufficient information to enable others to calculate them in detail. However, the document proposes a combination of local income tax and domestic rates, with the latter equalised to reflect only variations in incomes between areas. Such an arrangement would make it virtually certain that the level of local taxation would increase in those parts of the country — particularly the north — where domestic rateable values are very low at present.

  Gay and Lesbian Groups
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will discuss with the Association of London Authorities the level of expenditure by local authorities in London on support for gay and lesbian groups.

  Mr. Chope
  No. Clause 28 of the Local Government Bill will ensure that expenditure by local authorities for the purpose of promoting homosexuality will no longer be permitted.

  Enterprise Zones (Report)
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what future policy initiatives he is considering in the light of the publication of his Department's consultant's report on "An Evaluation of the Enterprise Zone Experiment."

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) on 17 December 1987 at column 618.

  Carpets (Houses of Parliament)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to replace the artificial fibre carpets in the House and its associated buildings; and what steps he is taking to reduce the degree of static electricity in the meantime.

  Mr. Chope
  Most carpeting in the Palace of Westminster is made of an 80 per cent. wool and 20 per cent. nylon mix. There is a limited amount of synthetic fibre carpet, most of which has been modified to prevent static build-up. There are no plans to replace it.

  Static electricity is exacerbated when there are low levels of humidity. The Crown Suppliers spray carpets with anti-static fluid when requested to do so.

  Derelict Land
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions, where, and on what dates, his Department has initiated, or been actively involved in, derelict land clearance operations outside England, since 1969.

  Mr. Ridley
  In the period in question, the statutory responsibilities of the Secretary of State for the Environment for derelict land reclamation have been confined to England, though on occasions initiatives launched in England have been of benefit to other parts
  121
  of Great Britain and collaboration has always taken place between those involved in derelict land clearance programmes throughout Great Britain.

  Ministerial Visits (Wales)
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report a list of all the official visits to Wales by a Secretary of State for the Environment, in each year since 1969.

  Mr. Ridley
  This information is not available.

  Rating Reform
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what plans he has to commission management consultants to investigate the costs of collecting the community charge; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how much he plans to spend on research into the administration and collection of the community charge in (a) 1987–88 and (b) 1988–89; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  Various estimates from different sources have emerged in recent months for the cost of preparing for and collecting the proposed community charge. My Department's forecasts have not changed. I am about to commission consultants to undertake a study of these costs, the reasons for the wide differences between authorities of similar size and factors which authorities should take into account in designing efficient new systems. The cost of this study, which will fall to be paid in 1988–89, will be up to £60,000.

  Water Industry
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how the water industry will be guided on the development of Government policy for the regulation of charges for water and sewerage services during preparations for its forthcoming reorganisation and privatisation.

  Mr. Ridley
  I am sending to the chairman of the Water Authorities Association and the president of the Water Companies' Association a series of letters setting out the details of various aspects of the policy settled in the light of the discussions and consultations that have taken place to date. I have placed a copy of the first of these letters, "Utility Company Charges Regulation for Core Services (WRP 1)," in the Libraries of both Houses. The main features of charges regulation will be as follows:—Customers should be protected against the ability of the water authorities, as monopolies, to charge high prices;
  —Existing statutory safeguards covering the structure of water charges will remain in force after privatisation. The utilities must avoid undue discrimination between classes of customers and charges must have regard to the utilities' costs of providing water and sewerage services;
  —Charges increases are to be related to movements in the RPI, adjusted to take account of factors affecting the efficiency and financial requirements of the privatised water utilities;
  —A new, independent Director General of Water Services will be appointed to oversee the "utilities charges and to protect customers' interests".

PRIME MINISTER

  Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she will make an official visit to Tees and Hartlepool port authority.

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

  Marton
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to make an official visit to Marton near Rugby.

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

  Interdepartmental Working Parties
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list the number of Government interdepartmental working parties not at work, with the exception of those concerned with national security; and what subjects they are considering.

  The Prime Minister
  Interdepartmental working parties are a normal feature of government. They are necessary to secure the requisite degree of co-ordination. Records are not held centrally. In many cases the detailed arrangements for such interdepartmental co-ordination and the matters discussed are classified and may form the basis of advice to Ministers.

  Engagements
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 March.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 March.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 March.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 March.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 March.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 March.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 March.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 March.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Inner Cities
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the achievements of his Department with respect to education in the inner cities.

  Mr. Dunn
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer which I gave him on 1 December at column 539. In addition, the city technology colleges programme

  123
  continues to expand, and the Department is to co-operate with the Department of Employment and the Manpower Services Commission as announced on 7 March 1988 in backing 12 new compacts between groups of employers and schools and colleges in inner cities.

  Polytechnics (Women Staff)
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportions of polytechnic teachers and heads of departments in polytechnics are women.

  Mr. Jackson
  At March 1986, the latest date for which information is available, 15·9 per cent. of full-time teachers, and 7·8 per cent. of full-time heads of departments in polytechnics in England and Wales were women.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on new developments in the establishment of the city technology colleges.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Sponsorship for five city technology colleges has now been announced. We are making good progress in discussions with a number of prospective sponsors.

  Education Reform Bill
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received about the likely effects of the Education Reform Bill on higher education: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  We have received many representations concerning the higher education provisions in the Education Reform Bill which, by clarifying responsibilities and accountability, pave the way for increased efficiency.

  Research Councils
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make provision for restructuring costs of the research councils an addition to the science budget, as recommended by the Advisory Board for the Research Councils in its discussion document "A Strategy for the Science Base."

  Mr. Jackson
  We shall be considering what additional resources might be required to implement such recommendations in the document as may be approved.

  Postgraduates
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how the number of postgraduates in science has changed since 1979, in absolute and percentage terms.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information is as follows:

  Full-time United Kingdom domiciled science postgraduates in Great Britain

  Thousands

  1979

  8·3

  1986

  1·11

  Change

  +2·8

  Percentage change

  +34

  124
  The subject classification for universities changed in 1985, so that the figures are compiled on slightly different bases.

  Pupil Costs
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) how much was spent per pupil in primary schools in(a) England and (b) Suffolk in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what were the comparable figures for 1978–79 at constant prices;

  (2) how much was spent per pupil in middle and high schools in (a) England and (b) Suffolk in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what were the comparable figures for 1978–79 at constant prices.

  Mr. Dunn
  The available information is as follows:

  Net institutional recurrent expenditure1 per pupil (£1985–86 prices)

  England

  Suffolk

  1978–792

  1985–86

  1978–792

  1985–86

  Primary schools3

  690

  815

  680

  770

  Secondary schools3

  1,000

  1,175

  890

  1,030

  Notes:

  1 Net institutional recurrent expenditure covers the cost of salaries and wages, premises and certain supplies and services. It does not include the cost of school meals, central administration and inspection, debt charges or revenue contributions to capital outlay.

  2 The cash prices for 1978–79 have been repriced to 1985–86 prices using the Gross Domestic Product (Market Prices) Deflator.

  3 Includes Middle Schools as deemed.

  Language Teachers
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action is being taken to ensure that there are adequate numbers of teachers trained for languages other than French.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Education support grants are being made available from 1988–89 to help local education authorities to plan and implement diversification of modern language provision. We are holding a secondary teacher staffing this month—a year early—to establish up-to-date information on existing stocks of teachers, including those qualified to teach languages other than French. We are in the process of estimating likely demand for teachers for the national curriculum including modern languages. We monitor applications for initial teacher training closely. We are already featuring the need for modern language teachers in our teacher recruitment publicity.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Property Compensation
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to change the policy of offering £50 as site value for a terraced house in an area scheduled for redevelopment in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  There is no "policy" of offering £50 site value for a terrace house in an area scheduled for redevelopment in Northern Ireland. In accordance with the legislative framework applying to compensation for compulsory acquisition, settlement levels are governed by property values in an open market and by the particular circumstances of each individual case.
  125
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many home owners denied grant because of redevelopment proposals prior to a vesting order, can obtain adequate compensation; and what estimate he has made of the average ratio between expenditure on private improvements and the subsequent level of compensation.

  Mr. Needham
  Compensation for houses compulsorily acquired by the Housing Executive is governed by property values in an open market under the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1981. Data on the average ratio between expenditure on private improvements and the subsequent level of compensation are not available.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the level of compensation payable to owners of property which is to be acquired compulsorily, by vesting order if necessary, for redevelopment, was last reviewed; and if he will take steps to increase the level of compensation payable at present.

  Mr. Needham
  The Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 consolidated the previous legislation on compensation for compulsory purchase for this purpose and maintained the existing practice of compensation being based on the market value of a particular property. The level of compensation follows the market and is therefore self-regulatory. I have no plan to change the current practice.

  Antrim Area Hospital
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will forecast the completion date of the Antrim area hospital; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  Contracts for the construction of the new Antrim hospital will be let at the end of this year and I expect building work to be complete by December 1992.

  The new hospital will provide urgently needed, modern facilities for acute services for the people of Antrim, Larne, Ballymena, Carrickfergus and Newtownabbey as well as providing some specialised services for the whole of the northern area.

  This is a vital development and I should like to take this opportunity to reaffirm my full commitment to the project.

  Housing Condition Surveys
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many housing condition surveys have been completed in Northern Ireland since 1970; what has been the cost of each at 1988 prices; and when he expects the next survey to be carried out.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 7 March 1988]: There have been three major surveys carried out since 1970, in 1974, 1979 and 1984. The Housing Executive is also working on a mini house condition survey for 1987, which is a mid-term analysis survey. The results are due in report form by the end of 1988. Details of the costs are as follows:
  126

  Year

  Actual cost

  Cost at January 1988 prices

  £

  £

  1974

  83,200

  339,000

  1979

  180,000

  328,000

  1984

  248,400

  284,700

  1987 Mini House Condition Survey—budget £59,000

  Kincora Boys' Home
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Brent, East of 25 February, he will call for a report from the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary as to the total number of Government employees interviewed in connection with investigations into the Kincora boys' home, and as to how many of these were officials of his Department at the time of the interview.

  Mr. Tom King
  [holding answer 2 March 1988]: No.

ENERGY

  Departmental Cash Limits
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has any changes to announce to his Department's cash limits for 1987–88.

  Mr. Parkinson
  In addition to the £1 million reduction announced on 2 February 1988, at column 533, the cash limit for class VI, vote 2 has been reduced by a further £10 million to £240·272 million. This reduction is to help offset the increase in provision in class VI sought in a Spring Supplementary Estimate (HC. 284) to the non-cash limited vote 1.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Arab-Israel Dispute
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the boundaries of Jerusalem which are currently recognised by Her Majesty's Government; and whether they include those previously unoccupied areas on which new housing estates have been built since 1967, and which have been incorporated under Israeli law within the Jerusalem municipality.

  Mr. Mellor
  The status of the whole Jerusalem area, as defined by United Nations General Assembly resolution 303 (IV) of 9 December 1949, remains to be determined. All Israeli settlements in the territories occupied since 1967 are illegal.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has sought from the consul-general in Jerusalem about the refusal of Palestinian representatives to meet the United States Secretary of State on his recent visit; and if he will instruct the consul-general to urge those Palestinian representatives to convey their views on the peace process to Her Majesty's Government, for onward transmission to the Government of the United States of America.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have received full reports from all the appropriate posts about Mr. Shultz's recent visit to the
  127
  middle east. We hope that a way can be found for the Palestinians to put their views direct to Mr. Shultz. Meanwhile, we will continue to do all we can to help the parties to the Arab/Israel dispute bridge the gap between their respective positions.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will list the specific claims to sovereignty over that area of the former British mandate in Palestine, now variously described as the West Bank or Judaea and Samaria, and currently under Israeli administration, which are(a) accepted and (b) noted by Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Mellor
  Since 27 April 1950 we have recognised Jordanian sovereignty over the West Bank. No other Government have formally claimed sovereignty to this area, except those parts which Israel purports to have incorporated within the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the international boundaries on the Golan Heights which are currently recognised by Her Majesty's Government; and how they relate to those areas currently supervised by the United Nations under the 1974 disengagement agreements.

  Mr. Mellor
  The international boundary between Israel and Syria remains to be negotiated, but the armistice line established by the 1949 Syria-Israel armistice agreement has generally been accepted as the de facto boundary. The demilitarised zone, in which the United Nations disengagement observer force operates, lies well to the east of this line.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will list the specific claims to sovereignty over the Gaza strip which are(a) accepted and (b) noted by Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Mellor
  No Government have made a specific, formal claim to sovereignty over the Gaza strip.

  Mr. Yasser Arafat (Speech)
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the action of the British delegation(a) before and (b) during the speech to the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva by Mr. Yasser Arafat; whether the action of the British delegation was co-ordinated in advance with that of the United States of America; and whether any protest has been made by the British delegation to the chairman of the Commission about (a) allowing Mr. Arafat to speak from the podium and (b) the violence of his language against another member state.

  Mr. Mellor
  We and other Western delegations expressed to the chairman of the Human Rights Commission our vigorous opposition to the proposal to extend exceptional privileges to Mr. Arafat, but the majority of members were in favour and the chairman ruled accordingly. A junior member of the United Kingdom delegation was present during Mr. Arafat's speech. The level of representation was discussed in advance with other Western delegations, but not 128
  specifically co-ordinated with that of the United States. We have made no protest about the content of Mr. Arafat's speech.

  Gazans (Travel to Egypt)
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what requests he has made, on humanitarian grounds, to the Egyptian Government to permit Gazans to travel to Egypt without a visa through the security fence, and to assist in the resettlement of overcrowded families within Egyptian territory in Sinai; and what response he has received.

  Mr. Mellor
  None.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  EC (Internal Market)
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the extent and impact of the proposals contained in the European Commission's White Paper, "Europe without frontiers; Towards a Large Internal Market", in so far as the Treasury is concerned.

  Mr. Brooke
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 3 March at column 643. The Treasury has a particular interest in proposals relating to public procurement procedures, capital movements, banking services and fiscal issues.

  Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise will be implementing the Keith committee's recommendation that they extend nationwide their 1977 Leeds experiment for exchange of information between local revenue and value added tax offices.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Both the Revenue and Customs, in their published responses to volumes 1 and 2 of the report of the Keith committee on the enforcement powers of the revenue departments, proposed that the matching recommendations on local exchange of information should be accepted. With my authority, exchanges, which were formerly restricted to head office level as a result of a 1972 ministerial undertaking, will, from 1 April 1988, take place at local level also. The exchanges will concentrate on larger cases of suspected tax evasion.

  Statutory authority for the exchange of information by Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise for the purpose of assisting them in the performance of their duties is already provided by section 127, Finance Act 1972. No new legislation is therefore required.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all those goods and services whose exemption from value added tax is currently under review by the European Court of Justice.

  Mr. Lilley
  There are no goods or services whose exemption from value added tax in the United Kingdom is currently under review by the European Court; we are not aware of any such cases currently involving other member states.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his future plans for privatisation.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The Government have already announced their intention to privatise British Steel, and the water and electricity industries. There may also be other sales. No decision has been taken on the timing of future privatisations.

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the bodies privatised since 1979 and the proceeds that Her Majesty's Government have accrued therefrom.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  A list of bodies privatised from 1979–80 to 1986–87 can be found in the Government's public expenditure White Papers published since 1984. In 1987–88 Rolls-Royce, BAA and Royal Ordnance plc were privatised and the Government also sold their 31 per cent. residual shareholding in BP. The latest estimate of proceeds for these and other asset sales in 1987–88 is £5 billion.

  International Debt
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table of the debts owed to Western banks by Third world countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  The data requested are to be found in table 4a of the quarterly report on international banking developments, published by the Bank for International Settlements.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has estimated the revenue effect of the proposed banning of oral tobacco products announced by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie),Official Report, 26 February, column 362.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 7 March 1988]: The oral tobacco products covered by the proposed ban are not subject to any excise duty.

THE ARTS

  Almeida Theatre
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on the implications for his arts funding policy of the Greater London Arts Association's refusal to continue funding the Almeida theatre, in the light of its record on ethnic minority employment.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 7 March 1988]: I understand that the Greater London Arts Association has not refused to fund the Almeida threatre, but that its performing arts committee has recommended a grant of £166,000 in 1988–89—12·3 per cent. less than the previous level. This has to be seen in the context of a 10 per cent. cut in the overall budget of the GLA. I note that a meeting has been proposed between the Arts Council and the GLA. I have asked to be informed of the outcome.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Research and Development
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the agricultural research and development bodies invited to give information and suggestions to the Barnes review; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  As explained in the reply given to the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) on 3 March at column 674 there have been no formal consultations outside Government, but the following bodies responsible for agricultural research and development are among those from whom we have received views and information:

  Agricultural and Food Research Council

  Apple and Pear Development Council

  British Flour Milling and Baking Research Association

  British Food Manufacturing Industry Research Association

  Campden Food Preservation Research Association

  Home Grown Cereals Authority

  Horticultural Development Council

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  Milk Marketing Board

  Potato Marketing Board

  Priorities Board for Research and Development in Agriculture and Food

  Processors and Growers Research Organisation

  Scottish Agricultural Colleges

  Scottish Agricultural Research Institutes

  Sea Fish Industry Authority

  Sugar Beet Research and Education Committee

  I would also refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) on 1 March at column 546.

  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the Barnes review into research and development activities within his Departmental responsibility.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) on 1 March at column 546.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what definition he has of the term near market, as applied to agricultural research and development.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) on 1 March at column 547.

  Arctic Foxes
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make it his policy to take steps to apply the provisions of the Arctic Foxes Order (Northern Ireland) 1988 to the United Kingdom, as a whole;

  (2) what information he has concerning the number of Arctic fox fur farms in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have information about premises farming Arctic fox for their fur from the licensing arrangements operated for mink farms and from the review of those arrangements in 1987. Arctic fox are farmed at three establishments of which two are in England and one in Scotland.
  131
  My Department is considering whether controls on the keeping of destructive non-indigenous animals should be extended to Arctic fox and other species. Organisations and the public have been invited to make representations by the end of the month.

  Total sheep and lambs

  1975

  1980

  1983

  1986

  Cleveland

  37,216

  39,793

  44,740

  51,779

  Cumbria

  1,539,982

  1,722,919

  1,890,202

  2,096,039

  Durham

  413,267

  480,235

  526,952

  582,258

  Northumberland

  1,110,454

  1,223,453

  1,350,584

  1,452,855

  Tyne and Wear

  6,722

  9,081

  9,210

  9,579

  Humberside

  286,039

  231,253

  190,455

  172,325

  North Yorkshire-North Allerton

  823,837

  919,525

  1,682,543

  1,793,499

  North Yorkshire-Beverley

  602,199

  674,762

  21,123

  20,641

  South Yorkshire

  35,494

  45,111

  54,501

  62,710

  West Yorkshire

  112,820

  142,516

  161,192

  194,778

  Derbyshire

  241,425

  290,575

  317,740

  358,347

  Leicestershire

  300,750

  319,547

  350,962

  374,562

  Lincolnshire

  312,741

  286,732

  255,949

  258,853

  Northamptonshire

  352,506

  363,497

  386,181

  411,283

  Nottinghamshire

  91,199

  74,155

  81,482

  83,268

  Cambridgeshire

  51,377

  47,937

  53,493

  62,492

  Norfolk

  88,100

  99,994

  107,460

  122,852

  Suffolk

  54,557

  46,655

  44,915

  51,092

  Bedfordshire

  32,970

  39,761

  44,397

  52,588

  Berkshire

  42,775

  51,780

  52,109

  60,822

  Buckinghamshire

  126,707

  155,628

  179,469

  203,733

  East Sussex

  197,986

  240,149

  284,256

  315,019

  Essex

  48,065

  52,918

  63,490

  77,286

  Greater London (East)

  2,398

  1,971

  2,013

  2,407

  Greater London (South East)

  2,782

  2,813

  2,975

  3,010

  Hampshire

  104,645

  131,154

  158,575

  204,063

  Hertfordshire

  26,489

  26,070

  31,056

  38,862

  Isle of Wight

  10,782

  18,521

  22,229

  27,234

  Kent

  591,789

  616,807

  633,075

  638,974

  Oxfordshire

  163,118

  175,359

  185,213

  211,797

  Surrey

  32,155

  41,346

  52,497

  67,334

  West Sussex

  58,949

  79,865

  104,011

  124,392

  Avon

  42,094

  55,365

  59,393

  79,276

  Cornwall

  413,458

  489,202

  539,634

  563,734

  Devon

  1,328,193

  1,480,138

  1,605,269

  1,687,038

  Dorset

  102,784

  141,452

  156,271

  188,848

  Gloucestershire

  279,837

  311,869

  357,831

  385,887

  Isles of Scilly

  11

  93

  118

  4

  Somerset

  385,025

  444,163

  497,340

  510,115

  Wiltshire

  141,043

  187,497

  220,613

  245,867

  Hereford and Worcester

  861,555

  931,724

  1,047,556

  1,109,455

  Shropshire

  629,484

  708,006

  780,300

  831,228

  Staffordshire

  149,366

  192,553

  221,093

  251,281

  Warwickshire

  233,822

  265,716

  302,711

  313,340

  West Midlands

  12,253

  15,547

  17,228

  17,882

  Cheshire

  80,761

  106,000

  129,819

  156,976

  Greater Manchester

  31,348

  35,155

  44,356

  56,233

  Lancashire

  469,443

  535,516

  572,330

  641,404

  Merseyside

  3,226

  2,573

  3,601

  4,812

  Source: June agricultural census

DEFENCE

  NATO Nuclear Planning Group
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide a full list of the projects within the decision of the NATO nuclear planning group meeting in October 1983 to modernise weapons.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  SACEUR's proposals for implementing the 1983 Montebello commitment were presented to

  Sheep
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the number of sheep farmed in each county of England in the following years, 1975, 1980, 1983, 1986 and 1987.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 7 March 1988]: The information is given in the table. 1987 figures are not yet available.

  NATO Defence Ministers in 1985. The modernisation measures called for by SACEUR comprise the development of a stand-off tactical air-to-surface missile (TASM), the deployment of a follow on to the Lance surface-to-surface missile system, the introduction of improved nuclear artillery shells and the continued modernisation of NATO's dual capable aircraft.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many subject access requests under the terms of the Data Protection Act his Department has received; what was his estimate of this number; whether he is reconsidering the subject access fee charged by his Department as a result; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  A total of 2,317 subject access requests have been received by the major pay and personnel database centres in the Ministry of Defence; all were from current, past or potential employees. The figures so far are considered to be roughly in line with the forecast of between 0·01 per cent. and 0·1 per cent. of the target population per annum. The subject access fee charged has not been reconsidered at this time.

  Women
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) generals, (b) colonels, (c) majors, (d) captains, (e) warrant officers, (f) lieutenants and (g) non-commissioned officers in the British Army are women; what is the total number of people in each rank; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is as follows:

  Total

  Female

  Officers

  General

  9

  0

  Lieutenant General

  12

  0

  Major General

  64

  0

  Brigadier

  243

  3

  Colonel

  632

  15

  Lieutenant Colonel

  1,833

  30

  Major

  5,175

  168

  Captain

  5,248

  529

  Lieutenant/2nd

  Lieutenant

  3,515

  374

  (Officer Designate)

  389

  15

  Servicemen/Women

  WO (Class 1 and 2)

  8,194

  107

  Other NCO's

  70,323

  2,890

  (Privates)

  62,735

  2,389

  Total

  158,372

  6,520

  Memoranda of Understanding (US-UK)
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many memoranda of understanding exist between the United Kingdom and the United States of America arising from the Nunn amendment; what each covers; how many have been funded; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Ten MOU exist between the United Kingdom and United States of America involving Nunn amendment funding. They cover:

  The NATO Frigate for the 1990s (NFR90)

  NATO Anti-Air Warfare System (NAAWS)

  The Modular Stand-Off Weapon (MSOW)

  ADA Project Support Environment (ADA PSE)

  Multifunctional Information Distribution System (MIDS)

  Airborne Radar Demonstrator System (ARDS)

  NATO Information System, Information Exchange

  NATO Information System, Co-operative Q & A component development

  Advanced Sea Mine (ASM)

  Advanced Short Takeoff and Verticial Landing Technology (ASTOVL)

  134
  All the above MOU except the advanced sea mane and ASTOVL technology, involve other NATO nations in addition to the United States and United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has funded initial work under all of the above MOU with the exception of the modular stand-off weapon programme, for which funding will be considered once proposals from industry have been evaluated.

  US Naval Airship Programme
  Mr. Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what involvement his Department has in the United States naval airship programme.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 4 March 1988]: The Department has had no direct involvement in the United States naval airship programme, but has been fully supportive of British industrial participation.

  Military Equipment
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those countries to which Her Majesty's Government will not authorise the sale of defence equipment.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 26 February 1988]: It is our general policy to consider all applications for licences to export defence equipment on a case by case basis, taking into account our international obligations and declared policy towards individual countries.

SCOTLAND

  Drug Addicts
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his best estimate of the number of persons suffering from drug-related problems in(a) Glasgow district council area and (b) Shettleston parliamentary constituency; what additional measures he proposes to take in order to tackle the problem in both areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Because of the nature of the activity it is very difficult to make precise estimates of the numbers of problem drug takers. The latest estimate is that there are between 5,000 and 7,500 intravenous drug misuers in the west of Scotland (mainly Glasgow). Figures are not collected in respect of individual parliamentary constituencies.

  The Government remain committed to tackling the problem of drug misuse throughout Scotland and a wide range of positive measures have already been taken or are in hand. A further stage of the Government's information and education campaign against drug misuse in Scotland was launched on 1 February. From 1987–88 the total sum set aside in the health programme in Scotland specifically for the support of drug misuse services is over £1 million per annum. The sum allocated to Greater Glasgow health board under these arrangements in 1987–88 is £392,615. This is a major contribution to the encouragement and assistance of these services. The provision of such services is, however, primarily the responsibility of health boards and local authorities.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many subject access requests under the terms of the
  135
  Data Protection Act his Department has received; what was his estimate of this number; whether he is reconsidering the subject access fee charged by his Department as a result; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  No valid requests for access have been received from the general public. For forward planning, there was a working assumption of 500 requests per annum. I am not proposing to review the access fee. There have been no complaints or other evidence that the access fee accounts for the low level of interest shown.

  Inverclyde Initiative
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 29 February to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow,Official Report, column 433, how much of the £8·75 million of public money spent on the Inverclyde initiative came from the Scottish Development Agency.

  Mr. Lang
  The sum of £8·75 million of public money spent by the Inverclyde initiative since its inception represents the total Scottish Development Agency expenditure to date.

  Consultants
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money has been paid to management or financial consultants in 1985–86 and 1986–87 for work for(a) the Scottish Home and Health Department and (b) each health board.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Amounts paid to management or financial consultants for work commissioned by the Scottish Home and Health Department were:

  £

  1985–86

  282,252

  1986–87

  1248,535

  1 Includes £118,000 for a project commissioned by the Home side of the Department.

  Information available from the annual accounts of health boards relates to the total of fees paid to management consultants, to legal firms (other than for legal expenses connected with compensation claims) and to work study consultants. The amounts for each health board are shown in the table.

  Health board

  1985–86

  1986–87

  £

  £

  Argyll and Clyde

  8,844

  55,016

  Ayrshire and Arran

  33,570

  7,049

  Borders

  13,930

  2,017

  Dumfries and Galloway

  4,865

  2,800

  Fife

  12,392

  25,333

  Forth Valley

  22,902

  26,287

  Grampian

  15,364

  93,493

  Greater Glasgow

  3,832

  —

  Highland

  2,907

  19,170

  Lanarkshire

  125

  —

  Lothian

  13,917

  83,514

  Orkney

  1,637

  645

  Shetland

  1,324

  1,442

  Tayside

  61

  255

  Western Isles

  14

  2,219

  Total

  135,684

  319,240

  Caesarian Section Deliveries
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many women in 1986–87, having had a caesarian section, were discharged from a National Health Service maternity unit into a private hospital in Lothian, Tayside and Greater Glasgow health board areas.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I regret that the information requested is not held centrally.

  Childbirth (Statistics)
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many women in 1986–87, having given birth, were discharged from a National Health Service maternity unit into a private hospital in Lothian, Tayside and Greater Glasgow health board areas;

  (2) how many women in 1986–87 were admitted to National Health Service maternity units from private hospitals in Lothian, Tayside and Greater Glasgow health board areas.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I regret that the information requested is not held centrally.

  Health Boards (Income)
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what was the total income received by each health board for dressings from private hospitals and clinics in each of the last 10 years;

  (2) what was the total income received by each health board for dressings from private nursing homes in each of the last 10 years;

  (3) what was the total income received by each health board for dressings from individual consultants in each of the last 10 years;

  (4) what was the total income received by each health board for pharmaceutical preparations and medicines from private nursing homes in each of the last 10 years;

  (5) what was the total income received by each health board for pharmaceutical preparations and medicines from private hospitals and clinics in each of the last 10 years;

  (6) what was the total income received by each health board for pharmaceutical preparations and medicines from individual consultants in each of the last 10 years;

  (7) what was the total income received by each health board in each of the last 10 years for the hire of National Health Service equipment to private registered nursing homes;

  (8) what was the total income received by each health board in each of the last 10 years for the hire of National Health Service equipment to private hospitals;

  (9) what was the total income received by each health board in each of the last 10 years for the hire of National Health Service equipment to individual consultants.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information held centrally on income received by health boards does not separately identify the items requested.

  Private Beds
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of private beds in National Health Service hospitals in Scotland by each health board and hospital.
  137
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The table shows the numbers of pay beds in National Health Service hospitals in Scotland.

  Health board and hospital

  Number of pay beds

  Argyll and Clyde

  Inverclyde Royal

  9

  Dunoon and District

  3

  Vale of Leven

  1

  —

  13

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Ayr County

  2

  Ballochmyle

  2

  Heathfield

  1

  North Ayrshire District General Hospital (Crosshouse)

  5

  Seafield Children's

  1

  —

  11

  Borders

  Peel

  1

  Fife

  Victoria

  1

  Forth Valley

  Clackmannan County

  1

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary

  1

  RSNH, Larbert

  2

  Stirling Royal Infirmary

  1

  —

  15

  Grampian

  Aberdeen Maternity

  2

  Aberdeen Royal Infirmary

  6

  Woodend General

  1

  House of Daviot

  4

  Bilbohall, Elgin

  1

  Dr. Gray's, Elgin

  1

  Royal Aberdeen Children's Hospital

  2

  —

  217

  Greater Glasgow

  Canniesburn

  11

  Gartnavel District General

  1

  Royal Samaritan

  4

  Southern General

  3

  Victoria Infirmary

  10

  Western Infirmary

  2

  —

  331

  Highland

  Belford

  1

  Royal Northern Infirmary, Raigmore, Inverness

  2

  Caithness General

  1

  Lawson Memorial

  1

  —

  45

  Lothian

  City

  1

  Eastern General

  1

  Edinburgh Royal Infirmary

  2

  Princess Margaret Rose

  6

  Simpson Maternity

  2

  Western General

  4

  RHSC Edinburgh

  2

  Bangour General

  1

  —

  19

  Tayside

  Forfar

  1

  138

  Health board and hospital

  Number of pay beds

  Perth Royal Infirmary

  2

  Bridge of Earn

  2

  Arbroath

  1

  Brechin

  1

  Stracathro

  2

  —

  59

  Total pay beds at March 1988 all of Scotland

  6112

  1 Plus six emergency beds.

  2 Plus two emergency beds.

  3 Limited to 30 beds at any one time.

  4 Plus two emergency beds.

  5 Plus four emergency beds.

  6 Plus 14 emergency beds.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the total income from private beds in National Health Service hospitals in 1986–87 for each health board area.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The total income from private beds in National Health Service hospitals in each health board area in 1986–87 was as follows:

  Health board

  Total income

  £

  Argyll and Clyde

  169,615

  Ayrshire and Arran

  102,592

  Borders

  10,068

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  Fife

  2,081

  Forth Valley

  77,802

  Grampian

  172,438

  Greater Glasgow

  33,333

  Highland

  21,582

  Lanarkshire

  —

  Lothian

  131,044

  Orkney

  —

  Shetland

  —

  Tayside

  92,307

  Western Isles

  —

  812,862

  Merit Awards
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide health boards with an additional allocation to cover the cost of merit awards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No. The costs of distinction and meritorious service awards along with all other pay-related costs fall to be met from health boards' general allocations.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give individual health boards control over the granting of merit awards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This would not be practicable. The objective of the present system is to ensure that the awards available for distribution are allocated fairly and equitably on a Great Britain basis and this could not be achieved if allocation was determined separately by individual health boards.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total value of merit awards for each health board in Scotland for each of the financial years from 1979–80 to 1987–88.
  139
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is not collected centrally, but an estimate can be made from the number and value of awards at 30 November each year. Estimates are shown in the table for 1983–87; figures for earlier years are not readily available.

  Estimated annual value of Distinction Awards awarded: as at 30 November

  £'000s

  Health Board

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Argyll and Clyde

  123

  151

  137

  144

  186

  Ayrshire and Arran

  140

  124

  137

  127

  126

  Borders

  22

  29

  35

  44

  59

  Dumfries and Galloway

  103

  97

  103

  121

  154

  Fife

  72

  84

  99

  109

  130

  Forth Valley

  98

  126

  137

  140

  168

  Grampian

  396

  430

  458

  541

  662

  Greater Glasgow

  1,864

  2,092

  2,376

  2,614

  2,748

  Highland

  183

  190

  213

  250

  235

  Lanarkshire

  168

  182

  192

  226

  224

  Lothian

  1,027

  1,179

  1,256

  1,390

  1,507

  Tayside

  508

  529

  557

  568

  632

  Orkney, Shetland and Western Isles

  13

  15

  5

  11

  12

  Consultants by specialty, contract and health board at 30 September 1987 Type of contract: Whole-time

  Specialty

  Specialty code

  Argyll Clyde

  Ayr and Arran

  Border

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Fife

  Forth Valley

  Grampian

  Greater Glasgow

  Highland

  Lanark

  Lothian

  Orkney

  Shetland

  Tayside

  Western Isle

  All Specialties

  86

  77

  25

  43

  77

  71

  127

  396

  71

  144

  220

  1

  2

  147

  5

  Surgical Specialties

  Cardiothoracic surgery

  07

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  5

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  ENT surgery

  03

  1

  —

  —

  2

  2

  1

  1

  6

  2

  4

  2

  —

  —

  4

  —

  General surgery

  01

  5

  5

  3

  4

  5

  4

  8

  23

  9

  10

  11

  1

  2

  8

  1

  Neurosurgery

  06

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  4

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Ophthalmology

  04

  2

  2

  —

  1

  1

  4

  3

  10

  3

  4

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  Orthopaedic surgery

  02

  5

  3

  2

  2

  4

  4

  5

  13

  3

  11

  4

  —

  —

  10

  —

  Plastic surgery

  08

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Surgical Paediatries

  39

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Urology

  05

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  2

  4

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Accident and Emergency

  49

  2

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  3

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Anaesthetics

  41

  10

  14

  4

  5

  12

  9

  12

  63

  8

  23

  36

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Medical Specialties

  Communicable diseases

  31

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  3

  —

  1

  3

  —

  —

  3

  —

  Dermatology

  23

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  5

  2

  1

  2

  —

  —

  4

  —

  General medicine (group) Cardiology

  17

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  7

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics

  20

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Endocrinology and diabetes

  18

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Gastroenterology

  21

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  General medicine

  16

  10

  11

  3

  4

  6

  7

  12

  25

  6

  15

  17

  —

  —

  8

  1

  Homeopathy

  36

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Medical oncology

  37

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nephrology

  24

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Rheumatology

  25

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  2

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Sexually transmitted diseases

  32

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  3

  1

  —

  4

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Geriatric medicine

  50

  5

  4

  2

  2

  4

  4

  7

  18

  2

  5

  8

  —

  —

  7

  —

  Medical paediatrics

  40

  4

  3

  2

  2

  3

  3

  6

  16

  2

  4

  12

  —

  —

  6

  —

  Neurology

  19

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  5

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Radiotherapy and oncology

  34

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  9

  1

  —

  4

  —

  —

  3

  —

  Rehabilitation medicine

  26

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Respiratory medicine

  28

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  3

  11

  2

  —

  3

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Dental Specialties

  Oral surgery and oral medicine

  12

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  5

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Othodontics and paediatric dentistry

  11

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  3

  2

  2

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Restorative dentistry

  13

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Obstetrics and Gynaecology

  42

  5

  4

  1

  1

  5

  4

  6

  19

  5

  11

  9

  —

  —

  6

  1

  Psychiatric Specialties

  Child and Adolescent psychiatry

  56

  2

  1

  —

  2

  2

  2

  3

  4

  1

  3

  5

  —

  —

  4

  —

  Forensic psychiatry

  58

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  4

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mental handicap

  59

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  2

  4

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Mental illness

  53

  17

  6

  4

  7

  11

  10

  12

  38

  8

  15

  24

  —

  —

  17

  1

  Psychotherapy

  55

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Laboratory and Support Specialties

  Blood transfusion

  63

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  140

  Health Board

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Common Services Agency and State Hospital

  42

  56

  64

  66

  83

  Scotland

  4,759

  5,283

  5,770

  6,350

  6,926

  Notes:

  (1) The estimates are based on the value of awards multiplied by the whole time equivalent of the doctors and dentists receiving them. Honorary staff are given a notional WTE of 7/11.

  (2) Other employers' costs, such as national insurance contributions for example, are not included in these estimates.

  Medical Consultants
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if, further to his reply of 25 January,Official Report, column 54, he will list how many consultants employed by the National Health Service in Scotland are (a) full-time, (b) maximum part-time and (c) part-time, by health board and specialty.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is shown in the tables.
  141

  Specialty

  Specialty code

  Argyll Clyde

  Ayr and Arran

  Border

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Fife

  Forth Valley

  Grampian

  Greater Glasgow

  Highland

  Lanark

  Lothian

  Orkney

  Shetland

  Tayside

  Western Isle

  Clinical chemistry

  65

  2

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  4

  1

  1

  2

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Clinical genetics

  66

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Haematology

  62

  3

  3

  1

  3

  2

  2

  1

  13

  1

  5

  5

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Immunology

  68

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Microbiology

  67

  2

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  11

  2

  2

  5

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Nuclear medicine

  35

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Pathology

  64

  3

  4

  —

  2

  3

  2

  4

  15

  2

  6

  8

  —

  —

  4

  —

  Radiodiagnosis

  33

  6

  7

  2

  3

  7

  5

  8

  23

  5

  13

  17

  —

  —

  12

  —

  Virology

  69

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Occupational Health

  96

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Consultants by specialty, contract and health board at 30 September 1987 Type of contract: Maximum part-time

  Specialty

  Specialty code

  Argyll Clyde

  Ayr and Arran

  Border

  Dumfries and Galloway

  File

  Forth Valley

  Grampian

  Greater Glasgow

  Highland

  Lanark

  Lolhtan

  Orkney

  Shetland

  Tayside

  Western Isles

  All Specialties

  25

  18

  0

  2

  5

  10

  26

  85

  0

  12

  62

  0

  0

  10

  0

  Surgical Specialties

  Cardiothoracic surgery

  07

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  ENT surgery

  03

  2

  3

  —

  —

  —

  2

  3

  6

  —

  1

  4

  —

  —

  1

  —

  General surgery

  01

  6

  1

  —

  —

  1

  2

  2

  8

  —

  3

  8

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Neurosurgery

  06

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ophthalmology

  04

  4

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  4

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Orthopaedic surgery

  02

  1

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  4

  9

  —

  1

  7

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Plastic surgery

  08

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  4

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Surgical paediatrics

  39

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Urology

  05

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  7

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Accident and Emergency

  49

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Anaesthetics

  41

  1

  3

  —

  1

  —

  1

  6

  11

  —

  1

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Medical Specialties

  Communicable diseases

  31

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dermatology

  23

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  4

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  General medicine (group) Cardiology

  17

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics

  20

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Endocrinology and diabetes

  18

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gastroenterology

  21

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Genera1 medicine

  16

  4

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  6

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Homeopathy

  36

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Medical oncology

  37

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nephrology

  24

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rheumatology

  25

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sexually transmitted diseases

  32

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Geriatric medicine

  50

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Medical paediatrics

  40

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Neurology

  19

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Radiotherapy and oncology

  34

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rehabilitation medicine

  26

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Respiratory medicine

  28

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dental Specialties

  Oral surgery and oral medicine

  12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Othodontics and paedialric dentistry

  11

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Restorative dentistry

  13

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Obstetrics and Gynaecology

  42

  4

  2

  —

  —

  1

  2

  2

  8

  —

  —

  6

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Psychiatric Specialties

  Child and Adolescent psychiatry

  56

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Forensic psychiatry

  58

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mental handicap

  59

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mental illness

  53

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Psychotherapy

  55

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Laboratory and Support Specialities

  Blood transfusion

  63

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Clinical chemistry

  65

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Clinical genetics

  66

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Haematology

  62

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Immunology

  68

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Microbiology

  67

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nuclear medicine

  35

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Pathology

  64

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Radiodiagnosis

  33

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  6

  —

  3

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Virology

  69

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Occupational Health

  96

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Consultants by specialty, contract and health board at 30 September 1987 Type of contract: Part-time

  Specialty

  Specialty code

  Argyll Clyde

  Ayr and Arran

  Border

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Fife

  Forth Valley

  Grampian

  Greater Glasgow

  Highland

  Lanark

  Lothian

  Orkney

  Shetland

  Tayside

  Western Isle

  All Specialties

  5

  1

  2

  8

  0

  0

  3

  8

  5

  4

  10

  0

  0

  2

  1

  Surgical Specialties Cardiothoracic surgery

  07

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  142 143

  Specially

  Specially code

  Argyll Clydr

  Ayr and Arran

  Border

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Fife

  Forth Valley

  Grampian

  Greater Glasgow

  Highland

  Lanark

  Lothian

  Orkney

  Shetland

  Tayslde

  Western Isle

  ENT surgery

  03

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  General surgery

  01

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Neurosurgery

  06

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ophthalmology

  04

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Orthopaedic surgery

  02

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Plastic surgery

  08

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Surgical paediatrics

  39

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Urology

  05

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Accident and Emergency

  49

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Anaesthetics

  41

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Medical Specialties

  Communicable diseases

  31

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dermatology

  23

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  General medicine (group) Cardiology

  17

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics

  20

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Endocrinology and diabetes

  18

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gastroenterology

  21

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  General medicine

  16

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Homeopathy

  36

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Medical oncology

  37

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nephrology

  24

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rheumatology

  25

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sexually transmitted diseases

  32

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Geriatric medicine

  50

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Medical paediatrics

  40

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Neurology

  19

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Radiotherapy and oncology

  34

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rehabilitation medicine

  26

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Respiratory medicine

  28

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dental Specialties

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Oral surgery and oral medicine

  12

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Othodontics and paediatric dentistry

  11

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Restorative dentistry

  13

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Obstetrics and Gynaecology

  42

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Psychiatric Specialties

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Child and Adolescent psychiatry

  56

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Forensic psychiatry

  58

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mental handicap

  59

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mental illness

  53

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Psychotherapy

  55

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Laboratory and Support Specialties

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Blood transfusion

  63

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Clinical chemistry

  65

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Clinical genetics

  66

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Haematology

  62

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Immunology

  68

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Microbiology

  67

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nuclear medicine

  35

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Pathology

  64

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Radiodtagnosis

  33

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Virology

  69

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Occupational Health

  96

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hip Replacement Operations
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average waiting time for a hip replacement operation in National Health Service beds in National Health Service hospitals in each health board area.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information recorded for 1985, which is the lastest available, is as follows:

  Health board

  Mean waiting time in days

  Argyll and Clyde

  207

  Ayrshire and Arran

  167

  Borders

  116

  Dumfries and Galloway

  191

  Fife

  214

  Forth Valley

  277

  Grampian

  303

  Greater Glasgow

  127

  Highland

  323

  Lanarkshire

  145

  Lothian

  207

  144

  Health board

  Mean waiting time in days

  Orkney

  —

  Shetland

  —

  Tayside

  285

  Western Isles

  —

  Scotland

  203

  Eye Tests and Dental Examinations
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) eye tests and (b) dental examinations took place in Fife in each of the years 1980 to 1986.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is set out in the table.
  145

  Thousands

  Year

  Eye tests

  Dental examinations

  1980

  49·0

  1

  1981

  48·3

  1

  1982

  51·3

  151·4

  1983

  54·7

  157·7

  1984

  56·3

  164·5

  1985

  60·3

  169·0

  1986

  62·4

  183·4

  1 Not held centrally.

  Prison Officers
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many extra prison officer posts will be created during the financial years 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend expects increases in the number of staff by 218 in 1988–89 and a further 114 in 1989–90.

  Police Officers
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many extra police officer posts will be created during the financial years 1988–89 and 1989–90 in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This will depend on decisions taken by police authorities in the first instance. However, the assumptions regarding police manpower growth in these years underlying the Government's public expenditure plans were outlined in the recently published "Scottish Commentary," a copy of which is in the Library.

  These plans provide for police strength to increase to 13,830 by the end of 1988–89 and to 13,880 by the end of 1989–90.

  Probation
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of persons placed on a probation order in Scotland in 1985 and 1986 completed their period of supervision without a further appearance in court.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Community Service Order
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what percentage of persons placed on a community service order in Scotland during 1985 and 1986 completed their period of service without a further appearance in court;

  (2) what percentage of persons who were the subject of a community service order in Scotland had been sentenced again within two years of the completion of the order, for the latest convenient period.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Recidivism
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons in Scotland who were granted parole 146
  in 1985 and 1986 whose original offence involved violence, sexual assault or robbery were sentenced again (a) during the period of their parole licence or (b) within 12 months of the expiration of that licence.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on the numbers of persons convicted within 12 months of their parole licence expiring is not collected centrally; the other information requested could be compiled only at disproportionate cost.

  Offenders (Electronic Tagging)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any plans to introduce electronic surveillance as a condition of bail, probation, parole or executive release on a trial basis in either Strathclyde or any other part of Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  While we are keeping developments on this matter under review, we have no such present plans in Scotland.

  Police Surgeons
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many police surgeons are employed in Scotland; and, of these, how many are female.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  169, of whom 18 are female.

  Agency Staff
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the latest figures for the number of agency staff supplied to the National Health Service in the following categories:(a) nurses, (b) midwives, (c) professional and technical staff (excluding works staff), (d) works professional staff, (e) administrative and clerical staff, (f) ambulance officers and control assistants and (g) other staff, indicating their distribution by health board; what payments in fees has been made by each board to each of these groups over the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information is held centrally only for agency nurses and midwives and ambulance officers and control assistants. No agency ambulance officers and control assistants are employed. The table shows the average daily number of qualified nurses and midwives, by whole-time equivalent, supplied by agencies to health boards in Scotland during the year ended 30 September 1987. No information is available centrally about payments made for agency staff.

  Midwives

  Other qualified nurses

  SCOTLAND

  0·8

  202·1

  Argyll and Clyde

  —

  —

  Ayrshire and Arran

  —

  5·8

  Borders

  0·3

  2·9

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  —

  Fife

  —

  —

  Forth Valley

  —

  —

  Grampian

  —

  2·6

  Greater Glasgow

  —

  132·7

  147

  Midwives

  Other qualified nurses

  Highland

  —

  —

  Lanarkshire

  —

  —

  Lothian

  0·3

  57·5

  Orkney

  0·2

  —

  Shetland

  —

  0·6

  Tayside

  —

  —

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  Agricultural Research and Development
  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any further proposals to cut agricultural research and development funding in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Our current proposals are set out in the White Paper "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1988–89 to 1990–91" Cm. 288-II.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what definition his Department uses of the term near market, as applied to agricultural research and development.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There is no formal definition. It is, however, a convenient way of referring to the kind of work of direct commercial benefit towards which the Government believe industry should contribute more.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what reviews are being, or have been, carried out by or on behalf of, his Department into agricultural research and development funded by his Department; when the results of any such reviews will be published; and if this information will be made available to the House.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The programmes of agricultural research and development are kept under continual review in association with the Priorities Board for R and D in Agriculture and Food, the Agricultural and Food Research Council, the Scottish Agricultural R and D Advisory Council and other bodies. Ad hoc reviews are also undertaken from time to time into specific subject areas or other issues, as appropriate.

  Language Teachers
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action is being taken to ensure that there are adequate numbers of teachers in Scotland training for languages other than French.

  Conservancy

  Number referred to Regional Advisory Committees

  Number resolved by voluntary withdrawal or amendment of application

  Number referred by Regional Advisory Committee to Forestry Commissoners

  Grant Scheme Applications—Year to 31 March 1984

  North West England

  1

  —

  1

  North East England

  1

  —

  1

  East England

  —

  —

  —

  South East England

  —

  —

  —

  South West England

  —

  —

  —

  North Scotland

  1

  1

  —

  East Scotland

  1

  1

  —

  South Scotland

  4

  —

  4

  West Scotland

  3

  1

  2

  North Wales

  2

  1

  1

  South Wales

  3

  1

  2

  148
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Consultations about the annual intake of student teachers to the colleges of education provide a mechanism for alerting the Government to areas of actual or potential need. The most recent consultations indicate that the supply of modern languages teachers is adequate to meet the needs of education authorities.

