Sitting of 14 March 1988

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

    Transport Staff (Assaults)
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many cases of assaults on staff have been reported during the past year on staff of (a) the London Underground, (b) London Buses and (c) British Rail in London; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): Before I answer this question I should like to convey apologies for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is detained in Brussels on urgent EEC business. He tenders his apologies.
    In 1987 the number of criminal assaults on staff of the London Underground, London Buses and British Rail in London were, respectively, 163, 880 and 130.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend accept my great concern at the size of those figures, particularly those for London Buses? Will he also consider assaults on members of the public on the buses, the Underground and railways across London, particularly on pay nights? Is he aware that many people, particularly the elderly and parents of children, are afraid of travelling on public transport in London, especially late at night? Will every possible apparatus be brought to bear, in the form of more police, more surveillance equipment and everything else, to stamp out violence on London transport, and may we have some exemplary sentencing? Something must be done.
    Mr. Mitchell: I share my hon. Friend's concern about the level of assaults on staff. I know that he has particularly noticed the figure of 880 assaults on bus staff, and I am glad to say that that is 200 down on the previous year and more than 400 down on 1985. I accept that it is still an unacceptable level.
    We are taking vigorous steps. All London buses are fitted with assault klaxons, which blow the horn and show flashing indicators. Two-way radios are now fitted on every bus and video cameras are coming in on a number of routes. The increasing use of one-person-operated buses also reduces assaults on staff.
    Mr. Summerson: Is my hon. Friend aware that assaults on the Victoria line, which serves my constituency, are getting worse and worse? Will he take whatever measures are necessary to protect the travelling public, including the installation of video cameras on trains and platforms and the provision of more policemen on trains?
    Mr. Mitchell: The proposal for more video apparatus for the Victoria line is one of a number of actions that are being taken, including improved radio equipment, video surveillance, increased police recruitment and staff surveillance. I hope that those actions will have a considerable impact.
    Mr. Madden: Are not the violent incidents occurring as a direct consequence of the action being taken to reduce staff, particularly on the London Underground? What action is being taken to ensure that more staff are appointed, especially for nights and weekends? What is being done to ensure that the police who operate underground have radios that work there? I understand that the radios are often wholly ineffective once the police are underground attempting to deal with the violence that is taking place on an increasing scale.
    Mr. Mitchell: The Government have made £15 million available to LRT over a three-year period for a crash programme against crime. The hon. Gentleman is right to identify the problem of underground radios. Normal radios will not work underground. Extensive investment in underground cable-laying is required to enable them to work.
    Staff visibility is also being considered. The hon. Gentleman asked about recruitment. Recruitment to the British Transport police is now under way. Staffing levels have gone up from 280 to 314 in L division and are planned to go to 350 by October.

    Northern Line
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on London Regional Transport proposals for investment in the Northern line.
    Mr. Mitchell: Current plans include an additional eight trains, a new depot next year, and investment of £45 million over the next three years on continuing station improvements, signalling and better communications. Major plans for altering the configuration and modernising the line are also being considered by London Underground.
    Mr. Marshall: My hon. Friend mentioned an additional eight trains. Does he agree that that total will be regarded by commuters on the Northern line as woefully inadequate? Does he accept that there has been a dramatic deterioration in the quality of service being given to my constituents and to many other residents of London? An improvement to the Northern line should be the top priority of London Regional Transport.
    Mr. Mitchell: London Regional Transport clearly understands that the situation on the Northern line is not as good as it would want, nor is it as good as the London Regional Passengers' Committee or the Government would want. Average waiting time on the Northern line is now 4·1 minutes, which is perhaps not as bad as some people might imagine. An investment of £20 million is under way at the Angel to replace lifts with escalators, and a further £20 million scheme to eliminate island platforms is being considered. The eight additional trains that will become available next year are a significant improvement. One is doing the best that one can within the time available, bearing in mind the very sharp increase in the number of passengers.
    Mr. Spearing: Is not the £45 million a classic example of throwing money at the wrong problem? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is not investment to titivate stations that is required, but more guards and drivers? Does he not realise that London Regional Transport has sold off, on his instructions or those of his right hon. Friend, large numbers of houses in areas where guards and drivers are in short supply, so that they are not encouraged to be in on early and late turns? Would it not be better to spend some of the millions that he mentioned on buying back those houses and reversing the Government's policy, so that at least some encouragement is given to the recruitment of much needed guards and drivers?
    Mr. Mitchell: As always, the hon. Gentleman has got the position only half right. The driver shortage on the Northern line is currently 23. Far from there being a shortage of guards, as the hon. Gentleman said, there is a surplus of 22. Considerable training is being undertaken. Six guards are currently under training as drivers and another 10 are starting on 14 March. A further 35 guard-train drivers for other lines are currently under conversion training for Northern line duties. That is 51 against a present shortage of 23. The hon. Gentleman will understand that we are dealing with the problem.
    Mr. Chapman: As the chairman of LRT agrees that presently the Northern line is "an abomination", will my hon. Friend accept that two measures are urgent priorities? One is to pay a premium to get extra staff to man the Northern line, because staff leave that line. Apparently one of the reasons is that it is the longest tunnel in the world. Secondly, the increased capital investment, which I welcome, should be examined to see whether the Northern line is getting its fair share. There ought to be additional capital investment to cover the need to train the new staff that are necessary on this line, as well as to cover the other technological progress.
    Mr. Mitchell: I have already given the House the figures for the substantial amount of training that is taking place, specifically of drivers for the Northern line. The average weekly wastage of train staff grades in 1987 was only eight. Compared with the figures that I have given, that offers some grounds for reassurance. Investment is very much the key to raising standards, and investment in LRT will be running at £ I million a day next year. That £365 million is 60 per cent. higher than during the last year that the GLC was in charge.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: In his usual complacent way, the Minister insists that there is an adequate number of drivers. Will he confirm to the House that things are kept ticking along on the Northern line simply because 55 guard motormen are covering for drivers? Will he confirm also that, for that reason, my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Speaking) made a valid point when he said that we should consider something practical about the housing of staff used on the Northern line?
    Will the Minister confirm that it will be some 10 years after the completion of the investment programme on the Central line before we can expect to see any real investment in the Northern line to get rid of these problems once and for all? Can he tell the House that he will look seriously at bringing the investment forward? Does he recognise that the failure to provide proper
    842
    investment for the Northern line — not the rest of the system — is part of the reason why these problems will run on into the future?
    Mr. Mitchell: It is not for me to bring forward investment proposals for the Northern line or any other line. It is for the management to bring forward what it believes to be the right priorities. I shall draw the management's attention to the hon. Gentleman's anxieties, but it is not for Ministers to propose investment. That is for those who operate the system.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We are making rather slow progress today. May I ask for briefer questions, and perhaps we will have briefer answers too?

    Car Telephones
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received regarding the road safety implications of the use of car telephones.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): None. In simple terms, if one can afford a car telephone, one can afford a hands-free microphone. It is not safe to hold a telephone when driving.
    Mr. Amess: Is my hon. Friend aware that concerns have been expressed following the practice of drivers using telephones while proceeding along motorways or turning corners? Does he agree that such practices are dangerous? Is he satisfied that the present law would meet those points, because I am not?
    Mr. Bottomley: The answer is yes. However, I welcome the opportunity of repeating the advice in the Highway Code which is: do not use a hand-held telephone when driving.
    Mr. Tony Banks: May I tell the Minister that anyone in a car who is holding a telephone and talking into it looks a right wally anyway? Before becoming too involved in the subject, will the Minister tell us what evidence he has, if any, of accidents that have occurred as a result of people driving and using a telephone at the same time? Is there any empirical evidence?
    Mr. Bottomley: There is anecdotal evidence. A BBC radio taxi was taking me to a high hill in Guildford and, with a hand on the microphone, the driver went through a red light.
    Mr. Hanley: If my hon. Friend's criterion for the use of a hands-free set is the fact that it is not safe to use a telephone in the hand in the car, will he take steps to ban smoking in cars?
    Mr. Bottomley: Wiser politicians than I have said that one needs to work by common agreement whenever possible. There is common agreement on the dangers of holding a telephone when driving a car.

    Safety Standards
    Mr. Boyes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what new proposals he has to increase safety standards in transport during the next year; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: We keep transport safety standards under regular review and shall continue to develop proposals whenever the need arises.
    Mr. Boyes: Will the Minister acknowledge that the interdepartmental committee on road safety has attempted to produce a comprehensive and objective report of road safety matters? Nevertheless, it fails to acknowledge a proven range of counter measures against drink driving, and that omission has marred the credibility of the full report. Is the fact that drink driving measures, particularly random breath testing, have been ignored, another example of the Government behaving in an ostrich-like way with their head in the sand over this vital matter?
    Mr. Bottomley: No. I welcome the sustained interest of the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) and the House in drink driving. There may be an opportunity for some hon. Members to listen to an Adjournment debate this evening on the subject. In simple terms, I am surprised that anyone should accuse the Department or the Government of being soft in the action against drinking and driving.
    Mr. Higgins: Given the appalling number of accidents to motor cyclists and the fact that every other form of commercial operation requires the driver of a vehicle to be fully qualified, would my hon. Friend be sympathetic to a private Member's Bill which prohibited motor cycle couriers from employing learner drivers who have passed no test at all?
    Mr. Bottomley: I am not sure that I have the authority to prejudge that suggestion. I make the point made by the Highway Code, that the dangers to motor cyclists often come from other road users. I would welcome further attention both to our training and testing proposals for motor cyclists and to those for leg protection, which I am sure will come. I also hope that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pays little attention to the petition with 250,000 signatures asking for me to be removed. I fear that I may be condemned to stay in transport for four years.
    Mrs. Ray Mitchie: Given the problems in increasing the scope of driving tests—for example, it is difficult for all drivers to have experience of motorways, as many would have to travel hundreds of miles to find a motorway—will the Minister consider introducing a probationary year after the driver has taken the test?
    Mr. Bottomley: Perhaps it would be better if I wrote to the hon. Lady and put a copy of the reply in the Library. It would take too long to give the answer now.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend accept that most of us agree that there is no need for random breath tests, because the police have enough powers already? Does he also agree, however, that many of us who are with him on that issue are rather disturbed at the idea of carrying out tests on drivers who will then escape prosecution? We all know already that drinking and driving is dangerous. Why should there be any need to go in for more tests, when we all know the results before we start?
    Mr. Bottomley: What we do not know is how far we are succeeding in cutting out drinking and driving. In the 350,000 tests administered by the police, every one of 120,000 who fail—one in three—will be considered for prosecution. We are proposing to add 2,500 tests carried
    844
    out by researchers, not by the police, which will give us a baseline to see how effective the advice "Don't drink and drive" will be.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: On this first transport Question Time since the anniversary of the Zeebrugge ferry disaster, will the Minister and his hon. Friends turn their attention to ferry safety and to dangerous working practices?
    Is the Minister aware that attempts are being made to bring in 24-hour shift working, with only two breaks of two to three hours, and four return trips a day? Does he accept that that is dangerous? Will he use his powers, or will the Secretary of State use his, to prevent such dangerous practices from being imposed? Given its background, P and O ought to have more shame than to try to impose them.
    Mr. Bottomley: It is normally accepted that the House should not become involved in negotiations. It is plain that any working practices must meet the statutory requirements.

    British Transport Police
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the work of the British Transport police in protecting persons and property on the London Underground.
    Mr. David Mitchell: The British Transport police are co-operating with London Underground Limited in the implementation of the recommendations of my Department's report of November 1986 on "Crime on the London Underground".
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: While new measures will be welcomed by my constituents, whether passengers or staff, is it not the case that threatening and drunken behaviour, mugging and other violence—not to mention illegal graffiti and litter—are rife, and would it not be a good idea if the British Transport police, like other constabulary forces, had a special constabulary to supplement their regular personnel?
    Mr. Mitchell: There has been a 25 per cent. reduction in muggings where new methods of policing have been employed on the southern end of the Victoria line. I shall be meeting the chief constable of BTP and the chairman of London Underground Limited before the end of the month to review progress. Projects at Oxford Circus and eastern stations on the Central line to test improved equipment and practices will be inaugurated later this month. I shall discuss with the chief constable when I meet him the point that my hon. Friend raised about specials.
    Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Is my hon. Friend aware of the growing anxiety among most people who travel on the London Underground at the long, deserted stretches of platform and stairways with no police in sight? Is it not about time that the Metropolitan police took over the responsibilities of the British Transport police? Most of us think that they are pretty ineffective.
    Mr. Mitchell: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that there is a degree of specialisation in transport police work, and I do not think that it would be right to make the change that he suggests.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Does the Minister recall the recent reply that he gave me:

    845
    "The complement of the Underground division of the British Transport police has increased to 350 officers; the number so far in post is 314."? — [Official Report, 25 February 1988; Vol. 128, c. 309.]
    Will he say what steps are being taken to bring the number in post up to the full complement? Will he accept that moving to one-person-operated trains on the Underground system will only encourage further violence and vandalism? Why will the Minister not accept the concern that is being expressed in London that travelling on the Underground system must have proper protection, which requires more police and more staff? That is the answer.
    Mr. Mitchell: As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, recruitment is up from 280 and 314. It is planned to increase that figure to 350 by October this year, and we expect that that target will be reached. The other items that the hon. Gentleman mentioned are matters in which, frequently, new methods will be more effective.
    Mr. McCrindle: Given the difficulty that has sometimes arisen in recruiting transport policemen for British Rail because of the financial limitations placed on it, will my hon. Friend confirm that no such considerations will stand in the way of reaching the target of 350 officers, to which he has referred?
    Mr. Mitchell: Yes, Sir.

    Edinburgh Over-flying
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority on the safety regulations for flights over Edinburgh.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: The regulation of air safety is the responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority. The chairman keeps us informed on important issues.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is there now to be more than one nightshift duty air traffic controller?
    Mr. Bottomley: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has put that question to the authority, but I shall certainly ensure that he gets an answer.
    Mr. Darling: Has the Minister discussed the movement of military aircraft over Turnhouse airport, in particular a practice that has been adopted of military aircraft flying very fast and very low over the main runway at Turnhouse when civilian aircraft are either on the runway or in the vicinity? Will he take that matter up with the chairman and and seek an assurance that civilian aircraft will not be put at risk?
    Mr. Bottomley: It is clear that civilian aircraft should not be put at risk. I suspect that they are not put at risk, but I shall do as the hon. Gentleman asks.

    Channel Tunnel (Railway Development)
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set up an inquiry into the potential benefits of electrifying railway lines to south Wales and the west of England in the light of the Channel tunnel development.
    Mr. David Mitchell: No. It is the responsibility of the British Railways Board to bring forward proposals for investment in the railways.
    Mr. Flynn: Will the Minister confirm that under present plans there will be no possibility for the people of Wales or the west of England to have a direct rail link through to the continent of Europe after the Channel tunnel is constructed? Will he reconsider the possibility of such a link for the benefit of business, commercial affairs and tourism in south Wales? Is he content for the Channel tunnel to be a further deepening of the east-west divide between the claustrophic, overheated and overcrowded south-east of England and the vast acres of opportunity in Wales and the west of England, which increasingly will be on the periphery of the Common Market?
    Mr. Mitchell: In parenthesis, I should say that I believe that TSB has moved from my constituency to the hon. Gentleman's, but I do not think that that is an exact illustration of the point that he is seeking to make.
    Freight and overnight passenger services can be provided on non-electrified lines by changing the locomotive to go through the Channel tunnel. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is wrong to assume that that cannot be done.
    Mr. Adley: Will my hon. Friend accept that the reality is that the British Government's attitude to electrification and investment in Channel tunnel-related expenditure is "How little can we get away with?", while the French Government's attitude for SNCF is "What do we need to make the most of this splendid facility?" Will my hon. Friend please do everything that he can to persuade his ministerial colleagues to change their attitudes? Is he aware that if he does not do so we shall find ourselves with a Cinderella railway on this side of the Channel and a modern railway on the other side?
    Mr. Mitchell: The French and ourselves regard investment in Channel tunnel-related lines as a commercial matter. The French's line for the Channel tunnel will ride on the back of the expenditure on the Paris-Brussels-Cologne-Amsterdam line, as my hon. Friend will well know. We are investing roughly comparable amounts, when that is taken into account.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my hon. Friend look at the electrification which has already been authorised by the Government for the line to Weymouth to ensure that British Rail uses that wonderful asset to the best advantage? It appears from BR's plans that it is looking backwards rather than forwards.
    Mr. Mitchell: I was pleased to approve the electrification of the line to Weymouth. If my hon. Friend is not happy with the way in which British Rail proposes to manage that service, perhaps he will write to me.
    Mr. Snape: Will the Minister concede that there must be a case for an inquiry into the electrification of British Rail nationally as a result of the Channel tunnel opening, the matter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) referred? Does the Minister agree that if such an inquiry does not take place and, to adopt the phrase used by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), Britain remains the Cinderella of Europe because of its railways, the south of England in particular will drown under a tidal wave of largely foreign-built lorries and coaches?
    Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. As he well knows, British Rail expects more than 1,500 juggernaut-sized lorries a day to be taken off the roads and

    847
    put on rail as a result of the Channel tunnel. Modern diesels have a similar performance to electrics. In any case, 20 electrification schemes have been approved since 1979, including the biggest that there has ever been on the east coast main line. If the hon. Gentleman wants to have it with both barrels, I should tell him that the average annual spend on electrification under this Government is £72 million, compared with only £41 million under the Labour Government.

    Smoke Hoods
    Mr. McCrindle: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to introduce a mandatory requirement for British airlines to carry passenger protection smoke hoods.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Policy on air safety is for the Civil Aviation Authority. The CAA decided in December against making smoke hoods mandatory at present. It is continuing to work on improved standards of cabin fire safety.
    Mr. McCrindle: Two and half years after the incident at Manchester airport, when there was considerable loss of life through smoke suffocation, is it not about time that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport leant somewhat on the Civil Aviation Authority? The CAA's attitude appears to be that until there is a perfect smoke hood it should continue to drag its feet. Surely that is not sensible in the interests of safety.
    Mr. Bottomley: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. I understand also that the CAA hopes to finalise the specification soon. The CAA has made it clear that the final decision will be based on safety, not on cost.
    Mr. Colvin: Does my hon. Friend agree that until there is international acceptance of a specification for smoke hoods it would he wrong to insist on mandatory carrying of them by airlines and that the working draft paper, recently issued by the CAA, is a welcome step forward? Will my hon. Friend confirm that comments on that paper are required by 31 March? Finally, does my hon. Friend agree that this will assist British industry to capitalise on its technical lead?
    Mr. Bottomley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right about the deadline for comments. It is important to build on the joint research with the other major aviation nations. The point is to get practicable safety measures for passengers.

    One-Person Operated Buses (London)
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received since the introduction of one-person operated buses in Greater London concerning longer journey times.
    Mr. David Mitchell: I have received a number of representations on various aspects of one-person operated buses in London. It is our normal practice to refer questions involving operational matters to London Regional Transport for reply.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister recall that when we had the debate on the London Regional Transport levy, one matter that I raised was the fact that since 1982 there has never been as long an average waiting time in London for
    848
    buses—whether run by London Regional Transport or by private contractors — as this year? Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to revise the operation of one-person operated buses to ensure that we have less time to wait, which clearly cannot happen when there is only one member of staff on the bus and the queue takes longer to get from the pavement to the inside of the bus?
    Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman will recall that we had quite a lot of discussion earlier this afternoon on safety. He will realise that OPO buses are much safer than open-plan crewed buses and that there are far fewer assaults on staff.
    I recall the matters raised by the hon. Gentleman during that debate. The average OPO boarding time per passenger has been reduced from 4 seconds in 1984 to 3·7 seconds now, compared with 2 seconds for crewed open-platform buses. London Buses Ltd. aims to reduce that time to 3 seconds during the next couple of years.
    Mr. Summerson: Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the problem is due to people parking where they should not? Will he take steps to ensure that selfish people do not park their cars and vans in the area of bus stops?
    Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. One of the problems with London buses' time-keeping is the parking of vehicles wrongly in particular route areas. I have discussed this with the Metropolitan police and priority is being given to action on those routes.

    London Buses Ltd.
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future of London Buses Ltd.
    Mr. David Mitchell: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport said in the London Regional Transport levy order debate on 25 January, we have asked LRT to bring forward early proposals for restructuring London Buses Ltd. into smaller units which will be able to operate commercially under conditions of competition.
    Mr. Banks: I understand that London Regional Transport is now considering a proposal to break up the bus fleet into 15 separate companies. Will the Minister tell the House what good that will do for the efficiency of bus services in London generally? He must know how many people are complaining about the system at present. The LRT 1988–89 business plan shows that there will not be any improvement in waiting time next year, that about 70 million bus miles will be lost and that there will be no new investment in buses. Will he tell us how his proposals will assist the travelling public in London?
    Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman refers to the level of complaints now. He should therefore warmly welcome the proposals brought forward by London Buses Ltd. for restructuring the system.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will my hon. Friend accept that people in my constituency, where there is a local bus organisation called Harrow Buses, want more of the decisions made by local people on the spot and that, therefore, the splitting into different companies is warmly welcomed?
    Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the features of smaller-based operations is that they are

    849
    able to be more flexible in responding to consumer demand. This has been well demonstrated in the deregulated system outside London, where the National Bus Company has been broken up in that way, and it has proved to be very successful.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Will the Minister confirm that if there is to be any improvement — which is doubtful — as a result of the break-up of London Buses, it will come only as a result of higher bus fares? Will he also tell the House whether he intends to push ahead with the deregulation of the London bus system within the lifetime of this Parliament?
    Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to assume that there is a direct correlation in those matters with bus fares, which should be operated at the optimum level to secure both continuing custom and a viable business, where it is practicable to do so. I hope that I have successfully answered the hon. Gentleman's question.

    New Roads (North-West)
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the programme for new road projects in the north-west.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: The trunk road programme includes some £700 million of planned schemes in the north-west. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced on 11 March the decision to go ahead with the region's highest priority scheme—the £160 million final section of the Manchester outer ring road from Denton to Middleton.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government are making a very good job of providing road links for the north of the country as a whole, as Bolton council is for the north of my constituency?
    Mr. Bottomley: There is a local point there on which I should not detain the House with an explanation. However, it is true that the previous Government, although full of good intentions, managed to cut the roads programme dramatically. We are delighted to be able to make sensible spending decisions, which will help to bring economic prosperity especially to the north-west, to bring environmental relief to many people living on main roads and to reduce the number of road casualties.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that the whole of north-east Lancashire believes that, for the regeneration of that area, the linking of the M65 to the M6-M61 should be done as soon as possible? Does he further accept that they disagree with his Department's view that it is not necessary for that link to be of motorway standard? There is a strong need for that link to be of motorway standard.
    Mr. Bottomley: I am sure that the House will have appreciated the hon. Gentleman's view.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend give high priority to the M6 link, which would give an enormous boost to industry in Lancaster and Morecambe? I am aware of the dilatoriness of the Labour-controlled county council, which has never given that road a high enough priority. Does my hon. Friend accept that my constituents are not prepared to suffer for the council's sins?
    Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend has made her point very strongly. Speaking generally, the partnership between
    850
    the Department of Transport and the 107 highway authorities is generally pretty good and shows that normally local and national Government can work together.

    Passenger Transport Authorities
    Ms. Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the Government's proposed changes in the financing of passenger transport authorities and their likely effects on (a) Tyne and Wear and (b) the United Kingdom as a whole.
    Mr. David Mitchell: We propose that PTAs should bill their districts instead of precepting separately. The effect will make Tyne and Wear and other PTAs more accountable to their electorates. A paper was circulated for comments on 22 January, and I met the Association of Metropolitan Authorities on 2 March.
    Ms. Quin: Are the Government aware of the concern about the proposals in Tyne and Wear? Do the Government agree that, following the abolition of the metropolitan county council and the introduction of deregulation, the latest proposals are the final death blow to the concept of integrated passenger transport in Tyne and Wear?
    Mr. Mitchell: Nothing in the proposals should pose any threat to the degree of integration of transport in Tyne and Wear. They will make the provision of transport services by the PTA far more accountable than they are under the existing system. If the hon. Lady and the PTA are afraid of accountability, perhaps I understand what lies behind her question.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Family Courts
    Mr. Sims: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a further statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the establishment of family courts, in the light of the statement by the Lord Chancellor in the February issue of "Family Law".
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): The Lord Chancellor endorsed the strength of the arguments for both a unified legal framework for child and family law and for a unified court structure. The latter is dependent on the former, upon which officials from a number of Departments are actively engaged.
    Mr. Sims: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that reply, but, alas, it does not really get us much further. Is he aware that many individuals and organisations went to a great deal of trouble to respond to the Government's consultative document on family courts? Also, our noble and learned Friend Lord Havers seemed to demonstrate some sympathy for the idea of family courts. Indeed, from time to time, my hon. and learned Friend and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General have said that work is proceeding on proposals for family courts. The tone of the present Lord Chancellor's statement suggests that he is now looking for all sorts of reasons not to proceed with the family court. Will my hon. and learned Friend take the opportunity to clear up the situation and make a statement, so that we

    851
    know exactly where we stand? If he could do that in a debate that he could persuade our right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to hold on the subject, so much the better.
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend should take heart. We must seek to deal in a rational, comprehensive and integral way with child law, both public and private, including harmonisation of the available remedies and reform of court procedures. That objective is necessary in itself and will provide an essential foundation for any reform of court structures. We must get the law right first and then look at court structures.
    Mr. Anderson: Does the Solicitor-General accept that the long delays over the past 16 years since the Finer recommendation are a sad commentary on the prospects for achieving legal reform of any sort in this country? Will he now get some steam behind his proposal, as hardly any serious legal body is opposed to it?
    The Solicitor-General: It is not steam that is needed, but a bit of clear thinking. Child care law and family law are in a great muddle, as the hon. Gentleman knows. We intend to get child care and family law right. We shall then have set the legal framework against which to provide the court framework, if that seems appropriate.
    Mr. Lawrence: May we take it that the article that was written by the Lord Chancellor does not demonstrate that the Government's real thinking is that too much else on the statute hook needs to be done before there is a reform of family law? As it is agreed by hon. Members of all parties that speedy action should be taken along the lines that my hon. and learned Friend has stated, does he agree that we should not have to keep coming back year after year asking the same questions on this important subject?
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. and learned Friend has seen and made the point. Child care law is receiving high priority.
    Mr. Fraser: In a somewhat unusual — although welcome—article in "Family Law", the Lord Chancellor appears to be saying that he believes that the present system is unduly complicated and that he would welcome reform, but is he also saying that he rejects reform because it is too complicated, or that the reform is rejected by other colleagues in the Cabinet because of other business? What is the answer?
    The Solicitor-General: The Lord Chancellor is not saying either of those things. He is saying that reform in the form of clarification and harmonisation of the many different strands of child law is badly needed and that we should get on with it, and that is what he proposes to do.
    Mr. Hind: Will my hon. and learned Friend bear in mind the widespread support for family courts among hon. Members of all parties, and, bearing in mind that there is good will for reforming child law, will he exert pressure on the business managers of the House to bring in what many others feel is a long-overdue reform that will receive widespread support?
    The Solicitor-General: Again, my hon. Friend should take heart. We intend to get child care law right. As he knows, it is a large and complex subject that needs to be tackled. Once that has been dealt with, we can move on to the concomitant of the actual court structure, if that
    852
    seems appropriate. The concept of a family court embodies getting right both the law and the court structure.

    Prosecution Policy
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Attorney-General when he next expects to meet the Director of Public Prosecutions to discuss matters relating to prosecution policy.
    The Solicitor-General: In the near future.
    Mr. Janner: When the hon. and learned Gentleman sees the Director of Public Prosecutions, will he please discuss once again the question of the Director's failure to prosecute the perpetrators of "Holocaust News". In that context, does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is monstrous that the law is too weak to allow people who are stirring Fascist and racist ill will in this decent country to be brought to book?
    The Solicitor-General: I advise the hon. and learned Gentleman that this matter has been considered with great care, not only by the Director's office, but by the Directcr himself, with the benefit of advice of senior Treasury counsel, and by both Law Officers. Having regard to all the material factors, including the nature and effect of the defences likely to be open to and relied on by the defendants, the likelihood or otherwise of a conviction, and the circumstances as a whole, it is not thought appropriate to prosecute.
    Mr. William Powell: When my hon. and learned Friend meets the Director of Public prosecutions, will he draw to his attention a "Today" radio programme of a few weeks ago in which it was asserted that a number of abortions are being carried out in this country because the parents do not wish to give birth to a baby girl? The programme said that baby girl foetuses are being aborted. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that that is a most serious allegation, involving crime? Will he ensure that the DPP carries out a thorough investigation and that those who are alleged to be involved are brought before the courts?
    The Solicitor-General: I quite understand what my hon. Friend says. It is most important to emphasise that any evidence that is available should go straight to the police.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: When the hon. and learned Gentleman next meets the DPP, will he express his concern at the increasing acquittal rate in the Crown courts, which shows one of two things: either too many innocent people are being prosecuted, or cases are being underprepared by the prosecution, or possibly both? Does he recognise that there remains the problem that the starting salaries for new recruits to the Crown Prosecution Service simply do not compare with salaries in the private sector?
    The Solicitor-General: I cannot accept that there are any reliable trends that are capable of yet being established. As to the second part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question, that matter is under close consideration.

    "Spycatcher"
    Mr. Adley: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the latest development in the various cases relating to the book "Spycatcher".
    The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 10 March to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson).
    Mr. Adley: I recognise from that reply that neither the circumstances nor the principle have changed. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Wright's behaviour has been to exchange his oath of loyalty for a substantial royalty? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that most of my constituents believe that Wright's behaviour is clear and despicable? In spite of the difficulties, will my right hon. and learned Friend continue to pursue the matter vigorously?
    The Attorney-General: I am certain that my hon. Friend speaks with complete reliability about the responses from his constituents. I will not comment personally upon Mr. Wright, but I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that all judges in this country who have pronounced on the case have described Mr. Wright as being in flagrant breach of the duty of confidentiality that he owes to the Crown.
    Mr. Winnick: Does the Attorney-General consider it appropriate that, as the senior Law Officer, he should have sent out a propaganda letter to all Conservative Members explaining the position on the "Spycatcher" case? Is that not incompatible with his position as Attorney-General?
    As regards the amount of money that has so far been spent on the case, is it not a fact that, at the end of the day, the cost will be, not the sum that he told me previously, but millions of pounds that will have been wasted on this totally futile case?
    The Attorney-General: The "Spycatcher" proceedings are civil proceedings instituted by the Government as a result of a collective decision in pursuance of their policy to uphold the duty of confidentiality owed to the Crown by former members of the security services. In those circumstances, it is entirely proper for the Government to communicate on the subject with their parliamentary supporters— [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]—as it is on any other subject. I communicate with this House every three weeks, and more often on demand.
    Mr. Richard Shepherd: Is not the difficulty for the Government the fact that they have chosen to emphasise the lifelong duty of confidentiality to the grave as being more important than the right of the public to know and the press to report on crime, fraud or the possibly mooted causes of treason as reported in Mr. Wright's book? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one cannot enjoin any public servant to a lifelong duty of confidentiality to the grave without the caveat that that cannot cover fraud, crime or possible treason? Is it not in the interests of the House to know about those circumstances?
    The Attorney-General: The first thing to establish in these difficult matters is the law of the country. My hon. Friend is aware that considerable importance is attached to the fact that former and serving members of the security services owe a duty to the Crown. The question whether that duty is owed in all circumstances, including the circumstances to which my hon. Friend has referred, is before the courts at the moment. We shall have to see what the House of Lords says when it hears that appeal on 7 June. Then will be the time to consider what, if any, changes should be made to the law by other means. The first thing, however, is to protect that duty because, if we
    854
    do not, and if we are not prepared to pay the cost that is required in money, it will not be very long before that cost is payable in lives as well as money.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Debt Refinancing
    Miss Lestor: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government have considered proposals to use additional aid funds to refinance outstanding debts owed to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development by low-income developing countries; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Chris Patten): What counts is that the bank should be making more money available for those countries than they are due to repay to it. We believe that we can more effectively support low-income countries following adjustment programmes by using our aid to finance the imports they desperately need now.
    Miss Lestor: I thank the Minister for that reply. Would he care to comment on the recent proposal of Nordic countries to create a facility to ease the debts owed to the IBRD by many low-income African countries? Will the Government support that proposal at the meeting of the bank in Washington in the spring?
    Mr. Patten: It is one of several interesting proposals that have been made about indebtedness. Of course, there is nothing to stop individual donors from taking that action without setting up a special fund to do so. What is important is that any new initiative should represent additionality in flows of aid to African countries. We have taken a number of steps ourselves—the contribution to the enhanced structural adjustment facility, the major contribution to the World Bank's special programme and the Chancellor's own debt initiative.
    Mr. Wells: Would it not be better if these long-dated loans from the IBRD to the poorest countries—because they must have pre-dated the International Development Association—were to be re-financed by the World Bank through the IDA itself and, by so doing, have the right kind of conditionality attached to their renewal, so that we do not have a repetition of the poor economic policies in some of the countries concerned?
    Mr. Patten: What I am anxious to do, as I tried to explain just now, is to ensure that any new initiatives are accompanied by additional funds for countries in Africa. We must also make sure that we protect the credit rating of the World Bank, which is extremely important to the developing countries, as well as to the rest of us.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Minister tell the House why the Government are not following the policy clearly set out in the Vancouver communiqué of October last year, to which the Prime Minister was a signatory, which advised that we should write off official development assistance debts to all low-income countries and also give renewed priority to reaching the United Nations assistance target?
    Mr. Patten: I am afraid that the hon. and learned Gentleman is a little confused. This country had written off, rather before that statement was made, aid loans to the tune of £280 million for 14 African countries. What the

    855
    hon. and learned Gentleman could have gone on to do was to read out the endorsement of the Chancellor's debt initiative by not only the Commonwealth Heads of Government but the Commonwealth Finance Ministers.

    Ghana
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further support he proposes to give to Ghana's economic recovery plans.
    Mr. Chris Patten: I announced on 26 February a further £20 million of grant-aid to Ghana, which is linked to the continued maintenance of Ghana's economic recovery programme agreed with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. We have pledged a total of £69 million in support of the programme since it began in 1983.
    Mr. Hughes: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he reassure the House that the full effects of that programme will not fall on the poorest groups in Ghana?
    Mr. Patten: Yes, we regard that as particularly important. We commend the efforts being made by the Government of Ghana to try to design a programme which takes account of its impact on the poor. I very much hope that the health sector review which we are currently undertaking in Ghana will come up with proposals for work in primary health care, particularly regarding the health of mothers and children, and in family planning, both of which can make a considerable impact on the poor and poor groups.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has the Minister noted that a number of British clearing banks have this year written off a substantial amount of Third-world debt? I presume that customers in Ghana have had their debts written off as well. Does he accept that in many ways this is a form of overseas aid? If so, would it not be better if the money were directed through decisions taken by the Government rather than by the private banking system?
    Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman must distinguish between the commercial debt owed by a number of countries and the debt owed to Governments and international financial institutions. In Africa overwhelmingly — the hon. Gentleman referred to it — one is talking about debt owed to Governments and financial institutions. There is, therefore, a particular onus on Governments to do something about that debt, as the Chancellor has made clear. What commercial banks do is a matter for their own judgment.

    Bilateral Aid
    Mr. Spearing: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what changes in procedure he has adopted concerning the effect of bilateral aid provisions on the poorest income groups in recipient countries since his reply to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs report on bilateral aid of October 1987 (Cm. 225)
    Mr. Chris Patten: I continue to keep under review those procedures designed to examine the impact of projects on the poorer groups. Our bilateral aid procedures already
    856
    include an assessment of poverty orientation, and explicit consideration is given to the impact of adjustment programmes on vulnerable groups.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister recall that the Select Committee made a specific recommendation in paragraph 54 that greater priority should be given to aid which would directly attack poverty and include sustainable measures for that to be continued into the future? By saying that he keeps matters under review, is he not saying that he does not agree with the recommendation? If he does not agree with it, will he tell us why? If he does, what has he done about it?
    Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman is overlooking a number of projects that we already have that have a direct impact on poorer groups. I refer him to the Hyderabad slum improvement project, the Vishakhapatnam slum improvement project, the resettlement programme in Zimbabwe, and a score of others. However, I accept that we need to make sure that the impact on poverty is part of the routine evaluation, and we are ensuring that that the case. I would be happy to share more of the information about that with the Select Committee and with all those who are interested. This year we intend to commission specific evaluation studies on the subject of poverty impact.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Minister accept that it is very difficult to target aid at poverty in Third-world countries when we still have not resolved the problem of international debt? Bearing in mind what he said about the World Bank, does he accept that many African countries see the World Bank and its demands as part of their problems rather than as a solution to them? Would it not be better for the bank to come up with a strategy of debt relief instead of dealing with default in the interests of its own credit rating?
    Mr. Patten: Nothing would make us happier than to convince by tomorrow morning a number of other countries of the importance of implementing the sort of measures that we have been talking about since the spring of last year, such as writing off aid loans, rescheduling commercially guaranteed debts and lowering interest rates on those debts by countries which are pursuing sensible economic reform programmes. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the sooner there is progress on that, the better.

    Refugees
    Mr. Holt: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further relief aid for refugees is planned for the current financial year; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Chris Patten: I have just agreed to provide £5 million, to be divided equally between the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Committee of the Red Cross, for their refugee programmes in Ethiopia, Sudan and Malawi.
    That is in addition to the £1·25 million package of assistance I announced last month for these agencies' important programmes in Africa and Asia.
    Mr. Holt: Those additional funds in the current financial year will be very much welcomed. Will my hon.

    857
    Friend assure the House that the money is being properly spent and is in no way being misused by some of the people to whom it is sent?
    Mr. Patten: I can give my hon. Friend that important assurance. A sum of £2·5 million will be used by the International Committee of the Red Cross for work in Ethiopia. Another £300,000 will be used by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees in Ethiopia, and £700,000 in Sudan, and £1·5 million will go to help Mozambican refugees in Malawi.

  AIDS
  Mr. Hayward: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for supporting the World Health Organisation's programmes for AIDS prevention in African countries.
  Mr. Chris Patten: Subject to parliamentary approval, we shall contribute £4·5 million this year to the central
  858
  budget of the World Health Organisation's global programme on AIDS, which is currently working with 44 countries in Africa. In addition, we have so far agreed to provide £3·6 million over five years, through the World Health Organisation, for national AIDS control programmes in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda.
  Mr. Hayward: Has my hon. Friend any intention of giving further assistance to Africa, particularly to developing countries in Africa, during the next financial year or in future?
  Mr. Patten: Yes, we certainly intend to make further contributions to national programmes in African countries. For example, I hope that we will shortly be able to announce a reasonably substantial contribution towards the programme in Zambia. As my hon. Friend may know, at the moment we are the third largest contributor to the WHO global programme on AIDS. I hope that we shall continue to make a major contribution to that important programme.

Mr. Charles Powell
3.33 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is rare at any time for Hansard to put in a corrigendum, because it makes very few mistakes. It is even more rare for it to tuck in to column 840 on 11 March a corrigendum about which the Member concerned was unasked and unconsulted. It says:

CORRIGENDUM
Official Report, 8 March, Written Answers, c. 122: At line 10 from end of column, insert the following:

Mr. Charles Powell
Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister when Mr. Charles Powell was appointed to her Private Office; and for how long he is expected to serve in that office.
The Prime Minister: Mr. Powell was appointed to my office in June 1984, and will serve until the time comes for him to leave."—[Official Report, 11 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 840.]
[Laughter.] We are talking about a man who is so powerful that he is known in the Foreign Office, from whence he came, as the deputy Prime Minister.
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman will address his point of order to me, I think I can deal with it.
Mr. Dalyell: Anything to do with the Prime Minister's Private Office is of increasing curiosity to many of us. The last thing she wants is this question on the Order Paper, which leads to the direct question of how Mr. Powell stays in office, basking in the Prime Minister's—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot answer matters of that sort. It may be helpful to the hon. Gentleman for me to say that this was a mistake by Hansard which, I agree, is a rare occurrence. If he tables a further question, he will not be penalised as a result of this.
Mr. Dalyell: Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could we have some explanation how this has happened on this sensitive subject? As you say, Hansard makes few mistakes—
Mr. Eric Forth: The hon. Gentleman is paranoid.
Mr. Dalyell: Paranoid possibly about the whole question why the Prime Minister's Private Secretary, according to the Select Committee, knew all about what had happened to the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan).
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is as may be, but I have had the hon. Gentleman's complaint investigated. Hansard made a mistake. I regret that I do not know how it came about. I have already said to the hon. Gentleman that if he tables another question on this matter, it will certainly not be in jeopardy.
Mr. Dalyell rose—
Mr. Speaker: I cannot do anything else about it. [Interruption.] I shall take one more point.
Mr. Dalyell: Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not this an area where there are many curious mistakes? How on earth did a letter Prom the Prime Minister's Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Education and Science find its way to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)? Anything on this subject becomes a most extraordinary parliamentary happening and some of us do not think that, on this subject, that just happens by accident. These things happen for reasons—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have nothing else to add. I have investigated the hon. Gentleman's complaint and I cannot help him further.

Social Security Bill (Allocation of Time)
3.37 pm
Mr. Robin Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before we proceed with today's business may I invite you and the Table Office to confirm whether the proceedings adopted in today's business are within the precedents followed by the House? Page 456 of "Erskine May" deals with the provision of allocation of time orders and observes that such an order
"is not usually moved … until the rate of progress … has provided an argument for its necessity."
There has been no debate and no commencement to the proceedings on Lords amendments to the Social Security Bill, so there can be no argument founded on the rate of progress, or lack of it, on Lords amendments, for the necessity of this order.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the fact that the Bill was not subject to a guillotine motion when it was before this House. May I invite you and the Table to confirm that there is no precedent for a guillotine motion being applied to Lords amendments to a public Bill for which there was no guillotine motion when it was before this House?
You are charged, Mr. Speaker, with defending the rights of minorities in this House. The use of the guillotine motion is the most extreme affirmation by the majority of its rights over minorities. If it is indeed the case that on both those counts today's motion breaks the precedents of this House and represents a substantial extension of the powers of the guillotine, would it not be appropriate to invite the Government to reflect on whether it is desirable to take this unprecedented step and, if necessary, to suspend the sitting so that they may reflect on it?
Mr. Speaker: As the House knows, I was present on Friday when this matter was raised, when the Leader of the House confirmed that this was an unusual procedure. However, I also noted the comment made by the shadow Leader of the House, who welcomed what was about to happen. So I do not think there is any reason why we should delay today.
Mr. Frank Dobson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It will be within your recollection, and certainly it is in Hansard— with due deference to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—that I said we thought it was regrettable that the Government were seeking to introduce a guillotine, and that on the day before I had said that we were dismayed at the short notice that my hon. Friends would have for putting forward amendments to the Bill.
Mr. Speaker: I would not wish in any way to misinterpret what the hon. Gentleman said but I draw his attention to his comments in column 783 of Hansard.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Nothing else arises.
As I was asked on Friday to look with careful consideration at the starred amendments on the Order Paper, I have selected them all. I must however, say to the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo), who tabled a manuscript amendment just before Question Time
862
that I have considered her amendment with great care but I regret that, for reasons unconnected with the shortage of time, I have been unable to select it.
Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have rightly referred to the statement made by the Leader of the House at 11 am on Friday, for which I was present. You will recall that, at that stage, he was seeking to persuade the House that the guillotine motion applying to the Lords amendments to the Social Security Bill had been agreed through the usual channels. I was therefore surprised to hear the 1 pm Radio 4 news, which quoted Government spokespersons as saying that the reason why the guillotine was being advanced was that the Government were afraid that Labour Members were going to seek to disrupt the proceedings of the House to the inconvenience of the Government.
So it would seem that the Government were most concerned that, because there was no time limit on the Lords amendments to the Social Security Bill, which were going to come after a debate on a Scottish housing measure, there would be some difficulty for the Budget. Therefore, we must question the true motives of the Government for putting forward the guillotine. It had nothing to do with the agreement of the Opposition and everything to do with the Government's concern that they might have been caused some inconvenience by Labour Members trying to debate a Bill that does great hardship to vast numbers of our constituents.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to reflect on whether this business should be allowed to proceed. I urge you to suspend the House to enable you to do that and to give the House an adequate opportunity to debate these amendments to the Bill, which does grave damage to a vast number of our constituents.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am bound to have regard to what was said on Friday. I call the Leader of the House.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. All these matters are exactly what should be debated on this motion.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Bob Cryer rose—
Ms. Dawn Primarolo rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) must not get on his feet and shout in that way.
Mr. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here on Friday. If he had been, he would know that every hon. Member who rose to question the Leader of the House had an opportunity to do so. I shall not take questions now that might well have been asked on Friday. I have already called the Leader of the House to move this motion. If the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish seeks to take part in the debate he may get a chance, but he must not make his point on a point of order.
3.44 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill: —

Social Security Bill (Allocation of Time)

  Lords Amendments
  1. — (1) The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of the proceedings on this motion.
  (2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.
  (3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the coure of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
  (4) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.
  (5) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended before the expiry of the period at the end of which the proceedings are to he brought to a conclusion, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
  2. —(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—

  (a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of the Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment, or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;

  (b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

  (i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;

  (ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;

  (iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by Mr. Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments; and

  (iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

  (c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

  (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

  Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendment
  3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.
  4. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—
  864

  (a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.

  (b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

  (i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;

  (ii) in the case of the remaining items designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their said Proposals; and

  (iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

  Supplemental
  5. — (1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.
  (2) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of the Message or, as the case may be, for the appointment and quorum of the Committee.
  (3) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
  (4) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
  (5) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
  (6) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

  Interpretation
  6. In this Order 'the Bill' means the Social Security Bill. This motion is both familiar and novel.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order.
  Mr. Speaker: I am not taking points of order. I too heard on the radio today what were purported to be the tactics of this matter.
  Mr. Bennett: rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a Front··Bench spokesman, and this kind of behaviour is not a good reflection on the Opposition.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. These are just the matters that we should properly discuss in the debate and not in points of order.
  Mr. Wakeham: It is familiar in that it is customary to provide a timetable for consideration in the House of amendments made—
  Mr. Dobson rose—
  Mr. Cryer rose—
  Mr. Bennett rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take only the point of order from the shadow Leader of the House.
  Mr. Dobson: On a point of order Mr. Speaker. I feel that some of my colleagues have been put at what can only

  865
  be described as a singular disadvantage. It was not until Friday morning that many hon. Members could possibly have known that the Government were to make a business statement at 11 o'clock on Friday. As the House recognises, on Fridays many hon. Members have engagements or go to their constituencies to meet engagements. Some of my hon. Friends find themselves in some difficulty when they are told that they should have raised points on Friday when the statement was made.
  In particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) was aware that on Thursday, Mr. Speaker, you said that you would look sympathetically at manuscript amendments. She was in her constituency on Friday and submitted a manuscript amendment today as soon as she possibly could. She has some entitlement to raise this matter. [Interruption.] She is not arguing about the selection, because the original selection was made before she had the opportunity to submit her manuscript amendment. She is not challenging the first selection of amendments. However, she is trying to get the Bill used to benefit someone in connection with a problem in her constituency. It seems unreasonable to have expected her to attend on Friday when nobody had any reason to believe that on that day there would be a Government statement about business.
  Mr. Speaker: I have already said that the reason I have not been able to select the hon. Lady's manuscript amendment is unconnected with the time element. If she comes to see me I shall gladly explain the matter to her.
  Ms. Primarolo rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot do that publicly. I will gladly explain to her why her manuscript amendment was not selected.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. May I quote to the whole House, and especially to hon. Members who are rising and who, perhaps, were not here on Friday what the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said at that time. I hope that he will allow me to do that. He said:
  "I thank the Leader of the House for making this late adjustment to our proceedings next week. It has the merit of providing a proper opportunity for the House to consider the Lords amendments to the Social Security Bill, and in particular it gives us the opportunity to endorse their proposals for the annual uprating of child benefit, which I hope will be agreed."
  In fairness to the hon. Gentleman, he went on to say:
  "We regret that the Government have decided that they need a guillotine motion to complete the business on Monday, which we think rather extraordinary. However, we welcome the opportunity to debate the important Lords amendments, and our amendments to them, without prejudicing the proceedings on the equally important Housing (Scotland) Bill at a later date." —[Official Report, 11 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 783.]
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Ms. Primarolo: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. No point of order arises. The hon. Gentleman is a Front Bench spokesman and should seek to set an example to his Back-Bench colleagues. I am not prepared to call him on this matter. I call Mr. Wakeham.
  Mr. Wakeham: It is customary to provide a timetable for consideration in the House of amendments made to a Bill in another place.
  Ms. Primarolo: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: I have told the hon. Lady that if she will come and see me I shall gladly explain. She is a new Member. It has never been the practice for Mr. Speaker to give reasons for the non-selection of amendments in the Chamber. Exceptionally, I say to the hon. Lady that I will explain to her why I have been unable to accept the amendment that she submitted today. If she is patient, she may be able to make her point during a debate on one of the other amendments. I call Mr. Wakeham.
  Ms. Primarolo: It is not that. On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Wakeham: It is unique in that it has been possible to reach agreement on the amount of time for all stages of the Bill—
  Mr. Dave Nellist: There is a point of order over here.
  Mr. Wakeham: I leave it to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) to deal with the question that raises about whether an Opposition generally find it effective tactics to agree that amount of time for almost all the consideration of a Bill except that stage when there is the least scope for a wide-ranging debate.
  The timetable motion was laid before the House on Friday—
  Mrs. Audrey Wise: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to the hon. Lady, who is also a Front Bench spokesman, that I can only—
  Mr. Cryer rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Please sit down.
  If the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) is seeking to delay these proceedings, which have already commenced, it will be to the detriment of her colleagues. I will take the point of order only if it is a point of order for me.
  Mrs. Wise: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understood that it was our responsibility to protect the rights of Back Benchers. Therefore, may I inquire how it happens that, in your wisdom, you take a point of order from a Front Bench spokesman, which relates to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) wishes to raise, and do not let her speak for herself? Is it now the position in the House that some Back Benchers must speak via surrogates?
  Mr. Speaker: I shall remember carefully what the hon. Lady has said, if that poisition arises in her case. However, on the matter of her hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo), I know what her point of order is about. I am sorry that I have been unable to select her amendment.
  Mr. Nellist: You are not Gypsy Rose Lee. You are the Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: All right. If the point of order has nothing to do with my non-selection of the amendment, of course I shall hear the hon. Member for Bristol, South.
  Ms. Primarolo: The point of order that I wished subsequently to raise is exactly the one raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise). I understood, Mr. Speaker, that I was entitled to make my points of order to you and to ask you to reconsider a ruling that you had made. I was seeking to establish my right as a Back Bencher to raise a point of order. I would have thought that it would at least have been accepted that, as a Back-Bench Member, I could have put my point of order to the Chamber as well so that hon. Members would know why I wished to submit a manuscript amendment. I consider it quite out of order that I—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That is just the point. I cannot accept amendments that are drafted as the hon. Lady has drafted hers. Mr. Wakeham.
  Mr. Wakeham: The timetable motion was laid before the House on Friday, and provides for a total of six hours' proceedings from the start of this debate. The minimum amount of time for consideration of the amendments will be three hours. If the Opposition really wish to debate the issues rather than the modalities, and keep the debate on this motion short, more time will be available for the amendments themselves. Either way, the motion provides a most generous amount of time when one considers that many of the 33 amendments made in another place are technical or uncontroversial, and that the Government are not seeking to reverse or amend the amendment providing for an annual review of child benefit.
  In total, the Bill has already received just over 90 hours' consideration in both Houses, including 19 sittings in Standing Committee, I am pleased that, like us, the Opposition regard this amount of time as satisfactory, and I trust they will be able to agree to today's arrangements also.
  The circumstances that have led us to move this motion will be fresh in the House's mind. On 3 March I announced that it was the intention we should be considering Lords amendments to the Social Security Bill today, and the Leader of the Opposition made no comment on that proposed arrangement. On 10 March I again announced this as the business to he taken today following the Housing (Scotland) Bill. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras then complained that we would be considering the Lords amendments today when the Bill's Third Reading in the other place occurred on 10 March. There then followed further discussions through the usual channels, and in response to my business statement on Friday 11 March the hon. Gentleman said that this adjustment to our business provided a proper opportunity for the House to consider the Lords amendments to this Bill.
  Mr. Madden: Will the Leader of the House confirm or deny that he authorised any information, following his statement last Friday, to be passed to the BBC on the reason why the motion was to be put today?
  Mr. Wakeham: I am not in the habit of talking about what I may or may not say to the BBC. I did not hear the programme at 1 pm, and I certainly said nothing of the sort to the BBC.
  I shall deal first with the original complaint, that the Bill comes before us too hastily from another place. As the House will be aware, a marshalled list of amendments was
  868
  available from the Vote Office on Friday morning. Twenty-nine of the 33 amendments have been available from 3 March or before—indeed, about two thirds of them have been available for the past month. Of the four amendments passed on Third Reading on 10 March, one was an amendment promised by the Government, one was simply a clarification and two were technical. None was opposed by the official Opposition.
  In any event, as I said on Friday, it is a perfectly usual practice for Lords amendments to a Bill to be taken in this House just a day or so after the Bill has left another place. Indeed, there have been occasions when they have been taken on the same day. Hon. Members who recall the debates on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill in November 1976 will be well aware of that, and, of course, there are other examples too.
  The revised complaint of the Opposition, as I understand it, is that the business as originally agreed would not have provided for the Lords amendments to this Bill to be debated in "prime time". The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras set great store by this. Perhaps he should have a word with the present chairman of the parliamentary Labour party, the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), who was less squeamish about these matters when we were debating the Lords amendment to the Labour Government's Social Security Bill on 19 March 1979. The right hon. Gentleman led the debate on the Lords amendments to this Bill—a debate that started at 10.17 pm. Nor were those proceedings a formality, with all the Lords amendments being agreed: on the contrary, there were Divisions, and the Government reversed one of the amendments.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind the House why it is important that this Bill should receive an early Royal Assent, and thus why we have arranged to take the Lords amendments immediately after the proceedings on this motion. The House has already agreed that 11 April should be the date on which the new schemes of income support and family credit should be implemented, and has approved the main regulations providing for this. But as a result of the proposals in this Bill, further regulations, subject to affirmative resolution, will be needed. Those regulations can be laid only after Royal Assent. We need to ensure that there is a proper opportunity for them to be considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments before they are debated in both Houses. Thus, it is important for us to proceed with this Bill today.
  On Friday last, before he had even seen the terms of the motion, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras welcomed the revised business that I announced. I thanked the hon. Gentleman for his words then, and I hope that he will be able to carry his colleagues with him today.
  3.58 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson: This is the fourth guillotine motion in recent weeks. The first three were designed to limit the debate on lengthy and complicated measures: the poll tax Bill, and the Bill to impose direct rule on our schools and colleges. Today, we have a guillotine just on the Lords amendments to the 19 clauses of the Social Security Bill.
  Why the rush? The answer is simple. A large part of the present Bill corrects cock-ups in the Social Security Act 1986. Much of that Act is timed to come into operation next month, so the Government are desperate for these

  869
  changes to go through before then. Not for the first time, we find ourselves in Westminster assembled to apply large dollops of parliamentary correcting fluid — legislative Tippex—to the Government's shoddily drafted and ill-thought-out social security laws: those laws that have been pushed through to rob the poor to give to the rich.
  Originally, the Government intended that these proposals should slip through in the dead of night, when it would be inconvenient for newspapers to report what had happened. Indeed, at the time of night originally envisaged, the number of journalists in the Press Gallery could probably have been counted on the fingers of one hand and, at a later hour, probably on the fingers of the Venus de Milo.
  The Government did not want these sordid, Scrooge-like proposals to receive publicity today because they did not relish the contrast to be made with how badly they are treating the badly off today with how well they intend to treat the well-off tomorrow on Budget day.
  On the day before the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to line the pockets of his friends and colleagues, what does the Social Security Bill do? The Prime Minister recently preached that Budget day was about taking, not giving. She should know. This Bill is about taking away rather than giving. It takes away many existing rights of people in need—rights that they have received through existing laws, through paying tax and national insurance, and which were secured in court when they were denied them by mean-minded Ministers and the humiliating bureaucratic machinery of the DHSS.
  Among the people who will lose are epileptics, who will lose a maximum attendance allowance of £30 per week. People with severe industrial injuries will lose £19 a week. Young people aged 16 or 17 will be deprived of their right to benefit—a right that their parents have paid for for years.
  Decisions about uprating of child benefit will depend on the whim of the Secretary of State. In future, tens of thousands of children will not receive free school meals. People who are forced to retire early will have their unemployment benefit abated if their occupational pension is more than £35 per week. People who have paid in for benefits will have them taken away by a process that amounts to nothing less than legislative theft.
  Among the groups who will suffer most are police and fire fighters who are forced to retire early. I have received representations about this matter from the Soho fire station, whose crews played so heroic a part in the King's Cross underground fire. How typical it is of the Prime Minister and other Ministers to praise those fire fighters in front of the television arc lights but stab them in the back a few weeks later.
  My hon. Friends have done a magnificent job in highlighting the cruel consequences of the Bill and tabling amendments to secure justice for defenceless and vulnerable people.
  Mr. David Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that, at a time when the press is widely expecting the Chancellor to announce tax cuts and other benefits for the rich, it is almost obscene that we should be discussing Lords amendments to a Bill that will hit hard at some of the poorest people in the community, take away housing benefit and penalise those who have saved £6,000
  870
  for their retirement? The poorest will, at most, receive loans from the DHSS instead of the present arrangements for bedding, furniture and other such matters.
  Mr. Dobson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that he and others will take this opportunity to highlight the contrasts.
  Unfortunately, the work of most of my hon. Friends in changing this Bill has been in vain. But it is never in vain to speak the truth and to defend the defenceless, and I commend their spirited opposition. They will deal with much of the detail of the Bill, so I shall confine myself to two aspects — a universal benefit and a means-tested entitlement.
  Child benefit has not been uprated with inflation. As a result, mothers lose about £30 per year per child. Some Tories have argued that universal benefits, such as child benefit, should be abolished and as an example, they say that the Duchess of Westminster does not need the few pounds of child benefit. I concede that she does not but, by the same token, her husband, the Duke of Westminster, did not need the tax changes that have added millions of pounds to his wealth over the past few years. He received those tax cuts, and they were worth a lot more than anybody's child benefit.
  The House of Lords has passed an amendment that requires the Government to review the level of child benefit in April each year, taking account of increases in the retail price index and other factors. That is a welcome improvement to the Bill, but it does not oblige the Government to take any action after they have carried out the review, so my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has tabled an amendment to require the Government to increase child benefit in line with a review.
  If the Government refuse to accept that amendment, they will reveal their grotesque priorities by rejecting today a non-means-tested universal benefit paid to the mother so that they can selectively put even more money into the pockets of the super-rich tomorrow. The Tories talk of targeting rather than universal benefits. People should not forget that they have a long-term target—to line the pockets of their friends by means of tax handouts and tax fiddles.
  In even more stark contrast to the much-heralded Budget bonanza is the fact that in April almost 500,000 of the poorest children in the country will no longer be able to have free school meals. Children from families currently on family income supplement will no longer receive free school meals. Instead, the parents will receive £2·55 per week in lieu of free school meals. That works out at 51p per day. That Sip will buy a primary school meal in just nine education authorities in England, Scotland and Wales — all of which, I need hardly add, are Labour-controlled.
  Tories argue that because the £2·55 is paid all year and not just during term time it in some way makes up, but even if we share the annual total only over term time it comes to just 66p per school day. The princely sum of 66p per day will not buy a primary school meal in the following authorities: Bexley, Enfield, Harrow, Merton, Isles of Scilly, Avon, Berkshire, Cambridgeshire, Cheshire, Cornwall, Devon, East Sussex, Essex, Gloucestershire, Hampshire, Hertfordshire, Isle of Wight, Leicestershire, Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire, Shropshire, Somerset, Staffordshire, Suffolk, Surrey, Warwickshire, West Sussex, Wiltshire, Bolton, Stockport, Sefton, Rotherham,

  871
  Dyfed, Powys. In none of those areas will 66p buy a primary school meal. Ministers may smirk, but 66p would not even buy the starters for their average meal. The weekly payment of £2·55 probably would not buy it. They should not smirk at the fact that those skinflint authorities, nearly all of whom are Tory-controlled, will ensure that some of the poorest children cannot buy a meal for 66p.
  At least families on family credit will receive some money in lieu of the free school meals. Whether that money will reach all the children concerned is a different matter. Tories talk about targeting, but if they want to target food into the stomachs of the poorest children, surely the best way is to put food into their mouths.
  Families on family credit will not be the worst sufferers from these changes. The worst off will be those children — over 170,000 — who at present receive free school meals at the discretion of their local education authority. This centralising Government are to take away that local discretion, on the grounds that already many skinflint Tory authorities do not use it. As a result, over 170,000 children will not receive free meals any more. Those children include over 21,000 in Strathclyde, over 15,000 in ILEA, over 9,000 in Lancashire, over 8,000 in Manchester, over 6,000 in Cleveland, over 5,000 in Birmingham, Sheffield, Sunderland and Leicestershire, over 4,000 in Bradford, Liverpool, Derbyshire and Humberside, over 3,000 in Leeds, Newcastle upon Tyne, Avon, North Yorkshire, Gwent and West Glamorgan and over 2,000 in Barnsley, Kirklees, St. Helens, Sandwell, Wakefield, Wigan and Cheshire.
  When people see film of yuppies celebrating their tax concessions after tomorrow's Budget, they should remember that the champagne will be paid for from money that should be spent on giving poor chidren a decent midday meal. All this comes from a Government who claim to promote family life and Christian values.
  Of course, we know that the Prime Minister subscribes to some peculiar theological views. These were best demonstrated when she amazed Sunday viewers of "Weekend World" in 1980 with the words:
  "No one would have remembered the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well."
  What will the badly off people affected by the Social Security Bill think of tomorrow's Budget? Tomorrow will show that the Chancellor has the money but lacks the good intentions. The Government fall a long way short of the standards of the Good Samaritan. They do not even live up to the standards of the Levite and the priest who just passed by on the other side. The only characters in the Good Samaritan parable whom the Government resemble are the thieves who mugged the poor traveller in the first place.
  4.10 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: I declare an interest: the Scottish Labour party spent the weekend in my constituency and that, I assume, is why no members of that party were here on Friday. When the new business was announced by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, the only Scottish Member to raise the extremely important matter of why Scottish business had been summarily postponed was the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), the leader of his party, whatever name it has now. The right hon.
  872
  Gentleman made, for once, a righteous expression of indignation but he directed it to the wrong person. He said that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House
  "owes Scottish Members rather more of an explanation and an apology for disrupting the business of the House at such short notice."
  He said that that was because
  "The Housing (Scotland) Bill is both complicated and contentious." —[Official Report, 11 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 783.]
  I do not think that that was an explanation which, with his usual diplomacy, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was willing to give, so perhaps I may speculate on what I believe my right hon. Friend would have said with integrity and honesty if convention had not prevented him. He would have said that the business of the House was announced by him on Thursday, as usual, having been agreed, as usual, through the usual channels.
  That matter was not challenged — [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If it was not agreed, it is extraordinary that it was not challenged by the Leader of the Opposition before he set off to my constituency the following day to give a speech which those present said was either too long, by about 50 minutes, or was wrong in every other way. I must, however, distinguish the right hon. Gentleman; of all the Labour party members who went to my constituency, he was the only one who had the civility to say that he was going to do so.
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: On my hon. and learned Friend's point about the usual channels, perhaps my hon. and learned Friend would like to look at the bottom of column 785 of Friday's Hansard. when my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) said to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House:
  "The contribution from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) demonstrated clearly the difficulties faced by the usual channels in reaching agreement on business."
  From a sedentary position the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said:
  "The usual channels—what do they matter?" —[Official Report, 11 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 785.]
  Mr. Fairbairn: I appreciate that that is the position, but I do not think that even the bucking bronco attitude of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) gave rise to the difficulties. The Leader of the Opposition found when he spoke in my constituency at the weekend that he could not prevent Scottish Labour Members from promising, threatening and insisting that it was their duty to break the law rather than pay the community tax, which is already provided for in legislation, and he also found himself in difficulty in the House the night before.
  It is obvious that the agreement among the usual channels to have Scottish business considered today could not be delivered by the Opposition Front Bench. Why could the Opposition Front Bench not do so? After all, we are in one of those marvellous situations when the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who has a Scottish seat, leads for the Opposition on the Social Security Bill and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) leads for the Opposition on the Housing (Scotland) Bill. We were told in Committee on the Housing (Scotland) Bill that this was a vital and essential matter. Therefore, the subject narrows not to the bucking of the hon. Member for Bolsover about the usual channels but to two Scots, each preening for superior position today.