  Forestry
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average wage of Forestry Commission forest keepers, at the latest available date.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 22 February 1988]: The basic weekly wage is £131·91 and the average gross weekly earnings are £.177·31.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) grant and (b) felling licence applications were received by the Forestry Commission in each year from 1984; how many were referred to regional advisory committees; and what proportion of the annual total this represented.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 1 March 1988]: The information is as follows:

  Year (to 31 March)

  Number received

  Number and percentage of cases referred to Regional advisory committees

  Grant scheme applications

  1984

  2,255

  16 (0·7)

  1985

  2,915

  10 (0·3)

  1986

  5,327

  18 (0·3)

  1987

  5,319

  25 (0·5)

  Felling licence applications

  1984

  1,444

  7 (0·5)

  1985

  1,729

  4 (0·2)

  1986

  2,321

  3 (0·1)

  1987

  2,254

  Nil (-)

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) grant and (b) felling licence applications were referred to the regional advisory committee for each Forestry Commission conservancy in each year from 1984, and what were the results.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 1 March 1988]: The information is set out in the following tables, and reflects the fact that the commission's conservancies were reorganised in 1984–85.
  149 150

  Conservancy

  Number referred to Regional Advisory Committees

  Number resolved by voluntary withdrawal or amendment of application

  Number referred by Regional Advisory Committee to Forestry Commissoners

  Felling Licence Applications—Year to 31 March 1984

  North West England

  1

  —

  1

  North East England

  —

  —

  —

  East England

  —

  —

  —

  South East England

  2

  —

  2

  South West England

  2

  —

  2

  North Scotland

  —

  —

  —

  East Scotland

  —

  —

  —

  South Scotland

  1

  —

  1

  West Scotland

  1

  1

  —

  North Wales

  —

  —

  —

  South Wales

  —

  —

  —

  Grant Scheme Applications—3 years to 31 March 1987

  North England Conservancy

  1985

  2

  2

  —

  1986

  6

  1

  5

  1987

  3

  1

  2

  East England Conservancy

  1985

  —

  —

  —

  1986

  1

  —

  1

  1987

  —

  —

  —

  West England Conservancy

  1985

  —

  —

  —

  1986

  —

  —

  —

  1987

  —

  —

  —

  Wales Conservancy

  1985

  3

  1

  2

  1986

  3

  —

  3

  1987

  4

  —

  4

  North Scotland Conservancy

  1985

  —

  —

  —

  1986

  —

  —

  —

  1987

  10

  2

  8

  Mid Scotland Conservancy

  1985

  4

  1

  3

  1986

  6

  3

  3

  1987

  6

  1

  5

  South Scotland Conservancy

  1985

  1

  —

  1

  1986

  2

  2

  —

  1987

  2

  1

  1

  Felling Licence Applications—3 years to 31 March 1987

  North England Conservancy

  1985

  —

  —

  —

  1986

  —

  —

  —

  1987

  —

  —

  —

  East England Conservancy

  1985

  3

  —

  3

  1986

  —

  —

  —

  1987

  —

  —

  —

  West England Conservancy

  1985

  —

  —

  —

  1986

  —

  —

  —

  1987

  —

  —

  —

  Wales Conservancy

  1985

  1

  —

  1

  1986

  3

  —

  3

  1987

  —

  —

  —

  North Scotland Conservancy

  1985

  —

  —

  —

  1986

  —

  —

  —

  1987

  —

  —

  —

  Mid Scotland Conservancy

  1985

  —

  —

  —

  1986

  —

  —

  —

  1987

  —

  —

  —

  South Scotland Conservancy

  1985

  —

  —

  —

  1986

  —

  —

  —

  1987

  —

  —

  —

  Scottish Health Service (Advertisement)
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who placed the advertisement in The Scotsman on behalf of the Scottish Health Service in which notice of information about tendering for in-house ancillary services for health boards was given; and who is responsible for the payment for the advertisement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 3 March 1988]: The advertisement was placed and paid for by the health boards acting jointly. Such co-ordinated action by boards seems a cost-effective way to implement the Government's policy of competitive tendering.

  Ministerial Offices
  Mr. Harry Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total cost involved in moving his office, together with the offices of other Scottish Office Ministers, from their present location in New St. Andrew's House to St. Andrew's House.

  Mr. Rifkind
  [holding answer 4 March 1988]: The return of my office and that of certain of my ministerial colleagues to St. Andrew's House requires certain structural adaptations and improvements to the ministerial accommodation in the building. The total cost is likely to be of the order of £150,000 including VAT and contingencies.

  HMA v Russell Stirton
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further proceedings the Lord Advocate is considering arising from the facts and circumstances surrounding the case of HMA v Russell Stirton, with particular reference to those narrated in charge 9 of the indictment.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 4 March 1988]: None.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Lord Advocate was consulted by the procurator fiscal of Glasgow in connection with his consideration of whether to oppose bail in respect of charges against Russell Stirton on 24 April 1986.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 4 March 1988]: No.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Lord Advocate will review the circumstances surrounding the case of HMA v Russell Stirton and the investigation by an officer of Lothian and Borders police into allegations made by Russell Stirton; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 4 March 1988]: The Lord Advocate does not intend any further review of the circumstances surrounding the case of HMA v Russell Stirton.

  Bail
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidelines the Lord Advocate issued to procurators fiscal in connection with the granting of bail(a) before 26 April 1986 and (b) thereafter; and if he will make a statement.
  152
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 4 March 1988]: Instructions were issued to procurators fiscal following the coming into force of the Bail etc. (Scotland) Act 1980. These instructions were current on 26 April 1986. They have recently been revised and re-issued. The date, 26 April 1986, is without significance in this connection.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if guidelines are issued to procurators fiscal concerning policy on whether or not to oppose bail in cases where an accused person offers to provide information to the police in respect of a third party.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 4 March 1988]: No. Procurators fiscal are expected to exercise their discretion in the light of all relevant factors affecting the public interest in such cases.

  Electricity Generation
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of electricity generation in Scotland is met by(a) nuclear, (b) coal-fired, (c) oil fired, (d) hydro and (e) other power stations.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 7 March 1988]: I am advised by the Scottish electricity boards, UKAEA and BNFL that the proportions of electricity generation sent out to the supply network from different sources in Scotland during the year ending 31 March 1987 were as follows:

  Percentage

  Nuclear

  43·5

  Coal-fired

  34·4

  Oil-fired

  9·1

  Hydro

  12·7

  Pumped storage (net)

  0·2

  Other (for example diesels, wind, private generation)

  0·1

  100·0

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the proportion of electricity generation in Scotland in 1998 which will be met by(a) nuclear, (b) coal-fired, (c) oil-fired, (d) hydro and (e) other power stations.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 7 March 1988]: The proportions of electricity generation met from different sources in 1998 will depend upon the availability of fuels and their relative costs at that time. In view of the uncertainties associated with these factors, it is considered that no useful estimates can be made.

  United States Tobacco Company
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the grants awarded to the United States Tobacco Company to set up and maintain its company in East Kilbride.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 7 March 1988]: I refer to the reply given to the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) on 4 March.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if it is his intention to provide additional grant support to the United States Tobacco Company in East Kilbride to manufacture products other than tobacco products for oral use, consequent upon the announcement made by the
  153
  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), on 26 February, Official Report, column 362, concerning a prohibition on tobacco products for oral use.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 7 March 1988]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 3 March. It is, of course, open to the company to apply for relevant grants for any projects which it is considering.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to provide alternative employment for the employees of the United States Tobacco Company in East Kilbride consequent upon the announcement made by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), on 26 February,Official Report, column 362, concerning a prohibition on tobacco products for oral use.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 7 March 1988]: I refer to my previous reply to the hon. Member on 3 March.

  Mr. Harry Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to discuss with United States Tobacco the refunding of financial assistance given to it for the manufacture of Skoal Bandits.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 4 March 1988]: Any question of the refunding of financial assistance in relation to United States Tobacco will arise only if the conditions under which assistance was given are breached. I have no evidence at this time that any such breach has taken place.

  Mr. Harry Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what date it was decided to give financial assistance to United States Tobacco for the manufacture of Skoal Bandits; and what was the total amount of assistance given.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 4 March 1988]: Financial assistance in terms of the Industrial Development Act 1982 was offered to United States Tobacco on 27 November 1984. To date the only payments made have been under the regional development grant scheme and amount to £193,357.

TRANSPORT

  EC (Internal Market)
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the extent and impact of the proposals contained in the European Commission's White Paper, "Europe without frontiers; Towards a Large Internal Market", in so far as his Department is concerned.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 3 March. The Department of Transport has a particular interest in proposals covering the transport of goods and passengers by road, vehicle emissions and vehicle type approval, air transport, maritime transport, and inland waterways transport.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many members of staff within his Department are 154
  located within each region outside London; what percentage this constitutes of staff within his Department; and what are the comparable figures, in absolute arid percentage terms, in 1979.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The number of percentage of Department of Transport staff (including casuals and part-timers) located outside London is as follows:

  1 March 1988

  1 April 1979

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  South East

  2,146

  14·1

  2,193

  14·8

  South West

  1,103

  7·3

  864

  5·8

  East Anglia

  314

  2·1

  324

  2·2

  East Midlands

  545

  3·6

  497

  3·4

  West Midlands

  773

  5·1

  720

  4·9

  North West

  842

  5·5

  797

  5·4

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  694

  4·6

  669

  4·5

  Northern

  452

  3·0

  453

  3·1

  Wales

  4,665

  30·7

  5,193

  35·1

  Scotland

  797

  5·3

  752

  5·1

  Northern Ireland

  15

  0·1

  0

  0·0

  Organisation changes made since 1979 will distort any comparison between years. These include the transfer of 765 staff from the Department of Environment in 1981 and 1,459 from the Department of Trade and Industry in 1984.

  Truck Stops
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress on meetings with local authority associations and others on the provision of truck stops near motorways.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  On 19 February the Department had discussions with the three main local authority associations concerned with the provision of services on all purpose trunk roads, including those for lorry drivers. It is proposed shortly to have a further meeting with both them and representatives of the oil and catering industries so as to take further the initiative to secure comprehensive provision of facilities where needed and where consistent with road safety and other considerations.

  The policy on provision of services for motorway users was set out in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) on 1 July last year, column 88. Where proposals are put forward for truck stops off motorways but designed to serve the needs of motorway users, the Department asks local planning authorities to take into account road safety and traffic implications as well as the services already available or to be provided on the motorway itself.

  Merchant Shipping Policy
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met members of the Nautical Institute to discuss merchant shipping policy.

  Mr. Channon
  I have had no such meeting, but officials of my Department are in regular contact with the institute.

  Motorways (Surface Water)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department will undertake further surveys to assess the effect of spray on motorways and its involvement in accidents.
  155
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department's research programme on spray includes work on drivers' reactions to spray in motorway conditions. Motorway accident reports do not identify the possible contribution of spray.

  Heavy Vehicles (Spray Guards)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department has any proposals to legislate for improved heavy vehicle spray guards.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Regulations introduced in 1984 require spray reducing devices on new British registered heavy lorries and existing heavy trailers. The devices must comply with British Standard BS AU 200. The European Commission has made proposals on similar lines, but there is no early prospect of these being adopted by the Council of Ministers.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what indications he has received from British Rail as to when it is likely to come forward with proposals for the construction of a high speed railway line across Kent to link London and other British cities with the continental rail network after the Channel tunnel is built.

  Mr. Channon
  I have asked British Rail to let me have a report by 1 June 1988 on the options for increasing the capacity of its rail network between London and the tunnel once the capacity of the existing network is exhausted. It will be considering all possible options, including a new high-speed line.

  Merchant Shipping Act 1984
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received concerning the need to reform the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act 1984, in so far as these have come to be applied to the disposal of antiquities recovered from historic shipwrecks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Channon
  One such representation has been made, by the Museums Association. Our aim is that the disposal of items recovered from wreck sites designated under the provisions of the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973 as of historical, archaeological or artistic importance should be conducted in such a way as to ensure as far as possible that they remain accessible to the general public, that collections of items are kept together and that items of particular local interest go to local museums. In 1984 my Department published a consultative document containing proposals for changes to the wreck provisions of the 1894 Act. It remains the Government's intention to introduce legislation on the lines proposed, when Parliamentary time allows.

  Railways (Capital Investment)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of British rail to discuss the railways capital investment programme.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  My right hon. Friend discusses BR's capital investment programme with the chairman each year when considering BR's corporate plan and its external financing requirements. Particular aspects of the 156
  capital investment programme are discussed as necessary. Major projects are submitted for my right hon. Friend's approval.

  Drink-Driving
  Mr. Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make available the established international protocal for the conduct of roadside surveys of drinking and driving.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The recommended research methodology for such surveys is set out in an annex to the OECD report "Road Research: New Research on the Role of Alcohol and Drugs in Road Accidents" published in 1978. I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research his Department is undertaking in support of his efforts to reduce drinking and driving.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Transport and Road Research Laboratory will be publishing tomorrow the results of a study of the personal characteristics, driving experience and drinking habits of drivers or riders who had been involved in road accidents. The study has been able to quantify for the first time the frequency with which particular characteristics and initiatives occur and the extent to which these vary with the level of drinking prior to the accident.

  To complement this work the laboratory will now be carrying out a programme of roadside surveys of drinking and driving in Warwickshire and Sussex. The surveys will provide valuable information about attitudes to drinking and driving of a random selection of people from the general driving population. Participation in the surveys will be voluntary. By enlarging the sample in this way we shall obtain a fuller picture of the problem and be able to target efforts to put an end to the drinking and driving menace more effectively.

  Orange Badge Scheme
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the review into the operation of the orange badge scheme of parking concessions for disabled people is expected to report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has completed his review of the orange badge parking scheme for the disabled; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 7 March 1988]: The Department is issuing a revised leaflet on the orange badge scheme.

  The leaflet is an interim measure and seeks to provide better information on the rights and duties of badgeholders under the present scheme. We hope to make a further announcement shortly on measures to improve the scheme as a result of the recent review.

  Copies of the leaflet have been placed in the Library.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what savings he expects from competitive tendering in 1988–89 and subsequent years.

  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what savings he expects from competitive tendering in 1988–89 and subsequent years.

  Mr. Newton
  Cumulative annual savings in respect of domestic, laundry and catering services will amount to some £105 million in the coming year. Further extension of the programme to other services is a matter for regional and district health authorities to determine in the light of local needs, priorities and resources.

  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a further statement on the progress of the competitive tendering initiative.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a further statement on the progress of the competitive tendering initiative.

  Mrs. Currie
  The most recent information held centrally is for the quarter ended 31 December 1987. By that date approaching 95 per cent. of domestic and laundry services had been put out to tender, and some 75 per cent. of catering services. Estimated annual savings generated from contracts awarded for the three services totalled £105 million: £79 million for domestic services, £18 million for catering services and £8 million for laundry services. £28 million has been generated from contracts won by outside contractors and £77 million from tenders secured by in-house organisations.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many districts have yet to let any contracts by competitive tendering.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, how many districts have yet to let any contracts by competitive tendering.

  Mrs. Currie
  Only three district health authorities have yet to let a contract for at least one of the three services to which the competitive tendering initiative applies. Of these, two have now gone out to tender for domestic and laundry services and the third intends to put its domestic services out to tender shortly.

  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his policy towards the extension of competitive tendering to non-medical areas other than laundry, cleaning and catering.

  Mrs. Currie
  Competitive tendering has established its value as a management tool in the National Health Service. We encourage health authorities to look constructively at any possibility of securing greater cost-effectiveness in the provision of their NHS services. This can include going to tender for services other than domestic cleaning, catering and laundry, noting that competitive tendering for those services has already generated annual savings of over £100 million in England.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has received any further representations about the level of the capital limit which bars application for single payments from the social fund.

  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has received any further representations about the level of the capital limit which bars application for single payments or the social fund.

  Mr. Portillo
  We have received very few representations recently. Capital over £500 is taken into account in assessing the amount of any single payment award. A similar rule for the social fund ensures that social fund payments are made to those people most in need of help.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what step he is taking to monitor the impact of the social fund on the clients of local authority social services departments.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking to monitor the impact of the social fund on the clients of local authority social service departments.

  Mr. Scott
  There will be a great deal of management information on the number of applications and refusals, the amounts awarded, for what purpose, and the applicants to whom the awards are made. The quality of decision-making will also be monitored. We propose to commission independent research later in the year into the extent to which the social fund is meeting its objectives.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what arrangements have been made to provide additional funds to his Department's officers should urgent, serious or special needs arise for either grants or loans under the social fund after the relevant sums for any particular month have been exhausted.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ms. Fyfe) on 4 March at column 746.

  Hypothermia
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how frequently hypothermia is cited as a cause of death; and to what extent the incidence of hypothermia is changing.

  Mrs. Currie
  The total number of deaths from all causes in England and Wales last year was 560,000. The provisional total of deaths from hypothermia was 581. There has been no particular trend in this total in recent years.

  Personal Social Services
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether the review of the National Health Service at present being undertaken by the Government will take into account the impact of National Health Service funding on the personal social services.

  Mr. Newton
  We shall seek to take account of all relevant factors.

  Drugs
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list in order the three biggest overseas suppliers of drugs to the National Health Service.

  Mr. Newton
  For the family practitioner services in Great Britain, the three biggest overseas-owned companies supplying drugs to the NHS in 1986 were, CIBA Geigy, Merck Sharp and Dohme, and Bayer in that order. For drugs supplied to the hospital service, aggregate information concerning suppliers is not collected.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he has taken to ensure that all housing authorities will be able to implement the new housing benefit scheme on 1 October.

  Mr. Portillo
  The new housing benefit scheme starts from 1 April 1988. The Department has been involved in consultation with local authority Associations on details of the new scheme for over 18 months. It has provided £25 million this year for authorities' preparation costs and produced and distributed free of charge training material, publicity and explanatory literature.

  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people with disabilities were registered with their local social services authorities under section 1 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people were registered as disabled with their local authorities at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Scott
  The latest information available centrally on the number of people with disabilities registered with local authorities Social Service Authorities in England is as follows:

  In 1984, there were about 1·1 million people registered as physically disabled.

  In 1986, there were about 192,000 people registered as blind or partially sighted.

  Also in 1986, there were over 97,000 people registered as deaf or hard of hearing.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people received help under the provisions of section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Scott
  This information is not collected centrally. The information that is available relates to the number of meals served and to the number of cases of assistance in England in the year ending 31 March 1986, and the latest figures are:

  Number of meals served: over 44 million

  Number of cases of assistance: some 670,000

  Further details are available in the publication: "Domiciliary Services, Aids and Adaptations Year Ending 31 March 1986" England: a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Bidwell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many local authorities are fully 160
  meeting their statutory duties to disabled people registered with them under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he takes to ensure that all social services authorities are fulfilling their statutory duties under section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he takes to ensure that all social services authorities are fulfilling their statutory duties under section 1 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act.

  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied that all local social services authorities are meeting their statutory duties under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act.

  Mr. Scott
  Responsibility for implementing the Act lies with local authorities. However, the Department receives regular returns on certain services provided under the Act, in addition to information from a number of sources including the social services inspectorate.

  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the adequacy of funds available to local social services authorities for the implementation of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the additional resources local social services authorities would need fully to implement the provisions of section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act in respect of all the disabled people registered with them under the Act.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to increase the resources available to local social services authorities to implement the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act.

  Mr. John
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will increase the resources available to local social services authorities to implement the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act.

  Mr. Scott
  I am unable to add to my reply to the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Mr. Doran) on 9 February 1988 at column 191.

  Winter Mortality
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the causes of the 30-year decline, in England, in excess winter mortality.

  Mr. Carttiss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what further information he can provide on recent trends in the incidence of winter mortality among elderly people.

  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the causes of the 30-year decline, in England, in excess winter mortality.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what further information he can provide on recent trends in the incidence of winter mortality among elderly people.
  161
  Mrs. Currie
  Since 1958 there has been a clear downward trend in excess winter mortality. For England and Wales, it averaged 55·6 per cent. between 1958 and 1962, dropping to 28·6 per cent., or around 37,000 cases each winter, between 1983 and 1987. The causal relationship between cold weather and excess winter mortality is not clearly understood, and further research is needed. We hope that the Medical Research Council will be able to help out in this area.

  Disabled People
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what resources are being allocated to the special fund his Department is setting up in co-operation with the Disablement Income Group.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to be able to indicate the cost to the Government of the special fund his Department is setting up with the Disablement Income Group.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what sums he expects to be made available by his Department to the Disablement Income Group for the special fund for assisting people with disabilities who will have a reduced social security entitlement in April.

  Mr. Scott
  Up to £5 million has been set aside for the fund in 1988–89. The level of funding for future years will be considered in the light of experience.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what monitoring will take place of the implementation of the Disabled Person (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act, with particular regard to the interests of mentally ill people.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to monitor the implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.

  Mr. Scott
  The particular needs of people who suffer from a mental disorder will be considered within the monitoring exercise which I mentioned in my reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) earlier today.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on his discussions with the Disablement Income Group before and after the Announcement of new measures to assist very severely disabled people.

  Mr. Scott
  The discussions are continuing. The Disablement Income Group is working with my officials to devise criteria of eligibility for payment from the fund and is giving advice on other administrative matters. As I announced in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) today the fund's trustees will include individuals nominated by the Disablement Income Group.

  The dicsussions I held with the Disablement Income Group and other organisations of and for disabled people before the announcement of the fund were informal and those who gave their advice did so in confidence.
  162
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many cases of discrimination against disabled people have been referred to his Department in each of the past four years.

  Mr. Scott
  The numbers of complaints of alleged discrimination against disabled people referred to the Department in each of the last four years are as follows:

  Number

  1984

  3

  1985

  2

  1986

  0

  1987

  4

  In addition we have so far received two complaints in 1988.

  Long-term Sick and Disabled People
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the Government's total estimated expenditure on the long-term sick and disabled for 1987 –88; how this compares with 1978 –79 in real terms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The estimated expenditure on benefits for long-term sick and disabled people for 1987 –88 is £6 ·75 billion. This is an increase of over 80 per cent. in real terms compared with expenditure in 1978 –79.

  Health Vouchers
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has received seeking the inclusion in the current Government review of the National Health Service the idea of issuing vouchers to enable people to contract out of the National Health Service; what response he has made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moore
  We have received a number of representations about the introduction of vouchers. We shall consider all proposals put to us in the context of our review.

  NHS Review
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what progress has been made in the examination of the use of resources in the National Health Service as part of the overall review of the funding of the service.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to reorganise the administration of the National Health Service.

  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what consultations the Government have undertaken in their consideration of the future of the National Health Service.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if the current review of National Health Service funding will compare the National Health Service with health services in other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moore
  The Government's review of the Health Service will be wideranging and fundamental. We shall look at all the options, including the experience of the
  163
  other countries, and shall bring forward our proposals in due course. In the meantime, I shall consider carefully any representations which are made to me.

  NHS Pay Awards
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received regarding the funding of any pay awards made to National Health Service employees.

  Mr. Wall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make it his policy that Her Majesty's Government will meet the pay award to nurses and the ancillary staff in the National Health Service.

  Mr. Newton
  A large number of representations on the subject of funding pay awards has been received from a wide range of organisations and individuals.

  As in the past, the Government will await the recommendations of the review body on nurses' pay before taking decisions on implementation and funding. These decisions will be announced as soon as possible thereafter. The pay of ancillary staff is a matter for negotiation within the ancillary staffs Whitley Council.

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has received regarding income support limits for elderly people in residential care and nursing homes.

  Mr. Portillo
  We have received a number of letters on the levels of the income support limits; in addition I recently met representatives of the National Confederation of Registered Residential Care Homes Associations and this issue was raised.

  Blackpool HQ Office
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he will next review the work of his Departments headquarters office at Blackpool; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Under standing management arrangements, the functions, objectives, resources and performance of North Fylde central office are kept under regular review in accordance with the principles of the Government's financial management initiative.

  Trent Region (Funding)
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the funding of the National Health Service in the Trent region in the forthcoming financial year.

  Mr. Newton
  Trent regional health authority's initial general revenue allocation will be some £1,050 million. This is a cash increase of 6 ·3 per cent. (1 ·7 per cent. above forecast general inflation) and will bring the region to within 3 per cent. of its target share of resources. The region will also receive £1 ·16 million for the treatment and prevention of AIDS and £0 ·75 million to develop breast cancer screening services. Trent's capital allocation will be over £61 million. Allocations to district health authorities are a matter for the RHA.

  Purchasing Procedures
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will undertake a review of his Department's purchasing procedures with a view to widening access to small suppliers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  We have recently appointed a departmental purchasing adviser, part of whose task is to oversee the implementation of the agreed recommendations of the multi-Department review of purchasing and to review all departmental purchasing and contracting procedures, with specific reference to ensuring equal opportunity for small suppliers. In the National Health Service, a major proportion of suppliers are small firms and we are seeking to develop further opportunities for them, always having regard to the need to obtain value for money, both in departmental and NHS purchasing.

  Social Security Reform
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many families will lose net weekly spending power in April on the basis of the figures given in his answer to the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) on 4 February,Official Report, column 737.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many families will lose net weekly spending power in April on the basis of the figures given in his answer to the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) on 4 February,Official Report, column 737.

  Mr. Scott
  The hypothetical examples given in my reply to the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) on 4 February at columns 737–42 cannot be used to assess the actual impact of the reforms. Nationally representative data reflecting families' actual circumstances give a more balanced picture. I refer the hon. Members to the "Impact of the Reformed Structure of Income-Related Benefits" published last October by the Department. Copies are in the Library.

  NHS Buildings (Norfolk)
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to increase investment in new National Health Services buildings in the Norfolk area.

  Mrs. Currie
  Investment in new hospital buildings in the Norfolk area is the responsibility of the East Anglian regional health authority. However, my hon. Friend may be aware that the regional health authority has submitted to the Department a proposal to build a second district general hospital in Norwich at a total cost of £50 million.

  Private Ambulances
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will provide details of any representations made to him from private companies with regard to alternative arrangements for providing ambulance services.

  Mrs. Currie
  We have had no direct representations from private companies about existing services; but it is for health authorities to manage ambulance service
  165
  provision locally and I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) on I March 1988 at column 610.

  Nurses (Pay)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when the review body for nursing staff will report on the nurses' pay award.

  Mr. Newton
  The nurses' pay review body is expected to report to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in April.

  NHS Consultants
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many consultants are employed in the National Health Service; and of those how many work in more than one district health authority.

  Mr. Newton
  At 30 September 1986 there were 14,731 medical and dental consultants employed in NHS hospitals in England. Information is not held centrally on the number of these who work in more than one district health authority.

  Health Authorities (Trading of Services)
  Mrs. Rosie Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he intends to take any steps to encourage district health authorities to trade services between one another to reduce waiting lists and improve efficiency.

  Mr. Newton
  As part of our waiting list initiative we are keen to encourage far better use of all health care capacity and this includes one district making use of temporary spare capacity in another for an agreed number of patients at an agreed cost. I wrote to regional chairmen last December pointing out the scope for health authorities to arrange treatment for waiting list patients in this way.

  Home Helps
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many social service departments provide home help services free of charge; and what number do not.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the minimum and maximum charges for home help services by social services departments.

  Mr. Newton
  Local authorities have discretion whether, and to what extent, to charge for home help services. Information about charges is not collected by the Department. However, details are available in "Personal Social Services Statistics, 1985–86, Actuals", published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Social Fund Officers
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he has taken to train social fund officers in their new duties.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on 15 December at columns 483–4.

  Consultants (Contracts)
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has plans to transfer consultants contracts from regional to district health authorities.

  Mr. Newton
  We have no plans to do so.

  Retail Prices Index (Error)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many representations he has received concerning the decision not to pay £8 additions to recipients with two benefits on one book; from whom he has received the representations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received seeking full reimbursement to all pensioners and other recipients of state benefits for the computer error made regarding back payments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  We have received some 670 representations about the £8 special payments exercise most of which concerned more than one benefit combined on a single order book. By no means all of the individuals concerned have been under-compensated. Most representations were made by individuals through their Members of Parliament; a small proportion wrote directly to the Department.

  Disabled People (Discrimination)
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to introduce further legislation further on discrimination against disabled people.

  Mr. Scott
  No.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many cases of discrimination against disabled people have been investigated by his Department; and what the results have been.

  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if his Department is currently investigating any cases of discrimination against disabled people.

  Mr. Scott
  Since February 1983, when an invitation was extended by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) for details of alleged discrimination to be submitted, 33 such cases have been referred to the Department.

  In those cases where investigations have been completed:

  in six cases, no evidence of discrimination was found;

  in six cases, insufficient information was available to enable inquiries to be completed;

  there were genuine problems of access in four cases;

  three cases involved judgments by a potential employer that the individual's disability adversely affected their ability to perform the job effectively or safely;

  in three cases the problem was resolved in favour of the complainant during the course of our inquiries;

  two cases involved commercial judgments, the basis of which could not effectively be checked;

  one case concerned maritime regulations laid before Parliament;

  one case was a complaint by a disabled person against an employee who was subsequently disciplined by the employer;

  167

  one case involved a conflict of opinion over the application of right-to-buy housing legislation;

  in one case the Department requested further information from the complainant but received no response;

  five cases are under consideration.

  Elderly People
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the extent of support for elderly people in the United Kingdom; and what equivalent information he has about other European countries.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportion of gross domestic product in the United Kingdom is spent on support for elderly people; and what equivalent information he has about other countries in the EEC.

  Mr. Scott
  At the latest date for which full comparable information is available, the United Kingdom devoted 9·6 per cent. of its gross domestic product to the support of the elderly, excluding health care. Information for other EC member states is in the table.

  Expenditure on programmes for old age as a proportion of GDP at market prices for EC member states (excluding Greece) in 1983

  Country

  Percentage

  Denmark

  10·4

  France

  9·8

  Percentage change in net revenue expenditure 1980–81 and 1986–871

  Percentage change in whole time equivalent medical staff3 1980 to 1986

  Cash Per cent.

  Real terms2 Per cent.

  Per cent.

  West Midlands

  54·1

  8·0

  9·7

  England

  50·0

  6·5

  8·1

  1 Figures are based on health authorities' summarised income and expenditure accounts.

  2 Adjusted by the gross domestic product deflator.

  3 Includes permanent paid, honorary and locum staff.

  Families (Financial Aid)
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many more families with children will be eligible for targeted financial support following implementation of the Social Security Act 1986.

  Mr. Scott
  When, in April, income support supersedes supplementary benefit the broad number of recipients caring for dependent children is likely to be unaltered. Some new entitlements are, however, expected because there will be a more generous capital rule allowing those with savings of up to £6,000 to claim. Priority will be given to families with children through a system of special automatic weekly premiums.

  Help will also be targeted more effectively on need among working families. Thus, whilst 300,000 families may lose entitlement to housing benefit, 270,000 more families are expected to receive the new and more generous family credit when it replaces family income supplement. In total, 470,000 families are expected to receive family credit.

  Overall, and in addition to the transitional arrangements providing cash protection for those families who
  168

  Country

  Percentage

  United Kingdom

  9·6

  Italy

  9·5

  Netherlands

  8·6

  West Germany

  8·6

  Luxembourg

  7·8

  Ireland

  6·1

  Average

  9·3

  Source: Eurostat Statistical Bulletin, Social protection Statistics, March 1985.

  Note: Figures include state and occupational pensions and cash benefits for the elderly, expenditure on residential and nursing homes, local authority services for the elderly and other expenditure on the elderly, excluding health care and increases in pensions for dependants.

  NHS Funding
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the percentage change in (i) National Health Service funding and (ii) employment of medical staff for the years 1980 to 1987 for(a) England and Wales and (b) the west midlands region.

  Mr. Newton
  The information requested in respect of the hospital and community health service in England and the west midlands region is shown in the table. Information relating to Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  might receive less by way of income support and family credit, the weekly net disposable incomes of low income families with children will rise by around £200 million annually.

  Obstetric Units
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what discussions he has had with the professional bodies representing anaesthetists and obstetricians about maintaining flying squad services to small obstetric units.

  Mrs. Currie
  Responsibility for determining the pattern of maternity care rests with individual health authorities. General guidelines on clinical operational and medical cover for maternity units are contained in the second and third reports of the maternity services advisory committee, which have been commended to health authorities for action. The guidance further states that the policies should be regularly updated and agreed with senior members of the professions involved.
  169
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will set out the functions currently exercised by regional health authorities.

  Mrs. Currie
  Under the terms of the NHS Act 1977 (as amended) regional health authorities act as agents of the Secretary of State in contributing to the provision of a comprehensive health service in England. Their specific functions are detailed in various statutory instruments and health circulars, but in general each RHA is responsible, within national guidelines, for the policies and strategic plans for health services in its region. The RHA's allocate resources to and monitor the performance of their district health authorities in achieving agreed objectives. They are the design and contracting authority for major capital developments and provide certain regional services such as the blood transfusion service, management services and in some cases, ambulance services. Regional health authorities also hold the contacts of consultants not working in teaching districts.

  Foster Parents
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what resources his Department plans to provide to train foster parents dealing with children involved in suspected cases of non-accidental injury.

  Mr. Newton
  The training of foster parents is a matter for individual local authorities who set their own priorities in relation to available resources. However, we recognise that there may be a need to develop new training materials for use in the preparation of foster parents who will be having abused children placed in their homes, and we are considering this for the inclusion in the Government's central child abuse training initiative.

  Staff Shortages
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the representations made by hon. Members concerning staff shortages in local benefit offices of his Department.

  Mr. Portillo
  The complementing system for local offices aims to match staff and work loads, and I am satisfied that, overall, this aim has been achieved. Inevitably, there will be some local offices where, on occasions, factors such as higher than anticipated turnover of staff will lead to a temporary shortfall. However, I am confident that appropriate steps are taken by local management to make good these shortfalls as soon as possible.

  Benefits and Rebates
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the likely effects on the physical and moral well-being of individuals and on family life, of the combined effect of differential rates of social security benefits and proposed community charge rebates, for those aged under and over 25 years.

  Mr. Scott
  Whereas the present supplementary benefit scheme has differential rates of benefit for householders and non-householders, which may encourage young people to leave home, the new income support scheme will have rates of benefit which will vary according to age and family status. People under 18 will not be liable to pay the 170
  community charge. Those young people who are liable will be helped, in the same way as anyone else, through a new community charge rebate scheme and the help towards the 20 per cent. minimum contribution which will be built into income-related benefit levels. The new arrangements are not expected to affect adversely family life or the well-being of individuals.

  Southend Office
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the total value of the benefits administered by the Southend office of his Department during the last 12 months for which figures are available.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that the information is not available. For those benefits administered by the Department's local offices, there is no routine collection of information about the value of benefits paid to beneficiaries in the area; an estimate could be given only after a costly special exercise.

  Patient Care
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how much extra money has been made available for patient care as a result of contracting-out National Health Service services.

  Mrs. Currie
  As at December 1987 cumulative annual savings of some £105 million had been generated from contracts awarded following competitive tendering for domestic cleaning, catering and laundry services. Information is not held centrally on other contracting out.

  Hospital Facilities
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to visit Liverpool to inspect National Health Service hospital facilities.

  Mrs. Currie
  We have no plans at present to visit hospital premises in Liverpool.

  Salaries and Wages
  Mr. Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his latest estimate of the percentage of the total cost of the National Health Service which is allocated to salaries and wages; and what was the overall average percentage increase in salaries and wages in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Newton
  The summarised accounts of regional and district health authorities in England for 1986–87 (the latest year available) show that 74·5 per cent. of their total revenue expenditure was incurred on gross salaries and wages costs (including employer's national insurance and superannuation contributions and expenditure on non-National Health Service, agency, etc., staff). Between 1985–86 and 1986–87 health authorities' total expenditure on salaries and wages increased in cash terms by 8·0 per cent. Equivalent information for 1987–88 will not be available until the autumn.

  Committee on Food Policy
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the current work of the Chief Medical Officer's committee on food policy.

  Mrs. Currie
  The work currently being undertaken by the Chief Medical Officer's Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy through its panels, working groups and sub-committees includes:a continuing review of matters relating to infant and child nutrition, with particular reference to ways of promoting breastfeeding; as recommended in the COMA report "Present day practice in Infant Feeding: Third Report" published in February 1988;
  a continuing review of the relationship between diet and cardiovascular disease; as recommended in the COMA report on "Diet and Cardiovascular Disease" published in 1984;
  a study of the rate of growth and achieved height of primary schoolchildren aged 5 to 11, with special reference to inner city and ethnic minority groups;
  special consideration of the nutritional status of children in families in "bed and breakfast" accommodation;
  review of the recommended daily amounts for energy and nutrients, embracing protein, vitamins, minerals, fat, carbohydrate, dietary fibre; this panel was set up on 28 September 1987;
  the relationships, if any, between dietary sugars and disease; this panel was set up on 19 March 1987;
  completion of detailed analysis of data from the 1984 survey of schoolchildren's diets;
  analysis of the data from the 1986–87 survey of adult nutritional status and diets, in collaboration with MAFF and OPCS;
  preparation of the third report of the sub-committee on nutritional surveillance, a summary of which is expected shortly.

  We are most grateful to all the members of COMA for their efforts.

  Griffiths Report
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he received the Griffiths report; when the report will be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether the Griffiths report on community care will be published in full; and if he will make a statement on the delays that have held up his publication of the report.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has yet received the report by Sir Roy Griffiths on care in the community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moore
  I have received Sir Roy Griffiths' report. I am arranging for publication on 16 March and copies will then be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The report makes wide-ranging proposals affecting the responsibilities of local government; individuals' social security entitlements; central funding and control of community care services; and aspects of the social fund.

  The Government will be considering the proposals, taking account of the report of the committee chaired by Lady Wagner on residential care which the National Institute for Social Work is publishing tomorrow, and of reactions to both reports; and will bring forward their own proposals in due course.

  Speech Therapists
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many health authorities are currently unable to recruit their full establishment of speech therapists.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks) on 29 February at column 463.

  Child Care
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to be in a position to announce what further action is planned on child care law, following the suggestion contained in the Government's White Paper issued in January 1987.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South West (Mrs. Bottomley) on 28 October 1987 at columns 307–8.

  No-fault Drug Damage Compensation Scheme
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will initiate discussions with the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industries regarding the establishment of a no-fault drug damage compensation scheme.

  Mr. Newton
  We have no plans to do so. The Government have already introduced changes, which took effect from 1 March 1988 through the Consumer Protection Act 1987, to remove the need for an individual to prove negligence in establishing liability where it can he shown that a defective medicinal product caused personal injury. It must be for the pharmaceutical industry to decide whether it wishes to set up its own no-fault drug compensation scheme.

  Physiotherapists
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking to encourage the recruitment and training of physiotherapists.

  Mr. Newton
  The manpower planning advisory group which advises the NHS management board and regional chairmen on NHS manpower issues, has recently established a joint consultative group with the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy which is considering supply and demand in the profession as a matter of priority. When the results of that study are known, consideration will be given to preparation of appropriate advice to NHS authorities on recruitment and training.

  Non-accidental Injuries (Investigations)
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what amounts of resources his Department plans to provide to train social workers in investigating suspected cases of non-accidental injury.

  Mr. Newton
  The Department makes grants available to Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work which has within its programme work to develop child care training. We have also set up a centrally funded interdisciplinary training initiative as announced on 30 October 1986 and 8 April 1987 at a cost of £500,000.
  173
  Several of the six projects so far established will be of benefit to social workers. Other projects are under consideration.

  Free School Milk and Meals
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what provision has been made for pupils currently entitled to free school milk and free school lunches whose parents will be in receipt of income support after April.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to her on 26 February 1988 at column 361.

  Patient Statistics
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many patients were treated in National Health Service hospitals in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what was the comparable figure for 1978–79.

  Mrs. Currie
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) on 24 November at columns 168–69.

  State Pensions
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has as to how many countries in the European Economic Community pay a basic pension of equal value to all or most elderly people.

  Mr. Scott
  Denmark and the United Kingdom pay flat-rate pensions to almost all pensioners, plus earnings-related additions. Ireland and the Netherlands pay flat-rate pensions to those who have satisfied contribution conditions, but do not pay separate pensions to married women without a contribution record of their own. The Netherlands also has an earnings-related top-up. Other EC countries have earnings-related pension systems in which the level of final pension depends on the individual's own average earnings and contribution record. Some have thresholds to ensure that no contributor falls below a minimum regardless of actual earnings-related entitlement. Separate pensions are not available in other EC countries to wives without a contribution record.

  New Social Security Legislation
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received from Strathclyde regional council on the impact of the new social security legislation.

  Mr. Portillo
  We have no record of any formal representations having been received from Strathclyde regional council during 1988. Last year, Strathclyde regional council made representations on the consultative draft social fund manual.

  Transitional Payments
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on preparations for the implementation of transitional payments under the new social security legislation.
  174
  Mr. Scott
  The assumptions used in estimating the number and level of transitional additions payable at the implementation of income support and family credit are outlined in the explanatory notes to the tables in "Impact of the Reformed Structure of Income-Related Benefits", a copy of which is available in the Library. For income support the data source was the 1986 "Annual Statistical Enquiry;" for family credit it was the family expenditure surveys for 1983, 1984 and 1985.

  The estimated number of claimants in Great Britain who will receive a transitional addition at the point of change is 1·4 million.

  Young Children (Poisoning)
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what further action is being considered to deal with the continued admissions to hospital of very young children with suspected poisoning.

  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether in view of the continuing incidents of child poisoning, he will take steps to provide an increased protection for children by establishing safety standards for blister and strip packaging for medical tablets.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) whether, in view of the continuing incidence of child poisoning, he will take steps to provide increased protection for children by establishing safety standards for blister and strip packaging for medical tablets;

  (2) whether he will give the statistics from 1977 until the most recent date of young children admitted to hospital for in-patient and out-patient treatment as a result of poisoning or suspected poisoning;

  (3) whether he will publish information indicating the results of the introduction of child-resistant closures for medicines and the numbers of children admitted to hospital for treatment for poisoning;

  (4) what further action is being considered to deal with the continued admission to hospital of very young children with suspected child poisoning;

  (5) if he will receive a deputation from the campaign for safety standards in child-resistant packaging;

  (6) whether he will establish a system of monitoring and testing strip and blister packaging to ensure child safety.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 26 February 1988]: The Government have emphasised the importance of preventive services generally and specifically asked health authorities to develop local strategies for reducing accidents in the home. We also fund the child accident prevention trust, which collects and disseminates information about accidents to children including information on accidental poisonings. We consider that future action must continue to concentrate on prevention and education.

  Our proposals for improved labelling of medicines include a clearer reminder to parents that all medicines should be kept away from children.

  The present arrangements are as follows. Under the Medicines (Child Safety) Regulation 1975, as amended, solid dose aspirin and paracetamol are to be supplied retail only in reclosable child resistant containers complying with BS 6652 or in dark or opaque strip or blister packs.

  175
  The Pharmaceutical Society has since 1981 advised pharmacists to apply the same arrangements to all dispensed solid-dose medicines, unless the patient specifically requests otherwise. In addition, all aspects of safety including quantity, labelling, and packaging are considered before decisions are taken to licence medicines for the market.

  Information about the effectiveness of child-resistant packaging has already been published in "Accidental Poisoning in Childhood: A Multicentre Survey" (Human Toxicology, Vol. 6, No. 4, p. 293–31, July 1987). This also emphasised the importance of secure home storage away from children and called for the development of standards of child resistance of packs.

  The industry has communicated its guidelines for the design of unit dose packs to the British Standards Institution which is considering them with a view to development of a standard or code of practice. We shall take a close interest in the progress of the work at the institution and will consider actively its conclusions when available.

  Should the campaign to which the right hon. Member refers, wish to put particular proposals to us, I should be happy to examine them and to consider whether a meeting might be helpful.

  Available information about in-patients aged 0 to 4 treated for the effects of poisoning is given in tables 1 and 2.

  Information about out-patients is not available centrally.

  Table 1

  Estimated number of discharges (including deaths in hospital of in-patients aged 0–4 with main diagnosis of poisoning by drugs, medicaments and biological substances1, non-psychiatric hospitals,England, 1977–85

  Year

  age Group 0–4year

  1977

  17,600

  1978

  14,870

  1979

  13,900

  1980

  12,960

  1981

  13,810

  1982

  13,580

  1983

  13,820

  1984

  13,380

  1985

  12,290

  1 1979–85 ICD Codes 960–989 (International Classification of Diseases; 9th Revision)

  1975–78 ICD Codes N960-N989 (International Classification of Diseases; 8th Revision)

  Table 2

  Estimated number of discharges (including deaths in hospital of in-patients aged 0–4 with main diagnosis of poisoning by drugs, medicaments and Bbiological substances1, non-psychiatric hospitals, England, 1975–85

  Year

  Age Group 0–4 year

  1975

  14,520

  1976

  12,640

  1977

  10,910

  1978

  8,700

  1979

  8,540

  1980

  7,800

  1981

  8,600

  1982

  8,460

  1983

  8,240

  1984

  8,190

  1985

  7,850

  176
  11979–85 ICD Codes 960–979 (International Classification of Diseases; 9th Revision)

  1975–78 ICD Codes N960-N979 (International Classification of Diseases; 8th Revision)

  Contract Cleaning
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he last met representatives of the contract cleaning industry.

  Mr. John Moore
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) earlier today.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the current waiting lists for(a)examinations, (b)operations and (c)beds in each specialty in each hospital in (i) the Crewe, (ii) the Chester and (iii) the Halton health districts.

  Mr. Newton
  I am sorry I cannot give my hon. Friend all the information he seeks. The available information is given in the table. It should be noted that in certain specialities a clinician may maintain a waiting list which is common to more than one hospital within a district health authority.

  In-patient waiting lists as at 31 December 1986, by hospital, Chester, Crewe and Halton health authorities

  Health authority and hospital

  Specially

  Waiting list

  Chester

  Chester Royal Infirmary

  General surgery

  973

  Ear Nose and Throat

  48

  Traumatic and Orthopaedic

  342

  Opthalmology

  278

  Oral surgery

  121

  Gynaecology

  402

  Total

  2,164

  Chester City Hospital

  Total

  0

  Ellesmere Port Hospital

  Total

  0

  The Countess of Cheshire

  Mental illness

  20

  Hospital, Psychiatric

  Adolescent psychiatry

  1

  Wing

  Total

  21

  The Countess of Cheshire

  Total

  0

  Hospital, General wing and Maternity wing.

  The Manor Hospital

  Total

  0

  Crewe

  Leighton Hospital

  General medicine

  1

  General surgery

  1,509

  Ear Nose and Throat

  191

  Traumatic and Orthopaedic

  333

  Opthalmology

  217

  Urology

  665

  Oral surgery

  297

  Gynaecology

  796

  Total

  4,009

  Victoria Infirmary

  Total

  0

  Tarporley War Memorial Hospital

  Total

  0

  Barony Hospital

  Total

  0

  Oakmere Rehabilitation Centre

  Total

  0

  Cranage Hall Hospital

  Mental handicap

  2

  total

  2

  Arclid

  Total

  0

  Grange Hospital (Weaverham)

  Total

  0

  177

  Health authority and hospital

  Specialty

  Waiting list

  Halton

  Crossley Hospital

  Total

  0

  Crow Wood Hospital

  Total

  0

  Dutton Hospital

  Total

  0

  Halton General

  General medicine

  1

  General surgery

  153

  Urology

  34

  Total

  188

  Highfield Hospital

  Total

  0

  Community Mental Handicap Unit

  Total

  0

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

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

  Sunderland District Health Authority in-patient waiting list figures at 31 March, 1979 to 1987.

  Year

  Patients on waiting list

  1979

  5,549

  1980

  4,385

  1981

  4,195

  1982

  3,516

  1983

  5,254

  1984

  4,411

  1985

  3,851

  1986

  3,890

  1987

  3,659

  Mr. Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he was on the waiting list(a) for out-patient examinations and (b) for in-patient surgery, in the Northern regional health authority.

  Mr. Newton
  The latest available information about NHS waiting lists is contained in the summary booklet, "Hospital in-patient waiting list—England at 31 March 1987," copies of which have been placed in the Library. Information about out-patient waiting lists is not held centrally.

  Abortions
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the number of abortions carried out on each day of January for(a) 1984, (b) 1985, (c) 1986, (d) 1987 and (e)

  Mr. Newton
  The number of notifications of abortions carried out on each day of January, England and Wales 1984–87 was as follows:

  January

  1984

  1985

  1986

  11987

  1

  1

  6

  46

  10

  2

  32

  410

  532

  545

  3

  431

  451

  551

  295

  4

  482

  499

  293

  109

  5

  509

  307

  112

  471

  6

  556

  59

  472

  497

  7

  343

  418

  434

  486

  8

  126

  428

  512

  583

  9

  528

  415

  530

  598

  10

  519

  594

  614

  330

  11

  468

  572

  356

  138

  178

  January

  1984

  1985

  1986

  11987

  12

  557

  382

  134

  544

  13

  628

  134

  572

  504

  14

  364

  530

  535

  493

  15

  144

  522

  527

  533

  16

  610

  497

  619

  586

  17

  594

  627

  653

  312

  18

  537

  613

  383

  127

  19

  635

  394

  139

  589

  20

  661

  140

  599

  543

  21

  353

  597

  559

  518

  22

  149

  552

  573

  646

  23

  646

  590

  644

  614

  24

  574

  636

  643

  368

  25

  532

  619

  381

  132

  26

  624

  369

  186

  643

  27

  667

  156

  663

  562

  28

  343

  571

  581

  588

  29

  143

  571

  551

  661

  30

  599

  552

  695

  674

  31

  559

  655

  666

  365

  1 Provisional.

  NHS (Administrative Costs)
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will show the total expenditure on National Health Service administrative and clerical staff for each of the years 1974, 1984, 1985 and 1986; and if he will also estimate National Health Service administrative overheads for each of these years.

  Mr. Newton
  Following is information, covering both hospital and community health services and family practitioner services, derived from annual accounts submitted to the Department:

  Expenditure on headquarters administration

  Expenditure on salaries and wages —administrative and clerical staff

  £000

  £000

  1974–75

  128,788

  210,628

  1984–85

  444,016

  797,761

  1985–86

  479,047

  839,180

  1986–87

  516,624

  905,333

  Sources:

  Annual financial accounts of:

  (i) regional and district health authorities and the special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals. (predecessor authorities for 1974–75);

  (ii) family practitioner committees;

  (iii) the Dental Estimates Board and the Prescription Pricing Authority.

  Notes:

  1. Expenditure on headquarters administration includes all current expenditure on the pay and pay related costs of staff of all disciplines (including general managers) employed at headquarters levels and their office costs and overheads. It excludes the cost of clerical and secretarial support staff employed in departments at hospital and unit levels: such costs are regarded as operational.

  2. The figures for headquarters administration also include the total expenses of the Dental Estimates Board and the Prescription Pricing Authority which are regarded as wholly administrative.

  3. The figures for expenditure on the salaries and wages of administrative and clerical staff include:

  (i) the gross pay and employers' national insurance and superannuation contributions for all grades of National Health Service administrative and clerical staff employed at all levels;

  (ii) the total expenditure on the employment of all non-National Health Service (agency, etc) administrative and clerical staff;

  (iii) the total pay costs of the Dental Estimates Board and the Prescription Pricing Authority which are predominantly for

  179
  administrative and clerical staff but include a small element for other staff categories which is not separately identifiable.

  4. All expenditure by other bodies and special health authorities providing central services to the National Health Service (eg the Central Blood Laboratories Authority) and expenditure met centrally by the Department is excluded.

  Staff
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the cost of employing(a) directly employed staff, (b) temporary directly employed staff and (c) agency staff as (i) nurses, (ii) midwives, (iii) junior doctors and (iv) ancillary staff.

  Mr. Newton
  Following is information derived from summarised annual accounts of health authorities in England for 1986–87 (the latest year available):

  Expenditure £000

  Total directly employed National Health Service staff salaries and wages

  7,532,513

  Non NHS staff (agency etc.)

  (a) All nursing staff (including midwives)

  70,788

  (b) Medical staff (all grades)

  26,064

  (c) Ancillary staff

  6,359

  Supplementary information within the accounts of health authorities show that of the total directly employed National Health Service staff salaries and wages for medical staff (£1,067·5 million) and dental staff (£54·6 million) some £42·3 million and £0·8 million respectively related to locum staff. Otherwise, the annual accounts do not separately identify the costs of directly employed staff engaged on a temporary basis nor the costs of agency midwives and junior doctors.

  Midwives
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give, for each district health authority, regional health authority and special health authority, and the total for England as a whole(a) the number of agency midwives employed and (b) the amount spent on agency midwives in the latest available year, for the previous year and for 1979.

  Mr. Newton
  The number of agency midwifery staff in each region, special health authority and England at September 1979, 1985 and 1986 is given in the table. Similar information for September 1987 is not yet available. Information by district health authority is available only from 1982 and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Expenditure specifically for agency midwives is not available centrally.

  NHS midwifery agency staff: 30 September

  Whole-time equivalents1

  Region

  1979

  1985

  1986

  Northern

  2

  —

  —

  Yorkshire

  —

  1

  1

  Trent

  —

  —

  —

  East Anglian

  4

  6

  1

  North West Thames

  30

  58

  31

  North East Thames

  43

  66

  130

  South East Thames

  62

  81

  94

  South West Thames

  49

  26

  26

  Wessex

  2

  3

  —

  180

  Region

  1979

  1985

  1986

  Oxford

  3

  —

  —

  South Western

  16

  1

  —

  West Midlands

  9

  4

  10

  Mersey

  —

  —

  2

  North Western

  —

  —

  —

  London Postgraduate Special Health Authorities

  12

  15

  8

  England: Total

  l21

  261

  303

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

  1 Figures are independently rounded to the nearest whole-time equivalent.

  Charing Cross Hospital
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the saving to the district health authority which was estimated in the original feasibility study on the re-building of Charing Cross hospital; and what has the eventual saving actually been.

  Mrs. Currie
  Responsibility for the planning and construction of health buildings is delegated to regional health authorities. The hon. Member may wish to approach the regional chairman of the North-West Thames regional health authority to inquire what information is available.

  Long-term Disabled
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what special arrangements he is making to assist the long-term disabled when the new benefit system comes into effect in April.

  Mr. Scott
  Under the new benefit system, income support replaces supplementary benefit from 11 April. Claimants who, or whose partners receive attendance allowance, mobility allowance, invalidity benefit or severe disablement allowance or are blind, will qualify for the disability premium, as will claimants who have been sick for at least 28 weeks. The premium will be £13£05 for a single person and £18£60 for a couple. Claimants who are, or whose partner is, aged 60 or over and receive one of these qualifying benefits or are blind, will qualify for the higher pensioner premium which is payable at the same rate; so too will claimants who, immediately before their 60th birthday, were receiving the disability premium. People entitled to the disability premium who work part-time will be entitled to the higher (£ l5) earnings disregard. In addition, the severe disability premium will be paid to claimants who receive attendance allowance, live independently in the community and are not cared for by someone receiving invalid care allowance. This premium is £24·75 for a single person and £49·50 for couples both of whom satisfy the conditions. The same provisions will exist in the new housing benefit cheme.

  There will be no limit on the number of hours mentally or physically disabled people can work and remain entitled to income support if their earning capacity is reduced to 75 per cent. or less of what they would otherwise earn. Normally people who work 24 hours or more a week on average will not be entitled.

  We also intend to establish a special fund to enable very severely disabled people to live independently.
  181
  We will look again at provisions for disabled people when the results of the survey into disability being carried out by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys are known.

  Spending Power
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish tables similar to his Department's tax/benefit model table showing the net weekly spending power for each of(a) a single person, (b) a married couple with no children, (c) a couple with a child aged 11 years, (d) a couple with two children aged eight and 11 years, (e) a couple with three children aged eight, 11 and 15 years and (f) a couple with four children aged three, eight, 11 and 15 years, with weekly earnings of (i) £60, (ii) £70, (iii) £80, (iv) £90, (v) £110, (vi) £120,

  Existing tax and benefit system.Single person Income and means tested benefits Family head in full-time work

  Tex threshold: £48·17

  Earnings head

  Tax

  National insurance

  Family income supplement

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to work

  Free school meals

  Free welfare milk

  Net weekly spending power

  60·00

  3·19

  3·00

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  11·99

  8·45

  4·78

  5·85

  0·00

  0·00

  40·34

  70·00

  5·89

  4·90

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  9·47

  8·45

  3·96

  5·85

  0·00

  0·00

  42·40

  80·00

  8·59

  5·60

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  6·17

  8·45

  2·66

  5·85

  0·00

  0·00

  44·40

  90·00

  11·29

  6·30

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  2·87

  8·45

  1·36

  5·85

  0·00

  0·00

  46·40

  110·00

  16·69

  9·90

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  0·00

  0·00

  53·17

  120·00

  19·39

  10·80

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  0·00

  0·00

  59·57

  130·00

  22·09

  11·70

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  0·00

  0·00

  65·97

  140·00

  24·79

  12·60

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  0·00

  0·00

  72·37

  150·00

  27·49

  13·50

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  0·00

  0·00

  78·77

  160·00

  30·19

  14·40

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  0·00

  0·00

  85·17

  170·00

  32·89

  15·30

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  0·00

  0·00

  91·57

  New System from April 1988 Single Person Income and means tested benefits Family head in full-time work

  Tax threshold: £48·17

  Earnings head

  Tax

  NI

  Family credit

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to work

  Net Weekly spending power

  60·00

  3·19

  3·00

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  5·93

  8·45

  2·25

  5·85

  31·75

  70·00

  5·89

  4·90

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  2·42

  8·45

  1·17

  5·85

  32·56

  80·00

  8·59

  5·60

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  35·57

  90·00

  11·29

  6·30

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  42·17

  110·00

  16·69

  9·90

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  53·17

  120·00

  19·39

  10·80

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  59·57

  130·00

  22·09

  11·70

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  65·97

  140·00

  24·79

  12·60

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  72·37

  150·00

  27·49

  13·50

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  78·77

  160·00

  30·19

  14·40

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  85·17

  170·00

  32·89

  15·30

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  91·57

  Existing tax and benefit system: Married Couple Income and means tested benefits Family head in full-time work

  Tax threshold: £75·48

  Earnings head

  Tax

  NI

  FIS

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rent rebate

  Fares to work

  Free school meals

  Free welfare milk

  net weekly spending power

  60·00

  0·00

  3·00

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  15·94

  8·45

  6·67

  5·85

  0·00

  0·00

  49·37

  70·00

  0·00

  4·90

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  15·48

  8·45

  5·89

  5·85

  0·00

  0·00

  56·23

  182
  (vii) £130, (viii) £140, (ix) £150, (x) £160 and (xi) £170 under (a) the existing tax and benefit system and (b) the new system to be implemented in April.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is set out in the tables. It should he noted that the results are hypothetical in two senses. First, the results are based on average local authority rents and rates and do not present a balanced picture reflecting peoples actual family circumstances and housing arrangements. For example, larger families composed of older children are not included. Similarly, mortgagors, outright owners and non-householders are excluded. A half of the family credit recipient population are unlikely to be rent payers. Second, the other assumptions used are those set out in "Impact of the Reformed Structure of Income-Related Benefits", October 1987.
  183

  Earnings head

  Tax

  NI

  FIS

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to work

  Free school meals

  Free welfare milk

  Net weekly spending power

  80·00

  1·22

  5·60

  0·000

  0·00

  15·94

  12·98

  20·14

  8·45

  20·14

  5·09

  5·85

  61·01

  90·00

  3·92

  6·30

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  10·48

  8·45

  4·29

  5·85

  0·00

  0·00

  64·31

  110·00

  9·32

  9·90

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  4·17

  8·45

  1·88

  5·85

  0·00

  0·00

  66·59

  120·00

  12·02

  10·80

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·87

  8·45

  0·58

  5·85

  0·00

  0·00

  68·39

  130·00

  14·72

  11·70

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  0·00

  0·00

  73·34

  140·00

  17·42

  12·60

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  0·00

  0·00

  79·74

  150·00

  20·12

  13·50

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  0·00

  0·00

  86·14

  160·00

  22·82

  14·40

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  0·00

  0·00

  92·54

  170·00

  25·52

  15·30

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  0·00

  0·00

  98·94

  New system from April 1988 Married couple Income and means tested benefits family head in full-time work

  Tax threshold: £75.48

  Earnings head

  Tax

  NI

  Family credit

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to work

  Net weekly spending power

  60·00

  0·00

  3·00

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  15·94

  8·45

  5·34

  5·85

  48·04

  70·00

  0·00

  4·90

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  13·57

  8·45

  4·61

  5·85

  53·04

  80·00

  1·22

  5·60

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  8·32

  8·45

  2·99

  5·85

  54·25

  90·00

  3·92

  6·30

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  4·03

  8·45

  1·67

  5·85

  55·24

  110·00

  9·32

  9·90

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  60·54

  120·00

  12·02

  10·80

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  66·94

  130·00

  14·72

  11·70

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  73·34

  140·00

  17·42

  12·60

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  79·74

  150·00

  20·12

  13·50

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  86·14

  160·00

  22·82

  14·40

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  92·54

  170·00

  25·52

  15·30

  0·00

  0·00

  15·94

  0·00

  8·45

  0·00

  5·85

  98·94

  Existing tax and benefit system: Married couple with one child aged 11 Income and means tested benefits Family head in full-time work

  Tax threshold: £75·48

  Earnings head

  Tax

  NI

  FIS

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to work

  Free school meals

  Free welfare milk

  Net weekly spending power

  60·00

  0·00

  3·00

  29·30

  7·25

  17·82

  13·87

  9·28

  5·52

  5·85

  2·55

  0·00

  82·54

  70·00

  0·00

  4·90

  24·30

  7·25

  17·82

  12·62

  9·28

  5·12

  5·85

  2·55

  0·00

  83·99

  80·00

  1·22

  5·60

  19·30

  7·25

  17·82

  11·37

  9·28

  4·72

  5·85

  2·55

  0·00

  85·42

  90·00

  3·92

  6·30

  14·30

  7·25

  17·82

  9·93

  9·28

  4·20

  5·85

  2·55

  0·00

  85·06

  110·00

  9·32

  9·90

  4·30

  7·25

  17·82

  6·63

  9·28

  2·90

  5·85

  2·55

  0·00

  81·46

  Mandatory provision of free school meals ceases

  120·00

  12·02

  10·80

  0·00

  7·25

  17·82

  4·75

  9·28

  2·16

  5·85

  0·00

  0·00

  78·39

  130·00

  14·72

  11·70

  0·00

  7·25

  17·82

  1·45

  9·28

  0·86

  5·85

  0·00

  0·00

  80·19

  140·00

  17·42

  12·60

  0·00

  7·25

  17·82

  0·00

  9·28

  0·00

  5·85

  0·00

  0·00

  84·28

  150·00

  20·12

  13·50

  0·00

  7·25

  17·82

  0·00

  9·28

  0·00

  5·85

  0·00

  0·00

  90·68

  160·00

  22·82

  14·40

  0·00

  7·25

  17·82

  0·00

  9·28

  0·00

  5·85

  0·00

  0·00

  97·08

  170·00

  25·52

  15·30

  0·00

  7·25

  17·82

  0·00

  9·28

  0·00

  5·85

  0·00

  0·00

  103·48

  New System from April 1988 Married couple with one child aged 11 Income and means tested benefits Family head in full-time work

  Tax threshold: £75·48

  Earnings head

  Tax

  NI

  Family credit

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to work

  Net weekly spending power

  60·00

  0·00

  3·00

  39·62

  7·25

  17·82

  4·71

  9·28

  1·97

  5·85

  77·60

  70·00

  0·00

  4·90

  33·95

  7·25

  17·82

  3·13

  9·28

  1·48

  5·85

  77·96

  80·00

  1·22

  5·60

  28·29

  7·25

  17·82

  1·56

  9·28

  1·00

  5·85

  78·33

  90·00

  3·92

  6·30

  23·67

  7·25

  17·82

  0·00

  9·28

  0·60

  5·85

  78·35

  110·00

  9·32

  9·90

  15·97

  7·25

  17·82

  0·00

  9·28

  0·00

  5·85

  81·05

  120·00

  12·02

  10·80

  11·49

  7·25

  17·82

  0·00

  9·28

  0·00

  5·85

  82·97

  184 185

  Earnings head

  Tax

  NI

  Family Child

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to work

  Net weekly spending power

  130·00

  14·72

  11·70

  7·01

  7·25

  17·82

  0·00

  9·28

  0·00

  5·85

  84·89

  140·00

  17·42

  12·60

  2·53

  7·25

  17·82

  0·00

  9·28

  0·00

  5·85

  86·81

  150·00

  20·12

  13·50

  0·00

  7·25

  17·82

  0·00

  9·28

  0·00

  5·85

  90·68

  160·00

  22·82

  14·40

  0·00

  7·25

  17·82

  0·00

  9·28

  0·00

  5·85

  97·08

  170·00

  25·52

  15·30

  0·00

  7·25

  17·82

  0·00

  9·28

  0·00

  5·85

  103·48

  Existing tax and benefit system: Married couple with two children aged 8 and 11 Income and means tested benefits Family head in full-time work

  Tax threshold: ·75·48

  Earnings head

  Tax

  NI

  FIS

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to Work

  Free school meals

  Free welfare milk

  Net weekly spending power

  60·00

  0·00

  3·00

  35·50

  14·50

  19·12

  15·18

  9·80

  6·00

  5·85

  5·10

  0·00

  98·51

  70·00

  0·00

  4·90

  30·50

  14·50

  19·12

  13·93

  9·80

  5·60

  5·85

  5·10

  0·00

  99·96

  80·00

  1·22

  5·60

  25·50

  14·50

  19·12

  12·68

  9·80

  5·20

  5·85

  5·10

  0·00

  101·39

  90·00

  3·92

  6·30

  20·50

  14·50

  19·12

  11·42

  9·80

  4·79

  5·85

  5·10

  0·00

  101·32

  110·00

  9·32

  9·90

  10·50

  14·50

  19·12

  8·12

  9·80

  3·49

  5·85

  5·10

  0·00

  97·72

  120·00

  12·02

  10·80

  5·50

  14·50

  19·12

  6·47

  9·80

  2·84

  5·85

  5·10

  0·00

  96·82

  130·00

  14·72

  11·70

  0·50

  14·50

  19·12

  4·82

  9·80

  2·19

  5·85

  5·10

  0·00

  95·92

  Mandatory provision of free school meals ceases

  140·00

  17·42

  12·60

  0·00

  14·50

  19·12

  1·69

  9·80

  0·96

  5·85

  2·55

  0·00

  94·91

  150·00

  20·12

  13·50

  0·00

  14·50

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  0·00

  0·00

  96·11

  160·00

  22·82

  14·40

  0·00

  14·50

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  0·00

  0·00

  102·51

  170·00

  25·52

  15·30

  0·00

  14·50

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  0·00

  0·00

  108·91

  New system from April 1988: Married couple with two children aged 8 and 11 Income and means tested benefits Family head in full-time work

  Tax threshold: £75·48

  Earnings head

  Tax

  NI

  Family credit

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to work

  Net weekly spending power

  60·00

  0·00

  3·00

  45·67

  14·50

  19·12

  4·36

  9·80

  1·87

  5·85

  88·63

  70·00

  0·00

  4·90

  40·00

  14·50

  19·12

  2·78

  9·80

  1·39

  5·85

  89·00

  80·00

  1·22

  5·60

  34·34

  14·50

  19·12

  1·20

  9·80

  0·90

  5·85

  89·35

  90·00

  3·92

  6·30

  29·72

  14·50

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·51

  5·85

  89·74

  110·00

  9·32

  9·90

  22·02

  14·50

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  92·53

  120·00

  12·02

  10·80

  17·54

  14·50

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  94·45

  130·00

  14·72

  11·70

  13·06

  14·50

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  96·37

  140·00

  17·42

  12·60

  8·58

  14·50

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  98·29

  150·00

  20·12

  13·50

  4·10

  14·50

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  100·21

  160·00

  22·82

  14·40

  0·00

  14·50

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  102·51

  170·00

  25·52

  15·30

  0·00

  14·50

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  108·91

  Existing tax and benefit system: Married couple with three children aged 8, 11 and 15 Income and means tested benefits Family head in full-time work

  Tax threshold: £75·48

  Earnings head

  Tax

  NI

  FIS

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to work

  Free school meals

  Free welfare milk

  Net weekly spending power

  60·00

  0·00

  3·00

  48·40

  21·75

  19·12

  14·05

  9·80

  5·64

  5·85

  7·65

  0·00

  119·72

  70·00

  0·00

  4·90

  43·40

  21·75

  19·12

  12·80

  9·80

  5·24

  5·85

  7·65

  0·00

  121·17

  80·00

  1·22

  5·60

  38·40

  21·75

  19·12

  11·55

  9·80

  4·84

  5·85

  7·65

  0·00

  122·60

  90·00

  3·92

  6·30

  33·40

  21·75

  19·12

  9·92

  9·80

  4·20

  5·85

  7·65

  0·00

  121·93

  110·00

  9·32

  9·90

  23·40

  21·75

  19·12

  6·62

  9·80

  2·90

  5·85

  7·65

  0·00

  118·33

  120·00

  12·02

  10·80

  18·40

  21·75

  19·12

  4·97

  9·80

  2·25

  5·85

  7·65

  0·00

  117·43

  130·00

  14·72

  11·70

  13·40

  21·75

  19·12

  3·32

  9·80

  1·60

  5·85

  7·65

  0·00

  116·53

  140·00

  17·42

  12·60

  8·40

  21·75

  19·12

  1·67

  9·80

  0·95

  5·85

  7·65

  0·00

  115·63

  186 187

  Earnings head

  Tax

  NI

  FIS

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to work

  Free school meals

  Free welfare milk

  Net weekly spending power

  150·00

  20·12

  13·50

  3·40

  21·75

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  7·65

  0·00

  114·41

  Mandatory provision of free school meals ceases

  160·00

  22·82

  14·40

  0·00

  21·75

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  2·55

  0·00

  112·31

  170·00

  25·52

  15·30

  0·00

  21·75

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  0·00

  0·00

  116·16

  New system from April 1988: Married couple with three children aged 8, 11 and 15 Income and means tested benefits Family head in full-time work

  Tax threshold: £75·48

  Earnings head

  Tax

  NI

  Family credit

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to work

  Net weekly spending power

  60·00

  0·00

  3·00

  57·07

  21·75

  19·12

  2·70

  9·80

  1·36

  5·85

  105·11

  70·00

  0·00

  4·90

  51·40

  21·75

  19·12

  1·12

  9·80

  0·88

  5·85

  105·48

  80·00

  1·22

  5·60

  45·74

  21·75

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  105·90

  90·00

  3·92

  6·30

  41·12

  21·75

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  107·88

  110·00

  9·32

  9·90

  33·42

  21·75

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  111·18

  120·00

  12·02

  10·80

  28·94

  21·75

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  113·10

  130·00

  14·72

  11·70

  24·46

  21·75

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  115·02

  140·00

  17·42

  12·60

  19·98

  21·75

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  116·94

  150·00

  20·12

  13·50

  15·50

  21·75

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  118·86

  160·00

  22·82

  14·40

  11·02

  21·75

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  120·78

  170·00

  25·52

  15·30

  6·54

  21·75

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  122·70

  Existing tax and benefit system: Married couple with four children aged 3, 8, 11 and 15 Income and means tested benefits Family head in full·time work

  Tax threshold: £75·48

  Earnings head

  Tax

  NI

  FIS

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rale rebate

  Fares to work

  Free school meals

  Free Welfare milk

  Net weekly spending power

  60·00

  0·00

  3·00

  54·60

  29·00

  19·12

  14·58

  9·80

  5·81

  5·85

  7·65

  1·83

  135·70

  70·00

  0·00

  4·90

  49·60

  29·00

  19·12

  13·33

  9·80

  5·41

  5·85

  7·65

  1·83

  137·15

  80·00

  1·22

  5·60

  44·60

  29·00

  19·12

  12·08

  9·80

  5·01

  5·85

  7·65

  1·83

  138·58

  90·00

  3·92

  6·30

  39·60

  29·00

  19·12

  10·63

  9·80

  4·48

  5·85

  7·65

  1·83

  138·20

  110·00

  9·32

  9·90

  29·60

  29·00

  19·12

  7·33

  9·80

  3·18

  5·85

  7·65

  1·83

  134·60

  120·00

  12·02

  10·80

  24·60

  29·00

  19·12

  5·68

  9·80

  2·53

  5·85

  7·65

  1·83

  133·70

  130·00

  14·72

  11·70

  29·60

  29·00

  19·12

  4·03

  9·80

  1·88

  5·85

  7·65

  1·83

  132·80

  140·00

  17·42

  12·60

  14·60

  19·00

  19·12

  2·38

  9·80

  1·23

  5·85

  7·65

  1·83

  131·90

  150·00

  20·12

  13·50

  9·60

  29·00

  19·12

  0·73

  9·80

  0·58

  5·85

  7·65

  1·83

  131·00

  160·00

  22·82

  14·40

  4·60

  29·00

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  7·65

  1·83

  131·09

  Mandatory provision of free school meals ceases

  170·00

  25·52

  15·30

  0·00

  29·00

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  5·10

  0·00

  128·51

  New system from April 1988: Married couple with four children aged 3,8, 11 and 15. Income and means tested benefits Family head in full-time work

  Tax threshold: £75·48

  Earnings head

  Tax

  NI

  Family credit

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to work

  Net weekly spending power

  60·00

  0·00

  3·00

  6312

  29·00

  19·12

  1·04

  9·80

  0·85

  5·85

  116·24

  70·00

  0·00

  4·90

  57·45

  29·00

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  116·78

  80·00

  1·22

  5·60

  51·79

  29·00

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  119·20

  90·00

  3·92

  6·30

  47·17

  29·00

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  121·18

  110·00

  9·32

  9·90

  39·47

  29·00

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  124·48

  120·00

  12·02

  10·80

  34·99

  29·00

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  126·40

  130·00

  14·72

  11·70

  30·51

  29·00

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  128·32

  140·00

  17·42

  12·60

  26·03

  29·00

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  130·24

  188 189

  Earnings head

  Tax

  NI

  Family credit

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to work

  Net weekly spending power

  150·00

  20·12

  13·50

  21·55

  29·00

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  132·16

  160·00

  22·82

  14·40

  17·07

  29·00

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  134·08

  170·00

  25·52

  15·30

  12·59

  29·00

  19·12

  0·00

  9·80

  0·00

  5·85

  136·00

  Foetal and Genetic Abnormality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the King's Fund Forum "Consensus Statement on Screening for Foetal and Genetic Abnormality", a copy of which has been sent to him.

  Mr. Newton
  The King's Fund consensus statement is a timely and informative study which adds to our current consideration of how genetic services including counselling can best be provided from within the NHS.

  Industrial Disablement Benefit
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what provision there will be for the storage of thoracic organs by the pneumoconiosis panel, after the abolition of industrial death benefit, in order to allow for subsequent re-examination of the tissue in cases where it was not recognised at the time that death was due to industrial causes.

  Mr. Scott
  After the abolition of Industrial Death Benefit on 11 April 1988 the medical boarding centres (respiratory diseases)—formerly the pneumonoconiosis medical panels — will cease to have access to thoracic organs except where a coroner seeks the advice of the centre to establish a cause of death. There will be no provision for storage of thoracic organs at the medical boarding centre (respiratory diseases). Any storage of tissue for further examination will he the responsibility of the coroner, and their subsequent disposal is a matter entirely for the coroner to decide.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what provision there will be for the posthumous payment of industrial disablement benefit in cases of people who are proved to have been suffering from an asbestos-related disease at post-mortem, in the light of the fact that, with the abolition of industrial death benefit from 1 April, there will be no requirement for the pneumoconiosis panel to examine thoracic organs after death.

  Expenditure on all non-directly employed National Health Service staff (including agency) and the number of agency nursing and midwifery staff by region—1986

  Non-National Health Service staff (including agency) 1986–871

  Agency nursing and midwifery staff September 19862

  Region

  Total

  Nursing

  Total

  Nurses

  Midwives

  Northern

  852

  45

  41

  41

  —

  Yorkshire

  4,505

  1,239

  90

  89

  1

  Trent

  2,857

  157

  —

  —

  —

  East Anglian

  4,436

  2,025

  183

  182

  1

  North West Thames

  28,534

  15,058

  1,363

  1,332

  31

  North East Thames

  35,006

  19,299

  1,399

  1,269

  130

  South East Thames

  21,013

  11,727

  862

  768

  94

  South West Thames

  19,963

  8,377

  621

  595

  26

  190
  Mr. Scott
  After the abolition of industrial death benefit on 11 April 1988 dependants will continue to be able to claim industrial injuries disablement benefit posthumously if they consider that the deceased may have been suffering in life from a prescribed disease, including an asbestos-related disease. Claims will be decided on the available evidence from post-mortem reports and records in life.

  Agency Staff
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the latest figures for the number of agency staff supplied to the National Health Service in the following categories:(a) nurses, (b) midwives, (c) professional and technical staff (excluding works staff), (d) works professional staff, (e) administrative and clerical staff, (f) ambulance officers and control assistants and (g) other staff, indicating their distribution by regional health authority; what payments in fees have been made by each authority to each of these groups over the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  Information about the number of agency staff, other than nursing and midwifery agency staff and medical and dental locums employed, in the National Health Service and health authority expenditure specifically for agency staff is not collected centrally.

  The table shows the number of agency nursing and midwifery staff employed by each regional health authority at 30 September 1986 and the expenditure on all non-directly employed National Health Service staff, including agency staff, during, the financial year 1986–87.

  Whilst posts in the National Health Service should ideally be filled with directly employed full and part-time staff, suitably qualified staff are not always available in the particular locality. Where recruitment difficulties are encountered or where an urgent short-term need arises the use of appropriately qualified staff from agencies can provide valuable assistance.
  191

  Non-National Health Service staff (including agency) 1986–871

  Agency nursing and midwifery staff September 19862

  Region

  Total

  Nursing

  Total

  Nurses

  Midwives

  Wessex

  4,288

  1,409

  122

  122

  —

  Oxford

  4,426

  1,364

  88

  88

  —

  South Western

  3,004

  553

  43

  43

  —

  West Midlands

  7,212

  2,275

  170

  160

  10

  Mersey

  1,946

  761

  81

  80

  2

  North Western

  1,554

  211

  20

  20

  —

  London Post-Graduate SHAs

  10,496

  5,837

  366

  358

  8

  ENGLAND TOTAL

  150,092

  70,788

  5,450

  5,147

  303

  1 Figures rounded to nearest £000.

  2 Figures independently rounded to the nearest whole-time equivalent.

  National Insurance Fund
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the most recent advice he has received from the Government Actuary as to the minimum target balance of the national insurance fund as a percentage of annual benefit expenditure; and what was the actual balance in each year since 1979–80.

  Mr. Portillo
  For the first part of her question I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on 7 March. The remaining information is as follows:

  Balance in the national insurance fund at the end of the financial year

  £ millions

  1979–80

  4,626

  1980–81

  5,037

  1981–82

  4,046

  1982–83

  4,023

  1983–84

  4,604

  1984–85

  4,978

  1985–86

  5,293

  1986–87

  5,707

  Source: Annual accounts of the National insurance fund as presented to Parliament pursuant to section 133(2) of the Social Security Act 1975. The fund accounts for 1986–87 were presented to Parliament on 22 January 1988.

  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for each year since 1975–76 the balance in the national insurance fund; and also, for each year, if he will express the balance as a percentage of annual benefit expenditure financed by the fund.

  Mr. Portillo
  The information is as follows:

  Balance in the national insurance fund at the end of the financial year expressed as a percentage of annual benefit expenditure

  Year

  Balance (end of year) £ milliom

  Benefit expenditure £ million

  Balance as a percentage of benefit expenditure

  1975–76

  2,219

  6,812

  32·6

  1976–77

  3,147

  8,066

  39·0

  1977–78

  3,825

  9,385

  40·8

  1978–79

  4,090

  10,682

  38·3

  1979–80

  4,626

  12,243

  37·8

  1980–81

  5,037

  14,893

  33·8

  1981–82

  4,046

  17,243

  23·5

  1982–83

  4,023

  18,611

  21·6

  1983–84

  4,604

  19,716

  23·4

  192

  Year

  Balance (end of year) £ milliom

  Benefit expenditure £ million

  Balance as a percentage of benefit expenditure

  1984–85

  4,978

  20,831

  23·9

  1985–86

  5,293

  22,309

  23·7

  1986–87

  5,707

  24,005

  23·8

  Source:

  Annual accounts of the national insurance fund as presented to Parliament pursuant to section 133(2) of the Social Security Act 1975. The fund's accounts for 1986–87 were presented to Parliament on 22 January 1988.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services by how much the contribution income of the national insurance fund for 1988–89 would be reduced if the Treasury supplement were not reduced from 7 to 5 per cent. of gross contributions, the balance in the fund were maintained at the same proportion of benefit expenditure as at the end of 1987–88 instead of rising from 27 to 33 per cent., the proportion of contributions allocated to the National Health Service remained unchanged, and contribution rates were adjusted accordingly.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services by how much the contribution income of the national insurance fund for 1988–89 would be reduced if the Treasury supplement were not reduced from 7 to 5 per cent. of gross contributions, the balance in the fund were maintained at the same proportion of benefit expenditure as at the end of 1987–88 instead of rising from 27 to 33 per cent., the proportion of contributions allocated to the National Health Service remained unchanged, and contribution rates were adjusted accordingly.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 7 March 1988]: It is estimated that to arrive at a national insurance fund balance at the end of 1988–89 of 27 per cent. of benefit expenditure, whilst maintaining the Treasury supplement at 7 per cent. of gross contributions and the present NHS allocation, the fund's income from contributions would need to be £2,000 million lower than currently estimated for the year.

  Prescription Costs
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to secure a reduction in the costs of drugs prescribed by the National Health Service; what information he has about the methods by which the Hallwood health centre, Runcorn, Cheshire, has achieved savings in its prescribing costs and about the scale of the
  193
  savings; what assessment he has made of the scope for applying similar methods throughout the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  Through the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme control is kept on the costs of branded medicines. The reimbursement prices to community pharmacists and dispensing doctors of high usage generic medicines are negotiated directly with the generic manufacturers.

  The Government are continuing their efforts to encourage general practitioners to prescribe more effectively and economically by measures such as the provision of feedback information about their prescribing to facilitate self-audit, voluntary generic prescribing and the development of practice formularies. In addition, the Department's regional medical service has increased the number of visits it makes to doctors to discuss their prescribing and has recently appointed two specialist prescribing regional medical officers.

  The Hallwood health centre research project is investigating the role of the pharmacist in developing a practice formulary. With the Department's financial support, this project is to be extended in 1988/89 to cover a wider cross-section of practices within the Cheshire family practitioner area. When the information is available from this wider study its possible application on a national basis will be assessed.

  AIDS
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to ensure that nebulised pentamadine in aerosol form becomes available for prophylactic use by AIDS patients in danger of contacting pneumcystis pneumonia.

  Mr. Newton
  There is no product licence for nebulised pentamadine in aerosol form. However, clinicians have the right to prescribe medicines for individual patients even if the product is not licensed for use in the United Kingdom.

  Rating Reform
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many representations he has received about the requirements for those on supplementary benefit to pay 20 per cent. of their rates.

  Mr. Portillo
  A substantial number.

  Disabled People (Trust Fund)
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what progress has been made on the proposed trust fund for very severely disabled people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The new fund will be called the independent living fund. Its aim will be to provide extra financial help on top of that already available to those very severely 194
  disabled people who would otherwise need to enter residential or hospital care. It will also be available to help people in such care who wish, and are able, to live independently in their own homes and to people currently living in their own homes who would face difficulties due to a change of circumstances. The fund should enable such people to support themselves and to retain or achieve their independence in the community. For the year 1988–89 up to £5 million has been set aside; the level of funding for subsequent years will be set in the light of experience.

  The trust will be independent of the Department, of the Disablement Income Group and of the Disablement Income Group (Scotland). The trustees will be appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, and will include individuals nominated by DIG. Decision on the disbursement of the money will be for the trustees, acting under the trust deed which will include criteria for eligibility. The trust deed will be available for public inspection. Both the Department and DIG will be available for consultation with the trustees as appropriate.

  It will be for the trustees to decide how to discharge the requirements of the trust deed but I expect that the sums to be paid will be determined on the basis of individual assessments of need and available resources. Payments are likely to be regular and will be intended to pay for the service of a carer or carers where these cannot otherwise be provided. It will be for the trustees to determine how to deal with cases which have been turned down by the fund and I expect they will wish to consider any representations from or on behalf of such cases very carefully.

  In due course, we shall introduce regulations which will enable any payments from the trust fund to be disregarded for the purpose of income-related benefits.

  We and DIG are currently discussing details of the eligibility criteria which will broadly define the group to be covered by the fund. The criteria will essentially look at the individual's need for care in relation to their resources. The fund will not be solely for people in receipt of income support but will include very severely disabled people with low incomes.

  Commissioned Research
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will detail the circumstances in which his Department forbids the publication of commissioned research.

  Mrs. Currie
  We have not withheld agreement to the publication of any research commissioned under the amended form of contract introduced in February 1987. Without purporting to list all or any circumstances in which agreement might be withheld, we envisage by way of example that they would be where legal advice was that libel, breach of confidentiality or factual error was likely to result. We would normally expect that the matter be resolved with the co-operation of the researcher.

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

South Africa: Oil Exports Embargo
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are refusing to provide information to the United Nations team investigating violations of the embargo on oil exports to South Africa.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, yes, but we adhere to the agreement by European Council Foreign Ministers in September 1985 and the Commonwealth Accord of the same year which ban the export of oil to South Africa.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, if the British Government were serious about what the Minister has just said about the ban imposed at Luxembourg three years ago by the European Community and the Commonwealth Accord, would they not be trying to assist the intergovernmental organisation set up to monitor how the ban, with which they agree, is being circumvented?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, that may be the noble Lord's point of view, but we disagree with it. The resolution to which he refers is not binding. There is no obligation upon us to respond to alleged violations of an embargo to which we do not subscribe.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the Minister say whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to supply information to the Commonwealth Foreign Ministers group which was set up in Vancouver? Secondly, are they satisfied that no North Sea oil is reaching South Africa via third parties?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, on the latter part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, the agreements which were reached and which concern United Kingdom guidelines have excluded exports of United Kingdom Continental Shelf crude oil to South Africa since 1979. It would be difficult to be certain that no oil gets through under any circumstances; but nevertheless the guidelines which were then established remain firm today. I am not sure that I followed the drift of the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question. If he would repeat it, I should be prepared and happy to answer it.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, as the noble Lord will recall, at the Vancouver conference a Commonwealth Foreign Ministers group was set up
560
to monitor the position in South Africa. As I understand it, it has been reported that Her Majesty's Government are not supplying the information that the group wants. Will the Minister confirm that Her Majesty's Government are complying with the request?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord reverts to the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, unless I have misunderstood him. The answer is that we do not co-operate with that group. We disagree with the basis of the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, because the resolution to which it referred was not binding.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the resolution may not have been binding, but will the noble Lord return to my original Question? If the Government are sincere about the EC and Commonwealth embargo on oil, what are they doing to prevent an evasion of the decision? If they are not giving evidence to the intergovernmental committee, what are they doing? What is their line when that intergovernmental group makes a report which suggests that British industrial interests, such as the BP subsidiary in South Africa and Trafalgar House, are making, and hoping to make further profits from South African efforts to get round the embargo by converting offshore gas into oil? Is it the British Government's view that the profits of British companies are more important than international authority?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord invites me to suggest ways in which we might take stronger measures to prevent the supply and shipment of oil and petroleum products to South Africa. The existing measures that we have taken are intended to send political signals to the South African Government of our strong opposition to apartheid and to the need for urgent fundamental change. The noble Lord knows full well that further punitive economic sanctions would only hurt those whom we wish to help and furthermore would prolong the conflict. He may not agree but nevertheless that is the view of the Government. It may seem to the noble Lord to be a long haul but there are no alternatives to working for peaceful change. I recommend it to him.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, may I ask a simple and more direct question? Since the Government have made clear that they are not in favour of sanctions against South Africa, are the Government in favour of the breach of sanctions applied by others?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, what I am concerned about at this Dispatch Box is to advocate Her Majesty's Government's policy, not necessarily the policies of other nations. What I have said stands. We oppose a comprehensive oil embargo; furthermore, we maintain that the United Kingdom guidelines on oil are effective.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord has misinterpreted what I said. I said nothing about punitive sanctions nor any additional sanctions. I asked the Government quite straightforwardly

561
whether they had agreed on an embargo. If so, is it not common sense to make that embargo effective by monitoring it and for the British Government to give evidence to the organisation which is monitoring it?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord seems to have somewhat changed the tenor of his question, unless I have misunderstood him. What I said is that we have made it clear to oil companies that they are expected to abide by the guidelines of the European Community and Commonwealth undertakings. We would take a serious view of any breaches. As I said earlier, however, there is no evidence to suggest that companies are not complying.

Middle East Conflict: Refugee Aid
2.44 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether in concert with the United Kingdom's allies they will seek to provide food and medicaments to the people in the refugee camps of Gaza and the West Bank in Palestine.
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords. Our national contribution to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency whose programmes include supplementary feeding will be £5·25 million in 1988, 5 per cent. more than in 1987. Our share of planned 1988 Community contributions amounts to a further £5 million. Since December 1987, the Community has also provided directly £450,000-worth of emergency medical supplies and food. We are ready to consider requests for special funding, both nationally and with our colleagues in the Community.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, may I thank the Minister for that very encouraging reply? It certainly stands our Government in good stead and gives them a good name in the terrible tragedy in the Middle East.
However, there are some countries among our allies which do not seem to be pulling their weight. According to the Red Cross, some European voluntary organisations appear to be in need of a little more co-ordination, both in respect of medicaments and of food supplies. Would the Minister not agree that there could be a closer examination of whether or not the relief dispatched from Great Britain and our allies reaches the proper places and fulfils the proper purposes?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we believe it to be effective but if we can see ways of improving it we shall use them.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, recognising that the conditions in the refugee camps are appalling, can the Minister say whether any money has been offered by the very wealthy Arab states that have made billions of pounds out of oil? Have they tried to help their fellow countrymen in the resettlement camps? Or do they desire to keep them in appalling conditions—a constant eyesore to the rest of the world because of their hatred of Israel?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think it is fair to say that not a lot has been forthcoming. Nevertheless, I am certain that they would share in some respects at least the noble Lord's concern about the conditions.
Lord McNair: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his original Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, has our full support? Would he perhaps also agree that the camps in the Lebanon are every bit as deserving and perhaps more so than those in Gaza and the occupied territories?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, that is a point of view. The Lebanon is a matter which concerns us. Of course, we support Lebanon's sovereignty, its unity, independence and territorial integrity. As regards my original Answer, the way in which the United Nations Relief and Works Agency disburses its funds is a matter for that organisation.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I warmly welcome the practical assistance described by the noble Lord. But can he confirm that it is getting through to the occupied territories?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, so far as I am aware, the answer is yes. Perhaps I should say, in amplification of my answer to the noble Lord, Lord McNair, that the United Nations Relief and Works Agency does not predetermine the funding levels by area.
Returning to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, I have no evidence to suppose that it is not getting through. We have also a bilateral programme for Gaza and the West Bank outside the refugee camps which approaches £1 million per year. The story is encouraging.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that there is a great deal of truth in what the noble Lord, Lord McNair, said about the situation in the Lebanon? Many of us who have been there and to the Middle East have seen the terrible tragedies. We are irritated that those who could contribute are not contributing. It is almost like saying that the problem of Ethiopia, the great drought and the starvation affecting thousands if not millions of refugees is the fault of the Almighty for allowing the drought to happen. Will the Minister take on board the proposition I made initially that, with our allies, we want to see that what we are giving so generously to help those in urgent need is arriving at the intended destination?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. We certainly do not want to see going adrift the money of an agency such as the United Nations Relief and Works Agency to which we and our partners donate much for the benefit of these unfortunate people. We believe that it is getting through.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, will the noble Lord not agree that in very difficult circumstances UNRWA is doing a first class job and fully deserves the support of the European Community?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, yes, I agree entirely with the noble Lord. I am grateful to him for making that point. In fact, that agency held a consultation with donors only last week in Vienna. We await further proposals and its latest plans which we shall also consider sympathetically.

Capital Taxation Structure
2.50 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the present structure of capital taxation encourages insider trading.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I am not aware of any reason why the present structure of capital taxation should encourage insider trading.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. However, is he aware that whereas short-term capital gains are taxed at 30 per cent., long-term capital gains can effectively be taxed at several hundred or even several thousand per cent. because of the failure to index gains arising prior to 31st March 1982? Does that not encourage investors to go for short-term rather than long-term gains, and are not the people best placed to make short-term gains by definition insiders?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I am not sure that I follow the noble Lord's logic. No doubt many investors wish to make gains and perhaps wish to make them in the short term. But that is absolutely no reason to say that they wish to make profits from insider dealing.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I too find the logic of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, rather difficult to follow? Perhaps the Minister can answer this question: how effective are the new arrangements under the Financial Services Act for detecting and prosecuting in insider dealing cases?
If the noble Lord has figures available, can he give us figures for a period prior to the commencement of the Financial Services Act arrangements on insider dealing and subsequent figures so that we can see how we are getting on? If he does not have the figures, perhaps he will be kind enough to write to me.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I shall look into this and find out whether figures are available. The fact is that the Financial Services Act provided for new powers of investigation of insider dealing and for certain substantive amendments to the insider dealing legislation. Your Lordships will be aware that the Stock Exchange introduced computer assisted surveillance in 1986, and I believe that that, together with the possibility of investigation by inspectors, means that the chances of detection and successful prosecution in such cases are much enhanced.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, the Minister gives some assurances with regard to expediting these investigations. A number of individuals have been
564
under suspicion and some have been removed from office during the investigations, which have lasted more than 18 months. Will the Minister give the House some assurance that progress will be made in investigations so that the matter may be clear and individuals and organisations may know where they stand?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, it is in no one's interest for any such investigation to be rather slow or tardy in coming to a conclusion. However, I can say to the noble Lord that my noble friend the Secretary of State naturally wishes that inspectors making such investigations should report to him as quickly as possible.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, taking what I am afraid is precisely the opposite view to that of the noble Lord who asked this Question on the impact of short-term versus long-term capital gains tax, perhaps I may ask whether the noble Lord is aware that there is still considerable anxiety with regard to insider trading. Is he also aware that there is a considerable body of opinion which takes the view that the first major step to be taken with regard to insider trading is to freeze the capital dealings of directors of companies during the period that they hold their directorships of those shares in that company?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I am not sure whether I completely follow the noble Lord in that opinion, but I would say to your Lordships that the Criminal Justice Bill which is now in another place seeks to increase the maximum term of imprisonment that can be imposed on someone convicted of insider dealing from two years to seven years. That makes it an arrestable offence and an extradition crime.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the problem is not so much whether this is an arrestable offence or what the prison sentence is but whether the mechanism for detection and subsequent prosecution is effective? It was lamentably ineffective under the previous regime when the Stock Exchange reported to the DTI, as the noble Lord's predecessor at the Government Dispatch Box has pointed out. Are the present arrangements any more effective?
Lord Beaverbrook: Yes, my Lords. As I said earlier to the noble Lord, I believe that the ability of the Stock Exchange to detect instances of insider dealing has been enhanced by computer assisted surveillance. I also believe that the collection of evidence has been made very much easier. The appointment of inspectors to look into such allegations is a great step forward. I think that it is still too early to say exactly what impact the Financial Services Act has had on our ability to bring those guilty parties to court and have, it is hoped, a successful conclusion if they are found guilty. At the moment we have no plans to amend the provisions in the Financial Services Act and I believe that we are making progress in that respect.

Professor Brzezinski: Lecture
2.55 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow Lord Greenhill of Harrow asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have taken note of the views on possible developments in Eastern Europe expressed in a recent lecture by Professor Brzezinski (Independent, 4th February), and whether the situation is under departmental review.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we share many of the views expressed in Professor Brzezinski's lecture. Professor Brzezinski drew attention to sources of possible instability in the region, and to the effect which it could have on East-West developments. We agree with him that the aim of Western policy should be to encourage evolutionary change. The situation in Eastern Europe is kept under continuous study, both within the Government and jointly with our allies and partners.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that although there are immediate tasks to be undertaken in NATO and in the EC, more urgent thought should be given to the possibility of radical changes over a much wider area of Europe—indeed, from the Atlantic to the Urals, an area in which we have historical and cultural links?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I can say to the noble Lord that we are paying close attention to developments in Eastern Europe both nationally and with our NATO allies and our European partners. This regular process of consultation includes discussion at ministerial level. I think that our aims should continue to be to develop contacts, encourage reform and better observance of human rights, and point out that repression is inconsistent with glasnost and perestroika. All countries have the ultimate right of self-determination.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the Minister agree that Professor Brzezinski's lecture underlined the importance of cultural diplomacy which was recently debated in this House? Will he now tell the House that the Government have agreed to give more support to cultural diplomacy in our embassies abroad and also to the BBC's Overseas Service?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, although the Question of the noble Lord refers to the Brzezinski lecture it goes slightly wide of the immediate subject of that lecture. As I said when I spoke in a recent debate on the subject, the matter of cultural diplomacy should not be seen in isolation from our other forms of diplomacy. They run together, and we shall continue to devote our energies to all forms of diplomacy for the benefit of this country.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, if the Minister has read the Brzezinski lecture in full he will have noted that the BBC's Overseas Service is very relevant to what he was saying.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think that I covered the BBC in considerable detail in the earlier debate we had. I should be happy to answer any specific question the noble Lord has about funding for the BBC External Service should he put down a question on that matter.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, however hard one tries, how is it possible to reconcile the failure of the Soviet Government to abandon the Brezhnev doctrine under which it promises fraternal international assistance to the Socialist countries which were formerly independent in Eastern and Central Europe—there were examples of that in Prague and Budapest—with its international obligations under the United Nations Charter, under the two covenants on the Declaration of Human Rights and for that matter under YALTA and the peace treaties with Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary? Is that possible?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think that outsiders can only have limited influence on internal developments in the area. I suggest that high level visits can be useful in pressing the case for change. The visit of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to Poland and that of the Hungarian Prime Minister to London later this year will be opportunities for just that kind of thing.
Lord Oram: My Lords, the article to which the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, has called attention deals mainly with Europe and the Soviet Union, as have the questions which have been put. Perhaps I may ask whether the Minister will take note of the paragraph which deals with China and the developments there as being even more significant than the developments in Europe? Will he ensure that his department takes due note of Professor Brzezinski's views on Chinese developments?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we shall of course note all comments. However, the Question referred to Eastern Europe.