  873
  The hon. Member for Livingston imagined that he could keep the House up all night and defeat the Budget, through some spurious tactical activity, similar to today's day of action, which is depriving hundreds and thousands of patients of operations and care — [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Yes, indeed. So far this year up to the day of action, 2,447 operations have been postponed in Scotland, and those patients will have to suffer pain, thanks to health workers who do not give a fig for them.
  Let us be clear that here was a little jousting between two tartan Socialists — one who wanted to carry out what he imagined was a clever tactical ambush, by having the Social Security Bill considered late at night, and the other who did not want that to happen because he would be deprived of the opportunity to consider the Housing (Scotland) Bill. Alas, these two tartan Socialists in the end deprived their party of the ordinary integrity of the usual channels and brought the House to cancel Scottish important business and to this guillotine motion.
  Mr. Sam Galbraith: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fairbairn: I shall give way in a moment.
  We were told that it was a matter of great importance. We were told that it was important that the Opposition should have a whole day's debate on the matter. Where are they? How many are here?
  Mr. Peter Thurnham rose—
  Mr. Fairbairn: There was an article to whose terms I did not subscribe.
  Mr. John McAllion rose—
  Mr. Galbraith: The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite wrong. The Housing (Scotland) Bill, has not been cancelled. It has been postponed. Does he agree that that is to our advantage? Opposition Members do not want the Housing (Scotland) Bill, and the longer we postpone it, the better for the people of Scotland. It is a victory for Opposition Members and the hon. and learned Gentleman should realise that.
  Mr. Fairbairn: I regret to say that it is not a victory for any members of the Scottish Labour party, first, that they have frustrated their Front Bench, as they so consistently do, and, secondly, that they did so after a weekend in Perth in which they spent their time saying that they were not interested in Parliament, but were going to take the law into their own hands. They said that they would have assemblies and Select Committees of their own and that they were going to break the law, whatever the Leader of the Opposition said. It will be of no advantage to the Scots when they are "liberated" from having to live in a council house if they cannot move from their job.
  Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point of order is not the one made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), which may or may not be relevant, as you consider appropriate. Perhaps you could remind the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) what business we are debating at the moment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will address himself to the motion before the House.
  Mr. Fairbairn: The remarkable thing is that, of course, I know what business we are debating at the moment, but the majority of the Labour party clearly does not, because it is absent.
  As I was saying before I gave way, there was an article which alleged that matters that the Labour party claimed to be matters of principle were not sufficiently important for them to come to the Chamber and debate them. If the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was speaking with any integrity, I assume that the Lords amendments to the Bill and the timetable motion are matters that go deep to the heart of Opposition philosophy and their political, democratic fight in this Chamber, yet the whole of the House is brought back, important Scottish business is interrupted and there is almost no one here. That speaks for itself. It shows that it was humbug.
  It shows that, the usual channels having agreed business, the deal was broken because of a petty squabble between two Scottish Members of Parliament who spend the week proclaiming that they speak for Scotland so much that they will set up little Governments of their own and have them travelling around Scotland, pretending that they are running the country when they cannot even turn up for Scottish business. They wreck the business and do not even turn up for the business for which they wrecked it. If that is not hypocrisy, I do not know what is. Once again, the Opposition, Scottish and English, is disgraced.
  4.23 pm
  Mr. Ronnie Fearn: Last week, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you heard a number of points of order about the timetable for the Local Government Bill. Several hon. Members said that they had been given insufficient time to table amendments to the Lords amendments to that Bill. I believe that there had been about three days between Third Reading in the Lords and our debate on their amendments. There was not much time adequately to draft amendments to the Lords amendments which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, are, by their nature, extremely difficult to draft.
  However, that timetable was a positive luxury compared with the proposal for the Social Security Bill. The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled wrote to the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), outlining the Government amendments, on Wednesday and sent me a copy of the letter, but the Third Reading in the Lords took place on Thursday and those amendments were not published until Friday, which did not allow even two working days before this debate.
  Many hon. Members, particularly those who come from the north, like myself, have to make prior travel arrangements and attend to business in their constituencies on a Friday. It makes it extremely difficult for us to work effectively if parliamentary business is conducted in this way. To make matters worse, the business was changed on Friday when many hon. Members could not even be present.
  The powers of Parliament in respect of the Executive have been consistently eroded by the Government, and their cavalier attitude towards the business of the House is one of the worst examples of that. The Government have deliberately set out to frustrate the Opposition parties' attempts to analyse the Bill and to present effective and well-considered amendments. The Government may

  875
  consider that the Bill is just another part of their crowded legislation package which can be forced through at high speed, but it is an extremely important piece of legislation that will push many people, particularly young people, into unacceptable poverty. The Bill should be properly debated in a democratic way in which all the arguments can be heard. Sadly, that has not been the experience today.
  In a few days' time, the full force of the Social Security Act 1986 will be experienced. All the fears that I and my colleagues have expressed about that legislation will no longer be a matter of conjecture, but a chilling and unpleasant reality for millions of people. Young people will probably be the hardest hit by those measures. In the next few months, this country will see juvenile destitution on a scale not witnessed since the Victorian era. Many young people will simply be left with no alternative but to live by begging, petty theft, debt or even prostitution. The Bill, with its proposal to remove income support from most 16 to 17-year-olds, will greatly worsen the situation.
  In a previous debate, I said that the measure is using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut because it is aimed at the so-called workshy, yet the evidence is that the work-shy are few and far between. I have not changed my opinion during the Bill's progress. It will unfairly penalise many young people and force them into dependency on their parents and to take up YTS places that may be wholly unsatisfactory. In an enlightened age, we should be giving our young people greater choice. The Bill does the very opposite.
  Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can the records show that, although the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) castigated the House for the very poor attendance, he has himself just left the Chamber?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is not a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Fearn: I know that it is not up to me to accept that point of order, but I realise that there is a great deal of truth in it.
  Mr. Hind: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can the record now show that my hon. and learned Friend has returned from the Vote Office?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Both hon. Members now have their points on the record.
  Mr. Fearn: My greatest fear is for young people who may have escaped the family home to avoid child abuse or domestic violence or who may have been thrown out by a step-parent. They may still be able to claim income support at the discretion of the Secretary of State, but they may be too distressed or too immature to tackle that complicated process.
  I am also worried about the position of young people who may be living in sheltered housing while they are on probation or fighting drug abuse. I have spoken to charities which are able to provide support for young people in difficult circumstances because they are claiming supplementary benefit. Charities are extremely worried that when 16 and 17-year-olds are no longer eligible for income support they will no longer be able to pay their rents.
  Such charitable institutions will not be able to provide a refuge for nothing. Much as they will regret it, they will
  876
  have no alternative but to turn people on to the streets. I shall be interested to hear what the Secretary of State has to say on the matter.
  There will be considerable anger and frustration when income support is introduced in April, and, to their amazement, young people discover that they are expected to live on less money than others who are perhaps a few days older. That is ridiculous. There are many grotesque examples of what the changes will mean. In a few weeks, we shall see the reality of the situation.
  For example, there will be cases in which two brothers in the same circumstances sharing a flat might find themselves on different rates of benefit, purely because one is a year older. They will simply not understand the reason for that, because there is no good reason.
  It was no surprise to me to read reports in the newspapers that some benefit officers are being fitted with strengthened glass screens. Regrettably, frustration will sometimes manifest itself in physical violence. I am concerned—I expressed this worry in Committee—that DHSS employees may have to bear the brunt of that anger.
  People under 18 will be in a worse position, even if they get benefit. It is estimated that, after deductions for heating and lighting, they will have just £6·20 a week on which to live, including buying food and clothes. That is an absolute disgrace to a civilised society.
  The nature of the social fund and the cuts in housing benefit will exacerbate the growing poverty in this country. It will hit the poorest people in Britain. That the Government can do that and claim to have clear consciences amazes me. I presume that, tomorrow, the Government will cut taxes for the better-off in our society. What a grim irony it will be that, in three weeks, they will start cutting benefits for the worst-off in our society. A Marplan poll today shows that 84 per cent. of the British public can think of better things to spend extra money on than tax cuts. The country will make a judgment about the legislation and will find the Government guilty of a lack of compassion.
  4.32 pm
  Mr. Simon Burns: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me. I confess that I feel a certain sadness at having to speak to a guillotine motion, not only because of its sudden appearance in our business but because it demonstrates that something has clearly gone wrong. I am a new enough hon. Member still to believe that, when business questions are announced on a Thursday, there has been consultation with what is known as the usual channels. It seems odd that, less than 24 hours after business questions last week, the Social Security Bill business was changed. There was no mention of it by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition during business questions on Thursday.
  Mr. John Battle rose—
  Mr. Burns: I shall finish this part of my speech, and then give way.
  There is much speculation about what has been going on behind the scenes. But, from reading newspapers and hearing people talk, it seems that there was a concerted plot by certain Opposition Members to try to sabotage tomorrow's debate on the Budget — a Budget which, presumably, will be good for all people. We do not know

  877
  its contents, so it is ridiculous to speculate until we have heard it. It seems that there was a concerted plan by certain Opposition Members to string out tonight's business until tomorrow and sabotage the Bill. The Opposition Chief Whip discovered the plot. Being an honourable man, he had to go to the Government and say that he could not stand by the undertakings that were given about the business.
  Mr. Robin Cook: I intervene if only to introduce a note of reality into the debate. The hon. Gentleman is the second Conservative Member to say that the matter was not raised during business questions. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present for business questions last Thursday, but, if he consults Hansard, he will find that the first thing that was said by my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House was:
  "Will he reconsider his proposal that we debate the Lords amendments to the Social Security Bill on Monday? … Surely that is unreasonable." —[Official Report, 10 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 521.]
  Mr. Burns: It is quite— [Interruption.] Opposition Members are speaking from a sedentary position. I should never have had the foolishness to give way to the hon. Gentleman to make his intervention.
  It is sad that we must waste three hours this evening debating the guillotine motion. That time could have been better spent discussing housing in Scotland and social security measures. That is the issue. The Opposition are trying to be irresponsible and mess up the business. Opposition Member should not treat the House in that way.
  Mr. Battle rose—
  Mr. Hind rose—
  Mr. Burns: I shall give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Hind: It will not have passed the notice of my hon. Friend's that, because of what took place on Thursday, the Opposition Chief Whip has had the good grace to absent himself from the debate and prevent himself from suffering any further embarrassment.
  Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. The Opposition Chief Whip's position is up to him. I suspect that there is an element of truth in what my hon. Friend said.
  Mr. Dobson: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Lancashire, West sneak to smear—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that that was not a parliamentary expression. I ask him to rephrase his remark.
  Mr. Dobson: If it is out of order to call the hon. Gentleman a sneak, I happily withdraw, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I remind you that he was the hon. Member who ran to tell the press that he saw one of my hon. Friends and one of my right hon. Friends having an argument in the Tea Room. Nevertheless, it is surely not in order for him to peddle untruths about the reason for the absence of my hon. Friend the Opposition Chief Whip. My hon. Friend has an engagement in his constituency today. He has had that engagement for a considerable time—long before Friday, when the Government changed today's business.
  Mr. Burns: As a member of the Standing Committee that examined the Social Security Bill, I can confirm what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said. In this House and in another place, there have been 90 hours of debate on the Bill. It was exhaustively discussed in Committee. I suspect that no Opposition Member who served on the Standing Committee could say that enough time was not given to discussing all the points that the Opposition wished to raise. Cynical politics brought us to the position in which we must debate a guillotine motion, to stop us from being dragged through the night to stop tomorrow's business.
  Guillotine motions that are forced upon the Government raise serious questions about certain aspects of how business is conducted in the House. I strongly recommend hon. Members to read the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) in the previous guillotine debate. He rightly suggested that we should debate the procedures of the House.
  Of course everyone will accept that it is the Government's duty to propose legislation and get it through the House of Commons and on to the statute book. It is the Opposition's duty to oppose legislation. We would accept that responsible opposition to Government proposals is part of our constitution. However, I would argue that it is not part of our constitution or the workings of this House that the Opposition—or certain factions of the Opposition—should try to make political capital, to disrupt our proceedings and to cause the problems that we were to face today, until the Government stepped in. For those reasons, I shall support the Government in getting the guillotine.
  4.39 pm
  Mr. Bill Michie: I did not realise that one small meeting of one or two of my Front Bench colleagues, and a few of my Back Bench colleagues, could have so much power and influence that it could make the Government change the business for the day. It is the first time that I have known that. Obviously, we are beginning to make an impact in this House. It is absolutely incredible — [Interruption.] Well, Conservative Members say that we are thin on the ground, but we need only two of us to take the lot of them on. That is all we need because the Government do not have a leg to stand on.
  When the debate started, in points of order, Mr. Speaker actually quoted what the Leader of the House said, which was that it was unusual— [Interruption.] No, it was what the Leader of the House said on Friday morning.
  Why did the Government have to do this? Is it because they are afraid of the Housing (Scotland) Bill? I do not think so, but perhaps they are. However, it was not because we could "knacker up" the Budget day debate, if that is the right word, Mr. Speaker. No, it was because we could expose more and more of the Social Security Bill's inequities and the effect that it will have on our people.
  This afternoon we have the diabolical situation when my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo), who has an amendment which is very much relevant to the debate, could not even table it. That is a shame because we are talking about the devastating effects of the Bill on many thousands of our people. Those effects will be unbelievable, yet we are not even allowed to debate it for as long as we should. There are 32 Government

  879
  amendments, but we have a guillotine before we even start. That is the sort of courage that the Government demonstrate today.
  The Secretary of State is so courageous that he does not think it important to be here—[Interruption.] Never mind our Chief Whip. The Secretary of State is not even here—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, he is here. Withdraw."] Well, I will apologise, but I have seen him so little, and never in Committee, that I did not recognise him. I now know the Secretary of State's face and will not make that mistake again. Is that him?
  The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. John Moore)indicated assent.
  Mr. Michie: Yes, it is.
  The effects of the Bill are, to say the least, wide-ranging. It will have effects on income support, housing benefit, single payments, and night-time attendance allowances. [Interruption.] Some of the Conservative Members who are speaking about the Bill's virtues never opened their mouths in Committee. Night-time attendance allowances mean that one must prove whether one is up all night, not going to bed but looking after one's loved ones. Those are the mean issues in the Bill.
  The Bill also relates to industrial injuries. It does not matter now whether one loses a finger or two—it is all par for the course. Death benefits have already gone out of the window so far as industry is concerned. The Bill will give discretionary powers to the Secretary of State, just like in local government legislation and in many other pieces of legislation. When discretionary powers are given to the Secretary of State, some poor individual who already has problems because of unemployment or injury, has to go through the hoops of trying to get to the Secretary of State to have a statement or at least a judgment made in his or her favour.
  The Bill also provides for the cash-limiting of the social fund. I thought that any indivdual in this country had the fundamental right at least to appeal to an indepdent tribunal to ascertain whether the Government were being unfair to him. However, that has now gone out of the window also and yet we have a guillotine.
  We discussed those issues chapter and verse in Committee without any hope of getting them through. Even now, when the Bill has been discussed by the House of Lords, we are not allowed the long debate that we believe is necessary. The Bill is being railroaded through on a guillotine on the day before the Budget.
  Before the debate started I went to the Library and asked, "How much has the DHSS building across the road coast?" Does anyone have any idea?
  Mr. Madden: £37 million.
  Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West): £46 million.
  Mr. Michie: Yes, it is nearly £46 million.
  Mr. Banks: Yes, I have got it right.
  Mr. Michie: It has cost £41,800,000, from an estimate of £29 million. It has cost £41 million for a luxury building to house the Secretary of State's staff so that they can bring more and more diabolical legislation to rob the poor—[AN HON. MEMBER: "The Secretary of State is to have his own bathroom."] Yes, he needs his own bathroom to have a bath every five minutes because of the crap that we have to put up with—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Michie: I have no doubt that the people who will suffer from the legislation will get to know exactly what this is about. I shall not apologise to them and say, "We fought the good fight in the House," because, frankly, we have not been given the opportunity to do so.
  I should like to vote on many of the Lords amendments because I want to be able to name those hon. Members who vote against amendments, which would at least protect our people.
  When it comes to the crunch, if Conservative Members believe in democracy, in freedom and in people having democratic rights, they should give us the opportunity to debate those rights and at least win the argument on a fair basis.
  4.46 pm
  Mr. John Redwood: We are witnessing today a drama which I think has been plotted for many weeks. It is a drama that the Opposition have long-planned, because they cannot bear the fact that we are about to see a Budget which will lower borrowing, cut taxes and endorse large increases in public spending, all at the same time. Those pubic spending increases were announced in the usual way in the Autumn Statement.
  We are also witnessing the Opposition's blind folly in trying to oppose the detailed regulations and amendments to the social security legislation at a time when staff in DHSS district offices throughout the country need to know the shape of those regulations so that their advance plans can go ahead and people can receive the benefits that they need—the loans and grants that are affected by the system. Let us look —
  Mr. Nellist: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the regulations that he is so afeared that the district offices of the DHSS will not be able to understand are products of a 1986 Act, and that it is the fact that the Government could not get it right in 1986 that has brought forward these amendments to the 1988 Bill?
  Mr. Redwood: I am well aware of that. I am sure that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) is also well aware that the amendments are changed by the provisions of this latest piece of social security legislation. The district offices are well aware that social security legislation is making its way through the House. They need to know exactly what has been agreed by the House in good time for the April deadline.
  Mrs. Margaret Beckett rose—
  Mr. Redwood: I should like to deal with this point first and then I shall give way.
  Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman said that he was worried about people in those offices not knowing; but is he aware that his case would be stronger if the Government themselves were not amending the legislation as late as Thursday night in the House of Lords?
  Mr. Redwood: The amendments are necessary to make the system clear and effective. It is important that the offices know the final wishes of the House in good time. I went to my local office to see what was planned because I had heard Opposition Members making such a fuss about alleged attacks on the poor and those who need benefits.
  I asked my local district office manager, first, how much he was budgeting under the social fund for grants

  881
  and interest-free loans for the next financial year. He said that they had been allocated £147,000. I then asked him how much the office anticipated spending in the current financial year. That should be a fairly accurate figure because there is little of the current financial year left. He said that the anticipated spend in 1987–88 was £120,000.
  Of course, circumstances have changed through those two years as unemployment has fallen further. In any case, I am blessed to be in an area of low unemployment. Therefore, one of the main categories of need is reducing at exactly the point when the budgeted spend could rise by as much as £27,000 on a budget of £120,000.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon rose—
  Mr. Redwood: I find it difficult to understand why Opposition Members claim that they are trying to break the bank and show how mean it is when there are such large increases in the social security budget.
  Mr. Nellist: In this case the budget for the loans that will be set from April for social security offices is apparently £27,000 higher than the expected spend this year, but that budget is based on the fact that, within the past 12 months, substantial cuts have been made in the areas for which grants and loans are given. The single payments system, for example, has been radically changed this year. The hon. Gentleman is not comparing like with like. The actual needs in his area probably far and away exceed the budget of £147,000 that he has quoted.
  Mr. Redwood: One can hardly say that the system is ungenerous when there has been such a large cash increase. I am aware of the changes in the nature of the benefit—[Interruption.] The Opposition are behaving absurdly. They do not want to listen to what I say in answer to the interventions that I have taken, but they should. I am well aware that there have been changes in the system of benefit payments. However, I hops that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East is aware that a series of premiums have been introduced to deal with special needs and special categories so that such people will receive more in their basic benefit than they did before.
  Mrs. Mahon: The hon. Gentleman has spoken about preparing for April. They are preparing well in my constituency. Security has been strengthened at benefit offices against the fear of increased violence towards staff. Reinforced glass has been introduced. DHSS staff say that many people will be sent away empty-handed. That is especially true in my constituency where, in spite of last year's cut, we will lose more than £500,000. Not everyone's constituency will benefit as much as the hon. Gentleman's. The hon. Gentleman should thank the Minister for that because the Minister was politically selective about who got what.
  Mr. Redwood: The hon. Lady does not mention that unemployment in her constituency is down to 7 per cent., and falling. Therefore, one of the main categories of need in her constituency has also been reduced. I am not aware of the exact figures in her constituency, but the national figures show that, once again, the totals to be dispersed under the social security budget are to increase.
  Those increases are occurring at a time when the main category of need in the past, the unemployed, is reducing
  882
  rapidly across the country. Opposition Members do not wish to recognise that, because it is another example of the economic success that they detest.
  Mr. Nellist rose—
  Mr. Redwood: I have given way twice to the hon. Gentleman, and I must make some progress because we are talking about the timetable motion and time is short.
  Mr. Nellist rose—
  Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat because I am not giving way again. He has had a fair crack of the whip on this occasion. Indeed, I wish that some of the Whips on the Opposition Benches would give him a fair crack of the whip so that we would have more discipline regarding business in the House.
  There is a large amount of circumstantial evidence with regard to the Budget-wrecking strategy adopted by the Opposition. I began my speech by saying that I believed that this drama had been plotted for a long time, and I invite the House to consider the evidence.
  First of all, we have had the long-running campaign about money for the Health Service. That demand followed a huge increase in resources in the autumn, another injection of cash around Christmas and a clear statement from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury about the need to consider financing the pay awards when we know the magnitude of those pay awards. Many Conservative Members welcomed that statement from my right hon. Friend, and they agree that the right time to consider money for the Health Service in relation to the contingency fund is when we know how much the wages bill will cost the Health Service budget.
  Opposition Members pretend to forget the way in which Government business is conducted and say that Budget day should be Health Service day, but everyone knows that, under our constitution, Budget day deals with taxes. The Autumn Statement is to do with spending. The Opposition's deliberate unwillingness to accept those facts is a sign that they cannot stand the thought of a good Budget that produces reductions in taxation.
  The second part of the drama has been the Opposition's efforts to promote the debate on welfare benefits following 90 hours in Committee, extensive debate on Second Reading and extensive debate on the 1986 Act — the genesis and main departing point for the existing benefit system. Again, I am forced to believe that the Opposition are trying to ensure that the Budget is, in some way, pre-empted by a debate that has already taken place about legislation that is well advanced in its passage through the House.
  What is even more disconcerting about this deliberate plot is that it is augmented by backtracking on what is or is not agreed by the usual channels concerning the business of the House. Judging by the empty Opposition Benches, it is especially inconvenient to many Opposition Members to have this change in business. However, it was at the Opposition's instigation that the business was changed. I am sure that the Government were happy with the business as proposed. We would have been quite happy to deal with Scottish housing. We always hear from Scottish Opposition Members about how important Scotland is, and we were happy to have an early and timely debate on Scottish housing. We would have been happy to stay up until a reasonable hour tonight to debate the important amendments to the social security legislation.
  Mr. Battle: If the hon. Gentleman's argument is correct, why did the Government change the business and call us back? The Opposition do not control the agenda. Surely the truth of the matter is that the Government wanted to squeeze out our opposition to the measure and ensure that it is not properly discussed in the House.
  Mr. Redwood: I am sure that the Government changed the business because they believed that the Opposition could not deliver, through the usual channels, the agreement that the Government thought had been struck. It is impossible to conduct sensible democratic debate and give everyone a fair hearing if the usual channels cannot deliver some order to our proceedings. Of course, time will always be limited and it is a precious commodity. To have a successful Opposition as well as a successful Government one needs a disciplined Opposition who can deliver their votes and marshal their resources at the right time to make their contribution to the debate.
  As a direct result of the Opposition's inability to discipline their troops, they will have less time to debate the important measures relating to social security than they could have had under the previous arrangements. It was a suspicion that they were not interested in debating those measures and more interested in filibustering and extending business to make the Budget fall that led to this timetable motion.
  I am sure that the Opposition will now criticise the fact that I am about the leave the Chamber — [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I must see constituents who have come a long way—
  Mr. Cryer rose—
  Mr. Redwood: I shall give way in a minute.
  I have a pre-arranged meeting with my constituents about health. That subject is extremely important to my constituents and to me. Rest assured, the Opposition will not have to contain themselves for long because, as soon as I have concluded that meeting, I shall be back to listen to this important debate and support the Government in their motion to produce order out of disorder.
  4.57 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: This afternoon's debate is an example of the elective dictatorship trampling on Back Benchers' rights. That occurs frequently, but it is an outrage when it involves legislation that affects the poorest of our nation.
  The legislation that we have been asked to rush through as a result of the timetable motion abolishes single payments for essential items. Those absolute luxury items include such things as, curtains, carpets, ovens and beds. I recently approached the DHSS on behalf of a constituent to ask that a single-parent family with two children under three should be given money for carpets and curtains. My constituent said that, without curtains, she had no privacy and that if her children fell on bare boards they could be injured and that therefore there was a serious risk to health. However, it was pointed out that she had been in the tenancy longer than 28 days and that therefore she did not qualify because of the existing tight rules.
  Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend mentions single payments and the fact that they are to go. Is it not ironic that the Prime Minister, who is behind all this, receives free curtains, free bedding and free televisions for No. 10 Downing street and in her other residence provided by the
  884
  taxpayer? However, the Government are prepared to take that payment away from poor people in my borough of Newham.
  Mr. Cryer: That is why it is such an outrage that the people who are pushing through this timetable motion have no regard for the poor, and are busy, in many instances, not only receiving their parliamentary salary but lining their pockets from parliamentary directorships of one sort or another. The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) who has just exhibited such singularly tender mercies for the poorest of our nation has directorships in two companies—Norcross plc and N. M. Rothschild and Sons. It would have been a better measure of his concern if he had told us what income he receives from these directorships so that we may know what experience he has of life and of the difficulties of getting by on a few pounds a week.
  There will be others voting in the Lobby tonight for the legislation and for the curtailment of debate to limit the information coming out of this place when we use it as a platform to demonstrate to people just how vicious and mean-minded the Government are — and these other hon. Members are doing very well indeed.
  The Lord President of the Council, who moved this timetable motion to speed the legislation through this place, is an underwriting member of Lloyd's, which means that he has disposable capital of at least £100,000 or thereabouts. He needs this amount of disposable income to become a member of one of the tightest, richest clubs in the world. Incidentally, it is a club that has been given special legal privileges and immunity from legal action by this Conservative Government. Yet he has now moved a timetable motion that attacks the poorest people in the land.
  Of course it attacks them. The Minister shakes his head. He knows full well—and he can intervene and deny it if he chooses—that that the stress that will be caused in his Department by this legislation has meant that in a number of Department of Health arid Social Security offices the grilles have been strengthened in the public part of the offices to preclude the possibility of violent confrontations when benefits are being discussed and applications are being made and refused, and when angry and penniless people go down to the offices to try to find a solution.
  The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled (Mr. Nicholas Scott): The hon. Gentleman played no part in the Second Reading of this legislation, in the Report stage or in the Third Reading. He now comes here on Lords amendments, not one of which was contested in another place, to produce synethetic indignation about this legislation across the board.
  Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you clarify whether, since a number of Tory Members who have contributed to the debate so far played no part in Committee, the Minister should be allowed to make such an allegation against an elected Labour Member who is here to represent his constituency?
  Mr. Cryer: It is an interesting observation by the Minister. I would have great difficulty in commenting on every bit of legislation going through this place. As a matter of fact, one of the complaints of Mr. Speaker is that I speak too much in this place. The Minister's hon. Friends

  885
  echo these sentiments. So his comments are set at naught not by me but by the comments and endorsements of his hon. Friends.
  In fact, his comment will not deter me in the slightest. What I will try to do is make sure that no item of legislation goes through this place without a contribution from me. If it involves, for example, speaking on money resolutions when it is 10 o'clock and Government Members want to get away, let me assure the Minister that there will be speeches; and when people want to get a little deal organised to finish at 11 or 12, if there is an opportunity I will not let it go by. I will make sure that the Minister realises that I am prepared to give my observations on each aspect of legislation.
  My difficulty is that if I put my name in to speak and go to see you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or Mr. Speaker, a whole list of occasions when I have spoken is produced and I am told that it is a rather long list, so it is very unlikely that I will be called.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold rose—
  Mr. Cryer: I will give way in a minute. I have not finished with the Minister.
  So the Minister's observations about me are rather odd, particularly in view of my request that he intervene, not to speak about my humble part in this place, but to deny my claim that this legislation is so serious, is oppressing the poor so savagely, that DHSS offices have been strengthened in order to protect the civil servants who work in them, and who dole out the terrible decisions that this legislation will produce.
  I do not blame the Civil Service, I blame the Ministers and the clique of Tories—and I have not yet finished with them — who are pushing through legislation of which this timetable motion is but an example.
  Mr. Arnold: If the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is going to cast so many wild aspersions about second jobs done by hon. Members, will he perhaps tell us when he will give up his own second job?
  Mr. Cryer: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned this. If he had troubled to look in the Register of Members' Interests, he would see that I have put down that I am a Member of the European Assembly. I am not terribly proud of that, but it was the best Government job creation scheme that I could find at the time. It says in brackets—I do not want to keep the hon. Member in suspense—that one third of my MP's salary received was donated after tax to the Labour movement. I do not seek to gain advantage out of the extra salary that I receive.
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: My hon. Friend has been attacked for speaking too much. Is he aware that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), who spoke earlier, and the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) were Trappist monks for five solid weeks in Committee? Is he aware that there were 18 Tory Members on that Committee and that, apart from the Ministers, not one of them opened his mouth in defence of the poor people who are being flattened into the ground by this evil Government?
  Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me this information.
  886
  The problem is that the Minister wants me to serve on every Committee in the House of Commons, and it is a physical impossibility to do so—although I would be quite willing to go round by rotation and make a speech in every Committee in the House.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I wonder if my hon. Friend would just stick to his own Select Committee on Statutory Instruments and reflect that, over the years, the Department which has got most statutory instruments wrong has been the Department of Health and Social Security with its social security regulations. Will he agree that one of the most worrying things about this Bill is that, having had to change it in the House of Lords only last Thursday, the Government will have introduced further errors which will worry my hon. Friend's Committee in the future?
  Mr. Cryer: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. When the Leader of the House moved the timetable motion, he said very courteously that he was doing so, in part, to meet the wishes of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, so that we would have more time. The reality is that the Joint Committee has very little power to initiate a debate in this place when an instrument is reported. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), the former Chairman of the Committee, is quite right to say that the DHSS makes a number of errors in statutory instruments, partly because of their nature and complexity.
  The complexity arises because the Department is very anxious to ensure that no fiddling goes on. I wish that it would apply the same enthusiasm and ingenuity to the City when it comes to the insider dealing which seems to be under perpetual review. We have had no legislation on that issue subjected to a timetable motion. The usual channels on the Opposition side of the House would be only too happy to encourage such legislation through the House if we were able to pick out some of the fraudsters who operate in the City and who make such generous contributions to Conservative party political funds.
  I wish to say something about the question of appeal.
  Mr. John Marshall: The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) pointed out that he donates to the Labour party his European salary less tax. He could save the taxpayer even more if he did as I do, and claimed no salary as a Euro MP.
  Mr. Cryer: The problem with that is that the Labour movement is poor because it does not get money, as does the Tory party, from the international and national capitalist organisations. Therefore, I would rather that the Labour movement benefits from my diminishing activities in the Common Market.
  The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) raised the question of Members' activities. Only a few Conservative Members are here to support the timetable motion. When I look through the Register of Members' Interests, I wonder how any of them actually manage to get here at all, and how they can spare some time from the directorships.
  Mr. Martin Flannery: I have spent 120 hours or so discussing the Education Reform Bill. The Minister has said something which I find prositively alarming for democracy. Did the Minister imply that, when a Bill reaches the Floor of the House,

  887
  only members of the Standing Committee should speak, or be allowed to speak, and that other hon. Members have no right to speak because they were not on the Standing Committee? Is that what the Minister implied, because it seems absolutely disgraceful?
  Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). The fact that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, did not intervene, showed that the Minister was completely out of order in making that suggestion. It shows the brutal and anti-democratic way in which many Conservative Members view the House. That is precisely what they want to do. They want to diminish the rights of hon. Members because they find them extremely inconvenient.
  Before turning to the legislation and the timetable motion, I wish to make two important points. I wish to pick out some choice people who will be voting for this timetable motion dealing with a Bill which will cut down the award that keeps the poorest people of our nation barely afloat. That is all the Bill does. It does not give them much hope, it does not give them much of a life.
  In my advice surgeries, I, like no doubt many of my hon. Friends, have met people on supplementary benefit who are oppressed by gas and electricity bills and who are facing cut-off. The Government are to increase electricity bills by 15 per cent. People have come to me saying, "Mr. Cryer, I cannot see any hope in life. I have actually thought of doing away with myself because there does not seem to be any point in pressing on." That is perfectly accurate and true. It has happened not on one but several occasions. It happens because the web of debt which sucks people into such terrible situations is relieved only moderately by the DHSS provisions. The legislation will take away even that tiny means of assistance which is provided by existing law and which has already been cut by the Government.
  Those who will vote tonight for the timetable motion, who no doubt will walk gleefully through the Lobby to vote for it, include the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox). How on earth can he manage directorships of Westminster (Communications) Ltd., Care Services Group, Rigidized Metals Ltd., Ceema Group and companies, Tele-Stage Associates Ltd., McCarthy and Stone Ltd., Malibun Estates Ltd. and Grantham O'Donnell Estates Ltd.? He also has offices in, or is employed by 3M(UK) Ltd., Shepherd (Construction) Ltd., Alcrafield Ltd. and Sherwood Homes (Southern) Ltd. He is also the Chairman of the Committee of Selection. It is not surprising that he cannot find much time to comment in debate. He is not unique. The list is not repetitious, because they are all different directorships.
  The hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell) has always claimed that the level of supplementary benefit and employment benefit are a disincentive to work, and no doubt will gleefully vote for the legislation. He is a farmer. He does not say how many acres he has, whether he has a smallholding of 30 or 40 acres or whether he has 500 or 1,000 acres. However, he is also an underwriting member of Lloyd's, like the Leader of the House. So one assumes that he is in a decent way of activity as a farmer, and has several hundred if not several thousand acres. He also has land and property and is the owner-occupier of farms in Norfolk.
  One could continue with a rich, lively and varied demonstration of the way in which greed is elevated to a high principle by Conservative Members. They count the
  888
  revenue from their directorships and their property, the grants from the common agricultural policy if they are farmers, and the grants that they receive from the common agricultural policy for storing food, yet they will vote for legislation that attacks the poorest of the poor and which robs poor people of the right to appeal.
  The system of appeal whereby people have the right to argue their case in front of three people will go out of the window. The people who are supposed to be concerned with justice will be robbing the poorest of their right of appeal. Four thousand children in Bradford will be deprived of free school meals. The right to single payments is to go out of the window. In every case, the Government are cutting back so that tomorrow they can give people who are already well off an increase in the amount of money that they will receive through tax concessions, when the nation is crying out for more money to be spent on the National Health Service and on social security 30 that people can be given some hope that they have some collective provision. That is the basis of the timetable motion, because to some degree it represents collective provision. [Interruption.]
  The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown) who is leaning negligently on the Front Bench below the Gangway, said that the poorest get more. He is wrong. He has not been poor and he does not know what a struggle it is to get an extra pound from the DHSS. He has not seen the forms that have to be filled in and the supplications that have to be made. Conservative Members do not have a clue. They will vote for the timetable motion, but such action will be part of the erosion of their position in the country, which is building up to the time when they will be crushed.
  Millions of people see that time coming soon. We have to suffer a burden on our backs for the moment, as the Government won the election because of divided opposition. There is no question but that the plethora of legislation that bears down on the poorest of the poor will make people realise that the Government are a wretched, selfish Government for the greedy.
  5.18 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: Behind the protests of the Opposition there are more fundamental arguments than those that they have put forward. I would not like my hon. Friends to feel that the protests about the contents of the Bill are really the root of the argument. That really has little to do with it. Many Conservative Members appreciate that the Bill contains fundamental changes, and we are interested in debating them. If the Opposition had been able to discipline themselves and get their act together, they would have plenty of time to argue about the Lords' amendments to the Social Security Bill and the Scottish housing Bill. They could not, and that is the simple reason for this debate.
  Before I address the fundamental arguments, I shall put into context some of the points that have been made. The Opposition are using their indignation as a smokescreen for the real arguments that must be addressed. They have talked about help for low-income families. Under the Bill an extra £220 million will 13e spent on the new family credit. It will cost more than twice as much as the existing family income supplement and associated benefits. Most important, 470,000 low-income families will benefit, which is more than twice the number that are being helped at present.

  889
  Some £100 million will be spent on families receiving the new income support, which is not being spent at present. The Opposition have not addressed the overall position because they want those who are receiving these benefits to think that they are badly done to and that the Government do not care.
  Mrs. Beckett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hind: No. [Interruption,] The truth will out. Eighty-six per cent. of couples with children and 67 per cent. of single parents will gain or be unaffected after taking inflation into account.
  Mrs. Beckett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hind: I shall give way to the hon. Lady when I have made my point and I shall have no objection to her answering it.
  On average there will be a gain in real terms of £1·50 for couples with children and of £2·60 for single parents, even taking into account the average 20 per cent. contribution which low-income families will make to the rates, and, in future, to the community charge. It is no good the Opposition complaining about those points and saying that people will be worse off. They should read the information available to them and see the truth for themselves.
  Mrs. Beckett: If the hon. Gentleman had had the opportunity to attend any of our social security debates, he would know that those figures have been wholly exploded. Most of them are theoretical and the ones that have any basis have been completely disproved. The Government have admitted that in many cases they are not providing the increases that they have claimed. The figures are invented by the Government and if the hon. Gentleman had been to any previous debates, he would know that.
  Mr. Hind: I should be surprised if the hon. Lady could admit that tomorrow was Tuesday.
  We talk about the social fund. For the past eight months it has been my privilege to be a parliamentary private secretary in the Department of Employment and I have seen the figures for unemployed people falling like a stone. That means that in the past 12 months about 650,000 people have obtained a job.
  Mr. Nellist: Rubbish.
  Mr. Hind: The hon. Gentleman shouts, "Rubbish."
  Mr. Nellist: Absolute rubbish.
  Mr. Hind: The authentic voice of Coventry speaks.
  Mr. Nellist rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) must not persist if the hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he will not give way.
  Mr. Hind: I should like to make my point—
  Mr. Nellist: A coward is speaking.
  Mr. Hind: I am sure that abuse will not improve the quality of this debate.
  Mr. Nellist rose—
  Mr. Hind: However one looks at this, one must be like the proverbial ostrich with its head in the sand not to
  890
  realise that there has been a large decrease in unemployment. My hon. Friends know that in simple terms that means that there will be a large reduction in the number of people eligible to claim under the social fund. It is vital to bear that in mind.
  Mr. Nellist rose—
  Mr. Hind: To take Opposition Members—
  Mr. Nellist: The hon. Gentleman is a coward.
  Mr. Hind: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman with the greatest of pleasure when I have made my point. I assure him that the abuse which he hurls at me will not do him any credit.
  In 1980, about £40 million was spent on individual payments under the old regulations. Upgraded for inflation to today's figures, it is £60 million. Today, the grants under the social fund and clause 10 alone amount to £60 million, not including the loans and so on, and that must be considered. Side by side with that, we have a major reduction in the number of people who are eligible. Is it sensible to put money into a fund for which the demand will fall in the long term?
  Mr. Nellist rose—
  Mr. Wareing rose—
  Mr. Hind: I would normally give way to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), but I give way to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East.
  Mr. Nellist: Can we nail this canard? According to the hon. Gentleman there has been a reduction in the unemployment figures because 700,000 people have found jobs. If he had attended any of the Committee sittings and listened to the debates on clause 4 and youth unemployment, he would have heard the Under-Secretary of State claim that there has been a 55,000 fall in the number of 16 to 19-year-olds registered unemployed. He would have heard me produce the fact that over the same period there was a rise of 77,000 in the number of 16 to 17-year-olds on YTS schemes.
  If he totalled the community programme, the restart interviews, the job clubs, YTS and the other ways in which the Government are fiddling unemployment, he would realise that it is a blatant lie for the Government to claim that a reduction in unemployment means that more people are in paid employment. The Government are fiddling figures to confuse people and the hon. Gentleman is an accomplice to that.
  Mr. Hind: If I have to choose between the 400,000 Department of Employment civil servants with their computer and the hon. Gentleman, I would prefer the gentlemen at the DOE.
  Mr. Tony Favell rose—
  Mr. Nellist: Those are DOE figures.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must restrain himself.
  Mr. Hind: I make these points merely to show that there are two sides to the argument and that much of the huff and puff to tell those on low incomes and the unemployed how badly off they are and how much we shall persecute them is wholly unfounded. Hon. Gentlemen are seeking to conceal the important facts.
  Mr. McAllion rose—
  Mr. Hind: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Fayell).
  Mr. Favell: Does it not strike my hon. Friend as extraordinary that at one moment the Opposition bemoan the lack of training for young people and the next they condemn the Government for establishing the best training scheme ever?
  Mr. Hind: I hear what my hon. Friend says and he makes the point extremely well.
  To come to the crux of today's debate—
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Hind: I have given way often and other hon. Members wish to speak.
  The crux of the matter is simple: on 3 March the Leader of the Opposition accepted the timetable for today, and it was not until almost midnight on Thursday that there was any change in the timetable. The reason for that is also simple—the normal channels that operate in this place and which make life orderly and bearable for most hon. Members broke down, not on the Conservative side but because the Labour Chief Whip, an honourable man, had to go to the Government and tell them that he could not deliver the agreement that had been made a few days before, to which the Leader of the Opposition was a party. That is at the root of this matter.
  So the Government, faced with the clear intention of certain out-of-control Labour Back Benchers to destroy Budget day tomorrow, a day that is important to most people in this country—
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett rose—
  Mr. Hind: The Labour Chief Whip could not deliver, so the Leader of the House and the Government had no choice but to bring in this guillotine motion.
  Mrs. Wise: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee that considered the Social Security Bill could be held to be those most likely to want to take part in this debate—it should have occurred at midnight tonight—will you inform the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) that it is not in order for him to refer to us as being out of control?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for argument, not for the Chair.
  Mr. Hind: The problem goes much further than this. Unless we can control our proceedings in an orderly way we shall never achieve any of what the public voted us here to do. They look to us to legislate and to run the country properly, and that is what we are here for.
  Mr. Fairbairn: My hon. Friend said that Opposition Back Benchers were out of order. He forgets that they were in league with the Front Bencher who was leading on this matter. When it came to a choice of whether a Left-wing Scottish hon. Member representing an English seat or a more moderate Opposition Front Bench Member representing Scotland was to lose out in the battle, it was obvious whom the Opposition chose.
  Mr Hind: If we are to have comments made from a sedentary position from Opposition Members such as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) — [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] — who, when the usual channels were mentioned asked,
  892
  "what do they matter?" — [Official Report, 11 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 785.],
  how shall we maintain any form of discipline? I made a note of what the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said about the normal procedures. He said that if a deal were struck at 11 pm he would not let it go by. When he said that he would stand up and speak on money resolutions, the implication was that he would do so in order to disrupt the proceedings of the House. If that happens, we shall never achieve anything.
  The logical conclusion is that there will have to be more timetable motions, which I would deprecate. Conservative Members do not want more such motions, but if Opposition Members are not under the control of their Whips and Front Bench, we shall have to have them whether we like it or not. The public must recognise that the situation is out of control—
  Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that any attempt to curtail the rights of hon. Members to speak in this Chamber by means of intimidation and threats would be a serious breach of privilege?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is correct.
  Mr. Hind: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but he fails to realise that it is not only Opposition Members who have been prevented from speaking on the amendments to the Social Security Bill — Conservative Members have also been prevented from making what they regard as important points.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My hon. Friend has observed that Conservative Members do not like guillotines. May I point out that there is quite a strong argument for having an earlier guillotine so that the whole Bill is discussed in an orderly fashion and we do not have to leave too much to be digested in the Lords?
  Mr. Hind: I shall take that point on board.
  Mr. Robin Cook: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hind: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have plenty of time in which to put his case. I want to bring my remarks to a close.
  Mr. Cook: Put the truth on the record.
  Mr. Hind: The hon. Gentleman will have plenty of opportunities to do that.
  I want to put on record my regret at being involved in wasting parliamentary time on this debate. The public need to realise that our time-wasting is wholly the responsibility of the Opposition.
  5.37 pm
  Ms. Dawn Primarolo: If I may return to the discussion on the guillotine motion, when I was small and my grandmother thought that I might not have been telling the truth, she used to say:

  "O what a tangled web we weave,

  When first we practise to deceive!"

  We have watched the progress of the Social Security Bill through Parliament — on Second Reading, in Committee, on Report and Third Reading and through the other place — and seen the mess that the Government have got themselves into, having constantly to amend their legislation and bring it back to us in great haste with the amendments that they tabled in another

  893
  place and which they are now seeking to guillotine. The Bill is a parliamentary deception, and what has been said about its provisions is a lie.
  I remind Ministers of some of the claims that they made about the review that led to this and the previous Bill. Some of the letters were written to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in response to inquiries made by the county of Avon, where I was a county councillor at the time. Some were sent to the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), who is a Minister, and some to my predecessor. They outlined the reasons for the review of social security and what the Government were attempting to do—[Interruption.] Hon. Members should shut up.
  The first reason for the review, it is claimed, is
  "to ensure the level of help available to claimants is fair in comparison with others in society on low incomes who have to manage without any single payments."
  The second aim is
  —to balance the available help more effectively between claimants, while giving special protection to those who are elderly, chronically sick or disabled.
  —to produce clearer rules which enable staff to process claims more quickly.
  —to put the single payment scheme on a proper financial and manageable basis."
  For that we should read, "Cut the budget and make it a loan and not a single payment." It is simple to make it easier for staff to process claims — people are not allowed to qualify.
  People on low incomes and the Government's economic strategy have been debated many times in the House. I should like to return to the point about more effectively distributing help to claimants who are elderly, chronically sick or disabled. The Government's haste to draft the Bill and bring it back to the Floor of the House and their substantial cuts in welfare benefit the day before a Budget that will give tax cuts to the rich, are good examples of the obscenity of the principles under which the Government operate.
  The Government continue to tell lies by saying that everyone will he better off and that more money will be available. It is like a riddle. We should ask, "When is a welfare state safety net not a welfare state safety net?' The answer is: when the Government take a pair of scissors to the net and make the regulations much simpler so that nobody qualifies because everyone falls through the safety net.
  An example of that is a case that has come to light in my constituency. It results directly from the calculations of benefit for one of my constituents in preparation for the changes that will occur on 11 April. I attempted to put down a manuscript amendment about this because it was the first opportunity that we had to examine the sort of case that would arise as a result of the amendments from the other place.
  The constituent in question is a married mother. Her husband is in employment and they live in accommodation that is tied to her husband's job. They have a disabled 19-year-old son who lives in a special hospital most of the time and returns home at the weekends. They have three young daughters, aged eight, five and two. They are a hard-working, industrious family and they do their best to make do in tied accommodation on a low budget. The husband works long hours and has one day a week off —Wednesday.
  894
  The misfortune for the family was that the mother was diagnosed in 1984 as having multiple sclerosis. Under the current social security regulations, the benefit office calculated that, even though the mother did not work, she was entitled to receive supplementary benefit in her own right. That benefit was to pay for the home helps that the family have to employ seven days a week in order to keep the family unit together. That benefit amounted to £48 a week. They received additional payments for heating, diet requirements and laundry for the three daughters.
  The social security office in Bristol ruled that all the husband's net take-home pay could be offset against the family expenditure for home helps. As a result of the Bill, that family will lose £50 income per week. That has been taken away from a family in which there is illness, and we could name many other such families. This illness strikes indiscriminately at families who have worked hard and struggled to keep the family unit together. Yet the Government have the audacity to tell us that they are directing benefit to those who need it most. That is a lie, and we cannot say that any more frequently than we do in the House and elsewhere.
  The change on 11 April will mean that the only way in which the family can be cared for is if the husband gives up his job. If he does that, the family will lose their home. We will then have a family with an unemployed husband, and the family will be homeless and wholly dependent on the state. That will come about as a result of the Government's deception about targeting benefit on those who need it.
  It is fortuitous for us that the debate is taking place the day before the Budget, because we can say that the Government do target money. They target benefit away from those who need it and then play the numbers game with us. Instead of looking at the reality of what is going on in people's lives, the Government quote endless figures. I cannot believe that Conservative Members do not meet in their surgeries people who face the same problems of cuts in benefit as we meet in ours. The Government's idea of targeting is to take money out of the welfare state and to give it through tax cuts tomorrow to those who can afford to do without such tax cuts.
  As a result of letters received from former Members of Parliament about these reviews, the county council spent six months looking at the changes that took place before the ones in this Bill to see what would happen. I shall give some examples of the cases that now occur as a result of the Government's targeting to the rich through tax cuts.
  The first is that the DHSS refused to pay funeral benefit to a family because it believed that a child in the family was working and could afford to pay for the funeral. There were two young people in that family. One was 18 and unemployed and the other was 19 and on a youth training scheme. They did not get the funeral benefit because of the regulation. Payment for a cot mattress was refused to a young woman because she had received a similar grant three years before. That is what Government targeting is about.
  A mother who had been receiving supplementary benefit died. She had one 17-year-old on a youth training scheme, who had to make all the arrangements for the funeral, but Government regulations forbade a funeral grant to that young woman to bury her mother. The list is endless.
  The Government should be honest and say that they wish to cash-limit social security payments and to remove

  895
  the safety net that we know as the welfare state. They do not have the guts to remove it completely because they know how much it is accepted and wanted by the community. They hope to destroy that net and leave just the rim round the edge so that most people do not get the benefit to which they are entitled.
  In spite of all the smooth talk and the figures, people will be worse off as a result of the Bill. The guillotine shows the appalling rationale under which the Government operate. They do not want to face debate after debate on the facts and realities of people's lives. They want the Act on the statute book so that benefit will be cut in April.
  5.49 pm
  Mr. Allan Stewart: Some of my hon. Friends may wish to comment on the points made by the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo).
  I should like to return to the effect of the guillotine on the business of the House. That subject was raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) in his excellent speech. He referred to the consequences for Scottish business. It is worth recalling the fact that the business for today was first announced on Thursday 3 March. Therefore, there was plenty of time for discussions between the usual channels to take place. It is fairly clear that this is yet another example of the Opposition playing parliamentary games, the consequence of that being the loss or deferment of Scottish business.
  I do not know whether the widespread rumours of a blazing row between the hon. Members for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) about today's business are correct. They certainly seem to have been believed by many people. However, having heard the attitude of the Opposition to the original business tabled for today, it is astonishing that we have heard only one comment about that. That comment was made by the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), who said that the Opposition did not want to debate the Housing (Scotland) Bill. I find that—
  Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) did not say that we did not want to debate the Housing (Scotland) Bill in the Chamber. He said that we do not want the Bill in Scotland. That is the point of view that has been put to us overwhelmingly by the Scottish people. If the Government are so concerned to debate the Housing (Scotland) Bill, why did four Ministers sit through Second Reading and in Committee and never once open their mouths in defence of the Bill?
  Mr. Stewart: The answer to that is perfectly straightforward. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) was wholly capable of handling the Bill himself, particularly given the level of argument coming from Opposition Members.
  It is astonishing that hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies have not made a considerable fuss about the deferral of Scottish business. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why should we?"] Even if they do not want the Bill, I should have thought that they would want an opportunity to debate Scottish housing.
  Mr. Donald Dewar: I am curious. The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart)
  896
  —the Minister that was and who knows what next — would have an extremely valid point if the Housing (Scotland) Bill, having dropped out of today's programme, was not to be debated at some time in the future. Is that the point he is making?
  Mr. Stewart: No. My point is that I thought that Scottish Members would be eager and enthusiastic, especially following their party conference, to put their views on Scottish housing.
  This is not the first time that this sort of thing has happened. There was the deferral of the introduction of the devolution legislation and the abandonment of a Scottish Question Time. That was not done because of the wish of the Government but because English Labour Members talked right through—
  Mr. Norman Hogg: In a former role in the House, my object was to frustrate the Government in expediting their business. Why would the Opposition suddenly want to discuss a housing Bill that they do not want at all? There is no analogy between the Housing (Scotland) Bill and other matters to which the hon. Gentleman is referring.
  Mr. Stewart: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not think it was a matter of concern that Scottish Question Time was lost as a result of English Labour Members—
  Mr. Hogg rose—
  Mr. Stewart: I have the greatest respect for the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg), and I shall give way again.
  Mr. Hogg: We are not discussing the loss of a Scottish Question Time some time ago. The hon. Gentleman was referring to the Housing (Scotland) Bill and was explaining why we, as an Opposition, would wish to get that Bill on to the statute book and discuss it today. We are a trifle mystified at that, because we are against the Bill and want to hold it up. The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who has been a Member for some time, does not seem to have grasped the role of the Opposition. Clearly, he never understood the role of Government.
  Mr. Stewart: On a personal basis, I am glad that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth has managed to make his speech in the debate on an intervention.
  There is no doubt that there have been a number of occasions when Scottish business has not proceeded as the Opposition planned and this is another example of that. I am surprised that Opposition Members do not wish to take the first possible opportunity of making their views on the Housing (Scotland) Bill known to the House.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to confirm that the Housing (Scotland) Bill will come to the House for its remaining stages and Third Reading at an early opportunity. The Bill is revolutionary and radical. It is in the interests of Scottish tenants that they should have more choice about landlords and that there should be more effective co-operation between the public and private sectors in Scottish housing. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give that reassurance to the House.
  5.56 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I shall try to be brief because I know that many of my hon. Friends wish to contribute to the debate. In this debate we

  897
  have seen another attempt by the Government to try to hide under procedure the reality of their legislation, which is an out-and-out attack on those with the lowest incomes in this country. It is an attempt to hide the decision by the Government to make the lives of those people even more miserable than they are already.
  The Government are trying to claim that the guillotine motion is necessary for them to get their business through. This motion has nothing to do with the Government getting their business through, but is about them trying to manipulate the reporting of the affairs of the House outside. Clearly, the Government are concerned that the public should not be generally aware of two measures going through the House — this legislation on social security and the charges for the Health Service—at the same time as they are aware of the Budget. They do not want public attention to be drawn to the contrast between the way in which they are imposing cuts in benefits on one group of people and charges on another while they are giving tax handouts in the Budget. That is what all this is about.
  When the Government discovered late last week that there was a possibility that, instead of being debated at midnight when there would have been very little media attention, this matter might have gone on being debated through the night and into the early part of Tuesday, they decided to change the business and push all this away to a time when it would receive less public attention. It would not have been possible for the Opposition to destroy Budget day under the proceedings of the House. The Government Whips know that it would have been perfectly possible to close the sitting at any time during the night.
  Therefore, this motion is tabled simply because the Government do not want the media to report tomorrow morning that the House of Commons is talking about social security cuts at the same time as the Chancellor is ready to pose with his Box before coming to the House to announce tax cuts. That is what it is all about. Any suggestion about the Opposition trying to destroy Budget day is nonsense. Under the proceedings of the House that would not be possible. However, it would have been possible to draw attention to the contrast between tax cuts and cuts in benefit.
  The other advantage that the Government obtain through this procedural device is that we have a procedural debate that lasts for the first three hours rather than a debate that draws attention to the nature of the cuts and to the meanness of the way in which the Government conduct themselves over social security matters. The Government have a pretty appalling record on social security. They have repeatedly brought forward legislation, always claiming that they have been trying to tune and reform they system. But behind all those changes has been a consistent pattern of cuts and contradictions.
  The whole thrust of the Government's claims about the 1981 and 1982 social security legislation was that discretionary benefits were not satisfactory: people in one area would receive them, while others in another area would not. It was far better, they said, to give people a legal entitlement. Having put such an entitlement on to the statute book, however, the Government began to discover that some people were using their legal rights to obtain the benefits to which they were entitled, so they duly tore the
  898
  whole thing up, bringing forward the 1986 legislation, which took away many of the statutory entitlements and returned a system of discretionary payments. But they were made cash-limited, so there is very little discretion for individual benefit offices—and also very little chance for individuals to appeal against a decision.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Does my hon. Friend recall that Labour local authorities, in particular the Greater London council, had a welfare rights team that told people their rights? Because they were so successful, the Government decided to take those entitlements away. Let us contrast that with the way in which the Government go around telling business men, for example, what they can get out of the system. There is a welfare state for business men, and nothing for the poor.
  Mr. Bennett: We must accept that argument.
  This is a disgraceful example of the Government trying to change the rules of the House by stealth. We have always had a tradition in the House that the Opposition object to measures by talking at length and putting down substantial amendments. The Government's counter to that is a guillotine.
  On this occasion, there is no evidence that the Opposition filibustered or extended the debate; they applied a timetable so that everything could be effectively debated. The Government have never had to push a closure on the legislation until this point, when the legislation is returning from the House of Lords. What are we discussing but 31 amendments that the Government carried in the House of Lords? Why is a guillotine necessary?
  It appears that the Government have now introduced a procedure to guillotine their own extension of the debate. Why was it necessary for 31 amendments to be put down in the House of Lords? Because the Government made mistakes in drafting the legislation. For the first time, they are trying to restrict debate on their part of the Bill, as opposed to the activities of the Opposition. That is a dangerous precedent.
  The history of social security legislation during the period in which the Government have been changing it so often is pretty bad. I do not blame the parliamentary draftsmen; I blame partly the instructions from the Government, and partly the complexity of the legislation. We have had legislation followed by amending legislation to correct the mistakes; we have had regulations which have had to be withdrawn because of the mistakes in them, and we have had continual confusion.
  What do we have in this legislation? We have new amendments introduced in the House of Lords on Thursday, which are subject to amendment now, and which will be used to make regulations to come into operation in early April. The odds of there being more mistakes in that legislation are extremely high.
  I suggest to the Government that, if they want to get their social security legislation right, they should take a good deal more time and trouble to ensure that there is proper debate in the House and proper scrutiny outside. What opportunity have any of the experts outside between Thursday and now to examine the legislation and to see whether it is correct? The main effect of guillotining these procedures is to stop proper debate and deny accuracy.
  We have heard a great deal about the legislation and the regulations, but most of my constituents worry about what

  899
  is custom and practice. The most dangerous thing that the Government have done is to destroy any understanding of social security for most of my constituents, who are now bewildered by the continual changes. The one message that they receive from the Government is: "We are trying to stop you getting your benefits." The Government do that by changing regulations and causing confusion. They ought to take the legislation away and come back with a simplified system, which will also inject more money.
  We are a rich country, as the Chancellor will prove tomorrow. Some of that wealth should be going into the provision of a decent social security system for all who are at present disadvantaged.
  6.4 pm
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Whatever the mysteries that surround the ordering of today's business—and I have listened carefully to what has been said without being much enlightened by either side—it should not be forgotten that the debate follows not only 90 hours of discussion in Committee, but a long and exhaustive review of the social security system, based on extensive consultations with all concerned groups.
  From that consultation emerged a number of overriding concerns. One was that the system had—as the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) pointed out—become overwhelmingly complicated, with 16,000 paragraphs devoted to supplementary benefit alone. It is indeed true that confusion reigns.
  One of the main aims of the legislation—to simplify the system to make benefits more comprehensible—
  Ms. Primarolo rose—
  Mrs. Shephard: Let me finish my point.
  The aim to simplify the benefits system for the recipients must be one of the main aims, and it is an excellent one. For that reason, I shall certainly support the guillotine. However, the context in which the Bill is debated should also not be forgotten.
  It seems unwelcome news to Opposition Members that there is a much more positive employment picture than when the review was undertaken. In my constituency, unemployment — even in the most difficult area — has fallen from 11 per cent. to 7 per cent. in the last year, and in some areas the problem is, paradoxically, that there is a surplus of jobs over people. The difficulty has become much more one of getting people into jobs, rather than compensating and helping them with the financial problem of being without work. I accept that my constituency may be exceptionally fortunate, but nevertheless that is the position.
  One of the clauses that seem to have come in for some Opposition criticism is clause 4. Surely it must be right for young people who do not wish to stay on at school, and who do not go into employment, to take advantage of an enhanced youth training scheme, lengthened to two years and with extra money pumped in. In the past, two thirds of young people have gone into jobs from the YTS.
  If we were raising the school leaving age to 18, there might be overwhelming support from Opposition Members. We are not doing that, but we are extending to all young people up to that age the excellent benefits of a YTS enhanced for two years. There is overwhelming support for the move because what taxpayers do not want is for young people who have the opportunity—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Lady must resume her seat when I am on my feet. I find it very difficult to relate what the hon. Lady is saying to the motion before the House.
  Mrs. Shephard: I accept your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Let me simply conclude that taxpayers do not wish to see young people turn down the chance of an enhanced and extended YTS, which will give them a better opportunity in the job market.
  6.9 pm
  Mr. Robin Cook: I shall begin by referring to what the Leader of the House described as the modalities of the debate. The motion breaks new ground in the restrictions on parliamentary debate. I have checked with the Clerk of the House, and I am advised that there is no precedent for an attempt to impose a guillotine on Lords amendments in relation to a Bill that was not guillotined when it was before the House. I understand that Government advisers have been unable to find a precedent, which makes me all the more confident that that information is correct. I am sure that those advisers have been up all night every night since Thursday desperately searching for such a precedent.
  We have been told that the reason for this extraordinary new precedent is the disruption and unruly behaviour of Opposition Members. Is it not strange that during two and a half hours of debate not a single complaint has been made about the propriety or behaviour of my hon. Friends or the legitimacy of their tactics when this matter was before the House, in Committee, or on Report? I remember the Minister causing two of my hon. Friends to squirm with embarrassment by praising their behaviour in Committee. So much for the allegations of disruptive and unruly behaviour.
  In retrospect—perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) will agree—possibly we made it too easy for the Government. Perhaps there is a lesson here that we should not forget. On the next social security Bill we should remember that the last time the Government turned into the home straight they reached for the jackboots.
  A number of Conservative Members have made reference to what allegedly passed through the usual channels. It is not customary for these matters to be debated in the House, but as they have been exhaustively referred to by Conservative Members I shall put the record straight.
  I am the Opposition spokesman on the Bill. At no time did I enter into any agreement concerning tonight's business and at no time was any proposition made to me to which I was remotely likely to agree. On Thursday evening, at a late hour, I was given a demand by the Government that unless we undertook to dispose quickly after midnight of the Lords amendments—which had only that day proceeded through the House of Lords—they would introduce the guillotine.
  There was no agreement; merely that summary and arrogant demand. I believe, and I hope my hon. Friends will stand with me on this matter, that I would have been failing the rights of the House and failing the 700,000 people whose benefit will be cut by the Bill if I had agreed to that summary and arrogant demand.
  One may ask what the Treasury Bench is afraid of. There are 33 amendments before us, and all bar one are

  901
  Government amendments. The guillotine motion has been moved to curtail debate on 32 of the Government's own amendments. There is not a single amendment on the Order Paper that the Government did not want to accept. Yet they say that the amendments must be rushed through with indecent haste in a debate that has been chopped off by the guillotine.
  The Government say that they must have the Bill so that it can take its place in the barrage of April cuts in three weeks' time. As an argument to convince the Opposition to come to agreement, it is not particularly persuasive to say that the Government need it in place to play its part in the April cuts.
  If the Government need this Bill so desperately, I have a simple piece of advice for them. They should not have clogged it up with three dozen amendments in the House of Lords. The Government drafted the Bill. If they had got it right they would not have needed to amend it in the House of Lords. I am bound to observe that a Government Department that is very swift to swoop on claimants who have filled in their forms incorrectly is remarkably easy-going about errors in Bills presented to Parliament.
  Schedule 1 is concerned with putting right errors in the Social Security Act 1986 relating to industrial death benefit. Schedule 3 is entirely concerned with putting right errors in the 1986 Act relating to the social fund. The Bill may be better termed the Social Security Cock-Ups (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill.
  We recognise that any Government have a right to make good their own mistakes by fresh legislation, which is just as well because the Department of Health and Social Security makes so many mistakes. But they are not entitled to stop the House debating the correction of those errors.
  Over the past two and a half hours, a number of Labour Members have referred, properly and correctly, to the wonderful aptness of tonight's debate. Tomorrow, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will finally reveal how he will dispose of the cash mountain on which he has been sitting for the past six months. Sunday newspapers fell over themselves yesterday trying to list the different ways in which he might give the money away. They generally agreed that he may cut income tax by 2p and that he may cut the top rate of income tax by a full quarter. Alone, that will cost the public purse £3,000 million. Tonight, on the eve of that largesse, we are debating this mean little Bill, which is full of mean little cuts for the people whom the Chancellor has forgotten.
  Mr. Redwood rose—
  Mr. Cook: I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) rising, as I was about to refer to him. The hon. Gentleman had the nerve to say that the Budget will increase public expenditure. Perhaps he will explain to the House how the financial memorandum for the Bill provides for £275 million to be saved in public expenditure at the expense of people whose benefits are cut by the Bill. Who are they?
  Mr. Redwood: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there will be a substantial increase in the social security budget next year, as set out in the White Paper on public spending? Will he tell the House when a Labour
  902
  Government were able to increase spending and cut taxes at the same time and reduce borrowing? I do not think that a Labour Government have ever been able to do that.
  Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct to say that there is an increase in the social security budget for next year. However, that increase is less than the rate of inflation and, as Labour Member after Labour Member has reminded the House, there will be more losers than gainers as a result of the changes.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold rose—
  Mr. Cook: It was not my idea to guillotine the debate. However, it has been guillotined and there will be a vote at 6.43 pm. If the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) will undertake to vote against the guillotine, I shall be delighted to give way. On the understanding that he will be voting for the guillotine, he cannot expect the rest of us to give up our time to him.
  Three major groups are hit by the Bill. Unemployed teenagers will lose all right to benefit. The Government, who have put more teenagers on the dole than any other Government, are to solve that problem by taking the dole away from them. Men and women over 55 who are out of work will lose their right to unemployment benefit although they have paid for it for all their lives. Some 200,000 mothers of young children will lose their right to welfare milk. The party that claims to be the party of the family is clearly revealing itself to be the party of wealthy families.
  The happy contrast between those hit by the Bill and tomorrow's Budget give away is paralleled by the contrast between a Government who this month will cut taxes and next month will cut benefits. The Government can afford to cut taxes, but apparently they cannot afford to maintain the special additions for diet and heating for the pensioner. They cannot afford to find 30p to maintain the real value of child benefit. Further, they cannot maintain free school meals for the 500,000 children who will lose them on 11 April. That is why the Treasury wants to silence debate on the Bill.
  Lords amendment No. 28 provides for changes in the treatment of housing benefit. On 1 April any worker in receipt of housing benefit will lose 85p in benefit for every £1 increase in wages. That is effectively an 85 per cent. rate of tax. That is more than the rate of tax to be paid by the wealthiest members of society. It is more than the rate of tax paid by any member of the Cabinet that introduced that legislation.
  Why is it right that the poor should face a marginal rate of loss of benefit twice as high as the marginal rate of tax on the wealthiest? After all, the poor do not have an army of accountants to help them to evade it. That is one debate which will be muzzled by the guillotine motion.
  I express a particular regret about that muzzle because I had hoped that we might have an opportunity to hear a speech from the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). The hon. Gentleman has been discovered in his constituency confronted by constituents who have been to see him to inquire why they are to lose all housing benefit because they have savings of more than £6,000. The hon. Gentleman has advised them at his surgeries that they should put a deposit on their funeral with the undertaker to get below the £6,000 ceiling.
  Rather than make such ghoulish suggestions to his constituents and turn undertakers into bankers, it would

  903
  be more honest for the hon. Gentleman to take part in the debate and tell us what he now knows of how his constituents will be affected by the measures for which he voted only last November but which he is not now prepared to defend to his constituents.
  A number of my hon. Friends and, indeed, a number of Conservative Members referred to the social fund. Lords amendments Nos. 19 to 23 provide for various changes in relation to the social fund. Ministers have described the social fund as a banking facility for the poor. It certainly will look a bit like a bank. In DHSS offices all over Britain they are now installing floor to ceiling security screens to protect the staff against the anger of desperate parents who are turned away. I must ask the hon. Members for Wokingham and for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind), why, if the social fund is as popular as they described it to us and if their constituents are so eager to have it, DHSS offices need floor to ceiling security screens to protect the staff.
  A key feature of the social fund is that it abolishes the right to single payments. Instead, claimants on the social fund will get only loans, to be repaid by compulsory deductions from their benefit. In that respect, the social fund is very unlike a bank, because no banker has the right to make compulsory deductions from benefit. Those deductions may be up to 15 per cent. of claimants' weekly benefit.
  Here we have another stark contrast with tomorrow's proceedings. Tomorrow, we are told repeatedly in the press, the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to reduce the top rate of tax by 15 per cent. In other words, the top hand of earners will have a reduction in tax of 15 per cent., whereas from 1 April there will be a new rate of deduction of up to 15 per cent. for families already on the breadline—families who are already living on an income that is necessary for subsistence, who, after they pay those deductions will be left, by definition, with an income below subsistence level, families who have children to feed and clothe and homes to heat. Each of those needs will now have to be balanced against the need to repay this banking facility. That is another debate that the motion will muzzle.
  The motion is a confession. It admits that the Government are afraid to debate the hardship and the despair which their cuts will cause in April, that they are incapable of defending the injustice that those cuts will cost and that they want to cover up the glaring contrast between a give-away Budget for the rich and a take-away Bill for the poor. We shall vote against the motion. For once, I shall be happy to be defeated, because, if Conservative Members carry the motion, they will by their votes convict themselves of being afraid to be exposed for the damage that they are doing to the poor.
  6.23 pm
  The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled (Mr. Nicholas Scott): More than one of my hon. Friends has suggested that today's debate owes more to the Budget's proximity than to a sense of indignation by the Opposition about the Social Security Bill. I understand that this legislation arouses strong feelings, but it was possible in Committee to conduct the debate in an orderly way, in a spirit that reflected the concern about the measures to be taken and an understanding of the proper way to conduct the business of the House.
  904
  We are in our present position not so much because of the strength of feeling about the Bill as partly because of the proximity of the Budget statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and partly because of the relationships between Members of the Labour Front Bench and a certain jockeying among them for position.
  The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) talked about muzzling debate. It would have been perfectly open to the Opposition Front Bench, if they had looked carefully at the timetable motion, which provides for six hours for the two debates — the timetable motion and the Lords amendments — to have curtailed discussion and the artificial indignation and rhetoric to which we have been treated for the past two and one half hours and to concentrate on a more detailed examination of the Lords amendments. I am not surprised that the Opposition chose not to take this step.
  This is a short Bill. Of course, I understand that it is controversial but, when it left the House of Commons, it had already accounted for about 70 hours of discussion. Added to that, it received a further 21 hours' scrutiny in the other place. As has been said in this debate, that is some 90 hours in all, plus the time which we are spending on it today. I believe that there has been more than ample time to discuss a Bill of this size.
  Mr. Tony Banks rose—
  Mr. Scott: I shall give way in a moment.
  If Opposition Members in the two Houses chose to spend 11 of the hours available seeking to insert new clauses into the Bill rather than to discuss the provisions before the two Houses, that was their choice. I do not argue with that, but the Opposition made the decision.
  Mr. Nellist rose—
  Mr. Scott: I have undertaken to give way to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). If the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) will curb his impatience, no doubt he will have an opportunity to intervene.
  The Opposition still managed to spend over 13 hours on clause 1, over 16 hours on clause 4, over four hours each on clauses 5 and 6 and 14 hours on clause 10 and the associated schedule 3. I do not believe that anyone can complain that there has not been an opportunity for proper debate on these measures in the various forum.
  Mr. Tony Banks: It is a bit much for the Minister to say that we have wasted time since we have been debating the guillotine motion and therefore have not left ourselves with enough time during the next three hours. The guillotine motion provides for six hours' debate. The Minister could have made the guillotine provide for 12 hours' debate, so that we could have debated the legislation until 4 am, and tomorrow's business would still have been saved. Why not extend the guillotine until 4 o'clock tomorrow morning?
  Mr. Scott: I shall refer later to the nature of the amendments and to why I believe that the provision which has been made is generous enough to permit discussion of those amendments.
  Mr. Nellist: The Minister commented on how the hours had been spent in Committee. Is it not odd that the horn. Gentleman should complain of the 11 hours spent in trying to introduce a new clause—presumably he was referring to the debates on attendance allowance—when, as he

  905
  said, on Third Reading, that was the only reason his Department was re-examining the position on payment of attendance allowance to children under two? If we had not made that 11-hour fuss, the hon. Gentleman's Department would not have admitted that it had to look again at the problem.
  Mr. Scott: I made it clear that I did not complain about the Opposition's choice. I do not believe that the length of time persuaded us to look again at the provision of the two-year-old cut-off. The strength of the argument persuaded us to do so. At times, the sheer repetition of argument did not help the case.
  I do not believe that anyone could claim for one moment that the Bill has not received detailed consideration. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) in common with others, including the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer)—we would expect that from him—chose to spend the time in the timetable debate on a diatribe on the Bill rather than a discussion of the Lords amendments.
  Some play was made by the hon. Member for Livingston about the number of Government amendments tabled. That number is not surprising when one considers the wide range of benefits covered in this small Bill and the fact that some of the clauses cover complex matters, as any hon. Member who served on the Committee came to know well. For the most part, the amendments are technical. They do not denote a change of Government policy.
  For the sake of a smooth beginning to the reforms, it is important to get the legislation right. I am sure that hon. Members would not disagree with that as a reasonable aim. Of the 32 Government amendments, 10 are related to the same clause on NHS charges and travelling expenses but are concerned with only two main points which, alas, had to be spread throughout the clause, for drafting reasons. That is why there are so many amendments. The amendments to schedule 3 for the social fund have resulted from consultation with independent counsel and they ensure that the legislation is on all fours with our published policy.
  Two amendments have been made in response to wishes expressed in the other place. They concern the social fund annual report and the inclusion of employees in the water industry and certain harbour authorities in the provisions of the 1986 Act which allow employees to leave their occupational pension schemes. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome those amendments. Two further amendments follow an undertaking that we gave during the passage of the Employment Bill to allow unemployment benefit to continue to be payable while inquiries were continuing regarding a person's availability for employment.
  None of the Government amendments that the House will be asked to consider shortly were contested in the House of Lords. Indeed, Lord Ennals greeted the first amendment in the following terms:
  "My Lords, from these Benches I warmly thank the Minister for this amendment. It is good that he has made a commitment, and it is good that he has stood by that commitment. From our side we warmly welcome this."
  On the second amendment, Lord Ennals said:
  "My Lords, I welcome the amendment as far as it goes. I welcome any opportunity for additional guidance to social fund officers". — [Official Report, House of Lords, 10 March 1988; Vol. 494, c.862–873.]
  906
  Those amendments, which were uncontroversial and uncontested by the Opposition Front Bench in the House of Lords, suddenly become a matter of great moment when they return to this House. Why do they become a matter of great moment?
  Mr. Robin Cook: What has turned this into a matter of great moment is the Government's guillotine motion on the amendments. I am perplexed by the Minister's chain of reasoning, which he might now explain to the House. He stresses the technical and non-controversial nature of the amendments. If that is the case, why did he manage to pursuade his colleagues that it is necessary to guillotine a debate on them?
  Mr. Scott: These matters have been decided through the usual channels and it would be unwise for other Opposition Members to criticise them. I am certain that this business would not have been announced on 3 March and reiterated on 10 March, unless there had been proper and serious consideration and agreement through the usual channels. It is only the behaviour of Opposition Members which has turned that agreement aside and placed us in this situation.
  I wish to deal with a number of points raised during the debate about the Bill in general. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras referred to firefighters and, by implication, to policemen and members of the armed forces and others who retire at 55 and will have their occupational pensions offset against their entitlemant to retirement benefit when the full provisions of the Bill come into effect. That was one of the weakest cases put forward in Committee and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has bothered to return to that issue today.
  People such as firefighters and policemen are able to earn for themselves a full retirement pension after 30 years' service in professions which many join at the age of 18, 19 or 20. They are still able to complete 30 years' service, obtain a full occupational pension and claim unemployment benefit for 12 months after that period. That was an extraordinarily weak case put forward by Opposition Members. Interruption.] I shall try to deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, but it might be useful if he would cease exchanging pleasantries across the Floor.
  The hon. Member said that clause 1 would make it more difficult for people with epilepsy to qualify for attendance allowance. I have said many times in Committee and on Third Reading, and I reiterate it now, that the purpose of clause 1 is to return the law to what we believed it to be before the Appeal Court judgment in the case of Mrs. Moran, and we are supported in that judgment by the independent Attendance Allowance Board. That judgment is right.
  The hon. Gentleman also dealt with the question of free school meals. Far from taking away free school meals from children, we would expect 100,000 more children to benefit from the £2·25 in family credit than currently receive free school meals under family income supplement or the local authority discretion combined. That is better for the children and the families.
  Mr. Dobson: Is the Minister's estimate produced by the same people who produced the wholly false statement in the White Paper that about one third of English education authorities did not use their discretion to give school meals, which is patently false?
  Mr. Scott: The important thing is that 100,000 more families will be entitled to that cash benefit than now receive free school meals. Surely that is something that anybody concerned with the poorest in our society would welcome wholeheartedly.
  Mr. McAllion: In the past week I have been approached by two organisations which represent mentally and physically handicapped children, who, at present, have access to free school meals under the discretionary powers of Tayside region. They will be denied access to those meals as a result of the change brought about by the Bill. How does the Minister justify to the parents of those children the fact that in future they will not receive free school meals?
  Mr. Scott: Under the new system, 800,000 people on income support will receive free school meals and many more will receive the cash allowance.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Minister aware that I have just received an answer from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who says that free breakfasts will be provided for business men under the inner-city initiative, at a cost of £400 per head? I should prefer a free breakfast from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to a free school meal from the Minister.
  Mr. Scott: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should check his mathematics.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras asked what the Bill and the Government's record will do for the poorest in our society. As I close the debate, that is a question which I am only too delighted to answer. In 1986–87, benefit expenditure was £46 billion, an increase in real terms of 43 per cent. over the period that the Government have been in office. The real-terms increases in benefits level represent £5·35 billion of that and the increased number of beneficiaries some £8·4 billion of that. Social security spending rose from 25·6 per cent. of public expenditure in 1978–79 to over 30 per cent. in 1987–88. That is a measure of the Government's commitment to helping the poorest in our society.
  On pensioners, expenditure has grown in real terms by 30 per cent., representing a £5·5 billion increase in expenditure. On the long-term sick and disabled, expenditure has grown by about 80 per cent. in real terms over the period that the Government have been in office. Nobody can accuse the Government of not having a proper concern for the poorest and those who need help in our society. The real-terms increase in supplementary benefit and housing benefit was about £2·5 billion. That is the Government's record. Whether one considers families, lone parents or others who have needed help, it has been given by the Government and will continue to be given in the future.
  The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) raised the question of 16 and 17-year-olds. He talked about us taking benefits away from those young people.
  Mr. Dobson rose—
  Mr. Scott: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will restrain himself for a moment.
  Assuming that they are not part of the lengthy list of exceptions which was discussed in Committee—I believe that the hon. Gentleman recognises the scope of those exceptions—the Government are saying to able-bodied 16 and 17-year-olds leaving education and going into the
  908
  adult world that they should not have the option of going for idleness when proper, high quality training schemes are available to them. That would not be serving the interests of able-bodied youngsters, if we gave them that option. We have a clear undertaking from my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Employment that those high quality schemes will be available.
  Another question was raised during the debate.
  Mr. Nellist rose—
  Mr. Scott: I have given way generously. The hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) asked why we must get on with the legislation and get Royal Assent in the immediate future. The reason is that many sets of regulations are needed to bring in the social security reforms on time in April. The regulations, two of which are subject to affirmative resolution and nine of which are subject to negative resolution, cover occupational pension schemes, applications to the social fund, statutory maternity pay, social security overlapping benefit, social security dependency regulations, claims and payments regulations, attendance allowance regulations, negative resolutions concerning the NHS regulations, and welfare food regulations. Nobody would dispute the importance of having such regulations in place, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham said, when the Bill becomes effective at the beginning of next month.
  A great deal has been made about the impact of such social security reforms upon poor people in our community. I have talked of the Government's record, but we should also be aware of the actual cash position of people when such reforms are introduced at the beginning of April. A great deal has been said about hypothetical cases, so-called structural reforms, and comparisons of that sort.
  But when we examine the cash position at the point of change, we shall see that the true position is that, out of a total 8·28 million recipients, 88 per cent. either gain or are unaffected, and 1·4 million gain at least £4. Of the 380,000 working couples with children, 76 per cent. gain over all. Of the 540,000 couples not in full-time work with children, 89 per cent. gain over all. Of the 810,000 lone parents, 89 per cent. either gain or are unaffected. Of the 410,000 sick and disabled people, 78,000 gain—of those, more than half gain at least £5 — and 80,000 are unaffected. Of pensioners aged 60 to 79, 63 per cent. gain and 22 per cent. are unaffected. They are all facts. I suspect that the cash position at the point of change will matter when people consider their individual circumstances.
  The Bill has received full consideration in both Houses. Opposition Members have had every opportunity to debate it, and plenty of time will now be given to debate the uncontroversial Lords amendments. I commend the timetable motion to the House.
  6.42 pm
  Mr. Nellist: Several hon. Members have contrasted tomorrow's Budget — which, if all the rumours are correct, will provide tax cuts for the extremely wealthy in this country, particularly the 21,000 millionaires, 17,000 of whom were created since 1979—with the position faced not only by recipients of the social fund but by those who care for the disabled, and in particular the 500,000 16 and

  909
  17-year-olds who, from April, will lose all right to supplementary benefit. Many hon. Members have said that the Bill has the support of the country—
  It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put the Question necessary to dispose of them, pursuant to Standing Order No. 81 (Allocation of time to Bills).
  The House divided. Ayes 293, Noes 194.

  Division No. 212]

  [6.43 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

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

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Alexander, Richard

  Day, Stephen

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Amess, David

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Amos, Alan

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Arbuthnot, James

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Dover, Den

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Dunn, Bob

  Ashby, David

  Durant, Tony

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Atkinson, David

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Evennett, David

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Baldry, Tony

  Fallon, Michael

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Farr, Sir John

  Batiste, Spencer

  Favell, Tony

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Bendall, Vivian

  Forman, Nigel

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Benyon, W.

  Forth, Eric

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Franks, Cecil

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Freeman, Roger

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  French, Douglas

  Bottomley, Peter

  Gardiner, George

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Gill, Christopher

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Bowis, John

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Brazier, Julian

  Gorst, John

  Bright, Graham

  Gow, Ian

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

  Gregory, Conal

  Browne. John (Winchester)

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Grist, Ian

  Burns, Simon

  Ground, Patrick

  Burt, Alistair

  Grylls, Michael

  Butcher, John

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Butler, Chris

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Butterfill, John

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hannam, John

  Carrington, Matthew

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

  Cash, William

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Harris, David

  Chope, Christopher

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hayward, Robert

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Colvin, Michael

  Heddle, John

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Couchman, James

  Hill, James

  Cran, James

  Hind, Kenneth

  Critchley, Julian

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  910

  Holt, Richard

  Pawsey, James

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Howard, Michael

  Porter, David (Waveney)

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

  Portillo, Michael

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dtord)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Price, Sir David

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Raffan, Keith

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hunter, Andrew

  Redwood, John

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Renton, Tim

  Irvine, Michael

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Jack, Michael

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Jackson, Robert

  Riddick, Graham

  Janman, Tim

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Key, Robert

  Rowe, Andrew

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Knapman, Roger

  Ryder, Richard

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Knowles, Michael

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Knox, David

  Scott, Nicholas

  Lang, Ian

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Latham, Michael

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lightbown, David

  Sims, Roger

  Lilley, Peter

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Lord, Michael

  Speed, Keith

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Speller, Tony

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Squire, Robin

  Maclean, David

  Steen, Anthony

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stern, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Stevens, Lewis

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Madel, David

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Stokes, John

  Mans, Keith

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Maples, John

  Sumberg, David

  Marland, Paul

  Summerson, Hugo

  Marlow, Tony

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Miller, Hal

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Mills, Iain

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Moate, Roger

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Tracey, Richard

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Tredinnick, David

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Trippier, David

  Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Neale, Gerrard

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Nelson, Anthony

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Neubert, Michael

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Walden, George

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Nicholson. David (Taunton)

  Waller, Gary

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Walters, Dennis

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Ward, John

  Page, Richard

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Paice, James

  Watts, John

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Wells, Bowen

  Patnick, Irvine

  Whitney, Ray

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Wilshire, David

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Winterton, Nicholas

  911

  Wolfson, Mark

  Wood, Timothy

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Yeo, Tim

  Mr. Robert Boscwen and

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Gordon, Mildred

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Gould, Bryan

  Allen, Graham

  Graham, Thomas

  Anderson, Donald

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Grocott, Bruce

  Ashton, Joe

  Hardy, Peter

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Barron, Kevin

  Haynes, Frank

  Battle, John

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Beckett, Margaret

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Beith, A. J.

  Henderson, Doug

  Bell, Stuart

  Hinchliffe, David

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

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

  Holland, Stuart

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Home Robertson, John

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Hood, Jimmy

  Blair, Tony

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Boateng, Paul

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Boyes, Roland

  Hoyle, Doug

  Bradley, Keith

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Buchan, Norman

  Illsley, Eric

  Buckley, George J.

  Ingram, Adam

  Caborn, Richard

  Janner, Greville

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  John, Brynmor

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Clay, Bob

  Lamond, James

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Leighton, Ron

  Cohen, Harry

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Lewis, Terry

  Corbett, Robin

  Litherland, Robert

  Cousins, Jim

  Livingstone, Ken

  Cryer, Bob

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Cummings, John

  Loyden, Eddie

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  McAllion, John

  Cunningham, Dr John

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dalyell, Tam

  McCartney, Ian

  Darling, Alistair

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  McFall, John

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

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Dewar, Donald

  McKelvey, William

  Dixon, Don

  McLeish, Henry

  Dobson, Frank

  McNamara, Kevin

  Doran, Frank

  McTaggart, Bob

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Madden, Max

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Eadie, Alexander

  Meacher, Michael

  Eastham, Ken

  Meale, Alan

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Michael, Alun

  Fatchett, Derek

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Fearn, Ronald

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

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

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Fisher, Mark

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Flannery, Martin

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Flynn, Paul

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Mullin, Chris

  Foulkes, George

  Murphy, Paul

  Fraser, John

  Nellist, Dave

  Fyfe, Maria

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Galbraith, Sam

  O'Brien, William

  Galloway, George

  O'Neill, Martin

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  George, Bruce

  Parry, Robert

  912

  Patchett, Terry

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

  Pendry, Tom

  Snape, Peter

  Pike, Peter L.

  Soley, Clive

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Radice, Giles

  Stott, Roger

  Randall, Stuart

  Straw, Jack

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Reid, Dr John

  Turner, Dennis

  Richardson, Jo

  Wall, Pat

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Wallace, James

  Robertson, George

  Walley, Joan

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Rogers, Allan

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Rooker, Jeff

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Ruddock, Joan

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Winnick, David

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Short, Clare

  Skinner, Dennis

  Tellers for the Noes

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mrs. Llin Golding and

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

  Mr. Frank Cook.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:—

  Lords Amendments
  1. — (1) The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of the proceedings on this motion.
  (2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.
  (3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
  (4) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.
  (5) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended before the expiry of the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
  2.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—

  (a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of the Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment, or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;

  (b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

  (i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;

  913

  (ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;

  (iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by Mr. Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendents; and

  (iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

  (c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

  (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

  Stages subsequent to, first Consideration of Lords Amendments
  3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.
  4. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

  (a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

  (i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;

  (ii) in the case of the remaining items designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their said Proposals; and

  (iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

  Supplemental
  5. — (1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.
  (2) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of the Message or, as the case may be, for the appointment and quorum of the Committee.
  (3) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
  (4) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
  (5) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
  (6) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

  Interpretation
  6. In this Order 'the Bill' means the Social Security Bill.
Orders of the Day

  Social Security Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  6.56 pm
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I have to inform the House that Lords amendment No. 1 involves privilege.

  Social Security Bill
    Clause 1

      ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCE
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2 line 2, leave out "(bb) below" and insert
      "(a) or (bb) of the Social Security Act 1975"
      The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I should like the Minister to confirm whether, as it appears to us, the amendment seeks to ensure that the Attendance Allowance Board can review an award made in the interim period before the Act comes into force because of a change of circumstances and that the Government are bringing into play the phraseology of the Social Security Act 1975 about a
      "change of circumstances … ignorance of a material fact … or … based on a mistake as to a material fact".
      I should like the Minister to confirm, first, whether that is the purport of the amendment. Secondly, I should like him to confirm whether the introduction of such phrases into the Bill means that following the passage of the amendment — if, indeed, it is carried — people who are now able to draw attendance allowance — people like Mrs. Dorothy Moran, if not Mrs. Moran herself—will be under a continuing danger, if at any time the board decides to review an award, of losing that award. We should like it clearly on the record whether, when the amendment is incorporated into the Bill, those now receiving attendance allowance, under the new interpretation of the Act as given in the courts, will be perpetually at risk of losing the award until the board decides to remove it from them.
      Mr. Dave Nellist: As we are discussing an amendment to clause 1, will the Minister take this opportunity — given that he has received the Griffiths report — to give us the date upon which the promises that were given regarding the extension of the attendance allowance to those children under the age of two will be announced by his Department?
      Mr. Scott: The Griffiths report is due to be published on 16 March. When I mentioned this matter before, I made it clear that other factors in the debate related to the OPCS survey of disability and the Government's subsequent view about a coherent set of benefits. Therefore, I am unable to give a date for that particular matter.
      Mrs. Audrey Wise: If the Minister will not give my hon. Friend that assurance, I wonder whether he will take this opportunity to assure us about another

      915
      matter. On Report there was reference — the same point was pursued subsequently in another place — by the Front Bench to the interaction between attendance allowance and invalid care allowance. On studying Hansard I saw to my horror that the Minister's words could possibly be interpreted as suggesting that there might be some change for the worse for children over the age of two. He said:
      "it is right to look at the interaction of attendance allowance and invalid care allowance, perhaps throughout childhood". —[Official Report, 12 January 1988; Vol. 125, c. 238.]
      Will the Minister assure me that he does not intend to remove or in any way interfere detrimentally with attendance allowance for children between the ages of two and 16?
      Mr. Scott: I said that the Government wanted to take a coherent look at disability benefits across the board. One should include any options, but I have no present intention to move in the direction mentioned by the hon. Lady. However, I would not wish to rule out anything at this stage until we have had the OPCS survey and the Griffiths report. We can then see what the needs are and how they can best be met in a coherent way.
      In answer to the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), we have always made it absolutely clear that people receiving attendance allowance will not be subject to clause 1, unless and until claims have to be reconsidered on renewal or review in the normal course of events. That is not the purpose of the amendment.
      The amendment is to correct technical mistakes in the drafting of clause 1(2)(c) of the Bill. First, it corrected a wrong reference. The reference to
      "section 106(1)(bb) below"
      was always intended to be a reference to section 106(1)(bb) of the Social Security Act 1975 which gives the Attendance Allowance Board power to review decisions. The amendment makes that clear.
      Secondly, the board's review powers in section 106 of the 1975 Act are set out in section 106(1)(a) and (bb). Before the amendment, clause 1(2)(c) was deficient in that it referred only to section 106(1)(bb). The amendment corrected that deficiency by inserting a reference to section 106(1)(a).
      Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

    Clause 3

      COMMENCEMENT OF PAYMENT OF FAMILY CREDIT
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 44, line 14, leave out "(6) of the Social Security Act 1986"
      and insert
      "of the Social Security Act 1986—

      (a) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (5)—

      "5A) In subsection (5) above "the applicable amount" means the applicable amount at such date as may be prescribed,"; and

      (b) in subsection (6)"

      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Portillo): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must inform the House that this amendment involves privilege.
      Mr. Portillo: Clause 3 amends the 1986 Act to delete the requirement for family credit awards to start always from the week in which the claim is made, and instead leaves regulations to prescribe the date from which payment shall begin. This further provision to be added to clause 3 is to cover situations where payment is to begin from a date different from the date of claim and will allow cases to be assessed on the benefit rates applicable at the time the benefit is to commence. This will usually be to the claimant's advantage. This will be beneficial to claimants in enabling account to be taken of any increase in the relevant benefit rates during the intervening period—for example, if a child has a birthday and moves into a higher age band or if there is a general uprating.
      Claimants can make applications for family credit four weeks in advance—indeed, they are encouraged to apply early when renewing — and we would not wish to penalise those early claimants, for renewal.
      Mrs. Wise: I notice that the Minister said:
      "This will usually be to the claimant's advantage."
      Are there circumstances in which it would not be to the benefit of the claimant?
      Mr. Portillo: If the claimant uses the other flexibility, to apply late — within two weeks after the renewal date — the benefit rates that will be applied will be the rates that apply from the time that the claim should begin, not the time when the claim is made if the claim is made late. If an uprating occurs in the period between the due date and the date on which the claim is made, the benefit rates would be the rates at the date at which entitlement begins and not the date on which the claim was made.
      Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

    Clause 4

      INCOME SUPPORT AND CHILD BENEFIT
      Lords amendment No. 3, in page 5, line 38, leave out "this section" and insert "subsection (4A) above".
      Mr. Portillo: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This amendment to subsection (4J) ensures that there can be no misunderstanding about what "this section" means by specifying that the reference is to subsection (4A). It is a very minor drafting amendment which is made purely to ensure that there is no misunderstanding.
      Subsection (4A) gives a power to the Secretary of State to direct that a young person may be entitled to income support if he considers that severe hardship would unavoidably result if benefit was not to be paid even though that young person would otherwise not be entitled. Subsection (4J) provides that the Secretary of State may, on revoking such a direction, certify whether there has been misrepresentation of a material fact or failure to disclose a material fact.
      Mr. Ronnie Fearn: With regard to subsection (4A), can the Minister clarify what is meant by the power of the Secretary of State? Is that power designated through the officers of the DHSS, or does the application have to go direct to the Secretary of State in every case?
      Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman may recall from our Committee debates that we are talking about discretionary powers exercised by the Secretary of State. Those powers

      917
      can be exercised by officers acting on his behalf. In those circumstances those officers are not acting as adjudication officers. In Committee we also gave the assurance that, routinely, such applications for the exercise of the Secretary of State's discretion would be referred to headquarters before they were made. Therefore, although the officers are acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, they will consult officers at headquarters before discretion is exercised.
      Mr. Nellist: There is a plethora of attacks against working people contained in the Bill. The clause, even after the amendment that has been proposed by the Lords and which the Government have initiated, removes from half a million 16 and 17-year-olds all rights to supplementary benefit, notwithstanding the Minister's explanation regarding whether or not there is justification or a lack of information about the decisions taken when those youngsters have that benefit removed.
      Today, around the country, there have been tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of those about to be effected by the clause who have demonstrated their opposition by attending rallies, marches and demonstrations.
      In the debate on the guillotine motion it was said that the Bill and, indeed, this clause, had the wide support of people throughout the country — patently that was not true today. Youngsters at technical colleges will use the right to study part time and those on YTS feel constricted to stay on those schemes or otherwise they will lose their benefit. Students who will leave school at Easter and summer have demonstrated, as have the parents of those involved.
      I want to take this opportunity to warn the Government that, among young people in this country, they are storing up an undying, deep and widespread hatred of the effects of the clause—notwithstanding the effects of Lords amendment No. 3—and the effects that the Minister has attributed to it in his brief remarks. The Tories may think that there is popularity in YTS conscription—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman really cannot seek to use this very limited amendment to open up the wide debate that he is now embarking upon on clause 4.
      Mr. Nellist: No, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek to do it while I can keep within the rules of order which you, from the Chair, correctly determine.
      I believe that the amendment to which the Minister has just spoken, Lords amendment No. 3
      "Page 5, line 38, leave out 'this section' and insert `subsection (4A) above'"
      to clause 4 will not fundamentally alter the opposition which is widespread among young people. On a day when tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of young people have taken their last opportunity before the House finally passes clause 4 of the Bill, to demonstrate their opposition, it seems not outwith the bounds of debate here to attempt to finish making that point.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Lords amendment before the House is to insert the words on the Amendment Paper. I do not see how that can in any way lend itself to the kind of wide debate that the hon. Member is engaging in.
      Mr. Nellist: Earlier today, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on two occasions I spoke to several hundred young people in Coventry about the fact—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Be that as it may, this is the House of Commons, and the hon. Gentleman must address himself to the amendment before the House. That he is not doing.
      Mr. Nellist: I am just trying to tell the House that on two occasions, at 10 and between 12 and 1.30 today in Coventry, I spoke to several hundred young people about the fact that this Bill was completing its stages through Parliament, beginning at 3.30. I mentioned to them that Lords amendment No. 3 to clause 4 was coming before the House, and they felt extremely aggrieved about it.
      What I am trying to do, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in my final brief remarks on this clause—because I am also concerned that there should be as full a debate as possible, particularly on the following amendments to do with child benefit — is just to tell the Government through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as the Chair of this particular stage of the Bill, that there is widespread and deep opposition among those about to leave school who, despite the Government's attempts to reform this clause by the introduction of Lords amendment No. 3, were not reassured at the meetings that we held in Coventry this morning and this lunchtime.
      I warn the Government of this. There is widespread opposition to this amendment, to Lords amendment No. 3, to clause 4 of the Social Security Bill, and the Government will reap the reward of what they have sown by this clause in the weeks and months ahead, when those youngsters and their parents realise, in three weeks' time, that half a million young people lose their benefit and, in 24 hours' time, that 21,000 millionaires reap their reward from the Budget.
      7.15 pm
      Mrs. Alice Mahon: I asked the Minister in Committee whether any allowances could be made under clause 4 to youngsters leaving care. I repeat that request now. Will the Minister find it in his heart to make any concessions whatsoever for a group of youngsters who are dreadfully disadvantaged and who have lots of things in society going against them? Will he please reconsider before this goes through?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady cannot open a wide debate on clause 4. We are addressing a very limited amendment from their Lordships' House.
      Question put and agreed to.

  After Clause 4
  Insert the following new Clause—
  After Clause 4

    Annual review of child benefit
    "The Secretary of State shall review the level of child benefit in April of each year, taking account of increases in the Retail Price Index and other relevant external factors."
    Read a Second time.
    Mrs. Beckett: I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 2, leave out from "benefit" to end of Clause and insert
    'in each tax year in order to determine whether the sums specified by virtue of section 5(1) of the Child Benefit Act 1975 have retained their value in relation to the general level of prices obtaining in Great Britain estimated in such manner as he thinks fit and, where it appears to him that the general level of prices is greater at the end of the period under review

    919
    than it was at the beginning of the period, he shall lay before Parliament in the same tax year the draft of an order which increases each of those sums, with effect from the week beginning with the first Monday in the next tax year or such earlier date in April as may be specified in the draft order, by a percentage not less than the percentage by which the general level of prices is greater at the end of the period than it was at the beginning; and if the draft order is approved by a resolution of each House he shall make the order in the form of the draft.'.
    I want to begin by quoting, from the Green Paper published by the Government in June 1985, paragraph 4.37 on the study of the role of child benefit. The Government's conclusion from that study was
    "that it had underlined the fact that there were two clear and distinct aims in helping families with the cost of bringing up children. The first is to provide help for families generally while the second is to provide extra help for low-income families. It would be a serious mistake to confuse these quite distinct purposes or to seek to restructure a benefit designed to meet one aim in order to meet the other aim. Child benefit is designed to meet the needs of families generally. As such it is … simple, straightforward, well understood and preferred as it is. The case for changing it has not been made out. The Government do not therefore propose to alter its basis or structure."
    It seems wise, to put it no higher, to open a debate on the review of child benefits by quoting those words from the Government in June 1985, if only because so many, particularly, of the new Members on the Government Benches seem not to have read them.
    What the paragraph makes very clear is that the policy and philosophy of the Government were that there should be no question of the help that comes generally to families, in recognition of the role that they perform—the help by means of child benefit—being in any sense confused with other help needed, particularly by the poor. The Government said that it should not be offset against the help that is given to the poor.
    Since those wise words were written, the Government have strayed a trifle from the straight and narrow. They have failed twice to increase child benefit in line with inflation. On the first occasion they saved some £175 million a year and on the second, some £120 million, a total now of about £295 million a year. I hope that that will be particularly noted by Government Members, including the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind), who spoke in our earlier debate about the vast amount of money that the Government were pouring in to help families. I hope, therefore, that he has noted that most of that money is coming directly from families. The amount of money that a family has lost on average is about £30 a year. It has been pointed out in our previous debates on this matter that £30 is enough to buy a coat or a couple of pairs of shoes, items which many families find it difficult to budget for—although that is particularly true of poorer families.
    As well as the action of the Government in not actually uprating child benefit in line with inflation, the tone and words of the debate have both changed. The Government have talked about not being able to afford to increase child benefit in line with inflation. We understand, of course, that all Governments have priorities. Part of the purpose of these debates is to examine what the priorities of different Governments may be. Nevertheless, the Government have argued that, against those priorities, they have been unable to afford to increase child benefit.
    In the context of saying that they are unable to afford it, the Government have also begun to talk of child benefit
    920
    as not being a well-targeted benefit and finally to say that the Government have better means of helping those with the greatest needs.
    Let us look first at that part of the Government's case that says that they cannot afford this increase in child benefit, particularly against the background of some of the recent studies of what is happening with regard to families with children, as opposed to the childless. I would like to draw the attention of the House to a very small booklet that any hon. Member would be able to find time to read. It is called "Family Fortunes" and it was produced by the Family Policy Studies Centre fairly recently. In it, the author examines, from official Government data, family expenditure surveys and so on, the trend of incomes in families. It focuses particularly on the way in which the pattern of income has developed among families with children as opposed to that among families generally.
    The study shows that, in a household of two adults with children, after the effect of taxes and of all benefits, the income of the bottom fifth of families fell, and that the top fifth, with the pattern of benefits and tax changes as they have been under this Government, benefited from the largest rise in income. So it is the case, if we look at the overall pattern of tax and benefit changes, that it is still the better off who have done better under this Government. The fact that tax allowances have been increased far more than child benefit is a main contributor to that.
    The incomes of all families with children showed a decline compared with the incomes of those who are childless, which I suppose one might accept, but it is nonetheless not insignificant when one considers that child benefit has not increased in line with inflation. In single-parent households where there is one adult with children, even after all the tax and benefit changes, and all the things to which hon. Members have drawn attention, implying that Government have compensated people in this position for other changes which have taken place, the average income of such families fell by 11 per cent. over the period studied.
    There is little doubt, as many Opposition Members have observed, and as the study shows, that increased difficulties are being faced by families with children, although, sadly, they have not found their place among the Government priorities. During recent years, the value of personal tax allowances has been increased by 15 per cent., whereas in the same period the value of child benefit has fallen by 3 per cent. Tax allowances and other benefits have been increased at least in line with inflation, although the failure once in nine years to increase them by a ha'penny more than the legal formula has meant that the standard of living of those in receipt of pensions and benefits has been eroded compared with that of those in work.
    During a period in which the Government said that they could not afford to increase child benefit, as we saw in the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments last week, the Government have managed to build up a margin, room for manoeuvre, of some £8,000 million through income and expenditure from the national insurance fund. I do not mean to imply that that money is readily available to the Government. Indeed, lest the Minister feels that I have misrepresented what the Government have done, it is clear that that amount is only some £4,000 million above what the Government concede would be prudent to have as a notional balance an the fund. Nevertheless, that £4,000 million represents the

    921
    margin — the room for manoeuvre — that the Government have given themselves in their manipulation of the national insurance fund on a cumulative basis in recent years.
    Tomorrow, we shall be debating the Budget, and we are all expecting— and some are eagerly anticipating — substantial tax cuts.
    Mr. Eric Forth: Hear, hear.
    Mrs. Beckett: This year the Government are making a straight profit of £2,000 million on the national insurance fund. That £2,000 million has been raised through the contributions this year that are not being paid through national insurance benefit. Does the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) still wish to say, "Hear, hear"?
    Mr. Forth indicated assent.
    Mr. Tony Marlow rose—
    Mrs. Beckett: I am interested to hear that, and I am sure that the pensioners in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and others, such as the invalids who draw national insurance benefits will be interested to know that the hon. Gentleman is in favour of the Government making a profit of £2,000 million at their expense.
    Mr. Marlow: As the hon. Lady said, tomorrow the Chancellor is about to hand back to the public some of the public money that he has already stuffed in his pockets because the economy is in such a positive and exceptionally buoyant situation. Will the hon. Lady congratulate the Government on their economic stewardship over our affairs in the past 10 years?
    Mrs. Beckett: I should like to congratulate the Government on their extraordinary good fortune in being in receipt of thousands of millions of pounds from North sea oil. I doubt whether it is often his bedtime reading, but if the hon. Gentleman would look at the figures for the national insurance fund he would see the way in which national insurance contributions and benefits have been manipulated. I do not understand how any hon. Member, even the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire can congratulate the Government on so manipulating the national insurance fund that they made thousands of millions in profit at the expense of the people who should be drawing pensions and benefits. Is that what the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) considers to be a matter for congratulation? I can tell him that Opposition Members do not agree.
    Therefore, as the hon. Member for Northampton, North said, there is money in the Government's coffers, much of it raised at the expense of pensioners and benefit, yet the Government still claim that they are forced to cut child benefit.
    Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Beckett: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman rather sooner than he gave way to me in our earlier debate.
    Mr. Hind: I was trying to finish my point. Does the hon. Lady concede that there are large falls in the number of people claiming benefit because they have jobs, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North has
    922
    shown, is a sign of the success of the Government's policy? Surely the number of people claiming, and being eligible to claim, single payments under the social fund means that there is less need for such a large fund?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We shall be debating later in our proceedings amendments relating to the social fund. I hope that for the moment, hon. Members will stick to the amendments dealing with child benefit.
    Mrs. Beckett: I was referring to the money raised through the national insurance fund and not to the social fund, which, as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, pointed out, is not the subject of these amendments.
    The Government have claimed that they have not been able to afford an increase in child benefit. They have also claimed that, in any case, child benefit is not well targeted. That is a peculiar argument. As child benefit is paid on account of having children, it is a particularly well-targeted benefit. It is almost 100 per cent. well-targeted since it is paid only to families with children.
    That peculiar argument to some extent has been explained by Conservative Members by reference to what my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) described as the Duchess of Westminster syndrome — that, to excuse their wish to abolish the universal child benefit, Conservative Members have suggested that there is no need for someone in the position of the Duchess of Westminster to draw child benefit.
    It is always noticeable that Conservative Members raise the argument that if child benefit were abolished, and instead the money were used in tax cuts, people with high incomes, and even the Duchess of Westminster, would benefit substantially more from tax cuts than from receiving child benefit. What appears to be an argument in favour of giving more to those in more need is actually in favour once again of giving money to those in less need under the guise of seeking to help the poor.
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the hon. Lady accept that we never hear from the Government arguments in favour of doing away with personal allowances, which are broadly set to give greater advantage to those on high incomes than to those on low incomes?
    Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Some months ago, when the announcement about child benefit was in the pipeline, there was a most interesting letter in The Guardian. The person who wrote the letter quoted the way in which married man's allowance is paid and asked
    "why it is all right for the state to give between £7·11 and £15·80 per week to a man to support his wife"ߞ
    the differential amount that it might be worth to people in different circumstances京
    "but objectionable for the state to give £7·25 per week to a woman to support her child?"
    That is a most worthy point and clearly emphasised the fact that tax allowances, as all hon. Members are perfectly aware, give more to those who already have more, whereas child benefit is a straight cash benefit paid to the mother.
    The argument that has been put forward by Conservative Members about targeting is in all ways a spurious argument. I must admit that I have always suspected that those who put that argument were perfectly aware that cutting out child benefit would be of substantially more assistance to those on high income and that they are quite content that that should be the case. Certainly it is hard to see how they can refute any criticisms of that.