Business
3.3 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Employment Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during that adjournment the Unemployment Benefit (Disqualification Period) Order 1988 will be taken.

Business of the House: Debate, 23rd March
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Ennals set down for 23rd March shall be limited to 5 hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of

567
Short Debates shall apply to the debate with the substitution of "5 hours" for "2½ hours" and "25 minutes" for "20 minutes".—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency Bill
Lord Glenarthur: 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 that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Employment Bill
3.4 p.m.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): 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.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 12 [Extension to non-voting positions of duty to hold elections]:
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): If Amendment No. 63 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 64 to 72 inclusive.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 14, line 16, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) After subsection (6) of the 1984 Act (duty to hold election of voting members of a trade union's principal executive committee) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
"(6A) Notwithstanding anything in the rules or practice of any trade union, the person who holds the position of president of the union, or in the case of a union with no such position, any equivalent position, shall (if the rules do not otherwise provide for him to be a voting member of the union's principal executive committee) be deemed for the purposes of this section to be a voting member of the committee.
(6B) Notwithstanding anything in the rules or practice of any trade union, the person who holds the position of general secretary of the union, or in the case of a union with no such position, the position in the union which is the equivalent, or nearest equivalent, to that of general secretary, shall, (if the rules do not otherwise provide for him to be a voting member of the union's principal executive commmittee) be deemed for the purposes of this section to be a voting member of the committee except where the post of general secretary (or nearest equivalent) is subject to appointment by the union." ").
The noble Baroness said: We now reach Clause 12 of this important Bill. The clause is very significant because it seeks to impose upon unions the obligation to elect officials who in many instances have normal contracts of employment. Amendment No. 63 standing in my name proposes two different
568
subsections from those which are in the Bill. The object of the subsections is to try to preserve the position which currently exists in many unions and which was found to be acceptable in the 1983 Green Paper, Democracy in Trade Unions.
In most unions, and certainly in large numbers of white collar unions, the position is that the president—subsection (6A) deals with presidents—is a full member of the national executive council and normally has a vote. He would in almost all cases have had to be elected under the terms of the 1984 Act. Subsection (6A) of the amendment preserves that position.
However, the general secretary is often in a very different position. In many unions he is an official who is appointed with a normal contract of employment. He is the chief executive of the union. He is responsible to the national executive committee or council, which is itself electable and accountable to the members for the administration of the union and the employment of staff, who are themselves responsible to the general secretary and, through him, to the national executive committee.
In recent years unions have attempted to become, and in many cases have largely succeeded in becoming, increasingly professional. They have legal and research departments; they have publicity departments; they run education courses and provide training in industrial law and industrial relations as well as job evaluation and pay bargaining. In order to provide those services they employ full-time professional staff. The chief executive must have the capacity to manage those enterprises.
When the Green Paper to which I have referred looked at the situation in 1983, it came to the conclusion that that type of individual was not always readily available or even willing to submit himself to the vagaries of the electoral process. That is very true. It is particularly true in the white collar field. Many such unions look outside their ranks for suitable chief executives. Such a person could not be expected to win an election since at the time of appointment he would not be a member. Some unions have attracted the officials of other unions when advertising their more senior posts. There seems to be no reason why they should not continue to be able to do so.
There are unions, notably in the craft or manual field, where it has been traditional to elect all officials, including general secretaries. That is a matter for them if they wish to do so. However, unions are not all the same. In the craft and manual area it used to be possible—although probably it is less true now—for a defeated official who had had a craft training to go back to the production line or, as it used to be said, go back to the tools. He would of course then get the rate for the job.
In white collar employment the situation is very different. If a white collar union is to be able to persuade a bright young technician, chemist, supervisor or banking executive to become a union official, it has to offer him the job security which he could expect if he stayed in his present employment. In other words, he or she would not expect a job for life. However, he or she would expect to have the

569
same employment cover—the right not to be unfairly dismissed and not to be made redundant without compensation and the right to have pension rights and so on—as if he or she had stayed in his or her original employment.
Moreover, career opportunities must include, as they would have included had those people stayed where they were, the chance eventually to be considered for the top job. Some people may not be willing to hazard their future every five years by resorting to the hustings. If they are defeated, they are not able in a white collar career simply to go back to the tools as a manual worker might have been able to do. They have to begin their careers all over again in private industry. Because they will have lost a number of years, that cannot be done easily.
For people within striking distance of retirement the situation is even more impossible. The Bill proposes that people who have formerly been appointed should have their contracts negated and should have to stand for election up to within two years of retirement. That is a very malicious clause. No defeated candidate could possibly hope to get another job for that short time. And what about pension rights?
There is another aspect which I do not think that the Government have considered in putting forward the proposals in the Bill. A general secretary who is accountable to his executive has to do what that executive says. Sometimes he may not like it. He may give advice which the executive rejects. I have seen examples of that in my career. Nevertheless, he has to do what the national executive council tells him to do. However, if he is elected by the entire membership his power is immeasurably enhanced. He does not have to do what the executive tells him to do. He can say that he is elected by the entire membership and responsible only to the members. Moreover, the staff would continue to be directly responsible to him as chief executive. Therefore, the executive council could find itself powerless. That is a matter which has worried the CBI, since employers prefer to deal with unions where there is a substantial degree of internal stability.
I think that the clause was originally introduced in order, as I said at Second Reading, to catch one particular union president. However, I do not think that it has had that effect. In any event, pursuing individuals is no way to legislate. During yesterday's debate, I listened to what Members of the Committee opposite said about the way in which the trade union movement operates. I must say that I did not recognise the movement in which I am proud to have spent my working life. The image was projected of powerful despotic officials whose main job appeared to be to intimidate their members. That has not been my experience. My colleagues and I have never intimidated any members. We should not even try. We should think it entirely counterproductive. We have built our union upon the philosophy of membership involvement and of taking people with us as a result of persuasion and argument; nor are we alone in that. Other unions operate in a very similar way.
As I said at Second Reading, unions unfortunately have had a very bad press which they do not deserve.
570
Members opposite should be wary of putting too much reliance on press reports of union activity. The good things that unions do are never reported; only disputes and crises are reported and in a slanted way at that.
If unamended Clause 12 will have an immensely destabilising effect upon trade union administration. Perhaps that is what the Government want. It is certainly not to the advantage or in the interests of union members and I urge the Committee to accept my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: Before the noble Baroness sits down perhaps I may ask whether she is speaking only to Amendment No. 63. I thought that Amendment No. 74 and my Amendment No. 78 were grouped with it.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I hope to have an opportunity to say a few words about the amendments which are in the group when they are moved. I believe that both those amendments aim to protect contracts of employment in some other way and to that extent I support them.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The noble Baroness speaks from great experience. I defer without reserve to her own experience. However, I hold that the views that she has expressed are related in the main to experience of her own union and do not have general application. Alas there are some unions which do not subscribe to the very edifying views that are always expressed by her.
Amendment No. 63, which is grouped with Amendments Nos. 74 and 78, envisages a derogation from the very important principle of Clause 12 as amended. It is a derogation which should not be allowed to run counter to the intendment of Clause 12 as it is proposed to be amended.
In due course let us examine what is proposed in the amendment. We return to the situation that notice has been given to oppose this clause and are faced with another hull-down firing position not of the noble Baroness but of the hard Left of the trade union membership.
On any objective analysis, Section 19 of the Act of 1984 says that the "principal executive committee" means the principal committee of the trade union concerned with the executive functions, by whatever name it is known. Clause 12 as it stands extends Section 1 of the Act of 1984 (which requires the reelection after five years of a voting member of the PEC) to include persons who attend and speak at some or all of those meetings by a process of amendment to subsections (1) and (83) of Section 1 of the Act of 1984 by the inclusion, in the noble Baroness's amendment, of subsection (6A) and (6B).
It is an intricate pattern of statutory patchwork. Government Amendment No. 73 proposes a new subsection (6C), which contains reasonable measures of safeguard to non-voting members of the PEC or employees of the union who hold a position under the rules for a year and did not hold that position in the previous year. This is designed to meet an opposition amendment tabled in another place.
The justification for Clause 12 as it stands—and it has to be faced now although this is not a debate on

571
whether the clause should stand part of the Bill—is enhanced by the measure of safeguard afforded by Amendment No. 73. It is essential to close the escape route for the avoidance of the principle at stake, which under the Act of 1974 is limited to voting members of the PEC standing for election—avoidance by changes in the rules to provide that certain members of the PEC should avoid standing for election thus depriving members of a vote. It is an obvious, well-designed and intelligently applied escape route. In this regard the NUM has already changed its rules and it is understood that some other unions which I do not wish to name may do the same. If asked to name them I could do so.
The effect of Clause 12 is to include members of the PEC already covered by the Act of 1984, those members who by virtue of the rules do not at present have the right to vote and also the de facto members who attend meetings and play a part in the decision-making process but do not vote. Yet again these amendments would open the door to evasion and abuse. Although I accept the good intentions of the noble Baroness I feel that it would be dangerous to accept this amendment. I hope that the committee will not accept it.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Seear: I speak in support of the amendment. Those people who attend and have a right to speak or who speak on occasion are virtually the civil service of the trade union movement. It would be very odd to suggest in this Chamber that civil servants should be elected by the general body of voters.
There is another and more practical point. As the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, has said, modern unions employ an increasing number of professionally trained people from a variety of different professions. If we want modern, efficient and well-organised unions, they must be serviced by properly trained professional people who feel free to speak their minds according to their professional knowledge and to guide their union into more modern and appropriate ways of behaving. If those professionals have constantly to look over their shoulder to see in what way they are pleasing or displeasing the membership, many of whom may not be fully aware of the importance of such developments, their position as professionals who can make the unions more efficient and effective will be seriously undermined.
It is because we on this side of the Chamber believe in trade unions but want them to be modern, up to date and efficient that we should like to see this amendment accepted. I am bound to say, having listened to the debate today and yesterday that one wonders whether Members on the other side of the Committee want good, reformed unions, as we do, or whether they do not want any unions at all.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I should like to say to the noble Baroness that there are many on this side of the Committee—I am one of them—who totally agree with her. She is wrong in her accusations.
Lord Mottistone: Perhaps I may now speak to my amendment, Amendment No. 78, which is grouped with Amendment No. 63. First, however, I should like to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that it seems to me, from long experience in this area, that it is obviously important that the trade unions with which one deals should be properly organised and truly efficient.
At Second Reading I said that I thought Clause 12 was directed too much towards dealing with Mr. Scargill and that perhaps it was unwise to overdo the act of trying to deal with him as a special case. More significantly—the point was made by both the noble Baroness, Lady Turner and Lady Seear—there is the very important matter of being able to preserve the position of people who have served their unions well but who have not been elected and who probably would not be the kind of people suitable for election. Indeed, as I said at Second Reading, that would apply to many of the best noble Lords.
Turning for a moment from Amendment No. 63, which perhaps goes a little far, and looking at Amendment No. 74 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and Amendment No. 78 in my name, both appear very similar. Some parts of the noble Baroness's amendment are perhaps more directly associated with the Act in picking out general secretaries and presidents. I have not done that; I have sought to cover anyone who might inadvertently be caught by Clause 12. I have also included people who have not been elected to any trade union position during the preceding 12 years. That would catch Mr. Scargill and may catch other people who have shifted from one sort of background to another. I have met such people.
Both amendments apply only to people under contract of employment before 22nd October, which is the date that this Bill first saw the light of day in another place, and would not apply for the future. I have done that to encourage the Government to accept the proposal. They could feel that whatever they had in mind for the future would apply but would not immediately affect people who have served their unions for many years with great skill and devotion.
I wish to impress upon the Committee that these amendments are very modest. If the Government do not like the wording either of my amendment or of Amendment No. 74, which would not in the least surprise me, it would be very encouraging to think that they would be able to give consideration to the principle behind them and give us some hope that they might be able to come back at a later stage in the Bill with something similar.
Whatever the Committee may think about Amendment No. 63 and the comments of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway—on most occasions I agree with my noble friend but, this time, I think, he overstated his case—I hope that special care may be given to considering the sense and purport of Amendments Nos. 74 and 78
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Before the noble Lord sits down, I accept that it is inevitable that any advocate can overstate his case. I did not intend to do so. However, in all sincerity, I hope that my noble

573
friend the Minister will not consider these amendments.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: I think that it is common ground that we want to see trade union leaders, general secretaries and other officials accountable and responsive to their members. Presumably that is the objective of all of us. What puzzles me about the proposal from the government side is that it seems that it will have directly the contrary effect. All general secretaries or presidents are accountable to the membership of the union in two ways: through the operation of the rule book and through the elected executive committee.
Appointed general secretaries are more stringently bound by their executive committee than are elected general secretaries who can point to their recent appeal to the whole membership and who can claim that the sanction on them comes from their next appeal to the membership in two, three, or five years' time—whatever it may be. To that extent, if they so choose and wish, they can withstand pressure from the elected executive.
The effect of this proposal would be twofold so far as concerns those general secretaries whose members have decided through conscious decision and through their executives that they prefer the method of appointment rather than election. It would weaken the confidence of the members in the rule book. It overrides the rule book and the decisions that are taken by conference to modify, change, amend, improve and bring it up to date. The delegates modify the rule book over a number of years. It is a considered decision by the members themselves mediated through their conference.
Those members are now being told: "You must have that much less confidence in your own ability to make the rules. We do not trust you to make the rules. We do not allow you to make the rules in this respect. We intend to impose a single unitary system on you, whatever your wishes may be". To that extent, their regard for the rule book and their attachment to it are diminished. That is a sad weakening of their rights as members—rights of which we heard a great deal yesterday and no doubt shall hear more today. That is my first point.
My second point relates to the role of the elected executive council in relation to the general secretary or president. Obviously, willy-nilly, whether he wishes it or not, the power and authority of the general secretary will be greatly enhanced by the provisions of this clause. Frankly, most general secretaries of my acquaintance would not wish to take any advantage of that situation. They would not wish to assert their authority vis-à-vis their executive as it meets month by month in order to claim that their view was superior to that of the elected members of the executive. The fact remains that the effect and consequence of this clause are to enhance the authority of any general secretary, however exceptional may be his conduct, who wishes to lower the quality of the control of elected members of the executive over the union.
574
That is why I am so puzzled by the argument that in some ways this proposal enhances the control by the membership and the rights of trade union members. It seems to me that the proposal contained in the amendment is eminently commonsensical. I hope that the committee will accept that.
I leave aside any question of playing politics, although that is a very real problem. It is not one which will come immediately to the fore. However, over a period of time, I think it will come to play a much greater part than it does now in the activities of some unions. It will come to play a greater part in those activities because there is always a group within a union which wants to play politics, however unrepresentative and boring those people may be. Such a group may seize this provision as an opportunity to introduce into a stable situation something which it would regard as helping to destabilise the elected decision. That group regards the general secretary or other officials as coming between the members and their aspirations, along well-known ultra-left lines. That is a contingent danger but not one that I would advance as being the main danger. I have sought to put the main consideration before Members of the Committee. I hope that in replying the Minister will take on hoard the real danger that, because of some preoccupation, they are not advancing the cause that they purport to support.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he can explain one thing. He has said that Clause 12 overrides the rule book. He is therefore suggesting (is he not?) that the rule book should dominate the law. He is suggesting that it should take precedence over the law. That is the natural consequence of what the noble Lord has said. Is he going the stage further? Is he saying that if a law is passed which a union does not like it has only to alter its rule book and then the rule book would take precedence? That would seem to be the corollary of what he is suggesting.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: Perhaps the distinction that I draw between the existing role of the courts in relation to the rule book, on the one hand, and the putting on to the statute book of this entirely new piece of legislation, on the other hand, is not obvious or clear.
I accept very readily that the courts have an obligation to ensure that the rules of a union, even those adopted by the conference of the union—however they may be adopted—must be in conformity with natural justice. The courts should be able to strike down rules which do not pass that test. I accept very readily that in judging a particular interpretation of those rules by an executive or an official the courts must apply the same test of natural justice that has been applied heretofore. That same test of natural justice should continue to apply. It is right; it is proper and it is acceptable. However, it is entirely different to introduce this proposition which seems to indicate that this Chamber does not have much confidence in the ability of the courts to ensure that justice is done in relation to rule books.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Does the noble Lord recognise that in this context—as my noble friend Lord Renton was seeking to explain—we are not concerned with the traditional position with regard to the rules of natural justice or with breaches of the rules? We are concerned with the situation that is away from those two control factors of the High Court according to common law tradition. We are entering into a new dimension. In the new dimension, as my noble friend asks, are we to assume that the rules of the trade union in some way are to fetter the discretion of the High Court? That is the question.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: I must not weary the Committee. I simply put this suggestion to the noble Lord, Lord Cambell of Alloway, as a method of meeting both our worries. When this law is passed—in whichever form it is adopted—the members of a union through secret ballot should be able to say whether or not they wish this law to apply to them, or whether they wish to continue to be governed by their own rules. This would be quite consistent with the dignity of this Chamber and of another place. If the noble Lord would like to meet me on that common ground I should be delighted if he would draft an amendment to that effect to which we would both subscribe at Report stage.
Lord Trefgarne: The Government have made clear that Clause 12 is intended to ensure that union leaders are representative of the membership. It therefore extends the 1984 Trade Union Act's election requirements to all members of the principal executive committee, general secretaries and presidents, and to those who have the right under the rules or by custom and practice to attend and speak at some or all meetings of the PEC other than in a genuinely advisory capacity;
In this way, all those who are members or act as though they are members of the PEC will have to be elected and thus be better able to represent the views of the membership.
The clause closes a loophole in the 1984 Act by means of which certain union leaders have been able to give up their vote on the PEC and so evade the election requirement. The clause is therefore drafted quite tightly to reduce to a minimum any opportunity for evasion. It is important therefore to avoid providing any new loopholes, as I fear would be the case under Amendment No. 63.
I welcome the general acceptance of the principle that general secretaries and presidents should be elected. Indeed, even Mr, Scargill belatedly came to grips with the practicalities of that principle when he offered himself for election towards the end of last year.
I see no reason though—as Amendment No. 63 provides why some unions should be allowed to continue appointing their general secretaries rather than have them elected. General secretaries are often the individuals people think of first when they hear a union's name, and they can wield more influence than a non-elected post might suggest. For that reason I cannot agree to the amendment. Indeed, Clive Jenkins of ASTMS, Ken Gill of TASS, Fred Jarvis of the National Union of Teachers and Rodney
576
Bickerstaffe of the National Union of Public Employees are all appointed officials and would therefore be exempted from the election requirement under Amendment No. 63.
Amendment No. 63 is also unacceptable because it would leave the unions free to have almost anyone attend meetings and take part in the decision-making irrespective of whether members knew or approved. It would leave a significant loophole by means of which individuals could formally relinquish membership of the PEC and yet continue to attend meetings and influence events.
I realise there is a real point of principle underlying Amendments Nos. 74 and 78, but I am afraid I cannot accept them either. If members are to be sure that the leadership is truly representative, it is important that all PEC members, general secretaries and presidents are elected in accordance with these provisions. We cannot have protected categories able to see out terms of office which might consist of 10 or 20 years without the need for election. Mr. Scargill has already been mentioned, not only by me but by others. Under Amendment No. 74, for example, Mr. Scargill would be able to stay in post until retirement age, as might individuals such as Mr. Sapper of ACTT and Mr. Bickerstaffe of NUPE.
The Government are not being unreasonable in the way that this election requirement is imposed, however, as various transition and exemption provisions are provided in the Bill. Non-voting members whose election satisfied the workplace requirements of Section 3 of the 1984 Act will be able to see out a five-year term of office, as will non-voters who have been elected under any other form of election in the five years before the Bill's provisions came into force. Section 8 of the 1984 Act will continue to provide an exemption for certain elected PEC members nearing retirement age. In addition, Clause 12(4) would exempt from the extended election requirement most employed PEC members who are within two years of retirement age when the provisions come into force irrespective of whether or not they have previously been through an election.
I am afraid, therefore, that I see considerable difficulty with all three of these amendments. These provisions ensure that individuals are not treated harshly by the new election requirement. I cannot therefore agree that any of the amendments is either desirable or necessary. I hope that in the light of those considerations they will not be pressed.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: Does the Minister agree with me, as he has mentioned Mr. Scargill, that the decision by Mr. Scargill to seek election was precisely based on the grounds that it would strengthen his position vis-à-vis his elected executive committee? Will he further agree with me that the decisions taken by the executive since then and the result of the ballot vote last week by the membership demonstrate the nonsense of thinking that an enforced election can in some way bring the actions of particular unions into line with government thinking?
Lord Trefgarne: If the noble Lord is asking me to look into the mind of Mr. Scargill and to explain why

577
he carried out some particular action or other, I am afraid I have to tell him that I have long since ceased to be able to do that.
Lord Jacques: I am one of those who has taken a very close interest in the trade union movement from the outside. I have always been a member of a union but I have never taken an active part in a union. My job was to manage a business. I spent a lifetime doing that. I feel that in this matter the Government are wrong in principle and will get results which are quite the opposite of what they require.
First, why is it wrong in principle? Every organisation which is based upon membership elects officers and those officers are always given the authority to appoint officials to advise them. We are not concerned with names or whether they are called "president" or "secretary". The question is whether they are elected and are responsible to the membership or whether they are appointed by the board which the members have elected.
The Government will not be dictating to any other organisation which is based upon membership what it can do but they will be telling the trade union movement that it will not be allowed to choose officials who will be appointed because of their ability, who will not vote but who will advise the members. They must be elected. The Government are not interfering in that way with any other organisation, so why is it to happen with the trade union movement?
It would have been a disaster in the business in which I was employed if I had had to be elected. I would have had to appeal to the membership. I was appointed because of my ability to do the job and to manage the business, not because I had some appeal to the membership of the society.
This is entirely wrong in principle, and it will give entirely the wrong results. One has only to look at this Chamber and another place to understand why it will give the opposite results. The people in the other place are always looking over their shoulders and wondering what their constituents will think. Very often their conduct is guided by what their constituents will think. They are concerned with the immediate future. But in this Chamber, where we do not have constituents, we can take a different view.
We are not elected and we do not have to look over our shoulders. We are appointed and consequently there is an important difference. We are inclined to take a long view whereas in the other place a short view is taken. That is exactly what will happen in an organisation based upon membership. Those who are elected know that in a year or two they will come up for re-election and are therefore concerned with the short term, pleasing the members to get their votes. But those who are appointed can take an entirely different view.
If one has observed the trade union movement over the last 50 years one has seen trade union leaders appear to be very much to the Left while being elected but once they have retired they are inclined to be very much to the Right as they are no longer dependent on their members' votes. There is first-class evidence of
578
the foolish thing that the Government are trying to do.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: That is an interesting—
Lord Chapple: It was not my intention to speak in this debate, primarily because I was not here when it began. My other reason was that I did not want anything I said to embarrass my former colleagues on the Opposition Benches. However the last contribution compels me to say that in principle in this matter the Government are absolutely right. There can be no doubt that trade union presidents and general secretaries have great power. They have power over the appointment of officials. They have power over the purse and the expenses that are paid to officials and over the pension rights of officials. They have great power, and that is a power that ought not to be bestowed upon them because they were appointed by an elected executive, albeit elected by very dubious means anyway. That will be put right by the rest of the Bill.
I have spent the last 30 years of my life arguing that all union officials who have the power of decisions in unions should be elected. Only the appointed officials who do not take part in making decisions are entitled to stay without an election. Despite my disagreements yesterday with the Government's proposals I profoundly agree with the suggestion that all trade union officials should be appointed, particularly if they are members of an executive or general presidents or general secretaries.
I am sorry that I have had to say what I have because I did not want to embarrass my former colleagues on this matter, but I could have gone into a great deal of detail on the validity of appointing people to become general secretaries if I had known that this would be the tenor of the arguments from the Opposition Front Benches.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am glad that I gave way to—
Lord Sefton of Garston: Let me—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: This side!
Noble Lords: Campbell!
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I gave way to the noble Lord. This side.
Noble Lords: Campbell!
Lord Sefton of Garston: I am not giving way at all.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I gave way to the other side; it should be this side.
Lord Sefton of Garston: No.
The Earl of Dundee: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but it is the turn of this side to speak.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I give way. What else can one do?
Lord Sefton of Garston: Let me put another point of view. I heard the last speech and it seems to me that the ego of the noble Lord, Lord Chapple, is considerably bigger than I ever thought it was. I do not think anybody here will be embarrassed by something that we quite candidly expected. I certanly am not embarrassed, but I watched Committee Members opposite when the appeal was being made by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. I thought I detected a sense of appreciating the basis of that appeal. I am sure it will not convince the Minister, however.
I put another point of view. Once again I make no apology for going back into the history of the trade union movement, which some people on the Government Benches do not seem to appreciate. The position in relation to the appointed officers of a trade union arose because the trade unions themselves were determined many years ago that they would have the best of civil servants, if I may use that phrase, to service them. You cannot possibly get the best out of a person if, as has been pointed out, somebody is looking over his shoulder all the time and the threat of the sack is there. One has to establish what we in this country boast of—a decent civil service. The amendment will take that ability away from the trade unions.
What in effect will be created if the amendment is carried, whether we like it or not, will be a situation in which the responsible officers of trade unions sooner or later will be at the beck and call of all the extremists in the the trade union movement.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am very glad that I gave way to the noble Lord, Lord Chapple, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, but not for precisely the same reasons.
The noble Lord, Lord Chapple, said everything that I wished to say but with far greater experience, with far greater authority and to much greater effect.
He suggested that this is a question of the Government being authoritarian as regards trade unions. I am not sure that I have used the right word but that was the sense of what he said. All I ask is whether he remembers the winter of discontent when the trade unions were seeking to be authoritarian as regards government. Surely we must have this debate—
Lord Basnett: Will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: May I finish and then of course I shall give way? Surely we must keep the debate in some perspective. All I can say is "Thank you" to the noble Lord, Lord Chapple, for having kept it in such perspective.
Lord Basnett: The noble Lord mentioned the winter of discontent. Is he aware that during that time there were occasions, about which none of us was proud, when members disobeyed their union's instructions and undertook acts which were regrettable? My own union was concerned. However, the executive of my union, and those of others
580
concerned, obtained control of the situation because we wished to act responsibly. I raised that matter in question form and I hope that Members of the Committee will allow me to continue.
I should like to pick up the implication that perhaps my noble friend Lady Turner did not reflect the major responsible part of the British trade union movement. I believe that she does; I am sure that she does. I was general secretary of a trade union which represented approximately 12 per cent. of the trade union movement. Together with the union of which she is a member we represented some 20 per cent. of the movement and our view is that of the movement. Would the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, care to estimate the percentage represented in the trade union movement in the examples he gave? It is a very small percentage.
I believe that two issues are involved. The noble Lord, Lord Chapple, says that there must be elections to keep the powerful general secretaries in rein. I never knew anyone to act with such authority of power as did Frank Chapple. Indeed, he embodies—
Lord Chapple: Give the Committee an example.
Lord Basnett: Yes, certainly; on the general council. That underlines the point made by my noble friend Lord Murray as to how one constrains the power of people in authority. General secretaries and presidents have power and there is no doubt about that but which is the best way to restrain it? Is it by making them subject to an executive and a congress which determines what they do, or is it making them subject to re-election every five years? I was a general secretary elected to office and thereby not subject to re-election. Every two weeks I met my executive, which could and did tell me on occasions exactly what to do. Every year I held a congress which decided the fundamental policies of the union. I had to follow those policies whether or not I agreed with them.
If I had been re-elected every five years and stood on a platform with which my executive and congress did not agree, there would immediately have been friction and a dilemma between us and I would then be relieved of some of the authority which they exercised over me. I agree totally with my noble friend Lord Murray about the issue.
I should like to pick up one further point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, concerning the election of certain professional officers attending an executive. Unions are constantly making themselves more professional. I had in attendance on my executive, for example, a finance officer who was an accountant, an education officer who was an educationist and a research officer who was a graduate. They were appointed by me and were not in rule. They spoke at the executive, could answer questions and in doing so they obviously developed views. However, the responsibility was ultimately mine. This Bill would require them to be elected. That would create a nonsense for the unions. How could I have such qualified people in a union where I wanted professional advice if they had to be subject to election every five years? I could have them by

581
appointing politically-motivated people, the only people one can get. The issues raised by the Government will have completely the opposite effect to what is intended.
Finally I should like to echo what was said by my noble friend Lady Turner at he beginning of her speech. I believe that there are in this country two trade union movements. There is the movement which she and I have experienced, which wants to carry out a job and which is responsible. There is also the movement which is reflected in some of the speeches of Members opposite.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps the Committee will allow me to answer one point. The noble Lord challenged me on the question of percentages. I am unable to answer; I have no expertise. I should like to make my position plain by saying that I accept that the vast majority of trade union activities in this country are wholly responsible. This legislation is designed to deal only with the irresponsible element.
Lord Basnett: Does the noble Lord realise that in trying to control a minority of the movement, as he suggests, the Government are creating loopholes for irresponsibility in the movement? They are under-mining the responsible activities of trade union leaders at the moment. That is the effect.
4 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: The action being taken this afternoon is entirely without precedent in the history of our voluntary institutions. Never before has the legislature interfered with the administration of voluntary societies in the way that is intended under this clause. The question raised is: how far is this Parliament entitled to intrude upon the freedom of societies and combinations of individuals which are running affairs in their interests in the context of a free society? Why was this proposal not ventilated at the outset of the Government's attempt to reform trade union law nine years ago? This is the most important change of all.
Part of the difficulty of the step-by-step approach is the ease with which we forget what has gone before. I wish to put it to the Committee that the essential step taken in this matter was to strengthen the representativeness of the executive council. That was the important step. Whatever the individual temperament, personality or assumed power of general secretaries, they have executive committees to control them. They have the voting strength. They go to conferences and decide union policy. Therefore, we have already strengthened the representativeness of the trade unions by insisting on election of executive committees.
That has already made a profound difference in some unions. Some anticipated the change in the law in this respect, including my union; others did not do so but are now complying with the law. Having handed executive committee membership back to the membership of the unions, it is now proposed to do the same with all the full-time officers of any note in an organisation.
582
I believe that sometimes there is an exaggerated notion about the power held by a general secretary or president. In many cases they receive a good deal of public notice. In these days of television they receive a good deal of exposure and nearly always come to the fore in the event of industrial disputes. None of us can deny that some reprehensible behaviour has been a feature of some trade union activities in the past. I believe a new climate is being created, partly by changes in legislation and partly by changes in public attitude.
Do Members of the Committee think that the electoral message of the past three elections has been lost upon the trade union movement? Do Members not understand that the decision of the electorate over the past three elections has indicated to the Labour Party that one of its great electoral disadvantages has been the unpopularity of the trade union movement? Those matters are altering attitudes. Why is it that the Trades Union Congress and the Labour Party are embarking on major reviews of their policies and the presentation of them? The reason is that they have taken to heart what has happened in three elections.
That is good from the point of view of an elected democracy. Let us examine what is happening now. Not all unions are alike. At Second Reading I referred to the fact that Civil Service unions, local government officers and similar organisations in the public sector have different methods of appointment and different conditions of service for their full-time officers.
When I was asked to leave the Civil Service at the age of 22 to become the secretary of a very small Inland Revenue staff federation, I asked for the same security of tenure that my members would have and did have. Therefore, I was given a life tenure subject to the upper retirement age and subject to the power of removal in the hands of the annual delegate conference. That was sufficient for a union of that sort. Throughout the 38 years that I was the general secretary of the Inland Revenue Staff Federation I never went to re-election and, what is more, there was never any political dispute over my position within the organisation.
Now what is going to happen? Appointed officers subject to the decision of the executive council and approved by a delegate conference or by ballot will have to go to election every five years and stir up political divisions which are latent in most unions today over the personality and the nature of the appointment in prospect. There will be political battles and controversies over the personality of the general secretary or candidates up for election every five years which have been completely absent from the union over the last generation. That is no contribution to the stability of the trade union movement. It tends to encourage and push it into a quinquennial recurrence of political agitation and controversy. Who will get the job? Is he on the Right or is he on the Left? Is he a militant or what is he or she? In those circumstances, there is a disservice to be done to the trade union movement by the proposal before the Committee today.
If one goes further, the proposal in this clause is to interfere with the appointment of what I would

583
describe as the civil service of the trade union movement. Trade unions require administrative officers, as do government departments, and usually they are appointed and usually are not up for election. However, this clause would put them in the field for election and re-election. I can tell the Committee that on a vacancy of which I am fully aware candidates are asking, "Will I have to stand for election? If so, I am not a candidate for this job. I am not in that arena. I am coming in with specialised knowledge of administration and finance and I do not expect to be thrown to the electoral wolves every five years. I do not expect to have to contest for my position, possibly not with a person of my qualifications but somebody representing a political point of view which they assume is preferable to mine". That is the injury which can be done to trade unions which know how to conduct their affairs and which do so with great efficiency in peace and free of political conflict.
All this is being done this afternoon without any real examination of the power, the use of that power and the checks and balances within unions. None of that has been fully inquired into. This is a superficial judgment of the Conservative Party about what is wrong with the unions. It believes that the way to cure it is to insist that those people must go to election in circumstances which are quite unsuitable to the work they do or the method of their appointment.
In conclusion, I ask the Committee to consider whether we are justified in carrying interference in the affairs of the trade union to this extent? Where do you draw the line? Are you drawing no real line at all, apart from the clerical and secretarial staff and executive officers? What about those who are departmental managers, not of policy but in administration, but who are free to attend meetings of the executive council to give account of their stewardship or offer opinion on matters before the executive?
I beseech the Committee to be careful before doing something this afternoon which is a breach of our freedom without full justification and with potential harm to a great movment which still exists and which is doing a job for the nation and for public administration as well as for its members. I believe this will be a reprehensible day in our history if Members of the Committee say, "We do not care what you say. We are going to throw all these jobs open to election by the membership and let that take care of itself. If there is political battle, let it go on. If there is turmoil let it go on". In the end I believe great harm will have been done to a great movement.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Before my noble friend leaps to his feet to bring this debate to a conclusion, I must say that it has left me in some confusion of mind. I have been a warm supporter of the Government's legislation on trade unions to date. On the other hand, I have always doubted the efficacy and effectiveness of statute law to remedy every defect in human affairs.
There are two assurances which I should like from my noble friend before I make up my mind on this issue. First, is he confident that the Bill as it now
584
stands will not lead to an increase of political activity within the unions? Secondly, is he confident that the Bill as it now stands will not inhibit the access of those who have the difficult task of running a union to the best advice available?
Lord Beloff: I do not interpret Clause 12 to the same extent as noble Lords opposite suggested. I believe everyone here agrees with the noble Baroness who moved the amendment that the trade union movement, like any other important national institution which seeks efficiency, must be able to employ persons of competence and expert knowledge to perform both the advisory and, in some cases, the administrative tasks which are called for.
I cannot see that that process is inhibited by the terms of Clause 12. It does not seem to me inevitable that the person known as the general secretary should be the equivalent—I think this was in the mind of the noble Baroness—of, say, the permanent secretary of a government department. It is, if you like, a hybrid position. It is partly that, and in some unions it is very largely that. In other unions, as I believe has been made clear, it is a more political appointment; that is, the general secretary takes an active part in framing policy. He may be deferred to, because of his long experience and particular qualities, by his elected colleagues on the executive.
The term "general secretary" after all is the one by which Stalin maintained himself in power without, as I remember, holding any other office. Therefore, it is an ambiguous term. It is true that the shift, as it were, towards the political kind of general secretary would be increased, as the noble Lord, Lord Murray, said, because people who have to seek suffrages are themselves likely to be political in their outlook and habits. However, nothing inhibits the appointment of specialists—including specialists who may attend meetings of the governing body. If they attend to give advice or to receive instructions their presence is permissible under Clause 12. That is what we are used to in many other aspects of our national life.
The Cabinet, or a Cabinet Committee, may summon a civil servant or, say, a military chief, to give advice or even to receive instructions. It does not make that person part of the ruling group. A bogey has been built up about this clause. It would make a change but it would not inhibit the development of the specialist and professional services which the noble Baroness is right to see as one of the foundations of a modernising trade union movement.
Baroness Turner of Camden: In replying from these Benches to the debate on the amendment, I should like first to say that much of the discussion has not been absolutely directed to the amendment. The proposed subsection (6A) specifically deals with the position of president, as I said in my opening remarks. The presidency of the NUM has been bothering many noble Lords on the opposite Benches. That is specifically dealt with in subsection (6A) which makes clear that it is an elected position.
The proposed subsection (6B) deals with the position of general secretaries. My noble friends have dealt in great detail with those arguments. The

585
Minister has certainly not responded to the main arguments that we have put forward. For example, he has not dealt with the Civil Service argument. Again, this is a strong argument. If one is to have specialist services, as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, who seemed to agree, said, there must be someone in charge of those services who is likely to understand what they are all about. Therefore, a chief executive who has some administrative skills is necessary.
It is possible, of course, that such a chief executive will have a high political "profile" because that is the way in which public life operates in this country. He may be making television appearances, and so on. But that does not mean to say that he is not an administrator responsible directly to his executive.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Chapple, that not all unions are the same. Not all general secretaries of unions have the powers that he says exist in the ETU. In this amendment we say that because of the diversity of union practice, it should be left to the unions themselves to decide whether they want to appoint an official to administer affairs for them, to organise their specialist services, to represent them and to have the capacity to represent them on television, and so on, or whether they want to have an elected official.
The clause is an unwarrantable interference with the rights of voluntary organisations in a way so well put to the Committee by my noble friend Lord Houghton. It is wrong for the Government to come along with this legislation and seek to cut across all the standard practices, all the contracts of employment that currently exist, and to raise all sorts of ambiguities in relation to people attending the executives of unions who are not themselves general secretaries.
It has been mentioned that a number of officials regularly attend executive meetings. I did so for a long time during my trade union career. I do not know whether I could be said to have given professional advice, but certainly I had to produce papers for the executive and certainly I had to speak to those papers. Ultimately, if my recommendations were not accepted I had to abide, and did abide, by the decisions of that elected executive.
The clause expands the position very widely to cover that range of officials and to interfere with their employment contracts in a quite unjustifiable way. No criticism has yet been voiced in the Committee about the way those officials carry out their work or about their lack of accountability to the membership. For all those reasons I intend to press this amendment to a Division and I ask the Committee to support it.
4.17 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 63) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 118; Not-Contents, 152.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Ardwick, L.

Amherst, E.

Attlee, E.

586

Banks, L.

Longford, E.

Basnett, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Birk, B.

McCarthy, L.

Blackstone, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Blease, L.

McNair, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mayhew, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mishcon, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Molloy, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Morris, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mottistone, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Mulley, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L

Carter, L.

Nicol, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Oram, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

David, B.

Peston, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Dean of Beswick, L. [Teller.]

Phillips, B.

Diamond, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Dormand of Easington, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ennals, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rea, L.

Falkland, V.

Richardson, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Fitt, L.

Rochester, L.

Foot, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B.

Galpern, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Glenamara, L.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shackleton, L.

Grey, E.

Shaughnessy, L.

Grimond, L.

Simon, V.

Hampton, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stedman, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hayter, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Heycock, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hooson, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hughes, L.

Thurlow, L.

Hunt, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Underhill, L.

Jacques, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jay, L.

Walston, L.

Jeger, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Whaddon, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Wigoder, L.

Leatherland, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Broxbourne, L.

Aldington, L.

Butterworth, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Caccia, L.

Allerton, L.

Caithness, E.

Ampthill, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Arran, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Auckland, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Bauer, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Beaverbrook, L.

Carnock, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cayzer, L.

Beloff, L.

Chapple, L.

Belstead, L.

Chelwood, L.

Birdwood, L.

Clinton, L.

Blake, L.

Coleraine, L.

Blatch, B.

Colnbrook, L.

Blyth, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Cowley, E.

Brentford, V.

Craigavon, V.

Broadbridge, L.

Crawshaw, L.

587

Crickhowell, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Nairne, Ly.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Nelson, E.

Dulverton, L.

Norfolk, D.

Dundee, E.

Norrie, L.

Eccles, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Elibank, L.

Orkney, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ferrier, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Pender, L.

Gainford, L.

Quinton, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Reilly, L.

Goold, L.

Renton, L.

Grantchester, L.

Rochdale, V.

Gray, L.

Rodney, L.

Gridley, L.

Rugby, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Davids, V.

Haddington, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Sandford, L.

Halsbury, E.

Sandys, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Shannon, E.

Harvington, L.

Sharples, B.

Havers, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Hemphill, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Henley, L.

Slim, V.

Hesketh, L.

Somers, L.

Hives, L.

Stockton, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hood, V.

Strange, B.

Hooper, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Jessel, L.

Strathspey, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Sudeley, L.

Joseph, L.

Suffield, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Swinton, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Terrington, L.

Kitchener, E.

Teviot, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Teynham, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Layton, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Long, V.

Trafford, L.

Luke, L.

Tranmire, L.

Lurgan, L.

Trefgarne, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Tryon, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Mansfield, E.

Vinson, L.

Margadale, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Marley, L.

Westbury, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Wise, L.

Merrivale, L.

Wolfson, L.

Mersey, V.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 14, line 23, leave out ("except in the case of a special register body").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 64, and I shall speak also to Amendment No. 72. This amendment deletes from the clause which the Committee has just been discussing, and the purport of which I need not repeat, the exception in respect of a special register body. The Minister made a remark that was of particular interest in the context of this amendment. He said that we cannot have protected categories. He and I know that one comes across special, exempted and protected categories in this Bill as in any other. It is right to look carefully at all the exempt categories from the new regulation which is
588
being put into force with such rigour, as my noble friends made clear in the debate.
Indeed, the more rigorous the regulation the more need there is to consider the rationality and the reasonableness of the exemptions. Throughout this clause and the clauses to come my noble friends and I will be seeking to inquire into the manner in which exempted classes are constructed. If the Government come close to that line of exempting a class from the new obligations, which is not in technical terms a genuine class but is a special class aimed at particular interests or people, then the question of the nature of the Bill may well arise.
As regards the special register body, I can put the point quickly and make progress in this way. The special register was invented by the Industrial Relations Act 1971 to accommodate those bodies that had trade union functions but wished to have a special corporate status. The 1971 Act was more complex than that, but the relevant point is that when the Industrial Relations Act was repealed in 1974 the then Labour Government had to face the question of what to do with the special status of those bodies. They are usually thought of as bodies like the British Medical Association, although in a moment I shall show the Committee that on my information that is perhaps rather wide of the mark.
In their wisdom or unwisdom—and it may have been a mistake—the Labour Government of 1974 responded to the appeals of these bodies and retained the special register to allow them to keep in a quite anomalous fashion their corporate status which is not allowed to any other trade union. The register was closed and therefore they remain as a kind of ossified bequest of the Industrial Relations Act 1971.
The question therefore arises: why should these bodies, the category of which arose through those fortuitous circumstances, be exempt from the obligations now being imposed upon other trade unions? I wish to make it quite clear that in putting down the amendment my noble friends and I wish no harm to any of the bodies. What we wish to do is to investigate again the Government's mind and to probe the dark corners of that mentality to discover why they have taken this step of exempting that group of special register bodies.
In another place the Government gave two answers. They first set out the history of the matter, which is much as I have described it. That justifies nothing. They then suggested that these were professional bodies that needed special treatment. After the debate the Committee has just had, I need spend no time on that argument in broad terms because as my noble friend Lord Houghton and others have just said, the way in which trade unions are organised differs so much that quite patently the idea of these bodies being different in category in terms of professionality from all other trade unions is quite absurd, especially when one reads the list
The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but it is my information that there are 15 unions on the special register. They are the Association of Clinical Biochemists; the Association of Optometrists; the British Association of Occupational Therapists; the British Dental Association; the British Dietetic Association; the British Medical Association; the

589
Chartered Society of Physiotherapy; the Education Institute of Scotland; the Headmasters' Conference; the Institute of Journalists; the Royal College of Midwives; the Royal College of Nursing; the Society of Authors; the Society of Chiripodists; and the Society of Radiographers.
The bodies on the list are not connected by any natural link. Indeed, it is not even true, as is sometimes thought, that they are all medical associations or the like. The Education Institute of Scotland is on the list and so too is the Headmasters' Conference. I ask the Government this specific practical question which arises from the debate my noble friends have initiated. Why should the National League for the Blind and Disabled be bound by the obligations of Clause 12 but not the BMA, the Society of Authors, the Institute of Journalists or the Association of Optometrists? What possible logic can there be in distinguishing all the varied kinds of trade unions which are and are not affiliated to the Trades Union Congress and in saying that these bodies can do things, such as putting people on the executive committee, which trade unions not on the special register cannot do?
Therefore what appears to be a small point in the legislative process in Committee surely begins to assume a rather bigger appearance. All the Government have done is to select a group of exemptions which have some historical basis without considering the function. Is that parallel with the rest of the Bill? They do not consider the different functions of different trade unions. They lump them all together and regulate them. They do not consider the functions of the bodies on the list. They know that the BMA is on it and they know that one or two other bodies are on it. Presumably they wanted to do them a favour and so they kept them out of the regulation.
It may be that the Minister can tell me why the National League for the Blind and Disabled has to fall under the rigours of the clause but the Society of Authors and the other bodies I have named do not. If there is a functional explanation which we have missed we shall be happy to make no more of it. I repeat, this is the first of the inquiries into the exempted categories in the Government's Bill. I invite the Minister to accept that this tiny one has been put in by mistake and that we could get rid of it by accepting the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: Special register bodies have been part of the industrial relations scheme since the early 1970s. They are primarily professional associations with incorporated status which also conduct negotiations with employers about terms and conditions of employment. As the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, has already made clear, the BMA and the Royal College of Nursing are two of the better known examples. In essence, they have evolved from their original status as professional bodies and now have a dual role as professional bodies and independent trade unions. They are also bodies corporate. This dual role puts them in a unique position in legislation, and legislation has long made a distinction between them and other unions.
590
In the present case, this distinction is being recognised because some of the members of their PEC and other members who attend it do so only to deal with certain aspects of their professional role. I am a little puzzled that some Members of the Committee should seek to remove the exemption, given their dislike of the requirement for unions to elect their leaders at regular intervals. Whatever the reasons for the amendment, the fact remains that SRBs exist. They are different from other unions. They have been accepted as such by governments of both parties and they have made representations which Ministers felt able to accept. It would be both wrong and damaging to go back on that commitment.
The noble Lord read out the list of organisations which are presently on the special register. As he will be aware, the register is now closed so no new organisations can join it. He read out the list of those which are members, and I understand that list was the correct one. He then asked why it was that certain other bodies which he judged to be equally deserving were not on the register. I presume the answer is that they did not seek to be members of the special register when that was a possibility open to them some years ago. Therefore, they have the status of the regular trade union as recognised in legislation and by this Bill.
I have said that the Government have accepted—as indeed have successive governments that those organisations have a unique status and that the relevant legislation should take account of that status. If we were to accept the amendments proposed we should be going back on undertakings given to recognise that unique status—recognition and undertakings given by governments of both political parties. I do not think that that would be an appropriate way to proceed, and I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am naturally disappointed with the Minister's answer, not merely for its conclusion but because of its reasoning. The first and main argument that he appeared to use was that we must exempt the special register bodies from the relevant parts of Clause 12 because the list is there. I might call this the Everest argument: "Why do it? Because there is a special register". I never know how to deal with the Everest argument. You either like it or you do not. But there is a more important attachment to the Everest argument which tries to tie us in to the ascent; that is to say that governments of both parties have given undertakings to the special register body.
No Labour or Conservative Government until this one, certainly not in terms of some things that have happened since, ever gave the special register bodies an undertaking that they would be exempt, as it were, as special chums from obligations imposed on all other trade unions of a new kind. The issue did not arise. What the Labour Government did, perhaps unwisely but out of the goodness of their heart because the arguments were not very strong, was to allow the BMA and one or two other bodies to keep their corporate identity.