    923
    Apart from arguing that an increase in child benefit cannot be afforded, or that child benefit is not well-targeted, the third case that has been put of late is that it does not matter that the Government are not increasing child benefit in line with inflation because, through targeting help on those in the greatest need, they are doing more for the poorest families. I find that a rather strange argument. The Government are saying that they prefer to cut a benefit which reaches 100 per cent. of its recipients to put money into a benefit which, on the Government's most optimistic figures, will reach only 60 to 70 per cent. of its recipients. Indeed, there is no justification for the optimism that the Government expressed, unless one considers that a parliamentary answer saying that more people will receive family credit because more people will claim it is a justification. I do not believe that it is justified.
    The Government claim that they are targeting help through family credit or income support. They have explicitly said that, since they cannot afford to increase child benefit and pay generous rates of family credit, the money cut from child benefit would fund, for example, the money going into family credit. Again, it is unfortunate that one has only to examine the way in which the family credit scheme works in practice to see that to claim that the scheme gives the greatest help to those in greatest need is wide of the mark.
    A family with two children paying average rent and rates will be worse off on its combination of benefits from family credit and housing benefit until its earnings rise above £140 a week. A family with three children will he worse off, even with earnings as high as £170 a week. A single parent with children will he worse off on earnings up to about £120 a week. So it is simply not true to say that it does not matter that the Government are not inflation-proofing child benefit because money will go to those in the greatest need. Even on family credit, money is going to those whose earnings are already at the higher end of the scale.
    7.30 pm
    The hon. Member for Lancashire, West referred to the compensation that the Government are putting into income support. I am sorry, although I suppose it is understandable, that he has read only the briefings from Conservative Central Office and, perhaps, the Government, and that he has not followed any other arguments. It has obviously passed him by that the 20 per cent. bill for rates which everyone will face, for example, is not compensated for, as the Government claimed it might be, in the income support rates. The Government have failed to increase support on the illustrative figures announced in line with inflation and to add an average figure as compensation for the rates. So the cash sum being paid appears to be higher, but it does not meet even the average increase in rates, and in many areas the figure will be inadequate.
    A great deal of emphasis has been laid on the fact that the family premium, or the availability of money through the social fund, in some way compensates for the loss of single payments or additional requirements. I refer hon. Gentlemen who think that this is compensation for not uprating child benefit properly, to the Social Security Advisory Committee — the Government's independent advisory group—or to the Select Committee, both of which made it plain that the proposed figure of £575—the illustrative figure as it was—and the actual figure of
    924
    £615, which has broadly increased in line with inflation, are inadequate to compensate a family for what it will lose in single payments or additional requirements or, indeed, from the Government's general failure to make income support premiums payable and basic incomes payable at an adequate level.
    The final argument we have heard from Conservative Members has been that tax cuts are as good for a family as child benefit, if not better. I remind the House that 2,250,000 families now receive more in child benefit than they pay in tax. There is no way that they could benefit from some switch back to tax allowances. The Library has calculated that for a typical family on earnings of about £130 a week, to he even 10 per cent. better off in work, it would need to increase its earnings by a further £60 a week to make up for the loss of child benefit. The case for child benefit is clear, simple, understandable and well targeted, like the benefit. The case for not increasing child benefit in line with inflation is weak.
    Earlier this evening we were accused of wanting to impede the passage of Government business, as if it were shocking for an Opposition to want to do that. If what the Government are doing is beneficial, we are happy to facilitate the passage of their business. The Government have made it clear that they may he prepared to accept an amendment carried in the other place and to bow to the wishes clearly expressed in the amendment that child benefit should be uprated in line with inflation year by year, as so many other benefits are.
    We understood from what was said in the other place that the amendment was defective, particularly in that it asked the Government to consider these matters but not to do anything about them. In line with the spirit of co-operation, for which many Tory Members were pleading earlier, we are happy to offer the Government amendment (a), which we feel confident they will accept, to replace the amendment moved in the other place.
    We can see from the length of the Amendment Paper and the number of technical amendments that the Government have proposed, that they have had difficulty, although this is their third attempt in legislation, in getting the Bill right. Therefore, we understand that they did not have time to draft the sort of technical amendment that might he appropriate to increase child benefit every year, so we hope that our amendment will be of assistance to them.
    We are a responsible Opposition, and nothing could be more responsible than to help the Government carry into operation what is clearly their intent. I commend this amendment to the House and I am sure that it will he welcomed by Conservative Members.
    Mr. Timothy Raison: Anybody who thinks about how the costs of social security have soared must recognise that the Government were bound to think again about the range of the provision. As many of my hon. Friends made clear on 12 January, there is considerable anxiety on this side about the decision not to uprate child benefit. There is no need to rehearse all those arguments again, because they were put eloquently in that debate, but four factors are particularly significant.
    First, child benefit provides support for families with children and, perhaps increasingly, that is where poverty is likely to be found. Family credit is a generous measure and I praise my right hon. and hon. Friends for that, but

    925
    it is difficult to avoid the fact that today we are likely to find poverty in families with children, and child benefit has always been a valuable safeguard against that.
    Secondly, when child benefit was introduced, it replaced the tax allowances available to those with children. Perhaps, as the Opposition have pointed out, that is particularly relevant and remains important today.
    Thirdly, child benefit is paid to the mother. That is an important feature and it was fought for in the debates on this subject in 1944 and 1945. We must remember that the Government of the day made a concession on that. Fourthly, child benefit diminishes the extent of the poverty trap.
    If, as the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) suggested, my hon. Friend the Minister is about to rise and say that the Lords amendment is acceptable, we shall welcome that. It would represent progress. I hope that that is what my hon. Friend will tell us. Obviously, it is important, because in doing so the Government would be accepting the maintenance of the principle of child benefit. I know that that was stated in the election manifesto last year, but acceptance of the amendment would be a further reiteration of the Government's position. It may be argued that that is to accept that we shall continue to have child benefit rather than to uprate it automatically, as many of us would like, but it would be a reaffirmation by the Government of their intention to keep child benefit throughout this Parliament.
    It is important that the amendment should require an annual review of child benefit. That would be a real gain. Can my hon. Friend be more forthcoming? He may argue, as he did previously, that the Government must have power not to uprate if circumstances justify it and he may be right, but that is a matter for argument. We should like to hear that the Government do not intend as a matter of regular policy not to uprate child benefit. That is particularly important. Can my hon. Friend reassure us today that the Government do not intend to end the uprating of child benefit in future?
    Mr. Wigley: I very much agree with the remarks of the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison). The case for child benefit has been made on both sides of the House. Its great advantage is that it is directed to the mother and that it helps to overcome the poverty trap. It also exists whether or not people are in work, so it is an incentive for them to get work. It is also relevant because of the high rate for the large number of single-parent families.
    Only this morning, in a constituency surgery, that point was brought home to me by a mother who had lost child benefit because her child had reached working age and was expected to contribute £10 a week for his keep, which was difficult to get from him, whereas child benefit had been coming through to the mother automatically — so she was feeling the difference.
    The Lords amendment does not give us the categorical assurance that hon. Members on both sides should seek. It refers to the retail price index and other external factors. It is all very well taking those into account and sitting down once a year to think about child benefit, but that is not the same as ensuring that it is indexed and changed each year so that it does not fall behind. Once something
    926
    begins to fall behind, it is that much more difficult for it to catch up. That was the reason behind the indexing of allowances.
    As the right hon. Member for Aylesbury said, the background to child benefit was the child allowance. We are now, to all intents and purposes, at least indexing, and sometimes doing more for, personal allowances. Surely, at a time when the Government have a reasonable amount of resources at their disposal and profess that that is likely to be so for the next few years, we should think of those who are most vulnerable in our society—people on low incomes who are bringing up children, for whom child benefit is of such a great importance.
    Even if the amendment does not go all the way, the Minister should give a categorical, bankable assurance, or I shall be inclined to support the Opposition amendment. I hope that we shall hear better news from the Government about their intentions.
    Mr. Marlow: My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) spoke about the fact that we used to have child tax allowances and that, to a large extent, child benefit has taken over from those. Child benefit this year is static; it is not being increased. After inflation, that means that in real terms it is being reduced — even though only slightly.
    We all know that because of the successful way in which the Government have managed the economy, it is no secret — there are usually Budget secrets — that there will be reductions in taxes tomorrow: reductions in the standard rate of tax. I am concerned here not with those in relative poverty or those who are relatively wealthly, but with those who are standard rate taxpayers — the vast majority of the working people about whom the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) speaks so often.
    A household with a husband and wife will get the full benefit of the tax cuts that will come tomorrow, and good luck to them. However, another household with a husband and wife and children will have the benefit of the tax cuts, but also the reduction in the child benefit. So the first household will be better off by more than the second. The second might even, in its particular circumstances, be relatively worse off. So, by combining these two measures, we are taking money from those with children and giving it to those without. That cannot make sense, particularly in that middle band of people.
    Therefore, I am delighted that the Government have seen fit to accept the amendment from another place. I reiterate the point made eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury: we hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, when he replies—we know him to be sincere, sensitive, generous, thoughtful, decent and warm-hearted — will give the assurance for which my right hon. Friend asked.
    7.45 pm
    Mrs. Mahon: Child benefit is a special benefit. It is some recognition by the state and society of the considerable cost of having and bringing up children. It is a welcome and good benefit because it is universal, it is not subjected to the hateful system of means testing and it has a 100 per cent. take-up. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) was right to say that it is an excellently targeted benefit, and people appreciate it as such.

    927
    Conservative Members have complained about the cost of child benefit, but it is chickenfeed compared with the tax handouts that the Government have given to the better off. It is chickenfeed compared with the tax avoidance that goes on in this country each year. The Government use the argument that they are freezing child benefit to provide funds for the poorest families, but that is unjust and unfair. It is unfair that the poorest and those who carry the burden of poverty should have to tighten their belts even more, while the Government brag about how well their economic policies are working.
    The latest DHSS figures show that 16 per cent. of all children are being brought up in families who are either on the margin of poverty or below it. That is a disgraceful record. I am aware that Conservative Members do not understand what poverty means. I draw their attention to Professor Townsend's definition of poverty. He is perhaps the greatest social scientist practising today. He said:
    "Individuals, families and groups in the population can be said to be in poverty when they lack the resources to obtain the type of diet, participate in the activities and have the living conditions and amenities which are customary or at least widely encouraged or approved in the societies to which they belong. Their resources are so seriously below those commanded by the average individual or family that they are in effect excluded from ordinary living patterns, customs and activities."
    I agree with that definition of poverty. It is a sad reflection on the Conservative party that there has been a massive increase in poverty because of its policies over the last eight or nine years. Child benefit is one obstacle in the way of that growing poverty.
    It has been estimated, on Government figures, that the refusal to uprate will mean that this year 15,000 parents and 30,000 children will be pushed into dependency and means testing, which means more and deepening poverty. How can the Government justify that? I plead with the Minister to rethink this refusal to upgrade child benefit. How can the Government claim to be the Government of the family when they are deliberately reneging on their election pledge? The Chief Secretary to the Treasury is quoted as having clearly said:
    "Child benefit will continue as a non-means tested universal payment paid to the mother and tax-free. There ought to be no doubt about this."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 March 1988; Vol. 494, c. 313.]
    The spirit of that comment was thought by hon. Members on both sides of the House to mean that the benefit would be index-linked and not frozen.
    The refusal to uprate is also a direct attack on women, who take the prime responsibility for caring. They lose out in almost every other area. Women's incomes are generally lower than their average male counterparts. Two out of three low-paid workers are women, and more women rely on state benefits than men— [Interruption.] Those are the facts. I am sorry that Conservative Members find them amusing. As one who has been in that position, I can tell hon. Members that it is not funny.
    Nine out of 10 one-parent families are headed by women, and child benefit is often the only money that many married and cohabiting women have the absolute right to claim to spend on their children. That is for many reasons, but quite often it is because of the meanness of the partner or because his priorities are not for the children that the women needs access to that money as of right. We have heard much from the Government in previous debates about targeting, and no doubt we will hear much more about it in this debate. Child benefit is perhaps the
    928
    most popular benefit and it has a 100 per cent take-up. I fail to see how anybody can argue that that is not targeting. It is stigma-free, easy to administer and easily understood.
    An analysis by the social policy research unit at York university recently concluded:
    "Child benefit clearly plays an important role in income maintenance for poor families. Low-income families not in receipt of supplementary benefit receive about a fifth of their net disposable income from child benefit."
    The Government are attacking low-income families. If they do not change their mind about uprating, more children will go without a basic diet and more families will be forced to live in unsuitable housing, with all the health problems that go with those things. [Interruption.] There is no point in Conservative Members groaning and looking bored. That is a fact of life. Millions more have been pushed into poverty, and child benefit is a lifeline to many families. Conservative Members may not like the truth, but they will have to listen to it a little more often from the Opposition.
    It is a damning indictment of the Government, and it will be indelibly stamped on them in history, that they wiped out the consensus to update and improve child benefit, and that, for the first time in our history, they were a Government led by a woman and mother. That is a disgrace and blot upon the Government.
    Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: We have had so many debates on the uprating of child benefit in recent years that it is difficult to find anything fresh to say. I think that my position is well known to the House. I regret that the Government have not seen fit to uprate child benefit this year. I hope, however, if it is true that they intend to accept Lords amendment No. 4, that it will be an earnest of their intention to uprate child benefit in line with the cost of living in future years. I certainly hope so, and, I look forward to what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has to say about that.
    It is high time that the House worked its way towards a consensus on child benefit. We have such a consensus in regard to the Lawson-Rooker-Wise amendments in the tax system, and in regard to pensions and other national insurance benefits. We no longer have disputes on those subjects; but on child benefit there is always this uncertainty about the Government's intentions on uprating, and I think that that does the Government harm.
    I am ashamed to say that I think there is an element in the Treasury that has a strong desire to end the advantage that has long been enjoyed by families with children, that at the end of their transactions over the payment of income tax and receipt of their statutory allowances their burden would be less than those of single people and of couples with no children to raise. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) mentioned this point.
    It was William Pitt's intention on the very inception of income tax at the end of the 18th century that there should be a child allowance, so that families with children had a lower tax burden than families without children. It is a pity that the Treasury seems to have a malignant desire to erode that advantage. Now that child benefit has taken the place of child allowance, there is this constant onslaught on it, because the Treasury insists on regarding it as expenditure instead of relief of tax, which is how it originated.
    Unfortunately, Lord Skelmersdale in his speech in the other place opposing the amendment which is now before

    929
    the House as Lords amendment No. 4, and which I understand the Government are now willing to accept, appeared to lean towards this Treasury view that there would be a good case for ending the differential between the tax burden on families with children and those without. That approach, if I understand Lord Skelmersdale correctly, is quite wrong. I hope that he will not continue to think along those lines.
    It is a very long-established principle that taxation should be related to ability to pay. The burden of raising a family ought to be taken into account for families at all levels of income and not only for families at the bottom of the scale. The principle should apply throughout the scale; but of course it is particularly important for the millions who are entitled to means-tested benefits and who, for one reason or another, do not claim them but rely instead on the real value of the child benefit.
    It is also very important for all those people who are just above the level of entitlement and who seem likely in the coming weeks, I am sorry to say, to be forced to consider extremely carefully whether they will be able to continue outside dependency on means-tested benefit or whether they will have to go through the humiliation of applying to the DHSS or to their local authority for means-tested benefits. It is particularly unfortunate when we are taking so much away in the form of the cuts in housing allowances that, at the same time, we should not be uprating the child benefit. We shall see how matters turn out.
    The reluctance that is generally felt by some people, though I think not by very many, about receiving child benefit as a positive credit rather than in the form of a tax deduction, arises from the suspicion that it is money from nowhere. They are ashamed to draw it because they do not understand how they have become entitled to it. They do not see how they or their wives have qualified to receive a positive payment in cash. They would be quite happy to have an exactly comparable increase in spending power if they could understand how they had become entitled to it or, of course, if it appeared to come to them as a reduction in their tax burden.
    I have long felt and I am now quite convinced that we shall not find our way out of this sterile controversy about child benefit while it appears to be a universal benefit that has not been paid for, but just falls as money from nowhere. We need a full-scale review of the national insurance system. Very many reasons are convincing me that that is urgently required in this Parliament, not only because of the difficulties of the social security system, but because of the difficulties that we are encountering in the administration of housing benefit and the further difficulties that we shall certainly encounter in the administration of the community charge.
    It is very rare to meet anyone who is reluctant to draw his basic national insurance entitlements, such as the pension that he is paid towards the end of his life. That is because people feel that this flows to them because of a contract into which they have entered as citizens and to which they make their contribution, and that they draw their entitlements in exchange.
    Child benefit should be incorporated in a revised and reconstructed national insurance system which should be put on a business footing with comprehensible accounts and a clear range of basic entitlements before, as well as
    930
    during and after, working life. Child benefit ought to belong to the range of national insurance benefits. Then it would be seen as part of a comprehensible relationship between the citizen and the community, which at present it is not.
    I referred to the association with the national insurance fund in the Bill that I introduced before Christmas and which, I am happy to say, was passed on an all-party basis with a substantial majority. I should now like to go further in regard to my recommendations for the revival of national insurance, but this would not be the appropriate time under the guillotine. I have undertaken to write to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State with specific recommendations and I shall shortly do so.
    The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) referred to the national insurance fund, but she has not followed it up in the Opposition amendment. The official Opposition amendment, therefore, does not seem to be a very well drafted or satisfactory counter to what the Lords have suggested in amendment No. 4. I shall not vote against the Labour amendment, because its intention of protecting the real value of child benefit is quite proper and entirely in line with my own thinking which I have expressed very often in the House. But I do not think that I shall find it in my heart to vote in favour of it because it does not appear to offer a satisfactory solution to the arguments. I feel that the time has now come when the House has to get out of these sterile debates and to find a solution that is acceptable on both sides of the House.
    8 pm
    Mr. Fearn: I am delighted that the amendment, which was moved by my noble Friend Lord Banks, was passed with all-party support in the other place.
    I know that the Government are less than keen to uprate child benefit in line with inflation, and we have heard the Minister argue only recently that child benefit should be frozen and that the money saved should be targeted at poorer families. The problem with that argument, as the Minister well knows, is that the take-up of means-tested benefits such as family credit cannot hope to compete with the near 100 per cent. take-up of child benefit, which has been mentioned and which we see every day. I shall not go into all the arguments in favour of child benefit because we have heard them. However, the Government should acknowledge that their defeat on this issue in the other place gives a strong indication of the feelings of the nation on this matter.
    It is fundamental that extra support should be provided for children, especially needy children, and child benefit is the most effective way at our disposal of making sure that money reaches those for whom it is intended. That argument is well understood by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I urge the Government to take note of it.
    The danger of Lords amendment No. 4 is that it requires the Secretary of State only to "take account of" any increase in the retail price index. The Government do not have an excellent record on taking action when they are not required to do so. However, I hope that the Secretary of State appreciates the true intention of the amendment and that in future he will uprate child benefit in line with the retail prices index.
    I welcome and support the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), which I believe greatly strengthens Lords amendment No. 4.
    Mr. Tim Rathbone: The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) has got his facts about the Government completely wrong. The Government are only too ready to take action at any time. Some of those actions are extremely innovative, as we shall be discussing next week and in the weeks to come.
    I endorse the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison). He reminded the House of what the debate is all about. It is about the advantages of child benefit as a method of getting moneys to a family with children, directly to the mother, for the benefit of the children. That was one of the principles brought about, in the way that he described, by challenge to the Government in 1945. I am proud to say that it was a relative of mine, Eleanor Rathbone, who fought for that at that time. It is a great point of pride in our family that the principles of family allowance have seeped through the various stages that have now brought us to child benefit.
    There was some concern when family allowances were amalgamated in the 1970s. The argument most strongly in favour of that amalgamation was that it would make administration much easier. I believe that that is a good principle to apply to the administration of benefits. Indeed, it is a good principle to apply to the taking of taxation. The only occasion on which I can foresee that it may be worth while even considering dropping child benefit is if we move into a full tax credit scheme. The House will remember that that was mooted by the Conservative Government in the 1970s and that, sadly, the idea ran into the sand when the Labour party came into office in 1974.
    The great advantage of child benefit is that it has virtually a 100 per cent. take-up by the very people it seeks to help—mothers with children. It is not an instrument for the alleviation of poverty, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon). It is not designed for that. It is designed to help families in their starting years, in the same way as the Government take it upon themselves to help families in their later years. I believe that that is an admirable principle to apply.
    Future reviews must keep the value of the benefit clearly in mind. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reiterate his and the Government's determination to do that. I look forward to the day when child benefit is uprated, not according to the Opposition's amendment, but in excess of the price increases year by year.
    Mr. Frank Field: Several hon. Members have made the point that nothing new can be said in this debate. The logic of holding that position is to make a brief contribution. I shall attempt to do that by addressing myself to two points that have emerged.
    The first point is addressed to the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams), whom I shall call my hon. Friend during this debate. I make a plea to him that, although he thinks that our amendment is defective, that should not be a reason for not voting for it. Given his logical mind, he ought to see that most issues can be taken in stages. The Opposition amendment says that there should be a regular review and that the Government should act on that review. It is quite possible, as a second stage, for my hon. Friend or us to come back to the House with ideas on how that review should be funded. Therefore, I hope that speeches made by Opposition
    932
    Members will convince my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington that his impressive voting record on child benefit should be kept intact.
    The next point I wish to make is addressed to the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) who is not in the Chamber now. With his usual delicacy, he attacked the Government and opened a wound. Therefore, it seems proper that, as an Opposition Member who is committed to consensus politics, I should bring a bucket of salt to apply gently to the Government's wound.
    The hon. Member for Northampton, North made the valid point that so much of the Government's rhetoric and, indeed, their real beliefs, is that they are the party of the family. He asked the House to look at the Government's record towards the financial support of families. We see that over the past 10, 15, 20 or 30 years —this is not a party point—Governments of all parties have been more likely to push the tax system in favour of single people and married couples without children rather than married couples with children.
    I hope that we will not look at the record of past Labour Governments on that issue, because it is not nearly as impressive as I should like. The Labour party has been guilty of pushing the tax system towards those without children, whether they be single people or married couples. Therefore, the hon. Member for Northampton, North was right in saying that, given that the Government believe that it is important that the cornerstone of our society is the family and that families should be able to manage their own affairs without state interference, it is crucial that we ensure that all families have sufficient income. The only way in which we can do that is to increase child benefit. If we increase tax allowances ahead of child benefit, we are making it more advantageous not to have children and making it more difficult for those who have children by reducing the relative living standards of families.
    I want to end on a somewhat controversial note. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) spoke about his surgery this morning and about a single parent and the importance of child benefit to her. I remind the House that we introduced the single-parent families benefit only because the then Labour Government ratted on their commitment to introduce child benefit and were scratching around to find some way of presenting to the House a face-saving formula. We often see that happen with the Conservative Government; it is not a new phenomenon. The then Labour Government came up with the cheap proposal of paying a benefit to single families with children.
    As we move towards a day that I hope we shall see, when child benefit reflects adequately the cost of children, we shall be able to discuss phasing out the benefit for single-parent families. Its effect at present is to give an incentive to those who are not married, against those who are. Many of our constituents need that money; there is no dispute about that. But there is an expanding group of yuppies in the electorate who manage their tax and benefit affairs in such a way as to ensure that they receive every penny that they can.
    I know of "stable relationships" in which one partner takes the other to court for maintenance payments, and claims single-parent benefit as well. That cannot be policed; such people cannot be chased, and to exhort them to behave better seems to have little effect. What is possible is to increase child benefit to a level generous enough to cover the major costs of children. When that has been

    933
    done, it will be possible to begin to phase out the single-parent family allowance, which was introduced only because, when in government, we were not prepared to bring in child benefit on the date when Labour Back Benchers thought that it was to be introduced. In Committee, Labour Members asked whether they were right in assuming that child benefit was to start on such and such a date, and Labour Ministers replied, "Of course you are right, but we do not wish to tie our hands." As a consequence, child benefit was not introduced when it was said that it would be.
    The House of Lords, in a slightly bumbling way, has passed this helpful amendment. But, without the key element of what happens after the review— and given that we know from press reports that the Government are fighting a battle to keep child benefit—I hope that the Government will act not only on the Lords amendment but on the Opposition amendment, which strengthens their hand against the Treasury. For once, I hope that the Secretary of State and the Minister will learn from Labour's mistakes, and will not trust the Treasury on the day when we want the payout.
    Mr. Robin Squire: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who, even in short speeches, says more of substance than many of us manage in our longer efforts.
    I should like to make three points. First, perhaps predictably, I wish to remind my hon. Friend the Minister that I am one of a number of fully paid-up members of "Brandon's Irregulars", who have in the past supported the uprating in full of child benefit. While we welcome the Lords' amendment as far as it goes, I know that my hon. Friend accepts, in the spirit that I put it to him, that it is the least that we would expect and that it will not stop us from pressing next year for the matter to be formalised.
    Secondly, I should like briefly to tackle the question of tax cuts in the context of child benefit. I have no crystal ball, but I hope that tomorrow my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will indeed announce tax cuts. I hope that not so much for personal reasons — although it would be nice—but because many of my constituents earn about the average wage and quite a few earn less, and they will benefit.
    The point that I wish to make is very simple. Tax cuts will give many people more spending power. They may spend the money on an enormously wide variety of things, both inside and outside the home, and no hon. Member —at least on the Conservative Benches—questions such spending. Once the subject of child benefit is raised, however, it is suggested that this strange benefit should be done away with. Hon. Members suddenly turn a funny colour and start to remonstrate, suggesting that the benefit should be abolished because it is going to people who do not need it.
    8.15 pm
    I find that very strange. The one undeniable fact about child benefit is that it goes to meet a known expenditure, whether the parent is very wealthy or among the poorest in the country. That argument that it should be done away with because some people do not need it, unlike tax cuts —which, as I have said, I would welcome—surely has no real substance.
    934
    Thirdly, I ask whether, under our existing system, we can simply decide to phase out this non-selective benefit and uprate various selective benefits. I see the instant attraction of that approach, and I understand why a number of my hon. Friends see it as a way forward, but I have a counsel of care to offer. It relates to the take-up rate.
    We must be clear about what we mean by take-up rate and about its impact. At the best estimate that the Government are currently prepared to offer, take-up of the new family credit will be 60 per cent., so more than half the families whom we wish to receive assistance will indeed receive it. The other side of the coin, however, is that two out of every five families measured as being in need, and entitled to the assistance, will not receive it. If we are asked to weigh in the balance whether assistance should be limited to those on low incomes, while take-up is nowhere near 100 per cent., I must say that I am happy — on balance— for the money to go to the better-off in the assurance that the worse-off still get that necessary assistance.
    Mrs. Wise: Two necessary tasks must be performed. One is to help children in general; the other is to help children in poverty.
    I regret very much that the Government, who boast that they seek to help poor families with children, are paying for that to the tune of 40 per cent. at the expense of children in general. The last time that we discussed the matter, the Minister said that families would receive £100 million more through family income support, and £200 million more through family credit. That, of course, assumes that take-up is as the Government anticipate, which can only be a guess. On the Government's figures, it means an extra expenditure of £300 million on children in poverty, of which £120 million—40 per cent. —comes from children in general.
    As has been said so often—especially by Opposition Members—we are likely to hear tomorrow of vast sums being dispersed among people who may have no children at all, let alone children in poverty. This is a peculiar approach from a responsible Government who say that they are the Government of the family. In fact, it disproves their assertion utterly.
    I have been present at the debates both here and in Committee, and I have read carefully the report of the debates in the other place. Some of the arguments are quite remarkable. For example, Lord Skelmersdale, the Government spokesman in the other place, said that benefits and tax allowances had different roles, but he did not explain to his noble Friends what the different roles were. He simply said that tax allowances help all taxpayers, but that is not exactly news. Tax allowances help all taxpayers. Some of them may have children, but they do not receive additional help because they have children. They are helped because they are taxpayers, and tax benefits, such as those that we may see tomorrow, help those with larger incomes rather than those with small incomes.
    The Government have never explained, in this or the other place, why they give such priority to tax allowances and tax cuts but not to helping children. The Minister was reminded during the previous debate that this is not simply a matter of families. It is not the parents about whom we

    935
    are concerned; it is the children. I am sorry that all the arguments have not produced a change of heart by the Government.
    I regret that, even if the Government accept the amendment that was passed in the other place, they will undoubtedly do so in the spirit of the Government's spokesman in the other place, who said that, if the amendment is passed, it will not mean uprating of benefits. Their Lordships said that the implication of passing their amendment would be that the nation would expect uprating. The Government spokesman said that uprating was not a consequence of the amendment passed in the other place. If the Government say that they now accept the amendment, they are doing so in the spirit of the contribution made by their spokesman in the other place.
    That simply is not good enough. We are not asking for child benefit to be looked at annually and then for nothing to be done; we are asking for it to be looked at and raised in line with inflation. Someone said that that was not enough, and I agree; but at least a modest attempt to tie it to inflation should be beyond controversy.
    One of their Lordships said that, if it is right to raise benefit one year, surely it is right the next year. That simple assertion is beyond doubt, unless the Government think that child benefit has up until now been paid at too high a rate. They have not made that assertion, but they are acting as though that is what they believe, which is regrettable.
    This is not a matter in which the Government can say, "We are diverting resources to families and children in poverty," if some of the resources that they are diverting are not from the better-off, from people in general or from people without children, but are from children themselves. I have grown weary of asking Ministers to think better of proposals, to think again and to act in line with their oft-repeated assertions, but there is no alternative. In doing so, we should express the fact that people are looking for child benefit to be raised.
    I believe that this is a party matter, but it goes beyond parties, because women who support the Conservative party have asked for the protection of child benefit. If the Minister does not listen to us, why on earth does he not listen to them? It would be better for his future fortunes if he were to do so. It is not for me to try to make him popular, but if that were an unwelcome consequence of the Government accepting our amendment, I would swallow it for the benefit of the children concerned.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I was delighted when the Lords passed this amendment, and I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will accept it.
    If one asks the average person in the street which is the least well-off section of our society, I would bet a pound to a penny that he will say it is the pensioners. However, that has never been so throughout history. Going back to when the question was first asked during Rowntree's study of poverty, it has always been families with children who are the worst off. That has been the case right through since the tax credit Select Committee in the early 1970s to the present day.
    My hon. Friend the Minister was right to say that child benefit was not simply designed to alleviate poverty. The fact is that it covers the entire scale of people and preserves a fair balance between couples with children and couples
    936
    without children. If couples without children are casting an envious eye on this benefit, they should remember that it is our children who will pay their pensions.
    I very much hope that the Government will accept the Lords amendment and jolly well put it into practice.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: I anticipate that I shall prefer what came from Kensington to what is likely to come from Chelsea, which is the other part of a bifurcated borough. I suspect that, if the Minister accepts the Lords amendment, he will do so with certain reservations. It is always too easy to take matters into account, but it is more difficult to ensure that there is a commitment to action.
    This is a very timely matter. Like the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), I have a constituency interest, because on Saturday I received a petition from the West Glamorgan child poverty action group signed by over 5,000 people — mostly mothers — in West Glamorgan expressing their concern about the future of child benefit.
    The petition is brief, so I shall read it. It says:
    "We the undersigned believe that Child Benefit is crucial to the health and well being of children and a vital lifeline for many mothers. We are concerned that Child Benefit has been cut and that further reviews are threatened in the future. We call on the Government (i) to give a commitment that at a minimum, there will be no further cuts in the value of Child Benefit and (ii) to give priority to raising Child Benefit to a more realistic level."
    That petition was signed by over 5,000 people in west Glamorgan. I helped to launch it, and I was very moved by the reception to it, even from one person who was completely disabled and who signed it by putting the pen between the toes of her feet.
    The mothers of the child poverty action group have been collecting signatures for the petition in the country over the past months. That shows a commitment, and I should have liked the procedures of the House to allow me to carry the petition over to hand if personally to the Minister. However, I shall have to do so in spirit.
    I shall quote to the Minister some of the comments that have been made by mothers who were asked to sign the petition. One said: "Child Benefit is a life-saver for many families."
    Another said: "It's the one benefit that you don't have to beg for."
    Another said: "It's in my name, I cash it so I control how it's spent."
    Another said: "For the sake of everyone's future, the needs of children must come first."
    It makes my blood boil to hear some individuals talk of the selective nature of child benefit and the fact that it may go to some who do not need it. Yet those same individuals may accept, without demur, mortgage arid other tax relief that go to the fat cats of this world without any proof of need for them.
    I recall Barbara Castle introducing this measure and saying—it may be rather sexist to say this now—that it was a measure that moved money from the wallet to the purse. We know that there is an almost universal take-tip of child benefit.
    The debate is timely for my constituency and its child poverty action group, which has made valiant efforts to collect evidence of public opinion. The debate is timely also in respect of a Budget in which the Chancellor, unusually, will have choice. The right hon. Gentleman will be able to show his priorities, and we shall be able to see

    937
    by the response tonight and by tomorrow's Budget the Government's priorities and whether they take seriously the issue of child poverty—meaning family poverty—in our society.
    8.30 pm
    Mr. Hind: I welcome the Government's acceptance of this Lords amendment, as I am sure do my hon. Friends. It underpins one important factor—however we look at our system, there should be recognition of the fact that children need to be provided for and suitable allowances made within the tax system. We must not forget—I urge the Opposition to think carefully about this — that tomorrow, if tax relief is given to the better off, the Opposition will criticise the Budget on the basis that tax reductions are given to rich people who do not need them. The Opposition could make the same criticism of the way in which child allowance is structured. The same criticism might be made of allowances to the Duchess of Westminster and of mortgage tax relief.
    I do not want to disappoint the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), who is not in his place, but it is important to note that a review is in place. In an atmosphere in which taxation is falling, we cannot help but look at the tax breaks paid to the community as a whole. We must have those matters in the forefront of our minds. What are tax breaks? They are allowances given to meet the special needs of particular sections of the community. There will always be children and there will always be a need for allowances or tax breaks for children, but we must have an open mind.
    The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) mentioned targeting, which is important. The hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) put her finger on it when she described the benefits paid for children on two levels —helping children and helping to alleviate poverty. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced previously that he would not uprate child benefit. We must not lose sight of the fact that it was argued then that for every 10p by which child benefit was increased, those who were receiving income-related benefit would lose 10p while those who were not receiving any kind of income-related benefit would benefit totally from the increase.
    Members of Parliament have the good fortune to earn £22,000 a year. I have two children, and I do not think that I need that benefit of £15 a week. I should much prefer to give away my £15 a week to those families who need the benefit. For that reason, targeting is important.
    Mrs. Mahon: The answer is in the Minister's hands. He can give more to those who have least without taking it away from those who already get a popular universal benefit.
    Mr. Hind: The only way to deal with that problem is to abandon the concept of a universal, across-the-board benefit. We must look at it in terms of the tax credit system, which was considered between 1970 and 1974. Our present system is probably the best of a group of bad systems. In future, as tax rates decrease, we should look at the two levels—meeting the basic needs of children and, as the hon. Member for Halifax said, providing more for those families in poverty.
    Efforts have been made — the hon. Member for Halifax criticised me earlier on this point — through
    938
    family credit, income support and the social fund to balance the needs of families with children who are worse off. I know that we shall not agree on that point. We have disagreed all evening, but we must consider those factors.
    The other place has provided an opportunity for those hon. Members who want an uprating in child benefit which is inflation-linked to bring pressure to bear on the Government. From that point of view, I support the Lords amendment. In the long term, we must look carefully at the structure of the whole system and ensure that we get the benefits to those who are most in need.
    Mr. John Battle: Speeches such as the one that we have heard from the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) again raise fears about the future of child benefit, and especially its universality. There is a difference of view about whether child benefit should be universal or means-tested.
    It has become increasingly known that the Government are conducting a review of child benefit. For all we know, the Government may be considering ways of limiting child benefit to low-income families, by taxing or means-testing it. That would remove universality, which is what the hon. Member for Lancashire, West advocates. The problem is that, in effect, we would return to some form of child tax allowance and be right back to square one. We should know whether that is the Government's long-term objective. The Minister might like to give the answer to the hon. Member for Lancashire, West so that he can be assured of the future direction of child benefit.
    Would the Minister care to tell the House the terms of reference of the review? What is its likely timetable? How will any action proposed in the review be introduced in the Budget? I invite the Minister to open up the review and to turn it into a public exercise of real consultation rather than simply an internal examination by the Government behind closed doors of the options, which are then brought late to the House as amendments that we cannot properly discuss in or outside the House.
    On 25 January this year, The Times reported that a Cabinet rift over the child benefit freeze had arisen between the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled and the Treasury. It has become more apparent during the past few days that rifts are all too familiar and at the centre of Government policy. It may be worth the Minister informing the House whether there is a rift. Can he assure the House that there is not a rift about the future of child benefit? On 12 January, the Minister assured the House that the benefit would be paid
    "as a universal benefit, tax-free and to the mother … I believe that that obligation was right." —[Official Report, 12 January 1988; Vol. 125, c. 208.]
    Given the rumours of the behind-the-scenes review, the Minister could take this opportunity to reaffirm his attitude to child benefit. Tomorrow's Budget, which ironically will be delivered within only 24 hours of this debate, could be used to increase child benefit at least in line with prices. As many hon. Members have pointed out, that would be exactly the same way in which tax allowances will be changed. The Government could use the Budget to restore the cut in the real value of child benefit which was imposed in November 1985. They could make good the effective cut which has resulted from the freezing of child benefit from April this year.
    The hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) referred to William Pitt, who introduced income

    939
    tax to pay for the Napoleonic wars. He was the Prime Minister who said that children should also be taken into account when assessing the ability to pay. He said:
    "Let us make relief in cases where there are a number of children as a matter of right and a matter of honour."
    I remind the House that that remark was cited by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler), the present Secretary of State for Employment, who was in the Chamber earlier, during a debate on the Bill which introduced child benefit in the 1970s.
    Child benefit has emerged as the only means by which the ability to pay families can be recognised. It is therefore similar to tax allowances and should be reviewed, assessed and restored at the same time as they are. I urge the House to support the Opposition amendment and to use tomorrow's Budget debate as a means of beginning to put that amendment into practical effect.
    Mr. Scott: As I rise to reply to the debate, I cannot but be aware of the unanimity which has developed across the Floor of the House in the course of the discussions. A Minister should he conscious of the unanimity which has appeared on the Benches behind him, as he comes to respond to the debate.
    I should like to make it clear at the outset that the Government will advise the House to accept the Lords amendment, but it will not be any great surprise to the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), if I advise the House to reject the amendment that she and her Friends have tabled. I should like to make clear why that advice will be given to the House this evening on each of the two issues.
    Perhaps I should start by making it clear why the Government are prepared to accept the Lords amendment. It is particularly important that the House should have no doubt about the effect of the clause. When it was debated in the other place, I suspect that many of those who spoke in favour of it were trying to secure the annual uprating of child benefit, but, during the debate, it was acknowledged that that would not be the effect of the amendment.
    In its discussions today, the House has recognised that the amendment does not achieve that end. Indeed, if it did, for reasons that I shall explain later, we would not be able to commend it to the House. The Lords amendment confirms duties laid upon the Secretary of State, which already exist in legislation, although, in practice, the Lords amendment does not go as far as the existing legislation. The relevant current law is the Social Security Act 1986, specifically section 63. That section provides for the annual review and, in certain circumstances, the uprating of various benefits. As the House will know, that section also refers to child benefit.
    8.45 pm
    Mr. Anderson: If the Minister is saying that the effect of the Lords amendment is to do no more than confirm the duties of the Government, is he accepting the amendment only because it has no meaning in fact and gives total discretion to the Government to accept or, as happened last year to reject, an increase in child benefit?
    Mr. Scott: I shall explain why the Government are able to accept the Lords amendment, but prefer the House to reject the Opposition amendment. I should like to set out the argument clearly and sequentially.
    Section 63 already requires the Secretary of State to review child benefit in each tax year to determine whether
    940
    it has retained its value in relation to the general value of prices and goes on to provide for the benefit to be uprated, if the Secretary of State considers it appropriate, having regard to the national economic situation and any other matters which he considers relevant.
    The Secretary of State already has a statutory duty to review child benefit annually and, in some circumstances, he is empowered to increase it. The new clause does not add anything of substance to that. It requires the Secretary of State to review the level of child benefit in April of each year, taking account of increases in the retail prices index and other relevant external factors.
    Whereas section 63 provides for child benefit to be uprated if the Secretary of State considers it appropriate, the new clause refers just to an annual review. It neither requires nor empowers anything beyond a review, so the duty that it places on the Secretary of State sits squarely within the duties that he already has under the Social Security Act 1986.
    In reality, therefore, the Lords amendment is very close indeed to existing law and, for that reason, the Government are prepared to accept that it should remain in the Bill. However, I must make it absolutely clear that we are not prepared to accept the Opposition amendment.
    Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: Will the Minister confirm that, when the amendment refers to other external factors, he interprets that to mean the national economic situation to which he has just referred? If that is the case, in view of what the Treasury tells us about the present national economic situation, we should be able to look for positive uprating.
    Mr. Scott: There are a number of issues which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services could take into account in deciding whether it is appropriate to uprate child benefit in all circumstances. I am sure that that does not come as any surprise to the hon. Lady. Of course, the use to which any resources which may be available in any particular financial year are put will be the responsibility of the collective decision of the Government year by year. I can assure the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) that the Government are a totally seamless garment. We do not have divisions on such matters.
    I am conscious of the strong arguments in favour of child benefit as it exists at present. I must also be conscious of the many disadvantages associated with it, and I wish to say something about each of those points. The hon. Member for Derby, South said that the Government could perfectly well afford to uprate child benefit this year; the resources are available in plenty, so the benefit could be uprated next month. That was the essence of her point.
    However, the Opposition amendment proposes riot that benefit should be uprated this year, but that there should be an absolute statutory obligation on the Government each and every year in the future, giving that commitment in advance, whatever the prevailing circumstances at the time. I do not believe that it is right to pre-empt the Government's decision on that for all future years, as the amendment would.
    The hon. Member for Derby, South mentioned particularly the two aims that have been spelt out about help for families—first, help for families as families and, secondly, help for low-income Families. She went on to say that the Government had said that those two aims should

    941
    not be confused, but I do not believe that means that we should necessarily pre-empt for ever the balance between those two sorts of help and that we should not be able to make a yearly judgment about where the balance between those two sorts of help lies.
    I listened with particular care to the arguments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), but, for that fundamental reason, I am unable to give him the assurance that he sought. The matter must be kept for a year-by-year decision, bearing in mind the resources available and the balance between those two sorts of help.
    Mr. Raison: Will my hon. Friend assure me that no decision has been taken that there will not be any further upratings of child benefit? Will he assure me also that the pledge in our election manifesto that child benefit will continue to be paid will not be diluted within this Parliament by any attempt to introduce any kind of means-testing or tax on child benefit?
    Mr. Scott: I cannot give that assurance to my right hon. Friend. The future of child benefit will be reviewed each year as annual upratings are considered. On the fundamentals of child benefit, I can go no further than my right hon. Friend did. A benefit of that sort and scale must be under constant review. Certainly we have no present plans to change the status of child benefit. That is as much as I can say to my right hon. Friend at the moment.
    The hon. Member for Derby, South made certain assertions based upon the document entitled "Cutting the Lifeline", published by the Labour party, which is full of inaccuracies. She asserted that most couples will lose on earnings of between £60 and £140 a week and that most lone parents in full-time work will lose on earnings between £60 and £100 a week. That is simply not true, and it is not borne out by the fact that—
    Mrs. Beckett rose—
    Mr. Scott: I shall not give way; I shall continue my remarks.
    The hon. Lady gave certain hypothetical examples. About 200,000 working families with gross earnings below £150 a week will have higher, not lower, disposable incomes after the reforms, and 25,000 lone working parents with gross incomes below £100 a week will also gain. Those are the facts, not the information that is included in the document.
    Mrs. Beckett: I suggest that the Minister has a word either with himself or with whomsoever of his hon. Friends gave the parliamentary reply from which the figures were taken.
    Mr. Scott: It is important that we look carefully at what people's cash position will be after the reforms. I do not know from which answer or from which debate the hon. Lady plucked her question. Having checked, I can say that her figures are totally inaccurate and do not reflect the real position that will exist after the reforms come in.
    Mr. Robin Cook: The hon. Gentleman is raising a serious point. If the figures that were given in the answer are inaccurate, I hope that he will correct the record. The figures were given in an answer to the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams). They provide a fairly full tabulation of the effect upon families of four and single parents with two children, on the
    942
    assumption that they are paying average rent. The figures show absolutely precisely that any family of four on an income of between £60 and £140 will lose, and the worst hit family will be a family of four on £80 a week. They will be £12 a week worse off. Those were the hon. Gentleman's own figures.
    Mr. Scott: The families we are talking about would be paying rent in any case. The question that was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) made certain assumptions about the situations of those families paying average rent and rates. That is not the situation that exists in the real world, nor will it be.
    The Labour party goes on to state that the assumptions included in my hon. Friend's question reflect the real world. They do not. They are hypothetical questions. The answers were clearly given. Half the families we are talking about would not pay rent in any case. Their situation is not reflected in the question. [Interruption] Perhaps, when the debate on the Opposition Front Bench is completed, I shall ask Opposition Members to look at the questions in Hansard. They examine the differing situations of a range of people on income support after April and the real rather than the hypothetical situations that were outlined.
    Without being tendentious, I mention to the hon. Lady, who quoted so freely from "Family Fortunes", that the methods used in the study are subject to substantial reservations on behalf of the Central Statistical Office. Far from falling by 11 per cent. in real terms, as the study suggested, the real incomes of lone parents rose on average by at least 10 to 12 per cent. Similar reservations must be and have been expressed by the Central Statistical Office about the falls of real incomes of two-parent families. I commend to the hon. Lady a careful study rather than simply reading out what is in "Family Fortunes".
    Mr. Frank Field: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the rejection of the report that my hon. Friend quoted, will he confirm that the body that published it accepts that, given the information that the Government have now given, it changes the position for single-parent families, but that for other families the information holds? It carried out the analysis on published data. It was only when the Government came up with other data that the calculations changed. That might be a case for the Government publishing more information. Is it not a bit much for the Government to reprimand my hon. Friend about the use of the retail prices index, when the Government made such a mess that all state and public pensions have had to be changed?
    Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman's remark does not bear much attention. We have severe doubts about the data and methodology that were used in coming to the conclusions in "Family Fortunes". There is a discussion between the Central Statistical Office, my Department and the organisation that produced it. No doubt, at the end of the day, there will be an agreed outcome. In the meantime, I urge caution on anyone who simply picks up "Family Fortunes" and quotes too easily from the findings that were produced.
    The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and other hon. Members spoke as though we were talking about the position of children in the poorest families and that child benefit is of particular help and importance to them. I thought that we had cleared that matter away on previous occasions when we discussed it. Those in greatest need

    943
    —those receiving income-related benefits—get nothing from any increase in child benefit. It benefits only those who are above that level. Again, it is easy to be misled by the points that were made by those such as the hon. Member for Halifax. People who receive income-related benefits would simply see their incomes fall pound for pound were child benefit to be increased.
    Mrs. Mahon: Many of the poorest families are low-paid. Many low-paid people live in poverty. Child benefit is absolutely vital to such households. If the Minister read the poverty reports, he would know what I am talking about.
    Mr. Scott: That is why, in the reformed structure of income-related benefit, we have emphasised family credit. We have put substantial extra resources into family credit. Once again, child benefit would be offset against family credit, in the same way as any income-related benefit are offset.
    I realise that, in a sense, I am repeating arguments that I have put to the House on previous occasions, but we need a balanced decision out of all of this. We need to achieve a balance and to recognise the advantages and disadvantages of child benefit. Of course I recognise that it provides help to all families with children. I am well aware of the genesis of the benefit. It is simple to claim and straightforward to administer. It is stigma-free—that phrase has been used more than once today—to those who receive it.
    But it is also an expensive benefit. It costs £4·6 billion a year. We must admit that much of that is paid to families, although they no doubt welcome it, in which it cannot be said to be needed. If we were to accept the Opposition amendment, resources would then be tied up, rather than being available to help others—many in the most needy families—as we decide what the priorities are year by year.
    This year we are seeking to focus additional help on the neediest families with children. I do not believe that many people would quarrel with that judgment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) said, that is where a great deal of poverty exists in our society today, and perhaps it has for a long time. However, we are now able to recognise that in our reformed structure of benefits. Uprating child benefit by 30p a week would have cost about £120 million net in a full year. We are putting more than that into extra benefit for low-income families through income support, if they are out of work, and family credit, if they are in work.
    I believe that that is the right balance for us to strike this year and that that judgment should be made on its merits year by year. Therefore, I cannot commend the Opposition amendment to the House.
    Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 196, Noes 280.

    Division No. 213]

    [8.59 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Barron, Kevin

    Allen, Graham

    Battle, John

    Anderson, Donald

    Beckett, Margaret

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Bell, Stuart

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Ashton, Joe

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

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    944

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Hoyle, Doug

    Blair, Tony

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Boateng, Paul

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Boyes, Roland

    Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

    Bradley, Keith

    Illsley, Eric

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Ingram, Adam

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    John, Brynmor

    Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

    Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

    Buchan, Norman

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Buckley, George J.

    Kennedy, Charles

    Caborn, Richard

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Lamond, James

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Leighton, Ron

    Canavan, Dennis

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Lewis, Terry

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Litherland, Robert

    Clay, Bob

    Livingstone, Ken

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Cohen, Harry

    Loyden, Eddie

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    McAllion, John

    Corbett, Robin

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Cousins, Jim

    McCartney, Ian

    Cryer, Bob

    Macdonald, Calum A.

    Cummings, John

    McFall, John

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Cunningham, Dr John

    McKelvey, William

    Dalyell, Tam

    McLeish, Henry

    Darling, Alistair

    McTaggart, Bob

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Madden, Max

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

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Dewar, Donald

    Meacher, Michael

    Dixon, Don

    Meale, Alan

    Dobson, Frank

    Michael, Alun

    Doran, Frank

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Eadie, Alexander

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Eastham, Ken

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Fatchett, Derek

    Mullin, Chris

    Faulds, Andrew

    Murphy, Paul

    Fearn, Ronald

    Nellist, Dave

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

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

    O'Brien, William

    Fisher, Mark

    O'Neill, Martin

    Flannery, Martin

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Flynn, Paul

    Parry, Robert

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Patchett, Terry

    Foulkes, George

    Pendry, Tom

    Fraser, John

    Pike, Peter L.

    Fyfe, Maria

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Galbraith, Sam

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Galloway, George

    Radice, Giles

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Randall, Stuart

    Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    George, Bruce

    Reid, Dr John

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Richardson, Jo

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Gordon, Mildred

    Robertson, George

    Gould, Bryan

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Graham, Thomas

    Rogers, Allan

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Rooker, Jeff

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Rowlands, Ted

    Hardy, Peter

    Ruddock, Joan

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Sheerman, Barry

    Henderson, Doug

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Hinchliffe, David

    Short, Clare

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Holland, Stuart

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Home Robertson, John

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

    Hood, Jimmy

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

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Snape, Peter

    Howells, Geraint

    Soley, Clive

    945

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Stott, Roger

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Strang, Gavin

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Straw, Jack

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Winnick, David

    Turner, Dennis

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Wall, Pat

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Wallace, James

    Walley, Joan

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Mr. Frank Haynes and

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Mr. Frank Cook.

    NOES

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Alexander, Richard

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Dover, Den

    Amess, David

    Dunn, Bob

    Amos, Alan

    Durant, Tony

    Arbuthnot, James

    Dykes, Hugh

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Eggar, Tim

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Ashby, David

    Evennett, David

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Atkins, Robert

    Fallon, Michael

    Atkinson, David

    Farr, Sir John

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Favell, Tony

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Baldry, Tony

    Forman, Nigel

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Forth, Eric

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Bellingham, Henry

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Bendall, Vivian

    Franks, Cecil

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Freeman, Roger

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    French, Douglas

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Gardiner, George

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Gill, Christopher

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Bottomley, Peter

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Gorst, John

    Bowis, John

    Gow, Ian

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    Brazier, Julian

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Bright, Graham

    Gregory, Conal

    Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

    Grist, Ian

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Ground, Patrick

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Grylls, Michael

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Burns, Simon

    Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Burt, Alistair

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Butcher, John

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Butler, Chris

    Hannam, John

    Butterfill, John

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

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Harris, David

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Cash, William

    Hayes, Jerry

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hayward, Robert

    Chope, Christopher

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Heddle, John

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Colvin, Michael

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Hill, James

    Cormack, Patrick

    Hind, Kenneth

    Couchman, James

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Cran, James

    Holt, Richard

    Critchley, Julian

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Howard, Michael

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

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

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Day, Stephen

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Devlin, Tim

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    946

    Hunter, Andrew

    Riddick, Graham

    Irvine, Michael

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Jack, Michael

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Jackson, Robert

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Janman, Tim

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Ryder, Richard

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Key, Robert

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Scott, Nicholas

    Knapman, Roger

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Knowles, Michael

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Knox, David

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Lang, Ian

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Latham, Michael

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Sims, Roger

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Speed, Keith

    Lightbown, David

    Speller, Tony

    Lilley, Peter

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Squire, Robin

    Lord, Michael

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Lyell, Sir Nicholas

    Steen, Anthony

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Stern, Michael

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Stevens, Lewis

    Maclean, David

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

    Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Stokes, John

    Madel, David

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Sumberg, David

    Malins, Humfrey

    Summerson, Hugo

    Mans, Keith

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Maples, John

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Marland, Paul

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Marlow, Tony

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Thurnham, Peter

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Miller, Hal

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Mills, Iain

    Tracey, Richard

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Tredinnick, David

    Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

    Trippier, David

    Moate, Roger

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Viggers, Peter

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Neale, Gerrard

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Nelson, Anthony

    Walden, George

    Neubert, Michael

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Waller, Gary

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Walters, Dennis

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Ward, John

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Watts, John

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Wells, Bowen

    Page, Richard

    Whitney, Ray

    Paice, James

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Patnick, Irvine

    Wilshire, David

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Pawsey, James

    Wolfson, Mark

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Wood, Timothy

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Yeo, Tim

    Portillo, Michael

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Younger, Rt Hon George

    Price, Sir David

    Raffan, Keith

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Redwood, John

    Mr. Robert Boscawen and

    Renton, Tim

    Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Lords amendment agreed to.

  Clause 13

    REMISSION OF HEALTH SERVICE CHARGES AND PAYMENT OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES
    Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 11, line 1, leave out from "method" to "or" in line 2 and insert
    "described by reference to a method of calculating or estimating income or capital specified in an enactment other than this section"
    Mr. Portillo: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 6, 7, 11, 12 and 13.
    Mr. Portillo: These are technical amendments intended to make it clear beyond doubt that regulations can set out the test of low income to be used when people apply for help with National Health Service charges by reference to the calculations relating to income support or housing benefit. This ties the regulations to be made under the new section introduced by clause 13, which will include a means test which will partly cross-refer to calculations made for the purpose of income support and of housing benefit, to the applicable amounts for those purposes. The resources rule for income will refer to the calculations under the regulations for the purposes of income support, but they will specify different figures in some cases. On the requirement side, the income support applicable amounts will be taken. An amount will be added on for net housing costs and then a deduction made in respect of housing benefit actually received.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 8, in page 11, line 25, leave out "and".
    Mr. Portillo: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 33. This amendment involves privilege.
    Mr. Portillo: A new paragraph (c) has been added to subsection (1) of the new section 75A of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, inserted by clause 13(2). This will enable existing arrangements for the payment of overnight expenses to continue. Those arrangements are needed because of the long journeys which people in some parts of Scotland have to undertake to get treatment.
    Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]
    Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]

  Clause 14

    FINANCIAL PROVISION
    Lords amendment: No. 14, in page 12, line 40, leave out "7, 9 and 13" and insert "8 and 9"
    Mr. Portillo: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    The amendment was introduced in the House of Lords to correct three technical errors in clause 15 (2). As it stood, clause 15 (2) provided power for money to be paid from the national insurance fund to the Consolidated
    948
    Fund to pay for expenses incurred in the administration of clauses 2, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 14. Checking revealed that the clause was defective, as it included two clauses that should have been omitted and excluded one clause that should have been included.
    Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

  Clause 17

    COMMENCEMENT
    Lords amendment: No. 15, in page 13, line 27, after "sections" insert "17,"
    Mr. Portillo: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.Mr. Portillo: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 16.
    Mr. Portillo: These are technical amendments. The effect of amendment No. 16 is to bring the provision of paragraph 23 of schedule 4 to the Bill into force on Royal Assent.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment No. 16 agreed to.

  Clause 19

    CITATION
    Lords amendment: No. 17 in page 14, line 41, after "1986" insert
    "and the Social Fund (Maternity and Funeral Expenses) Act 1987"
    Mr. Scott: I beg to move. That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    The amendment corrects an error in the citation of the Social Security Act 1975 to 1988 and brings the Social Fund (Maternity and Funeral Expenses) Act 1987 within the collective citation of those acts.
    Question put and agreed to.

  Schedule 2

    EARNINGS FACTORS AND TRANSFER VALUES
    Lords amendment: No. 18, in page 16, line 32, before "in" insert "in sub-paragraph (2),"
    9.15 pm
    Mr. Scott: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    This is a purely technical amendment to make it clear that the new words inserted by paragraph 3(a) of schedule 2 are to be inserted into subparagraph (2) of paragraph 12 of schedule 1A to the Social Security Pensions Act 1975.
    Question put and agreed to.

  Schedule 3

    THE SOCIAL FUND
    Lords amendment: No. 19, in page 17, line 18, at end insert—
    "3A. The following subsections shall he inserted after subsection (7)—
    "(7A) The Secretary of State shall prepare an annual report on the social fund.
    (7B) A copy of every report prepared under subsection (7A) above shall he laid before each House of Parliament.""
    Mr. Portillo: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    The amendment was introduced to provide that Parliament should receive an annual report on the operation of the social fund.
    I envisage that the report will include details of the types of applicants who received or were refused social fund grants and loans, as well as the numbers of payments and refusals and the purposes for which payments were or were not made. There will be information on the operation of the review process: numbers of applications, numbers of successful local office reviews, numbers of reviews referred to social fund inspectors, and so on; bearing in mind, of course, that the social fund commissioner will be preparing her own report and that we should aim to avoid duplication. The report will certainly include financial information and it is clearly necessary to have information provided on a regional basis rather than on a purely national basis. Finally, I would expect to see some general commentary on the operation of the scheme.
    I trust that the House will accept what I have said in earnest, and will look forward to as much, and more, information on the actual operation of the social fund as we have endeavoured to provide in advance.
    When the amendment was introduced in another place, it was greeted by Lord Ennals who said:
    "My Lords, from these Benches I warmly thank the Minister for this amendment. It is good that he has made a commitment, and it is good that he has stood by that commitment. From our side we warmly welcome this." —[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 March 1988; Vol. 494, c. 862.]
    I hope that it will be equally warmly welcomed here.
    Mr. Robin Cook: It is hardly surprising that the noble Lord welcomed the introduction of the amendment, since it was in fulfilment of a commitment given in Committee in response to Opposition amendments. We welcome the fact that we shall now have an annual report on the social fund and I am absolutely confident that the first annual report will make a compelling case for abolishing the social fund reverting to the previous system.
    We wish to make several general points on the social fund; in view of the time available as a result of the guillotine motion, I shall perhaps contain those remarks until our amendment to Lords amendment No. 21, when we may have a fuller debate for the remaining 15 minutes.
    Mr. Fearn: Amendment No. 19 evolved from an amendment that I tried to table in Committee to schedule 3, and I am delighted that my noble Friend Lord Banks took up the cause of that amendment with more success in another place. He agreed to withdraw that amendment after the Government conceded the need for an extensive study of the operation of the social fund and for the information to be provided in an annual report laid before each House of Parliament.
    The amendment tabled by Lord Banks asked the Government to provide detailed information about the number of applications — that is the number of applications for loans and grants accepted and refused — together with a summary of the reasons for the decisions. It is important that the fund, which is a new and in my view extremely unwelcome departure from the normal social security system, is carefully monitored and that the results of the assessment are placed before Parliament for careful consideration.
    950
    The amendment does not specifically undertake to do that, but in another place the Government gave an assurance that the report would include detailed information about acceptances and refusals on a regional basis, and information about the reasons for the decisions together with other extensive information. I hope that the Secretary of State can confirm that that is so, especially the regional part.
    Mr. Bill Michie: Will hon. Members be able to get the information and the details from their constituency offices and not have to wait for a long report on a regional basis, if they request that information?
    Mr. Bob Cryer: I realise that the Department does not control the business of the House, but can the Minister assure the House that it will press for maximum time to debate the annual report?
    Mr. Portillo: On the last point, I am sure that that will be a matter for the usual channels at the appropriate time. We are talking about an event which is still some time hence. Obviously, the first annual report will be prepared when the first year is completed.
    In response to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie), I am sure that local office managers will be as co-operative as they can be with hon. Members. Obviously, we shall also provide whatever information we can through parliamentary answers, which do not put taxpayers to disproportionate costs. The information will be collated finally in the annual report that can be debated by the House.
    In response to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn), if he reads my opening remarks carefully, which I admit I rather hurried, he will see that I mentioned that the figures would be available on a regional basis.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 20, in page 17, line 39, at end insert—
    "5A. The following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (9)—
    "(10) The Secretary of State may nominate for an area a social fund officer to issue general guidance to the other social fund officers in the area about such matters relating to the social fund as the Secretary of State may specify.
    (11) In determining a question under section 33 below or reviewing a question under section 34 below a social fund officer shall take account (subject to any directions or guidance issued by the Secretary of State under either of those sections) of any guidance issued by the social fund officer nominated for his area under section (10) above.
    (12) A social fund inspector reviewing a determination shall be under the same duties in relation to such guidance as the social fund officer or inspector who made the determination.""
    Mr. Portillo: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    This is an amendment identified in the process of consultation with independent counsel which gave rise to the other amendments brought forward by the Government in the Lords. I should like to take a little time to explain the reasoning behind this amendment.
    Hon. Members who have followed the discussion of the Bill will remember that in Committee there was much discussion of the priority likely to be attached to different applications for payments from the social fund. Establishing the relative priority of applications is important, to ensure that the funds available to social fund

    951
    officers at a given local office are used to best effect, so that, as far as is possible, in that office eligible applications of similar priority are treated similarly over the course of the year.
    As part of this process, we were advised that it would be helpful for social fund officers to have guidance to which they could turn, and which made specific reference to the conditions and circumstances prevailing in their local office. Obviously, this is best done by a senior official working in that local office. We shall therefore be requiring local office managers to draw up guidance on the different priorities of various types of applications to their local office. This will help them to manage their budget over the course of the year and to ensure that similar applications are treated similarly.
    For the sake of consistency, social fund inspectors clearly also need to take account of such local priorities. It is worth reiterating that nothing that we are proposing here will limit the discretion of a social fund officer. The amendment is aimed at being helpful to social fund officers in their determination of applications and at supporting them in the exercise of their discretion.
    Mr. Robin Cook: In view of the new doctrine that surfaced earlier in our debate — that when the Opposition say nothing, they have entered into a binding agreement — I must say that we are not persuaded by the case for the amendment.
    It is instructive to notice how difficult the Government are finding it to make the social fund proposal a practical proposition. At this late stage, with an amendment tabled only last Thursday, they are obliged to produce a whole new stream of guidance for the people who will try to turn into reality the Government's legislation. For several months, comments have been offered on the draft manual of guidance for the social fund. It is extraordinary that quite different guidance should now be proposed. However, there is no time adequately to press Ministers on the measure, which goes to prove the point that I made this afternoon—that the guillotine motion does not provide the House with an adequate opportunity to scrutinise the legislation, and I regret that we cannot go into the matter more deeply.
    Mr. Portillo: There is nothing new about the guidance. The question is whether the Bill in draft provided adequately for such guidance. The intention that there should be guidance to local office managers to set priorities was always made explicit, and was referred to a number of times in Standing Committee. The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) referred to the need for managers to be
    "alert to take action to ensure that the highest priority cases were met throughout the year." —[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 15 December 1987; c. 577.]
    Clearly the hon. Lady was under no misapprehension about the Government's intentions, but when the Bill was examined by counsel it did not adequately meet the policies so clearly set out in Standing Committee.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 21, in page 18, line 2, at end insert—
    "6A. At the end of subsection (1) there shall be added the words "in such form and manner as may be prescribed"."
    Read a Second time.
    Mr. Robin Cook: I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 3, at end insert
    'or accepted by a social fund officer'.
    952
    The Opposition retain their strong objections to the social fund on the ground of principle. Those objections have been well established in previous debates, but the fact that, at this late stage, less than a full month before the social fund becomes operational, we are debating another five amendments to the primary legislation setting it up, demonstrates more vividly than anything we could say how shaky and imperfect the structure of the social fund is.
    Our objections fall into two categories. I shall briefly rehearse them, but I shall not detain the House for long, because some of my hon. Friends may wish to speak. It is entirely wrong that help for the poorest in society should now come by way of loans rather than grants. If the Government accept that claimants from the social fund need help, they should not oblige them to pay for the help out of their own budgets.
    Secondly, it is wholly illogical that such a fund should be cash-limited. If the Government accept — it appears to be the basis of the social fund — that it is there to meet need, and it is clear from the draft manual of guidance that it must he real and desperate need, claimants should not be put in the intolerable position of being told, as some of them may well be, that they qualify and meet all the criteria, but the money available in a particular office that month does not allow them to be included in the priority categories that will receive grant. Payment should be based on whether a claimant qualifies under the criteria, not on whether an office has a sufficient store of money left for the rest of the month.
    These objections remain fundamental. The social fund is objectionable and when it is implemented in a month's time it will readily produce a stream of horror stories that will make many Conservative Members who voted for it Start running for cover when confronted by constituents who have been affected by being refused loans from the social fund.
    I refer to three new pieces of evidence that confirm our objections and show how solidly based were the arguments that we advanced on the two previous occasions since the turn of the year when we debated the matter.
    First, we had a parliamentary answer, provided, I think, by the Under-Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), about the reduction in single payments. The Under-Secretary has repeatedly defended the cash limit on the social fund as preserving the current level of expenditure on single payments. That answer to my hon. Friend dramatically demonstrates the extent to which the expenditure on single payments has decreased over the past year.
    9.30 pm
    My hon. Friend asked the Minister to give the expenditure for the six months to October 1986 and for the six months to October 1987. The figures show that expenditure fell from £29 million in the six months to October 1986 to £15 million in the six months to October 1987. That was within my hon. Friend's region. That clearly demonstrates a very rapid reduction of about 50 per cent. It reflects the extent to which, under the Government, and as a result of the new criteria introduced in the summer of 1986, it is very much more difficult to obtain a single payment.
    Secondly, the evidence of what that means in human terms is spelt out in the report published by the Child Poverty Action Group entitled

    953
    "Single payments: the disappearing safety net."
    I have time to read only one paragraph, but it is one worth sharing with the House because it demonstrates the desperation of people who are now being turned away. It says:
    "Parents are taking children with splinters in their feet to advice agencies only to be told that floor coverings are no longer necessary household items. Families with young children are told that a cooker is unnecessary and they can live on Cuppa soup, sandwiches or fish and chips or that three pairs of socks are an adequate substitute for a pair of shoes. Claimants are supposed to make do with dangerous second-hand cookers. They are the kind of situations that are becoming increasingly commonplace and which we are willing to countenance in the midst of an affluent society."
    That was written on the basis of information provided by people all over the country to citizens rights offices and citizens advice bureaux — the people who are currently being refused single payments.
    When the Government tell us that the cash limit on the social fund preserves the current expenditure on single payments, they are saying that they have reduced single payments to a floor. Now, with the social fund, they will turn that floor into a ceiling of maximum expenditure. Over the past two years, there has been a major reduction in the amount of help available to families receiving single payments which the social fund will now institutionalise as a cash limit.
    The third and last piece of new information to which I shall refer and which confirms our criticism of that cash limit was provided by the Under-Secretary of State in the debate on Thursday instigated by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle). It was a debate on poverty and low pay and it took place during the proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill. I noticed that in his reply the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security gave as one of the reasons for ending single payments and introducing the social fund the fact that in 1984, which I presume was the last year for which he had figures, only one in five claimants who might have qualified obtained a single payment.
    I fully agree with the Under-Secretary that the present take-up rate is extremely uneven. We can see that demonstrated every time a local authority starts a take-up campaign, because there is a large increase in the number of single payments. It is precisely because the take-up rate is so uneven and so much below 100 per cent. — probably it does not even approximate 20 per cent.— that it is entirely wrong to take the present level of expenditure and then turn it into a cash limit ceiling.
    I have strong feelings about this matter, as well I might, because my constituency faces the largest cut. The Bathgate local office, which meets the needs of my constituents, has a different experience from that described by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) as the experience of his DHSS office. We had a budget of £2·25 million for expenditure on single payments in 1986–87. Next year we will have a cash limit on our social fund of £750,000—one third the level of expenditure of only two years ago. When we compare that with the amount available by way of grants rather than loans, we see that we have only £250,000 compared with expenditure of £2·25 million in grants two years ago. Collectively, that represents a cut in the benefits available to claimants in my constituency of £2 per head per week. That is a real cut in their standard of living.
    954
    For all those reasons, we wish to reiterate our strong-rooted objections to the social fund. However, we are happy to try to make the amendments presented to us as unobjectionable as humanly possible. That is why we have tabled our amendment to the Lords amendment. The Lords amendment provides, for the first time, that applicants may be required to submit their claim in a prescribed form. Until now, nobody has thought it necessary that there should be a prescribed form in order to submit a claim. I am bound to say that it is difficult to see why it should now be thought that we require a prescribed form.
    I referred earlier to the suggestion by Ministers that it was a banking facility. The truth is that DHSS offices know more about their claimants than any bank manager. They know about a claimant's income in exhaustive detail. They retain the right, which no bank manager does, to send someone round to check up in the middle of the night if they feel like it. How much more do they need to know by way of a prescribed form?
    Of course it is entirely proper and reasonable that the social fund officer should have the right to refuse an application that he does not think is in acceptable form. However, it is entirely wrong to oblige him to refuse it because it is not in the prescribed form. Therefore, we have tabled what I regard as an extremely modest amendment. It would enable the social fund officer to accept an application if it is in a form acceptable to him.
    As I have said, it is a modest amendment, and I hope that the Minister will recognise its modesty by giving it a fair hearing and a fair wind. Today's debate began with stress being placed on what an awkward bunch the Opposition are, how they cannot agree and, if they do, how they cannot keep an agreement. Let us test the Minister's spirit of compromise and invite him to end the proceedings on a note of agreement by accepting our amendment.
    Mr. Portillo: We are asking that applications for social fund loans or grants be made on a form. I reassure the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) that there is no intention that that should in any way stand as a barrier to applications being made. Of course applicants are able to seek the advice of the social fund officer, who can help to fill out the form, or of third party advice agencies.
    It is desirable that we should have the form because, as the hon. Member for Livingston knows, we are moving away from a regulated system. Under a regulated system, if a piece of paper arrives, whether it be a letter or whatever, the adjudication officer may, in some instances, be able to judge that there is sufficient information on that piece of paper for him to know that it meets the regulation.
    It is rather different when we are dealing with priorities and discretion. In that case, there is a whole range of information that the social fund officer will wish to have to ensure that he knows all there is to know about the application in order to have a full appreciation of what its priority should be. After all, the application form is then used as the basis for reviews. The applicant can have an interview with the social fund officer, and the form may he passed eventually to a social fund inspector for review. Therefore, it is appropriate that all the information should be in a form to ensure that the applicant has provided everything that could be relevant.
    Mr. Max Madden: Can the Minister say in what foreign languages the form will be provided?
    Mr. Portillo: The form is written in exceedingly plain English. It has benefited from the advice of consultants. It is part of the Department's general move towards the use of plain English. When the hon. Gentleman sees the form, I do not think that he will have any complaint about it on those grounds. Of course, for some applicants it is always difficult to fill out a form. That is why I stressed that they can go to the social fund officer for help or they may go to third party agencies.
    Mrs. Beckett: Will the Under-Secretary of State help clarify something for me? The argument that he has just put about the desirability of having a form because of the detailed questions, is precisely the argument used by his hon. Friend the Minister in advocating to the House the abolition of weekly additions. He said that it was a good idea to get rid of them because of all the intrusive questions that people would have to be asked. The Under-Secretary is now praying that in aid.
    Mr. Portillo: Whether it is an application for single payments or a social fund application, some of the questioning is bound to be intrusive, because it will be about means and resources. However, a letter applying for a single payment—which was a regulated system—might contain sufficient information for it to be decided whether the regulation was satisfied. In the case of a social fund application, it is obviously desirable that there should be a range of information so that the priority of the application can be judged.
    With her great practical experience, the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) will know that, generally speaking, even single payment applications resulted in the adjudication officer sending forms out to the claimant to obtain the information required to determine the claims.
    Mr. Bill Michie: The Minister has said that, if any applicant is in distress, he can see the social fund officer, which basically means that he did not need the form in the first place. We should have more social fund officers, so that people do not go through that hoop. Is it the Government's intention that many applicants will give up before they become too distressed?
    Mr. Portillo: Of course that is not our intention. That is why I stressed to the hon. Member for Livingston that the form had been written in plain English. I do not think that Opposition Members will have any complaint about it.
    In sticking to the Lords amendment, I think that we are doing the best possible deal by the claimant. The Opposition amendment, quite unintentionally, might lead to confusion in the operation of the scheme. The ground for confusion would be uncertainty about the form and manner of applications. Moreover, the word "accept" is open to a number of possible interpretations. It could mean "receive", "take delivery of" or "find satisfactory". For all those reasons, "accept" is not a good word.
    I hope that the hon. Member for Livingston will take it from me that we intend the prescribed manner to make it easy for applicants to make an application to the social fund. However, I welcome his realisation that the money going into single payments this year is broadly equivalent to the amount to be put into the social fund next year, it has taken him a long time to arrive at that realisation.
    The hon. Gentleman repeated the theme that there had been some unfairness in the distribution between offices.
    956
    The figure for the allocation of social fund money per head of supplementary benefit case loads is £51 in Bathgate. In Bristol, South it is £36; in Halifax, £39; in Preston, £29; and in Glasgow, Provan, £106. If there is any unfairness, surely it is that Scottish cities are receiving more money than other parts of the country. The reason is that there has been a history of large take-up of single payments in those cities. In moving away from that history towards the underlying need of the population, we have taken only a small step in this first instance. That is why the Scottish cities are still benefiting to a large extent from the allocation made from the social fund in the first year.
    The hon. Member for Livingston wishes only to quote what has happened to single payment expenditure in the past few years. He will know, however, that the amount of single payments rose from £60 million in 1980 to £350 million the year before last. Those figures are expressed in the same terms—as a real-increase—
    It being six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion relating to Social Security Bill (Allocation of Time), MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to order this day, to put the Question already proposed from the Chair.
    The House divided: Ayes 199, Noes 294.

    Division No. 214]

    [9.43 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Dobson, Frank

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Doran, Frank

    Allen, Graham

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Anderson, Donald

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Eadie, Alexander

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Eastham, Ken

    Ashton, Joe

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Fatchett, Derek

    Barron, Kevin

    Faulds, Andrew

    Battle, John

    Fearn, Ronald

    Beckett, Margaret

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Bell, Stuart

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

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Fisher, Mark

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

    Flannery, Martin

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Flynn, Paul

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Blair, Tony

    Foulkes, George

    Boateng, Paul

    Fraser, John

    Boyes, Roland

    Fyfe, Maria

    Bradley, Keith

    Galbraith, Sam

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Galloway, George

    Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

    Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

    George, Bruce

    Buckley, George J.

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Caborn, Richard

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Gordon, Mildred

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Gould, Bryan

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Graham, Thomas

    Canavan, Dennis

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Clay, Bob

    Hardy, Peter

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Cohen, Harry

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Corbett, Robin

    Henderson, Doug

    Cousins, Jim

    Hinchliffe, David

    Cryer, Bob

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Cummings, John

    Holland, Stuart

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Home Robertson, John

    Cunningham, Dr John

    Hood, Jimmy

    Dalyell, Tam

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Darling, Alistair

    Howells, Geraint

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Hoyle, Doug

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

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Dewar, Donald

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Dixon, Don

    Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

    957

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Pike, Peter L.

    Illsley, Eric

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Ingram, Adam

    Primarolo, Dawn

    John, Brynmor

    Radice, Giles

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Randall, Stuart

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

    Reid, Dr John

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Richardson, Jo

    Kennedy, Charles

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

    Robertson, George

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Lamond, James

    Rogers, Allan

    Leighton, Ron

    Rooker, Jeff

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Lewis, Terry

    Rowlands, Ted

    Litherland, Robert

    Ruddock, Joan

    Livingstone, Ken

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Loyden, Eddie

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    McAllion, John

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Short, Clare

    McCartney, Ian

    Skinner, Dennis

    Macdonald, Calum A.

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    McFall, John

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

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

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

    McKelvey, William

    Snape, Peter

    McLeish, Henry

    Soley, Clive

    McNamara, Kevin

    Steinberg, Gerry

    McTaggart, Bob

    Stott, Roger

    Madden, Max

    Strang, Gavin

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Straw, Jack

    Maxton, John

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Meacher, Michael

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Meale, Alan

    Turner, Dennis

    Michael, Alun

    Wall, Pat

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Wallace, James

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Walley, Joan

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Mullin, Chris

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Murphy, Paul

    Wilson, Brian

    Nellist, Dave

    Winnick, David

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    O'Brien, William

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Parry, Robert

    Mr. Frank Cook and

    Patchett, Terry

    Mr. Frank Haynes.

    Pendry, Tom

    NOES

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Alexander, Richard

    Bottomley, Peter

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Amess, David

    Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

    Amos, Alan

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Arbuthnot, James

    Bowis, John

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Ashby, David

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Brazier, Julian

    Atkins, Robert

    Bright, Graham

    Atkinson, David

    Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

    Baldry, Tony

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Burns, Simon

    Bellingham, Henry

    Burt, Alistair

    Bendall, Vivian

    Butcher, John

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Butler, Chris

    Benyon, W.

    Butterfill, John

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Carrington, Matthew

    958

    Cash, William

    Holt, Richard

    Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Chapman, Sydney

    Howard, Michael

    Chope, Christopher

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

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Colvin, Michael

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Cormack, Patrick

    Irvine, Michael

    Couchman, James

    Irving, Charles

    Cran, James

    Jack, Michael

    Critchley, Julian

    Jackson, Robert

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Janman, Tim

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

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Day, Stephen

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Devlin, Tim

    Key, Robert

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Knapman, Roger

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Dover, Den

    Knowles, Michael

    Dunn, Bob

    Knox, David

    Durant, Tony

    Lang, Ian

    Dykes, Hugh

    Latham, Michael

    Eggar, Tim

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Evennett, David

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Fallon, Michael

    Lightbown, David

    Farr, Sir John

    Lilley, Peter

    Favell, Tony

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Forman, Nigel

    Lord, Michael

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Lyell, Sir Nicholas

    Forth, Eric

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Maclean, David

    Franks, Cecil

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Freeman, Roger

    McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

    French, Douglas

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Gardiner, George

    Madel, David

    Gill, Christopher

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Malins, Humfrey

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Mans, Keith

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Maples, John

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Marland, Paul

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Marlow, Tony

    Gorst, John

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Gow, Ian

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Gregory, Conal

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

    Miller, Hal

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Mills, Iain

    Grist, Ian

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Ground, Patrick

    Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Moate, Roger

    Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Hannam, John

    Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

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

    Neale, Gerrard

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Harris, David

    Neubert, Michael

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Hayes, Jerry

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Hayward, Robert

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Heddle, John

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Page, Richard

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Paice, James

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Patnick, Irvine

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Patten, John (Oxford W)

    Hill, James

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Hind, Kenneth

    Pawsey, James

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    959

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Portillo, Michael

    Sumberg, David

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Summerson, Hugo

    Price, Sir David

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Raffan, Keith

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Rathbone, Tim

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Redwood, John

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

    Renton, Tim

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Riddick, Graham

    Thurnham, Peter

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Tracey, Richard

    Rowe, Andrew

    Tredinnick, David

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Trippier, David

    Ryder, Richard

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Viggers, Peter

    Scott, Nicholas

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Walden, George

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Waller, Gary

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Walters, Dennis

    Sims, Roger

    Ward, John

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Watts, John

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Wells, Bowen

    Speed, Keith

    Whitney, Ray

    Speller, Tony

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Wilshire, David

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Squire, Robin

    Wolfson, Mark

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Wood, Timothy

    Steen, Anthony

    Yeo, Tim

    Stern, Michael

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Stevens, Lewis

    Younger, Rt Hon George

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Tellers for the Noes

    Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

    Mr. Robert Boscawen and

    Stokes, John

    Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Mr. Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I must put the rest of the Questions.
    Mr. Dave Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I must put the rest of the Questions. Then I shall take the point of order.
    The Question is, That this House doth agree with the Lords—
    Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: I have just said that I shall take the hon. Gentleman's point of order later.
    Mr. Nellist rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. I shall take the hon. Gentleman's point of order after I have put the Question.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you now confirm that you are about to put the last 10 Lords amendments as a block as a result of the motion that we passed earlier this evening? Am I right in assuming that, if the House had wished to take an opinion on those 10 Lords amendments, it would have taken almost two and a halt' hours merely to vote on them, without even discussing them? The point that you are about to make by moving them as a block illustrates what we have been trying to say all day—there has not been sufficient time to discuss the Bill properly.
    Mr. Speaker: I am bound by the order of the House passed this afternoon.
    I am now required to designate such of the remaining Lords amendments as appear to involve questions of privilege and put them to the vote. The only amendment in that category is amendment No. 33.
    Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]
    MR. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
    Lords amendments Nos. 22 to 32 agreed to.

Sharpeville Six
9.59 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask your permission to raise a matter about which I have notified you and the Office of the Foreign Secretary. I hope that it is not a matter that divides the House in any way at all. I refer to the news that has been made known today that the South African Government intend to execute the Sharpeville Six on Friday.
I ask whether the Foreign Office will make a statement to the House on the action that it intends to take to express the outrage of the entire House of Commons at the barbaric decision to execute six people for murder, not one of whom was said by the court or by the court of appeal to be in any way involved in the murder. It was said that the only way in which they could be regarded as involved in the murder was by common purpose. The appeal judge himself said that he assumed,
"for the purposes of my judgment, that it has not been proved in the case of any of the six accused convicted of murder that their conduct had contributed causally to the death of the deceased."
It is barbaric that six people should be executed for murder. It is barbaric that six people should be executed for the murder of one person. Above all, it is barbaric that six people should be executed for a murder in which they were in no way whatever involved.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I ask that the Government, on behalf of the entire House of Commons, take up with the Government of South Africa the revulsion that all civilised people will feel at this latest example of a police racialist state in South Africa, and that the Minister of State or the Secretary of State report at the earliest possible moment to the House of Commons what Her Majesty's Government, on behalf of a united Parliament, are doing to try to prevent the vile acts that the South African Government plan for Friday.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I shall respond as briefly as I can. We have been told that the President of the Republic of South Africa has turned down the appeals for clemency on behalf of the Sharpeville Six. The right hon. Gentleman already knows that we have made representations bilaterally with our European partners. We have made repeated calls for clemency on humanitarian grounds. We have supported a statement issued by the President of the United Nations Security Council, calling for the sentences to be commuted.
We note what the right hon. Gentleman said. We share the widespread concern throughout the international community. There is no change whatever in Her Majesty's Government's position. We deplore violence in South Africa, from whatever quarter it comes. We have called for clemency, as I have already said. Even at this late stage we sincerely and earnestly hope the South African Government will heed the united call of everyone for clemency in these cases.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I warmly accept the sincerity with which the right hon. Lady expressed her views. Will she tell
962
us whether, during the course of this evening, the Prime Minister has made any further direct appeal to President Botha?
Mrs. Chalker: Would that I could answer the right hon. Gentleman. I simply do not know the answer to his question, having come here from another function. I should not like to mislead him or the House. I hope that he will allow me to respond to him in the morning.
Sir Russell Johnston: Briefly, further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask that tomorrow the Minister takes the opportunity to make a full and considered statement on the issues, as I am sure that the House would welcome that? May I also take this opportunity, on behalf of my hon. Friends, to give support to what has already been said by the right hon. Gentlemen on the Labour Front Bench?
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that we can take this matter any further tonight.
Mr. Dave Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is obviously a matter that the House may wish to return to; these are not points of order for me. I have allowed the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) to raise the matter.
Mr. Nellist rose—
Mr. David Winnick rose—
Mr. Speaker: I have allowed the right hon. Gentleman to raise the matter as a matter of urgency at this time. I do not think that we can take it any further tonight.
Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you confirm that on at least three or four occasions —in my memory of the five years that I have been in the House —you have ruled that when a Minister rises to the Dispatch Box on a point of order and especially on the second occasion, you will thereafter treat it as a statement and allow questions to the Minister? If necessary, I will go to the Library and find those references because if you rule now —[Interruption.] Hang about, I am talking to Mr. Speaker, not to Conservative Members. If you rule now, Mr. Speaker, that you will take no further questions on the Minister's statement, would you at least give me an undertaking that if my searches in the Library prove correct, you would expect—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not having the hon. Gentleman using threats of that kind to me.
Mr. Nellist: I have nearly finished.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is quite right. When we have had such matters raised at the proper time, after Questions, that has been the case in the past, but this is an occasion in the evening. I have listened to the Minister of State say that it is difficult for her to say more than she has said about this matter. Therefore, I do not think that we can take it any further tonight.
Mr. Nellist: If I could just finish my sentence—
Mr. Tony Banks (rose—
Mr. Winnick rose—
Mr. Max Madden rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Banks.
Mr. Banks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the interest of the good order of the House — unfortunately, the Leader of the House is not present at the moment—I should like to know whether there will be a statement on this matter tomorrow. It is a matter of good order. It is no good saying that we can return to this at another time, for the simple reason that six people will be executed on Friday. Therefore, there is an element of urgency, not least on their part, in this respect. All that one can do, through you, Mr. Speaker, is to invite the Chief Whip of the majority party to say at the Dispatch Box that there will be a statement tomorrow so that we can have a proper discussion.
Mr. Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the House is unanimous in condemning what undoubtedly will be judicial murders, in the hope that the view expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and the Minister of State is the unanimous view of the House of Commons, and bearing in mind that the executions, or what one might more rightly describe as the murders, will take place on Friday, will there be an opportunity between now and Friday for the House to he able to make its view clear, not simply arising from a point of order, rightly raised by my right hon. Friend?
We are aware, Mr. Speaker, that tomorrow is Budget day and it may well be that matters on which we would make applications cannot be dealt with then because it is Budget day, but will there be some opportunity for the House to declare its views collectively so that the South African authorities know that the British House of Commons is totally opposed to what my right hon. Friend rightly described as a barbaric act and—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is precisely for that reason that I imagine that the right hon. Member for Gorton raised his point of order. He was asking whether a statement would be made.
Mr. Dennis Skinner rose—
Mr. Nellist rose—
Mr. Madden rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already said to the House that I have listened to what the right hon. Lady had to say. It seems to me that it is difficult for the House to ask questions of a Minister who has very little direct knowledge, for reasons that she has already stated; she needs time to make investigations.
Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Clearly it is for the Government to make a statement tomorrow and it is obviously within the power of the Government to decide whether or not such a statement is to be made. You have clearly seen tonight, Mr. Speaker, the extent of interest that there is in this issue. Would you now indicate that you are sympathetic to a private notice question being tabled on this matter in the event that the Government do not seek to make a statement?
Mr. Speaker: I do not do things like that openly.
Mr. Stanley Orme: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Chief Whip is in his place and the Leader of the House is not present. We are entitled to a Government statement to the effect that the Leader of the House will make a statement to this House on this issue
964
tomorrow. I believe that the Patronage Secretary has a duty this evening to come to the Dispatch Box and say that such a statement will be made.
Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is a pity that the Prime Minister is not here to listen to the representations that have been made by Opposition Members. There is another way in which you, Mr. Speaker, could be of some considerable help. Taking into account the fact that this matter will undoubtedly be raised before the end of the week, perhaps tomorrow, would you consider, in your capacity as Speaker of the House, sending a message to the South African Government asking for the sentences to be commuted? Although there may be a small element known as the "goose-stepping tendency", which does not agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said, you would he commanding the respect of the great majority of the House if you sent such a message.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that I act only with the authority of the whole House.
Mr. Nellist: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Given what we have gone through in the past seven hours, I am sure that you will agree that it would be highly unusual if a Minister came to the House tomorrow at 3.30 pm to make a statement, even on something as urgent as the Sharpeville Six, so concerned are the Government to start on time with the business scheduled for that afternoon. I appeal to you again, Mr. Speaker because the Minister, on a point of order, has effectively made a statement. That Minister has direct responsibility for that area of the continent and deals with it on an hour-by-hour, day-by-day basis. Will you not now allow questions to he put to her as she has effectively made a statement from the Dispatch Box?
Mr. Speaker: I have already said to the hon. Gentleman that there is not much point in asking questions of the Minister when she has said that she is unable, because of the lack of time, to obtain the details with which she could give meaningful replies. I think that that is the problem that the House faces.
Mr. Kaufman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are extremely grateful to you for the way in which you have allowed this matter to be raised. I know that you will accept that, were it not Budget day tomorrow, we would be seeking other means in which we could raise this matter in a more prolonged way on the Floor of the House. May I put it to you that perhaps we could consult you outside the Chamber to see whether there is a way in which — well before the scheduled executions—we could find a way of raising this matter again on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Speaker: I should always be pleased to see the right hon. Gentleman if he feels that that is helpful, but I should have thought that the most useful way in which to deal with this matter would be consultations through the usual channels rather than through me.

PETITION

  National Health Service
  10.13 pm
  Mr. Ronnie Fearn: This humble petition is from 13,634 United Kingdom residents who are concerned about the crisis in the National Health Service. They pray that the House will do all in its power to provide all the necessary staff and equipment to resolve this crisis and enact no further reductions in income tax while the crisis lasts.
  I beg leave to present the Petition.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Breathalyser Technology
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle]
  10.14 pm
  Sir Ian Lloyd: I am much obliged for the chance to raise the subject of the new breathalyser technology, which I believe to be of widespread interest. My reason for so doing is that technology, with the advent of the microprocessor, has come to the aid of policy in a way in which Government in general, and chief constables in particular, seem unwilling to recognise.
  This has always been a difficult area of policy in which legislation, and its administration, has attempted to reconcile several major objectives. The first, and most important, is the reduction of the serious and costly hazard on the road attributable directly or indirectly to the inescapable fact that millions of people, regrettably, drink and drive every day and will continue to do so, despite everything that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport or the whole Government can throw at them in the way of exhortation or even severe penalty.
  The second objective is that the law should, wherever possible, educate people in their responsibilities as drivers, especially where alcohol is involved. The third is that the attempt to modify social behaviour should never be so draconian that it brings the law or its administration into contempt. The fourth is that the enforcement of this law impinges directly and more continuously than almost any other on the critically important relationship between the police and the public—a relationship that should never be unnecessarily or uncritically damaged, because so much else depends on it.
  Until now, no entirely satisfactory reconciliation of all these objectives has been achieved in any state or by any Government. The Government have found themselves in a position of conspicuous inconsistency, in that the law permits drinking and driving within a stated limit, while Ministers and others adopt the absolutist position that, whatever the law says, the policy is that no one should drive with any alcohol in the system. The situation is highly unsatisfactory for a number of reasons.
  It is always undesirable for statutory law and public policy to diverge. It opens the way for zealots to go further than the laws passed by Parliament permit or require. It ignores a number of fundamental realities which are inescapable. The zero alcohol level position, for example, is unlikely to be achieved this side of the millennium. Even in Sweden it has not really been achieved, although its citizens have gone much further down this road than we have.
  It is impractical for a purely technical reason. The elimination of alcohol from the human system is linear, exactly proportional to time. Anyone, therefore, who has drunk in excess of the legal limit of 80 mg will require seven hours for his or her system to be totally clear. So anyone who has had several drinks the previous night and has been taken home by taxi or by his wife will still be technically drinking and driving when the next morning, after a night's sleep and strong coffee, he drives to the office. I am sure that most people do not realise that. Twice the limit requires 14 hours, and a binge will still affect that individual, technically, on the way home from

  967
  work the following evening. Anyone who has a damaged liver will take two or three days to eliminate alcohol from his system.
  That is probably the main reason why the zero position is absolutely impractical and unenforceable without draconian alteration of the nation's entire lifestyle.
  What does that lifestyle imply? We need no special surveys to reveal the hard, inescapable facts, however much we dislike them. First, the nation which in social surveys prefers to describe itself as a nation of moderate drinkers spends some £16 billion every year on alcohol—7 per cent. of its total expenditure. If, from our total population of 56 million, we subtract the under-15s and the over-75s, that leaves 40 million people, giving us the staggering figure of £410 per head, or £802 per household, per annum. If we assume that half this alcohol is consumed at home—and that is a very broad assumption which I cannot prove—we end up with £205 per head or £410 per household per annum consumed in public.
  Where is that alcohol consumed? In 1985, there were 86,000 points of public consumption, consisting of hotels, restaurants, public houses and clubs. How did the public get there? A recent survey of drink-driving offenders shows that 88 per cent. of them went to pubs. Half of those concerned drove there — 58 per cent. in their own vehicles—and three quarters of those who went to pubs drank more than five units—beyond the limit.
  In 1987, there were 300,000 tests in Britain and 100,000 convictions. If it were possible to enforce the existing law—and I believe that it is not possible—there be about 500,000 convictions every day. If the absolutist or zero rule were enforced, that figure would almost certainly be higher. If we were to succeed, we would, as it were, enforce a de facto prohibitionist state, with all that that implies. In that context, what is the technology and where and how should it be applied?
  The technology is that of the fuel cell which is controlled by a microprocessor, a device which did not exist five to 10 years ago. It can give an extremely accurate breath-alcohol count. It was developed by a Dr. Breakspeare at Cambridge university. Unfortunately, it was not taken up in the United Kingdom, but it was taken up in Australia and applied there on a substantial scale. Two devices are being manufactured and exported worldwide.
  The first is a wall-mounted breath test analyser designed for pubs, clubs, restaurants and hotels. The second is a mobile device which is attached to the ignition lock of a motor car. I have it here in the House. Any hon. Member who is interested can see that the entire unit is contained in a small package. In that unit lies the future of all our breath test problems.
  In 1986, a total of 707 of the wall-mounted units were in use, including 400 in Australia, 145 in the United States, and 52 in West Germany. That is just the beginning. The production rate is 1,000 per annum. They have been accepted in Australia where at first the police were understandably sceptical, as are our police, because the devices that the two units replaced were certainly unreliable. It would be undesirable that people should be given the wrong idea about where they stand.
  Those two devices have been now recommended in Australia by the Niewenhuysen committee that was set up specifically in New South Wales to consider the application of breath test laws in that state. The committee did not consider whether the key devices should be allowed
  968
  or encouraged but whether they should he made mandatory at all on-licences and whether the fee for the installation should be subtracted from the licence itself.
  There have also been highly successful tests by three Royal Australian Navy establishments where, as a result of the application of wall-mounted units, the incidence of drink-driving has been drastically reduced and a considerable number of convictions have been avoided. So far, these devices have been used to carry out 9 million tests and the record is based on that. Indeed, 20,000 tests per day are now being conducted worldwide.
  In one club alone in Australia which has had such a device for four years, 160,000 tests have been conducted with a considerable degree of satisfaction.
  As I have said, application has now been extended to the breathalyser ignition lock, a device of great ingenuity and sophistication which is accurate to within 0·005 per cent. The standard device used by the police in Australia is of the same quality as the device used by the police in the United Kingdom.
  If a person gets into a car with such a device he cannot turn on the ignition and the engine will not and cannot start until the driver has breathalysed himself. There are three possible outcomes. If the alcohol in the driver's breath is zero, he can start the engine immediately without any further problems. If the alcohol in his breath is up to a certain moderate limit he may not start until he has rebreathalysed himself eight minutes later. That accounts for what was generally regarded as a weakness of the old device as it did not allow for the fact that, under certain conditions, alcohol in the body will continue to rise. This device would solve that problem. However, if the driver is over the limit, he may not start the engine, the device reads red, and he is told to go away and think again.
  That seems to me to be a device of great significance and I believe that its application should be widely considered. In California, for example, it is now applied by the state courts to those who have committed a drink-driving offence. They do not lose their cars or their licences for a year, but they must have the device, plus a meter installed in their cars and they are obliged to use it, or they cannot use their cars under any circumstances. Therefore they cannot drink and drive, but they do not lose the right to continue their occupation.
  It seems that this device facilitates accurate self-testing. The wall-mounted one can be used voluntarily in hotels, clubs and pubs, and it eliminates the remotest possibility of drinking and driving. Its widespread adoption is of the first importance. It would reduce drink-driving drastically and educate the public in the effects of alcohol. If any sane, sensible and realistic policy is to succeed, it must, in view of the figure of £16,000 million I gave earlier, educate the public in the use of alcohol.
  The device would eliminate, virtually completely in time, the need for any breath tests, especially for the drivers of vehicles so fitted. If it was compulsory for all vehicles, as it could easily become, the problem would be eliminated altogether.
  We have about 20 million vehicles in the United Kingdom and the cost of the device in mass production would be a total investment of £200 million to £300 million. As the cost of accidents caused by drink driving are already running at £100 million per annum, such an investment would pay for itself in three years. That is a consideration which the Government should bear in mind. They should also consider that we take action without

  969
  eliminating or severely circumscribing the consumption of alcohol, which may or may not be a good thing. Certainly it is not necessarily a good thing because it is associated with this problem.
  What is the alternative? It is a degree of absolutism which would require the closure of virtually all pubs or hotel bars, a virtual prohibition outside private homes of the consumption of alcohol, and large-scale random breath testing, which, for reasons I have already given, is offensive to many people and damaging to the police-public interface. All those measures will not be necessary.
  If our limit of 80 mg is too high, and there are views that it is, we should lower it. In half of Australia the limit is 80 mg and in the other half it is 50 mg. However, the lower the limit, the more necessary it becomes to encourage and facilitate a driver's access to knowledge of his breath-alcohol concentration. The analogy of the speedometer is simple, but effective. We are not told to get in our cars and drive without knowing the speed at which we travel because only the police must know that. If we break the speed limit, we rightly suffer the penalty. We have a speed limit and clearly we must keep within the law. I am suggesting a breath-alcohol limit, and any sane man or woman is entitled to know whether he or she will be within the law.
  Will the Government encourage the use of these devices and advise the police to do likewise? I am under the impression that the police discourage the installation of these devices wherever they come across them. They are not entitled to do that. There is nothing in our laws to permit the police to discourage them. If they go into a hotel, pub or club and say, "I should take that off the wall if I were you," the chances are that the publican will do so. I want a clear statement from the Government that the police are not entitled to do that and that the Government will reverse the policy.
  Secondly, will my hon. Friend the Minister consider the consequential legislation, which is small but rather important? At present an individual walking to his car with the keys in his pocket who has consumed alcohol over the limit can be tested before he reaches the car and prosecuted on a drink-driving charge. If he has this device in his car, it would be absolutely ludicrous for him to be prosecuted when he cannot drive the car if he is over the limit. That is the only change in the law which is required and which I ask my hon. Friend to provide.
  Will my hon. Friend please consult the Australian authorities which are now accumulating immense and valuable experience which we cannot afford to ignore? Will he make it clear that moral absolutism will play no part in our policy now that technology has come to our aid and made it unnecessary? Will he advise the courts to consider compulsory breathalyser ignition locks for convicted breath test offenders? That is an area in which we can make substantial progress to everyone's advantage.
  Finally, will my hon. Friend assure me and the House that the authorities in his Department and the Home Office will not insist on this device being preceded by a red flag while other countries give it the green light? We did that many years ago in another context; I hope we shall not do it in this.
  10.30 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) on raising this subject. He has, with his customary clarity, combined his continuing and distinguished service to the cause of science and technology with the issue of road casualty reduction, in which drinking and driving was a major contributory factor to the 5,382 deaths on our roads last year.
  Anyone who recalls the television scenes of, or who was present at, the Festival of Remembrance at the Royal Albert hall will know that every one of the seats there could be filled each year by people who die, mostly unnecessarily, on our roads. Anyone who watches a football match at Wembley should know that each of the places there could be filled three times over with people who have been injured on our roads.
  Of the deaths that I have mentioned, 1,000 are the victims of accidents in which the driver or rider is above the legal blood alcohol limit. About another 400 are victims when the driver or rider may not be above the legal limit but has noticeable amounts of alcohol in the blood. On top of that, 500 drunken pedestrians die. So about 1,800 people are involved—one third of the dead on our roads.
  Imagine what it is like to be a young police officer in the early months of duty having to knock on a stranger's door to say, "I am sorry. Your son—or daughter, or husband, or wife, or parent—won't be coming home again alive."
  My hon. Friend raised the issue of using breath alcohol devices in traffic—and, he could have gone on to say, in industrial—safety. Professor Brakespeare, dean of the faculty of physical sciences at the New South Wales Institute of Technology, has put forward a case, part of which my hon. Friend outlined to the House. Professor Brakespeare has argued that the way to deal with alcoholic drivers—not only people who are drunk, but those who drive with noticeable quantities of alcohol in their blood—even on the scale that obtains in the United Kingdom, which is lower than in Australia, is to lower the limit from 80 to 50 mg and to bring in random breath testing.
  My hon. Friend, with his scientific background, would not expect me to be able, by myself, to disentangle the effect of the use of the breath alcohol machine in cars, or the machines on the walls in drinking establishments, from the 3 million random breath tests given last year in New South Wales. He and I would agree that it is not necessarily a good use of police resources to switch police tests from those who are likely to have been drinking to those who are not.
  There is much argument about random breath tests. I stand four-square behind the police in this country, who prefer to go on with targeted testing. Even in one of the police areas that has had some publicity recently, a small proportion of the motorists who were required to stop by the police were tested for alcohol.
  The police can require me to give a breath test in one of three circumstances: if I have committed a moving traffic offence; if I have been involved in an accident; and if they have reasonable grounds for suspecting that I have alcohol in me. If I am stopped, as the police have the power to do, and the officer asks me whether I have been drinking

  971
  and I reply that I have, there are grounds for testing me. If I say that I have not, but the officer can smell alcohol, again there are grounds for testing me.
  Of the approximately 350,000 tests that were required to be given by the police last year, 120,000 were positive. That is about 30 per cent.
  Of every 100 tests, 30 are positive. To get one more positive test under random breath testing, we would need to have another 200 tests. To go from 30 to 31 positives we would need to go from 100 to 300 tests. To put it in simple terms, we would need to switch tests from those who were likely to have been drinking to those who were not. In the long term no one rules that out, but I do not think that it is a priority and it is certainly not a policy that I advocate within Government, if I may be allowed to give away trade secrets.
  I should like to turn to my hon. Friend's suggestion of promoting or encouraging the use of breath alcohol devices. Even when one is just below the legal limit, one can be up to five times more likely to be involved in a crash. I normally put it more strongly and say that one is five times more likely to make a mistake because of the alcohol affecting one's judgment, behaviour and reactions or degree of false confidence.
  Anyone who wants the facts of drinking and driving can ring Freephone 0800 234 888, and we will arrange to send him a straight, factual booklet with no exhortation showing the curves, as far as they are known, on the relationship between alcohol levels in the body and the likelihood of crashes. The booklet comes in a plain brown envelope which does not say, "This contains the facts on drinking and driving." The matter is dealt with rather more sensitively than that.
  During my 26 months as a junior Minister in the Department of Transport, I have seldom put any emphasis on getting drivers to stay just below the legal limit. I think that the House will agree that the only sensible advice to give drivers is not to take alcohol before driving. They should be told that if they do propose to take alcohol, they should preplan the way that they will move and should not drive. To that we add the other sensible advice that one should not encourage or expect other drivers to take alcohol.
  Most of us have had the experience, whether it is because we give alcohol up for Lent or because we do not want to drink and drive, of saying, when asked if we want a drink, that we want a soft drink or a low or non-alcoholic beer. Someone then says, "Are you sure?" We ought to consider whether it is more appropriate to say "Are you sure?" when someone whom we know will drive asks for alcohol. The extent to which we are our brother's or our own keeper is a matter for individual judgment. There is probably a spectrum of opinion about that.
  The third bit of advice, after saying that one should not contribute to the problem and should not urge other people to contribute to the problem, is that one should not accept a lift from a drinking driver. Of the people who die —many of whom probably have children, parents or relations—60 per cent. are the drivers. If I give a party and have no regard for the way in which some of my guests drive home, it means that they have a 60 per cent. chance of being the victims if they are involved in a crash.
  Of the people involved, 20 per cent. are car or pillion passengers, normally members of the driver's family o friends. Twenty per cent. are unknown to the drivers, perfect strangers, and it is a curious way to stay on the
  972
  same side of the road—if I may turn the story of the Jericho road on its head—to wipe out someone's life rather than take part in the greatest day and night co-operative venture in Britain, the use of our roads.
  There are 56 million of us and we are all potential victims. As my hon. Friend rightly said, there are probably about 2 million adult males, and for the ones who are at or above two and half times the legal limit, research evidence from Nottinghamshire shows that 90 per cent. were drinking beer. A very high proportion of them drank it in pubs and many of them were young. There are also significant numbers of women, more elderly males and so on.
  One other shocking bit of information is that 10 per cent. of people who are above the legal limit and involved in crashes are disqualified, and 10 per cent. have not passed their full driving test. We must get the message across to young drivers that inexperience of drinking combined with inexperience of driving is the worst possible combination.
  The General Accident Insurance Group commissioned Gallup to carry out a survey. It showed that, between 1986 and 1987, the proportion of adult males prepared to drink and drive, or at least prepared to admit to doing so, had dropped from two out of five to one out of five.
  As more of us decide not to drink and drive and move through the five stages of saying, first, "There is a problem," secondly, "They should not do it," thirdly, "I should not do it," fourthly, "I intend not to do it," and fifthly, saying, truthfully, "I do not do it," we are left with two dominant groups. Those two groups have been called by a psychiatrist the yobs and the dumbos. The yobs are the young over-the-limit beer drinkers and the dumbos are the dangerous upper-middle-class business men who are over the limit.
  We need to recognise that we are all at risk. My hon. Friend the Member for Havant has said that if people know their alcohol level, they are less likely to drive. We are prepared to watch carefully, and with interest, overseas experience with the equipment that my hon. Friend brought into the Chamber and demonstrated tonight. We want to watch to see what happens. I will not ask my hon. Friend now, but perhaps in further discussion we may deal with what would happen if I asked a passenger or a passerby to blow into the tube. There are minor problems such as that.
  I shall not encourage the police to put machines on the wall. If anyone needs to blow into a machine to see whether they have had a significant amount of alcohol, they should not be driving. Anyone who intends to go drinking and says, "I will test myself to see whether I should drive," is more concerned about losing their licence than about losing their own life or somebody else's. That is a point of veiew with which not everyone will necessarily agree, but the logic for it is good.
  The key task is not simply to stop people committing a criminal act. Being over the limit is, of course, a criminal act and, because of different body metabolisms, it is difficult to say how much someone can drink and stay within the limit. It is worth remembering that two thirds of the injuries that occur on our roads are linked not to alcohol but to the other things we do wrong on the roads. The only way in which one can avoid contributing to the extra risk of injury and of making sure that one will never fail a breath test is not to take extra alcohol before driving.

  973
  I do not want to get involved now in the problem of what happens if someone drinks at night and then drives at midday the following day and there is still a residual trace of alcohol. However, for anyone who goes on a bender and does not drive that night but does drive the following morning, I should say that in Finland they catch most people, under their random breath testing, at 9 o'clock on a Saturday morning.
  The units of alcohol do not go away much faster than one unit an hour. If someone drinks 15 units and drives after six or eight hours, they are likely to be above our legal limit, which some countries would argue is too high. However, the Government have no proposal to change that.
  Sir Ian Lloyd: I am following the speech of my hon. Friend with great interest. Would he not concede that it would be more desirable for the Finnish driver who leaves home the following morning to be in the position of being able to know his alcohol level? In that instance, a sensible and responsible driver would say, "Goodness me. I am over or near the limit set by my country and, therefore, I will not drive." My hon. Friend the Minister said that drivers are five times more dangerous just near the limit.
  974
  If, for any reason whatsoever, living in the real world, someone has had a drink, would it not be preferable for him to be able to find out whether he is near or over the limit and have the opportunity of saying, "I will not drive."?
  Mr. Bottomley: That may be. I suspect that this discussion, which is informative to the House and useful to me and which, I hope, is a reasonable response to my hon. Friend the Member for Havant, will continue in other ways on other days. In simple terms, 1,000 people a week are caught at more than twice the legal limit. The answer for them is a great deal of individual decision-making and social pressure, with or without machines, to cut out that drinking and driving.
  Not everybody has to take the Minister's advice. Therefore, if a pub or club puts up a device for testing, I cannot do anything about it and neither can the police. If that happens, perhaps we could see whether there is less drinking and driving. However, it may require a survey, even in Sussex, to discover what the baseline for drinking and driving is and then to come back and survey again later.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Engineering, Physics and Maths (Women Undergraduates)
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportions of undergraduates in engineering, physics and mathematics are women.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information is as follows:

  Full-time United Kingdom domiciled undergraduates at universities in Great Britain

  Per cent women

  1986

  Physics

  16

  Mathematical sciences1

  25

  of which Mathematics

  32

  Engineering and technology

  10

  1 Includes Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Studies.

  Teaching Standards
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any further proposals to ensure that standards of teaching are adequately assessed: and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The intended outcome of pilot work on teacher appraisal in six authorities is a proven set of guidelines which will form the basis of an agreed national framework. The implementation of that framework should lead to a system which will both enhance career development for teachers and raise standards of teaching in our schools.

  Family Partnership Scheme, Salford
  Mr. Terry Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he will reply to Councillor Mrs. P. M. Lea, chair of Salford education committee, who wrote to him on 30 November 1987 about Salford's family partnership scheme.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I very much regret that councillor Mrs. Lea's letter was mislaid within the Department. A copy has been obtained, and I have replied to her today.

  CERN
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the current level of the United Kingdom contributions to CERN.

  Mr. Jackson
  The United Kingdom subscription to the CERN budget in 1988 is 128·2 million Swiss francs (about £52 million); this represents 16·8 per cent. of the organisation's total budget.

  Exeter Diocesan Education Committee
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will now authorise payment of the £39,086·84 to the Exeter Diocesan education committee in respect of Roborough (Bickleigh Down) Church of England primary school, a claim for which was submitted on 20 February 1987.

  Mr. Dunn
  This sum was paid to the diocese's bank account on 22 February 1988.