591
The noble Lord referred again to the fact that they are bodies corporate, rather suggesting that they therefore have to be special. They are special already, and the mere fact that they are bodies corporate does not mean that they can be exempt from Clause 12(2). You can invent many kinds of corporate bodies. There are private companies, limited companies, companies limited by guarantee. The law is different in respect of each of them. There is no reason why a body corporate cannot be told that it must assume that all those who attend its executive meetings should be elected just like anybody else.
With what are we left? We are left with the comment that they have evolved into a dual role. One really does not know where to begin. First of all, they have not evolved into this dual role in terms of the special register. They were on it in 1971, and that was it. In so far as their functions are concerned, the Minister said they are primarily professional associations and they negotiate with employers. If the Minister could think of a distinction in those terms between most of the bodies on that list and the Health Visitors' Association, which is to be treated now under this clause as a trade union, I would give him a prize, even if it were not a very large prize, because it would be a response which would be ingenious in the extreme. The Health Visitors' Association have to do as they are told, but the other associations, including the Royal College of Nursing, can do as they like on this point. That seems to make no sense at all.
Finally—I do not think the Minister meant to misrepresent us on this but he expressed puzzlement—I insist that we offer no thought of harm to any of the bodies on this list. In the Committee stage of legislation if there is an exemption, we are entitled to ask the reason for it. The Government have given no reason. Their attitude on this matter will make us examine the exemptions that have been put into later clauses with even greater care than we intended from the beginning. We are very disappointed, but in view of the need to make progress with this clause I think it right to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Trefgarne: Before the noble Lord does that, I hope he will pause to reflect for a moment that the reason why we have agreed to perpetuate the special arrangements for these organisations is that we have given them an undertaking that we shall do that. The noble Lord is perfectly entitled to abrogate the undertakings given by the Government of which he was not a member but certainly a supporter some years ago. I prefer to stand by the undertakings given by my right honourable and honourable friends. That is the reason why I oppose the amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: With the Committee's leave, perhaps I may comment upon that. I feel sure that the Minister did not mean that in some way I was abrogating vicariously the undertakings of the Labour Government. That government gave no undertakings to special register bodies except that they could maintain their corporate status, and there is no question about their maintaining that.
592
The noble Lord's other point is even more important. This Bill has been in existence only since its publication date last October, so the issue of whether special register bodies should or should not fall fully within Clause 12 has been alive only since last October. In the Committee stage in another place or in any pronouncements that I have seen, I do not recall public undertakings to those bodies. It may be that the Government in their wisdom, by way of policy, decided to exempt the special register bodies to give those bodies an entirely new dimension. The logic should be clear about this. There has been nothing like this in the past. The special register bodies are exempt from these great obligations. If the noble Lord says the Government have given undertakings to the special register bodies I quite understand that. No doubt at some time or other privately they gave them and then they put forward this clause, but you cannot justify a clause merely on the basis that you promised to make it. There has to be some reason other than what was said last Wednesday, and we have not heard anything. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 14, line 24, after ("body") insert ("and subject to subsection (6C) below").
The noble Lord said: These government amendments fulfil a commitment given by Ministers in another place. They reflect consideration of the principle behind the opposition amendment to exempt from the election requirement general secretaries and presidents if their,
"position is occupied under the rules of the union by a different person annually and that person is not a voting member of the committee".
The essence of the amendment is that individuals who hold a position as general secretary or president which is honorary and theirs by virtue of Buggins' turn should not have to be elected. Individuals who benefit from this exemption will be lay members of the union appointed or elected, perhaps by a union's conference, to act as its president.
The Opposition is another place described their amendment as a moderate one. It is, however, a significant concession from the Government's expressed intention that all who act as members of the PEC should be elected. It is made on the basis that the positions involved are normally honorary ones and do not carry the power and authority usually connnected with such positions. I hope that your Lordships will welcome this significant concession from the Government. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: We welcome the amendment. The Government would have been foolish to insist on applying the clause to people in the category covered by the amendment.
If I may follow up the point made by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn, it is being made increasingly difficult to understand the theoretical principle behind the clause. This is a point which we shall have to make on several subsequent amendments. It is only fair to use this opportunity to state where we think the difficulty lies.

593
The people covered by the amendment have no vote and are not employees. They have the job for a year, after which they give it up. Under those tests they are not covered by the Bill. An amendment that will be discussed later states that a person who has no vote, is a 10-year employee, is going within five years and is elected by a postal ballot does not have to have an election.
However, there is another case—a third example—in the Bill of a person who has no vote, is a 10-year employee and is going within five years but, because he is elected in a workplace ballot, he must have an election. There are more cases—in fact, six. There is the case of the 10-year employee, the general secretary or president, who is going within five years but was elected in a workplace ballot. Because he has a vote, presumably he will not be covered by Amendment No. 133. We cannot understand all this. The fifth case is that of the man who has no vote, is a 10-year employee, is going in three years and is elected by annual conference so that he has to be covered by an election.
There seem to be four criteria—votes, whether a person was an employee, whether he had the job for a certain period and whether the ballot was workplace or postal. I ask the Minister to start working out how one fits them all together and makes sense of it.
Lord Trefgarne: I confined my remarks to the amendment and was careful not to stray on to topics in other amendments. Despite that, perhaps I should have said that the amendment paves the way for Amendments Nos. 73 and 134, which I hope I shall be able to move formally.
This is a comparatively narrow amendment and represents the honouring of an undertaking given in another place. I hope that the Committee will agree to it.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Perhaps the Minister could give an example or two. The Government must have in mind some positions that are covered by substantive Amendment No. 73.
I am interested in members' trustees, for example. They are not officers of the union. They are not employees. They are appointed by the annual delegate conference as trustees. They hold office at the will and pleasure of the annual delegate conference. For the most part they are retired civil servants. They attend meetings of the executive council because they are the watchdogs on expenditure under the rules and can intervene if the executive council appears to trespass on their responsibilities in the matter. Do they have to go for election under the clause or are they covered by the concession?
There are also certain honorary officers who may be receiving an honorarium but who are not employees of the union. They may be members of the union. They hold a non-elected office for a period because they are given some responsibility for the development of the technical side. I think particularly of the taxation side of a union like my own where
594
advice is wanted from people who are inside and who will accept some responsibility for it. Such people attend meetings of the executive council. If they are making grading claims or considering a re-appraisal of the value of work, they are in a position to indicate from their experience what kind of work it is. What does the Minister make of that? These are not positions of power and responsibility; they are ancillary to the government of the union. It is absurd if the requirement for re-election is to apply to them.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: Perhaps the Minister can throw some light on the case of a trustee who satisfies all the requirements in the clause except that, as the union holds its conference biennially and not annually, he is elected by the conference on a two-year basis, largely because of the cost of bringing members together. He will presumably require to satisfy the electoral and ballot requirement contained in other provisions of the Bill. Can the Minister confirm whether that is so?
Lord Trefgarne: If I may speak slightly off the cuff in reply to the noble Lord, a president, an honorary president or an honorary general secretary who is not involved in the decision-making process of the union—
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: If I may intervene, I referred to a trustee, not an honorary president.
Lord Trefgarne: As I understand it, if he holds office for more than a year he is not covered by the benefits of the amendment, which is specifically directed at those who hold office for a year. The subsection provides for a period of 13 months so that individuals can hold their positions from one annual conference to another as annual conferences do not always take place exactly one year apart. If there is a biennial conference, I fear that the person who wanted to hold office between the two conferences would not enjoy the benefits of the amendment.
Lord McCarthy: The Government appear to have no consistent set of principles behind the exceptions. The Minister is right. Amendment No. 73 says:
"holds that position for a period which under the rules of the union cannot end more than thirteen months after he took up that position; has held neither that position nor any other position so mentioned at any time in the period of twelve months ending with the day before he took up that position".
The position put by my noble friend Lord Murray of Epping Forest is quite clear: a person who was made an honorary president by an annual conference would not be covered. Do the Government really think that they are granting this concession for one year only? What is the basis for that?
Lord Trefgarne: The basis is that this is a response to a request from the Opposition in the other place, who were apparently anxious to receive the concession. They would of course have preferred the concession to go wider, but we felt unable to agree to that. We have moved in the direction of the Opposition, and I hope that that at least will be recognised.

595
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, raised a specific point about trustees. Perhaps I may study what he said. If I can add anything, I shall write to him.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 66 not moved.]
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 14, line 32, after ("technical") insert ("financial, legal").
The noble Baroness said: I hope that this simple amendment will commend itself to the Government. We are hoping that persons attending union executive meetings for the purpose of offering financial or legal advice will be granted exemption from the requirement to stand for election.
In our previous debate, I and a number of noble Lords said that unions were becoming more and more professional, and that it was necessary for union executives to have recourse to financial advice fairly continuously. With the legislation affecting trade unions that we have had and are now having in increasing amounts from the Government, unions will have to have continuous legal advice.
Many unions make it a practice to have their national finance officer attend executive meetings to ensure that the members are properly advised as to the financial implications of their decisions. It therefore seems reasonable to add to the clause an exemption for people who attend to give factual information or technical, financial, legal or professional advice. With those few words, I commend the amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: I do not intend to reply immediately to the noble Baroness, but the Committee might find it convenient if we also discussed Amendments Nos. 68 and 69, tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, and Amendment No. 70, tabled by my noble friend Lord Brentford.
Viscount Hanworth: It may be convenient if I speak now on the other two amendments. As we know, Clause 12(6A) defines the circumstances in which a union member attending a principal executive committee must be elected. However paragraph (b) makes an exception,
"for the purpose of providing the committee with factual information or with technical or professional advice with respect to matters incidental to the carrying out by the committee of its functions".
My amendment seeks to make that exemption a little less stringent by adding the words "or opinions". In trade unions and many other organisations, including local authority specialist committees, senior officers act as the organisation's principal spokesmen in committee. In a union, such officials may express opinions on the effect of alternative courses of action, and give general advice. But they can do so only at the executive committee's request.
The situation in the unions is different from that in government where Ministers are always advised by
596
their civil servants, and the latter seldom speak at committee meetings. As I have said, that is not the procedure for unions. Elected members of the executive committee are usually full-time employees in another occupation. They often need verbal briefing and advice, but the committee alone makes the policy. The effect of the subsection, as it stands, would make the decision process and operation of many trade unions difficult. It would help me greatly in deciding whether to pursue the matter, possibly at another stage, if the Minister would describe the circumstances in which he feels that that limitation is important and how it may be abused.
Viscount Brentford: In speaking to Amendment No. 70, I should like to make it clear that all I am trying to do is to implement the Government's intention, which I fear is not the case with the Bill as at present drawn. The amendment seeks to clarify the meaning of a provision which purports to exclude from election those giving professional advice, including solicitors. The clause excludes from election those who provide the committee,
"with factual information or with technical or professional advice with respect to matters incidental to the carrying out by the committee of its functions".
The Government have stated clearly that it is not their intention to require the election of professional advisers such as solicitors. The problem hinges on the word "incidental". Although the Government do not want to have professional advisers elected, the clause as drafted may make it necessary for them to be so.
I shall quote from Standing Committee in another place when my honourable friend the Minister of State who was dealing with this issue said:
"The word 'incidental' has been used to ensure that those attending meetings to give advice and information needed by the PEC to make its decisions, rather than to take part in the decisions themselves, are not covered. The Bill expresses that as clearly and as accurately as possible. The advice on incidents in the main decision—for example, advice on the legal aspects of a decision—is one of the incidents leading up to the final decision".
If that were the drafting of the Bill, I should be happy with it.
Later my honourable friend said:
"'incidental' does not mean trivial in this respect, or partial, which it can sometimes be taken to mean … that legal meaning of 'incidental' is one of the incidents on the road to making a decision".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee F, 17/12/87; cols. 373, 391.]
My dictionary says that incidental means casual, not essential. I accept that the word "incident" has a much wider meaning, but it is not the word "incident" in the Bill, but "incidental". In common usage, according to my thinking and that of my dictionary, that means casual, not essential. I fear that as drafted the Bill will make it essential for a professional adviser, such as a solicitor, who attends to give legal advice on an essential matter to be made subject to an election.
I am sorry for being technical. I believe, and it is the view of many other lawyers, that the wording of Clause 12 does not implement the Government's intention. My proposal is designed to clarify the position to ensure that my noble friend's intentions are fulfilled.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Before the noble Viscount sits down, I accept and endorse the views he put. Many lawyers are interested in that phrase. In our view, his amendment is helpful. It is something to which we shall clearly return on Report because it is a difficult area. I wonder whether the noble Viscount would answer two slightly critical questions about his wording to clarify the point before we return to the issue on Report.
I have in mind solicitors who are employed by a union. It is becoming more common for solicitors, or even barristers, to be in-house, as it were, than it was many years ago. If there is such a person—I can think of two unions where it is so, and there are more—could one say that he was employed or engaged solely to give professional advice, in the sense that one of the people about whom I am thinking, for example, witnesses affidavits? In-house solicitors perfectly properly do other jobs. They are not precisely giving advice. Therefore,
"solely for the purpose of providing"
advice might meet a criticism, although not as strong as the noble Viscount's criticism of the Government's words, that the wording does not cover the job done by the solicitor in-house whom he wants to protect.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may—
Viscount Brentford: If I may answer that question briefly, the example given by Lord Wedderburn is of witnessing affidavits which would surely not be done at the meeting of the PEC. I should have thought that my wording probably covered what was basically in my mind.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I apologise to the noble Lord, I always give way to everybody, but I did not see him rise. There is a distinction which has been drawn between in-house and non-in-house lawyers. That in a sense could in certain very exceptional circumstances be a crucial distinction because the ordinary lawyer who is called in to advise, I would have thought, subject to the views of the Committee, would clearly fall within subsection (6A)(b), and there is no problem. Then the in-house lawyer who becomes part of the establishment and eventually after years becomes part of the decision-making process, falls into a sort of grey area. In that grey area, subject to the opinion of noble Lords, I should have thought it was better to leave Clause 12(6A)(b) as it stands rather than to accept the amendment.
Lord McCarthy: We took the view generally, before hearing the detailed arguments, that all three of these amendments, though not the biggest amendments in the world, were helpful. We believe that it would be perfectly reasonable for someone not to serve in an election and have to have regular elections because they are not just providing facts and information of a technical and professional character. They are occasionally asked to express their opinion. If you have experts, you ask for their opinion. You say, "What do you think is the best thing to do?" Anybody who is paid for being a consultant or expert is asked, "What do you think we ought to do?" If it be the case that not having the
598
word "opinion" in the clause makes it more difficult, then I should have thought that we have to thank the noble Viscount for suggesting it to the Government. I hope that the Government will find a way to accept the amendment.
Also "to matters incidental": again it seems to us that if we take out the words "matters incidental" in subsection (6A)(b) we just make it more straightforward. It is technical or professional advice with respect to the carrying out by the committee of its functions. What does the phrase "matters incidental" add to the significance of the clause? We do not think it adds anything and we would hope that the Government could accept the amendment.
Finally, with the third amendment put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, I must say that the idea that unless something is done with the clause we may get a situation in which a solicitor giving advice to a trade union has to stand for election is quite ludicrous. It is one more ludicrous example of the ludicrous nature of this clause in this ludicrous Bill. I hope that the Minister will improve it.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that my noble friend will pay particular attention to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Viscount Brentford. It seems to me that he has made a valid point on the rather curious use of the word "incidental". To take the obvious case, if a solicitor attends a meeting in order to advise a union on whether to fight a certain issue or to settle or give way, he is then giving advice, not incidental to the decision but crucial to it. His advice will bear on the decision which that committee ought to take.
I think it is straining the English language somewhat to describe that sort of advice as being merely "incidental" to the functions. Therefore whatever view my noble friend takes on the other amendments on which I express no opinion, I hope that he will take seriously the amendment in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford.
Viscount Hanworth: I just want to make one further point on "incidental". It seems to me that even taking into account what has been said in another place, it does not in any way restrict the clause. The very fact that it is there seems to me that it might be a wonderful arguing point for lawyers. If you omit it, I do not think subsection (6A)(b) loses anything at all from the Government's point of view.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Where does the word "incidental" appear in Amendment No. 70?
Lord Trefgarne: The word "incidental" appears in the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, Amendment No. 69. I imagine it was that to which my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter was referring.
Clause 12 is intended to ensure that union leaders are representative of the membership. As we have already discussed, the clause extends the 1984 Trade Union Act's election requirements to all members of the PEC, general secretaries and presidents and to those who have the right under the rules or by custom

599
and practice to attend and speak at some or all meetings of the PEC.
In this way, all those who are members or act as though they were members of the PEC will have to be elected and thus be better able to represent the views of the membership. The clause closes a loophole to which I have already referred in the 1984 Act, by means of which certain union leaders have been able to give up their vote on the PEC and so evade the election requirement.
Amendment No. 67 seeks to ensure that individuals who attend PEC meetings only to give financial or legal advice will not be subject to the election requirement. But under the clause as drafted, as long as an individual is supplying factual information or technical or professional advice for the purpose of assisting the PEC to make decisions, as distinct from actually taking part in the taking of decisions, there will be no election requirement. This includes financial and legal advice and I believe therefore that Amendment No. 67 is unnecessary.
Turning to Amendment No. 70 which would add a new subsection defining the phrase "professional advice" in subsection (6A)(b) as included in any advice given to a union by a professional person who is engaged or employed "solely for the pupose of providing that professional advice", it is unnecessary because the clause as drafted includes those who attend for the purpose of giving professional advice, whatever their relationship with the union. I quite take the point made by my noble friend. He is right to raise that concern. But I believe that the clause as drafted meets the point which he made. I hope that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter will accept that as well.
Let me turn specifically now to Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. The addition of the word "opinions" after "advice" in Amendment No. 68 is again unnecessary, I am told, as "advice" automatically includes "opinions". However I presume Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 are intended to operate together. Thus the use of "incidental" in subsection (6A)(b) ensures that those to be exempted from the election requirement are not concerned with matters which are the primary function of the PEC; that is, deciding whether and when to do something as opposed to how to do it.
Removal of "to matters incidental" would therefore have the effect of permitting individuals to play a fuller role in the activities of the PEC while still being exempted from the election requirement. I do not think that is quite what the noble Lord intended, and it is certainly not what the Government have in mind. I agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that sometimes the advice tendered by professional advisers can be very important indeed in persuading the principal executive committee or other senior officials of the union which way they might decide in any matter. But I believe that we have drafted the clause sufficiently tightly to ensure that those who are tempted to stray beyond—
Baroness Seear: If the noble Lord will permit me—
Lord Trefgarne: Perhaps I may just finish this sentence—tempted to stray beyond the professional advisory capacity will find themselves outside the ambit of the protection which we provide here.
Baroness Seear: I am really extremely confused. That is probably my fault. But let us suppose that the executive committee is considering whether or not to take strike action and it turns to the legal adviser and asks whether such action would be within the law. The legal adviser then gives his opinion. Is that to be regarded as incidental?
Lord Trefgarne: I am very reluctant to give a legal opinion on a particular hypothetical situation about which the noble Baroness has given me just one sentence. If I were a legal adviser advising a trade union I should not be content to give advice on the basis of instructions represented by one or two sentences. I believe, however, that in the kind of situation that the noble Baroness has indicated where the action that an executive committee had in mind was likely to be secondary action and therefore outlawed by a particular provision, it could properly question a legal adviser on that matter. I think that such an adviser, asked just such a question, would enjoy the protection of this clause.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am sorry to press my noble friend a little further but I am not happy about the word "incidental" in subsection (6A)(b). I wish to refer to the example that I put to the Minister earlier which he did not deal with. If a union is faced with a possibility of legal proceedings will it decide to fight? The legal adviser turns up to advise. That is not,
"technical or professional advice with respect to matters incidental to the carrying out by the committee of functions".
That, surely, is legal advice bearing on the substance of the decision which the committee is going to take. I do think it is stretching the language a little to describe that as "incidental".
Lord Renton: I join with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter in making this request to my noble friend on the Front Bench. There are two difficulties that I see about this provision. First, the addition of these apparently innocent words broadens the scope of the subsection very much indeed. Secondly, in doing so, I can imagine cases in which there will be a wrangle before the courts as to whether a matter was incidental to the carrying out by the committee of its functions or was not incidental. I do not think that we should be legislating in such a way as to give rise to that situation. There is a very strong case for my noble friend to consider further Amendment No. 69 of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: With considerable diffidence, I disagree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and my dear sponsor the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I cannot see in all objectivity that the clause creates any difficulty at all. I take the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. It is, frankly, the crucial point. The noble Baroness always makes the crucial point. One gets the solicitor. Never mind for a moment whether he is in-house or not

601
in-house; there he is. One says to him, "Look, Jones, this is the form. Can we take this action or not?" He says "yes" or "no" or in all probability, "I do not know. You will have to make your own decision." That is the usual kind of legal advice that one receives.
In any event, whatever he says he will express it, as I understand ordinary English construction, in the following manner. I am seeking to answer the noble Baroness. He will say that it will be incidental to the carrying out by the committee of its functions. Good heavens! Lawyers never make any decisions. That is why they always survive. They just advise. Whatever they do is merely incidental to something that someone else does on that advice.
Baroness Seear: The noble Lord seems to think that a decision is taken at a particular moment on the clock. But, of course, it is a process. That opinion is a very important part of the process of making the decision.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I take the point made by the noble Baroness. I agree with her, as I usually do. But the legal advice is, as I understand it—I may be totally wrong and that is a matter for the Committee—purely incidental to the decision-making process of the committee. Some people rely on the legal advice they receive. Many people, perhaps for very good reasons and often to their advantage, reject it. Legal advice is asked for. It is given. It is incidental. It is not the decision. The decision is made by the committee. As it stands, this clause as I construe it—I say that with considerable deference in view of the fact that two members of the Bar are opposed to me—
Baroness Seear: But, really, if the lawyer says, "If you do this, you will go to jug", one cannot say that that is incidental in the process of making the decision.
Lord Trefgarne: I believe that my noble friend is right to say that on occasions legal advice, perhaps less categoric than the example given by the noble Baroness, is sometimes disregarded. The fact of the matter is that on the right of me I have three most distinguished members of the legal profession who disagree among themselves. I think that the right thing for me to do under these circumstances is to accept that there is room for more than one respectable view on this matter and to undertake to have it examined further between now and the next stage. I do so without commitment because I am not necessarily persuaded by one view or the other. But I shall ask for the matter to be considered by a further range of experts—if I may put it that way—and, if I think fit, bring forward a further amendment at a later stage.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 68:
Page 14, line 33, after ("advice") insert ("or opinions").
The noble Viscount said: I should just like to thank the noble Lord for his reassurance that "opinion" is not necessary in order to cover the kind of situation which I have described. I hope that the noble Lord does not feel differently before the next stage.
Viscount Brentford: I wish to thank my noble friend for offering to reconsider this matter. I hope that he will look at the meaning of the word "incidental" in the dictionary as well as studying the legal implications of this.
[Amendment No. 68 not moved.]
[Amendment Nos. 69 and 70 not moved.]
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 14, line 34, at end insert—
("( ) With the exception of persons falling within subsection (6B) below, a person is not a member of the principal executive committee of a trade union if—

(a) the rules of the union state that he or someone occupying his position is not such a member; and

(b) he has no right to vote at meetings of that committee.").

The noble Baroness said: I rise to put in the form of an amendment to the Committee the arguments which I have already produced when speaking to the original Amendment No. 63 in respect of people who attend meetings of the national executive council who are senior officials but who are not perhaps professional people in the sense of being solicitors, accountants, or whatever.
There is a large number of senior officials, assistant general secretaries, national officers and the like who have the obligation from time to time of attending every meeting. But national officials with particular industrial responsibilities attend meetings as required from time to time by the national executive council. They report on their activities and make recommendations to the national executive council in respect of various industrial problems that the union may be facing.
Furthermore, there are officials who attend executive councils who are responsible for the administration of the council under the general jurisdiction and authority of the general secretary and who have responsibility for ensuring that the administrative work of the council is effectively carried out, and also for ensuring that the administrative decisions are carried out.
I am not denying that that is a responsible and senior position. However, those people in general have normal contracts of employment—contracts which enable them to have normal notice periods and full cover of present employment law in regard to unfair dismissal, redundancy payments, pension entitlements and so on. They are often administrative personnel who would not join the staff of a union if they felt that they would have to stand for election every five years. Often they are not the kind of people who would see themselves as fighting on the hustings to maintain their positions.
It seems to me to be quite inequitable for unions to be put in the position of having to have those jobs balloted for by the general membership. It does not seem right that unions should be uniquely disadvantaged in that way. I know that the Government have said on a number of occasions that unions are unique organisations. However, that is a special disadvantage. As I said earlier, unions have been endeavouring to become more and more professional. In the last 10 or 15 years they have been attempting to recruit young people who perhaps have career opportunities in the positions they hold and to ensure that they have career opportunities similar to those which they would have had if they had stayed in those positions and not joined the staff of the union.
If we have a situation in which such people see, as they go up the promotion ladder, that they will get to the point of being considered for senior positions and will have to stand for election instead of being promoted on their merits by a national executive council, we shall not be able to have access to that talent and it will not be available to unions to utilise it in a professional trade union and administrative way. It will damage the structure and functions of trade unions. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Lord Renton: I hope that my noble friend the Minister will not accept the amendment. It seems to be manifestly a way of overcoming the provisions of the new subsection (6A) by changing the rules of the union. That goes back to the speech which we had on the first amendment which we considered today (Amendment No. 63) when the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, was asked by me at the end of his speech if he would give way. I then put to him the point that when he complained that the clause overrides union rules, he was suggesting that the rules should take precedence over the law. He came back at me with a plea for natural justice. He quite rightly mentioned that the rules can be approved or disapproved by the courts when there is a change if necessary.
The point we have to bear in mind on the amendment is that although the rule book has a sanctity—and properly so—it cannot be subject to the proposition that it overrides the sovereignty of Parliament. Legislation is an expression of that sovereignty. We should look carefully at any amendment that seems to attempt to overcome the law which Parliament makes.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I accept, as the noble Baroness has said, that trade unions have made vast progress of late. That is much to be welcomed and encouraged. The question of damage to the position and the status of trade unions is not readily understandable for the reasons which I sought to give earlier this afternoon and which I have no intention of repeating. The adverse effect on career structure for young people is again not readily understood.
One comes back full circle every time to the problem that the effect of Clause 12 is to include members of the PEC who are already covered by the
604
Act of 1984 and then to include those members who, by virtue of the rules, do not have a right to vote and de facto members who attend meetings and play a part in the decision-making progress. That is the essence of the matter. That was a consideration which affected the last amendment which my noble friend has taken back.
To accept the amendment—although I know and avow that it is not the intention of the noble Baroness and that it would not happen in the hands of her union or most unions—would, in the hands of some unions, open the door to evasion and abuse. For that reason and with the utmost regret I oppose the amendment.
Lord Trefgarne: I agree that the amendment is something of a Trojan horse. For that reason, I find it impossible to agree to it. The amendment would add a new subsection with the effect that, with the exception of general secretaries and presidents, individuals would not be members of the PEC and therefore not subject to the election requirement if the rules of their union stated that they or people occupying their positions were not principal executive committee members and had no right to vote at meetings of the PEC. That would leave all non-members free to act as if they were PEC members, other than voting, without being required to be elected. That is a Trojan horse if ever I saw one. I cannot accept the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I find the arguments advanced against the amendment very strange. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that we are not suggesting that the rules should take precedence over the law. We are suggesting that Parliament should not pass unfair laws. Once the law is in position, unions have to abide by it. That is not in question. We are not suggesting that the rules should take precedence.
Our argument has been that there are classes of officials employed as what has been described by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, as civil servants of the trade union movement. Should those people have to stand for election? We say that they should not. It is destabilising to introduce the electoral process into administrative processes. It also politicises those processes in an unwelcome way.
Nor is the amendment a Trojan horse. Those people are responsible directly to an elected executive council and they are employed by it. There is no suggestion on our side that such people should be able to do exactly what they like without reference to anyone else. The national executive council is an elected body. Those people are employees of it and are responsible directly to it. They must do what the elected executive tells them to do. They administer the union on the instructions of the elected council. That seems to us to be a reasonable process.
That is the type of situation that applies in many institutions. Why should it be applied differently here? Why should there be discrimination in regard to unions? We do not understand, except that it seems to us that the Government are out to be as damaging as they possibly can to union organisation and

605
advancement. However, I shall not press the amendment to a Division and we shall look at the matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 72 not moved.]
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 14, line 47, at end insert—
("(6C) For the purposes of this section where any person who holds in any trade union any such position as is mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (6B) above—

(a) is, in respect of that position, neither a voting member of the principal executive committee of the union nor an employee of the union;

(b) holds that position for a period which under the rules of the union cannot end more than thirteen months after he took up that position;

(c) has held neither that position nor any other position so mentioned at any time in the period of twelve months ending with the day before he took up that position,

that position shall not be regarded for the purposes of this section as a position by virtue of holding which that person is a member of that committee or is deemed under that subsection to be such a member.")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 74 not moved.]
Lord Wyatt of Weeford Lord Wyatt of Weeford moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 15, line 5, leave out ("the period of five") and insert ("a period of less than five years but more than two")
The noble Lord said: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 75 and 76. This Bill will make all members of union executive councils stand for election in secret postal ballots. That will include presidents and general secretaries if they regularly attend their executive meetings. That being so, the sooner it happens the better. Surely we do not want a situation in which some union executives are elected by properly conducted secret postal ballots—in which we hope there can be no fiddle—while other union executives continue to rest on the insecure foundations of ballots which may or may not have been rigged.
The purpose of these amendments is to require all those who have not been elected in properly conducted secret postal ballot elections in the two years before the passing of this Bill to stand in such an election after the Bill becomes law. For the life of me, I cannot see the point of waiting for as long as the Bill suggests.
This is not ad hominem to Mr. Scargill, as was suggested on Second Reading, although he would be affected. Many other people are also concerned. Mr. Scargill chose to stand for election as president of the NUM on 22nd January although he did not have to do so. Firstly, the provision had not yet come into force requiring a non-voting member of an executive to stand for election even though general secretary. Secondly, at that time, there was no necessity to hold a ballot because the new law had not come into effect and there was no provision for it. As I explained at Second Reading, Mr. Scargill was trying to dodge the provisions of this Bill because he was frightened of the outcome of a secret postal ballot. The workplace
606
ballots in the NUM are easily manipulated and almost certainly were manipulated in the NUM election on 22nd January. We had a short discussion about that at Second Reading, and I do not think that there was much in the way of an answer.
As the proposed law stood, if the union retirement age had been lowered to 60 Mr. Scargill could have used the 22nd January election to stay in office for 10 years less 11 days before he reached the age of 60. I understand that the Government have altered that provision so that he would now be able to stay for only seven years less 11 days without an election if the retirement age were altered to 57. I think that a term of office of seven years less 11 days on the basis of a very dubious election is far too long in any case.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Will the noble Lord give way? The noble Lord keeps referring to the elections of the NUM and commenting on their legality. He has yet to spell out his case; he has generalised. He relies upon headlines in the Yorkshire Post and his own arithmetic, but I think that the Committee would be interested if he would go very carefully through that arithmetic. The arithmetic that I have seen concerning the ballot in no way substantiates the allegation that there was any illegality in the conduct of the election.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: I am not relying on headlines in the Yorkshire Post, I am relying on its content. I do not want to bore the Committee by going into that again. Nevertheless, it was clear that in some areas more miners voted than happened to be available in the workplace on that particular day.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Will the noble Lord give way? The noble Lord conveniently forgets that miners who may not be working and therefore not in the workplace are entitled to vote. If he had done his research properly for once, he would have found that it needed only 1,000 of the 4,000 miners, alleged to be missing because they were off work, to have gone into work to vote. It could very well have been that although they were not due to go to work they were sufficiently interested in the ballot to go to work to vote.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: The noble Lord is demonstrating clearly that there is a good deal of dispute about the election of the NUM which took place on 22nd January.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: There is no dispute at all.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: Not only was it made out clearly in the survey by the Yorkshire Post but also by members of the NUM who were very much afraid and saddened.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Will the noble Lord give way? Is he not aware that the Yorkshire Post carried a statement the following day that the Electoral Reform Society was satisfied with the way in which the election had been conducted?
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: Oh dear! I did not know that the noble Baroness was quite so gullible. The Electoral Reform Society was only satisfied that it had counted what it had received. The Electoral Reform Society did not send out the ballot papers in the first place and had no idea how many had been printed or how many had been duplicated, substituted or added. All it did was to count those that came back.
Anyone who was watching television news programmes at that time could see the envelopes from the NUM branches being delivered to the place where the Electoral Reform Society was to count them. The envelopes were stuffed with the ballot papers which had been taken out of the ballot boxes—which were never sealed, nor locked—by branch officials. Therefore, it was prefectly easy to add or subtract ballot papers before they were put in the envelopes. What is more, the champions of Mr. Scargill were declaring 24 hours before the result of the count was announced that he had won, and that he had won by a narrower majority than usual. How the devil did they know if they had not already arranged for that to happen?
I am quite happy to engage in these rather puerile debates with Members opposite. They simply bear out the total uncertainty and unreliability of a workplace ballot conducted by the NUM. That is the reason why Mr. Scargill wanted a workplace ballot before this Bill came into effect. He had a much better chance of winning such a ballot, with lots of people sympathetic to him and manipulating the votes at branches and pitheads and taking them out of ballot boxes before they put them into envelopes to send to the Electoral Reform Society. He had a much better chance of winning that kind of ballot than of winning a properly conducted secret postal ballot.
Surely the noble Baroness—who I thought was extremely intelligent—must realise what his game is. It is obvious, is it not? Why dash into an election, which you do not have to have, on 22nd January if not for the fact that you know that you will have to hold it on the basis of a properly conducted secret postal ballot after the Bill becomes law? Perhaps we may dispense with that point for the moment.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: Will the noble Lord give way? At the expense of boring the Committee, which I suspect is deeply bored already, will the noble Lord explain why those on his national executive committee who are by no means the champions of Mr. Scargill have lent their support to the statements that that election was above board? Will he tell us how many Conservative laws are meant to dance on the point of a Scargill?
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: I am afraid that I do not understand the noble Lord's point at all. As is well known, the executive is rather afraid of Mr. Scargill. I do not expect much progress from that quarter. As for boring the Committee, some Members of the Committee seem to be quite interested.
The truth of the matter is that the principal victim of the 22nd January election—a Mr. Walsh—is not willing to rock the boat internally by standing up and
608
demanding a declaration from the certification officer that something was very much awry with that election. One reason is that his whole career is as an area officer, a paid official of the NUM. They would have him out in a brace of ticks if he dared to protest to the certification officer.
These amendments would also apply to members of the executive council of the Transport and General Workers' Union. Everyone has read about the extraordinary work place ballots held recently in the Transport and General Workers' Union. I hope that Members of the Committee will not be bored if I read out something from The Times of Saturday 27th February, which I found rather fascinating:
"A former prominent hard-left member of the union has signed an affidavit saying he saw widespread rigging and spelt out how it was done. The rigging is alleged to have taken place in an election of the general executive of the TGWU … The union member making the allegations has told officials that he saw new membership cards being pre-stamped when he attended a local union 'ballot stamping' party in the North-West".
I do not wish to embarrass Members on the Labour Benches too much and I shall not read on, but I must say—
Baroness Phillips: With his vast experience of newspapers surely the noble Lord does not believe what he reads in them. The ones with which he is concerned certainly do not speak the truth.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: As it happens, I believe statements from members of unions when they carry absolute verisimilitude.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to say something on that point. He quotes from a newspaper the words "a former prominent hard-left member". Does the noble Lord care to name that person? What he is relying upon is a scurrilous and made-up report, and if his remarks are designed simply to enliven the proceedings he should be thoroughly ashamed of himself.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: It is very touching to hear how Members opposite desperately go on trying to defend the extraordinary activities of the TGWU.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Name the man!
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: We have heard of ballots that have been re-run. They were all a shambles. They are workplace ballots which notoriously are rigged. Yet in a nice, old-fashioned, romantic way some Members of the Labour Benches go on desperately trying to pretend that ballots are always conducted like a Sunday school party. Well, they are not.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Scurrilous!
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: For example, there was a ludicrously high number of votes cast in Ireland-90 per cent. of the people voted. Has one ever heard of such a thing? Well, one hears of it only in Ireland. However, there are numerous complaints made about false voting and I understand that at least three complaints will be coming from members of the TGWU to the certification officer. That should clear

609
up the matter and we shall find out where we stand afterwards. However, if this amendment is accepted it will take care of those complaints by requiring a re-run in a secret postal ballot now.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Perhaps the noble Lord will give way. If there are complaints made to the certification officer, would it not be better to allow the certification officer to deal with them instead of having trial by newspaper?
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: I thought that this was the House of Lords. I did not know it was a newspaper. The certification officer will deal with the complaints in a proper manner when he receives them, and no doubt he will have lots of help from interested parties. My point is that if these amendments are accepted probably the certification officer will not have to act at all because the election will have to be re-run as soon as this Bill is enacted.
These amendments would affect people such as Mr. Ken Gill, who was formerly the general secretary of TASS and who has never stood in any kind of free and fair election. He has now become the joint general secretary of the merged ASTMS and TASS unions, which the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, knows well. I understand from her that the situation of Ken Gill will be taken care of as a result of the merger between TASS and ASTMS, which is her union, but that he will be required to stand in a properly conducted ballot according to the 1984 Act and the present Bill should it become law in time.
Incidentally, I should like to say that I have never heard any complaints about the conduct of elections in the noble Baroness's union. The fact that it conducts its elections fairly is no doubt one of the reasons she cannot understand or believe that other unions do not do the same.
There are also other unions which are affected by these amendments. Under this Bill, there are to be secret postal ballots, and in my judgment the sooner we have them the better. We do not want a two-tier system in which there are some union executives elected properly by secret postal ballot and others not so elected. Why should they not be all on the same footing? Our amendment would promptly validate or invalidate, as the case may be, all those who now sit on union executives. Over 40 unions now apply to the certification officer for refunds against the cost of postal ballots. It is a growing habit in the trade union movement. It is not difficult to arrange and I do not see any reason why there should be a long waiting period after this legislation is passed to validate all union executives by proper secret postal ballot of the kind that is now envisaged. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Unless my noble friend the Minister is able to give some compelling reason—and no doubt there may be one—I should like to support this amendment in principle. I agree that the periods of five and two years are a matter of impression and accommodation. If the logic of the principle is accepted, no doubt the measure should be implemented at once.
610
However, logic is not the yardstick with which one approaches the delicate problem of industrial relations. The trade unions must be accommodated. Before the noble Lord spoke, it seemed to me that the Government had got this matter more or less right, but having listened with great attention to everything that was said by the noble Lord I wonder what will be the views of my noble friend the Minister.
Lord Trefgarne: I should like to start by saying that I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, for the further explanation that he gave of the reasons behind his amendment. He gave us a foretaste of what he had in mind during the course of our debate at Second Reading. I shall address the substance of his comments in a moment. First of all, however, I should perhaps point out that I do not think that his proposed amendments would achieve the intended result.
To cite the case of Mr. Scargill, who was referred to earlier this afternoon, he could claim that his election satisfied the workplace requirements of the 1984 Act and that he was thus entitled to stay in office for five years. Whatever amendment was made to the transitional provision in Clause 12(2) would not therefore affect him.
It would, however, affect many others who, perfectly genuinely, have held elections which did not conflict in any way with the statutory requirements at that time and who have every expectation that they can remain in post for the full term of office.
The Bill will already cut that period short if it were for longer than five years. I think that it would be highly undesirable to reduce it still further by requiring those elected in the two years preceding the clause coming into force to stand again.
The Government believe, therefore, that the amendment has undesirable effects while failing to hit the target at which it is aimed. But even taking the stated aim of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, of requiring Mr. Scargill to stand again for election, and assuming that an amendment could be devised to do that, I ask the noble Lord whether that is really desirable. If there is evidence of malpractice in his election then let it be brought into the daylight by individual members for all to see, in particular the Electoral Reform Society, which oversaw the count, rather than amending the Bill.
If there is no evidence of malpractice and yet Mr. Scargill were picked out and forced to stand for re-election, would he not be able to present himself as a martyr and so gain the support of many tens of thousands who would otherwise perhaps not have voted for him? I suspect that the last thing the noble Lord would wish to see is Mr. Scargill re-elected in a carefully stage-managed vote of confidence. If he were to be re-elected in a fully postal ballot the prophecy of the noble Lord about Mr. Scargill remaining in office until retirement without further re-election would become self-fulfilling. That is because Mr. Scargill would certainly be able to benefit from the retirement exemption in Section 8 of the 1984 Act since the intention is that the exemption should be available to those whose previous election was fully postal.

611
I hope the noble Lord will therefore accept that his proposal goes too far and would not be in the overall interests of the end that he is seeking to achieve.
Baroness Turner of Camden: It is unusual for Members on this side of the Chamber to agree with the Minister, but we do so on this occasion. What he said is very sensible. I also believe that it is unwise to embark upon legislation aimed at specific individuals, which is what this measure does. The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, made it abundantly clear in moving the amendment that that was what he was after. I therefore support the Minister in his comments on this amendment.
6 p.m.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: One is in a very difficult position when the leading spokesman of the Opposition agrees with the spokesman for the Government; and they are both wrong! However, I feel helpless in the matter because clearly if we have a Division it will go against us. However, I should like the Government to have another look at this amendment. It is not directed simply at Mr. Scargill, as I carefully pointed out. It is directed towards a great many other executives which have been elected under somewhat dubious methods, such as the TGWU, which regularly elects its executive under very doubtful methods.
It is a little casual for the Government to say, "That does not matter. After all, we have only to put up with these unfortunate results of improper election for a few years".
Lord Trefgarne: I understand the feeling that the noble Lord has expressed on this matter. I shall certainly ensure that further consideration is given to this point. Frankly, I cannot hold out much hope that we shall reach any different conclusion, but if the noble Lord would like to continue his discussion with my honourable or right honourable friends on this matter I am certain that they would be more than happy to do so.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: On that understanding—rather a weak one—I shall withdraw the amendment and return to another charge on Amendment No. 93. I hope that the Government may then be more receptive, having had further time to reflect.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 76 not moved.]
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 15, line 29, leave out ("two") and insert ("five").
The noble Baroness said: The objective of this amendment is to try to remove what seems to be an anomaly. The 1984 Act specifies that individuals who are covered by its provisions do not have to stand for election within five years of retirement. This is a reasonable provision covering officials who are elected, because if people have to stand for election five years before retirement, and they lose their positions as a result of that election, it becomes
612
difficult for them to rejoin their previous occupation and to be employed. Therefore it was a reasonable provision when the 1984 Act was put on the statute book. The provision complied with the rules of one of our major unions which has for many years had elections as the normal way of deciding upon its officials.
The new legislation before us, however, proposes that where officials who have been appointed have now to stand for election they should have to do so up to within two years of retirement age. This seems to us to be a quite malicious provision. After years of working in a post, if after an election the individual loses his position, is it really imagined that he is able easily to find alternative employment within two years of retirement? Most unions which employ officials and clerical staff endeavour to be reasonably good employers and certainly would not wish to put employees—even senior employees—in such a situation.
Moreover, there seems no reason to have one stipulation with regard to people who were elected under the 1984 Act and quite another with regard to people who were appointed and who now are to have their contracts of employment negated. They have to stand for election up to within two years of retirement. I can only assume that what has happened here is that the Government have looked at the ages of a few general secretaries whom they wish to catch in the electoral net and have decided that it would be a good idea to provide for two years instead of five years because that will enable them to catch a few more.
As I said earlier on previous amendments, it is not a very good idea to legislate with individuals in mind rather than principles. For those reasons, I commend the amendment to Members of the Committee.
Lord Trefgarne: There can be no serious argument against the principle of Clause 12 that all those who bear the responsibility for the running of a union should submit themselves for regular election in a proper ballot.
The existing legislation already recognises the difficulties which transition to the new regime may pose as well as the need to make special arrangements as in Section 8 of the 1984 Act for those approaching retirement. These will continue with appropriate modifications alongside this new subsection which caters for the particular extension effected by Clause 12.
It is important, however, that the effective implementation of the clause should not be unreasonably delayed, and any extension of the pre-retirement exemption would be likely—given the age profile of those in scope—to have a disproportionate effect.
In short, I do not think that we can agree to the amendment of the noble Baroness. It would unduly delay the proper implementation of the provisions of Clause 12. I hope that on reflection she will not insist upon it.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Before the noble Lord sits down, can he give us a little more

613
information about what he called the age profile of those in scope? This class refers to those who will reach retirement age within two years. Will he explain what he means by the age profile of those in scope?
Lord Trefgarne: When I saw those words I feared that the noble Lord might rise to his feet in response to them; and he has. Given the number of people involved—which is not enormous—it is fairly easy to ascertain how old particular people are and therefore to form a view on the broad effect of such a provision on the range of people involved.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Perhaps I may detain the Committee a moment longer. We are very grateful to the Minister. We may assume that this class has been ascertained by reference to the ages of particular people.
Lord Trefgarne: As I understand it, yes.
Baroness Phillips: Can the Minister explain whether retirement age has the same meaning as in Section 8? In other words, is it one age for women and another for men?
Lord Trefgarne: Given the appointments that we are considering, the retirement age is generally spelt out specifically regardless of whether it is a man or a woman.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: In order to help the Committee in its further consideration of this interesting matter, will the Minister publish the list of the people who have been considered, together with their ages?
Lord Trefgarne: Perhaps I can reflect upon that request. Off the cuff I cannot think of any reason why we should not.
Lord McCarthy: Will the noble Lord tell us whether he picked the age by looking at the people or whether he looked at the people to pick the age? Did he look down a list and say, "If we pick that age we will get that person". Is that the way it happened?
Lord Trefgarne: No, the noble Lord oversimplifies the process by which the Government arrive at these legislative proposals.
Lord McCarthy: I know that you are very crafty!
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I hope that I am out of the crossfire just for a moment. I hope also that we appreciate that we are being asked to interfere all the time with the law of contract. This is a serious matter. In the Government's pursuit of their aims to put trade union leaders on the footing of delinquents requiring some kind of condonation of their activities by ballot, the effect on individuals is being entirely ignored. To submit to a ballot after a considerable period of appointment and within three years of retirement is I think very cruel treatment of someone who has done nothing wrong and who has been looking forward to the continuation of his
614
employment. All kinds of considerations come into a ballot for election within three years of retirement. Surely some consideration can be given to people in that position. They were not expecting it. It was not part of their terms of service, but the law intervenes for Parliament has decided that it is inappropriate for them to continue in the office that they have held honourably for a number of years without submitting themselves to re-election even though retirement is within only a few years.
In a number of cases anybody who has any self-respect would not wish to undergo that ordeal and be challenged possibly for his last three years of office. He would rather take his pension and leave. I do not think that this is a fair way of dealing with the matter. The Government are so relentless—
Lord Trefgarne: I hope the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. There is another side to this matter. The noble Lord says that it is not fair upon the official concerned to have to subject himself to an election. However, he is also saying that it is therefore fair for the thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of members of trade unions to continue to have the services of a senior official who may or may not reflect their views or wishes for a period of perhaps two or three years. The Government therefore have to tread a rather careful path between the two.
If we were to accept wholly the view that trade union members could express their view instantly, we should then have accepted the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, and agreed that there should have been a new election instantly upon the Bill becoming an Act. But we had regard to the special concerns of people such as those to whom the noble Lord referred. If they were in the last two years or so of office they should not be asked to submit themselves to an election in the way that the Bill provides.
I also refer to our recent discussion about the "age profile of those in scope". Those were the words which caused the noble Lords, Lord Wedderburn and Lord Murray, to rise to their feet. I am advised that the class concerned was not determined by reference to the ages of individuals, as perhaps I inadvertently suggested to the Committee. However, it is clear that most of those in scope will be relatively aged. Having arrived at the position, when faced with the amendment the Government were bound to consider what the impact would be in the light of the known facts. I ought to make it clear that we did not conduct a survey of likely candidates for this provision in the way that I might have inadvertently suggested earlier.
Lord McCarthy: I hope that the noble Lord will make himself absolutely clear. I have written him down as saying that "most in scope were aged". Is that right? How did he know that they were aged if he did not find out their age?
Lord Trefgarne: I said "relatively aged".
Lord McCarthy: How did he know that they were relatively aged if he did not find out their relative age?
Lord Trefgarne: Generally, by looking at their faces.
Lord McCarthy: Does the Minister believe that he could perhaps find a better answer before we return on Report?
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: I think that all we are anxious to know is what the Minister means—I think I am quoting him correctly—by "the known facts"? Will he publish "the known facts" to which he has referred in his subsequent answer?
Lord Trefgarne: The known facts are largely published already because there are many books of reference in which the names of distinguished general secretaries appear and most of them put in their age. I daresay that their ages are accurately entered, although equally I daresay that lady general secretaries often decline to do that, and quite right too.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Shame!
Lord McCarthy: Shame!
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Disgraceful!
Lord Blease: The Minister has said that he attempted to be fair. I am accepting him at his word that he wants to be fair in such a situation. We are dealing with people who for a period have been in office in a trade union. I am not sure what happens in other organisations, but it is my experience that trade unions have a practice when people are coming up for retirement of considering their retirement pensions, their superannuation.
We are dealing with human beings and I am asking the Minister to consider this matter with a sense of fairness. We are dealing with people who are coming into their last days of service in a particular post. Surely that service merits more thought about the fairness of giving a reduced pension and the other aspects concerned.
Lord Trefgarne: I agree and the Government agree that these people are not to be abandoned in the way that the noble Lord is perhaps suggesting. There are transitional provisions in the 1984 Act which apply equally to the cases that we are referring to under the Bill. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will accept that, while the transitional provisions are perhaps not as extensive or as generous as some would wish, equally they go further than others would wish. The Government have to take a median path between the two positions and I hope the noble Lord will agree that we have taken the right one.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: The name of Arthur Scargill is writ on almost every page of the discussions on the Bill. It is about time that we rid our discussions of references to him. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, to introduce a Private Member's Bill called King Arthur (Deposition) Bill and let us discuss Arthur Scargill, all his works and all his implications at one go. That would relieve us
616
of this constant allusion to what happens in the NUM and with Arthur Scargill. He is a very decent fellow. The Committee has no idea how personable he is. He is a good husband, he loves his dog, so what is the matter with him? He is the leader of a difficult union and has accomplished much. Speaking as one old trade unionist to another, I have a certain sympathy with him.
However, the Minister seems to want to apply the test provided in the clause to the officers concerned. The test is: Does he represent the views of the members? Let us invent a breathalyser to apply to these gentlemen to see whether they represent the views of their members. What does he mean when he says "the views of their members"? It does not really matter very much in nine cases out of 10 whether he does or not, because he has an executive council duly elected fresh from the ballot, reinforced by the confidence of the members, who represent the members.
How can one person represent the views of the members when so many of their views are continually plaguing him and when the organisation may have split feeings about this or that? Unions are not the same as parochial councils. They are active, and are often divided and engaged in controversial debate. I believe that the Government have an obsession about the views of the members.
There is something in the art of government. Does this Government represent the views of the electorate? Let them try to prove that they represent the views of the electorate. If they are counting heads—and that is what is done in ballots—let us see the voting of the country at the last general election. It was not to give a mandate to the noble Lord sitting on the Bench opposite. I believe that we must strip some of the humbug from all this and get down to the reality of the matter. I think that is enough.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Yes, I think that it probably is. I am disappointed at the way in which the Minister has reacted to what I thought was a moderate, reasonable and compassionate proposition. People approaching the end of their working careers should not suddenly have the goalposts changed, their contracts of employment negated, and have to stand for election when their careers were based on the assumption that they had appointments and contracts of employment and were responsible to elected executive councils.
My noble friends Lord Wedderburn and Lord McCarthy have dealt with the age profile comment made by the Minister. I should like to know whether he has particular names in mind. Perhaps he will tell us that at Report, because it is important. We on this side of the Committee believe that in introducing the legislation the Government have looked and decided that there are a number of people they need to catch in their legislation, not only Arthur Scargill. As regards Arthur Scargill, I should like to say in passing that one of the reasons I believe that he would easily be elected, even with a postal vote, is that the policies of this Government towards the National Coal Board have so alienated the feelings of young miners in particular that they would vote for him because he articulates their concerns in that area.