  Materials Science (Research)
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the provision he is making for research in materials science.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC) is currently funding materials science research in a wide range of academic departments. Present total expenditure on grants, studentships and facilities is just over £30 million. The council will shortly be considering the results of a recently completed review of this support.

  Supply Teachers (Pay)
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science which education authorities have decided not to recognise normal pay increments when employing supply teachers.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The school teachers' pay and conditions document 1987 gave local education authorities greater flexibility in the payments they make to supply teachers, including the possibility of adopting a standard rate for all such teachers. It is for each LEA to decide how to use this flexibility: no information is held centrally about the policies of individual authorities on payments to supply teachers.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Panama
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions Her Majesty's ambassador to Panama has had with the Government of Panama covering the Panama canal treaty.

  Mr. Eggar
  Her Majesty's ambassador in Panama has had no discussions with the Government of Panama on the Panama canal treaty between the United States and Panama.

  E1 Salvador
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contact Her Majesty's ambassador to E1 Salvador has had with human rights, trade unions and non-government parties since 1986.

  Mr. Eggar
  As part of their normal duties, Her Majesty's diplomatic staff accredited to E1 Salvador maintain regular contact with human rights and other organisations including political parties and trade unions.

  RIMPAC Exercises
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been received from any Pacific Government concerning the 1988 RIMPAC exercises.

  Mr. Mellor
  None.

  Argentina
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contacts there have been with the Government of Argentina to discuss the Falklands in the past year.

  Mr. Eggar
  Following my right hon. and learned Friend's statement in the House on 29 October 1986 we received some informal ideas from the Argentines, via the United States Government, which relate exclusively to the co-ordination and the avoidance of incidents in the south-west Atlantic. We replied using the same channel. The exchange continues.

  Chile
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many visits to prisons Her Majesty's ambassador to Chile has made in the past year.

  Mr. Eggar
  The honorary British consul in Concepcion made several visits to one British prisoner, who has since been released on bail. There have been no other British citizens in prison in Chile during the past year. Her Majesty's embassy staff have no consular standing to visit imprisoned Chileans.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings Her Majesty's ambassador has had with human rights, trade unions and opposition parties in Chile in the last year.

  Mr. Eggar
  Her Majesty's ambassador in Chile and his staff have had numerous meetings with human rights groups, trade union representatives and opposition parties during the past year. A full list is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Gibraltar (Shootings)
  Mr. McCusker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is now able to state on what passports the Irish Republican Army terrorists shot in Gibraltar were travelling and in whose names; in what nationality the additional passports were found; and whether any other passports were found.

  Mr. Mellor
  Two British passports in the names of Robert Wilfred Riley and Catherine Alison Harper (amended to Mrs. Smith) and one passport, believed to be Irish, in the name of Brendan Coyne, were found on the bodies. Two Irish passports in the names of John Samuel Miller and Mary Johnston and one British passport in the name of Edward McArdle were found in a Ford Fiesta car found on the Spanish side of the border. No information is yet available on other passports.

  Iraq
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his latest estimate of the chemical weapon capacity of Iraq.

  Mr. Mellor
  Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iranian forces has been confirmed by several United Nations reports since March 1984. We believe that Iraq has a capacity to manufacture chemical weapons and is capable of using such weapons effectively.

  Soviet Union (Chemical Weapons)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his latest estimate of the chemical weapon capacity of the Soviet Union.

  Mr. Mellor
  As my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Defence told the House on 10 November 1987, the Soviet Union commands the world's largest and most sophisticated chemical warfare capability. It has produced and stockpiled a wide variety of chemical agents and munitions, and has a massive tonnage of nerve agent alone. In December last year the Soviet Union declared that the size of its chemical weapons stockpile was 50,000 tons. This figure is substantially lower than western estimates.

  Nuclear Technology (Export)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the number and nature of notification made since May 1979 by (i) by the Federal Republic of Germany and (ii) France to the European Commission under Euratom treaty articles 103 and 104, regarding draft contracts for exports of nuclear technology and materials to non-European Economic Community member states.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information requested is not readily available, and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. Information is provided directly by individual member states to the Commission and we would not normally be informed of agreements or contracts involving other member states.

  United States (Chemical Weapons)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his latest estimate of the chemical weapons capacity of the United States.

  Mr. Mellor
  As my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces told the House on 3 December 1987, it would be inappropriate to comment in detail on the defence capabilities of an ally. As is well known, the United States has a limited and aging retaliatory chemical weapons capability which it is in the process of modernising.

  "Nuclear Rivals in the Middle East"
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to obtain for his departmental library a copy of "Nuclear Rivals in the Middle East" by Shyam Bhatia published by Routledge in March.

  Mr. Mellor
  Yes; the book has already been ordered.

  Amirabad Nuclear Complex, Tehran
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he possesses concerning the Amirabad nuclear complex near Tehran in terms of its technical capacity to assist in nuclear weapons production.

  Mr. Mellor
  I assume the hon. Member is referring to the Tehran university nuclear centre which is sited in Amirabad. The centre possesses a research reactor which was designed for the production of medical isotopes. Iran has signed the non-proliferation treaty and has placed all her nuclear materials under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. We have no evidence to suggest that these are being circumvented.

  Miss Elena Gurevich
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the case of Miss Elena Gurevich in the Soviet Union; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on 10 March at column 289.

  Mr. Raoul Wallenberg
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his latest information on the case of Mr. Raoul Wallenberg; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Soviet authorities have maintained since 1957 that Mr. Wallenberg died in prison in 1947. There have been reports over the years suggesting that Mr. Wallenberg may have been alive and in prison in the Soviet Union considerably later than 1947, but these accounts were never confirmed. We have frequently pressed the Soviet Union for a full account of the fate of Mr. Wallenberg, including, if he did indeed die in 1947, a detailed statement of the manner in which he died. The Soviet authorities have not so far provided adequate information.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise the case of Mr. Raoul Wallenberg with the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have pressed the Soviet authorities on a number of occasions to give a full and frank account of the fate of Raoul Wallenberg and they are well aware of our views in this case.

  South Africa (Oil Embargo)
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures Her Majesty's Government are taking to monitor on behalf of the United Nations the oil embargo on South Africa.

  Mrs. Chalker
  None, since we voted against the United Nations General Assembly resolution establishing the monitoring group. However, our own guidelines, which exclude the export of United Kingdom continental shelf crude oil to South Africa, are effective.

  Arms Control Negotiations
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards dealing with the removal of disparities in the conventional forces of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Warsaw pact in separate arms control negotiations, before any agreement has been reached on the elimination of chemical weapons.

  Mr. Mellor
  Our policy in the conventional arms control field was set out in the statement issued at the NATO summit on 2 March, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. Negotiations on the global elimination of chemical weapons are being pursued separately at the conference on disarmament in Geneva. They have made progress, but many complex issues remain to be resolved.

  Nuclear Weapons (Disarmament Negotiations)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether there are any categories of nuclear weapons in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation which cannot be subject to total elimination in disarmament negotiations: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The recent NATO summit on 2–3 March confirmed that for the foreseeable future there is no alternative to the Alliance strategy of deterrence based upon an appropriate mix of adequate and effective nuclear and conventional forces, which will continue to be kept up to date where necessary. NATO's immediate arms control priorities are for 50 per cent. cuts in the strategic offensive weapons of the United States and Soviet Union, the conclusion of a global and verifiable chemical weapons ban, and the elimination of the conventional imbalance between NATO and the Warsaw pact in Europe.

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations he has received from hon. Members in each of the last five years to date concerning entry clearance into the United Kingdom; and how many representations he has received from hon. Members since five countries became subject to visa control in 1986.

  Mr. Eggar
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers have received representations from hon. Members concerning entry clearance into the United Kingdom during the past five years as follows:

  Entry Clearance

  1983

  1,105

  1984

  1,472

  1985

  1,753

  1986

  2,183

  1987

  3,467

  Records of representations received relating specifically to applicants from the five countries for which a visa requirement was introduced in 1986–87 are not available.

  La Belle Discotheque
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library
  419
  such parts of the intercepts relating to the La Belle discotheque bombing on 5 April 1986 as are no longer classified; to whom these intercepts have been shown, when and why; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  No. It is not our practice to comment on intelligence and security matters.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Fine Defaulters
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he anticipates bringing into force section 49 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972 to enable courts to impose a community service order in lieu of a warrant of commitment for failure to pay a fine.

  Mr. John Patten
  Following consultations with a range of interested bodies, we said, in the White Paper on criminal justice published in March 1986, that we were inclined not to implement this section, since it would add to the complexity and reduce the effectiveness of the fine enforcement process and consume probation service resources without appreciably reducing imprisonment for default. We propose to look again at the possibility of implementing this provision and we shall be seeking further views from the interested bodies.

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received about the Sunday trading law.

  Mr. Renton
  Since 18 December 1987 when I last answered a similar question from my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess)—column 834 — we have received 100 written representations broadly in favour of Sunday trading and 61 against.

  Shops (Crime Prevention)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he plans any new initiatives to seek to prevent crime in shops.

  Mr. John Patten
  Advice on the prevention of theft from shops is featured in the handbook "Practical Ways to Crack Crime" which was published on 9 March in support of the Department's national crime prevention publicity campaign. The Home Office is also in touch with officials from the retail trade's main representative bodies — the Retail Consortium, the British Retailers Association and the Association for the Prevention of Theft in Shops — regarding the proposal, which I welcome, that the trade should mount its own national campaign aimed at the prevention of shop theft.

  As an aid to planning effective measures against theft from shops we shall shortly be publishing, as a Home Office crime prevention unit paper, a report prepared by a representative of the Dixon Group plc, working in collaboration with the crime prevention unit, under the title "Retail Crime: Prevention through Crime Analysis".

  Asylum
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average length of time 420
  taken for his Department to deal with cases of application for asylum (a) at ports of entry and (b) made by people who already have leave to enter.

  Mr. Renton
  For applications decided in 1987 it is estimated that the average length of time between the receipt of the application and the decision was 10 months for those applying at ports of entry and 16 months for those already in the United Kingdom.

  Crime Prevention
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what indications he has about the effectiveness of recent crime prevention initiatives taken or encouraged by his Department.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have been encouraged by reports from a number of chief officers of police in urban areas of falls in the recorded level of certain crimes notably burglary, which are often targeted by local crime prevention schemes. The Department will continue to encourage the expansion of these schemes in the light of growing evidence that, when they are properly organised and supported, they can be effective in preventing certain crimes and in reducing the fear of crime more generally.

  A good example of the effectiveness of the multi-agency preventive approach to local crime problems is a burglary reduction project in Rochdale, supported by the Home Office. This has produced a 60 per cent. reduction in that crime over a seven-month period.

  Multi-agency crime prevention projects established as demonstration models in "Five Towns" in 1986 with Home Office funded co-ordinators have each demonstrated their effectiveness in a number of different ways, notably in securing increased public support for crime prevention work, bringing down the figures for particular crimes and in reducing also the public's fear of crime. It is a measure of the success of the "Five Towns" projects that each has gained sufficient local support to continue beyond the period of Home Office funding. The lessons learned in the "Five Towns" projects will be applied to the development of the "Safer Cities" programme.

  Prison Officers
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison officers were in post in England and Wales as at 31 December 1983.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There were 17,939 staff in the prison officer class on 31 December 1983.

  Exclusion Orders
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were served with exclusion orders under the Prevention of Terrorism Act between 1 and 7 March; who they were; what the provisions of the exclusion orders were; and why they were served with the order.

  Mr. Hurd
  None.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act between 1 and 7
  421
  March; who they were; where they were detained; why they were detained; for how long they were held; and what charges were brought against them.

  Mr. Hurd
  Between 1 and 7 March eight people were detained under section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 on suspicion of involvement in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. All eight were detained in London. Four were detained for 11 hours, 3 days 18 hours, 3 days 23 hours, and 3 days 23 hours, respectively, before being released. The other four were detained for 4 days 19 hours, 4 days 19 hours, 4 days 2 hours and 3 days 22 hours. At that point, on 8 March, I signed orders excluding them from the United Kingdom. They were then detained under article 9(3) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Supplemental Temporary Provisions) Order 1984 for a further 1 day, 1 day, 22 hours and 22 hours respectively, pending their removal from the United Kingdom. No charges were brought against any of those detained.

  It is not our normal practice to name individuals detained under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984.

  Fire-Service (Clwyd)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will visit the county of Clwyd to meet full time and retained firemen to discuss current and proposed manning levels; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will visit Buckley and Queensferry fire stations; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) whether he has recently visited the county of Clwyd fire service headquarters and fire stations in Clwyd; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what is the authorised establishment of the Clwyd fire service; how many officers are currently in post; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. Friend has not recently visited the Clwyd fire service and has no present plans to do so. The whole time firefighter establishment of the Clwyd fire brigade at 1 January 1988 was 197 and the retained establishment was 240. Staff actually in post were 184 and 227, respectively.

  Political Asylum
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by country of origin the total number of applications for political asylum received by it currently outstanding; and how many of these have been outstanding for(a) more than six months, (b) more than one year and (c) more than two years.

  Mr. Renton
  Information on the total numbers of asylum applications outstanding at the end of 1986 was published by nationality of applicant in "Refugee Statistics, United Kingdom, 1986" — Home Office Statistical Bulletin, No. 13/87—a copy of which is in the Library. Reliable information on the breakdown of these figures by length of time the application had been outstanding could be produced only at disproportionate cost. It is planned to publish a further bulletin relating to 1987 later this year.

  Immigration Laws (Detained Persons)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are currently held in(a) police stations, (b) prisons, (c) remand centres arising from the operation of immigration laws; and what are the comparable figures for March and September of each year since 1983.

  Mr. Renton
  Information in the form requested is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. On 10 March 1988 there was a total of 178 people detained at the two main establishments used for detention arising from the operation of the immigration laws; that is, 90 at Latchmere house and 88 at Harmondsworth.

  British Nationality Act 1981
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for registration under the British Nationality Act 1981 have been(a) received by his Department, (b) fully processed and accepted, (c) acknowledged but not decided upon and (d) awaiting acknowledgement.

  Mr. Renton
  Since 1 April 1987 an estimated 295,000 applications of all types for British citizenship have been received; 43,895 applications have been granted. Some 105,000 applications for registration and naturalisation which have yet to be decided upon have been acknowledged and a further 130,000 packages containing citizenship applications await acknowledgement.

  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether, in the light of the Equal Opportunities Commission's recent report, he will consider introducing an equal treatment Bill giving women positive equality rights in law;

  (2) whether, in the light of the Equal Opportunities Commission's recent report, he will consider introducing legislation banning discrimination in private clubs where there is a male and female membership;

  (3) whether, in the light of the Equal Opportunities Commission's recent report, he will consider seeking to strengthen and widen the Commission's powers to initiate formal investigations;

  (4) whether, in the light of the Equal Opportunities Commission's recent report, he will consider (a) introducing means of improving training in sex discrimination law of tribunal members and (b) including at least one woman member on each panel;

  (5) whether, in the light of the Equal Opportunities Commission's recent report, he will consider legislation to obtain equal pay for work of equal value in the event of forthcoming legal judgments not providing this outcome;

  (6) whether, in the light of the Equal Opportunities Commission's recent report, he will consider seeking to combine the present Equal Pay and Sex Discrimination Acts;

  (7) whether, in the light of the Equal Opportunities Commission's recent report, he will consider introducing legislation to place a duty upon local authorities and other public bodies to operate a system of contract compliance to eliminate sex discrimination.
  423
  Mr. John Patten
  The Equal Opportunities Commission's proposals were published on 8 March. We will be giving its recommendations careful consideration in consultation with colleagues.

  Football Matches (Policing)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of policing football matches in England and Wales in each of the last three football seasons.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) on 10 March, at column 285.

  Prisoners (Police Cells)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many sentenced prisoners were held in police cells during February in England and Wales.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many sentenced prisoners are currently being held in police cells in England and Wales.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On Friday 11 March, 191 sentenced prisoners were being held in police cells in England and Wales.

  Heysel Stadium
  Mr. Heffer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the total cost to public funds of the extradition proceedings in connection with the Heysel stadium disaster; if any part of this sum is recoverable from the Belgian Government; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 15 February]: Expenditure so far identified includes about £30,000 incurred by the police and £61,000 by the Crown Prosecution Service. Legal aid costs borne by the Lord Chancellor's Department have yet to be settled. None of this expenditure is recoverable from the Belgian authorities because the extradition treaty provides that the costs incurred in such proceedings are borne by the requested state.

  Professor Colin Blakemore
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information relating to Professor Colin Blakemore's work was improperly disclosed from the animals procedures committee; and why.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 2 March 1988]: I have today written to the hon. Member.

  File (Disappearance)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer of 8 February,Official Report, column 41, what police inquiries were carried out into the loss of security classified material from the office of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and what were the conclusions of such inquiries.
  424
  Mr. Hurd
  [holding answer 7 March 1988]: I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) was interviewed by an officer of the Metropolitan police on 10 April 1986 and a file of papers was then recorded as lost property. I further understand that the file was later found and that no other police inquiries were made.

PRIME MINISTER

  Polaris
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will explain the basis on which she stated at a press conference following her visit to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation on 17 February that Her Majesty's Government are modernising Polaris with Trident in accordance with the Montebello resolutions, as stated on page 7 of the Central Office of Information transcript; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government's decision in 1980 to replace Polaris with Trident was taken in order to maintain the effectiveness and credibility of Britain's independent strategic nuclear deterrent well into the next century. The decision is entirely consistent with NATO's commitment, articulated at Montebello in 1983 and also most recently this month at the NATO summit, to maintain effective and up-to-date nuclear forces.

  Non-Proliferation Treaty
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next expects to meet with the leaders of the United Kingdom's partner depository states for the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to discuss progress and initiatives under article VI.

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

  NATO Summit (Brussels)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if, during her meeting with President Mitterrand at the NATO Ministers meeting in Brussels on 2–3 March, she discussed the prospects of France joining the nuclear non-proliferation treaty;

  (2) if, during her meeting with President Mitterrand at the NATO summit in Brussels on 2–3 March, she discussed the joint Anglo-French stand-off air-launched nuclear missile system.

  The Prime Minister
  I had no separate meeting with President Mitterrand at the NATO summit.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister if, pursuant to her answer of 7 December 1987 to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell),Official Report, column 11, she will detail the changes made for the sake of clarification or completeness in the revised note of guidance on the duties and responsibilities of civil servants.

  The Prime Minister
  Such changes are numerous, but can be readily identified from a comparison of the revised text—Official Report, 2 December 1987, columns 572–75 —with the original text—Official Report 26 February 1985, columns 130–32.

  Educational Testing (Correspondence)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps she is taking to discover the source of the leak of a letter from Mr. Paul Gray to Mr. Tom Jeffrey in relation to educational testing; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  It is not the usual practice to give information on such matters.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Alleged Government Subversion (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his answer of 22 February,Official Report, column 15, what representations he has received about possible prosecutions in relation to offences concerning alleged attempts to subvert the Government of Lord Wilson; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  Since becoming Attorney-General I have received about 100 letters from Members of Parliament and the public about the "Spycatcher" case. Several of these letters have raised the question of investigations or prosecutions in relation to the allegations to which the hon. Member refers. I have referred correspondents — and also the hon. Member — to the Prime Minister's statement of 6 May.

  "Spycatcher"
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will give the latest estimate of the likely total eventual cost of the legal proceedings and advice in the United Kingdom and abroad in connection with cases to date on "Spycatcher."

  The Attorney-General
  The total amount of costs expended to date is about £660,000. I cannot usefully estimate the total eventual cost.

  Government Legal Actions
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Attorney-General how many civil actions in which Her Majesty's Government are or were the plaintiff have been instituted since May 1979; and in how many cases(a) judgments and (b) costs were awarded against Her Majesty's Government.

  The Solicitor General
  The information sought by the hon. Member is not readily available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Dog Fighting
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Attorney-General how many prosecutions were brought in the past eight years for the unlawful promotion of dog fights and other forms of animal baiting; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  No separate records are maintained by the Crown Prosecution Service of prosecutions brought by that service for such offences. Records of convictions in cases involving cruelty to animals are kept by the Home Office.

  "My Country, Right or Wrong"
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his answer of 9 March, if he will propose to the British Broadcasting Corporation the appointment of an 426
  independent third party with security clearance to examine transcripts of the remaining programmes in the British Broadcasting Corporation series "My Country, Right or Wrong" with a view to establishing to Her Majesty's Government's satisfaction whether the transmission of the programmes would raise any security problems; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  No.

  Family Court (Policy)
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Attorney-General how many officials in the Lord Chancellor's Department are responsible for formulating policy on the introduction of a family court.

  The Solicitor-General
  Currently a specialist lawyer and an executive officer in the Lord Chancellor's Department are engaged full-time, in collaboration with officials in their own and other Departments, on policy formulation relevant to the whole area embraced by the concept of a family court.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Kampuchea
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has met representatives of Oxfam to discuss the provision of aid to Kampuchea; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  This issue, with many others, was discussed when I met the director of Oxfam, Mr. Frank Judd, last December.

  Sub-Saharan Africa (Debt)
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to assist Commonwealth countries in sub-Saharan Africa with their current problem of external debt.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The United Kingdom has put forward an initiative to alleviate the debt problems of the poorest sub-Saharan African countries, including those which are members of the Commonwealth. We have also promised major contributions to the IMF's enhanced structural adjustment facility and the World Bank's special programme of assistance, both of which will provide considerable help to these countries.

  Gross bilateral aid for Commonwealth countries in sub-Saharan Africa in 1986 was £200 million.

  Contaminated Foodstuffs
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any information regarding the alleged supply via food aid of European Economic Community radioactive contaminated foodstuffs to Third world countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any information regarding the alleged supply via food aid of European Economic Community radioactive contaminated food-stuffs to Third world countries; and if he will make a statement.
  427
  Mr. Chris Patten
  We have no evidence that any of the European Community's food aid consignments have exceeded the maximum levels of radioactivity permitted for the Community's exports of foodstuffs; these levels are the same as those permitted for imports from third countries.

  Uganda (Civil Service Pensions)
  Mr. Bidwell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reply he has received to his most recent approach to the Ugandan Government concerning the payment of pensions to a few ex-civil servants now resident in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Our high commission in Kampala raises this matter regularly. It has reported that restoration of pension payments to certain former public servants now resident in the United Kingdom is under investigation by the Government of Uganda.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment Her Majesty's Government made, in deciding on their policy of giving aid for the whole of Cyprus on a Government to Government basis, of the degree of control exercised by Greek Cypriot Government over northern Cyprus and the extent to which it has a mandate to act on behalf of the Turkish Cypriot population.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We recognise only one Republic of Cyprus. However, as far as education and training awards of benefit to the Turkish community are concerned, the British Council deals directly with the Turkish Cypriot authorities in the educational field.

  Sudan
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many vehicles are currently undertaking relief work in the Sudan, provided under the United Kingdom aid programme.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  In 1987 the ODA provided 20 trucks for the combined agencies relief team (CART) at a cost of £400,000. These vehicles are enabling CART to distribute food in and around Juba.

  In January this year the Sudanese army commandeered 15 of the CART trucks, 14 of which have now been returned. We are awaiting further information on the last truck.

  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what work is being undertaken to ensure that food supplies are reaching southern Sudan.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Donors are working with the Government of Sudan to identify ways of providing relief supplies to the whole of southern Sudan. The ODA responded to a world food programme appeal for 1,400 tonnes of food aid to be airlifted into Juba by providing 400 tonnes, with associated transport costs; the European Community provided a further 600 tonnes. This food is being distributed by ODA-funded trucks. In February, a military-escorted convoy of barges organised by the Sudanese Government delivered 2,600 tonnes of relief aid 428
  to Malakal for the Upper Nile region. Of this the ODA financed 450 tonnes through the Catholic fund for overseas development. The International Committee of the Red Cross is now waiting to receive the agreement of the Sudanese Government and the rebel forces to begin relief work in areas of southern Sudan previously inaccessible because of civil war.

  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assurances have been received that the vehicles for moving food supplies in the Sudan will not be used for other purposes by the Sudan Government.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  On 27 February the Prime Minister of Sudan, Sadiq el Mandi, informed our ambassador in Khartoum that the commandeering of vehicles provided by the ODA had been due to a breakdown in communication. I have accepted assurances that this will not happen again. These trucks are once more being used to distribute food supplies around the Juba area.

  Mozambique
  Sir Russell Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if any United Kingdom aid-supported projects in geographical areas subject to attack or disruption by the Mozambique National Resistance have been disrupted by the Mozambique National Resistance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We have had reports of two incidents at or near the sites where teams from the National Railways of Zimbabwe are reconstructing the Limpopo railway from Chicualacuala. In addition work has been disrupted from time to time on the Beira and Nacala railway projects. All aid-financed activities, particularly emergency relief, suffer in varying degrees from the disruption of internal transport caused by the security situation.

  Sir Russell Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will state the level of United Kingdom aid to Mozambique, giving details of(a) the nature of each project supported, (b) the level of support given to each project and (c) the location within Mozambique of each project.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Commitments of United Kingdom aid to Mozambique amounted to £35 million in 1987, of which £15 million was for balance of payments support and £15 million for emergency relief. We are also contributing to transport projects in Mozambique sponsored by the Southern African development co-ordination conference. Details of current capital projects are as follows:

  Project

  Total commitment (£ million)

  Location

  Mozambique bilateral aid

  Prawn fisheries: boat and jetty rehabilitation

  2·515

  Angoche

  Road and bridging material

  0·297

  Various

  Aeronautical telecommunications

  0·721

  Maputo, Beira, Tete

  Leyland trucks for coal industry

  0·660

  Moatize

  SADCC aid

  Limpopo railway

  14·000

  Gaza and Maputo

  Nacala railway rehabilitation

  1·453

  Niassa and Nampula provinces

  429

  Project

  Total commitment (£ million)

  Location

  Beira railway breakdown crane

  1·100

  Beira

  International Development Association
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when negotiations for the ninth replenishment of the International Development Association will commence.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The association has yet to announce a date, but negotiations will probably begin early in 1989.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  War Stock
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received regarding the repayment of 3½ per cent. war stock; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations on this subject.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any proposal to raise the advisory cost limit of £200 for answering parliamentary questions.

  Mr. Peter Brooke
  Yes. The advisory figure of £200 was introduced in 1982 as the level at which the likely cost of a full reply to a parliamentary question should be drawn to the attention of Ministers. This figure is now out of date. It is accordingly being raised as from today to £250.

  This does not alter the discretion of individual Ministers to decide that a particular question should be answered partially or in full regardless of cost.

  Third World
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the reduction in tax take for Her Majesty's Government from banks in respect of the current year, as compared with last year, as a result of their write-down of Third world debt.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 29 February 1988]: Tax receipts in the current year are provisionally estimated to be lower by about £270 million as a result of losses incurred by banks on irrecoverable loans to third world countries. The estimate for 1986–87 is £30 million.

  VAT
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has as to which member states apply a positive rate of value added tax to magazines and which also provide a subsidy in the form of tax relief for such publications.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 8 March 1988]: A positive rate of VAT is applied to magazines by Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Spain. The supply of periodicals in Italy with a cover price of less than 8,000 lire and sold by persons other than the editor is zero-rated.
  430
  Information on subsidies in the form of tax relief is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has as to the annual average percentage increase in (i) gross domestic product at constant market prices, (ii) manufacturing output, (iii) wages per head in manufacturing, (iv) retail prices, (v) manufacturing productivity, (vi) manufacturing investment at constant prices, (vii) wages and salaries per unit of output in manufacturing, over the period 1983 to 1987 in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) the United States of America, (c) Germany, (d) France, (e) Japan, and (f) Sweden.

  Mr. Major
  [holding answer 10 March 1988]: Data on (i) GDP (or GNP) at constant market prices are given in OECD Quarterly National Accounts. Data on (ii) manufacturing output and (iv) retail (consumer) prices are given monthly in OECD Main Economic Indicators. Data on (iii) wages per head in manufacturing are given monthly in the Employment Gazette. Data for (vi) manufacturing investment at constant prices are given in the OECD National Accounts (Volume II: Detailed Tables). Data for (v) manufacturing productivity can be calculated from the series for manufacturing output and employment given in the OECD Main Economic Indicators. Data on wages and salaries for unit of output are not published in any standard international source.

  Investment
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide figures for gross and net investment, as totals per head and as a proportion of gross domestic product for the last five available years in the following countries: Norway, Sweden, Japan, Western Germany, France, the United States of America, Italy and the United Kingdom.

  Mr. John Major
  [holding answer 11 March 1988]: The following three tables give annual data for 1982 to 1986 for gross and for net fixed investment as a percentage of gross domestic product and for gross fixed investment per head of the population in US dollars. Comparable figures, in a common currently, are not available for net investment per head.

  Gross fixed capital formation as a percentage of gross domestic product1

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  United States of America

  17·2

  17·2

  18·0

  18·1

  17·8

  Japan

  29·7

  28·3

  27·9

  27·7

  27·8

  Germany

  20·5

  20·5

  20·2

  19·7

  19·4

  France

  21·4

  20·2

  19 ·3

  19·0

  18·8

  United Kingdom

  16·2

  16·2

  17·3

  17·2

  17·2

  Italy

  22·3

  21 3

  21·2

  21·2

  20·1

  Norway

  25·5

  25·7

  26·0

  21·7

  27·6

  Sweden

  18·8

  18·7

  18·6

  19·1

  18·2

  1 Exact definitions of fixed capital formation vary from country to country.

  Source: Calculated from OECD National Accounts 1960 to 1986.
  431

  Net fixed capital formation as a percentage of gross domestic product1

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  United States of America

  3·1

  3·6

  5·2

  5·4

  5·3

  Japan

  16·2

  14·6

  14·2

  13·9

  14·1

  Germany

  7·8

  7·9

  7·6

  7·1

  7·1

  France

  9·0

  7·8

  7·4

  7·2

  6·8

  United Kingdom

  4·0

  4·1

  5·1

  5·2

  4·9

  Italy

  11·1

  10·2

  10·3

  10·4

  9·2

  Norway

  10 ·3

  10 ·9

  12·2

  8·3

  13·1

  Sweden

  6·9

  6·8

  6·9

  7·5

  6·9

  1 Net fixed capital formation is gross capital formation after providing for depreciation. Estimates of depreciation are subject to a very wide margin of error and are not comparable between countries. Gross domestic product does not provide for depreciation, and is therefore not an appropriate denominator.

  Source: Calculated from OECD National Accounts 1960 to 1986.

  Gross fixed capital formation per head1

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  United States

  2,312

  2,460

  2,827

  2,991

  3,091

  Japan

  2,852

  2,875

  3,074

  3,270

  3,427

  Germany

  2,075

  2,190

  2,306

  2,386

  2,478

  France

  2,206

  2,161

  2,166

  2,226

  2,300

  United Kingdom

  1,472

  1,567

  1,766

  1,882

  1,976

  Italy

  2,066

  2,035

  2,174

  2,291

  2,294

  Norway

  2,794

  3,040

  3,357

  3,041

  4,120

  Sweden

  1,989

  2,092

  2,233

  2,415

  2,387

  1 US dollars, at current prices and OECD estimates of purchasing power parities.

  Source: OECD National Accounts 1960–86.

  Civil Service Functions (Dispersal)
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there will be full consultation with the Council of Civil Service Unions about any proposals for further dispersal of Civil Service functions.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Council of Civil Service Unions will be given an early opportunity to comment upon developments in the policy on the location of Government work referred to in my answer to the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) on 18 February, at columns 475–76. Furthermore, it is normal practice for Departments to consult their trade union sides before undertaking significant relocations.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will make an announcement, supplementing the Prime Minister's statement of 18 February, about the further dispersal of Civil Service functions.

  Mr. Brooke
  I expect shortly to be in a position to make the further statement about the location of Government work forcast in my answer of 18 January, at columns 475–76, to the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram).

THE ARTS

  British Library
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what is his estimate of the current inflation rate of building costs within the British Library project; and if he will make a statement.
  432
  Mr. Luce
  The estimate for the current inflation rate of building costs for the new British Library at St. Pancras is 7 per cent. on an annual basis.

  South Bank Board
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will place in the Library the terms of the trust deed setting up the South Bank Board as an independent body.

  Mr. Luce
  I will place a copy of the trust deed in the Library as soon as it is finalised.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what changes are to be made to the standing and organisation of the South Bank Board.

  Mr. Luce
  Arrangements are being considered whereby the South Bank Board would become an independent charitable trust, under the terms of the Arts Council's charter, from 1 April 1988. The details are not yet complete but I will advise the House of them as soon as decisions are reached.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he expects to name the new members of the independent South Bank body; and whom he is consulting.

  Mr. Luce
  I have asked Mr. Ronald Grierson to continue as chairman of the South Bank Board with effect from 1 April 1988 for a further three years. Arrangements for other members of the board depend on finalising the details of a new independent charitable trust.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Exports and Imports
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the percentage change in the volume and value of exports from and imports into the United Kingdom of biscuits, chocolate, chocolate and sugar confectionery, respectively, since 1972:(a) with the European Economic Community and (b) with the rest of the world.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The information is given in the table.

  Percentage changes 1972–1978 European Economic Community (as at 1 January 1988)

  Exports

  Imports

  Volume

  Value

  Volume

  Value

  Biscuits (SITC 048.42 (part))

  +218

  +1,485

  +123

  +1,150

  Chocolate and chocolate confectionery (SITC 073.0)

  + 243

  + 1,572

  + 127

  + 1,449

  Sugar confectionery (SITC 062.0)

  + 48

  + 885

  +255

  +1,697

  Rest of the World

  Exports

  Imports

  Volume

  Value

  Volume

  Value

  Biscuits (SITC 048.42 (part))

  + 15

  +419

  + 316

  + 1,442

  Chocolate and chocolate confectionery (SITC 073.0)

  + 19

  + 379

  + 98

  + 904

  433

  Exports

  Imports

  Volume

  Value

  Volume

  Value

  Sugar confectionery (SITC 062.0)

  -31

  +260

  +125

  +950

  Manufacturing Industry (Investment)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the level of direct investment in overseas manufacturing industry and gross domestic fixed capital formation from private sector United Kingdom manufacturing industry in each year since 1977.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The information is given in the table. It should be noted that net overseas direct investment is a financial concept and is not the same as capital expenditure on fixed assets or the growth in a company's net assets. Direct investment covers only the sums invested in a related concern by the parent company and that concern will then decide how this is to be used, whether on fixed assets, to increase debtors, repay borrowing etc.

  Net United Kingdom direct investment in overseas manufacturing1

  Private sector manufacturing gross domestic fixed capital formation2

  £million

  £million current prices

  1977

  1,077

  4,190

  1978

  1,520

  5,220

  1979

  1,397

  6,163

  1980

  1,427

  6,182

  1981

  2,528

  5,113

  1982

  1,579

  5,260

  1983

  2,126

  5,655

  1984

  2,100

  6,997

  1985

  2,860

  8,443

  1986

  5,663

  8,823

  1 Includes overseas direct investment in manufacturing by public corporations and by non-manufacturing companies in the United Kingdom. Separate figures excluding these categories arc not available.

  2 Excludes assets held on financial lease by manufacturing.

  Racal Ltd
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he has completed his investigations concerning the question of the alleged sale of radio equipment by Racal Ltd. to the Palestine Liberation Organisation in 1981; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  A conclusion to the investigation is expected shortly.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the current investigation concerning the alleged sale of radio equipment by Racal Ltd. to the Palestine Liberation Organisation in 1981 includes an inquiry into the training of militiamen from the Palestine Liberation Organisation in battleground communications provided by Racal Ltd.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No.

  British Shipbuilders
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Sunderland, North concerning Government support for British Shipbuilders sent to him on 4 March.
  434
  Mr Kenneth Clarke
  I have written to the hon Member this morning.

  House of Fraser
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what recent representations he has received from Lonrho plc about the conduct of the inquiry by his Department's inspectors into the affairs of House of Fraser plc; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  I cannot discuss matters relating to the investigation of the affairs of House of Fraser Holdings plc while it is in progress.

  City Action Teams
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the City Action team to be located in Leeds will also be responsible for all the Bradford metropolitan district; whether any City Action team officials will be based permanently or temporarily in any part of the Bradford metropolitan district; what action City Action team officials are taking to contact public, private and voluntary agencies in Bradford; and how such agencies in Bradford may make contact with City Action team officials.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Leeds — Bradford City Action team will cover the Leeds and Bradford urban programme areas. City Action team officials are located in the regional offices of the Departments of the Environment, of Employment and of Trade and Industry which are in Leeds. Officers in all three Departments already have close contacts with organisations and agencies in the whole area the team covers. If any person or agency in Bradford wants to get in touch with the team they should contact one of the three departments.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what budget will be available to the City Action team based in Leeds; what part of that budget represents new financial resources; what proportion of the overall budget will be spent within the Bradford metropolitan district; and who is the responsible accounting officer for City Action team expenditure in Leeds and Bradford.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The total funds which the three City Action team departments estimate they will spend in Leeds-Bradford in 1987–88 is around £100 million. They estimate around £50 million of this will be spent in Bradford. In addition the Government are now making available £0·79 million for the City Action team to spend in 1988–89 on special pump-priming projects involving the private sector and designed to stimulate enterprise and employment. The responsible accounting officer for that special top-up fund is the Permanent Secretary of my Department.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what preference will be given to those living within the Bradford metropolitan district in any employment from projects arising directly or indirectly from activity undertaken or initiated by the City Action team based in Leeds; and what preference Bradford-based companies will be given in the placing of orders or contracts by the City Action team based in Leeds.
  435
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Government's City Action team for Leeds-Bradford covers both these cities and its activities will be of benefit to both.

  Competition Act 1980
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress has been made in implementing the programme of references under section 11 of the Competition Act 1980 announced on 7 September 1987.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  A reference of the Welsh Water Authority was sent to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on that day and the Post Office counter service at Crown offices was referred on 6 November. I am sending a reference of British Coal's capital and investment activities to the Commission today.

  The remaining reference in the programme announced on 7 September, London Underground, will be deferred until later this year to enable management to concentrate on the investigation into the King's Cross disaster and any follow-up action needed. Its place in the programme will be filled by a reference relating to British Rail's provincial sector which will be made later in the spring.

  I then propose to announce a further programme of references for the remainder of 1988 and early 1989.

  Action for Cities
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many Action for Cities working breakfasts will take place; where they will be held; which Ministers will be involved; how many business people will be involved; and what will be the total cost.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  My present intentions are to hold six working breakfasts in Newcastle, Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool and London. They will be attended by my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Cope) — the Minister of State, Department of Employment — my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier) — the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment—my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) — the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry — and myself as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister responsible for the co-ordination of Government inner city policies.

  An audience of 200 to 250 senior representatives of industry and business will attend each presentation. Final costs are not yet known, but are expected to be in the region of £0·5 million.

  Enterprise Initiative
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he has any proposals to extend to advertising the range of advice offered by his Department or financed by grants for consultancies under the enterprise initiative.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 11 March 1988]: The subject of advertising is already addressed by the marketing initiative.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will provide figures for the total amount 436
  per head of population spent on research and development for the last five available years in the following countries: Norway, Sweden, Western Germany, France, the United States of America, Japan, Italy and the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  [holding answer 11 March 1988]: The available information is given in the table.

  Gross expenditure on research and development per head of the total population1

  2£ per head

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  Norway

  71

  81

  93

  109

  120

  Sweden

  117

  n.a.

  151

  n.a.

  200

  West Germany

  126

  139

  151

  n.a.

  184

  France

  101

  115

  125

  139

  153

  United States of America

  167

  186

  206

  235

  270

  Japan

  100

  115

  132

  150

  177

  Italy

  41

  46

  51

  58

  70

  United Kingdom

  110

  n.a.

  123

  n.a.

  146

  n.a. Data not available.

  1 For 1985, where this was not available that for the nearest year has been taken.

  2 Exchange rates at purchasing power parities calculated by OECD have been used to convert foreign currencies to sterling.

  Source: OECD.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will provide figures for the proportion of gross domestic product spent on research and develop-ment for the last five available years in the following countries: Norway, Sweden, Western Germany, France, the United States of America, Japan, Italy and the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  [holding answer 11 March 1988]: The available information is given in the table:

  Gross expenditure on research and development as a percentage of gross domestic product

  Per cent.

  Country

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  Norway

  1·29

  1·37

  1·41

  1·51

  1·53

  Sweden

  2·22

  ..

  2·46

  ..

  2·79

  West Germany

  2·45

  2·51

  2·54

  ..

  2·66

  France

  2·01

  2·10

  2·15

  2·25

  2·31

  United States of America

  2·45

  2·60

  2·62

  2·69

  2·83

  Japan

  2·14

  2·23

  2·36

  2·45

  2·62

  Italy

  1·01

  1·04

  1·12

  1·19

  1·33

  United Kingdom

  2·42

  ..

  2·27

  ..

  2·33

  .. = data not available.

  Source: OECD.

  Internal Market
  Mr. Robertson
  To asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list all the proposals for completion of the internal market currently under consideration by the Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  [holding answer 8 March 1988]: the 1988 presidency action programme on the single market lists more than 140 individual measures for discussion by the Council this year. Copies of the programme are available in the Library of the House.

  GATT
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if there have been recent meetings of the general agreement on tariffs and trade textile working group; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  [holding answer 29 February 1988]: The GATT textiles committee last met on 4 December 1987. The committee undertook the annual review of the operation of the multi-fibre arrangements, as required by article 10.4, and considered the membership of the GATT textiles surveillance body for 1988. The committee next meets on 14 March.

SCOTLAND

  Student Grants
  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each Scottish university the number of students in receipt of fees only grants for the current academic year; and if he will express these figures as a percentage of the total student numbers.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The latest available complete figures are set out below. They relate to the academic session 1986–87 and are in respect of those students at each university who are assisted by the Scottish Education Department.

  University

  Aberdeen

  1,018 students (28 per cent.

  Dundee

  368 students (21 per cent.)

  Edinburgh

  1,604 students (32 per cent.)

  Glasgow

  1,948 students (25 per cent.

  Heriot-Watt

  491 students (28 per cent.)

  St. Andrews

  369 students (34 per cent.)

  Stirling

  222 students (15 per cent.)

  Strathclyde

  1,286 students (24 per cent.)

  Prisons (Overcrowding)
  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the transfer of prisoners back to Barlinnie from Low Moss remand centre, and what further steps he will take to relieve overcrowding in Scottish prisons.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  On 26 January 1988 a number of inmates at Low Moss began to destroy furniture and fittings. When the incident was under control 24 inmates from one dormitory were transferred to HM prison Barlinnie. There was significant damage to property. No injuries were sustained.

  The Scottish Home and Health Department is currently reviewing the revised use of capacity in its establishments. A further hall will become available at HM prison Shotts in the near future.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated cost of production and distribution of his booklet: "You and the Community Charge: A Step by Step Guide."

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) of 7 March.

  Health Boards
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he has any plans to instruct health boards to set up a register of interests showing all shareholdings, directorships and consultancies of health board members; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he has any plans to instruct health board members to declare their interest in private health insurance schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No. Chairmen and members of health hoards are required to declare any interests in matters being considered by their board in terms of the National Health Service (Health Boards: Membership, Procedure and Payment of Subscriptions) (Scotland) Regulations 1975.

  Football Matches (Policing)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of policing football matches in Scotland in each of the last three football seasons.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally.

  Cervical Cytology
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when his Department's report on the cervical cytology services in Scotland will be(a) published and (b) implemented.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The report of a working group set up by the scientific services advisory group of the Scottish Health Services Planning Council was issued to health boards on 10 December 1987. I have placed in the Library a copy of the report and of the Scottish Home and Health Department's letter of the same date asking health boards to review their cervical cytology services and establish by the end of 1988 a computerised call and recall system which will ensure that all women in the age range 20 to 60 receive an invitation to attend for a smear test by 1993.

  Dog Registration Scheme
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he proposes to introduce a scheme to enable local authorities in Scotland to operate a dog registration system in accordance with an amendment to the Local Government Bill.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are no plans for the introduction of such a scheme in Scotland.

  Islay
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many members of his Department's agricultural staff have visited Islay during the past 12 months.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Ten members of staff of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland have visited Islay during the past 12 months.

  White-fronted Geese
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will detail the type of damage caused to crops and grassland by the feeding habits of white-fronted geese on Islay.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Typical damage to root crops is a widespread breaking in to the roots which leads to deterioration and rotting. Livestock feed is lost and damaged turnips are unmarketable for human consumption.

  Continual grazing pressure on improved grassland causes a loss of valuable winter and spring grazing for livestock.

  Health Boards (Finances)
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial allocations he has made to health boards for 1988–89.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have allocated £1,661 million1 to health boards to meet their gross recurrent expenditure commitments on hospitals and community health services in 1988–89. After expected income is taken into account, the net cash limited allocations to individual health boards are as follows:

  Recurrent expenditure (net)

  Health board

  £ million

  Argyll and Clyde

  118·305

  Ayrshire and Arran

  88·548

  Borders

  25·675

  Dumfries and Galloway

  42·528

  Fife

  82·835

  Forth Valley

  77·570

  Grampian

  152·266

  Greater Glasgow

  430·705

  Highland

  62·292

  Lanarkshire

  136·332

  Lothian

  266·427

  Orkney

  4·667

  Shetland

  5·724

  Tayside

  153·124

  Western Isles

  8·517

  1,655·515

  1 Includes £19·06 million allocated for specific commitments including national cardiac surgery services, lithotripsy and AIDS.

  Forestry Commission (Kielder Forest)
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of staff employed by the Forestry Commission in the Kielder forest district in 1985 to 1987 440
  in (a) supervisory and administrative grades and (b) industrial grades; and in each category, how many staff are employed in (i) planting and maintenance, (ii) harvesting, (iii) nursery work, (iv) research, survey and environmental work and (v) forest work.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information, which is based on average figures, is as follows:

  Year

  Supervisory and administrative grades

  Industrial grades

  1985

  34

  149

  1986

  33

  144

  1987

  33

  136

  The above figures do not include directly employed private contractors; the number of such contractors at 31 March 1987 was 22.

  Most staff are employed on a range of duties in the course of a year. It is not practicable, therefore, to break down the total numbers of staff employed into the listed areas of work.

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total area of Forestry Commission land in Kielder Forest district in each of the years 1985 to 1987; and what was the area of(a) land under trees, (b) unplanted land, (c) land planted and(d) land harvested, in each of those years.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information is set out in the table:

  Total Area of Land (hectares)

  Land under Trees (hectares)

  Unplanted Land (hectares)

  11985

  50,675

  40,180

  10,495

  11986

  50,671

  40,180

  10,491

  11987

  50,369

  40,177

  10,186

  Planting (hectares)

  New planting

  Restocking

  Timber Production 000 m3 2

  11985

  4

  393

  135

  11986

  —

  313

  160

  11987

  6

  513

  174

  1 Year (at 31 March)

  2 Timber production is measured by volume and not in terms of area.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Exports
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list for each year since 1979, the total tonnage and value of exports of(a) wheat, (b) barley, (c) oats, (d) oilseed rape and(e) the total tonnage and value for all four commodities.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The data requested are set out in the table.
  441

  Exports of Wheat, Barley, Oats and Rape (including Colza Seed) 1979–87

  Wheat

  Barley

  Oats

  Rape and Colza seed

  Total

  Quantity

  Value

  Quantity

  Value

  Quantity

  Value

  Quantity

  Value

  Quantity

  Value

  1979

  134

  16,353

  830

  76,683

  6

  815

  2

  552

  972

  94,403

  1980

  1,055

  11,596

  1,638

  160,221

  2

  370

  186

  2,695

  272,373

  1981

  1,511

  168,121

  3,127

  305,785

  2

  341

  1

  393

  4,641

  474,640

  1982

  2,354

  278,051

  2,302

  250,976

  5

  672

  14

  3,958

  4,675

  533,657

  1983

  1,400

  175,476

  2,523

  288,252

  2

  267

  106

  33,980

  4,031

  497,975

  1984

  2,215

  264,516

  3,868

  444,396

  1

  110

  166

  49,658

  6,250

  758,680

  1985

  1,890

  218,190

  3,014

  319,652

  71

  294

  86,877

  5,198

  624,790

  1986

  3,987

  452,556

  4,119

  426,172

  1

  174

  496

  149,915

  8,603

  1,028,817

  1987

  24,122

  312,354

  3,088

  207,102

  9

  1,405

  296

  80,988

  7,514

  601,849

  Quantity='000 tonnes.

  Value = £000

  1 000 Rape and Colza Seed are not separately distinguished.

  2 Provisional estimates.

  Source: HM Customs and Excise.

  Oils and Fats
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the percentage change in the United Kingdom consumption per head of butter and other edible oils and fats, respectively, since 1972.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Estimates based on the national food survey data indicate that household consumption per head of butter in the United Kingdom fell by 55 per cent. between 1972 and 1987. Over the same period per capita consumption of edible oils and fats increased by 25 per cent.

  Public Analyst Service
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy towards the funding of the public analyst service, with particular reference to the relative priority to be accorded to laboratory tests performed by the public analysts on behalf of local authority trading standards officers, environmental health officers and other inspectors operating in the field of consumer protection; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Local authorities are responsible for determining their own priorities for the enforcement of consumer protection legislation. Under the Food Act 1984, each food and drugs authority has to appoint a public analyst, but it is not the policy of this Government to interfere with the funding arrangements between an authority and its public analyst nor with the authority's decisions on the relative importance of the services to be carried out by the public analyst.

  Price Increases
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the annual average percentage increase in(a) agricultural produce, (b) food and (c) general prices in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The average annual percentage increases were as follows:

  Agricultural Producer Prices

  Food Prices

  General Prices

  1979

  10·2

  12·0

  13·4

  1980

  5·4

  12·1

  18·0

  1981

  10·9

  8·4

  11·9

  1982

  7·8

  7·9

  8·6

  442

  Agricultural Producer Prices

  Food Prices

  General Prices

  1983

  5·2

  3·2

  4·7

  1984

  0·2

  5·6

  5·0

  1985

  -1·6

  3·1

  6·1

  1986

  1·3

  3·3

  3·4

  1987

  1·8

  3·1

  4·2

  1988 (January)

  1·0

  2·9

  3·3

  Source:

  1 Index of Producer Prices of Agricultural Products, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  2 Food component of Retail Price Index, Department of Employment.

  3 All items, Retail Price Index, Department of Employment.

  Forestry
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give details of the outstanding forestry planting grant and felling licence applications referred to him by the Forestry Commission; when each was so referred; when he expects to be able to announce a decision for each one; and for which cases further consultation is still being considered.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 10 March 1988]:My right hon. Friend is considering one forestry planting grant application to which objections have been raised. This application relates to 60 hectares of land at West Stotley, Northumberland and was referred to him on 25 November 1987. He has consulted his right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Environment, and intends to advise the forestry commissioners of his views shortly.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he proposes to review the prescriptions for existing environmentally sensitive areas; and if he will consider extending to them the management options available in new environmentally sensitive areas.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 8 March 1988]: I have no plans to review prescriptions for environmentally sensitive areas before the effects of existing ones have been assessed. The additions to the range of options available in new ESAs were designed specifically for those areas and it would not be appropriate to extend them.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will clarify the procedures
  443
  adopted by monotoring steering committees operating in each environmentally sensitive area; and if he will give details of the extent to which representatives from bodies outside his Ministry are involved in monitoring programmes.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 8 March 1988]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 7 March at column 15.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether all applications from farmers in the first tranche of environmentally sensitive areas have now been processed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 8 March 1988]: In 1987, a total of 1,421 applications to participate in ESA agreements in England were received, of which all but 12 have been fully processed.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will provide details of staffing allocations for each environmentally sensitive area; and when he expects all farms presently involved in the programme to have received visits from project officers.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 8 March 1988]: Each environmentally sensitive area has an appointed project officer from ADAS together with an assistant. They are supported by other staff from my Department as necessary. Most holdings are visited before an agreement is concluded and all will be visited at least once during the period of the agreement.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements he is making to enforce management prescriptions on relevant farms within environmentally sensitive areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 8 March 1988]: A sample of holdings will be visited each year to ensure that management prescriptions are being complied with. Every holding with a management prescription will be visited at least once during the period of the agreement. Provisions as to breach of agreements are set out in the designation orders.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how he proposes to secure the cooperation where relevant of water authorities and internal drainage boards in furthering environmentally sensitive area objectives.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 8 March 1988]: My Department, jointly with the Department of the Environment, will shortly be issuing revised conservation guidelines for drainage authorities. These guidelines cover the responsibilities of water authorities and internal drainage boards for environmental protection and specifically refer to ESA objectives.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  International Fund for Ireland
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland under what circumstances the International Fund for Ireland seeks guidance from his Department on decisions relating to the disbursement of funds; and on how many occasions this occurred in 1987.
  444
  Mr. Viggers
  The International Fund for Ireland is administered by an independent board appointed by the United Kingdom and Irish Governments. All questions pertaining to the disbursement of funds are a matter for the board and should be addressed to the chairman. Article 3 of the agreement establishing the fund provides that"disbursements shall be consistent with the economic and social policies and priorities of the respective Governments"
  To assist in its work, the board has an advisory committee, comprised of senior civil servants of the two Governments, which meets regularly. In addition, the board has delegated to specialist agencies, including some Government Departments, responsibility for the ad-ministration of its various programmes within criteria and operating arrangements specified by the board. The activities of administering agencies in respect of their responsibilities for fund programmes are closely monitored by the board

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the economic and social policies and priorities that guide decisions on disbursements from the International Fund for Ireland.

  Mr. Viggers
  The International Fund for Ireland is administered by an independent board appointed by the United Kingdom and Irish Governments. All questions pertaining to the disbursements of funds are a matter for the board and should be addressed to the chairman. However, article 3 of the Agreement to establish the International Fund for Ireland provides that"The need to maximise the economic and social benefits of the Fund in Ireland shall be an overriding consideration in making disbursements from its resources and these disbursements shall be consistent with the economic and social policies and priorities of the respective Governments".

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table all those projects in Northern Ireland in receipt of funds from the International Fund for Ireland.

  Mr. Viggers
  The International Fund for Ireland is administered by an independent board appointed by the United Kingdom and Irish Governments. All questions pertaining to projects in rejects of funds from the International Fund for Ireland are a matter for the board and should be addressed to the chairman.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the decision by the International Fund for Ireland to refuse support to Conway Community Development Enterprise Ltd., and the criteria used to reach this decision.

  Mr. Viggers
  Article 3 of the agreement to establish the International Fund for Ireland provides that disbursements from the fund"shall be consistent with the economic and social policies and priorities of the respective Governments".

  The United Kingdom Government have advised the board of the International Fund for Ireland that provision of support to Conway Community Development Enterprise Ltd. in respect of activities at the Conway street mill is not consistent with the Government's economic and social policies and priorities.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the estimated percentage of the total arms shipped illegally into Ireland which have been recovered to date.

  Mr. Tom King
  Since the beginning of 1987, 807 firearms, some 18,000 lbs of explosives, including almost 900 lbs of commercial explosives, and nearly 180,500 rounds of ammunition have been recovered by the security forces on both sides of the border. It is not possible to determine precisely what proportion this represents of the firearms and explosives which have been shipped illegally to terrorists.

  Persons serving indeterminate sentences released on licence since 1980

  Life

  Secretary of State's Pleasure

  Year

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Others

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Others

  Totals

  1980

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1981

  1

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  4

  1982

  1

  —

  5

  —

  —

  1

  7

  1983

  1

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  4

  1984

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1985

  2

  2

  —

  5

  2

  —

  11

  1986

  1

  2

  11+(1)

  5

  5

  —

  114+(1)

  1987

  8

  7

  2

  4

  7

  —

  28

  1988 (to date)

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  3

  Totals

  17

  13

  111+(1)

  18

  15

  1

  175+(1)

  Average years served

  11·89

  11·25

  9·86

  10·56

  10·47

  10·33

  1 One person originally released on licence in August 1977 had his licence revoked in February 1983: he was subsequently re-released on licence in October 1986.

  Note: The classifications in the table are based on the believed paramilitary affiliations of the prisoners at the time of their arrest.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prisoners there are(a) presently serving life sentences and (b) detained under his pleasure in Northern Ireland prisons; how many in each category have been given release dates; and how many in each category are classified as (i) Loyalist, (ii) Republican and (iii) undifferentiated.

  Mr. Tom King
  The information is as follows:

  Persons Serving Indeterminate Sentences as at 4 March 1988 Life

  Number

  Loyalist

  218

  Republican

  160

  Others

  32

  Total

  410

  Secretary of State's Pleasure

  Loyalist

  7

  Republican

  24

  Others

  3

  Total

  34

  Overall Total

  444

  Prisoners (Statistics)
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many (i) life sentence prisoners and (ii) prisoners detained under his pleasure have been released on licence in each year since 1980; how many in each category were(a) Loyalist, (b) Republican and (c) undifferentiated; and what was the average length of service in each of these classifications.

  Mr. Tom King
  The information is as follows:

  Those included in the above figures who have been given provisional release dates

  Number

  Loyalist

  12

  Republican

  5

  Others

  3

  Total

  20

  Secretary of Suite's Pleasure

  Loyalist

  3

  Republican

  3

  Others

  —

  Total

  6

  Overall Total

  26

  Note: the classifications in the table are based on the believed paramilitary affiliations of the prisoners at the time of their arrest.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many (i) life sentence prisoners and (ii) prisoners detained under his pleasure have been given release dates in each year since the setting up of the Northern Ireland life sentence review board; and how many in each category have been classified as(a) Loyalist, (b) Republican and (c) undifferentiated.

  Mr. Tom King
  The information is as follows:
  447

  Persons serving indeterminate sentences given release dates since the present life sentence review

  Life

  Secretary of State's pleasure

  Year

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Others

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Others

  Totals

  1983

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1984

  1

  —

  —

  3

  3

  —

  7

  1985

  1

  1

  1

  7

  5

  —

  15

  1986

  7

  8

  2

  6

  6

  —

  29

  1987

  5

  6

  4

  2

  3

  —

  20

  1988 (to date)

  9

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  11

  Totals

  23

  15

  7

  19

  18

  —

  82

  Notes:

  1 This table does not include one prisoner released on medical grounds in 1984.

  2 The classifications in the table are based on the believed paramilitary affiliations of the prisoners at the time of their arrest.

  Mr. Brendan Burns and Mr. Brendan Moley
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will call for a report from the Chief Constable as to those matters about which the Royal Ulster Constabulary wished to interview the late Brendan Burns;

  (2) if he will call for a report from the Chief Constable as to those matters about which the Royal Ulster Constabulary wished to interview the late Brendan Moley.

  Mr. Tom King
  [holding answer 7 March 1988]: No.

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the changes in the level of unemployment in the London borough of Barnet over the last two years.

  Mr. Lee
  The number of unemployed claimants in the Barnet local authority area at the latest date available and in the previous two years was as follows:

  January 1986

  11,256

  January 1987

  10,821

  January 1988

  8,685

  The comparison is affected by the changes in the compilation of the unemployment statistics in March 1986.

  Mr. Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total number of people benefiting from special employment and training measures at the latest available date in the Swindon area; and if he will list the measures and the numbers involved in each case.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The number of people participating in special employment and training measures funded by my Department including Manpower Services Commission programmes and schemes in the Swindon area on 31 January 1988 was as follows:

  Number

  YTS

  1,160

  Community Programme

  953

  New Job Training Scheme

  30

  Voluntary Projects Programme

  11

  Other adult training

  1524

  Total

  2,678

  448
  1 Figures for all other adult training schemes are not available. The figure refers to the number of people who have entered some such schemes since 1 April 1987.

  National Dock Labour Scheme
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many permanent registered dock workers in the London labour board area in each year from 1980 to 1986 have been dismissed by their employer for an offence justifying summary dismissal under the disciplinary provisions of the dock labour scheme; and how many of these men have been reinstated by order of the local dock labour board and appeal tribunals.

  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many permanent registered dock workers in the Hull and Goole dock labour board area in each year from 1980 to 1986 have been dismissed by their employer for an offence justifying summary dismissal under the disciplinary provisions of the dock labour scheme; and how many of these men have been reinstated by order of the local dock labour board and appeal tribunals.

  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many permanent registered dock workers in the Tyne and Wear local dock labour board area in each year from 1980 to 1986 have been dismissed by their employer for an offence justifying summary dismissal under the disciplinary provisions of the dock labour scheme; and how many of these men have been reinstated by order of the local dock labour hoard and appeal tribunals.

  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many permanent registered dock workers in the Grimsby and Immingham local dock labour board area in each year from 1980 to 1986 have been dismissed by their employer for an offence justifying dismissal under the disciplinary provisions of the dock labour scheme; and how many of these men have been reinstated by order of the local dock labour board and appeal tribunals.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many permanent registered dock workers in the West Scotland local dock labour board area in each year from 1980 to 1986 have been dismissed by their employer for an offence justifying summary dismissal under the disciplinary provisions of the dock labour scheme; and how many of these men have been reinstated by order of the local dock labour board and appeal tribunals.
  449
  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is maintained at the office of the local dock labour board for the area concerned. I have asked the board to assemble the information and will reply in substance as soon as it becomes available.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had with unions representing staff at Department of Employment offices in London concerning staff levels, conditions and transfers since January.

  Mr. Lee
  There have been a number of extensive discussions between senior officials in the employment service and CPSA union officials since some CPSA members started strike action in Camden towards the end of December 1987. On 9 March there was a meeting between the general secretary and deputy general secretary of the CPSA and senior officials in my Department and it was agreed a further meeting should take place.

  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) whether, in the light of the Equal Opportunities Commission's recent report, he will consider seeking to repeal the two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal;

  (2) whether, in the light of the Equal Opportunities Commission's recent report, he will consider introducing legislation to prevent employers from imposing qualifying periods of employment for a woman to have the right to return to work after pregnancy.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Equal Opportunities Commission's proposals were published on 8 March. I shall be giving them careful consideration.

  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on the number of long-term unemployed people in(a) Glasgow, (b) Scotland and (c) the United Kingdom, who have difficulty returning to employment because of problems of literacy, numeracy or language.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 3 March 1988]: The information is not available in the form requested.

  Information collected in January 1987 through the restart programme revealed that in Scotland 6 per cent. of those unemployed for six months or more seen by restart counsellors and 11·9 per cent. of those on restart courses had problems with literacy and numeracy. Those problems may have contributed to their difficulty in returning to employment. Comparable figures for Great Britain are 10·3 per cent. of those counselled and 25·2 per cent. of those on restart courses. Separate figures are not available for the Glasgow area. The restart survey also suggested that language problems were experienced by unemployed people, particularly in large conurbations.

WALES

  Surgical Operations (Cancellations)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what information he has as to the number and 450
  percentage of operations in Wales which are cancelled clue to the absence of the consultant surgeon; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what estimate he has as to the number and percentage of operations and out-patient treatments which are cancelled in each Welsh health district on 1 March as a result of the trade unions' day of action.

  Mr. Grist
  This information is not available centrally.

  Milford Haven Enterprise Zone
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will consider extensions to the Milford Haven enterprise zone to include areas adjacent to the zone including Front street, Pembroke Dock.

  Mr. Grist
  Any application to extend the zone will need to be considered against the background to the Government's future policy for enterprise zones, as indicated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in his written answer of 17 December 1987 to the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), at columns 618–19.

  Ysgol Morgan Llwyd, Clwyd
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will visit Ysgol Morgan Llwyd, Clwyd, to meet the board of school governors, parents and staff to discuss the need for extra financial resources to enable school visits, related to the new General Certificate of Secondary Education examinations, to be undertaken; and if he will make a statement on progress in implementing the General Certificate of Secondary Education scheme.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  I have no plans to visit the school. The distribution of general certificate of secondary education funding to each secondary school is a matter for Clwyd local education authority to determine in the light of local circumstances.

  Evidence from Her Majesty's inspectorate in an interim report on the general certificate of secondary education published on 8 March shows that encouraging progress is being made in introducing the examination in Wales.

  St. Tydfil's Hospital, Merthyr
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when his Department was first notified of the possibility of the closure of the high dependency unit at St. Tydfil's hospital, Merthyr; when it was told that a decision to close it had been taken; and how many representations he has received about the closure.

  Mr. Grist
  The Department was first notified of the possibility of the temporary closure of the high dependency unit at St. Tydfil's hospital in December 1987 and was told in January that a decision to close had been taken. Since the closure is temporary, there was no requirement on the authority to obtain my approval. I have received three representations about the closure.

  Derelict Land Clearance
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what role has been played by Government Departments other than the Welsh Office in derelict land clearance in the south Wales valleys since 1969; and when.
  451
  Mr. Peter Walker
  I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply given to him on 8 March 1988 by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, at columns 120–21.

ENERGY

  Electricity Industry
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the number of people employed in the public sector of the electricity supply industry.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The average number of people employed in the electricity supply industry in England and Wales during 1986–87 (the latest year for which figures are available) was 132,000.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if, during preparation of the proposals for privatisation of the electricity supply industry, any estimate has been made by his Department of (i) the present value of Connah's Quay power station and (ii) the cost of refurbishing it to produce power while meeting current environmental standards; and if he will make a statement on the policy he will require the Central Electricity Generating Board to adopt towards the disposal of redundant power stations prior to privatisation.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The value of individual power stations and the cost of refurbishment are matters for the CEGB.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the number of full-time employees in the coal industry; and what proportion of the number so employed eight years ago this represents.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The number of full-time employees in the coal industry at the end of February 1988 was 123,822, which is 43 per cent. of the corresponding number eight years previously.

  Dounreay
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many inspection person days Euratom has spent in each year since May 1979 at the Dounreay nuclear power development establishment.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Euratom inspectors visit Dounreay very frequently. Precise details could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority at Dounreay gives to Euratom and International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors on the content of nuclear materials sent from Dounreay to Sellafield by ship and from Dounreay and Sellafield and elsewhere by plane.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Site operators inform Euratom and the International Atomic Energy Agency of all movements of civil nuclear materials.
  452
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how often Euratom safeguards inspectors forward safeguards reports on Dounreay to the Euratom headquarters.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Euratom safeguards inspectors report for each inspection made at Dounreay.

  Radioactive Tritium Gas
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what quantities of radioactive tritium gas have been licensed for handling processing at the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, Harwell facility in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No licence is required for the storage and use of tritium at UKAEA sites. I understand that very small quantities of tritium gas are stored at the Harwell laboratory for civil research purposes.

  Power Companies (Plutonium)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has given any consideration to introducing legislation to require the proposed private power companies owning plutonium to make this available for defence uses.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No.

  BNFL (Draft Contracts)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if any draft contracts between British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. and OKG Aktiebolag in Sweden have been notified to the European Commission under article 103 of the Euratom treaty.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I am advised that these contracts do not fall within the scope of article 103 of the Euratom treaty. They were notified under article 105 upon the United Kingdom's accession to the European Communities in January 1973.

  Nuclear Waste
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if any decision has been taken to substitute a radiologically equivalent amount of higher level wastes for lower level wastes when returning such materials from British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. storage after reprocessing to originators of nuclear wastes in Sweden.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. has not entered into any contracts for the reprocessing of material from Sweden since 1976. The arrangements for the disposal of wastes arising from pre-1976 contracts are as set out in the reply given by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 2 May 1986 at columns 502–3.

  Nuclear Reactors
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what representations he has received concerning the general trend towards the development of smaller nuclear reactors; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what information he has on the design features of smaller nuclear reactors with low power densities and their implications for safety; and if he will make a statement.
  453
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My Department, with the advice and assistance of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, keeps abreast of developments in nuclear reactor technology. Safety is fundamental to the design, construction and operations of all nuclear reactors in the United Kingdom.

ENVIRONMENT

  Disabled People (Access)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment under what powers a local authority may act in offering financial assistance to the owner of a sports club to make it accessible to disabled people.

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

  Crown Suppliers
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of the privatisation of the Crown Suppliers.

  Mr. Chope
  The Government's intention to invite bids for those of the Crown Suppliers' businesses, which can be undertaken on a normal commercial basis, was announced on 3 February. We expect soon to appoint a financial institution to advise on the best method of effecting the sale.

  Rents
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the effect on rent levels as a consequence of the implementation of the Housing Bill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Any estimates of the effect of our deregulation proposals on rent levels would at this stage be purely speculative.

  Drinking Water (Nitrate Levels)
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what cases there have been of drinking water in the Yorkshire and Humberside region containing nitrate in excess of the EEC recommended levels in the past 12 months.

  Mr. Moynihan
  During 1987 one supply provided by Yorkshire water authority and four supplies provided by Anglian water authority exceeded the EC drinking water directive standard for nitrate of 50 milligrams per litre. Two other Yorkshire water authority supplies exceeded the directive standard for a few days. However, none of these supplies contained nitrate at a level which was considered to be a public health risk.

  Richmond House
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the access provisions for disabled people at the new Department of Health and Social Security building, Richmond house.

  Mr. Chope
  Disabled people may enter Richmond house by a level corridor from the underground car park to the main bank of lifts. Alternatively, they may use a special wheelchair entrance adjacent to the main entrance in Whitehall.
  454
  Further measures are in hand to provide access through the main entrance and foyer.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning the replacement of rates by the community charge in respect of self-catering accommodation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  We have received representations from and on behalf of the self-catering industry about the treatment of self-catering accommodation in the new local government finance system. It is our intention that holiday-let self-catering accommodation which includes services and facilities similar to those provided in a hotel should remain in rating. We are considering further the precise boundary between the domestic and non-domestic sectors in the light of the representations that have been made.

  Housing (Nottingham)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 7 March about housing in Nottingham, what was the error to which he refers.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  There was an error in the appointment by my Department of the estimate of private sector dwellings in disrepair between authorities in the East Midlands region. As I have previously explained, this had no bearing on the Housing Corporation's allocations for 1988–89. Corrected figures have been passed to the Housing Corporation and incorporated in its final housing needs index which will be one of the factors to be taken into account in drawing up future plans for investment in housing association schemes.

  Unused Sites (Wiltshire)
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all the unused sites owned by public bodies within the district of North Wiltshire, together with their owners and sizes in hectares, as detailed in the Land Register.

  Mr. Trippier
  The information requested for unused and underused sites entered on the land register for the district of north Wiltshire is set out below:

  Owner and site address

  Area in hectares

  North Wiltshire district council

  Reids Piece, Purton

  1·10

  Redhill, Broad Town

  1·07

  Harris road, Ashton Keynes

  1·50

  Cemetery field, London road, Chippenham

  2·29

  Thamesdown borough council

  Land at Purton and Cricklade, Wiltshire forming part of the site of the former railway line from Swindon to Cricklade

  9·72

  Wiltshire county council

  Rylands, Wootton Bassett

  2·30

  Noremarsh, Wootton Bassett

  0·49

  Knockdown road, Sherston

  0·81

  Lower Beversbrook farm, Oxford road, Calne

  6·34

  The Green, Christian Malford

  4·49

  455

  Owner and site address

  Area in hectares

  Cricketts lane, Chippenham

  1 95

  British Railways Board

  Adjoining former goods yard, Hullavington

  1·52

  North side of Bristol to Paddington main line, Thingley

  1·01

  Badminton—adjoining Chippenham to Malmesbury road—approximately 1¼ miles east of former station

  4·45

  Adjoining former station, Hullavington

  1·52

  Former goods yard, Corsham

  1·01

  Former goods yard, Dauntsey

  1 21

  Bath district health authority

  Land at Malmesbury Hospital

  1·45

  Land at Chippenham Hospital

  0·51

  Land at St. Andrew's Hospital, Chippenham

  0·92

  Land at Greenways hospital, Chippenham

  3·76

  Rates
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the implications for rates of the judgment delivered on 11 February in the House of Lords in the case of Clement v. Addis Ltd.

  Mr. Howard
  My right hon. Friend did so on 9 March.

  Rushmoor (Redevelopment)
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the redevelopment package for Totland Close, Prospect Estate, Rushmoor, will be allowed capital expenditure within Rushmoor's housing investment programme allocation; and if it will be subject to the current programme for 1988–89 or subsequent years.

  Mrs Roe
  Rushmoor borough council has the sole responsibility for decisions on local housing matters of this kind.

  Government Offices and Staff (Wales)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of Government offices and the number of staff employed in them, excluding military personnel in (i) Pembrokeshire, (ii) Dyfed and (iii) Wales.

  Mr. Chope
  The numbers and total areas of Government offices in the locations to which the hon. Gentleman refers are as follows:

  Numbers

  Area

  (a) Pembrokeshire

  22

  (8,393m2)

  (b) Dyfed

  67

  (31,732m2)

  (c) Wales

  386

  (414,000m2)

  These figures do not include military establishments and it will be appreciated that offices vary significantly in size and can be occupied by more than one Government Department.

  Records of staff numbers in these areas are not held centrally either by the Welsh Office or PSA and to obtain them would entail disproportionate costs.

  Council House Sales (Delays)
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, pursuant to his answer of 20 456
  January, Official Report, column 753, he has received any further information as to the reasons for the continued delay in the purchase by Mr. W. B. Hammond of his home at 12b Mount Adon Park, London SE22, from Southwark council.

  Mrs. Roe
  The Department is continuing to press the council to explain the reasons for the delay in this case. I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as the information is available.

  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what information he has as to the reasons for the delay in the purchase by Mr. and Mrs. Harman of their home at 10 William Margrie Close, London SE15, from Southwark council;

  (2) what information he has as to the reasons for the delay in the purchase by Mr. and Mrs. Mico of their home at 185 Brenchley Gardens, London SE23, from Southwark council;

  (3) what information he has as to the reasons for the delay in the purchase by Mrs. Cheryl Sanders of her home at 353 Friern Road, London SE22, from Southwark council;

  (4) what information he has as to the reasons for the delay in the purchase by Mrs. Grace Davies of her home at 36 Avondale Rise, London SE15, from Southwark council.

  Mrs. Roe
  The Department is taking up with the council the cases mentioned.

  Planning (Public Inquiries)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to alter the public inquiry system into major planning schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Government's response to the fifth report, Session 1985–86, from the Environment Committee, "Planning: Appeals, Call-in and Major Public Inquiries: CM43", contained proposals for revised rules of procedure at public inquiries, and for a new code of practice on preparing for major inquiries. Following consultations with the Council on Tribunals and a wide range of other organisations, we expect shortly to submit the revised rules to the Lord Chancellor for making, and to bring the new code of practice into operation.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by London borough the total number of planning applications(a) called in by him or (b) referred to him on appeal by the applicant and the number of cases where he (i) upheld the local planning decision and (ii) varied it; and if he will also list the comparable figures for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The information requested is in tables A and B below; 1984 is the earliest year from which this information is readily available.

  Planning applications called in by the Secretary of State

  Table A

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  City of London

  —

  1

  4

  —

  Barking and Dagenham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Barnet

  —

  1

  —

  —

  457

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Bexley

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Brent

  —

  1

  2

  1

  Bromley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Camden

  1

  5

  2

  2

  Croydon

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Ealing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Enfield

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Greenwich

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hackney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Haringey

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Harrow

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Havering

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hillingdon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hounslow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Islington

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kensington and Chelsea

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Kingston upon Thames

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lambeth

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Lewisham

  —

  —

  8

  1

  Merton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Newham

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Redbridge

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Richmond upon Thames

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Southwark

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sutton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tower Hamlets

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Waltham Forest

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wandsworth

  —

  —

  —

  —

  City of Westminster

  2

  —

  —

  1

  Table B

  Planning appeals 1984

  Borough

  Recorded

  Dismissed

  Allowed

  City of London

  12

  6

  2

  Barking and Dagenham

  10

  4

  2

  Barnet

  74

  38

  16

  Bexley

  49

  29

  14

  Brent

  47

  11

  15

  Bromley

  196

  85

  39

  Camden

  139

  55

  44

  Croydon

  85

  39

  18

  Ealing

  65

  31

  16

  Enfield

  87

  47

  28

  Greenwich

  54

  12

  14

  Hackney

  25

  9

  9

  Hammersmith

  71

  15

  24

  Haringey

  39

  17

  7

  Harrow

  59

  22

  20

  Havering

  58

  25

  17

  Hillingdon

  60

  25

  15

  Hounslow

  78

  22

  12

  Islington

  43

  14

  15

  Kensington and Chelsea

  79

  34

  13

  Kingston upon Thames

  74

  23

  29

  Lambeth

  40

  12

  9

  Lewisham

  16

  2

  4

  Merton

  38

  16

  6

  Newham

  44

  8

  7

  Redbridge

  75

  39

  38

  Richmond upon Thames

  70

  28

  17

  Southwark

  46

  17

  15

  Sutton

  43

  16

  12

  Tower Hamlets

  20

  4

  7

  Waltham Forest

  34

  10

  8

  Wandsworth

  40

  14

  10

  City of Westminster

  122

  45

  19

  Table B

  Planning appeals 1985

  Borough

  Recorded

  Dismissed

  Allowed

  City of London

  5

  4

  —

  Barking and Dagenham

  12

  8

  4

  458

  Borough

  Recorded

  Dismissed

  Allowed

  Barnet

  91

  40

  28

  Bexley

  36

  22

  13

  Brent

  50

  25

  19

  Bromley

  182

  120

  78

  Camden

  133

  38

  59

  Croydon

  116

  52

  34

  Ealing

  58

  32

  30

  Enfield

  80

  47

  27

  Greenwich

  62

  21

  44

  Hackney

  35

  18

  8

  Hammersmith

  65

  30

  32

  Haringey

  47

  26

  17

  Harrow

  76

  27

  23

  Havering

  49

  33

  17

  Hillingdon

  81

  35

  29

  Hounslow

  122

  53

  45

  Islington

  46

  23

  14

  Kensington and Chelsea

  107

  42

  26

  Kingston upon Thames

  74

  36

  30

  Lambeth

  36

  13

  15

  Lewisham

  20

  10

  6

  Merton

  57

  22

  16

  Newham

  37

  21

  21

  Redbridge

  79

  24

  32

  Richmond upon Thames

  85

  45

  27

  Southwark

  73

  13

  26

  Sutton

  43

  19

  23

  Tower Hamlets

  17

  6

  7

  Waltham Forest

  40

  19

  11

  Wandsworth

  47

  22

  18

  City of Westminster

  164

  54

  49

  Table B

  Planning Appeals 1986

  Borough

  Recorded

  Dismissed

  Allowed

  City of London

  6

  4

  2

  Barking and Dagenham

  9

  3

  4

  Barnet

  111

  29

  27

  Bexley

  50

  13

  20

  Brent

  64

  15

  20

  Bromley

  254

  101

  88

  Camden

  205

  46

  51

  Croydon

  114

  48

  45

  Ealing

  87

  29

  21

  Enfield

  111

  53

  35

  Greenwich

  92

  16

  32

  Hackney

  21

  7

  9

  Hammersmith

  85

  27

  16

  Haringey

  73

  20

  18

  Harrow

  120

  49

  29

  Havering

  66

  23

  19

  Hillingdon

  73

  25

  26

  Hounslow

  123

  44

  51

  Islington

  51

  18

  14

  Kensington and Chelsea

  102

  46

  40

  Kingston upon Thames

  72

  29

  34

  Lambeth

  58

  11

  13

  Lewisham

  22

  9

  5

  Merton

  48

  30

  21

  Newham

  39

  13

  21

  Redbridge

  78

  33

  33

  Richmond upon Thames

  86

  30

  37

  Southwark

  81

  26

  19

  Sutton

  58

  17

  12

  Tower Hamlets

  18

  7

  9

  Waltham Forest

  57

  23

  16

  Wandsworth

  47

  19

  13

  City of Westminster

  181

  41

  53

  Table B

  Planning appeals 1987

  Borough

  Received

  Dismissed

  Allowed

  City of London

  13

  2

  1

  Barking and Dagenham

  10

  5

  4

  459

  Borough

  Received

  Dismissed

  Allowed

  Barnet

  186

  71

  46

  Bexley

  55

  29

  22

  Brent

  80

  32

  38

  Bromley

  330

  117

  89

  Camden

  210

  65

  78

  Croyden

  133

  52

  52

  Ealing

  102

  38

  49

  Enfield

  141

  67

  40

  Greenwich

  98

  31

  49

  Hackney

  49

  20

  11

  Hammersmith

  135

  45

  49

  Haringey

  88

  42

  23

  Harrow

  115

  70

  37

  Havering

  57

  29

  27

  Hillingdon

  107

  48

  31

  Hounslow

  143

  70

  37

  Islington

  98

  24

  19

  Kensington and Chelsea

  102

  57

  42

  Kingston upon Thames

  83

  37

  32

  Lambeth

  67

  28

  39

  Lewisham

  36

  15

  11

  Merton

  42

  24

  7

  Newham

  42

  15

  8

  Redbridge

  68

  32

  31

  Richmond upon Thames

  115

  55

  31

  Southwark

  62

  20

  45

  Sutton

  52

  31

  26

  Tower Hamlets

  43

  9

  6

  Waltham Forest

  68

  31

  20

  Wansworth

  65

  33

  13

  City of Westminster

  199

  49

  55

  Local Authorities (Debt)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report the amount of debt accumulated by each local authority in England (a) in total and (b) per head of the population, in each local authority area.

  Mr. Chope
  A copy of the table showing the information requested has been laid in the Library of the House. The figures relate to 31 March 1987 and are based on those published in the CIPFA publication "Capital Expenditure and Debt Financing Statistics".

  Birtenshaw Farm, Bolton
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what recent representations he has received against development at Birtenshaw farm, Bolton; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when he will be announcing his decision about the Ashworth covenant at Birtenshaw farm.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Since the turn of the year, 29 local residents have made representations to the Department seeking a decision on the application to remove the restriction contained in the covenant. The Department has sought and is awaiting information and views from Bolton borough council on the status of the covenant. When they are received, I hope we shall be able to proceed to a decision.

  Land
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will identify by previous owner the land recorded on the land register system which has been sold or brought into use since 1981.
  460
  Mr. Trippier
  Detailed information for the period up to 31 December 1983 is not available.

  Information from 1 January 1984, in the form of a schedule of owners showing the amount of land each has sold or brought into use and detailing some 39,000 acres of land, will be available shortly when 1 will place it in the Library of the House.

  Public Sites
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the public sites disposed of following the exercise of statutory powers by Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Trippier
  The following sites, formerly owned by public bodies, have been disposed of following the exercise by my right hon. Friend of his powers under section 98 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980:

  Alfred street/Oak Bank, Harpurhey, Manchester

  Barmpton lane, Darlington

  Boothroyden "A" site, Blackley, Manchester

  Doxford Park way, Sunderland

  Fiddlers Green lane, Cheltenham

  Freely lane, Bramham, Leeds

  Hall Farm road, Doxford Park, Sunderland

  Keswick lane, Bardsey, Leeds

  Kirkfield lane, Thorner, Leeds

  Land at Congleton road, Macclesfield

  Land between Nos. 2 and 4 Meadow way, Offley, Hertfordshire

  Land at Surbiton Lagoon, Surbiton

  Ling way, Coltishall, Broadland

  Lyndon road, Bramham, Leeds

  Old Market street/Grant street, Blackley, Manchester

  Oozewood road, Royton, Oldham

  Pleckgate road, Blackburn

  Primrose lane, Boston Spa, Leeds

  261–281 Regents Park road, London, N3

  Richmond road/Dawsons corner, Pudsey

  Roewood lane, Higher Hurdsfield, Macclesfield

  South Park drive, Blackpool

  South street/Parkhouse street/Wood street, Openshaw, Manchester

  Stocks Park drive, Horwich

  Thames road north, Barking

  The Grange, Southgate circus, Enfield

  Whiteley croft, Otley

  Willow avenue, Clifford, Leeds

  Urban Development Grant
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the location of the £580 million of investment arising from urban development grant and urban regeneration grant.

  Mr. Trippier
  The private sector investment that will be attracted by urban development and urban regeneration grant now stands at £592 million. The regional breakdown is as follows:

  Region

  1 £ million

  East Midlands

  44

  London

  95

  Merseyside

  52

  Northern

  79

  North West

  95

  South East

  1

  West Midlands

  181

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  45

  TOTAL

  592

  1 Private sector investment.

  461
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the location and distribution of the 28,50(1 jobs and 7,000 homes attributed by Her Majesty's Government to the urban development grant and urban regeneration grant.

  Mr. Trippier
  A regional breakdown of the jobs and homes attributed to approved urban development grants and urban regeneration grant schemes is as follows:

  Region

  Jobs

  Homes

  East Midlands

  1,990

  780

  London

  6,220

  90

  Merseyside

  3,040

  600

  Northern

  2,210

  1,860

  North West

  5,610

  490

  South East

  50

  0

  West Midlands

  8,490

  2,040

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,260

  1,420

  TOTAL

  28,870

  7,280

  Richmond Yard
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) which company undertook the valuation of the Crown premises at Richmond yard; and what was the cost to the Government of that valuation;

  (2) what estimate the Property Services Agency has made of the cost of undertaking the valuation of the Crown premises at Richmond yard by in-house staff;

  (3) why the valuation of the Crown property at Richmond yard was carried out by a private company.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 1 March 1988]: The valuation of the Crown premises at Richmond yard was undertaken by Messrs. Cluttons, chartered surveyors. The fee for the service was negotiated on a strictly commercial and therefore confidential basis. The decision to appoint a private sector valuer was made in view of the importance of establishing the true commercial rent for the property. No in-house assessment was made.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Hospital General Managers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to increase the degree of management control which hospital general managers have over doctors in hospitals.

  Mr. Newton
  No, but the resource management initiative is based on, and intended to assist, more effective co-operation between managers and clinicians.

  Drug Tenders
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what guidance is given to health authorities on the use of discount cash flow methods for assessing drug tenders.

  Mr. Newton
  A range of guidance has been issued to health authorities on investment and option appraisal. This guidance has incorporated relevant Treasury rules on Government accounting and covers both mandatory requirements and good practice—including the use of discounted cash flow methods. This technique would not generally be applicable to the assessment of drug tenders.
  462
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what guidance is given to health authorities on the costs of storage in evaluating tenders for drugs.

  Mr. Newton
  The Department commissioned a recent study by management consultants—MMM Consultancy Group Ltd. —which considered the options available to health authorities in dealing with their purchasing, distribution and storage of pharmaceuticals. The report subsequently circulated to health authorities carried recommendations relating to storage of drugs of high value and high throughput. Authorities are currently reviewing their arrangements for the purchasing and storage of pharmaceuticals in the light of these recommendations.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when the East Anglian regional health authority last invited tenders for the supply of drugs to the authority.

  Mr. Newton
  The regional health authority went out to tender in August 1987 for a distributive service for all product lines where the expenditure within the region was less than £5,000 per annum.

  Tenders for some pharmaceutical products where expenditure exceeds £5,000 per annum were issued in January 1988.

  Hospital Laboratory Service
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to reorganise the hospital laboratory service in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement on the level of services for the public and the remuneration structure and conditions of service for the staff.

  Mr. Newton
  We have no present plans to reorganise the hospital laboratory service. The remuneration structure and conditions of service for hospital laboratory staff are matters for the appropriate Whitley councils. I understand that the management side of the Professional Technical Staffs B Whitley Council, the body that deals with medical laboratory scientific officers, is to put proposals for a comprehensive grade restructuring to the staff side at a meeting on 19 April. In the longer term, consideration will also be given to decisions made in response to the Management Advisory Service's report on pathology services staffing which is currently under consideration by the National Health Service Management Board. Any proposed changes will pay full regard to the need to maintain a high standard of service for the public.

  Plans for Wales are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  National Haemoglobinopathy Card
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he is taking to ensure that screening and counselling services are accessible to all people at risk from inherited blood disorders when he introduces the national haemoglobinopathy card.

  Mrs. Currie
  The introduction of the national haemoglobinopathy card will not in any way change existing medical practices. The purpose of the card, to be introduced around April, is to ensure

  (i) appropriate treatment for those with the disease,

  463

  (ii) that people identified with the trait should receive the appropriate counselling,

  (iii) for those screened and found to be "normal", reassurance and avoidance of duplicate screening.

  Individuals identified as being "at risk" from inherited blood disorders are offered counselling as part of the existing process.

  Pensioners (Investment Income)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has on the trend in pensioners' investment income over the past 15 years.

  Mr. Scott
  The latest date for which information is available is 1985. Pensioners' weekly investment income, expressed in 1985 prices, rose on average from £11·20 in 1970 to £12·80 in 1985, a real terms increase of £1·60, or over 14 per cent. The upward trend has, however, not been constant.

  Occupational Pensions
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many retirement pensioners are in receipt of an occupational pension, and what is the average occupational pension.

  Mr. Scott
  In 1985, the latest date for which information is available, 51 per cent. of all pensioners and 70 per cent. of recently-retired couples had an occupational pension. The average weekly amount then in payment was £37.

  Hospitals (Fire Safety)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how often hospital fire safety checks are made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  Health authorities are required to have fire precautions policies and programmes agreed with local chief fire officers. Within the framework of these policies and programmes it is for health authorities to decide the type and frequency of checking applicable to specific fire precautions, having regard, where appropriate, to departmental and other guidance. For example, guidance on the maintenance and testing of fire alarm and detection systems is given in health technical memorandum 82. We attach great importance to the maintenance of effective fire precautions in all National Health Service units particularly as many patients are frail or immobile. We therefore require health authorities to be scrupulous in their observance of fire precaution regulations and guidance.

  Children (Drownings)
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many children, under the age of 18 years, were drowned in each of the last 10 years.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information is show in the table. The latest year for which data are available is 1986.

  Registrations of deaths with drowning (ICD1 994.1) as underlying cause of death. Persons 0 to 17 years of age, England and Wales 1977 to 86

  Year

  Number

  1977

  167

  1978

  162

  464

  Year

  Number

  1979

  151

  1980

  128

  1981

  139

  1982

  131

  1983

  130

  1984

  97

  1985

  95

  21986

  90

  1 International Classification of Diseases, 8th and 9th Revision.

  2 28 days and over, provisional.

  AIDS
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the total sums allocated to Bloomsbury health authority for services related to AIDS, and the projects which have thereby been funded by the health authority; and from which sources the Tottenham Court road Brook advisory centre has received funding as a result of the AIDS allocations.

  Mr. Newton
  This information is not held centrally. The hon. Member may like to contact the chairman of Bloomsbury health authority.

  Staff Transfers
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what discussions he has had with unions representing staff at Department of Health and Social Security offices in London concerning staff transfers.

  Mr. Portillo
  There have been no discussions with unions representing staff at Department of Health and Social Security offices in London concerning the permanent transfer of staff.

  Staff Turnover
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list, by grade, the staff turnover figures for the Department of Health and Social Security offices at(a) Finsbury Park, (b) Highgate and (c) Hoxton for each year since 1983.

  Mr. Portillo
  The following tables give the staff turnover figures, in each grade, for the Department of Health and Social Security local offices at(a) Finsbury Park, (b) Highgate and (c) Hoxton during the period I October 1985 to 31 December 1987.

  Turnover is defined as the loss and movement of staff due to resignation, retirement, dismissal, death, transfer, promotion and reversion.

  The information requested is not available prior to 1 October 1985.

  a. Finsbury Park Local Office

  Grade

  Staff turnover of local office

  1 October 1985 to 31 December 1985

  1 January 1986 to 31 December 1986

  1 January 1987 to 31 December 1987

  LOI

  1

  23

  5

  LOII

  4½

  40

  10

  AA

  1

  14

  5

  Typist

  Nil

  1

  1

  Other

  Nil

  3

  5

  TOTAL

  6½

  81

  26

  465

  b. Highgate Local Office

  Grade

  Staff turnover of local office

  1 October 1985 to 31 December 1985

  1 January 1986 to 31 December 1986

  1 January 1987 to 31 December 1987

  LOI

  1

  9

  11

  LOII

  3

  26

  34

  AA

  2½

  11

  17

  Typist

  Nil

  3

  Nil

  Other

  2

  5

  4

  TOTAL

  8½

  54

  66

  c. Hoxton Local Office

  Grade

  Staff turnover of local office

  1 October 1985 to 31 December 1985

  1 January 1986 to 31 December 1986

  1 January 1987 to 31 December 1987

  LOI

  3

  8

  4

  LOII

  4

  19

  22

  AA

  Nil

  17

  16

  Typist

  1

  Nil

  Nil

  Other

  2

  3

  4

  TOTAL

  10

  47

  46

  Social Fund
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what considerations of the role of local charities will be given in assessing the social fund allocation to each Department of Health and Social Security office.

  Mr. Scott
  None.

  Abortions
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the number of abortions under nine weeks gestation, between nine and 12 weeks, between 13 and 16 weeks and over 16 weeks performed on women resident in each regional health authority and each district health authority area in England and Wales for the latest 12-month period for which figures are available.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret that the exact information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, data on gestation period for usual residents of district health authorities are currently being produced for 1986, which the hon. Member may find useful, and I will place these in the Library when they become available.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the numbers of abortions performed on women in each regional health authority and district health authority in England and Wales, expressed(a) in age bands, numerically and as a percentage of the total number and (b) by grounds, expressed numerically and as a proportion of the total number, for the latest 12-month period for which figures are available.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret that the exact information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Statistics are not released for district health authority of termination, but table 24 of abortion statistics does show the age distribution for usual residents of regional and district health authorities. A copy of this publication for 1986 may be found in the Library.

  Family Planning
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has as to the proportion of people, receiving contraceptive help and advice from Camden and Islington family planning clinics, who are under 25 years and as to the corresponding figures for the Tottenham Court road Brook advisory centre and the community clinics run by Bloomsbury health authority.

  Mr. Newton
  The available information is not precisely in the form requested. Figures are not collected centrally for under-25s, only for under-20s and those aged 20 to 34. Some family planning clinics in Camden come within Bloomsbury and some within Hampstead district health authority. The available information is given in the table:

  Family Planning Clinic Services 1986 Community and Hospital Clinics—Patients seen: Numbers

  District Health Authority

  Under 20 years

  20 to 34 years

  Islington

  1,210

  8,143

  Hampstead

  202

  3,150

  Bloomsbury of which

  3,865

  28,866

  Tottenham Court Road Brook Centre

  3,369

  16,608

  1 Relates to persons aged 20 to 35 years.

  Great Ormond Street Hospital
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the expected date of completion of the external works on the cardiac block at Great Ormond street.

  Mrs. Currie
  This scheme, which is mainly concerned with landscaping and does not affect the use of the new facilities, is now planned for completion in May.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the total cost to date of the restoration works undertaken on the cardiac block at Great Ormond street hospital.

  Mrs. Currie
  So far about £17·25 million has been paid in fees and construction costs.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the estimated final total cost of restoring the cardiac block at Great Ormond street hospital expressed in 1982 prices and current prices.

  Mrs. Currie
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 23 November 1987, at column 82.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the estimated cost of equipping the restored cardiac block at Great Ormond street hospital.

  Mrs. Currie
  Our estimate of a net cost of £650,000 has not changed since my reply to the hon. Member on 23 November 1987, at column 82

  National Health Service Review
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the health authorities that have made submissions to the Government's review of the National Health Service.
  467
  Mr. Moore
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) on 7 March, at column 18.

  Committee on Safety of Medicines
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many members of the Committee on Safety of Medicines are women; and if he will name them.

  Mr. Newton
  One woman is currently a member of the Committee on Safety of Medicines:Dr. Elizabeth Mayne, MD, FRCP, FRCPath, Department of Haematology, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast.

  Four women are members of sub committees of the Committee on Safety of Medicines:
  Dr. Linda Beeley, MA(Oxon), FRCP, Consultant Clinical Pharmacologist, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Edgbaston;
  Dr. Joyce Davidson, MB, BS, FRCGP, General Practitioner, Cardiff;
  Dr. Elizabeth Miller, MB, BS, BSc, Principal Microbiologist, Communicable Diseases Surveillance Centre, Colindale;
  Dr. Sheila Wallace, FRCP, DObst, RCOG, Consultant Paediatric Neurologist, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff.

  Tranquillisers
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will set up a sub-committee of the Committee on Safety of Medicines to make a study of benzodiazepine, to include members co-opted from voluntary and community organisations active in the field of counselling patients who have become addicted to tranquillisers.

  Mr. Newton
  It is for the Committee on Safety of Medicines to decide whether or not to set up a subcommittee on any issue. In relation to benzodiazepines, the committee has recently completed a review of the problem of dependence, leading to the advice to doctors in "Current Problems No. 21", which is in the Library.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what further instructions he has given to the doctors of his Department's regional medical services following the publication by the Committee on Safety of Medicines of "Current Problems No. 21", in which the dangers of overprescribing benzodiazepine are mentioned.

  Mr. Newton
  Doctors of the Department's regional medical service regularly attend prescribing seminars at which current issues and matters of interest are discussed. These include discussions on articles such as the one providing recommendations on benzodiazepines contained in "Current Problems No. 21". All doctors in the regional medical service have had their attention drawn to this article by the provision of a personal copy to each of them.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what savings he expects to accrue to the National Health Service when general practitioners act upon the advice given about benzodiazepine in "Current Problems No. 21"; and if he will consider using such savings to assist in the funding of voluntary organisations counselling patients who have suffered from addiction to such tranquillisers.

  Mr. Newton
  "Current Problems No. 21" contains recommendations about the use of benzodiazepines and 468
  implementation would depend on the responses by individual patients to the courses of treatment advised by their own general practitioners. It is not possible to quantify the savings that might accrue. A number of voluntary organisations helping tranquilliser users have received central funding as part of a widespread expansion of counselling services.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he takes to ensure that general practitioners understand the importance of the yellow card report system as the means of notifying their concern about the suspected adverse reactions of patients to the administration of benzodiazepine.

  Mr. Newton
  The Committee on Safety of Medicines is very concerned to ensure that doctors are well aware of the importance of the yellow card system as for reporting suspected adverse reactions to all medicinal products, including benzodiazepines. The committee's leaflet, "Current Problems", sent two or three times a year to all doctors, invites reports of suspected adverse drug reactions and includes detailed advice on how, where and what to report. Similar advice is also included in the British National Formulary, which the Department sends free of charge to all doctors, and in the ABPI's data sheet compendium. Yellow cards are sent regularly with "Current Problems" and are also provided at the back of doctors' prescription pads, and in the BNF and data sheet compendium. They can also be obtained by ringing CSM Freephone.

  Last year the CSM and the drug safety research unit jointly launched a red alert scheme to encourage doctors to report suspected serious adverse reactions to new drugs, using a yellow card with red triangles.

  As a result of all these measures, the number of yellow card reports received by the CSM has increased steadily to 16,431 in 1987. The CSM is exploring further initiatives to increase doctors' awareness of adverse drug reactions and the yellow card reporting system.

  Cervical Cancer
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the percentage of failure in the detection of cervical cancer by the present test system used by his Department.

  Mrs. Currie
  Estimates of the false negative rate for cervical smear tests vary widely. In some cases an inadequate sample of cells is captured by the person taking the smear; in others cellular changes may be missed by the laboratory in which the smear is examined. That is why health circular (88)1 issued in January 1988 includes guidance on the quality of smear-taking and on internal quality control and external quality assessment in laboratories.

  No screening test or screening programme can achieve 100 per cent. accuracy. Nevertheless, studies by the World Health Organisation's International Agency for Research on Cancer show that women who have a smear test every five years between the ages of 20 and 64 are 84 per cent. less likely than unscreened women to develop invasive cervical cancer.

  Yellow Card Reports
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if, pursuant to his answer of 3 March,Official

  469
  Report, columns 697–8, in respect of the use of yellow card reports by general practitioners, he will give a breakdown on the nature of the yellow card reports submitted by general practitioners to the Committee on Safety of Medicines during 1987.

  Mr. Newton
  An article by the Committee on Safety of Medicines analysing yellow card reports received in 1986 and 1987 will appear very shortly in the CSM update series in the British Medical Journal.

  NHS Performance Indicators
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the reasons why the National Health Service performance indicators for 1986–87 have not yet been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to him on 11 February 1988 at column 355. The 1986–87 Health Service indicators will be published in March, and a set will be placed in the Library.

  Psychiatric Care
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he intends to publish the report by the social services inspectorate on the provision by local authorities of psychiatric care; why there has been a delay in the publication of this report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  A report prepared by the Department's social services inspectorate following an inspection of personal social services for mentally ill people in eight local authorities is in draft form and has not yet been submitted to Ministers.

  In the meantime, a report on local arrangements has been made available to each participating local authority.

  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how he monitors the implementation by local authorities of their statutory obligations under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.

  Mr. Scott
  I am unable to add to my reply on 8 March 1988 to the hon. Members for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell), for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) and for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) at columns 159–60.

  RPI (Error)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the charities to which funds will be donated arising out of the retail price index computer error; what is the total amount which will be donated to each of these charities; and which charities located in the north-west of England will benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  Details of the arrangements for the payments to charities are still being considered and will be announced in the near future.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services for what reasons all local authority welfare rights 470
  officers and other non-journalistic outlets were dropped from the mailing list of his Department's press release section in September 1987; whether this was done with any notification; whether he will reinstate the former mailing list; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department's press office has riot stopped sending press notices to any one group of recipients. It does, however, review its long press lists from time to time. It works on the principle that press notices are designed and intended for the press and this is where they are mainly sent. The last review took place in October and November last year. Recipients were not notified. Because few of the recipients have made inquiries about this action, I do not consider it necessary to restore the former mailing list. However, several welfare rights units have expressed concern about their removal; a small mailing list will be established to provide them with the social security benefits information in which they are interested.

  Ministerial Offices
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will provide a breakdown of the £17,000 cost of the fixtures and fittings in his new private office; arid if he will provide similar information for the private offices of his junior Ministers.

  Mr. Moore
  Expenditure incurred on furniture, office equipment and floor covering as the result of the move to Richmond house totalled £12,400 for furniture and £4,600 for floor coverings.

  Furniture and fittings for the two restored historic room suites used by Ministers were provided in a style compatible with the restoration and not with individual Minister's or staff requirements. Such furniture was inherited for the use of the Department on occupancy of the building. The remaining three Ministers utilised furniture and equipment from the previous accommodation.

  Meridian (Member's Correspondence)
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he intends to reply to the letters sent to him by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton on 6 November 1987, 15 December 1987 and 3 February 1988 with regard to financial assistance to Meridian, following the reference to him of this correspondence by the Home Secretary in October 1987.

  Mr. Moore
  I regret that, despite extensive inquiries, we have no trace of this correspondence. If the right hon. Member will furnish me with copies of the correspondence, I will look into it immediately.

  Whitley Hospital, Coventry
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to the answer of 9 March, if he will instruct the Coventry district health authority not to enter into any further financial or other commitments with Coventry Church housing association, in relation to Whitley hospital, pending the outcome of his consideration of the health authority's proposal to close the hospital; on what basis commitments have already been entered into; and if he will make a statement.
  471
  Mrs. Currie
  We are currently considering Coventry district health authority's proposal to close the Whitley hospital and we expect to take a decision shortly. The health authority cannot enter into any commitments relating to the Whitley hospital while a decision on its future is pending.

  Waiting Lists (Eastbourne)
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the current waiting lists for in-patients and out-patients at the district general hospital, Eastbourne, and at Saint Mary's hospital, Eastbourne, in each specialty for(a) examinations, (b) treatment and (c) operations; what were the comparable figures on the same dates in 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987; and what proposals he has to reduce these waiting lists.

  Mr. Newton
  Our available information is given in the table. We do not hold information centrally on numbers awaiting out-patient appointments. It should be noted that in certain specialties a hospital may maintain a waiting list which is common to more than one hospital within a district health authority.

  Number of patients on in-patient waiting list at 31 December for years 1984 to 1986 (latest available)

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Eastbourne district general hospital

  General surgery

  263

  252

  357

  Ear, nose and throat

  428

  329

  294

  Traumatic and orthopaedic

  681

  793

  925

  Ophthalmology

  86

  168

  206

  Urology

  375

  259

  221

  Oral surgery

  49

  52

  148

  Gynaecology

  643

  629

  772

  Total all specialties

  2,525

  2,482

  2,923

  Total surgical specialties

  2,525

  2,482

  2,923

  St. Mary's hospital, Eastbourne

  General medicine

  —

  1

  —

  Dermatology

  2

  1

  —

  Rheumatology

  6

  4

  2

  Geriatrics

  6

  6

  2

  Total all specialties

  14

  12

  4

  Total surgical specialties

  0

  0

  0

  In the current financial year, we have made £110,000 available to Eastbourne district health authority to use spare ward capacity to treat 100 additional patients from the orthopaedic waiting list. In 1988–89, we shall make £155,000 available to the health authority to treat 150 additional gynaecology patients, mainly for hysterectomies, and an additional 250 adults and children for ear, nose and throat surgery.

  Social Security Reform
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people living in the Eastbourne parliamentary constituency are currently in receipt of(a) housing benefit, (b) family income supplement and (c) supplementary benefit; and what is his estimate of the number of those in category (a) whose entitlement to benefit will be reduced under the new system which is to be introduced in April.

  Mr. Portillo
  The information requested is as follows:
  472

  Number

  (a) Housing benefit

  11,600

  (b) Family income supplement

  Not available

  (c) Supplementary benefit

  111,188

  1 Latest available figure—17 November 1987.

  Notes

  The figures for (a) and (c) relate to Eastbourne borough council and Eastbourne local office respectively. The boundaries are not conterminous with the parliamentary constituency.

  I regret that the additional information requested is not available for individual areas.

  Consultants' Contracts
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish in the Official Report the contents of a consultant's contract with the National Health Service.

  Mr. Newton
  I have placed a copy of the recommended form of contract in the Library.

  Bronchitis and Emphysema
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has accepted the findings of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council's recent report on bronchitis and emphysema; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what response he proposes to make regarding the recommendations of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council's report into the cause of emphysema among mineworkers.

  Mr. Scott
  I have accepted the report's conclusions and arrangements are being made for its publication. The council's main finding is that there is insufficient evidence to warrant prescription, according to the criteria laid down in section 76(2) of the Social Security Act 1975, of bronchitis and emphysema in their own right. The council also calls for further research in this field, especially studies on populations of non-smoking, dust-exposed workers.

  Doctors (Financial Interests)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to introduce regulations requiring doctors and consultants to declare any financial interests they may have in private hospitals and clinics in a form accessible to prospective patients; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 10 March 1988]: No; but the matter is one which is covered by the General Medical Council's code on professional conduct and discipline.

  Patient Costs
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the average annual expenditure per patient in 1986–87 by Shropshire health authority.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 23 February 1988]: For 1986–87, hospital costing returns submitted by the Shropshire health authority show average costs per patient treated as follows:
  473

  Hospital

  In-patients

  Out-patients

  A and E patients

  Day patients

  Day cases

  4£

  5£

  6£

  7£

  6£

  7£

  6£

  7£

  6£

  Type

  Acute 1–50 beds

  42·82

  619·16

  18·28

  58·35

  11·31

  18·26

  1n.a.

  n.a.

  1n.a.

  Acute over 300 beds

  87·75

  562·98

  31·57

  112·12

  26·37

  27·39

  1n.a.

  n.a.

  1n.a.

  Mainly acute

  50·45

  557·84

  15·64

  35·13

  12·77

  19·89

  1n.a.

  n.a.

  1n.a.

  Partly acute

  52·01

  708·39

  18·95

  49·29

  1n.a.

  n.a.

  26·50

  939·98

  n.a.

  Mainly long stay

  38·76

  2—

  15·36

  47·34

  10·25

  14 ·87

  1n.a.

  n.a.

  1n.a.

  Long stay

  69·40

  2—

  1n.a.

  n.a.

  1n.a.

  n.a.

  1n.a.

  n.a.

  1n.a.

  Geriatric

  36·61

  2—

  1n.a.

  n.a.

  1n.a.

  n.a.

  1n.a.

  n.a.

  1n.a.

  Mental illness

  42·56

  2—

  1n.a.

  n.a.

  1n.a.

  n.a.

  22·20

  2,886·35

  1n.a.

  1 No patients of this type were treated during the year.

  2 Average costs per in-patient case in respect of hospitals providing long-stay treatment are not routinely calculated.

  3 "Other hospitals" (hospitals not clearly falling into any of the standard types) have been excluded: average costs are not calculated for such hospitals.

  4 Cost per I/P day.

  5 Cost per case.

  6 Cost per attendance.

  7 Cost per new case.

  Invasive Carcinoma
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services which socio-economic group is most affected by invasive carcinoma in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 22 February 1988]: The latest available information on socio-economic groups affected by malignant neoplasms is given in the table which shows information for Great Britain on mortality for all malignant neoplasms by socio-economic group for the years 1979–80, 1982–83. Data for later years, and for the United Kingdom as a whole, are not available.

  Standard Mortality Ratios (SMRs) for malignant, neoplasms (ICD 140–208) by socio-economic group (S.E.G.), Great Britain 1979–80, 1982–83.

  S.E.G.

  Description

  SMR

  1

  2

  1.1, 2.1

  Employers in industry, commerce etc. large and small establishments

  107

  111

  1.2, 2.2

  Managers in industry, commerce etc. large and small establishments

  79

  95

  3

  Professional workers self-employed

  51

  69

  4

  Professional workers employees

  74

  94

  5.1

  Intermediate non-manual workers Ancillary workers and artists

  69

  88

  5.2

  Intermediate non-manual workers foremen and supervisors

  134

  148

  6

  Junior non-manual workers

  85

  98

  7

  Personal service workers

  122

  121

  8

  Foremen and supervisors manual

  104

  107

  9

  Skilled manual workers

  118

  115

  10

  Semi-skilled manual workers

  119

  120

  11

  Unskilled manual workers

  156

  133

  12

  Own account workers other than professional

  82

  77

  13

  Farmers employers and managers

  82

  126

  14

  Farmers own account

  57

  67

  15

  Agricultural workers

  101

  97

  16

  Members of armed forces

  127

  127

  17

  Inadequately described and not stated occupations

  17

  25

  1: SMRs for males aged 20 to 64, 100 = All Males 20 to 64.

  2: SMRs for all single and married women aged 20 to 59, 100 = all single and married women.

  Notes:

  Single women's coding is based on own occupation.

  Married women's coding is based on husband's occupation.

TRANSPORT

  British Rail (Financial Support)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to change present levels of financial support for British Rail, in the light of increasing demand for rail services.

  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied that present levels of financial support for British Rail are adequate in the light of increasing demand for rail services.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I have repeatedly made it clear that I shall approve any worthwhile additions to British Rail's investment programme which are needed to meet the quality standards on subsidised services.

  Transport Services (Financing)
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the chairmen of nationalised transport industries concerning the financing of transport services.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I meet each of the chairmen from time to time to discuss various matters, including financial issues.

  London Assessment Studies
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what public transport projects will be assessed as part of the London assessment studies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The study consultants have been in touch with BR and LRT, boroughs and other organisations about their ideas for improving public transport in the study areas. They will then develop a wide range of options for assessment. Currently planned projects are not being delayed by the studies. The studies will also consider the needs of pedestrians, and other vulnerable road users.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made with the London assessment studies; what representations he has received on them in the last six months; and if he will make a statement.
  475
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We have received comments about various aspects of the assessment studies from local authority associations, London Planning Advisory Committee, individual boroughs, national and local groups and members of the public.

  Channel Tunnel (Railway Development)
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set up an inquiry into the potential benefits of electrifying railway lines to south Wales and the west of England in the light of the Channel tunnel development.

  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will investigate the potential benefits of electrifying railway lines to south Wales and the west of England, in the light of the Channel tunnel development.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn).

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received any proposals from British Rail to electrify the London Midland railway line in the light of the Channel tunnel development; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I have received no such proposal.

  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his latest discussions with British Rail about Channel tunnel rail infrastructure.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  As my hon. Friend knows, we have asked British Rail for a report by June on its study of the possible need for additional capacity. It would be premature to hold further discussions with the board until we have received that report.

  M4 (Central Barriers)
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the cost of replacing the central barriers on the M4 between London and Bristol, junctions 1 to 20; and what is his estimate of the date of completion of this work.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Work on the M4 commenced in 1982 and the Department is continuing to replace or upgrade all safety fencing to modern-day standards. The work is estimated to cost some £6 million and to be completed by 1990.

  Work currently in hand is at junctions 2 and 4 and between junctions 14 and 15. It should be completed by mid May.

  Works planned for this year include junctions 10 to 12 and 6 km between junctions 16 and 18 as part of the major maintenance scheme.

  Ferry Safety
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with ferry company managers about ferry safety.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I have had, from time to time, individual meetings with directors and other managers of ferry companies.

  Roll-on/Roll-off Vessels
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress his Department has made in assessing the structural safety of roll-on/roll-off vessels.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Work is in hand to check the stability of existing passenger roll-on/roll-off ferries, particularly the older ones. My Department is also undertaking a programme of research into ferry safety, including possible ways of reducing the risk of capsize if water reaches the car deck.

  Manchester Airport
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next intends to visit Manchester airport to discuss the future of the airport.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans for a visit.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the staff of Manchester airport to discuss the future of the airport.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  My noble Friend the Minister with responsibility for aviation met a delegation of board members and officers of Manchester Airport plc on 8 February.

  Transport Services (Safety)
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will bring forward a White Paper on safety in transport services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Safety is an essential element of all our policies, which are developed in White Papers, consultative documents and other statements. So I do not consider that a separate White Paper is needed.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about safety levels on transport services in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  It would be impractical to record centrally the many contacts and exchanges of views my Department has day by day with organisations and individuals on all aspects of transport safety.