617
Returning to the amendment, it has been said by the Minister that the views of members are important. Of course they are, but in many unions they have been expressed through annual conference decisions when discussing the question of whether they should have appointed or elected officials to run their administration. That matter has been discussed in my union and in many others.
In annual conference my union decided that it wants professional union officials who are appointed rather than elected. Therefore the members of that union have given their views as to the type of official they wish to have working for them. It is not good enough to say to all unions, as though they were all the same, "This is what you must do". Moreover it is not good enough to insist that union officials must stand for election up to within two years of retirement. I shall not press the amendment at this stage. However, I am disappointed at the response from the Government and I shall look at the matter again at Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 12, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Turner of Camden: I rise to oppose the Motion that the clause stand part of the Bill. During the course of the debate we on this side of the Committee have attempted to demonstrate how misdirected and malicious is Clause 12. As we have tried to show, it would produce unstable situations in many unions. It would introduce elections for officials who are civil servants of the trade union movement. It would prevent unions from developing the professional skills and expertise that are so necessary nowadays. Unions are constantly being told to modernise and clean up their act, and this clause would inhibit them from doing so.
Every large institution must be administered, and that requires full-time staff. Democratic institutions such as unions have elected national executive councils whose task it is to represent the views of the members and to make policy decisions in between annual conferences. That body is responsible to the membership, but in order to carry out those policies and provide services to members the executive must have an apparatus responsive to its will.
As has been said by a number of Members on this side of the Committee, by compelling officials who provide such administrative services to stand for election the Government will be undermining the authority of the national executive council. Elected officials will be able to say that they are not accountable to the executive but to the general membership. The CBI was right to point out to the Government that this would have a disruptive effect. Employers like to deal with stable unions. If unions are riven by internal dissension and disputation, fuelled by the press and with constant elections for officials, it will make industrial relations very difficult.
618
At one point in the debate the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said that he believed the hard Left would support our view on Clause 12. I must say to the Committee that that is not the case at all. In my experience the hard Left wants elections all the time because it wants to destabilise unions internally, to run elections and caucuses for elections, and to politicise the administrative apparatus of unions. It is not the hard Left which supports our views on Clause 12, but the Government are assisting destabilising elements in unions in this type of clause.
There is also the important point about contracts of employment and career prospects for union staff. As has been said on a number of occasions in the debate, unions are trying to become more professional. Therefore why should this type of employee, and only this type of employee, have his employment contract changed by parliamentary edict? As I said earlier in the debate, we are not out to say that our rules should take precedence over Parliament. However, we are saying that Parliament should not enact laws which are so unfair to particular institutions—to unions. The unions may be unique institutions, but in our view they should not be uniquely disadvantaged in this way.
I do not wish to repeat a number of the arguments that have been made forcefully from these Benches. It is because of the comments that have been made and the reasons that have been given during the debate that I oppose the Motion that Clause 12 stand part of the Bill.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Baroness is normally extremely fair in what she says. I believe that she has earned the respect of the Committee for the way in which she has led the opposition to this measure. I was therefore the more surprised when she described the clause as malicious. I believe that that description is quite unjustified. It is surely not malice but a sensible view of our society that the role of trade unions, particularly the major unions, is so important that it is necessary to see that they are led by responsible people who are responsible to their members and to our country. Surely it is reasonable to provide, as has been increasingly provided for in successive Bills, that the principal positions of those who control trade unions should be held by people who have been freely and honestly elected by the members.
The noble Baroness has said that that would be destabilising. I believe that a man or a woman can lead a trade union much more effectively, and with much more confidence, if they know that they have been elected by a majority of the members and that they have their confidence. Surely that is an important matter for the leadership of such publicly important bodies. Members opposite are always talking about democracy and the value of popular support, and yet when we come to these important bodies—very important to the whole working of our national economy—they seem to hesitate before they will agree to the matter being put on a proper democratic basis, with those responsible for running the unions to be elected by the members, responsible

619
to the members, answerable to them and in due course having to consider the possibility of re-election.
Whatever view one takes of this clause, it is a very important part of the Bill. I think it is a very important part of the changes that the Government are effecting in our society. I welcome it and I hope the Committee will make sure that it stands part of the Bill.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Rochester: I rise only to support the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. I wish to support her in opposing this clause. I feel that it should not stand part of the Bill for reasons which she has given and which were confirmed by my noble friend Lady Seear earlier in the afternoon. In our view, there is a distinction between the election of members of principal executive committees—as will become plain when we discuss the next amendment—and the sort of civil servants and professional advisers to which this clause relates.
At the risk of turning out old pennies, I wish to revert to the criticism that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, of some of the things said by those on the Labour Benches—and I have in mind in particular the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, although I am sure he is well able to look after himself. However, the allegation was made that in opposing this clause people were concerned to see that the law should not take precedence over the union rule book but rather the reverse. I am quite satisfied, having listened to the debates earlier on, that that was not the desire of people on this side of the Committee. They are happy to observe the law and do not wish to flout it. On the contrary, their desire is to see that laws should not be enacted which are undesirable. It is our view that this clause is undesirable and I support the noble Baroness.
Lord Renton: I do not believe that the noble Lord understood the noble Lord, Lord Murray—and I noted down the words of the noble Lord, Lord Murray, at the time. He complained that this clause overrides the rule book, and therefore I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has it wrong.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I hope that the Committee will permit a brief intervention as my name has been mentioned by two Members of the Committee. Without reservation, I wish to associate myself with remarks made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter about the invaluable contribution that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, has made to this debate and her objective approach. It is very much appreciated on this side of the Committee, on the Back-Benches at all events.
There is a problem with the hard Left, and I merely put this across the Committee to the noble Baroness and those who sit with her to consider. The main evasional tactic from the plain intendment of the provisions of Clause 12 which evoked the response of the Government in these amendments was Mr. Scargill. Is he a soft Left, middle of the road moderate?
Lord Trefgarne: My noble friend will forgive me if I do not follow him down that particular road. However, perhaps I could echo the words of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter when he said that this was a very important part of this Bill and one which lies at the heart of government policy in this area.
I believe the proposition that senior, powerful and influential people in the trade union movement or in particular trade unions should seek the approval of the members of the trade union is an unexceptionable one. In general terms, I do not think it is a proposition which is wholly opposed even within the trade union movement itself, although listening to some of the speeches in connection with this clause one could be forgiven for wondering whether that was the case. Nevertheless, I bring this proposition before the Committee in the confident expectation that it will further strengthen the management and respectability of the trade unions concerned. Of course, many trade unions already use the principles and the electoral processes set out in this measure. They do not all do so; and those that do not will now be obliged to do so. I believe that is a great benefit to the members of those trade unions and I hope the Committee will agree.
6.36 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 12, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 140; Not-Contents, 90.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Diamond, L.

Ampthill, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Arran, E.

Dulverton, L.

Attlee, E.

Dundee, E.

Bauer, L.

Elibank, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Beloff, L.

Ferrier, L.

Belstead, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Bessborough, E.

Gisborough, L.

Blake, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Blatch, B.

Goold, L.

Blyth, L.

Gray, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Greenway, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gridley, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L

Buckmaster, V.

Haddington, E.

Butterworth, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Caccia, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Caithness, E.

Harvington, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Havers, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hemphill, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Henley, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hesketh, L.

Carnock, L.

Hives, L.

Chapple, L.

Holderness, L.

Chelwood, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Colwyn, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Joseph, L.

Cowley, E.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Killearn, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Kinloss, Ly.

621

Kitchener, E.

Renwick, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Rochdale, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Rugby, L.

Layton, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Long, V.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sandford, L.

Mackay of Clashfern. L.

Sandys, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Sharples, B.

Margadale, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Marley, L.

Stedman, B.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Stockton, E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Strange, B.

Merrivale, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Mersey, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Morris, L.

Mottistone, L.

Sudeley, L.

Mountbatten of Burma, C.

Suffield, L.

Mountevans, L.

Swinton, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Moyne, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Nelson, E.

Torrington, V.

Newall, L.

Trafford, L.

Norfolk, D.

Tranmire, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Orkney, E.

Trumpington, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Tryon, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Pender, L.

Vinson, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Windlesham, L.

Prior, L.

Wise, L.

Raglan, L.

Wolfson, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Renton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Amherst, E.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Ardwick, L.

Jay, L.

Banks, L.

Jeger, B.

Barnett, L.

John Mackie, L.

Basnett, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Birk, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Blackstone, B.

Listowel, E.

Blease, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Bottomley, L.

Longford, E.

Briginshaw, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McCarthy, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

McNair, L.

Carter, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Molloy, L.

David, B.

Mulley, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Dormand of Easington, L.

Oram, L.

Elwvn-Jones, L.

Parry, L.

Ennals, L.

Peston, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Phillips, B.

Gallacher, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Galpern, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Glenamara, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Cregson, L.

Rea, L.

Grey, E.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Grimond, L.

Rochester, L.

Hampton, L.

Seear, B.

Hanworth, V.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Serota, B.

Hart of South Lanark, B.

Shackleton, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Simon, V.

Heycock, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hughes, L.

Tordoff, L.

622

Turner of Camden, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Underhill, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 12, as amended, agreed to accordingly.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 80:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
("Election addresses
.—(1) The requirements which are to be satisfied for the purposes of Part I of the 1984 Act (elections for certain positions) shall, in relation to any election held after the coming into force of this section, include the requirements of subsection (2) below.
(2) The trade union in question must—

(a) subject to subsection (3) below, provide every candidate in the election with an opportunity of preparing an election address in his own words and of submitting it to the union to be distributed to the persons who are accorded entitlement to vote in the election;

(b) so far as reasonably practicable, secure that copies of every election address submitted to the union before such time as it may have determined are distributed by the sending of a copy of each such address, with the voting paper for the election, by post to each of those persons at his proper address;

(c) make such arrangements for the production of the copies to be so distributed as secure that none of the candidates is required to bear any of the expense of producing those copies;

(d) secure that no modification of any election address so submitted is made by any person in any copy of the address to be distributed except, subject to paragraphs (e) and (f) below, at the request or with the consent of the candidate or where the modification is necessarily incidental to the method adopted for producing that copy;

(e) secure that the same method of producing copies is applied in the same way to every election address so submitted and, so far as reasonably practicable, that no such facility or information as would enable a candidate to gain any benefit from—

(i) the method by which copies of the election addresses are produced; or

(ii) the modifications which are necessarily incidental to that method,

is provided to any candidate without being provided equally to all the others; and

(f) so far as reasonably practicable, secure that the same facilities and restrictions with respect to the preparation, submission, length or modification of an election address and with respect to the incorporation in any such address of a photograph or of any other matter not in words are provided or applied equally to each of the candidates.

(3) Subject to subsection (2)(f) above, a trade union may for the purposes of this section provide that election addresses submitted to it for distribution—

(a) must not exceed such length, not being less than one hundred words, as may be determined by the union; and

(b) may incorporate only such photographs and other matter not in words as the union may determine.

(4) A time determined for the purposes of subsection (2) above as the time by which election addresses for an election must be submitted to the union shall be no earlier than the latest time at which a person may become a candidate in that election.
(5) No person other than the candidate himself shall be subject to any civil or criminal liability in respect of any publication of a candidate's election address, or of any copy of such an address, which is required to be made for the purposes of this section.
(6) In this section "post" and "proper address" have the same meanings as in Part I of the 1984 Act.").
The noble Lord said: The Committee has three amendments on election addresses before it: the Government's amendment, the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford. Apart from a change

623
in the permitted number of words in the case of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, these amendments are identical to those tabled during the Committee stage in another place. My honourable friend said then that the Government were sympathetic to the principle behind the amendments and told the Committee that the Government were working on proposals to be introduced later. The Government's new clause and consequential amendments are the end result of that deliberation. I do not think I need go further at this stage except to invite the Committee to agree with the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: As the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said, there are three amendments; and the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Seear, and other of my noble friends, is the second. I think there is nothing between us on this issue. As the Minister rightly said, it was dealt with in Committee elsewhere when the Minister indicated that he was broadly sympathetic to the principle proposed.
One of the matters which troubled the Committee in the other place was the issue dealt with in subsection (5) of the government amendment we are now discussing; namely, the question of libel. Broadly speaking, what the Government propose here is right. Accordingly, we are wholly persuaded that the government amendment contains a better form of words than our own and therefore we shall not be moving our amendment.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: I think that my Amendment No. 86 is included for discussion in this group of amendments. I welcome the Government's amendment. It will save me a great deal of time because I have to answer many letters from readers of the News of the World who want to know something about the people who are standing in various elections with a postal ballot or perhaps even a workplace ballot. They have no information as to who they are or what they stand for.
I know that noble Lords on the Labour Benches sneer at the News of the World but it has a somewhat larger circulation than the New Statesman and is read by trade union members who do not read the New Statesman, Marxism Today, the New Left Review or any other such publication. It is one of the reasons of course why so many trade union leaders are completely out of touch with their members. They do not have a clue as to what their members are thinking. They believe they are living in some rarefied political atmosphere, when they are not.
The amendment will greatly help trade union members to understand what the people for whom they are invited to vote stand for, what their objectives are, and to smell out the ruffians. Most trade unionists are extremely decent people who do not want to be run by extremist lunatics.
Lord McCarthy: Our proceedings get more and more amazing as the hour gets later and later. The Minister has made no case at all. He does not feel the need to make any case. He says he is sympathetic with the case made elsewhere and then sits down. That is
624
the Government's case. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, spoke for not more than one-and-a-half minutes. He said that the new clause is okay because the part about libel is okay. He makes no case.
Without trying to be difficult, I do not believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, would have given me half a minute or so and said that libel would be okay. She would have set out the case. The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, welcomes it and the main reason he gives is that he receives letters from people who read the News of the World. As a result of the public writing to him, he comes to this House and an amendment is put down to the Bill. To quote the noble Lord, "They will smell out the ruffians." How simple the ruffians must be!— 150 words and an answer from the News of the World and "They will smell out the ruffians".
The fact is that there is absolutely no case for this clause. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, sitting over there straining at the bit, may invent one subsequently but the Government have invented none. The Government did not make a case in another place and they have not made one tonight, except that of course this measure is part of the continual attack upon trade unions. It is curious that it was not included at the beginning. I suppose that the Government are becoming less efficient. They think of as many matters as they can but they cannot think of everything. It certainly was not mentioned in the Green Paper and it was not in the election address. Nor was the provision added in the other place. In the other place it was thought to be enough to make postal ballots essential and mandatory; to introduce independent supervision of elections; to extend all elections even when they are non-voting members; and to do all the other things which are in the Bill. Now they are saying that they are going to regulate the election campaign and smell out the ruffians with a minimum election address of 150 words.
The second heading of my case in saying that there is no argument for the clause is that there was a reserve power. The Government may have included something about election addresses which was more flexible than the long list of requirements for election addresses which are included in Amendment No. 80. It could have been included in the code of practice. I should have thought that the code of practice dealing with ballots would have been the appropriate place to make one or two flexible suggestions. Those suggestions about election addresses which may be used in trade union elections need not be of a precise and legal kind. Nothing was done about that but we are going to have legislation.
I am aware of no evidence in any of the considerable literature about trade union democracy, or the lack of it, and fiddled elections that the election address is a crucial element in the smelling out, or non-smelling out, of ruffians. As far as I am aware, no one has ever said that all those things which are in the Bill actually happened. For example, there are unauthorised modifications in election addresses. That is not a scandal about which I have heard anywhere. I am not aware, as the Bill suggests, that

625
some election candidates have unequal access to distribution facilities. Again, this is not a public scandal. There is nothing in any of the evidence or any of the literature to suggest that one of the more significant mechanisms for manipulating trade union elections is through election addresses.
The great majority of trade unions that are subjected to the election process on a regular basis issue election addresses. Of course they do. They issue election addresses which very often are considerably longer than 150 words; it is part of the election process. What reason is there that this aspect of trade union behaviour, in addition to all the other aspects of their behaviour, should be regulated in this draconic way? What other reason can there be? Some people may ask why we protest. We protest for general reasons and because we see this as part of a continuing process. In particular we protest because of the way in which this clause and the schedule which accompanies it are written. They will add considerably to the number of minor offences in regard to which the CROTUM will be able to help trade union dissidents and in particular those who lose elections who always complain. It will help them to complain about the way in which their election has been undertaken. People who fail to receive an election address would be encouraged to go to the CROTUM. People who believe that there have been minor modifications to their election addresses which were probably necessary for editorial purposes will believe that there has been change to their limpid prose. They will also go to the CROTUM and the trade unions will have to answer these matters. It will waste the time of the trade unions and that is probably what it is all about.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I find it difficult to understand why the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, should find so simple a clause setting out such very simple rules so difficult to swallow. I had no intention of speaking until I heard him speak just now. I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that I very much hope that the rebuke he received from the noble Lord opposite about his brevity will leave him comparatively unscathed and that in the future we shall hear from him again as shortly as we did just now.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am sorry to trouble the Committee again, but as the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, was kind enough to refer also to the brevity of my speech and believes that that is some cause for complaint, perhaps I may intervene and explain very briefly why I made a very short speech. It seems to me remarkable that anyone can be against a proposition of this kind. All that is being asked is that there should be an election address yet the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, interpreted this as a devastating attack upon the trade union movement. I do not begin to understand the logic of his argument.
Lord Trefgarne: I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, for not making a longer speech. I had no idea that he was opposed to this provision. I had erroneously understood that the views of his
626
honourable friend in another place, which were broadly in support of this measure, would be reflected in his own utterings. I am sorry if that is not the case. I still believe this to be a good proposal and I hope that the Committee will agree to it.
Lord McCarthy: Perhaps Members of the Committee can say whether they would be in favour of this clause, or something similar to it, being imposed upon their club, their professional association or their company?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I wonder why the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, gets so excited about this matter. The Committee has decided that there should be elections and it surely makes sense that those who are to vote have some idea of the policies and proposals that the various candidates adopt. They should be helped to know what they are voting for. It seems quite extraordinary that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, should work himself up into almost hysterical excitement at the idea that those who vote in trade unions should actually be assisted to know what they are voting about and what the candidates stand for. For some reason it may be that the noble Lord believes such a measure will undermine the trade union movement.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I apologise to the Committee for being absent for the first short part of this debate. I understand that I missed very little owing to the short speeches. What the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and other noble Lords have said emboldens me to put a question before the Committee. It is being said that wherever persons are being proposed for election there should by law be a severe structure—and that is my view of this clause—of election addresses incidental to the process.
If persons come forward and say that this should happen in the form suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, for those who are proposed for election wherever that may be—for example, in companies, in clubs, in building societies—that would not be objectionable. Our lives are composed of myriad forms of association and societies in which we all take part. If the measure were put forward in that way, I would probably want to debate the form in which it was put forward. However, I am not sure that I would find it all that objectionable. What I find objectionable is the singling out of the trade unions. To my knowledge no one has explained why that should be so. When that is done and it is in a form which we see as capable of being harassment—those who do not know anything about what happens in union administrative offices may not understand it but this is capable of being harassment; and harassment only of trade unions—why are noble Lords surprised that we oppose it?
7 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: There is a simple answer to the noble Lord's question. In this case—we have discussed it at length and I shall not go on doing so—Parliament has laid down that there shall be

627
elections. Therefore, it surely makes sense that Parliament should go further and lay down that those who vote in the elections which Parliament has provided should be given some information about the people they are voting for. I do not see why the noble Lord objects to that.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: And for companies?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Parliament is not at the moment legislating about voting for companies. It is no use the noble Lord dragging in companies as he has done, I suppose, half a dozen times in the past 48 hours. We are not legislating for companies at the moment. When we come to a Companies Bill we can talk about that.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Perhaps I may—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord is very agile but he must restrain his physical agility for a moment. We do not want any dialectical abseiling in this particular debate. We are legislating. Parliament has decided and the Committee has decided that there shall be elections in trade unions. It is therefore relevant to decide the conditions under which those elections shall take place. I find it difficult to understand why Members of the Committee opposite want to deprive the voters in those elections of the information which this clause will give them.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: We need, not dialectical abseiling, but a few more intellectual gymnasts on the other side. We have put a point and I repeat it to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. It is no good telling us that we are only debating trade unions today. If the noble Lord were to give us a guarantee that a Bill about companies would be introduced tomorrow his argument would stand up. We have reached a point where the mystification about trade unions has become so pronounced that people do not know when they are victimising trade unions as opposed to any other kind of association.
Lord Beloff: I was not straining at the leash, as the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, implied. However, after hearing the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, it is worth pointing out that the arguments of the intellectual gymnasts who oppose this clause need to be looked at.
I well remember four years ago—and a lot of trouble would have been saved if the Government had taken notice—that a combination of Cross-Benchers, Tory Peers and one or two Labour Peers voted to make postal ballots mandatory. If the Government had stuck by the decision of this Chamber we would have become used to postal ballots by now and the kind of discussion that we have been having would have been otiose. Presumably, in the course of practice and of running such ballots in bodies whose membership was widespread and whose members did not meet each other daily as members of clubs, which is one of the less fortunate comparisons of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, people would be inclined
628
to demand some knowledge of the candidates for whom they were voting. However, as I understand it, and as far as it is possible to penetrate the argument behind the rhetoric of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, his main argument is that this is in some way a method of bashing trade unions because it will give dissidents opportunities for saying that their election addresses have been tampered with, have not been issued properly and so on.
It is said that the amendment would add to the possibilities of the losers making complaints. That is quite extraordinarily contrary to everything we have been told in the course of our previous debates on this Bill. It has been the contention of Members of the Committee opposite that the trade unions function with admirable smoothness and that there are never allegations of wrongdoing or that, if there are such allegations, they are due to the malice of the News of the World or some other major organ of opinion. It is said that there are never contested elections, that the Transport and General Workers' Union did not run its last election twice and that all this is imaginary. If all this is imaginary, and if trade unionists are so disinclined to challenge the result of elections, why should the mere fact of having to issue election addresses suddenly produce the kind of backbiting and the kind of aspersions on each other from which hitherto they have been wholly exempt? It really will not do, and if noble Lords will not treat the subject seriously, the country will.
Lord Trefgarne: I apologise to the noble Lord and to the Committee if originally I moved this amendment less than adequately. I have in front of me one, two, three, four, five pages of notes. The Committee is welcome to all five if it so wishes. I believe that on balance the Committee preferred the rather shorter opening that I offered given that this amendment has attracted wide support, if not from the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. I beg to move.
7.6 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 80) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 130; Not-Contents, 60.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Butterworth, L.

Airedale, L.

Caithness, E.

Amherst, E.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Ampthill, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Arran, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Attlee, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Banks, L.

Carnock, L.

Bauer, L.

Chapple, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Chelwood, L.

Beloff, L.

Coleraine, L.

Belstead, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L

Bessborough, E.

Cowley, E.

Blake, L.

Craigavon, V.

Blatch, B.

Craigmyle, L.

Blyth, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Bonham-Carter, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Dilhorne, V

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Dulverton, L.

629

Dundee, E.

Nelson, E.

Elibank, L.

Norfolk, D.

Ferrier, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Gisborough, L.

Orkney, E.

Goold, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Gray, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Pender, L.

Grey, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Gridley, L.

Raglan, L.

Grimond, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Renton, L.

Haddington, E.

Renwick, L.

Hampton, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Rochdale, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rochester, L.

Hemphill, L.

Rugby, L.

Henley, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hesketh, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hives, L.

Sandford, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Sandys, L.

Hooson, L.

Seear, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Sharples, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Simon, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Joseph, L.

Stockton, E.

Killearn, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Strange, B.

Kinnoull, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Kitchener, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Lawrence, L.

Suffield, L.

Layton, L.

Swinton, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Long, V.

Tordoff, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L

Trafford, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Tranmire, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Trefgarne, L.

McNair, L.

Trumpington, B.

Margadale, L.

Tryon, L.

Marley, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Walston, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Ward of Witley, V.

Mersey, V.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Morris, L.

Mottistone, L.

Windlesham, L.

Mountevans, L.

Wise, L.

Moyne, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Jay, L.

Barnett, L.

Jeger, B.

Basnett, L.

John Mackie, L.

Birk, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Blackstone, B.

Listowel, E.

Blease, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Longford, E.

Buckmaster, V.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

McCarthy, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Carter, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Molloy, L.

David, B.

Mulley, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Nicol, B. [Teller]

Dormand of Easington, L.

Parry, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Peston, L.

Ennals, L.

Phillips, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Glenamara, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rea, L.

Gregson, L.

Serota, B.

Hart of South Lanark, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Heycock, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

630

Underhill, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
7.15 p.m.
Clause 13 [Requirement of postal ballot for certain ballots and elections]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 15, line 45, after ("paper") ("either (i)").
The noble Baroness said: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 81, and I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 82 at the same time. For the convenience of the Committee, I shall speak to just those two amendments. I do not intend to move Amendments Nos. 83 and 84.
The purpose of the amendments is to preserve for unions the option which currently exists to hold workplace ballots. The current position with workplace balloting is that a union has to provide the same sort of security for the individual voter as if the member had a ballot paper coming to him through his letterbox. In political fund ballots, for example, many unions conducted the ballot with a mixture of workplace and postal ballots. In my opinion—and I believe in others—we were very careful indeed to ensure that workplace ballots were properly conducted. In some large companies facilities were provided for us by the employers. Polling booths were set up and members were able to go into the booth. They were given a voting paper, and they voted just as if they were at a general election. We had a high turnout because people were able to vote at their place of work, and facilities were provided for them.
I have never seen any evidence of intimidation, although no doubt the Minister will dip into his reservoir and produce some examples which we are unable to check. However, in the Green Paper the only examples given were of situations which the unions themselves had investigated and put matters right. As far as the Transport and General Workers' Union was concerned (I mention that because it has already featured in the debate this evening, notably at the instance of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford), my understanding is that when the last election was re-run, which was following an investigation conducted by Mr. John Garnett of the Industrial Society, a well-known and highly respected figure in the industrial relations world, Mr. Garnett found irregularities in eight out of what were then 9,500 branches. Although he did not find sufficient evidence of abuse to warrant a re-run, nevertheless to put the matter beyond all doubt the union did in fact carry out a re-run. There really is a great deal of misinformation in the press about union elections, and it is unwise to base legislation on those allegations.
The amendment actually allows the member to trigger whether or not he wants a workplace vote. In that respect, it is a little different from existing legislation. I believe that the option should still be available, because there are many instances when it is

631
possible to get a higher participation by members if they have an opportunity to vote at their workplace, in particular if there is co-operation from employers. I know employers who will co-operate in elections, who have certainly done so for my union and for others. If we are concerned to broaden as much as possible the area of membership involvement, it is a good idea still to maintain the option. I therefore move.
The Earl of Dundee: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her explanation, and I accept that a case can certainly be made for preferring workplace ballots to our proposal, which is the postal voting system. However, I would just say that your Lordships' House held the view when considering the 1984 Trade Union Bill that all executive elections should be conducted by fully postal ballot. The Government agreed that ballot papers being sent out and returned by post constituted by far the best method, but were conscious that many unions did not at the time have precise details of their members. It would therefore have been both unreasonable and impracticable to have expected them to move in one stage to fully postal balloting.
The 1984 Act therefore permitted unions to use workplace ballots where they were satisfied that all other requirements of the Act would be met. However, the Act required unions to compile and maintain a register of their members' names and postal addresses. Therefore unions should now be in a position to hold fully postal ballots. Schedule 3 reinforces this by placing a duty on unions to allow their members to check that they are included in the union register and to obtain copies of the relevant entries.
I am sure your Lordships would agree that union members are entitled to expect fair and democractic balloting arrangements. Workplace ballots cannot guarantee this and can all too often be open to abuse, as the Green Paper indicated. The allegations currently being made about recent TGWU executive elections add fuel to this conviction.
In regard to other problems with workplace and semi-postal ballots, the turnout is not the most important factor in executive elections. Members must have the assurance that ballots have been conducted properly. I think that that eclipses the other consideration. Workplace and semi-postal ballots do not provide this, nor can they be adequately scrutinised by independent bodies because of the number of workplaces involved. This means there can be no certainty that ballot papers have actually been given to the members concerned and no others. The continuation of those systems would mean also that individuals would remain vulnerable to the risk that unfair pressures could be brought to bear on them—pressures that just cannot arise in an independently scrutinised postal system. Members could also be required to attend meetings so as to collect their ballot papers and thus be able to vote.
I think that the time is right to improve the balloting process. Unions have had plenty of time to
632
compile registers of their members' names and addresses. The time is now right to move to a fully postal, independently scrutinised system for election ballots. Only then will there be any hope of putting behind us the controversy that has accompanied some recent workplace ballots.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I do not accept the arguments advanced by the Minister. The number of people voting is not the main consideration, but it is a substantial consideration if we are concerned to ensure maximum participation by union members. Moreover, under the present legislation it is necessary for unions to guarantee exactly the same degree of security for workplace voting as can be guaranteed for postal voting. That is why unions are so careful about the way in which arrangements are made in that respect.
As to the Transport and General Workers' Union, as has already been indicated, allegations have been made in the press that have not yet been investigated. It does not seem appropriate to me that we should base our views about workplace balloting on one instance in one union that has not yet been adequately investigated. The previous incident in the TGWU referred to in the Green Paper, as I have already said, has been investigated by the Industrial Society with the results that I gave.
Moreover, there already exists in legislation a substantial encouragement to unions to switch from workplace balloting to postal voting because one cannot claim public funds for running elections if they are a mixture of workplace and post. The financial inducement for unions to switch to postal voting therefore already exists. The only reason for maintaining the workplace provision is because it can give greater freedom of membership participation.
The amendment provides for the workplace balloting to be triggered by the member himself. There is no question of people having to attend a meeting in order to have a ballot paper. The individual can request the supply of a voting paper at his place of work or a place more convenient for him immediately before or after his working hours. That seems a reasonable suggestion, as indeed the amendment is a reasonable one. It maintains the option for unions to have a workplace vote or for the individual member to have a vote at his workplace.
I note what the Minister said. In view of the time I shall not press the amendment to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Dundee: The Committee may consider that we have reached a suitable moment at which to break in order to return to the business at 8.25 p.m. I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Unemployment Benefit (Disqualification Period) Order 1988
7.25 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th February be approved [17th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are all agreed, I am sure, that someone who is responsible for his or her own unemployment should not be able to draw the same amount of benefit as someone who has the misfortune of being out of work through no fault of their own, so the draft order is a simple one. It will, if the House approves it, further extend the current maximum 13-week period during which someone who brings about his or her own unemployment may be disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit. Disqualification arises where a claimant for benefit has left a job voluntarily without just cause, refused a suitable job vacancy, lost a job through misconduct, failed to take advantage of a reasonable opportunity of job training or failed without good cause to carry out official recommendations to help him or her find suitable employment.
The Employment Bill presently under consideration in your Lordships' House extends disqualification to people who lose a place on an approved training scheme through misconduct or who leave such a place voluntarily without good cause and also to those who refuse without good cause to apply for or to accept such a place. The maximum period of disqualification is presently 13 weeks. The draft order increases it to 26 weeks. The principle of disqualification is not new. It has been a characteristic of unemployment insurance since 1911 and was confirmed by Beveridge in his now often quoted report. It has been followed by successive governments since. I should stress, my Lords, that we are talking about a maximum. Adjudication authorities determine the appropriate period in the light of all the circumstances. We also intend that anyone who is disqualified for benefit on the grounds of voluntary unemployment will have any income support to which he or she may be due reduced for the same period. Again that principle is not new; it has existed ever since the introduction of national assistance in 1948.
The current maximum period of 13 weeks was increased from six weeks in 1986. One would have expected that the percentage of unemployed people claiming benefit in situations of voluntary unemployment would have fallen after that increase. This did not happen. The number of disqualifications rose at a time when there was more work around and overall claims for benefit from unemployed people were dropping significantly. The Government therefore concluded that more effective measures are required to discourage voluntary unemployment and to encourage people to think and act responsibly. Hence the present draft order that we are considering tonight.
I emphasised that the maximum period that I have described is just that, a maximum. Disqualifications
634
are not imposed as a matter of course and without regard to individual circumstances. Decisions on entitlement to benefit and on whether or not there should be a disqualification are taken by the independent adjudicating authorities. The adjudication system is longstanding and is much respected. Decisions are reached by applying the law, both statute law and case law, built up over the years, to the circumstances of the case. Inquiries are made of the former employer and the claimant has the chance to comment and to offer his or her own account of what happened. The adjudication officer then decides whether disqualification is appropriate and, if so, for how long it should last. Anyone who is dissatisfied with the adjudication officer's decision either as to disqualification itself or to the length of disqualification has the right of appeal to an independent social security appeal tribunal and from there on a point of law to a social security commissioner. In view of the quite proper independence of the adjudicating authorities neither I nor any other minister or departmental official can influence or interfere with their decisions.
This order is concerned with disqualification for unemployment benefit. However, as noble Lords will be aware, and as I mentioned earlier, if in a case of voluntary unemployment a claim is made for supplementary benefit or, from next month, income support, entitlement to that benefit is reduced. The normal rule applies a deduction of 40 per cent. to the claimant's personal benefit rate. Amounts for dependants are not reduced. The deduction is by 20 per cent. if any member of the household is either pregnant or seriously ill and the claimant's capital does not exceed £100, to be increased to £200 from next month.
There is nothing new in principle in this draft order. All it does is to increase the maximum period of disqualification that can be imposed. The consistent thrust of the Government's philosophy is positive. Major initiatives in the area of employment and training are helping people to find jobs and to undertake a suitable training which will enable them to return to employment. The benefit system should not offer an alternative where useful training or employment are available. We must discourage voluntary unemployment and the purpose of the order is to do just that. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th February be approved. [17th Report from the Joint Committee]—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, this is an important Motion, and I shall take a little time to say why I think that is so. I was doing some homework the other night when I came across an interesting quotation from Sir Winston Churchill when he was President of the Board of Trade in 1909 and this question was being discussed. He said:
"I do not feel convinced that we are entitled to refuse benefit to a qualified man who loses his employment through drunkenness. He has paid his contributions; he has insured himself against the facts of unemployment, and I think it arguable that his foresight should be rewarded irrespective of the cause of his dismissal … I do not like mixing up moralities with mathematics … Our concern is with the evil, not with the causes, with the fact of unemployment, not with the character of the unemployed".

635
Churchill, with his usual amplitude of mind, was making a statement with which I do not think we would wholly agree nowadays, because it was decided that there should be a penalty for people who became voluntarily unemployed. That was an insurance limitation rather than a punishment for people who had left their jobs.
All parties agreed at first that there should be a six-week suspension of benefit. It was increased to 13 weeks. Now, for some reason which I cannot fathom we have an increase to six months. I have a series of questions for the Minister. What evidence is there of an increase in voluntary unemployment between when the limit was six weeks and when it became 13 weeks? My understanding is that in the quarter ended September 1986 there were 113,000 cases. By June 1987, that figure had decreased to 98,000. If the numbers are decreasing, why is the penalty being increased?
In another place the Minister said that the penalty was being increased because job opportunities were increasing. That is not true of every locality. Why should we penalise people who live in an area of high unemployment because it is thought that people in other parts of the country can more easily find jobs? Does the Minister have regional figures to make clear why the Government are doing that? I hope the Government have in mind housing problems. People may lose their jobs, voluntarily or otherwise, in one area. They would go somewhere else to look for a job if only they could find somewhere to live. Why has 26 weeks been chosen? What is special about 26 weeks except that it is six months, which doubles the period of withdrawal of unemployment pay?
Will the Minister tell the House about the length of waiting lists for appeals? Is the number of adjudication officers being increased? How many appeals have been in favour of the claimant? I understand that in 1985 the chief adjudication officer's report found that one in four decisions were defective; in 1986, one in three were defective. Those figures were based on random cases.
After many years of experience in an area of great difficulty in central London, I can assure your Lordships that many people lack the confidence and experience to appeal. They take the bad luck as one of the discouraging features of their lives. I am sure that there are many people who have not appealed who might have won had they done so.
How much will the Government save as a result of these new penal laws? Will the National Insurance contributions of the person concerned be credited? What is the average time between registering an appeal and its hearing? I understand that it is about 15 weeks. If that is the average, there must be people who suffer for a much longer period. If a person is deprived of unemployment pay for at least 15 weeks, what happens to him in the meantime? What consideration are the Government giving to people who may be trapped in unsuitable jobs with poor conditions, or who have personal problems about which they may be reticent?
The question of voluntarily dismissing oneself is complicated, because many people are shy about
636
explaining their problems. They have other strictures to face. There may be difficult domestic circumstances. I came across an example of a man with two children whose wife had left him, and so he left his job to look after his children. The party of the family now says that he has to lose unemployment benefit because he voluntarily dismissed himself.
There is evidence of a policy of penalisation and coercion of the unemployed. Instead, the Government should look at the causes of people leaving their jobs. Why are the Government not concerned about whether there are bad conditions, inadequate preparation at school or afterwards, or personal strains in a job?
Employers can be capricious. I have come across cases where a person has been offered a new job and so leaves his present job. The employer then changes his mind and says that he is not taking on that person for some unknown reason. That person then becomes a victim of the new laws. There is danger that people who are too active as shop stewards may be made to feel that the sooner they leave a job the better.
The situation may be difficult for people who are not articulate or who may have language difficulties. One needs to look sensitively and carefully at the extent to which their leaving was voluntary, and whether it was due to circumstances which they found unbearable. That sympathetic attitude is missing at present. Unless there are many more officers to take appeals and a quicker way to deal with them, there will be great hardship.
It is easy to use the words "leaving employment without good cause". Who can work out what are good causes? There cannot be a mathematical rule. The problem must be given the clearest and most sympathetic thought. It may be that to somebody the reason for leaving is frivolous, but sometimes reasons which seem frivolous to outsiders are very real to those who are concerned with them.
When the Government increased the six weeks' penalty to 13 weeks, can the Minister say whether there was a drop in the number of people who were deprived of benefit? If that did not reduce the numbers, why on earth should 26 weeks reduce them even more? I am not sure that that is the right way to measure voluntary unemployment. The number of weeks cannot be the basic reason. If a man cannot stand his job or if a woman cannot stand her job, the question whether he or she is going to be deprived of 13 weeks' benefit or 26 weeks' benefit cannot be the ultimate and decisive reason. I know that the Government are concerned about all these recalcitrant, shiftless scroungers, but if they have not been taught a lesson in 13 weeks, how will 26 weeks help?
There is another question which I have to ask. I do not apologise for taking this time because it affects thousands of people—I think over 400,000 people last year. What about constructive dismissal? Is it true that claims under this heading have to wait for about two years before they are processed? Is this not just a charter for bad employers? We are hearing a great deal about bad employees; I wish we could hear more from the Government about bad employers. If

637
13 weeks is enough punishment, why should six months be taken to carry out the Government's policy?
I have looked up the guide to the adjudication officers. The Ministry states to the officers who have to hear these appeals that conditions which prompt a claimant to leave his employment were known to him when he began the employment and he accepted it in spite of them; that he cannot turn the clock back and say he has just cause for leaving simply because the employment was unsuitable in the first place. I think that that is very harsh and unfair. When a man who has been unemployed for a long time seeks a job and the employer says: "Well, it will be like this and like that", a man desperate to get a job will be inclined to say, "All right, I'll put up with that". But then, after he has been there for a time, he finds that it is almost unbearable and he must leave. According to these instructions he is disqualified from unemployment benefit.
So I cannot think otherwise than that this is really an attack on the unemployed. I want to know how much money the Government will save. We are told that, although the man concerned might lose his benefit up to a certain 40 per cent., the family will still receive their benefits if they are so entitled. But you cannot separate a husband's money from that of the family. The fact is that the family's income will be less, for six months the children's feet will grow and the retail price index might go up or down, but there will be a diminution in the family's income. Therefore, this must be regarded as an attack by the Government on the unemployed and an insensitivity to their difficulties. On behalf of my noble friends I must say that I think that this is a totally disgraceful and unjustifiable measure. We very much regret it.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for explaining the content and purpose of this order. Nevertheless, I want to reinforce the arguments which have been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger.
The first point to bear in mind is that for 75 years the disqualification period for voluntary unemployment stood at six weeks. As recently as 1986 the present Government altered that to 13 weeks—more than doubling it. Now the Government come back to the House and say that they wish to increase it to 26 weeks, which is doubling it again. As the noble Lord himself mentioned in explaining the order, people who are disqualified if they are lucky enough to get supplementary benefit, lose 40 per cent. of their benefit unless there are special circumstances.
Why do the Government want to proceed with this? The only reason given is to discourage people from acting in a way which leaves them unnecessarily out of work. How will stiffer sanctions help, the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, asks. The Government seem to say, "Well, after we raised it last time it had no effect"—the noble Lord said that this evening—"so we must increase it further." But why, the noble Baroness asked, should it have any more effect than
638
doubling it in 1986? I suppose the Government might reply to that, "We must do something; the numbers are increasing."
In another place on 1st March Mr. Portillo explained that the total number disqualified in the year to October 1986 was 414,000 and that to October 1987 the number was 420,000. That was a total increase of 6,000, which is an increase of 1.4 per cent. The Government will say "Ah, but the total number of claimants has fallen. In the first of those years, it was 5.35 million; in the second of those years it was 4.9 million." However we then have to look at the ratio between those disqualified and the total number of claimants. We find that in the first year it is 7.7 per cent. and in the second year it is 8.6 per cent. In other words, there has been a 0.9 per cent. increase. It scarcely seems that that small increase is justification for a stiffer sanction. In any case, the evidence suggests that the sanction has no effect on the numbers disqualified. As the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, explained to us, that is the experience of the increase to 13 weeks. Most claimants are unaware of the effect that leaving a job will have on their benefit. The social security policy inspectorate in a report on voluntary employment deductions in July 1983 said:
"Over three-quarters of the claimants we saw did not know before they left their jobs that their supplementary benefit would be reduced and, had they known, most said that the deductions would not have influenced their decision".
So to lengthen the disqualification period is unlikely to effect the Government's aim, but it will cause extra hardship. I say that because living on 60 per cent. supplementary benefit, if you get it for six months, is a heavy burden for those legitimately caught by the rule. But many are caught without justification. Disqualification is implemented automatically before any evidence is gathered to support the decision.
A citizens' advice bureau manager in Cheshire has pointed out:
"In our area a 13-week suspension of unemployment benefit automatically applies in all cases other than those of redundancy. This is causing hardship for our clients and is quite unfair in particular circumstances."
CABs throughout the country have reported that the maximum penalty is being imposed automatically as the norm. The noble Lord emphasised that we are talking about the maximum penalty but in much of the country that is being applied automatically as the norm. A social security commissioner in a recent disqualification case said:
"Adjudication officers … still seem to impose the maximum period in practically every case".
There is a high incidence of wrong and unfair decisions. The chief adjudication officer reported in his annual report on adjudication standards in 1985 to 1986:
"35 per cent. of misconduct decisions and 31 per cent. of voluntary leaving decisions are defective".
The average waiting time for an appeal is 17·3 weeks. In other words, the present maximum disqualification period is over before the appeal is heard. The money may be recovered in due course but in the meantime the period of unjust privation has been endured.

639
So this provision is unlikely to achieve the Government's aim and is certain to cause greater hardship, much of it unjustifiable. Why, then, do the Government press ahead? Is it in order to get the cash saving? I understand that the increase of the maximum disqualification period to 13 weeks produced a cash saving of £25 to £30 million. How much will this measure produce in this way? Or are the Government wanting to reduce the scope of universal benefits such as unemployment benefit and put more people on to means-tested benefits? If that is the reason, I believe it is a very unsound one and the Government are moving down the wrong road
I do not believe that the Government have justified the increase from six weeks before 1986 to 26 weeks now. I believe that the evidence suggests that voluntary unemployment disqualification is being applied in an indiscriminate fashion and without doing justice to individuals. It would be much more sensible for the Government to institute an inquiry into the working of the voluntary unemployment disqualification before going ahead with this order.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I wish briefly to make one or two comments. I wonder who the linguistic sadist was who coined the words "voluntary unemployment". I wonder whether the 1.3 million people who are long-term unemployed consider that they are voluntarily unemployed? Most of them, or a large proportion of them, were forced on to the dole queue and on to the supplementary benefit by the policies of the existing Government. To use the term "voluntary unemployed" is a complete butchery of language. It is a complete nonsense. People do not volunteer to go on to the dole queue. I think that the Government coined those words to suit their particular situation or to fit the bill on this occasion.
Let us make no mistake about it. This is part of the deliberate intention of the Government's policies. Some noble Lords will recall that a short time ago—I think it was in the penultimate Session of Parliament—we bitterly opposed the dissolution of such bodies as wage councils because they provided a somewhat reasonable minimum wage—I say only a somewhat reasonable minimum—for a great number of people in the service industries. That was removed quite arbitrarily by the Government. One of the instigators of fair wages councils and that kind of thing was a very distinguished ex-Prime Minister mentioned by my noble friend Lady Jeger—Winston Churchill.
There is no question that this provision is just a one-off and that it is being done in isolation. It is not being done in isolation. It is part of a particular policy of the Government to try and force people into very low paid jobs where the difference in some cases between their benefit entitlement and the remuneration for the job would be almost minuscule. This provision is being introduced to force people to take jobs on the basis that the Government are supposed to be creating real employment.
I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Banks, give £25 to £30 million as the saving when the last exercise was carried out. In terms of finance, that
640
is postage stamp money. The newspapers are full again today of the tremendous sums of money that the Chancellor will have available to distribute in the Budget next week. He will not be distributing that money at the bottom end of the scale; if he were, the Government would not be indulging in this kind of tawdry action.
This provision hits at one of the most defenceless, one of the poorest sections of our community. The Government should be ashamed of themselves. To dare to inject into this matter the notion of voluntary unemployment is absolute nonsense. I do not suppose that we shall get any joy from the Minister. This is part of the Government's overall strategy. But it is yet another indication of where the Government have exacerbated the concept of two nations. Their action shows that they intend to create a wider division between the haves and the have-nots in society.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the draft order we have been debating has a role to play in encouraging people to think and act responsibly as well as providing a penalty for those who bear a measure of blame for their own lack of a job.
I should remind the House that we are debating this matter at a time when unemployment has fallen by roughly 550,000 in the past 12 months. The provision does not prevent anyone from seeking to better himself or herself or from leaving a job which he or she no longer finds congenial. But the important thing is that they should have full realisation of their future decisions.
Adjudication officers obtain information both from the claimant and from the employer about reasons for leaving. They decide then whether the situation is one of voluntary unemployment. I would say in passing to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, that I do not know who coined the phrase "voluntary unemployment" on which he based his remarks. However, I am prepared to bet without further advice that it was not coined by anyone serving this Government. I think that it goes back many years before that.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, why are the Government persisting in the use of that phrase when there is no such thing as "voluntary unemployment"? People do not volunteer for unemployment. The overwhelming number of people who are unemployed in this country do not have any say or any choice in the matter.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if they have no say or no choice in the matter, this order would not apply to them. That is exactly the point.
As I have said, there is nothing new in encouraging people to act responsibly in finding another job before giving up the one they already have. Someone who contributes to his or her own unemployment without good reason should not expect to receive benefit immediately and without penalty. That would not be fair on other contributors to the insurance scheme.

641
Entitlement to benefit is not automatic solely on payment of a certain number of contributions or amount of money or following a certain period of employment. It is also dependent on the person having taken every reasonable precaution to avoid the contingency insured against.
We have first and foremost a duty to maintain ourselves and our families. The social security system is there to help those who cannot fulfil that duty. Its role is not, and should not be, to take over that duty when the individual is quite capable of fulfilling it himself.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, made a most interesting and thoughtful speech. She questioned me on the rationale of this provision, as did the noble Lord, Lord Banks. I would confirm that from October 1986 to September 1987 there were 4,895,587 claims for unemployment benefit. From October 1985 to September 1986, there were 5,367,654 claims for the same benefit. Claims were therefore reduced significantly.
However, what actually matters is the number of disqualifications. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, appreciated the fact that disqualifications over the same period increased from 413,389 to 420,654. I accept his next step in the mathematical argument that disqualifications as a percentage of claims increased from 7.7 per cent. to 8.59 per cent. However, I part company with the noble Lord when he speaks of that as being a 0.9 per cent. increase. In fact, the increase is 12 per cent.—in other words, an increase of roughly 1.9 per cent. on 7.7 per cent.
8 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I accept that in purely mathematical terms that is correct. However, let us suppose that the figure is 1 per cent. and is increased to 1.5 per cent. That would be an increase of 50 per cent. I imagine that the noble Lord would not set the alarm bells ringing because of that. Conversely, had the figure risen from 24 per cent. to 24.9 per cent., which is a comparable rise, I imagine that he would not have gone to panic stations in those circumstances. The question is whether the figure of 12 per cent. has any significance at all. I rather think that it does not.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I dispute that. The fact is that if there was an increase of 10 per cent. or more, I would immediately argue that the current sanctions or penalties, as the noble Baroness called them, were not working. That is the rationale for the order, as I explained in my opening speech.
It is refreshing to listen to particular cases. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for producing one of which she had personal knowledge. That case concerned a person with two children whose wife had left him. He therefore left work to look after the children. However, the noble Baroness did not finish the case. What matters is whether there was any abatement of unemployment benefit in that case and, if so, what abatement followed and what appeals are in progress as a result of that. I do not have the full
642
facts and I should not like to comment further on that matter. It is important to have the full facts before one comments.
The noble Baroness inquired about regional figures for disqualifications. Those figures are not readily available and they will take some time to analyse. Even though levels of unemployment may vary regionally, we are not seeking to penalise anyone who is unemployed through no fault of his own. As I keep saying, it is only those who are voluntarily unemployed; although the noble Lord, Lord Dean, does not like that term and perhaps would prefer something like "constructively self-dismissed", which would be a bit of a misnomer.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister suggesting as a substitute the word "malingering"? If he is, why does he not have the courage to say so instead of masking that word with "voluntary unemployment"?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, to me, voluntary unemployment means a condition into which people put themselves through no fault of their own, and I believe—
Baroness Jeger: Through no fault of their own?
Lord Skelmersdale: Through not fault of their own. I think that that definition will be acceptable to the House.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister, in explaining his position, has stood on his head. Perhaps he would like to correct that.
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords. I do not think that I have stood on my head. If I am to sit down at all on a long-term basis tonight, perhaps I may continue to answer the various points put to me, or at least as many of them as possible. I am sure that there will be one or two points which I miss, and I shall write to noble Lords who are concerned.
The employed labour force is estimated to have increased by 75,000 in the third quarter of 1987, which contributes to overall increases of 453,000 in the year to September 1987 and of slightly over 1½ million since March 1983. Also, the level of unemployment has gone down at a time when we have an increasing number of people in the labour force.
The noble Baroness went on to talk about the waiting lists for appeals. The legislation giving effect to income support is simpler than that relating to supplementary benefit. We expect that that will lead to a significant reduction in the delay before appeals are heard. The president of the social security appeal tribunals is responsible for the organisation of the tribunal's work. I understand that he agrees with that view.
So far as concerns delays in the hearing of appeals, the operation is as fast as it possibly can be. I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, that on a long-term basis claimants do not lose out if an appeal is

643
successful. They get arrears of unemployment benefit and income support. They always have done, and it is right that they should.
As regards the increase in the number of disqualifications, perhaps I have dealt with that matter fairly fully. However, the amount of savings concerned all noble Lords. There will be savings which are estimated at up to £37 million in this case. But the main reason for change is that it is not in the public interest or in the interests of the individual to subsidise voluntary unemployment. The increase in voluntary unemployment has demonstrated the need for more effective measures both to penalise those who unnecessarily seek to claim public funds and to encourage people to take a responsible attitude towards maintaining themselves and their families.
I confirm that national insurance contributions are not credited during the period of disqualification. To award such credits would partly nullify the imposition of penalties. As regards the question of whether a husband's income is separated from that of the rest of the family, as I said in my opening speech the answer is yes.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, naturally spoke about the report of the Low Pay Unit, which criticised this proposal. We have listened to and learnt from what that unit has said and we shall naturally be monitoring the effects of the new longer maximum disqualification period. If noble Lords opposite are to be believed, it will not be long before we come back to the House with an order to reduce that period. If it works properly, I hope that we shall be in a position to do just that. However, as regards the report, Although I do not want to be drawn too much into the details of it, it says that one in three disqualifications are wrong and the evidence for that is said to be the Government's own figures. I am advised that there were some 1·8 billion decisions by adjudication officers on all questions of entitlement to unemployment benefit in 1986. About 36,000 decisions were appealed against and about 30 per cent. of the appeals went in the claimant's favour.
As regards defective decisions, the statistics quoted are based on a representative sample of cases examined by monitoring teams. Decisions that are recorded as defective may be so because it is considered that the evidence was incomplete rather than that the decision was wrong. Because of the small number of cases, a small change in that number will show up as a significant change in percentage terms.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, cross-questioned me about the maximum period being applied in all cases. Adjudication officers receive guidance from the chief adjudication officer, and he has emphasised that where disqualification of some kind is called for it is important to exercise a proper judicial discretion when deciding the appropriate period. Any aggrieved claimant has the right of appeal to a social security appeal tribunal, and this is made quite clear in the letter to the applicant giving the decision in the initial appeal.
As I have made clear, at present sanctions seem to have had little or no effect in encouraging people to
644
act more responsibly. Between 1981 and 1987 disqualifications imposed by adjudication officers went up by 20 per cent. although the number of claims rose by only 8 per cent. That was despite the increase in the maximum period from 13 to 26 weeks in October 1986. The operation of the new provisions will be monitored. The extension to 26 weeks gives more room for the adjudicating authorities to adjust the period of disqualification according to the extent to which they consider that there were good reasons for the individual to act, or fail to act, as he or she did. We expect that discretion to be carefully used. If it is not, I can imagine the howls of protest there will be from the Benches opposite, and I should add to those howls.
The chief adjudication officer's advice to local adjudication officers is that in each case a,
"sensible discretion has to be exercised in such a manner as the justice of the case requires. All the circumstances must be taken into account".
He also points out that,
"the statutory authorities have a complete, unfettered discretion provided it is exercised judicially".
It cannot be right for someone to slip unnecessarily into reliance on benefit. We hope that the provisions of this draft order will help to reverse the trend and give the right signal to everyone who might otherwise be tempted to behave irresponsibly. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I commend the order to the House.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I know I asked the Minister a number of questions, but before he sits down I should like to raise the subject of constructive dismissal. I am informed that appeals against constructive dismissal charges take about two years. This point is important to the people concerned. If the noble Lord is unable to answer me tonight I am sure that he will write to me, though I should have preferred to have his reply on the record of the proceedings of this House.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness. That is the one point for which I did not come prepared this evening. If the noble Baroness wants this matter included in the record of the House I suggest that she puts down a Question for Written Answer, in which case it would be on the record.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.25 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.14 to 8.25 p.m.]

Employment Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 13.
[Amendments Nos. 82 to 86 not moved.]
Clause 13 agreed to
Clause 14 [Independent scrutiny of certain ballots and elections]:
[Amendments Nos. 87 to 89 not moved.]
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 16, line 38, at end insert ("he is approved by the Certification Officer as suitably qualified and his name is entered on a list maintained by that Officer for the purpose, and")
The noble Lord said: We have now reached, after dinner, the clause concerning scrutiny of ballots and the rules which are laid down in the Bill for the scrutiny to be undertaken by the union. In dealing with the Question whether Clause 14 shall stand part of the Bill, my noble friend will say something on other aspects of the clause. However, the amendment that we have chosen to move relates to the fundamental character of the scrutineer, having in mind the functions that the Bill puts upon him under subsection (2) and the way in which the trade union must ensure that all those functions are carried out. In passing I must add that, although we have not moved an amendment in this connection, we still put to the Government that the absolute character of the trade union's obligations under subsection (2) are too heavy, especially in the light of the points that arise from this amendment.
If one is to have a scrutineer forced by the state upon the elections or ballots of an organisation, and if one is to take seriously the question that he should be independent, then in our submission the legislation should go so far as possible in the direction of avoiding interventions directly by governmental state machinery. Indeed, it is rather surprising to find that that is not so in this clause.
The subsection to which this amendment relates and which would be deleted is subsection (3). It gives the Secretary of State the power to make an order setting out any conditions that he wishes with regard to the qualification of the scrutineer. The scrutineer will be someone set up by the state under qualifications imposed by the Secretary of State without, necessarily, consultation—at least in this Bill as drafted. It is possible—I do not say that it will happen— under this Bill as drafted that the qualifications the Secretary of State imposed were such that, inevitably, the scrutineer would be someone to whom trade unions were not particularly palatable organisations. There is nothing in the Bill to stop that.
It is odd that the Government, I suspect, have fallen into a trap that they had always avoided. They have always taken the line—and it has been much noted in their literature upon legislation—that they were not going down the road of the Industrial Relations Act 1971. One of the reasons that has always come through in their discussions on that, put shortly, is that they were not going to go in for some neo-corporatist legislation setting up a registrar to organise and supervise the trade unions. Some of us have felt that that is now rather more a pretence than a reality. Nevertheless, in the form of their institutions they have always made that distinction.
It is very odd that the Government do not now put forward one of the many very easy solutions that would have avoided this charge. Our amendment suggests that the certification officer is the person who should set up the qualifications and maintain a list of those who might be chosen for the purpose,
646
purely for convenience. We say that the certification officer—a person established under statute, that is true—is someone who in reality has a certain independence. It is an independence that is remarkable through its maintenance in view of the legislation that we have seen since 1980. He has a remarkable degree of trust in the trade union world despite a few tiffs—but that happens in all relationships—and we say that the certification officer is more likely to avoid the charge that these are state imposed scrutineers than if the Bill remains in its present form.
Here I repeat the burden of the point. Subsection (3)(a) gives the Secretary of State the right to establish any condition that he wishes, by order, albeit that the condition has to be put before each House of Parliament. That is not worth a great deal in the terms of parliamentary majorities these days. From that group of people, who meet those qualifications, the scrutineer can be chosen.
It may seem a small point. I suspect that it is a small point which marks a divide. A line is thin but one can still cross it. I move this amendment in the belief that if we are to have this structure it would be better all round that the certification officer played a central role and maintained both the independence of the scrutineers and some independence in the machinery that set them up. I beg to move.
The Earl of Dundee: The Green Paper canvassed in paragraph 5.21 onwards—if my reference is correct—a possible role for the certification officer in independent scrutiny and gave some reasoned argument to draw attention to the drawbacks against it. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, for giving us an opportunity to go over the matter again.
In response to his query on why the certification officer should not be given the job of scrutiny, the disadvantages that we considered include the danger of upsetting the important impartiality of his role in other areas, for example, certifying the independence of the union, and the fact that he already has a quasi judicial role under the 1984 Act that would be bound to lead to a conflict of interests. Nor would he be able to issue statutory orders of his own. These would still have to be made by the Secretary of State. I therefore do not think that there is a good reason for the change proposed in Amendments Nos. 90 and 91.
The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, also gave the view that what we are proposing comes down to an unnecessary intervention by government machinery. However, I do not think in context that that can be said because unions will be free to appoint any of those specified, subject to the provisions of Clause 14(3)(b). I am quite sure that within the categories to be specified—whatever the fears expressed now about the specification by the Secretary of State—some will be found who are sympathetic to the unions.
Nor do I think that we need to worry that the Secretary of State will be partisan in his choice of categories. No decision has been made yet but these persons are likely to be bodies with an established reputation in the field—for example, the Electoral Reform Society. The specified conditions are likely to

647
be such as to enable unions to appoint scrutineers from the ranks of solicitors and accountants.
With these few remarks that I hope set the context, perhaps the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: On another occasion, and at some other hour. I do not think that I would do so. The Minister made four points to me; I make four back to him; First, he said that the certification officer has quasi judicial functions. I accept that. He also has administrative functions. For example, he keeps the list of trade unions and he has many other administrative functions. He is the repository of the annual accounts. He publishes an annual report that is the major source of information about union affairs. Between those two it is not found that his quasi judicial functions are vitiated by his administrative functions; and it is difficult to see why this task should bring about a greater conflict of interest.
Secondly, it is said that this would upset the impartiality of the role of the certification officer. I find that rather odd, as though there is something about the job that would upset someone's impartiality. If that is so, then, even more than before, I do not want the Secretary of State undertaking that task. I do not trust a Secretary of State—I do not mean this Secretary of State; of course one never distrusts this Secretary of State. One looks at the power and asks, "What would another Secretary of State do?" Perhaps we did not distrust enough some of the powers that the Government began to take in the realm of education, and higher education in particular. However, we have seen that other Secretaries of State move more quickly to use the power that they have. The power here is without qualification. The noble Lord says that there would have to be orders in the end. There might well have to be regulations setting up the scheme; but, if the Secretary of State could make orders or regulations only on the proposal of the certification officer, then the point is met.
I deliberately did not use the arguments in the Green Paper because I did not think that they were very good. There are better arguments than those in the Green Paper, although the Green Paper discussion seemed to leave the question in the balance. This may seem a small point but it is very serious indeed. It is the first time that the Secretary of State will move in to impose conditions upon the functioning of trade unions in any way that he wishes.
I am rather disappointed that the Government will not consider this again. We have tried to move it in the sense, "We have lost the rest; but what about being constructive here concerning the independence of the scrutineers?" The Government may perhaps underestimate the mistake that they make in putting the Secretary of State in as the engine and the motive power behind the list of scrutineers. However, in view of the hour and the state of the Bill, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 91 and 92 not moved.]
8.45 p.m.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford Lord Wyatt of Weeford moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 17, line 3, leave out from ("person") to end of line 4 and insert ("by whom all voting papers for the purposes of the ballot or election are distributed to those voting, and to whom all such voting papers are returned by those voting;").
The noble Lord said: This is an extremely important amendment. The person who counts the ballot papers must be the person who sends them out; otherwise there are avenues for fraud which are very wide and would undoubtedly be followed. First, if the union concerned prints the ballot papers, there is always the temptation (which will certainly be acted on in many cases) to print more than are necessary. The surplus will be used by unscrupulous members of a union to distribute to people whose votes they feel will be favourable to the candidate they want, or they will fill them in themselves and send them into the scrutineer.
For example, that used to be the practice in the old ETU. I know that noble Lords on the Labour Benches do not like us to mention the ETU because it was a disgraceful episode in the history of the trade union movement. The trade union movement and the TUC preferred to do nothing about it for years and a group of people including myself, the noble Lord, Lord Chapple, the late Sir Les Cannon and others worked for years to try to get the TUC to put its own house in order and it would not. Finally we went to the courts and received that famous judgment in 1961.
Part of that court case centred on what was called Cobbett's rides, because a gentleman called Cobbett was concerned in one of the malpractices involved. Cobbett's rides consisted of overprinted ballot papers being taken by unscrupulous branch officials, filled in wrongly and posted in a variety of pillarboxes in various districts to make it look as though they had been genuinely posted by the appropriate people, which they had not been. That was part of the fraud.
The kind of fraud that can arise is very difficult to predict because some people will commit fraud if they have control of the printing and distribution of ballot papers. They will be selective sometimes in sending them out. They will not send them to people they feel will vote the wrong way, or they will multiply them in various other ways. It is possible, no doubt, to have sequential numbering of ballot papers as envisaged in the Bill, but it would be quite easy to duplicate the numbers by overprinting, to use them unscrupulously and not even to send out the originals.
My noble friend Lord Chapple knows a great deal about this kind of activity because he was in the thick of it at the receiving end, and perhaps at one time at the transmitting end in the old ETU.
We have gone so far with all this. We have almost everything tied up. We have the independent scrutineer counting the ballot papers, but why can we not finally fix the other end and make sure that he is the person who prints and distributes those ballot papers according to the list of addresses that he is given by the union? That may not be perfect because people may find tricks around it, but it is a great deal more secure than what is envisaged at the moment.
I hope that the Government will consider the amendment seriously. In fact, I hope that they will accept it. What is the point of going to all this trouble to devise a clear and foolproof method to secure a secret postal ballot if one of the ends is not tied up properly?
Ballot rigging is not always confined to extremist, Trotskyists and communists. I fear that even moderate union officials, who are very enthusiastic for their cause, have been tempted from time to time give judicious nudges in favour of their own candidates. This is a quite evenhanded provision. I do not claim that the moderate Right-wing (or whatever one calls them) members of unions are always pure, but there is no sense at all in not having an independent scrutineer in charge of the whole operation from the start. It is true that the independent scrutineer may not have a complete set of addresses from the union, but if the union does not have them it will not have a complete set of its own.
However, it will be a great deal better than the present system. Having to send the addresses to the independent scrutineer also helps to make the unions more efficient. Efficiency in union administration has gone up considerably since the 1984 Act when unions were forced to keep registers of their own members. Sometimes they did not know who they were. It has also forced them to tidy up their administration. This will be not only in the cause of democracy but also in the cause of greater efficiency.
I hope that we can agree the amendment. It is so self-evident that it makes sense. I hope that we shall not have another exhibition of the feudal approach to elections from noble Lords on the Labour Benches, who began with the approach to union elections by saying that there should be none at all.
Lord McCarthy: No.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: Oh, yes. This used to be done by a show of hands where the landlords, as it were, being the union bosses, made sure that people voted the right way. Then it progressed further to block votes for the branches, and that was manipulated too. In some cases it was advanced a little towards workplaces, but every time the union rulers were asked to advance and extend the suffrage of their members they resisted. They have gone on resisting it. It is so absurd because they must know by now that it is what their members want. It is the history of mankind that those who have power are very reluctant to give it up.
It was the same with the old landlord. We had to have a Reform Act several times in England to have the suffrage properly arranged here; otherwise the wretched tenants or employees of the local landlord were forced to show how they intended to vote. It is exactly the same kind of thing in the trade unions. I implore the Committee to come up to date a little, to stop being like an old feudal baron and realise that we are now nearly in the 21st century and where members are totally different from what in the past
650
we supposed them to be. I hope that there will be no disagreement about this and that the Government will accept the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I rise to give the amendment the strongest possible support. I am surprised that it is even contentious because it seems to me that it is in the interests of all those people voting, whatever way they vote, that the result should be truly reflected. I suspect that we shall be challenged before the end of the debate on the amendment as to whether irregularities can be proved, or whether it is necessary to pursue the question of irregularities in recent elections. I believe there is disquiet in the minds of the public and certainly in the minds of some voting members of the unions. Therefore, we must have a vested interest in seeing that not only should this operation be done properly but that it should be seen to be done properly.
The area that has given rise to most disquiet is the issuing of the ballot papers, the part of the process which is not overseen, and the counting of the ballot papers when they are returned. I should like to see a consensus from this Chamber that the whole of that process should be done consistent with this amendment. The people we shall serve best are those who vote in the ballots, but the interest is far wider because of the voting impact on the public. One wishes to see a vote democratically cast and processed and then counted so that the result is a true reflection of the intentions of the individuals who exercised their votes. I stress that simple point and hope that the amendment will be supported.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Now we are deciding on the form of ballot I hope that the Committee will do its best to make a good job of it. Since 1984 the unions have been a little uncertain about what it is that Parliament may ultimately require. Members will recall the uncertainty into which we were plunged when the noble Lord opposite moved an amendment on postal ballots which prevailed. The Government then discovered that practical difficulties existed. The unions said that they were not ready for postal votes because they did not have the necessary equipment or material. They persuaded the Government to suggest workplace ballots if postal ballots were not possible. Since that time most ballots have taken place at the workplace.
I should like to ask the Minister whether an inquiry or survey has been carried out into the state of play in the administration of trade unions to meet the new requirement. We have not had a great deal of experience of postal ballots on a large scale. In the conduct of the ultimate system adopted, we wish to avoid the recurrence of complaints about ballot rigging or irregularities of one kind or another. The system must be designed to be and look efficient.
All parliamentary candidates will remember the backlog of returned envelopes following the issue of election material. I do not know what the returned envelopes amount to for the electoral officers in the local authorities but many undelivered ballot papers will be around somewhere. Where will they be? Will ballot paper envelopes state that if they are undelivered they must be returned? If so, to where?

651
What will happen to them when they arrive? Many administrative details must be carefully considered in order to make the system efficient and as free from irregularity as possible.
I hope that some assurance has been received from the unions that they will be able to meet this requirement. If not, I believe that they must be assisted to do so; that is important. I do not see that the custody of returned ballot papers is particularly useful by itself. However, control over the issue and identification of bona fide ballot papers, as against those which may be used irregularly, is another factor. The safeguards which must be made are probably more elaborate than appear at first sight, and that is important.
Many unions will not have a stable electoral roll. In some respects they may be less stable than the parliamentary electoral register because many people move in and out of unions. The register of members must be the basis upon which ballot papers are issued. There must be a closing date and also a date when they must be delivered to the scrutineer. All such matters must be taken care of, but we are used only to physical voting at a polling station. If we were to adopt the conventional method, and it was practical to do so, that would be the best idea for all ballots, whether for unions, local authorities, parliamentary elections and so forth.
However, the kind of ballot about which we are talking will, in some unions, be widely spread. I constantly think of my small constituency of years ago. There are 1,500 offices throughout the country, including those in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and they have so far been the voting stations. The ballot papers have been received there by the local officer who is a serving civil servant. They have been distributed according to his instructions, collected and then returned to a central point. I believe that that has been as watertight a method as one could obtain. However, there we are speaking of electoral rolls of 70,000. But what about 700,000, or over one million? It is not quite the problem which the building societies used to pose in asking, "How does one run a democratic system with eight million members? How does one communicate with them all?".
I believe that, on the whole, building societies probably have a more stable electoral register than have the unions. It would be reassuring to know that this is not merely blowing into the wind and expecting the unions to comply without an assurance that they are prepared and can effectively carry it out. It would be useful for the department to have an idea of how the balloting will be done. Can they provide a model which will satisfy conventional standards of security and efficiency? I am keen on balloting for many issues, and I am keen on efficient balloting. There are dangers in all elections but in some they are very real.
Lord Renton: The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, wisely said that if we are to have postal ballots we had better do the job properly. Although he did not expressly say so, I hope that it was implicit in all that he said that he agrees with the amendment.
652
It naturally follows that if the job is to be done properly we must close the gap that exists in the Bill. It is for that reason that this amendment is important.
It would be absurd if the various purposes for which ballots are to be held under the Bill, and under the 1984 Act, were to be frustrated by our failure to accept the amendment and thus close the gap. I hope I am not being too frivolous when I say that my only regret about accepting the amendment is that it would put an end to all "ballot stamping" parties, to which the noble Lord referred at an earlier stage.
Perhaps I may go back to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. He said that we have no experience of postal ballots on a large scale. In parliamentary elections we have had postal votes for absent voters on a fairly large scale; sometimes it involves as many as several thousand in a constituency. That has worked extremely well. Of course, we know that in those cases it is the electoral registration officer who issues the ballot paper; it is not the parties who do that. That is an important factor to bear in mind and is, I believe, the answer to the point raised by the noble Lord.
He also raised another important point which is fundamental to this matter. It happens to be a point which I raised at Second Reading; namely, that no union elections, whether by secret postal ballot or in any other way, can be regarded as properly conducted unless there is a complete and accurate register of those entitled to vote—an electoral roll.
In answer to the point I raised at Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Dundee gave an assurance that the unions had made very good progress indeed in compiling their electoral registers. He said that only one complaint had been made to the certification officer and that was unfounded. As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, rightly said, we must have electoral rolls and the unions must be prepared for the system. I believe we may take it that he can feel well satisfied on that point.
9 p.m.
Lord Beloff: I hope that the Government will accept this amendment. Indeed, I hope that everyone will accept it for one very simple reason which has nothing to do with the possibility of manipulation, ballot-rigging or whatever it is called. It is normal and customary in all elections in all bodies—and the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, is keen to call our attention to bodies other than trade unions—that the function of issuing ballot papers and compiling a list of candidates is the responsibility of the same person who is responsible for seeing that these are collected and properly counted. In parliamentary elections the returning officer has been a major feature of the British scene for a century and more, and other smaller electorates—for example, clubs—normaly follow the same procedure.
I believe that it would be necessary for the Government or anyone else opposing this amendment to give a specific reason why there should be a departure from the normal practice governing the issue and collection of ballot papers. No such suggestion has so far emerged.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I should like to support this amendment. We have had democracy in this country now—to a lesser degree a long time ago—for about 140 years. You cannot have democracy if you do not have a completely secure system where the vote of the individual cannot be mishandled before it is counted or even when it is counted because accidents happen. It is not only the unions that are involved in this. On the whole the unions today are very responsible although there may be a few exceptions. I have often wondered how the ancient Greeks, who invented democracy, voted. I presume that they voted by their hands but I do not know. Of course, it was quite a different type of democracy because it was the democracy of the elite.
Lord Renton: In fact, they voted by means of tokens.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: That might be very dangerous because all sorts of things can happen. Amendment No. 82, tabled by the noble Baroness, suggested that members of a union could have their ballot papers sent to their workplace. I have some knowledge of industry and I do not believe that that is a good idea because votes can easily be changed when members reach their workplace; I do not say that is prevalent but it has happened. Therefore, I congratulate the noble Lord who tabled this amendment. Provided that it can be made foolproof—andI do not see why it cannot—I think that the Government should view it very sympathetically.
Lord McCarthy: I thank the noble, Lord Wyatt, for his amendment—not for its substance but for the opportunity it gives us to clear up a number of misapprehensions. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, on this side of the Committee we are not saying that there should not be a returning officer to control ballot papers. We are not saying that ballot papers should go adrift. We are not saying that there should be ballot-rigging. We know what people say about trade unions whenever any example of ballot-rigging, however small or slight reaches the newspaper.
We want to prevent ballot-rigging as much as anybody else. That is not the issue. The issue is whether there is so much ballot-rigging and so much evidence of it that we are justified at this point in time not just in accepting this amendment but in accepting the whole function and thrust of Clause 14, which is to create a scrutineer. The issue is whether to create this scrutineer and put into the body of this legislation a compulsory move from a mixture of postal ballots and workplace ballots to a situation in which all ballots are to be postal ballots.
It is in that context that we say that the case is not made. It is perfectly true that most other organisations besides trade unions—and it happens in trade unions, in clubs, in professional associations and so on—have returning officers who control the ballots. But that is not specified by law.They do not have an equivalent of Clause 14 to make them do that. Even in companies, where the secretary of the
654
company is involved in the actual ballot process, a scrutineer is not brought in from the outside. A scrutineer is not imposed on the organisation in the way in which a scrutineer will be imposed on a trade union under the terms of Clause 14.
Therefore, in the context of this amendment, we have to look at what Clause 14 says, because this is the only substantive amendment at this time of night which we intend to press on this clause. In answering the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, I ask the Minister to tell us how he sees the amendment, and even the clause without the amendment, operating.
There are many aspects about the scrutineer which are of concern to us. There are a series of characteristics that he has to exhibit. He must be independent. He must be competent. He must be qualified. But from where does he obtain his independence, his competence and his qualifications? What sort of person do the Government believe will be a typical scrutineer? I thought I heard the Minister say that the scrutineer could be sympathetic. Does that mean that he could be a trade unionist? Would the Government think it reasonable, for example, to go to the top of the tree and for a trade union to appoint my noble friend Lord Murray as a scrutineer, or could he be said to be too sympathetic, too involved? Let us suppose that it was my noble friend's old union. What kind of people do the Government think will be scrutineers? Must they all be members of the Electoral Reform Society? Must they all be solicitors? Those are the questions we want the Government to answer. It is in that context and that framework that the Committee should look at this amendment.
Lord Rochester: It would be wrong if, after this great debate, there had been no contribution from these Benches. Therefore, I should like to repeat what I said on earlier occasions; namely, that my noble friends and I are clear that trade unions should use the full postal voting procedures under independent supervision for elections to their principal executive committees and that that should extend to the distribution, receipt and counting of ballot papers.
As I see it, the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, is a means of ensuring that that independent supervision extends in an acceptable way to the distribution of ballot papers. Therefore, in general terms, I support this amendment.
The Earl of Dundee: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, I appreciate the need, which he draws to our attention, for debating and discussing in general whether it is a good idea to have a scrutineer, but with respect to the noble Lord what we are debating in this amendment is, on the assumption that we have a scrutineer, whether that scrutineer is the best person to send out ballot papers.
I should say straightaway to the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, that I have a great deal of sympathy with what he proposes. However, the noble Lord will understand when I tell him that there are a

655
number of practical difficulties which need to be considered and ironed out before the next stage of the Bill. Having said that, I can assure him that I am prepared to take away his amendment and give it serious consideration to see whether we can come back with amended proposals to those currently contained in the Bill.
Lord Blease: Before the Minister sits down perhaps I may make this point. We have had over 80 amendments dealing with ballot arrangements. We are now on Clause 14 and debating returning officers and scrutineers; we have given thought to the office staff, the postal arrangements and the register. There has been preoccupation with an office of a trade union organisation dealing with ballots, elections and all that pertains thereto.
There are practical difficulties. Will the Government give consideration to the objective of a trade union organisation? They are to give service to its members, to engage in collective bargaining in the interests of production in this country, and to carry on a relationship between workers and management in the interests of its members' wages and working conditions. In this Bill we have been concentrating our minds in connection with suitable ballots, but the practical issues and difficulties arising for trade unions where machinery is being imposed upon them by this legislation must be looked at in a practical manner. Trade unions are denied the right to carry on their ordinary working services for their members.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: Do I understand from the Minister that the Government will seriously work out a practical scheme for implementing my amendment? If that is the case, I am sure that my noble friends who have been supporting this amendment would be willing for it to be withdrawn. I should like a double assurance to make assurance doubly sure before we take the dramatic step of not dividing the Committee. Perhaps we may hear once more from the Minister?
9.15 p.m.
Lord Chapple: Perhaps the noble Lord will listen to my experience on this matter since my union is the one that is generally mentioned and which is often dismissed by intellectuals in the Labour movement as being a special case. The way in which we conducted ballots after ending the ballot-rigging that took place in our union was to provide for the Electoral Reform Society to send out ballot papers and to receive them. In return the society receives any papers that are misdirected or sent to addresses which are unknown. The union simply provides the electoral roll and pays for the ballot. The society tells the union who has won but it sends out the ballot papers and collects them. It works perfectly well but I do not believe that it works well with the scrutineers missing. If the scrutineers do not send them out or get them back the system will not work.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may be permitted before the Minister replies—
Lord Trefgarne: If my noble friend will permit me, the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, has put a question to my noble friend and perhaps he would like to reply to it.
The Earl of Dundee: Before replying to the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, I wish to say that I am grateful for the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Chapple. It is very useful indeed at this stage and in this context to hear from him about the direct experience in his own union.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, I certainly repeat again the assurance that I gave a moment ago that we will do everything we can to see whether we can find a way of accommodating his amendment.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: In view of that assurance, which can be followed up if it does not materialise at Report stage, I happily withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 94 and 95 not moved.]
Lord Rochester Lord Rochester moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 18, line 16, at end insert—
("(8) The Secretary of State may, under regulations authorised by section I of the 1980 Act, provide for payment by the certification officer towards expenditure incurred by independent trade unions in respect of ballots satisfying the requirements of subsections (2) to (7) above.").
The noble Lord said: This is a straightforward amendment that I hope the Government will feel able to accept. The Committee has now agreed that without exception trade unions should use secret postal voting procedures under independent supervison for elections to their principal executive committees and that this practice should extend to the distribution, receipt and counting of the ballot papers, as we have just been discussing. We have also accepted as a Committee this afternoon that the chief officers of unions will be required to submit themselves for re-appointment at regular intervals by the same electoral means.
When this matter was discussed in the debate on the Green Paper which was initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, last year, I pointed out that the cost to unions of employing outside agents to supervise ballots in this way would be very considerable. I suggest that the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, in particular a little while ago emphasised that point this evening.
At the time of the debate on the Green Paper last year I asked the noble Lord, Lord Young, who was to respond to the debate, to say whether, as in Section 1 of the Employment Act 1980, the Government contemplated trade unions being able to recover such costs from public funds. In reply the noble Lord said that the Government's intention was,
"that this scheme should continue to operate broadly as of now. Since our proposals would require trade unions to make more use of postal ballots, they would be in a position to claim larger refunds from public funds."—[Official Report, 29/4/87; col. 1551.]

657
He thought that that would be a sensible response to the Government's proposals. Section 1 of the Employment Act 1980 states:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations make a scheme … providing for payments by the Certification Officer towards expenditure incurred by independent trade unions in respect of such ballots to which this section applies as may be prescribed by the scheme".
It goes on to say:
"This section applies to a ballot if the purpose of the question to be voted upon … falls within the purposes",
which are then specified.
It seems to me that those purposes may not adequately cover the extended use of postal ballots which this Bill will now require. The aim of the amendment is simply to ensure that, to avoid any uncertainty, the verbal assurance given on an earlier occasion by the noble Lord, Lord Young, as I understood it, is written into the Bill. I beg to move.
The Earl of Dundee: The Government already provide substantial financial assistance to unions under the ballot refund scheme, and have done so since 1980. This assistance was offered despite opposition from the TUC and the Labour Party. Some unions came close to being expelled because they dared to apply for assistance. Even now some unions still oppose the scheme.
I am certainly happy to give an assurance that the ballot refund scheme will continue to be available where unions wish to apply for a refund in respect of postal voting. We fully expect the number and size of claims to increase as a result of Clauses 12 and 13, and the Government have therefore set aside considerable extra sums of money—£1.5 million in 1988–89 and £1.7 million in 1989–90 and 1990–91. Unions which change from workplace to postal ballots will become eligible for the first time to apply for refunds for the costs of printing ballot papers which they would otherwise have to bear themselves. This will help them to meet the cost of scrutiny and they will also be able to obtain a refund in respect of the election addresses that they will be required to send to members.
I do not see a reason in principle for relieving unions of the cost which many already bear voluntarily and which is fully justifiable as expenditure by the unions to secure the democratic rights of their members.
Lord Rochester: I am a little disappointed that the noble Earl has not found it possible to accept the
658
amendment. In other words, he is unwilling to agree that the amendment should form part of the Bill. However, as the Government do not see any need for this point to be included in the Bill, I suppose that at this time of night I must be content with the assurance he has given that the substance of this amendment— that there will be reimbursement of expenses incurred in this way—is acceptable to the Government. On that basis, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 14 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McCarthy: I do not wish to detain the Committee on this issue at this time of night. I should merely like to ask the Minister whether he will answer the questions which I put to him when he considered the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt. The trade union movement is very concerned about this point and is particularly concerned in the light of the answer he gave to the previous amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester.
The employment of independent, qualified, competent scrutineers, if they are to be paid at the rates of the Electoral Reform Society or at the rates of solicitors, barristers and people of that kind, will be very costly. How do the Government see the role of the scrutineer? How far can he be a layman, a retired trade union official, let us say, or someone broadly sympathetic to the trade union movement? Will that be a disqualification? What is independent, qualified and competent?
The Earl of Dundee: Clause 14 does not itself specify the qualifications required of an independent scrutineer; but, as we have already discussed, it gives the Secretary of State the power to issue a statutory order specifying named scrutineers and/or the qualifications others should meet. As is indicated in the Green Paper, we intend that qualified scrutineers will be largely drawn from the ranks of solicitors and accountants. All will have to be independent of the union concerned. Power to specify named bodies will ensure that those already active in the field, such as the Electoral Reform Society, to which the noble Lord, Lord Chapple, has already referred, need not be excluded.
Clause 14 agreed to.
9.30 p.m.
Clause 15 [Remedy with respect to ballot on use of funds for political purposes]:
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 19, line 4, leave out ("subsections (2) to (7) of section") and insert ("sections (Election addresses) and").
The noble Lord said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 [Ballots on industrial action affecting different places of work]:
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 19, line 17, leave out ("called upon") and insert ("induced").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 99 not moved.]
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 19, line 31, at end insert—

("( ) that all the members entitled to vote constitute all of its members employed by one employer;

( ) that all the members entitled to vote constitute persons employed in the same occupational description or grade in a number of employers taken together;").

The noble Lord said: We now come to Clause 16 of the Bill. Having not moved one of our amendments (and we shall match it by not moving a few others), we wish to say at the outset how important we think Clause 16 is. Indeed, it would be very wrong of the Committee not to debate this clause properly, whatever the hour. We are prepared to debate it, just as we are prepared to debate the amendments and clauses which other people think are more important.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Chapple, has left us; but if I address an intellectual argument in the course of my remarks it will only be because I often feel that in any movement, whatever its label, it is sometimes quite a good thing to have the intellect infuse a little assistance to gut reactions.
This clause requires in its development a great deal of agility. As an introduction, let us position the clause in its place in the scheme of things. Hitherto, in reducing the area of lawful liberty to withdraw labour organised by workers in a union, the Government have had as one of their main themes the division of workers in different units of employment. I am not saying this in any contentious spirit. Of course we have opposed that.
The second reaction: the restriction of picketing to one's own place of work, the re-definition of "trade dispute" in 1982, Part II of the 1982 Act and a number of other provisions, all have in common the refusal to allow lawful industrial action by workers in one employment unit in support of or in sympathy with or in solidarity with workers in another unit of employment with a different employer. There has been a tendency to confine lawful industrial action
660
within the employment unit. One does not say a right to strike because in this country there is no "right to strike" in positive legal terms.
What is alarmingly new about Clause 16 is that it begins from a different base; that is, that there shall be, not employment unit confinement, but workplace confinement with the basic rule that lawful industrial action be allowed only where there is a majority in each separate workplace. That is the starting point of the clause in the new subsection (1A) of Section 11 of the 1984 Act that it seeks to introduce. One must have what I might call briefly—it is not exactly brief, but it is briefer than the proper long phrase—a separate ballot, a separate majority principle, for different workplaces.
Not only do we oppose this but we would say that it is rather silly—and many employers have begun to worry about it as well as trade unionists—because it must lead to fragmentation of bargaining structures. Where there is a majority in one plant, a "no vote" in the next plant and a speckled result across a multi-plant bargaining unit the imagination boggles at the horrendous possibility of fragmentation and chaos in terms of bargaining structures. It may be that the Government regard this as being in line with their policy to decentralise bargaining. It will be interesting to learn how far that is true. So far they have not said so.
Because of all that, the exceptions to the principle of different workplace, separate majority, separate ballot, become critical. It is round the exceptions that the debates have revolved. We submit that only through the exceptions will work managers to company directors and shop stewards to trade union national officials keep their sanity, and only if the exceptions to this quite extraordinary new principle are sufficiently wide. It is a principle for which no justification has ever been advanced except for selective balloting. So far in another place the Government have been unable to produce one example. They had a reservoir of imaginative ideas, but no real facts.
Let us turn to the exceptions in regard to which the amendment is important. It is mostly the unions which suffer for the simple reason that, at the bargaining table, it is the implied threat of industrial action—as any book on industrial relations would tell one, written by whosoever, on the ideological spectrum—that is a very important part of their position and power. That implied threat can be met by injunction at any time if there exists a wide area of illegality and a speckling of majorities. Losing the immunity here and keeping it there would allow for injunctions. Once again, the lawyers are already rubbing their hands—though not the defendant's lawyers.
What does the amendment attempt to do? It would put into the Bill what the Government have said on at least eight or nine occasions should be in the Bill. We say that it is not there. If the Government are serious about these propositions, as we thought they were at one point because they cover some—not all—of the area involved in the difficulty, they do not solve the bargaining unit problem to which my noble friend will come on the next amendment.
I shall explain what I mean. Perhaps I may summarise the clause in this way. It introduced the separate workplace, separate ballot, separate majority principle, with exceptions. However, one was not an exception. It provided that if one had the same place of work it did not apply. Of course it does not apply. It applies only at different workplaces, but I can put that aside. The Government introduced an exception where the workers were called upon to take part in the action. They are of course the workers entitled to vote, and only they are entitled to vote under Section 11 of the 1984 Act.
Those whom the union reasonably considers it will induce or call out are those entitled to vote. That is what I call the voting constituency established by Section 11. There, there must be separate ballots and separate majorities unless in different workplaces the workers were employed by one employer and were either of the same grade or were of the same occupational description.
I put the occupational description and grade point aside because it relates to the bargaining unit point which comes in the next amendment. Therefore, what is left? At first sight, nothing. But if one listened to the Government's understanding of their Bill, there is a great deal more. I wish to quote. I shall refer to every source of my quotations. In view of the hour, unless anyone would like me to read them all, I shall assert what they are. However, I wish to quote the first one or two to give the idea.
The Minister of State, Mr. Cope, wrote a letter to my honourable friend Mr. Strang. It had a considerable distribution without the Minister's objection. He was asked about the matter we are discussing, and in November last year the Minister said:
"Ballots where the union properly gives entitlement to vote to all of its members (i.e. the 'balloting constituency' consists of all its members) will not be affected at all by the provisions of clause 16. Nor will any ballot be affected where the union properly gives entitlement to vote—
(a) to all of its members employed by one employer".
That is the first point. He continues:
"or by each of a number of employers taken together".
That has formed the basis of our amendment. That is what I should call (a) and (b); (a) is in the words of Mr. Cope, but (b) is not in his words because we thought that they were a little ambiguous. We have therefore limited the exception to occupational description and grade. As the Committee will see, the amendment provides for,
"the same occupational description or grade in a number of employers taken together".
Given that amendment to make the provision a little narrower, that is Mr. Cope. The letter is quoted on 10th February at col. 394 of Hansard in another place.
Mr. Cope spoke in response to that letter being quoted. He talked about an amendment that he is going to move. He said:
662
"The amendment does not affect the ability of unions—provided by the clause as it stands"—
that is, before there is any amendment on the bargaining unit:
"to aggregate ballot votes across groups of employers, provided that the conditions of the new subsection are met for the groups within the balloting constituency".
He seemed to confirm what he said a little more.
In Committee on 14th January (at col. 472 of the Official Report) the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Mr. Nicholls, used the same formula. He talked about the exceptions, how the selective balloting procedure is to be prohibited and what the exceptions are. He said:
"it is simply a question of one workplace being balloted, all the workplaces being balloted, or a certain grade or occupational description of employee being balloted". —[Official Report, Standing Committee F. 14/1/88; col. 472.]
You cannot have it clearer than that: all the workplaces; one workplace or a certain grade. We have all the workplaces in the sense of all the members employed by one employer which we think is more or less the same thing for the union. That is because ballots under Clauses 16 and 11 are union-specific. We cannot have a multi-union ballot so it has to be phrased in terms—I make no complaint about Mr. Nicholls who was using very short phraseology in the debate—that it means the same thing.
At col. 473 he says the same:
"selective balloting will not apply if one is dealing with all the workplaces; one workplace; or a particular grade or occupation".
At col. 476 there are more or less the same words. At col. 477 he said:
"If the only exceptions from the 'new procedure' were to be one workplace or all workplaces, I suspect we should hear even more … about 'bargaining unit'".
But he assumed that "all workplaces" was an exception. At col. 480 he said the same thing; at col. 484 he said:
"it is not a question of balloting everyone in all the workplaces, that exemption does not apply."
In other words, he is rebutting an example given to him because he says, "You are not balloting all the workplaces of the one employer with all the members". Then at col. 504 on 19th January he ends the discussion more or less.
Lord Trefgarne: I wonder whether the noble Lord would allow me to intervene. Is he making the case for his amendment by quoting the Minister in another place, or is he about to make a case which we can understand?
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I thought we did understand Ministers in another place. I shall reply to the noble Lord in this way. I understand the Minister in another place; if the noble Lord does not, then I suggest that he looks at these quotations and the wording around them. I am trying to cut down my quotations. Yes, I am making my case on the basis that the Government's speeches were more sensible than their Bill, and that what they said was in the Bill

663
is not in the Bill. Perhaps the Minister can tell me that it is in the Bill and show me where—and I mean this Bill; I do not mean Section 11 of the 1984 Act, which is sometimes brought in and which is quite irrelevant to this argument. I am utterly astonished by the Minister's intervention. It has taken me aback. The idea that he should object to my praying in aid of an amendment moved the arguments put by his right honourable and honourable friends in another place is quite extraordinary.
Lord Trefgarne: I am afraid that the noble Lord misunderstood me. What I was puzzled about was the noble Lord moving his amendment and then quoting at length the speeches given in the Committee stage in another place which actually rebutted some similar amendments at that time. If the noble Lord will give me the opportunity, I shall be able to do the same now.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Let me try and put it rather more clearly to the Minister. The argument for the amendment is that the clause as it stands is rather silly: that it will fragment bargaining units, that it will have all sorts of consequences which are quite clear in terms of industrial relations. Secondly, therefore, there should be wider exceptions than are in the clause as it stands. That is until we get to the bargaining unit point which the Government put in in another place. I am not dealing with the bargaining unit as such; I am dealing with all the other matters with which the Government dealt separately from the bargaining unit in another place. I am following their drift. I am saying, "If a union says, 'We want to ballot all the members employed by company X in our membership and its employment', how sensible of the Minister to say that that should escape the selective balloting principle". I do not know how to put it to the Minister more clearly than that. It is sensible without reference to the bargaining unit.
It is not the same problem as bargaining units or common factors. Of course, the next problem is what on earth we are going to do about common factors and bargaining units? I am not dealing with that. I am dealing with what Mr. Cope dealt with. I do not think the Minister takes it seriously enough. The statements have gone out and round the industry. It was not just a letter to my honourable friend Mr. Strang. All kinds of people have received this tripartite statement about what is in the Bill. But those things are not in the Bill.
I cannot find a quotation from the Secretary of State himself but I do not think that he has actually pronounced upon this precise matter. All Government statements that I can find say that there should be and is an exception to separate balloting where:
"all the members entitled to vote constitute all of its members employed by one employer".
The above quotation is taken from our Amendment No. 100. The "members" refer to members of a particular union. That is clear. That provision comes in all of the Government statements. A Government statement suggests that all the members entitled to vote constitute persons
664
employed in a number of employers taken together. But where that provision appears—mainly in the statements of Mr. Cope—it seems a little uncertain. We consider that, in the interests of certainty, to that statement should be added the words of our amendment:
"in the same occupational description or grade".
Those words are taken from the Government's old amendment which was substituted on Report in another place.
The Government know perfectly well that they are in trouble with this. They know that having started from the basis of selective balloting, they then drafted a clause which does not really deal with that. They started with a problem which I think they invented. However, never mind about that. Let us suppose that there was more selective balloting then ever was the case. The Government then say, "We shall not deal with selective balloting. We shall start with the principle of separate majority and separate ballots in different workplaces."
Having reached that point the Government then got into a fix. Sensible people in industry said to them, "Do you really mean that if the Transport and General or the Sheffield Wool Shearers actually wanted to ballot all their members, and they were not all of the same grade or they were not all of the same description or in the new formulation they did not have sufficient common factors, they could not do that?"
The important point is that unless one falls in an exception one cannot aggregate the ballot. One must say to a member on the Liberal Benches "You can strike if your people voted yes." One would have to say to someone on the Labour Benches, "You can vote if your people voted yes." Of course on the Minister's Bench there would be no yes votes for a strike. But if those members on the Ministerial Bench wanted to strike they could all do so if they voted yes.
I suggest that we all think too much of industrial conflict in this matter. It is very often a case of people meeting round the negotiating table. In that situation there is very often an implied threat but stability is not inconsistent with conflicting roles. Anyone who thinks that is a paradox cannot have been very close to collective bargaining.
Stable collective bargaining is obviously threatened here. Everything depends on the exceptions. To help the Minister, again I say that we base this particular amendment on the words used again and again by the Government because we think that they were very sensible. The Minister saw the point here. Ministers wanted to have certain provisions. The only trouble is that those provisions are not in the Bill. We ask the Government tonight to give us some hope that they will put into the Bill what their own Ministers have said should be within it. I beg to move.
Lord Rochester: I share many of the concerns which have been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton. This may be a convenient moment at which to express my misgivings more generally about the clause as a whole. On Second

665
Reading I said that, even in the form in which it was amended on Report in another place, I found the clause very difficult to understand.
I further suggested that it was highly undesirable that we should pass legislation couched in language so obscure that it might not be comprehensible to those who would be affected by it. I went on to say why the Institute of Personnel Management feared that the provisions of the clause would prove in practice to be a double-edged weapon of such potential damage to employers that it should be omitted altogether from the Bill.
Since then I have come to be even more unhappy about what is proposed. I do not think that the Government have taken sufficient account of the practical difficulties which employers and trade unions will have, first in explaining the clause to employees and then in operating it. Multi-unions in a multi-site situation make for extremely complicated balloting arrangements. Some may perhaps choose to hold site-by-site ballots and others a company-wide ballot concerned with the same issue. Ballots may take place and the results may he announced at different times.
I suggest that the difficulties will now be compounded further. As I understand the position, unions may at present vary the constituency within a site and may still do so in future while adhering to the provisions of Section 11 of the 1984 Act, which is the operative section. My fear is that those further detailed regulations which the Government now have in mind will eventually culminate in a bonanza for lawyers.
Under Clause 17 of the Bill the Secretary of State is to he empowered to issue codes of practice on the conduct of trade union ballots and elections. Surely, it would be better to address the main points at issue through such a code rather than embroiling industry in further statutory provisions of that kind.
As the Government well know, another organisation worried about the operation of Clause 16 is the Engineering Employers' Federation. I am advised that notwithstanding two attempts it has made to explain the amended clause to its associations, concern about the confusion it will cause remains unabated. That is typified by one association which has written:
"If the legislation appears in the form in which it is currently drafted, it is beyond comprehension. A working guide for both union and management practitioners will be necessary in order to make clear the spirit and the intention of the law".
In my considered view the wisest course for the Government to pursue now would be to withdraw the clause altogether pending further discussion with both sides of industry about its likely effects in practice.
Lord Trefgarne: We shall not do that, I am afraid. The aim of Clause 16 is to prevent the situation where a union, wishing to ensure that a certain group of workers at one place of work are included in a strike, includes with them in the balloting constituency on an ad hoc basis one or more larger workplaces where the members are known to be in favour of industrial
666
action. The union will not be required to hold separate place-of-work ballots if the members it ballots all have the same workplace. Where the members to be balloted have more than one place of work, separate ballots will be required where the choice of those to be balloted is selective. This means that unless the balloting constituency is exhaustive in certain specified circumstances—that is, if the union properly ballots all its members or all its members who are employed by a particular employer, or if all the members of the union accorded entitlement to a vote employed by the same employer have a factor or factors in common relating to their terms or conditions of employment or occupational description not common to any other member employed by the same employer who is accorded entitlement to vote and only where there are other members of the union employed by the same employers not in the balloting constituency—it is not a factor which employees of that employer have in common because of the place or places of work. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I think that my question still stands. I am trying to save time. Will the Minister respond to the question whether the formulae which he read out applied to all the members of a union employed by an employer (I think he also said a group of employers, but I am not sure) without any reference to "common factor". Putting "common factor" aside, does he say that there is an exception—as Mr. Cope did—to separate balloting, separate majorities, where all the members of the union are employed by the same employer? If he says that, please will he point to the place in the Bill where that is set out?
Lord Trefgarne: I think that I can help the noble Lord. Where a balloting or voting constituency covers a number of employers a separate balloting requirement would apply only if the criteria of subsection (1B) to which I referred failed to be satisfied in respect of one or more of those voting. The main criterion is the common distinguishing factor which is to be tested against other employees of the same employer. To test it against employees of other employers would be more burdensome for the union. That is the sole function of the reference to the same employer. I hope that that answers the noble Lord's question.
Having responded to the noble Lord's question, I shall now continue. As can therefore be seen, it is not our intention that a union should have to hold a separate place of work ballot where it gives entitlement to vote to every member of the union who is employed by the same employer.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am very sorry, but that was my question to the Minister. He has just said again that the union does not have to hold separate ballots at different workplaces where it gives entitlement to vote to all of its members employed by the same employer, and I hope that I am getting it right. Will he please tell me where that appears in the Bill? It is not in subsection (1B) because that is about the "common factor"; nor is it in subsection (1B) (a)

667
or (b) because they refer to "the same place of work". It is not in subsection (1A) because that is about separate ballots. So where is it?
Lord Trefgarne: If I may say so, I think that the difficulty is in the mind of the noble Lord. I do not see the difficulty that the noble Lord describes. Perhaps I may continue with what I have to say and in so doing I may be able to help the noble Lord further.
Subsection (1B) of the clause clearly allows an exception for persons of the same occupational description, provided that every member of the union employed by the same employer in the same occupational description is given entitlement to vote. The term "grade", which appeared in an earlier version of the Bill, is no longer needed since grade is clearly a factor relating to members' terms and conditions of employment.
The clause does not, and did not previously, affect the ability of unions to aggregate ballot votes across groups of members or across employers, provided that the conditions of subsection (1B) are met for each of the groups within the balloting constituency. I recognise that this is a difficult and complicated provision, but I believe that it is necessary. I believe that it is clear to those who study it carefully. I recognise that it needs careful study and I believe that the noble Lord has given it that attention. I hope that he is now satisfied with the explanation that I have given.
Lord Rochester: I realise that it was perhaps unduly optimistic of me to ask the Government to withdraw this clause. However, I hope that the Minister will recognise that there is very considerable concern about this clause in the minds of employers and unions who will have to operate it. Although he may not be able to enter into any firm commitment tonight for reasons that we all understand, I hope that at least he will feel able to say that the Government will give consideration to the kind of difficulties to which the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, has already given expression and which I have tried to adumbrate on behalf of those who will have to operate the clause.
Perhaps at least he would consider before the next stage of the Bill, in the light of the complexity of the clause, which he himself has now admitted, whether the Government might bring forward something which both takes account of the difficulties that have been expressed and is couched in language that is more easily comprehensible than is the clause at present.
10 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: I am not willing to agree that we should amend the Bill, as I think the noble Lord is asking, because I do not believe that it would be appropriate or necessary. It is important for the Bill to spell out in proper legal terms exactly what is wanted and required. However, there may be some scope for providing some guidance to employers' organisations, for example, and if that is what the noble Lord has in mind I shall certainly be willing to consider it.
Baroness Seear: Is it impossible for the Minister to look at this matter to see whether the issues can be clarified? If the Engineering Employers' Federation, which is not a rabid Left-wing body ranged to attack the Government, the Institute of Personnel Management, which is made up of people who spend their lives interpreting these matters day in and day out, and the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, with whom I disagree on many occasions but who is an expert lawyer in these fields and widely accepted as such, all say that this is not clear, will the Minister not have the modesty to admit that there may conceivably be something lacking in the drafting of this clause?
Lord Trefgarne: Frankly, if I were to accept every proposition advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, that a particular proposal was not clear, I think I would find that there was very little left to any of the trade union and other legislation that we bring before the Chamber. While the noble Lord is indeed an acknowledged expert in these matters, he is also the principal Opposition spokesman on these issues, and the duty of the Opposition is to oppose however meritorious are the proposals that we bring forward.
Baroness Seear: I ask the Minister also to recognise that it is not the opinion only of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, with whom, as I said, I frequently disagree. It is the view of bodies like the Engineering Employers' Federation and other people who are very much more expert in this field than is the noble Lord himself. I am sorry to have to say it so bluntly but that is the position. If those people are experiencing serious difficulties, we are once again in the position of passing legislation which will cause a great deal of confusion for the people who will have to operate it.
Lord Trefgarne: I repeat that it is necessary for the legislation to spell out the proposition in proper legal terms. I have accepted the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, that there may be a case for guidance to employers' federations. I have undertaken to look at that matter and I think that that specifically meets the point which the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, made.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Perhaps I may say a final word about our amendments, which I can see will not get very far. First, the day on which the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, accepts one of my propositions, let alone all of them, I should, if it were not bribery, buy him a drink. However, it is a much more important matter than that.
Secondly, most people with whom I have discussed the matter—and that does not only include members of the TUC, the trade union movement or curious and odd people—think that in both its structure and its drafting this clause is dotty. They really think that. The idea is laughable that this clause can be defended on the grounds that it must be drafted in the proper legal terms.
However, a more serious point is hidden in what the noble Lord said, and at this point I part company

669
with the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. I do not agree at all that the way to pursue these matters is to draft a Bill and not be sure what it means, to put a law on the statute book and then give guidance about it, or, if one likes, to accept that to some people the clause means one thing and to some another and then to give guidance. Not a bit of it! Perhaps that is because—and I admit to it—I have the trade unions more in mind than the employers. It is the trade union that will be on the receiving end of the writ; it is the trade union which is at risk of losing its protection. It will be told that the Minister may well have stated this in the House, and there are his notes of guidance, but that is useless. I should not be in favour of a code of practice here. We ought to have this clearly stated.
I shall withdraw the amendment but I ask the Minister to reflect on this. This is a very serious issue. Is this not the way in which our debate has proceeded tonight, in spite of the technicalities? It is a technical area of the law. First, the Minister has not said that he does not like what our amendments say. He has never resisted the substance of them. Secondly, he says that it is already provided for in the Bill. I admit that if we sat down and dissected the Bill, as it is now drafted, after the latest amendments in another place, we would find that there is a little of our amendment in the Bill—there is a little overlap—the whole of it is not included. Thirdly, and lastly, does not our amendment state it a little more clearly? It could be improved; certainly the second limb could be improved. I should be happy with the first limb. But the first limb is what the Government Ministers said; the first limb appears to be what the Government still want; the Government say it is in the clause. There is enormous disagreement and confusion throughout industry and the academic and legal world as to what it means. The first limb of our amendment states the position clearly. I should have thought that the Government could at least consider the position further before the Report stage. We must wait and see. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 19, line 31, at end insert—
("( ) that all the members who are accorded entitlement to vote in the ballot are in the same bargaining unit, that is to say are persons on behalf of whom the union negotiated terms and conditions to he inserted in the same collective agreement;").
The noble Lord said: It is a remarkable tribute to the tenacity and seriousness of the Members of this Chamber that there are any people left after the debate that we have just had on this part of the clause. It may please some Members to know that I differ with the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, on this. I do not think that any sense can be made of this clause. The best thing to do with it is to read it.
We have to go back to the beginning of the story. The Government began, without reference to the Green Paper, by trying to change the concept of the area of the ballot. Therefore they got themselves into a position in which they wanted to have ballots on industrial action affecting different places of work. It may be that if the noble Lord had his time over again
670
he would have said that they should not have done this, but they allowed themselves some exceptions. At least ballots on industrial action affecting different places of work which required different ballots in different places might be chaotic but the position would be clear. However, the Government allowed themselves exceptions in certain circumstances. Subsequently, in another place, and in correspondence with the Government by the EEF and other institutions, we have all been trying to discover what those circumstances are.
At the moment I find—as I am sure will Members of the Committee when reading it—that the central part of this clause, which is supposed to deal with the problem of different factors and which is the Government's final amendment on this matter, is extraordinarily delphic. It is a constant series of references to different factors. It states that there is to be,
"in relation to each of the members of the union who is accorded entitlement to vote in the ballot, some factor"—
and we start now—
"(whether or not the same factor) which—

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

(ii) is a factor"—

the factor is back again—
"which that member has in common with some or all of the other members of the union who are accorded that entitlement and have the same employer as that member; and
(iii) in a case where there are individuals employed by that employer who arc members of the union but are not accorded that entitlement, is neither a factor which that member has in common with any of those individuals nor a factor which individuals employed by that employer have in common as a consequence of having the same place of work".
I do not say that the Minister cannot tell you what that means. He may even put it better in other words. It would be difficult to put it worse. One may even be wiser, a lot wiser, as to the Government's intentions as a result of listening to the Minister. But one will never be able to find the intention of the Minister in the words. No matter how long one looks at the words, they will never mean what the Minister says they mean.
My noble friend Lord Wedderburn says that he understands bits of them. And those bits mean some bits that the Minister says they mean. I say that they are gibberish. No man or woman can derive what is meant from the words. It is because of the gibberish that industry is so worried. That is why we move our amendment.
The amendment is somewhat broader than the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn. I justify it by saying that it focuses on the most sensible thing said by the Minister, Mr. Cope, in another place. After various attempts to tell the House what the gibberish meant, he said:
"In Committee, we promised to consider whether it was possible to amend the clause to enable an aggregate ballot of members employed at different places of work if they were in the same bargaining unit or bargaining group. We pointed out that, although the terms 'bargaining unit' and 'bargaining group' are well understood in general parlance"—
they are universally understood in industrial relations on both sides of the bargaining table—
"they are not easy to write into legislation".

671
If the clause is an example, they are indeed difficult.
Mr. Cope added:
"That is why we propose the definition in the amendment. It retains the general intended effect of clause 16, but I hope it will go some way to meet the concerns expressed in Committee in favour of a greater element of flexibility".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/2/1988; col. 397.]
In other words I understand the Minister to be saying, "I should like to clear all this up by giving you a bargaining unit. You tell me that that is what everybody understands, but unfortunately it is very difficult to put into words."
Well, we have put it into words. Our amendment is a definition of a bargaining unit. The amendment states:
"that all the members who are accorded entitlement to vote in the ballot are in the same bargaining unit".
So as not to be unclear we define it; that is to say, they are,
"persons on behalf of whom the union negotiated terms and conditions to be inserted in the same collective agreement".
That is a simple working definition of what a "bargaining unit" means. It is charitable to assume that the Minister believes that what I term the floating factor element in the new clause is a kind of bargaining unit definition. This item, which is related in some way to terms and conditions or to occupational descriptions of those who have the same employer if there are enough common factors, will for him cover some bargaining units. Our difficulty is that we cannot tell what bargaining units are covered by it.
I am afraid that this brings us to the reasons why we are in this position. We have to speculate because there was nothing in the Green Paper. But it is worth speculating. We have to ask ourselves why the Government engaged upon an attempt to find ballots on industrial action affecting different places of work. How did they get themselves into all these factors?
If I can take it from what the Minister has said tonight and from what was said in another place, I think that they had two ideas in mind. There were two kinds of devils. There were the mobile militant groups that unions knew about and wanted to grab hold of by the scruff of the neck and shove into the great dough of an unmilitant group to get a vote for a strike. The Government did not want that, so they had to have separate ballots at separate places of work. It reminds one of the Liverpool dockers. Where are they today? That is the kind of mobile militant group that the Government have in mind. They were not going to have that and so they embarked upon ballots of industrial action affecting different places of work.
As was made clear by Mr. Cope in another place, it is not merely the militant group; there is also the mobile coercive group. It is a powerful group which, if it gave its strike effect, would paralyse the company. Nowadays it tends to be computer terminal operators or systems analysts. If one could remove them and pop them into the middle of a factory, one would have a powerful group where, if one could produce a majority in favour, one would be in a wonderful position.
Noble Lords will say that this is fairyland. They are quite right; this is fairyland. In an attempt to justify their position when they were pushed far enough in another place they misread—I do not say that that was intentional—a perfectly reasonable publication of the Institute of Personnel Management when they brought up two cases from the reservoir. The first case was a 22-site ballot which was followed by a strike, which was followed by an improved offer, which referred only to six sites and which resulted in a settlement.
The second case was a first ballot of 800 permanent staff which produced an improved offer. A second ballot was put not only to the 800 permanent staff but also to 300 temporary staff. Nowhere does the IPM suggest that that was done in order to produce a strike. It states that such things can be used although they produce no evidence. It states that selection of constituencies can be a powerful weapon in the armoury of the union manager. However, no evidence is put forward.
If one looks closely at those two cases, the most likely explanation is that the second offer affected different people from the first. It usually does. Therefore the bargaining unit changed and so the ballot had to change. That brings us back to our amendment.
In the real world, trade unions ballot the bargaining group. They ballot all the workers affected by a particular set of negotiations. Who else would they ballot? What fairyland is it when they remove a militant group from somewhere and pop it into the ballot? In fact, that cannot be done. If one has our amendment one is safe because a bargaining unit is defined by the employer as well as the union. If the area of the ballot is the area of the bargaining unit the employer has at least as much say in who goes into it and who does not. He can be relied upon to keep out the semi-militant group or the powerful coercive group. At any rate, it is a matter for industry. If only the Government could bear to accept our amendment, at least industry would understand.
Lord Trefgarne: I explained to the Committee the aim of Clause 16, and the way in which it will operate, in relation to the previous amendment. It is worth repeating the effect of subsection (1B)(b). I repeat that the union will not be required to hold separate place of work ballots if all the members of the union accorded entitlement to vote, who are employed by the same employer, have factors in common Which relate to their terms or conditions of employment or occupational description and are not factors common to any other member employed by the same employer who is not accorded entitlement to vote, and only where other members of the union employed by the same employers not in the balloting constituency is not a factor which employees of that employer have in common because of their place or places of work. I am sorry if that is not clear to Members of the Committee opposite; but it is reasonably clear to me, even with my inexperience and ignorance of these matters, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, referred.

673
During the consideration of the Bill in another place, the Government were pressed to agree to amend the clause to cover the terms "bargaining unit" and "bargaining group". Although these terms are well understood in general parlance, they cannot easily be written into the legislation. The difficulty is defining these terms in a suitable and sufficient way.
The subsection I have described which was agreed on Report in the Commons provides for a greater element of flexibility by covering situations where there is no settled pattern of collective bargaining. The main point is that if the proper balloting constituency consists of members in the same bargaining group, it would be reasonable for the union to believe that these members had a factor in common which would satisfy the requirements of the new subsection.
As I have said, the clause does not and did not previously affect the ability of unions to aggregate ballot votes across groups of members or employers providing that the conditions of subsection (1A) are met for each of the groups within the balloting constituency. Subsection (1B)(b) will clearly allow an aggregated ballot covering different types of bargaining unit to be held where they satisfy the conditions of what will be the new subsection (11)(1B)(i) of the 1984 Act. I hope that puts the matter clearly for the noble Lord and that he will not wish to press the amendment.
Lord McCarthy: The noble Lord does it again. He is a very slow learner. It is like the Bellman in the Hunting of the Snark:
"What I tell you three times is true".
He says that he has told us this before and has told other people before, and then gives a much better and clearer view of what the clause means. However, it is not in the Bill and it is not derived from the Bill. No one ever does because it is not in the Bill. Secondly, he says that it is impossible to draft "bargaining unit". That is exactly what our amendment does. However, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 102 and 103 not moved.]
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 20, line 21, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 105 to 107 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 16, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McCarthy: I have no wish to make a speech on this matter. We oppose this, and we have said enough about it. This clause is as bad as it ever was and we wish the Government had never thought of it.
Lord Rochester: I wish to concur with what the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has said.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 [Codes of practice as to ballots and elections]:
[Amendment No. 108 not moved.]
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Appointment etc. of the Commissioner]:
[Amendments Nos. 109 and 110 not moved.]
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Assistance by the Commissioner]:
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 21, line II, after ("practicable") insert ("(i) where the individual is a prospective party to proceedings, to consult with the relevant union or unions; and (ii)").
The noble Lord said: I shall say just a brief few words on this amendment. We were going so fast that one saw amendments flying through. But perhaps that is in the general interest of the Committee. However, there is a small point—perhaps a tiny point—to catch our breaths before we speed on. That relates to the new commissioner.
The new commissioner is obviously likely to be rather important; someone to whom the individual member, often a dissident member, may well go. He may well go to the commissioner with all sorts of complaints and stories on which obviously the commissioner will want to form a view. Indeed, it is the essence of Clause 19 that he must form a view at various stages.
Given the structure of the clause (to which we object very strongly in many ways but taking the Bill as it is) it is understandable that the commissioner should not be obliged to take any steps in talking with the union after there is (how shall I put it?) the reality of a possibility or the prospect of legal proceedings where there is, even on the horizon, an adversary relationship.
Amendment No. 111 poses this question to the Government. Is not the commissioner in a position, having had just the first complaint made to him, where it would be sensible, in the public interest and—I suppose I could stress this more with this Government—in the interests of the public purse, not to waste time and public money? Where the individual is only a prospective party to proceedings —perhaps it should be even more away from that possibility than the words of the amendment propose—and where the commissioner feels there might be a case, surely his first action should be to consult the relevant union to see whether it wishes to say anything to him. He is not asked to say anything to the union but to obtain the view of the union or unions. This is a small point which nevertheless encapsulates a point of principle in the sense that we do not believe public money should be wasted on a case where the commissioner forges ahead, and it turns out to be quite valueless when it could have been set right had he communicated with the union at the beginning.
I suspect that the Government will say that the amendment is not necessary and that the commissioner will of course do that. I can only say that among many trade unionists and workers there

675
is already a very reserved attitude—not to say hostility—towards this new commissioner. The idea is not liked. I object to it and I understand those who also object to it. Therefore, it might be in the Government's interest to show that they understand this tiny point and say that if there is a complaint the first move of the commissioner should be to consult the union to see what it has to say about the matter.
As I said, it is a small point but it could have big dividends for those who believe in the structure. It could also be fairer and less costly. They are good grounds—
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord concludes, I should like to say that I thought that this interesting amendment, for which I have some sympathy, was a paving amendment for the next amendment, for which I also have some sympathy. I should have thought that there would be advantages in discussing the two together, bearing in mind that before there can be an agreed settlement, as envisaged in Amendment No. 112, there would necessarily have to be consultation as mentioned in Amendment No. 111.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am grateful to the noble Lord. He will understand that I was consulting with my noble friends because we divide the work. There are points which perhaps fall to be made rather differently in regard to the two amendments. I am often in a minority and that is why I always understand problems about minorities. My noble friends tell me that I am wrong in believing that the amendments go together. They are not grouped together on the suggested groupings before the Committee.
At the moment I shall simply address the first amendment, although it has consequences throughout. Amendment No. 111 expresses a spirit, a procedure or an approach. I quite agree that some of the other suggestions that we are making are to get rid of the element of hostility which is in the Bill as it stands. As it is drafted, the commissioner is someone who is an engine of adversarial proceedings against the trade unions. One cannot expect the trade union majority, administrators and officials to like that.
Here is a beginning and if the Government are serious in wanting a good relationship, they can express a favourable view of something like Amendment No. 111. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: I was delighted when I saw the reference in the Bill to the commissioner. It seemed to me that the commissioner was to be a kind of ombudsman for trade union members. In addition to that, he is to have the advantage, which the ombudsman does not normally have, of having the power to assist in the institution of proceedings. I have used my words rather guardedly because I do not wish to give a false impression of the meaning of the powers which are described in the Bill.
I do not suppose anyone will wish to dispute those two propositions. It would seem to be only right that,
676
in order to get to the bottom of the problem and for no other reason, the commissioner should be required to consult the trade union. I do not see how he will get his work done well unless his aim is to resolve the difference between the union and the member without going to court if he can possibly avoid it. That is why I was attracted by the proposition in Amendment No. 112, which I agree could well stand own its on feet. I was attracted to the idea of an agreed settlement.
Given this cautious welcome to the spirit of Amendments No. 111 and 112, although Amendment No. 111 achieves its object, I do not believe from the drafting point of view that it has been put in the right place. I would have put it a little later on in the clause. That is a technical matter which can be attended to. The request which I am making to my noble friend is not to give a negative answer at this late hour to Amendment No. 111 or to Amendment No. 112 when we come to it, but, if the commissioner is to be as good a man as we want him to be, then reconciliation should be one of his main objectives. If that is to be achieved, there must be consultation followed by an agreed settlement. I hope that I am not over-simplifying the matter.
The Earl of Dundee: I am grateful to the Committee for the contributions on this matter. I agree both with the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, and with my noble friend Lord Renton, but out of context. I have much sympathy with the proposition that the commissioner should be a man who tries to conciliate with the union and to bring matters to a conclusion as swiftly as possible.
Having said that, I should like to outline one or two reasons why I think that in context this would not be the right way in which to proceed. We can see quite clearly that there would be damaging effects if there were a requirement to consult.
A requirement to consult could complicate the commissioner's task to no useful purpose. The commissioner should not be drawn into adjudicating between the parties. That is the task of the court. Such a requirement could lead to delay in dealing with applications where speed was of the essence; for example, a complaint about inducement to take industrial action without the support of a proper ballot. If consultation required the commissioner to reveal the identity of the applicant, that could put the person at risk with adverse consequences in certain circumstances. There are sound reasons for enabling the anonymity of the assisted person to be preserved up to the stage when court proceedings commence. Applicants might well be put off applying to the commissioner if they knew that their identity might have to be revealed then.
On the nature and function of the commissioner, I should perhaps mention that the commissioner will be able to provide assistance only in connection with specified proceedings, and that relevant complaints will have distinct features and needs. All proceedings will relate to complaints to be heard at first instance in the High Court. We have conflicting considerations which (if I may come back to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Renton) would

677
amount to an oversimplification if we were to be in favour of the commissioner concentrating on conciliation. Much the best course is to allow discretion in this matter to rest with the commissioner. The clause neither precludes the commissioner from consulting anybody nor requires him to do so before coming to a decision about whether to provide assistance. That is the right approach and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Seear: Perhaps the noble Earl has not understood what it is that we are after. He said that it was not part of the functions of the commissioner to adjudicate. Of course it is not part of the functions of the commissioner to adjudicate; but in any difficulty, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was implying, it is sensible to attempt to conciliate, which is something quite different from adjudicating. By saying that the commissioner should not adjudicate, the noble Earl has not answered the case for saying that he should have a conciliation role. They are two quite different functions.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, replies to my noble friend, I wonder whether I may make one or two comments on what my noble friend has said. I appreciate the point that he has made about anonymity, but that will not apply in every case. There will be cases in which it may be very important for anonymity to be preserved. I can understand that it must be respected unless of course the applicant, the member of the trade union, says to the commissioner, "If you feel strongly that you should disclose my name, go ahead". But if the applicant says, "No, I don't want my name disclosed", the commissioner could still consult the union on a hypothetical basis and without revealing the name of the applicant. With great respect to my noble friend, that was his main point and I do not think that it was a complete answer.
However, I am reassured by what he said on another point. In the clause (which perhaps I have not studied as closely as I thought I had) there is power to consult the union but no compulsion to do so. It would not be a bad thing if we were to aim at consultation where practicable. We have the expression "as soon as reasonably practicable". We could have the expression "if practicable", especially if Amendment No. 111 or something like it were placed later in the clause, which I think would be better.
What I am really stressing is that having listened carefully to my noble friend, and having I believe fully understood the points that he was making, I still feel that it would be to the Government's advantage and to the advantage of the trade unions and everybody else if some further thought were given to this matter between now and the Report stage.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I said in moving this amendment that although it was very small, I suspected it led to matters that were larger. The debate your Lordships have had shows that to be true. I find it quite extraordinary that an amendment that asks that the commissioner who is going to assist
678
individual members of unions to bring proceedings against their union using public funds should not be told that as soon as reasonably practicable. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, without going into all the aspects that are coming in later amendments, there should be some formula that made it reasonably practicable. I would wish to maintain a duty upon him as soon as proper and practicable to discuss the matter or consult with the other side to see what it had to say. The idea that the noble Minister should present that as a duty to an adjudicator is baffling.
I know the Minister may say that this is not a clause about an employer; but if you are a worker you may be on bad terms with your union; and it is conceivable that you could be on bad terms with your employer, and you look around and weigh up what your prospects are. If you are on bad terms with your union and want to sue it, there will be the commissioner when this is enacted. He has no duty to consult with the union, and you can get him up to the point of issuing a writ, apparently just on your own say-so, because from where else other than from the unions is he to find information?
If you are going to be dismissed, first of all you may not have two years' continuity, and if you are going to be thrown out on your ear you will have no more income coming in. You are going to get no legal aid if you go; you have no commissioner to go to. No government of this sort are going to give you a commissioner. They are not even going to give you legal aid. You are going to have a pre-hearing assessment, when you may be knocked out if they think your case is not very good and told you will be liable in costs if you go ahead. There is no help for you unless you are a member of a trade union. As a matter of fact, it is a rather important function of trade unions to help individuals in industrial tribunals. Everyone seems to think trade unions do not help individuals. That is what they do. They give major assistance to those who are grossly, unfairly dismissed. What is more—and perhaps this is more relevant to the amendment—the industrial tribunal will have attached to it a conciliation officer. The first thing that happens is that the tribunal will know that you will go and try and conciliate. That is a very sensible procedure, and trade union officers and managers and people with the conciliation officer try to find a solution.
What a contrast! On the one hand are the unfair dismissal provisions giving no help to the worker; and on the other hand it is sensibly building in conciliation. Here there is no conciliation or consultation so far but a maximum expenditure of public funds which may all be quite useless. Suddenly the writ is about to be issued, and the union writes a letter saying "As a matter of fact, terribly sorry, but he's got it all wrong. It wasn't his fault. He was telling the truth as far as he saw it but he just happened to get it all wrong".
For a Government that believe in saving their money and in economy this is quite a staggering proposal to put; and then to resist a tiny wee amendment of my own of this sort is quite remarkable. However, I have to beg leave to withdraw it. That is all I can do.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.45 p.m.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 112.
Page 22, line 7, after ("shall") insert ("(i) have a duty to make all reasonable efforts to secure an agreed settlement between a person to whom he is granting his assistance and the relevant trade union before assisting in an application to any court, and the court shall not permit any application from a person receiving the assistance of the Commissioner to proceed until such efforts have been made; (ii)").
The noble Lord said: I cannot say this is quite such a wee amendment. In fact, it tries to take us back to the industrial tribunal model. We say that it should be the duty of the commissioner to make all reasonable efforts to secure an agreed settlement between the person to whom he grants his assistance and the relevant trade union before assisting in the application to any court; in other words, to act as a kind of conciliator. I do not see how that rules out his acting as assistant and aid to the individual trade unionist if the case goes forward to be tried.
What kind of disputes will come before the commissioner and what will his business be? There will be the trade union member who says that the executive council was not properly elected; the candidate who says that he should have won but that the ballots were fiddled; the member who says that he did not get a chance to vote; the person who says that he had the wrong election address or no election address. Quite small things will be brought before the commissioner of trade union affairs. In many ways they will be the type of dispute that, if the matter were not one of unfair dismissal, may well come before industrial tribunals.
From the beginning industrial tribunals took a certain view. They wanted to reduce the caseload and to facilitate an agreed settlement between the parties if they could find one. They thought that it would help if they could bring the parties together, first, in two rooms and eventually in one room to enable discussion to take place to resolve the matter. If the Government had suggested that, we should not have objected, especially if it had been other than in the context of the Bill. When we on these Benches say with enthusiasm that we are not totally, unreservedly in favour of no regulation of trade unions by the state, it always seems to happen very late at night when few Members are present.
In 1968 the Donovan Commission advocated a series of provisions that would have regulated the problems of trade union members who felt that, in closed shop situations in particular, they had a case against the union. I have never been against workers having the right to go to a special tribunal if they believe that their trade union is treating them in some unsatisfactory way, whether under the rules or under some principles laid down by the Government. It is a question of how it is done. In the case of a man who has no conciliation or mediation functions and who, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, is supposed not even to get in touch with the union in the first place, we are bound to view what might otherwise be a reasonable proposal as part and parcel of the Bill. If the Government are interested in what people feel, they should take note of the amendment.
Lord Renton: I have already expressed my views about the advantage of what is envisaged in the amendment. Although the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, did not ask the Government to consider the matter further when speaking to Amendment No. 111, I still say that the Government should do so. I hope that they will also agree to consider the matter that arises in this amendment.
The Earl of Dundee: The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, suggested that the commission should have a duty to conciliate. That is to be distinguished from the suggestion under the previous amendment that the commissioner should have a duty to consult the union. Perhaps I may say, out of context, that I have a great deal of sympathy with that, as has my noble friend Lord Renton.
I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for what will be a partial repetition, but I should like to say a word about the role of the commissioner.
There is no need for the commissioner to be required as a matter of course to attempt to conciliate between unions and members. The ability to do so is a different matter from a requirement to do so.
The commissioner's assistance is to be available to ensure that union members are not prevented from taking certain legal proceedings against their union because they lack the necessary resources or legal advice. The Green Paper explained why such special assistance was required. No similar case was made out for a new conciliation agency.
It might be that there are inadequate facilities for conciliation, and that is essentially what we are considering. Do we have adequate facilities for conciliation? I think that the answer is that we have. Insofar as conciliation is necessary or useful, it can already be done by other bodies; for example, union arrangements and rules which might involve specific agencies with experience in such activities. They are permitted by union rules.
I come to what I see as the objection against trying to combine the commissioner's function as a conciliator with that of an officer, whose post it is proposed to create, to assist union members when they have special difficulties which need to be linked to the courts. Given that the commissioner's proper function need not require him to make efforts to secure a settlement between an applicant and his union, it is clearly inappropriate to impose a requirement on the court, as the amendment proposes.
There may be cases where it is vital that the court deal quickly with an application made to it. That could be the case if the application is made under various clauses of the Bill. A union member may well need the commissioner's assistance to make such an application to the court. It would be wrong to attach conditions to the award of that assistance which might limit the member's ability to get the quick response from the court that is needed.
I do not think that I need go further into the matter. With those few remarks, I hope that the noble Lord might see fit to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Renton: I am sorry to take up time and to be so persistent. I feel strongly, however, that we may be missing an opportunity. It is not a question of the court being required to have a settlement made before it; it is a question, among other things, of the commissioner being able to save large amounts of public money by preventing proceedings going to the court. It should be an earnest concern of the Government to save public money. God knows, the legal aid fund at the moment is costing hundreds of millions of pounds. We do not want to add unnecessarily to the amount of money that is spent on it—because that is what it comes to—if we can have it clearly understood that conciliation is clearly a function of the commissioner.
I am terribly apologetic, because I like to help my noble friends get their business through. I know that yet again it is awfully late. We were here until midnight last night. I think this matter so important that I ask my noble friend to consider it further. That is not much to ask.
Lord McCarthy: I join the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in that request. I found some aspects of the Minister's answer helpful. He was speaking almost as quickly as my noble friend Lord Wedderburn earlier in the evening, and I am not good at writing it down. It seemed to me that he was making a distinction between what the commissioner needed to do, was required to do, had to do, and what our amendment would force him to do, as against what he might do if he thought it appropriate.
I would settle for that. I would say that it was an advance. If the Minister would say that although he does not like our amendment—I agree we say that there should be a requirement to conciliate—he would respond favourably towards an amendment which said that part of the commissioner's function was to conciliate where he thought it useful, we should be going quite a long way.
But later on the Minister said something else which in some ways might be even more helpful. He said that it was open to the union to ask for conciliation. It is late at night for us to start thinking of ways of changing Bills, but that might be an even better way. For example, would the Minister say that it would be open to a union to go to ACAS? After all, the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service has a great deal of experience in these matters; it knows unions very well; it is one part of—I cannot say the government machine because it is an independent agency—the institution of industrial relations which has managed to keep itself quite outside any political in-fighting in industrial relations. It is very much respected by both sides. Could it be a case for the Minister to say, "Maybe if a union found itself brought before the CROTUM," as we call him, "it might say it would like conciliation and go to ACAS"? Would the Minister think about that?
The Earl of Dundee: To respond to the three themes which have been mentioned, my noble friend Lord Renton made the point that we want to ensure that money is in no way wasted over what is proposed. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, picked up my
682
reference to how the commissioner could perfectly well consult, if he wished to, but we do not require him to consult. He referred to how the unions should have the facility to refer to outside agencies.
I am in sympathy with all these points; I do not want money to be wasted. The Government clearly wish there to be as much conciliation as possible and in that the commissioner is already enabled to consult and conciliate if he wishes to, the Government in no way wish to impede the commissioner in so doing. I hope that those few remarks may be of some help to noble Lords opposite in establishing what the Government's attitude is to those three themes which have been raised.
Lord McCarthy: I thank the Minister and am very pleased indeed to withdraw this amendment. I can tell the Committee that he says that he wants to save money, he says that he wants conciliation and he says that he is in favour of consultation. I hope that the Government will look favourably on an amendment which we might move at the Report stage to try to facilitate those three ideas.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 not moved.]
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.
11 p.m.
Clause 21: [Procedure before the Certification Officer]:
Lord Wyatt of Weeford Lord Wyatt of Weeford moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 23, line 48, at end insert—
("(4 On any application to the Certification Officer under section 5 of the 1984 Act, he shall, where requested by the applicant, take all reasonable steps to preserve the anonymity of the applicant.")
The noble Lord said: Perhaps it may be convenient also to speak to Amendment No. 116, as these two amendments are somewhat allied. Of course, listening to the debate on the last amendment, I wonder whether it is realised how much conciliation the certification officer already does. That is what I have found out in my investigation of what goes on there. He tries to reconcile the parties in a dispute before the matter goes too far. So in a way the point which has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, is to some extent already answered in practice. The purpose of these two amendments is to make it easier for the timid union member to exercise his rights of complaint. One has to be exceptionally brave to stand up against one's own union, particularly when it is in the control of extremists. One can put not only oneself at risk but one's car, house and family. During the miners' strike working miners in areas where other miners were on strike were treated vilely, not just verbally but physically.
The strain of standing up for one's rights can be unbearable. In 1986 the certification officer had only 17 complaints about the conduct of union elections. I would have expected there to be rather more considering the number of union elections which take place and the very large number of unions that are

683
involved. We still have over 400 unions in this country.
I put the small number of complaints about elections made to the certification officer down to a reluctance and unwillingness to be victimised. Of those complaints in 1986 about elections, nine were upheld by the certification officer and eight were rejected. In 1987 however the number had gone down to only 10 complaints of which eight were upheld and two were rejected. That is a very small number. In two cases, TASS and NALGO, the certification officer was unhappy with the response of the unions to the declaration he made about the defects of their election procedures and his call upon them to put them right.
I understand from NALGO that it will soon be complying with the law—it has taken a long time to do it—and that it now intends at its next conference this year to make proper arrangements to come within the terms of the 1984 Act as regards the conduct of its elections. I presume that if this Bill is passed in time it will also be complied with as regards the conduct of elections.
TASS on the other hand, before its merger with the ASTMS, took no notice whatever of the declaration of the certification officer. Although the certification officer had issued a declaration against it on a complaint from within the union no one was then brave enough to stand out and take TASS to court. I assume that they were frightened because TASS is a very tough and unpleasant union run by communists, as I have had to say before in this Chamber.
That is why the second amendment is so important. The declaration having been made by the certification officer and defied, it should be for him to go to the court and ask for the court to give effect to it. He knows all the facts. He has great experience in case law and in sifting the solidly-founded complaints from the shallow ones. It is unreasonable to expect a poor simple ordinary trade union member to then go to court himself. He will not do that unless he is a very brave, very unusual and very exceptional person. One cannot expect such a person to go to court himself and go through all these procedures when all the certification officer has to do is to go down to the court and say, "Here is my declaration. I issued it. The union took no notice. Will you now give an order that they must comply with it?" That is all that has to be done. That would incidentally remove the need for a commissioner in respect of complaints about union elections. I have serious doubts about the work of that commissioner which I think may be a work of supererogation in many respects and certainly as regards elections. If these amendments were accepted, we could save a lot of money.
At the same time it should be possible for a complainant to be able to preserve his anonymity if he so wishes and if it is possible. Otherwise he may be subject to a campaign of vilification, bodily assault and damage to his property which could last for years. Working miners in Scargill areas are still being victimised today.
Of course it is not possible for anonymity always to be maintained if someone is the sole complainant over a particular incident because the union would have no chance of investigating that incident unless the complainant could be identified. Then it would be up to the certification officer to say, "I am sorry. If you want to go on with this case, it is not possible to preserve your anonymity. So you either drop it or reveal who you are".
But apart from that, it is very important to take as much of the burden of hostility and of conducting strange and difficult procedures off the shoulders of simple people who may (and often do) live far from London and who do not understand the ways of lawyers—I am blowed if I understand them myself—or legal proceedings and who are terrified of the whole process.
If the Government would accept these amendments, they would find that there would be more justified complaints. I am not asking for frivolous complaints to be considered because I have a great regard for the certification officer. He throws out a lot of complaints when they come to him, and he tries to get conciliation. But there would be more justified complaints which are now not being brought because people are too frightened to do so. It would make the certification officer responsible, when his declaration has been defied, for going to the court and asking for the court to uphold that declaration. That will cut out the commissioner altogether on such matters, save an enormous amount of expense and take a burden away from the poor ordinary union member who is absolutely petrified. Members of the Committee cannot comprehend what an appalling ordeal it is for ordinary people to go to those fearsome places. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Dundee: With the leave of the Committee, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 115 and 116. I take it that the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, has spoken to both. In regard to the first of those amendments (which seeks to preserve the anonymity of the complainant with the certification officer) I say straightaway that I have a great deal of sympathy with the aim of the amendment. However, I should like for a moment to put the matter into perspective.
A union member should certainly not be put off making complaints about breach of statutory duty by a union and taking them up with the certification officer because he fears the consequences of so doing. Clause 3 of the Bill can be expected to help. It provides that union discipline, imposed because a member has sought the assistance of the certification officer in connection with a complaint against his union, is to be considered as being unjustifiably disciplined. If a member—
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. Does he realise that it is not the union officially which may necessarily victimise the person concerned but rather activists and enthusiastic fanatics who take the matter into their own hands? That is one of the reasons why people are frightened to come forward and be out of line with their union. It is not necessarily the union officials who are concerned.
The Earl of Dundee: I do not dispute that at all. As I said earlier, I have great sympathy with the concern of the noble Lord about preventing intimidation. All I was attempting to do was to give the background which forms the Bill now before the Committee, which gives a slightly different balance than had previously obtained.
Moving on from the subject of redress for unjustifiable discipline, if a member faces some other kind of intimidation because it is known that he has made such a complaint, that may be a matter for the criminal law. However, the main point that I wish to make to the Committee is that the amendment is not compatible with our present enforcement system. Part I of the 1984 Act gives rights to persons who are members of the union concerned and were members at the time of the breach complained of. That preserves the important principle consistently followed in the Government's reform of industrial relations and trade union law since 1979 that enforcement is left to those directly affected by an unlawful act of a trade union. Under the law the union must be entitled to challenge the locus standi of the complainant and it would not be enough for a certification officer to be satisfied that a particular complainant was eligible to bring the complainant concerned.
Perhaps I may move on to the second theme in the remarks of the noble Lord, and to the question of whether the certification officer should have the right to initiate a complaint directly with the union. I say to him that the legislation guarantees the rights of ordinary union members and candidates in union elections. It must be for those members and candidates themselves and not some third party to decide when and how to use those rights. The Government's view has always been that it is far better for enforcement of election and register duties to be in the hands of those directly affected by a union's unlawful actions, such as union members themselves, and not of some external, government sponsored institution. Governments should not risk the benefits of legislation by making its operation depend on action by a government sponsored supervisory agency, or even associating it with action by such an agency. We should not allow union leaders to present their unions as victims of unwarranted state interference in their affairs. The experience of intervention by ACAS in the context of union recognition shows the difficulty of imposing duties on state agencies in respect of inquiries into industrial relations matters.
At this time of night I am reluctant to go very much further into the matter. I should perhaps add that the position of members is not as weak as one might imagine. Complaining to their certification officer is simple, cheap and informal. It is an alternative to, not a substitute for, complaining directly to the High Court. It has been used and used effectively in many cases and experience indicates that there are certain union members who are neither timid nor intimidated when it comes to making applications to the certification officer.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: Perhaps I may try to explain to the Minister what I mean. I am not asking
686
the certification officer to interfere. I am asking him to finish off something that he has begun. He has already made a declaration to the union that in his judgment it has not complied with the law and would it kindly do so. It has defied that declaration. All he has to do is to walk down to the court, give the facts as he sees them and say, "Will you please enforce my declaration?" Instead, for some insane reason, the Government want to introduce a commissioner and high powered and very expensive lawyers, and put the unfortunate complainant—we assume by this time he is not anonymous—through the trouble and hazard of a hopeless reading of papers and God knows what else all over again in a case which has already been settled by the certification officer. What is the point of the second shot? The commissioner is being made into a kind of appeal body for the certification officer.
So far as I have been able to observe his working, the certification officer is a highly sensible and intelligent person who has been using his own case law and understands the position. He does not take up phoney cases; he rejects them. So why should the Government want another state commissioner to overpower and terrify the simple complainant in election cases when it is not necessary?
11.15 p.m.
Lord Rochester: If, among other things, the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, is saying that we should do better without this commissioner at all, I for one am happy to agree with him.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Airedale): Is the noble Lord asking leave to withdraw the amendment?
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: No, not at all. Well, I suppose that I shall have to ask leave to withdrawn it, but I think that it has not been given sufficient consideration. However, it is much too late at night and everybody wants to go home, which I understand completely.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: But this is not the correct way to deal with something that is so important and fundamental to the legislation. It ought to be given serious thought. I hoped that it could have been postponed to another day instead of our trying to deal with it when only about 10 Members of the Committee are present.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Is the noble Lord asking leave to withdraw the amendment?
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: I suppose it might be interpreted as that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 116 not moved.]
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Interlocutory and interim orders.]:
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton had given notice of his intention to move Amendments Nos. 117, 118 and 119:
Page 24, line 4, after ("applies") insert ("on not less than three days' notice save where the court after notification to the defendant gives leave for further notice")
Page 24, line 8, at end insert—
("(2A) In section 17 (1) of the 1974 Act there shall be added at the end the following words 'and an affidavit shall be provided to the court at the hearing if an application that all such steps have been taken and setting out what those steps were'.")
Page 24, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) In section 17(2) of the 1974 Act—

(a) after the words "trade dispute" there shall be added the following words, "or resists an application made under section 1, 6, 9, or 15 above, or section 5 of the 1984 Act", and

(b) for the words "have regard to the likelihood of that party's succeeding" there shall be substituted the words "not grant the injunction unless that party appears to it to be likely to succeed".")

The noble Lord said: The night is young and although we now come to what, in our view, is perhaps the most important clause in the entire Bill because it concerns injuctions—I see the Minister disapproves but perhaps he will first just listen to the consequential part of the long sentence on which I am embarked. Although the clause is about the most important part of the Bill, because the injunction is the engine which puts into motion all the big wheels of the law against trade unions, and although the clause must be debated, perhaps I may put to the Committee our view that the context in which these amendments come (and they are relevant to so many different areas) is or may be changing. Indeed, in our view much that has been said tonight makes it sensible to debate the function of injunctions more properly when the Bill comes to the Report stage.
Therefore, so long as the Ministers and the Government have no objection to our doing that in the light of the changing perspective and context—that is to say, debating these matters fully
688
and properly on Report, when they can be discussed more widely by the House—we should be prepared not to move Amendments Nos. 117, 118 and 119 tonight. Perhaps I may leave the matter there; it is a conditional offer not to move the amendments. It is a somewhat unusual proposition but one which I am sure Ministers will appreciate since the decision lies in their hands.
Lord Trefgarne: I am sure that I am wholly out of order in rising to speak at this moment, but of course the noble Lord is entitled to table what amendments he thinks fit at Report stage, provided that they do not deal with a matter on which the Chamber has already reached a decision. If, therefore, the noble Lord decides not to move his amendments tonight, he will be perfectly at liberty to table them at the Report stage.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Finally, at long last the Minister and I have reached agreement on a small point. I propose that none of these three amendments be moved.
[Amendments Nos. 117 to 119 not moved.]
Clause 22 agreed to.
House resumed.

Liverpool Exchange Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.

Whitchurch Bridge Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes past eleven o'clock.

  MOTORWAYS: SPEEDING OFFENCES
  MOTORWAYS: SPEEDING OFFENCES
  URANIUM IMPORTS
  URANIUM IMPORTS
  OCEAN DRILLING PROGRAMME
  OCEAN DRILLING PROGRAMME
  SEA-BED MINING
  SEA-BED MINING
  "REVIEW OF RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES POLICY"
  "REVIEW OF RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES POLICY"
  NUCLEAR REACTORS AND THE IRISH SEA: CONFERENCE
  NUCLEAR REACTORS AND THE IRISH SEA: CONFERENCE
  GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION: INQUIRY REPORT
  GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION: INQUIRY REPORT