  Drink-Driving
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to be able to estimate changes in drink-driving behaviour in 1987.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Monitoring is continuous and aims to assess not only immediate effects but also the longer term impact. We shall release significant findings, including final results of last year's Christmas campaign, as they become available.

  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of car drivers and motor cyclists who die in crashes and collisions between 10 pm and 4 am are over the legal limit of alcohol.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The proportion of car drivers and motor cycle riders who die in road accidents between 10 pm and 4 am and who have a blood alcohol level in excess of the legal limit is 58 per cent. and 60 per cent., respectively.

  Motorway Repairs
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of motorway were repaired last year.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We estimate that 84 miles have been renewed during 1987–88.

  Passenger Transport Authorities
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future of the passenger transport authorities in the former metropolitan counties.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I am not at present contemplating any changes to the existing passenger transport responsibilities in the metropolitan areas.

  Road Safety
  Mrs. Ray Mitchie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what new road safety initiatives his Department plans for the next year.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We intend to announce later this year the outcome of the consultations that we have had following publication last year of the report "Road safety — the next steps", and our plans for implementing its recommendations so as to accelerate the reduction in road accident casualties.

  Major initiatives so far have been the publication in February of our proposals for improving the training and testing of motor cyclists, and the review of motorway safety which we announced at Christmas—the results of which we expect to publish in the early spring. Tackling drinking and driving remains a major priority, as does the safety of all vulnerable road users, particularly children and pedestrians of all ages.

  Smoke Hoods
  Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the Civil Aviation Authority has yet produced its specification for passenger smoke hoods; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Civil Aviation Authority is wholly responsible for aviation safety regulation. The CAA has informed us that it has produced a further draft of its specification for passenger smoke hoods which has been circulated to interested parties for comment. The CAA expects to be able to finalise the specification in April.

  Mr. Aspinwall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he intends to introduce regulations regarding the retail sale of airline passenger protection smoke hoods.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The sale of smoke hoods, whether for use by airline passengers or the public at large, is a commercial matter. There are no plans to introduce regulations governing their sale to airline passengers. The sale of any consumer product is now covered by the general safety requirement under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, which makes it a criminal offence to supply any consumer product that is not reasonably safe.

  Passenger Safety
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, in the light of recent prosecutions arising from attacks on women in or near railway stations, he will be issuing, or revising guidelines to organisations providing public transport, concerning staffing levels, operating procedures and user's personal safety; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Staffing levels and operating procedures are for public transport operators to determine in the light of their business objectives and statutory obligations. The policing of BR and LUL stations is a matter for the British Transport police who maintain close links with the operators.

  Transport Funding
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with local authorities concerning transport funding.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had no discussions recently with local authorities about transport funding, although he did attend an Association of County Councils' function on 17 February at which he spoke on the need for greater spending on highway maintenance.

  I met representatives of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities on 2 March to discuss the proposed change of PTAs to billing bodies from 1990–91.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a further statement on the effect of deregulation on the quality of public road transport.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Deregulation continues to have a beneficial effect on road passenger transport. Bus mileage has increased; there is competition and innovation in many areas of the country; the number of operators has gone up and services are more closely geared to passengers' needs; costs have been reduced and local authorities have made substantial savings in revenue support for subsidised services.

  Transatlantic Routes (Manchester)
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received about the licensing of transatlantic air routes from Manchester.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A number of representations have been received concerning improved access for United States carriers to Manchester. The licensing of those carriers is a matter for the United States Government, not Her Majesty's. The United States Government do not have the necessary traffic rights under the United States/ United Kingdom air services agreement. It is necessary for them to seek to negotiate for these additional rights. Officials from the Department will be meeting a delegation from the United States Government in London later thin week to try to make progress on this matter.

  Irradiated Fuel (Transport)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received a copy of the London borough
  479
  nuclear policy committee report "Transportation of Irradiated Fuel", by Large and Associates; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 3 March, at column 656, to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas).

  Severn Crossing
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how long the consultation period on the second Severn crossing will be; what discussions he is having with local representatives; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The consultants for the project (W. S. Atkins and Partners and G. Maunsell and Partners) are making good progress. A public exhibition has been held at nine different centres on both sides of the estuary and consultations are now under way with affected parties. These consultations will continue during the coming months. The Department and the Welsh Office are in touch with local representatives in the areas affected by the proposals.

  The consultants are proceeding with the further technical investigations needed. We hope to be in a position to finalise the proposals in 18 to 24 months.

  Public Transport Improvements
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what improvements in public transport he expects to implement during the next financial year.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I refer the hon. Member to the 1988 public expenditure White Paper (Cm. 288) which gives details of the Government's planned levels of financial support to public transport services.

  London Regional Transport
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he now expects to publish further objectives for London Regional Transport.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I expect to announce new objectives shortly after the findings of the formal investigation into the King's Cross fire are known.

  Road Maintenance
  Mr. Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps are taken to ensure that road maintenance and repairs are undertaken with minimum inconvenience to drivers and passengers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We aim to minimise inconvenience to road users by careful programming of works, improving traffic management arrangements and by getting works completed more quickly—particularly by greater use of lane rental contracts which are achieving an acceleration of 33 per cent. on average. Further measures are being considered. We hope to make an announcement on 1988–89 programme shortly.

  Local Public Transport Services (Funding)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans to improve the funding mechanisms of local public transport services.
  480
  Mr. David Mitchell
  We have already brought about a substantial improvement by the deregulation of bus services and the introduction of competitive tendering for subsidised services. In the metropolitan areas precept control has also contributed to reducing the cost to the ratepayer of local public transport services, and we are now considering the responses to a proposal to replace the present precepting system for the passenger transport authorities by a system of billing on metropolitan districts.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to ensure that regions north of London are able to benefit fully from the opening of the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) on 2 March, at column 599.

  A30 (Improvements)
  Mr. Neale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will report on progress on the planning, design and construction of the various improvement schemes to the A30 from Launceston to Mitchell.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We are making good progress on the six schemes in the national programme between Launceston and Mitchell. Together they will provide over 27 miles of dual carriageway at an estimated cost of some £35 million. The detailed position on each is:

  Launceston to Plusha
  The statutory procedures were completed in February. Construction is expected to start later this year.

  Plusha to Bolventor
  Revised proposals were published in October 1987. A public inquiry is to be held in April. The programmed start of contruction is in the period April 1989 to March 1991.

  Shallowater Hill improvement
  Added to the national programme in April 1987 with a programmed start of construction in the period April 1991 onwards. Preliminary studies and investigations are now in hand.

  Bodmin to Indian Queens
  Added to the national programme in April 1987 with a programmed start of construction in the period April 1991 onwards. A design agent is to be appointed shortly.

  Indian Queens/Fraddon/St. Columb road bypasses
  Public consultation of further options was held in January/ February. Comments received are now being studied. A preferred route is expected to be announced later this year. The programmed start of construction is in the period April 1991 onwards.

  Penhale to Carland Cross improvement
  A public inquiry was held in February and the inspector's report is awaited. The scheme, which would bypass Summercourt and Mitchell, is programmed to start construction in the period April 1989 to March 1991.

  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will report on progress on the planning, design and construction of the various improvement schemes of the A30 from Mitchell to Long Rock, Penzance.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We are making good progress on the two schemes in the national programme between Mitchell (Carland Cross) and Long Rock.
  481
  The detailed position is:

  Zelah bypass
  Revised proposals were published in November 1987. An announcement about a public inquiry is to be made shortly. The programmed start of construction is in the period April 1989 to March 1991.

  Black water bypass
  Construction is expected to be completed this summer. Work has also started on the final phase of the safety improvements on the A30 at Crowlas.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will report on progress on the planning and design of the A30 improvement from Okehampton to Launceston; and what is the intended year for the start of its construction.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Survey and detailed design work on this £21·8 million scheme is now nearly completed. Proposals are expected to be published in draft orders towards the end of the year. The planned start of construction is in the period April 1991 onwards. Given satisfactory progress with the statutory and administrative procedures we hope to start work early in that period.

  Driver Testing
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to implement the review of driver testing report.

  Mr. Channon
  I have approved the programme of detailed departmental action drawn up to implement the key measures recommended. The object will be to make the best use of existing resources and to give customers a better service with reduced waiting times for tests. A new service, providing Saturday morning tests, will be offered on a trial basis at selected centres throughout the country in the next few months.

  Computerisation of test appointments over the next 18 months will offer customers a speedier and better booking service. In the light of the high costs and inflated queues for tests that the review has identified flowing from last-minute cancellations that cannot be reallocated, I propose to amend regulations to require 10 clear working days' notice to cancel or rebook without loss of fee.

  Driving instructors play a key role in preparing people to cope with today's vehicles and road conditions. Learners should take their advice about when they are ready to take a driving test. We are continuing discussions with the associations of approved driving instructors about maintaining high standards and the publication of information to help customers seeking professional tuition. Avoiding accidents means not just a high level of driving skills, but constant awareness and consideration for other road users.

  I am placing copies of the Department's "Plan for Implementation" in the Libraries of both Houses.

  British Rail (Electrification)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss its electrification programme and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Electrification from London to Edinburgh is due to be completed on target in 1991. I understand that BR has no plans for further major route electrification.

  Plutonium (Transport)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if there are any proposals to use Prestwick airport for the transportation of plutonium; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I understand that British Nuclear Fuels' current preferred option is to use Prestwick airport for returning reprocessed plutonium oxide to Japan. This traffic will not take place until the mid-1990s and no firm decisions have yet been taken.

  Major Road Schemes
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what plans he has to change the public inquiry system concerning major road schemes proposed by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We are satisfied that for the vast majority of road proposals the present inquiry system works well. The procedures continue to be kept under review and all suggestions for change are given careful consideration.

  The Government's concern to safeguard the rights of those affected limits the scope for change.

  Archway Road, London
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy that at the completion of the London assessment studies a public inquiry into the A1 (Archway road) section will be held.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A decision on how to deal with the problems on the A1 Archway road will be taken after public consultation following completion of the east London assessment study. The statutory procedures for trunk road improvements include provision for public inquiries to be held.

  Wrexham-Bidston Railway
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has received from British Rail on the case for improving services on the Wrexham-Bidston railway line and for investing in train sets that are capable of giving reliable transport; whether he has received any proposals for special measures to bring back the class 142 pacer units; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Channon
  I have received no such proposals. These are essentially management matters for British Rail to consider.

  Coastguard Stations (Devon)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of Transport how many coastguard stations there are in Devon; how many have breeches buoy equipment; and what would be the annual cost of continuing the use of breeches buoy equipment in coastguard stations where the equipment has already been bought.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  There are 21 coastguard stations in Devon of which 11 hold breeches buoy equipment. The annual cost of continuing to make use of the equipment in those 11 stations would be about £11,500. However,
  483
  development costs for replacement of obsolescent rocket apparatus would also have to be incurred in the near future.

  Harbours
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish information on the value of European Economic Community aid and other grants awarded to each harbour authority in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years, including brief details of projects undertaken.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I regret that the answer to this question could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to which harbours in the United Kingdom are(a) privately owned and (b) managed by companies which have shipping interests.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Three shipping groups own and manage ports in the United Kingdom. Sealink UK has seven (Fishguard, Folkestone, Harwich (Parkeston Quay), Heysham, Holyhead, Newhaven, Stranraer); P&O three (Cairnryan, Felixstowe and Larne); and Caledonian MacBrayne (Scottish Transport Group) has 17 small ports in Scotland. Some other firms with shipping interests operate individual wharves or docks.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether it is a condition of European Economic Community aid to ports that berthing facilities may not be monopolised by a single shipping company; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I understand that the European Commission accords low priority to applications to aid projects which serve a single user. So in practice such projects do not usually receive grants from the European regional development fund.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will undertake an inquiry to establish whether ports and harbours which have been in receipt of public funding are being managed in the public interest; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  No. Harbour authorities must run their harbours in accordance with the duties and powers conferred on them by Parliament in their local legislation.

DEFENCE

  Hunter Aircraft
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Hunter aircraft operated by the fleet requirements and air direction unit are owned by his Department; and if they have any civilian role.

  Mr. Freeman
  All FRADU-operated Hunter aircraft are owned by the Royal Navy. They do not have a civilian role.

  RAF Stornoway
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many Phantom aircraft will be deployed at RAF Stornoway during Exercise Elder Forest 88;
  484
  (2) how many Tornado aircraft will be deployed at RAF Stornoway during Exercise Elder Forest 88;

  (3) how many Canberra aircraft will be deployed at RAF Stornoway during Exercise Elder Forest 88;

  (4) how many Hunter aircraft will be deployed at RAF Stornoway during Exercise Elder Forest 88;

  (5) how many Falcon aircraft will be deployed at RAF Stornoway during Exercise Elder Forest 88;

  (6) between which dates RAF Stornoway will be activated for Exercise Elder Forest 88;

  (7) if any simulated air attacks on RAF Stornoway will take place during Exercise Elder Forest 88;

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  There are no plans to activate RAF Stornoway during Exercise Elder Forest, nor for any of the participating aircraft to operate from, or make simulated attacks upon, that airport.

  Chile
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what regular contacts there are between representatives of Her Majesty's armed forces and those of Chile.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Our diplomatic representation in Chile includes a defence element. United Kingdom defence personnel have regular contact with representatives of the Chilean armed forces, both in Chile and in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British armed forces personnel have visited any military facility in Chile in the last year.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  In addition to visits by military personnel attached to the British embassy in Santiago, five serving officers from the United Kingdom visited Chilean military facilities in the last year. There were also three visits by Royal Navy ships.

  General Purpose Machine Gun
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what instructions are given to Army personnel serving in Northern Ireland concerning the use of the safety catch on the GPMG whilst on patrol or guard duties.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Instructions given to personnel lay down that, except in the act of firing, the safety catch on the GPMG is to be applied at all times when the weapon is cocked. The safety catch cannot be applied unless the weapon is cocked, nor can the weapon be fired except when cocked.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the normal training period for the use of a GPMG; and what is the minimum age a recruit can undertake such training.

  Mr. Freeman
  The normal training period in the use of the GPMG is some 30 hours over a period of about three months.

  Adult recruits undertake GPMG training after they have completed their common military syllabus (recruit) training which lasts eight weeks. The minimum age of entry for an adult recruit is 17 years. For junior soldiers and junior leaders, however, GPMG training is not carried out within the first 14 weeks after entry. The minimum age of entry for a junior soldier is 16 years and 6 months; and for junior leaders, 16 years in England and Wales, and 15 years 8 months in Scotland.

  Aidan McAnespie
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the armed forces serving in Northern Ireland are facing disciplinary charges following the death of Aidan McAnespie.

  Mr. Freeman
  None. It would be inappropriate to initiate any disciplinary action until the trial of Guardsman Holden is concluded.

  HMS Vulcan, Dounreay
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether Euratom safety inspectors have access to the HMS Vulcan reactor at Dounreay.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No.

  Short Range Nuclear Weapons
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he possesses concerning the use to which the United States intends to put the nuclear materials from the warheads withdrawn under the 1983 NATO Montebello decision on unilateral removal of short range nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The use of materials from United States nuclear warheads withdrawn from Europe as a result of SACEUR's 1985 proposals to implement the Montebello decision is a matter for the United States Government.

  "Today" and "A Week in Politics"
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will arrange for a transcript of his interview on the Radio 4 "Today" programme broadcast on 3 March to be placed in his departmental library;

  (2) if he will place in (a) the Library and (b) his Department's library a transcript of his interview on "A Week in Politics" broadcast on Channel 4 on 2 March.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 11 March. Channel 4 programmes remain the copyright property of the production company which produces them and are not available on the open market.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will seek to obtain for his Departmental library a copy of the transcript of the interview given by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation General Secretary, Lord Carrington, to the BBC Radio Four "The World Tonight" programme concerning the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation summit on 3 March.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The library of the Ministry of Defence seeks to obtain all publications relevant to the working needs and interests of the Department where such material can be satisfactorily published on the open market. Transcripts of programmes transmitted by the BBC are deposited with the BBC written archives centre and are not normally available on the open market.

  NATO (Defensive Weapons)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all "smart" defensive weapons currently deployed by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in the European land, air and sea military theatres.
  486
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  There is no formal NATO definition of a "smart" weapon, although the term is in general used to describe weapons with an autonomous navigation and target acquisition capability. There are a number of such weapons in the inventories of our allies, but it would be for them to provide details of the capabilities of their own weapon systems. The United Kingdom's major equipment programmes are described in successive Statements on the Defence Estimates.

  Soviet Union (Weapons Systems)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all the categories of weapons and support systems the Soviet Union has modernised since Mr. Gorbachev became Soviet leader, based on information available to his Department at 2 March.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the NATO summit on 4 March at columns 1279–80 which emphasised that there has been no let-up in the Soviet Union's extensive military modernisation programme. For example, new cruise missiles have recently been flight-tested, while a new road-mobile ICBM has been deployed and a rail-mobile ICBM should be deployed shortly. In addition, a long-range strategic bomber has been introduced, a modified battle tank has been developed and a new mobile surface-to-air missile system is under development.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on the Soviet weapons systems code named(a) AS-9 (Kyle), (b) AS-x-10 (Karen), (c) AS-11 (Kilter), (d) AS-12 (Kegler) and (e) AS-l4 (Kedge), in terms of their intended deployment, capability and range.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  All the Soviet weapon systems referred to are tactical air-to-surface missiles. They are intended for use by tactical air forces in early conventional attacks on targets such as air defence radar and missile sites, command and control centres and airfields.

  The AS-9 (Kyle), AS-11 (Kilter) and AS-12 (Kegler) are anti-radiation homing missiles and can be carried by the SU-23 (Fencer), SU-17 (Fitter) and Mig 23 (Flogger) aircraft. The AS-10 (Karen)—which is now operational—and AS-14 (Kedge) are electro-optical homing missiles and are carried on the same range of airframes.

  The AS-9 carries a 150 to 200 kg high explosive warhead and can also be equipped with a nuclear warhead. The AS-10 and AS-12 each carry a 100 kg high explosive warhead. We believe the AS-11 and AS-14 to be updated versions of the AS-9 and AS-10 respectively. The ranges of these missiles vary from a limited range up to about 100 km.

  Chemical Weapons
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on progress in the development of binary chemical weapons in the United States of America.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The US Department of Defence has said that final assembly of 155mm artillery shells commenced in December 1987 and that the construction of production facilities for the Bigeye air delivered bomb has also recently been authorised.
  487
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether there is any military role which is specific to chemical weapons alone; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Chemical weapons have a particular property that the mere threat of their use by an aggressor requires the defenders to wear protective equipment which imposes severe physiological degradation. That is why, although NATO affords a high priority to the protection of forces against the effects of chemical weapons, all its members are committed to the early conclusion of a global ban.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the implications of the total elimination of chemical weapons for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's strategy of flexible response; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  A verifiable global elimination of chemical weapons would remove a major imbalance in East/West military capabilities.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the retention of a limited chemical warfare capability by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation forces is an integral part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's strategy of flexible response.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  There are no chemical weapons declared to NATO. However, in the absence of a comprehensive and verifiable ban on chemical weapons, and in the light of the massive Soviet CW capability, the modernisation of the limited United States retaliatory capability will contribute to upholding NATO's deterrent strategy of flexible response.

  La Belle Discotheque
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the implications for the safety of military installations in West Berlin of recent discoveries in connection with the bombing of La Belle discotheque on 5 April 1986 arising out of the trial of Christina Endrigkeit.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  No charge has been brought against Frau Endrigkeit in connection with the La Belle discotheque bombing. The security of all military installations is kept under regular review in the light of all relevant circumstances.

  Nuclear Warheads (Tests)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many underground tests are required to develop a new nuclear warhead;

  (2) whether the frequency of the United Kingdom's underground nuclear tests provides statistically significant evidence of the safety of the entire stockpile of the United Kingdom's nuclear warheads; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) whether underground nuclear tests will remain necessary for as long as the United Kingdom retains its nuclear weapons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It has been the policy of successive Governments not to disclose the purpose of individual underground nuclear tests, beyond saying that they are required 488
  "to maintain the effectiveness of the United Kingdom's nuclear deterrent".

  AOR Support Vessels
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many new AOR support vessels will be operational with the Royal Navy by the mid-1990s.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The two auxiliary oiler replenishment vessels currently on order will be in service by the mid-1990s. The operational dates of subsequent vessels will depend on the size and timing of future orders.

  Upholder Class Submarines
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is his Department's most recent estimate of the research and development and first-of-class costs for the new Upholder class submarine;

  (2) what is his Department's most recent estimate for the unit cost of the new Upholder class submarine.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 14 January, at column 373. Similar considerations apply to the detailed breakdown requested. However, information about the total cost of the programme was published in table 3.2 of volume 2 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1987" (Cm. 101-II).

  NATO Meeting
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the next annual meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation at Oberammagau is to be held; and who will be representing Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The NATO defence planning symposium normally takes place in Oberammagau in January each year. The United Kingdom is normally represented by officials from the Ministry of Defence and other Government Departments, as well as staff of the United Kingdom delegation to the North Atlantic Council and the United Kingdom military representative at NATO. No firm arrangements have yet been made for next year's conference.

  Bomb Transporter (Accident)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the accident of 4 March when a number of bombs fell from an American transporter on to the M25 motorway between junctions 15 and 16.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  It is not our policy to comment on the cargoes carried by military vehicles, but I am informed that no munitions fell on to the M25 from a United States transporter on 4 March.

  Ocean Surveillance Information Centre
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the number of staff employed at the joint ocean surveillance information centre; and what is their eligibility to belong to the trades unions.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 7 March, at column 62.

  RIMPAC Exercises
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British troops, ships and planes will be involved in the 1988 RIMPAC exercises.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  There are no plans for British service participation in a RIMPAC exercise in 1988 should any such exercise be arranged.

  Exercise Fire Focus
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations there have been with the United States armed forces in preparation for operation Fire Focus.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Exercise Fire Focus is a United Kingdom national exercise to practise the reinforcement of the Falkland Islands. There was therefore no need to consult the armed forces of the United States or any other foreign country in preparation for it.
  490
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the troops involved in Exercise Fire Focus are normally based in the Falklands.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Troops of the existing Falklands garrison are of course not part of the reinforcement, but will participate in a joint-force exercise and limited training exercises in the Falklands once the Fire Focus reinforcement is complete. It would not be in the interests of security to comment on the size of the garrison.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total number of(a) Royal Air Force, (b) Army and (c) Royal Naval personnel involved in Exercise Fire Focus in the Falklands.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The military personnel being sent to the Falkland Islands in Exercise Fire Focus number fewer than 1,000, mostly from the Army. It would not be in the interests of security to reveal detailed numbers.

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

Self-Regulating Organisations: Registration
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that the relevant self-regulatory organisations (SROs) are equipped to handle effectively the expected quantity of applications for registration before the final date in April for authorisation to transact investment business.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, it is not necessary for the recognised self-regulating organisations to process every application for membership before the Financial Services Act comes into force in April. Any business which made a valid application for membership before 27th February will receive interim authorisation until such time as its application is determined. I know that the self-regulating organisations are eager to ensure that applications are processed as speedily as possible consistent with the requirements of the Act.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. I feel reassured by the confidence which he has exhibited. Nonetheless, do the Government recognise that, because some rules and other edicts have not appeared until very recently, an unduly high proportion of applications are likely to be made at the last minute?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, firms have known since last summer that the key provisions of the Financial Services Act would be introduced in April. They have had plenty of time and opportunity to apply for authorisation.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, how will the Government ensure that the public are aware of which firms may not do business after 1st April?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I recommend that members of the public should be sure to ask any firm with whom they are doing business whether that firm is registered with the relevant self-regulating organisation. The Financial Services Act is now becoming widely known. I believe that any sensible investor must specifically ask that question of those who look after his money.
Lord Morris: My Lords, surely it is incumbent on regulatory authorities or indeed on businesses themselves to demonstrate the fact that they are registered, rather than placing the onus on members of the public.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, there are considerable penalties involved for firms who undertake investment business without being registered with the relevant SRO. However, the important point is that from April all investors will have a regulator to whom they can turn in the event of a complaint. That will be true in some areas for the first time.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, does the noble Lord believe that the best method of coping with the congestion of business which was bound to arise at this time was to get rid of the chairman of the SIB?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I pay tribute to the achievements of Sir Kenneth Berrill. I am not prepared to go into the background involved in that change of chairman. However, I am sure that the new chairman will do an excellent job.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, the terms of the Financial Services Act have been known for some time. However, will my noble friend agree that there has been little time in some cases? Perhaps the House will excuse my use of an acronym in giving an example, but I understand that LAUTRO did not promulgate its rules until last month.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, my noble friend is correct. There are problems with LAUTRO. However, any firm that would normally have LAUTRO as its SRO will find that for the time being other arrangements have been made so that it may carry on investment business.

EC Budget: UK Contribution
2.40 p.m.
Lord Jay Lord Jay asked Her Majesty's Government:
What will be the United Kingdom payment to the EC budget, less rebate, for the first year in which the agreement reached at Brussels on 13th February takes effect compared with what would otherwise have been payable.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the Commission's latest budget proposals before amendment by the Council and the European Parliament envisaged that our gross contribution in 1988 would be some 5,120 million ecu or £3,550 million after abatement, compared with an estimated maximum of some 4,640 million ecu or £3,220 million if no agreement had been reached at Brussels. Because of higher United Kingdom receipts, our net contribution will increase by less than our gross contribution.
Lord Jay: My Lords, I thank the Minister for those figures. Do they not mean that, far from a firm limit having been set and financial discipline imposed on the common agricultural policy, expenditure will now increase further, as well as the liability on the British taxpayer?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, growth in agricultural spending will be limited to 74 per cent. of the growth rate of Community GNP. That limit, unlike previous limits, will be incorporated in a legal instrument. It should therefore be sustainable.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, is the Minister able to tell us what the German contribution to the same budget is?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not believe that I can answer that question precisely. However, I know that one German newspaper stressed that the cost to the Federal Republic would be 4 billion deutschmarks, rising to 10 billion deutschmarks by 1992.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is it not the case that in Government expenditure plans covering the year in question the net payment to the EC for the year 1988–89 was put at £800 million; for 1987–88 it was put at £1,400,000; and that, even taking the calendar year (which I presume the noble Lord is doing), the figures that he has given to the House represent a colossal increase over and above what the Government had originally planned? Will the noble Lord tell the House whether those figures include £900 million which has been requested by the Commission from the United Kingdom on loan or non-reimburseable advance towards the cost of disposing of surplus stocks?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, from the information that I have, the increase in the United Kingdom's net contribution arising from the future financing agreement is some £200 to £300 million a year compared with the continuation of the current 1.4 per cent. VAT ceiling, and £100 to £200 million a year compared with the effective level of spending in 1987. From the figures available to me I cannot identify the £900 million to which the noble Lord refers.

Rover Group: Disposal Negotiations
2.43 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is consistent with the fiduciary duties of the directors of the Rover Group for the Government and Rover not to consider offers for the Rover Group other than from British Aerospace.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, British Aerospace wished to negotiate on an exclusive basis only. The Rover Group board recommended that, taking into account the overall interests of the business, exclusive negotiations with British Aerospace should be pursued. The Government have accepted this advice, provided that negotiations are concluded by the end of April.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his response, which does not exactly answer the Question that I asked. Will he tell
902
the House whether there have been approaches from other parties in respect of the Rover Group during the past six months?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the Government have undertaken to negotiate with no other parties until the end of April, that is, to negotiate only with British Aerospace. If those negotiations come to a successful conclusion the Government will then consider all relevant factors before accepting the outcome of the negotiations with British Aerospace. As regards other approaches, it would not be appropriate for me to comment other than to say that any exchanges or expressions of interest are commercially confidential.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, is it not a wholly unsatisfactory state of affairs when the Minister is not prepared to come clean—if I may use the phrase—about the Government's intentions with regard to the disposal of a national asset? Does the Minister not recognise that the Government are in the position of trustees and have the duty to try to secure the highest possible price in the interests of the beneficiaries—who are the whole of the British nation? Does he recollect that I raised this matter at the very moment that the original Statement was made? The matter is still not cleared up. Finally, is he aware that in interview after interview the chairman of British Aerospace has made it perfectly clear that he realises the strength of his negotiating position and has said in advance that he is prepared to give very little for the purchase of this company?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, what the chairman of British Aerospace has said to the shareholders of his own company or to the press is one thing. I have already said that the Government will consider all relevant factors before accepting the outcome of negotiations with British Aerospace.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the Minister told us that the Government would consider the position at the end of April if there had been a successful conclusion to the negotiations. Can he tell the House how he will judge whether or not those negotiations have been successful as they affect the taxpayer?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, as I said at that stage, the Government will have to consider all relevant factors before accepting the outcome of the negotiations.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us why other expressions of interest are so commercially confidential? After all, the Rover Group is apparently available for sale. That has been known for some time. Is it not the case that there have been, and continue to be, other expressions of interest, and that these are being pushed aside by the Government? To return to my original Question, is that consistent with the fiduciary duties of the Rover Group directors and the Government?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I also have seen press reports of other approaches with regard to the Rover Group. The Government have entered into

903
negotiations for the Rover Group with British Aerospace on an exclusive basis. Until the end of April the Government will not negotiate with any other party. The reason why any other approaches are confidential is that they have been made on that basis. We are not prepared to negotiate at this time.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, if an offer is made which is better than the British Aerospace offer, would that be a relevant consideration?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, that would certainly be a relevant factor.

Post Office Advertisement
2.48 p.m.
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of their campaign against robbery, they propose to make representations to the Post Office regarding a Post Office advertisement stating—"We don't think that credit transfer is a good idea … keep your money where it works best, in your hand".
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, it would not be appropriate for the Government to intervene in what is a commercial matter for the Post Office.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, does that mean that the Post Office is entitled to hide behind a rule about day-to-day operations in the course of publishing a statement of general policy with which most people do not agree?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I regard the Post Office's response to the DHSS campaign as a legitimate commercial response. The Post Office is as entitled as any other organisation to compete for customers.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, does the noble Lord suppose that the Post Office talks to its friends at the National Giro before it publishes such an advertisement?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I am not quite sure to what the noble Lord refers. The National Giro may well have come into it. The Giro Bank certainly represents one way in which the DHSS is able to transfer money to recipients.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that in this advertisement the Post Office is advising the public not to deal with the Giro Bank since the Giro Bank handles credit transfers—quite properly, as it was set up to do? In advising the public that it does not think credit transfer is a good idea, is not the Post Office depriving its subsidiary of business?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, that might be a slight effect of the point that the Post Office is making in the advertisement, but no doubt it is also trying to make the point against all its competitors in the commercial banking world.

Business
2.50 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 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Committee stage of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Transfers) Bill and the Second Readings of the Foreign Marriage (Amendment) Bill and the Duchy of Lancaster Bill will be taken.

Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, and read a first time.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 9th March), Bill read a second time; Committee negatived; Bill read a third time, and passed.

Regional Development Grants (Termination) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Employment Bill
2.53 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 CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD ABERDARE) in the Chair.]
Clause 23 [The Training Commission]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 120ZA:
Page 24, line 20, after ("sixteen") insert ("but members appointed in addition to the ten specified in that section shall have an advisory role only").
The noble Baroness said: As it stands the Bill seeks to change representation on the Manpower Services Commission, which is now to be known as the Training Commission. Since 1973 the commission has consisted of three commissioners representing employees via the CBI, three commissioners representing employees nominated by the TUC, plus representatives from the local authorities and a

905
representative from the field of education. The Bill seeks to add to that number further employers' representatives who are not nominated by the CBI but appointed directly by the Government.
The MSC has opposed that change. It felt that such additional employer members would upset the current balance which has enabled the commission to function effectively. During our debates on this Bill much has been heard about the need for balance. This proposal is another instance of the Government going over the top in their attitude to trade union representation and disturbing that balance, because the new employers' representatives will certainly have the effect of weighting the commission against trade union influence.
The TUC General Council, of which I was a member until last year, has always supported training programmes and the Manpower Services Commission. This has not always been easy. Voices have been raised within the trade union movement against continued participation in the commission and against particular schemes. The YTS in particular has been heavily criticised as not providing proper training and because of the level of allowances, which were seen to be too low. Nevertheless, the TUC has seen its role as directed towards ensuring that quality training is provided rather than cheap labour schemes, and the General Council has hitherto been successful in persuading the trade union movement that at every level co-operation with the commission is desirable.
To me and to these Benches the Goverment's proposal in this Bill appears to undermine the contribution which the trade union movement has made and should continue to make. If the trade union commissioners are to be swamped in this way by employers' representatives who are directly appointed by the Government, pressure will grow for the TUC to withdraw altogether from the commission on the grounds that its representatives are simply prisoners of an in-built majority. That would be a great pity and entirely counter-productive.
The Government may say, as indeed they have said already in another place, that the employers' representatives are required to be there in force because they are the ones who will be expected to provide the training. My amendment acknowledges that fact. It does not seek to debar them from membership but to restrict their role to an advisory capacity. In that way the essential balance can be maintained. If the Government are genuine in saying that they are not anti-union and do not want to marginalise the trade union movement, but are concerned to ensure continued trade union co-operation in training, then in our view they should accept the amendment.
I ask the Committee to vote for the amendment. If it is accepted it will be necessary to move a similar amendment to Clause 28, which contains similar propositions. We shall table an amendment at Report stage in order to bring that clause into line and maintain consistency. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: I want very strongly to support this amendment. For the past four years I have been chairman of a local board and through all the difficulties of ensuring full support for the YTS, trade union loyalty to the scheme has been absolutely essential. In the case that I have been concerned with and, I believe, throughout the country, trade union support has been very good indeed. After all, these measures have to operate at local level. If the trade union representatives feel that inevitably they will be outnumbered and down-graded—on the committees one does not vote very often but it happens from time to time—one runs the very considerable risk of losing that absolutely essential trade union support.
I know that the Government will say that they want more employers' representatives because they want employers to represent different facets of employment. They want the small employer as well as the large one, the retail trade and so on. I suggest that that is not a very powerful argument. On these committees one wants employers who are experienced in training, who understand the problems and have enthusiasm for training. Our experience has been that employers find it extremely difficult to make time to attend. Employers must be enthusiastic and want to come to the committees.
I believe that it will be very difficult to get people to turn up to man the committees in the numbers that are suggested and that they will be hampered to no good effect at all. I very much hope that the parity of the trade unions will be maintained, both centrally and locally.
3 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: This amendment does neither one thing nor the other: it does not retain the membership of 10, which seems to appeal to both the noble Baronesses who have spoken; on the other hand, it proposes that six of the 16 members should attend only in an advisory capacity. It is not very clear what precisely is meant by "an advisory capacity", although I suppose it means that they would have no vote in the event of a difference.
However, the idea that one has carefully to constitute the commission so that there is no majority for one source of membership or another is quite misleading. There is no reason to believe that the present commission has voted on party lines, still less reason to believe that the Training Commission—as it will become—will similarly vote. There is something slightly derogatory, of being a second-class citizen, in being put on a body some of whose members have full voting rights and are full members, and some of whom are only there in an advisory capacity. The difficulty the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has suggested in getting good enough employers—employers with enough experience—to serve would be accentuated if all that they could be offered was a post in an advisory capacity.
I share the Government's view that one wants additional employers on this body. It is the employers who will be responsible ultimately for training, and, with the vast variety of British industry today, in particular with the development of the new technologically important industries, very few people will have the knowledge to cover the training needs of

907
more than a small section of industry. Therefore one requires—and this I understand is the purpose of the clause—a fairly wide spread of employers who will have between them the knowledge of the training requirements of most of British industry. I suggest that one will not attract those if one puts them on a body in a slightly derogatory way.
When I read the amendment I could not help being reminded of—and Members of the Committee may recall—the pleasant story of the preacher at one of those sects that indulge in extempore prayers at their services. He was heard to say, "Oh Lord, use me. Oh Lord, use me—be it only in an advisory capacity."
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I cannot support the amendment because the additional members in this important task ought to have a full vote and ought not to have merely an advisory role. However, the amendment raises a very important point of principle. The principle of parity between the employer and employee representatives on the commission was enshrined by Section 1 of the Employment and Training Act 1973. Clause 23, as it stands, leaves it open, as I understand it, to the Secretary of State by appointments to this commission without consultation to defeat this principle of parity if the membership, excluding the chairman, is enlarged beyond 10 to 16.
On this process of enlargement on this very important commission, it appears that there would be no consultation required before the Secretary of State makes any further appointments beyond the 10 under the Act of 1973, and there is absolutely no machinery whatever to preserve parity. I accept that one wants more employer representatives, for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, but I cannot understand why the principle of parity should be derogated. It is not merely a question of not understanding. It is the settled wish that there should be continued co-operation between the trade unions and the employers, so essential to this vital new dimension of employment and training as envisaged by this Act. Therefore, speaking only for myself, while I am relieved that the noble Baroness put down this amendment to afford a vehicle for an exchange of view, as I have indicated, I cannot vote for it because I take the view that the functions are so important that there should be full voting rights, not merely advisory rights.
There has been a history of problems—and Members of the Committee should know it—in the past where the trade union council at one stage was minded not to co-operate under the old Act and it was only by virtue of certain very responsible unions (I need not name them) that co-operation was retained, regained and preserved. Is it not more important that we should go forward, so far as we can, in a form of partnership, a joint venture in training and in employment, rather than that we should give the impression to trade union members that they are to be to some degree at a disadvantage? Many of these trade union members vote Conservative. More—it is true—vote Labour. Some vote for other political parties. Some do not vote. But how they vote, or whether they vote, we, and any
908
government, assuredly will require their co-operation in the years to come.
This is merely a plea to the Minister to entertain the principle which could be derogated from to the danger of future advance, although, as I have said quite frankly, I shall not support this amendment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I was not going to speak to this amendment, but perhaps I may correct one point put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I do not think that I am putting his words perfectly accurately, but he inferred that the final total responsibility for training rests with the employer. To anyone who has spent a lifetime in a skilled industry training apprentices nothing could be further from the truth. If one is training youths and girls in skills—and I am talking about skills, not semi-skills, and much of this will be skilled techniques in the new industries—they can be trained only by people who have those skills. They can be trained only on a widening basis.
During a long time spent as a skilled engineer in factories in a variety of jobs, I was able to help train apprentices under agreements with the trade unions. There is no point is saying that because the employer owns the factory he can go ahead with training schemes, and that whatever he says will count. It just does not work like that. Other than finding the time and resources, the employer is not—and I repeat, not—the teacher. In most cases it will be the man in the overalls. If it is in engineering, he may be a turner, a miller, a fitter, a blacksmith or someone like that, who will convey his skills and will train the emerging generation.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? The point that I was trying to make was this—and if I failed to make it clearly I apologise to Members of the Committee. The employer is, in the first place, in a position to know what skills are likely to be required in future years. He is in a position to know therefore not merely that people require to be trained, but how many of those trained in particular skills will be taken up in employment. That is the point. I did not say that he had sole knowledge. The noble Lord misunderstood. I said that he had a major responsibility; and I stick to that.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I accept fully what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has said, but I do not think that the two facets of his argument alter the basis of the argument one iota. Though the employers' representatives might have a crystal ball to see what future requirements are, when they have decided how many apprentices a trade will require for the next few years everything comes back to square one, where the men on the shop floor at various levels will be mostly in charge of training these lads.
I worked in a factory that at one time employed 25,000 of whom the greater percentage were mainly skilled people. Within that factory was a very fine fully managed training school. It became part of a rationalisation programme and the new employer thought that it was not worth keeping the school open, so that part of the training fell by the wayside. Training had to take second place. I stress once again that training took place with the tools of the trade on the job. It is because of proper training methods that

909
is some industries young men of 20 and 21 are almost at their peak of production; they have been trained properly, by skilled men on the job, in full knowledge and cognisance of the trade union movement.
When talking about trade unions some Members of the Committee may sometimes assume that unions make a blanket approach to everything. But that is the last approach of trade unionism and its application, because most trade union agreements are dealt with at factory level. Very often trade union officials will make decisions on training and try to impose them in a particular factory. It is possible that the people in the factory will not accept them; however they have to be carried into effect.
I feel that it is dangerous to assume we can continue in this fashion and diminish the role of the trade union movement in such a vital area as this. Today, the CBI is on record as saying that there is a shortage of skilled men and women in certain jobs. Is that any wonder when for nearly a decade some industries, I repeat the word "some", have been unnecessarily savaged in the view of some of us? We have lost a generation of seed corn in this country.
As I said, I am a skilled engineer. When I left engineering to become a Member of Parliament in 1974 there were nearly half a million apprentices in training, from school leaving age until they emerged as skilled men. Today, there is a less than 30 per cent. intake of skilled engineers, and that has been so for the last 10 years. We are wondering why there is now a shortage of skilled people. I am concerned mainly about skilled engineers and I understand now that in some parts of the country there is a crying need for them.
If the Government are really serious and want to make up some of the leeway that has been tragically lost, unless they give the trade unions a full role to play—and that will be seen only as a diminishing one—we may very well damage the schemes that we are hoping will be successful.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I intervene briefly in this discussion because for a number of years I was a commissioner in the Manpower Services Commission, so I have immediate experience of how it has worked in the past and perhaps can imagine how it would work in the future under the Government's proposals.
Through the years of developing the employment and training measures that we now have, and of making the enormous and radical changes in training which the country needed, on the whole the commission has succeeded on behalf of the nation. However, its progress has at times been desperately slow. One of the reasons for that is that the composition of nine members (which included three TUC and three CBI members) and the balance of interest was such that many months were spent—for example, in getting off the ground the Youth Training Scheme, or the TVEI, which was the Manpower Services Commission initiative in schools or, indeed, the earlier adult programme—in discussion across the table between the CBI and the TUC about their interests, also between them and the Government about their interests, and sometimes about the
910
combined interests of those two groups and the Government. After each meeting those two groups had to go away and talk to their parent bodies and return for another meeting.
This went on for months. In the meantime a whole year of YTS potential trainees lost the opportunity to be in the scheme. Many adults lost opportunities on the old schemes because they were delayed and the TVEI was held up. Indeed it was held up, although I do not think particularly under the auspices of the Trades Union Congress, by the teachers' unions. In my own area it was held up for so long that it has only just now started in the schools. This was not because individual members did not think that what was going on was a good idea, but because of the structure of the commission and what it was trying to do. I believe it was right to structure it like that at the time, but huge changes in understanding had to occur, and these were bound to take time.
Now we are in a different ball game. People now understand the YTS. We know that it will get better and better. It is already quite good, as many noble Lords have already said from their own experience. Its model is now being followed for adults by the other training scheme; this will bring all the other schemes together. All this is now accepted. What is now important is that the content of training should move fast enough for the changing needs of the nation.
Baroness Seear: The noble Baroness will agree, surely, that there is a grave danger that the new job training scheme efforts will not be accepted because of failure of trade union co-operation. The amendment is an attempt to stop the possible ruining of the new job training scheme.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I imagine that that is how we used to talk, but, quite honestly, I think that the nation now understands that it would be at the TUC's peril if it tried to hold up such an excellent scheme, when we can all see how well the youth training scheme has developed. I should not have thought that the TUC would want to do so. Nor would I hope that the TUC would want to withdraw from the commission, because it has an enormous and important contribution to make, as it has all along. What the noble Lord, Lord Dean, said was indeed true. The contribution of the trade unions to the development of training has been crucial.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am glad that the noble Baroness has given way, and I appreciate that. But is she, and is the Committee, aware that the biggest crash training programme ever in the history of this country took place when the nation was in peril in 1940? Does the Committee recall that Winston Churchill sent for the trade union leaders and asked them to accept dilution and train quickly hundreds of thousands of engineers to produce on behalf of the country? We are now within an economic war, whether we want it or not. Does not the noble Baroness think that it might be better to proceed with goodwill rather than to introduce a measure such as this, which may have the opposite effect?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I should quickly like to complete my argument. Of course that is true and the

911
unions understand it very well now, but we have to move quickly and it is clear that training has to be employer-led. Employers are paying for much of it. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said, they have the knowledge of what future skill requirements will be. It is not only the CBI that has it. In the past there has been the feeling among employers that as not everyone belongs to the CBI its position is not necessarily that of all employers, especially the smaller ones. They very much wanted other employer representatives and therefore I believe this to be an excellent arrangement for the new type of commission.
The TUC is there to advise, contribute and vote but the commission as a whole is employer-led and that situation would work. It would not work if the extra members were non-voting members. I do not believe that the TUC or the unions should feel that there is anything wrong with that. I believe that it will work, that it is right for the nation and that it should take place and therefore I shall oppose the amendment.
Lord Rochester: The noble Baroness says that it is for the employers to lead. However, does she not agree that the essence of leadership is that people should follow? Are not people more likely to follow—in this case trade unionists—if they are able to participate in the consultative and decision-making process?
Lord Carr of Hadley: I cannot support the amendment because I do not like the idea of advisory members and I believe that it would be wrong. However, I am unhappy about the Government's proposal. As Secretary of State for Employment at the beginning of the 1970s I had a considerable hand in the formulation of the idea of the Manpower Services Commission, although when it was implemented I had moved on elsewhere. I am sure that the idea of parity was central to its acceptance and its working, certainly far from perfectly but not too unsatisfactorily. I believe that to disturb that parity would be detrimental and not helpful.
I do not give much credence to the idea that there must be more employers to cover a wider range of skills. That would be equally true of the number of employee representatives because they are also involved. In response to the point made by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour, I do not say that the CBI and the TUC should necessarily have a monopoly of representation. That may be another issue to examine.
I believe that to leave the matter as it is, except for upsetting the parity, would be an ill-guided action and I hope that the Government will give the matter further thought. I go so far as to say that if the Government consider that they cannot maintain that parity, it would be better to put that training within the Department of Employment, from whence it came, and to drop the idea of a commission. However, please do not do so without giving the matter a great deal of further thought.
The Earl of Dundee: This amendment concerns the operation of the Training Commission. Members of the Committee will know that this clause fulfils the
912
Government's manifesto commitment to increase employer representation on the commission. This change reflects the new focus on training and retraining in the commission's work. Its effect would be to deny these members the right to make a full contribution to the work of the commission and to vote on commission business. Following the remarks of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I am sure that its contributions in an advisory capacity would still receive the blessings of the Almighty.
What is the justification for increasing the number of employers, as we propose? The Government firmly believe that employers have the primary responsibility for the provision of training. Naturally, they also believe that this should be reflected in the composition of the Training Commission—
Baroness Seear: Will the noble Earl say to whom he was referring when he said that it would have the blessing of the Almighty?
The Earl of Dundee: I was moving to half support the wishes of the noble Baroness because we believe that contributions in an advisory capacity are always most useful, particularly so when blessed by the Almighty. I concede the point made by my noble friend Lord Carr that there will not be parity between employers and others.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Turner and Lady Seear, and the noble Lord, Lord Dean, expressed concern that the effect of the measures would be detrimental to trade union representation. There will be a continuing role for trade unionists, local authorities, educationists and others on the commission and its advisory bodies. However, the central responsibility for training must lie with employers. It is they who create the demand for skilled labour, it is they who are the customers for such skills, and it is they who are best placed to assess their training requirements.
One consequence of this is that it is important that the new commissioners should be able to contribute fully and effectively to the work of the commission. By this I do not mean that the contribution of employers should be to the exclusion of the contributions of others, merely that it is important that the new commissioners are able to vote should that ever prove necessary. A further consequence of the argument I have outlined is that since employers have the major responsibility for training they should also be the majority on the Training Commission.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Turner and Lady Seear, and my noble friend Lord Campbell expressed concern about the effect that the clause may have on the commission's decision-making process. The operation of the commission is a matter for the commission to decide upon. I see no reason why it should not continue to operate through consensus. In that context I was interested to hear the remarks of my noble friend Lady Carnegy. However, whatever its chosen style, the fact remains that we believe that employers should have a greater say in that process and that all the commissioners should, as at present, have full voting rights should they need them.
I should like to deal with the overall effect of our proposals on the commission. If the number of

913
employers were to be increased in an indiscriminate way I should partially accept the argument put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that that would not necessarily be helpful. I believe that the new commission will be a more effective commission. The appointment of more employer commissioners is an opportunity to bring in members from a broader spectrum of industry, particularly from those sectors where employment growth has been fastest; for example, the new technology industries, tourism and leisure services, retailing and distribution, banking, insurance and financial services and small firms.
Our concern is to develop a training strategy able to meet the needs of contemporary industry and provide individuals with the skills they need to play an active and rewarding part in society. To meet this challenge the commission will need to draw on the skills and experience of our traditional industries and the enterprising spirit and innovative flair shown by the newer sectors. Clause 23 will allow the commission to do this in the most direct and sensible way. For those reasons I have to say that I am unable to accept this amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: We on these Benches should like to clarify one matter. Is it the case that the pleas put forward to the Government spokesman by his noble friends for maintaining the position of parity—which is the solution that we prefer even to our own amendment— fall on deaf ears and that there is no prospect of the Government rethinking the matter?
The Earl of Dundee: I should not like to say to the noble Lord that his pleas, or those of other Members of the Committee, fall on deaf ears because our ears are always open. I hope that we always respond in a constructive manner to everything that is said. Nevertheless, I confirm that our decision is not to have parity, as he has outlined.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am disappointed with the Minister's response to what we on these Benches considered to be an extremely reasonable amendment. As my noble friend Lord Wedderburn has said, we should prefer parity and that is our starting point. However, we tabled the amendment in an attempt to come to terms with what the Government have said in another place. In effect, they said that they felt that more employers were required because they were mostly concerned with training and the kind of training that was provided was down to them. We did not altogether agree with that but we tried to meet that point of view by suggesting that the employer should have an advisory role and in that way, as we saw it, maintain the balance as regards trade union input on the commission.
I am very sorry to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, that she believes that the presence of the TUC was not all that helpful when it came to the YTS. In fact, the trade union commissioners on the commission at that time were anxious to ensure that the YTS scheme that eventually emerged was the kind of scheme which would carry conviction with the mass of the membership. We have to ensure that people understand what is being done at local level as well as having agreement at national level.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Perhaps my noble friend would give way. Is it not a fact that some of the most successful schemes have only proceeded on a substantial basis where trade union leaders have consulted with their members and have been able to ensure that their members accept a reduction in the agreed training periods—from five to three years in some industries—which has increased the employment of youngsters in those industries fairly dramatically? Indeed, the electricity industry is a prime example. Is it not a fact that the kind of action on which the Government are insisting may jeopardise the situation in other industries?
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank my noble friend for that intervention. He is quite right and it simply emphasises what we have said on these Benches; namely, that trade union co-operation and input into training are very important indeed if these schemes are to proceed, and everybody hopes that they will do so.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Perhaps I may just interrupt the noble Baroness. I was not suggesting that the TUC input was not altogether helpful. I was chairman of the committee for Scotland for several years and the TUC input was enormously helpful. I was merely pointing out the pragmatic fact that the structure of the commission, with three CBI and three TUC members—which had been the vision of my noble friend Lord Carr and subsequently was the way in which the commission was set up—held matters up and made them painfully slow. However, that was not in any way a criticism of the trade union members in their relationship to YTS.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. To return to the arguments about parity, I was glad to learn that noble Lords on the opposite side—the noble Lords, Lord Carr, and Lord Campbell of Alloway—seem to be arguing in favour of parity. Moreover, during the course of the discussions this afternoon, it seems that there is a view in your Lordships' Committee that the whole idea of parity should be reconsidered by the Government, even though the Minister said that the Government are not prepared to do that. Therefore, although it had been our intention to divide on this amendment if we did not receive a reasonable response from the Minister, we now intend to seek to divide the Committee on the Question whether clause stand part, which I believe we can do if that emerges as a result of the discussions in Committee. It seems to us that this has clearly emerged during the discussions on this amendment in Committee. Therefore, while we are not asking the Committee to divide on this amendment, we shall ask it to divide on the Question whether clause stand part. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.34 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 23 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 112; Not-Contents, 72

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M

Kitchener, E.

Allerton, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Ampthill, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Arran, E.

Layton, L.

Auckland, L.

Long, V.

Bagot, L.

Lothian, M.

Bauer, L.

Luke, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Lurgan, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Belstead, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Bessborough, E.

Manton, L.

Blatch, B.

Marley, L.

Blyth, L.

Merrivale, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mersey, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Morris, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Munster, E.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Nelson, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Norfolk, D.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Onslow, E.

Cawley, L.

Orkney, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Porritt, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Pym, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Reilly, L.

Cowley, E.

Renton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Richardson, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Rodney, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Romney, E.

Digby, L.

Rugby, L.

Dundee, E.

St. Davids, V.

Ebbisham, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Ellenborough, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Sandford, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Seebohm, L.

Gormanston, V.

Selborne, E.

Grantchester, L.

Semphill, Ly.

Gray of Contin, L.

Shannon, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sharples, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Harvington, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hayter, L.

Slim, V.

Hemphill, L.

Strange, B.

Hesketh, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Hood, V.

Strathspey, L.

Hooper, B.

Terrington, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Teviot, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Killearn, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Kimball, L.

Trumpington, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Wolfson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Attlee, E.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Aylestone, L.

Dowding, L.

Banks, L.

Dudley, B.

Basnett, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Ennals, L.

Bottomley, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Briginshaw, L.

Falkland, V.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Fitt, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Gallacher, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Galpern, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

David, B.

Hampton, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Hanworth, V.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Diamond, L.

Hughes, L.

916

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Rochester, L.

Jacques, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Jay, L.

Seear, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Serota, B.

Kearton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Leatherland, L.

Somers, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stallard, L.

Longford, E.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

McCarthy, L.

Strabolgi, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

McNair, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Mayhew, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Mulley, L.

Underhill, L.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Oram, L.

Walston, L.

Peston, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L

Phillips, B.

White, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Wigoder, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Williams of Elvel, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and clause agreed to accordingly.
Clause 24 [Functions of the Secretary of State and of the Commission]:
3.42 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No 120ZB:
Page 24, line 35, after ("appropriate") insert ("in consultation with the Commission")
The noble Baroness said: The clause as it stands gives the Secretary of State very sweeping powers indeed. If the clause is passed unamended it will give the Secretary of State the power to make whatever arrangements,
"he considers appropriate for the purpose of assisting persons to select, train for, obtain and retain employment suitable for their ages and capacities".
Furthermore, the arrangements for which he is to have direct authority include temporary employment, encouraging increases in equal opportunities, payments by way of grant or loan, provision for allowances, and so on. It would seem that the Bill formally removes from the commission any independent power to control its own training programmes.
These changes have the effect of centralising power in the hands of the Secretary of State. I am not alone in believing that too great a concentration or centralisation of power is a bad thing. That view is held by many people nowadays and is being increasingly voiced.
There is little point in having a Training Commission unless it has some degree of independence. If we have a specialist body concerned with training, which most people believe to be necessary, why should not the Secretary of State have a duty to consult that body in the exercise of the very wide powers granted to him under the Bill? I cannot think of any possible objections to this reasonable amendment and I therefore commend it to the Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: Again, I should like to support this amendment. The whole idea of the establishment of the Manpower Services Commission, which was after all created by a previous Conservative Government,

917
was the need to bring in people working in that field—employers, trade unionists, and others—who had expert knowledge of training matters. Civil servants in the Department of Employment do not have that kind of expertise and that is one reason why the commission was set up. It is an extremely retrograde step to take away responsibility from a body which has done an extremely good job and which can draw on the support of people working in this sphere, and to hand it back to a government department.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said that she could not see any reason for not accepting this amendment. I am conscious that in rising to speak I am making a purely technical objection. As the Committee will know, there are various canons of construction which act as a scheme of communication between Parliament, through its draftsmen, and the courts. One of those is frequently quoted in Latin by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham and I suspect that it would be quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, if he were in the Chamber. Roughly translated into English it means: "If Parliament specifies one particular thing it means to exclude others of the same sort of thing". By stating, that this shall be done,
"in consultation with the Commission",
if the matter ever came to be reviewed by the courts there is some reason to fear that the courts might say that Parliament intended that there should not be any other sort of consultation.
Reading through this clause, it strikes one immediately that one sort of consultation that the Minister will wish to conduct is with the Equal Opportunities Commission in relation to the employment of women. Therefore, whatever the general merits of this amendment it seems to me that there is a technical reason which the Committee should hesitate on before accepting the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Briefly, such indeed would be the unintended effect in law of this amendment. There would be a severely limiting instruction. Bearing in mind that the Secretary of State,
"shall make such arrangements as he considers appropriate"
surely it is all but implicit that he would consult before he makes arrangements. He cannot make arrangements out of the air, so to speak. Is it not implicit also that he would consult with, of all bodies, the commission? Therefore, the amendment is not only open to the objection that it could have a limiting effect but that it would be slightly inconsistent with the way in which Clause 24(1) is drafted in mandatory form. I know that is not what the noble Baroness intended, but it would be very dangerous to accept this amendment.
Lord Trefgarne: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for his intervention to which I believe the Committee will wish to attach considerable importance. The noble and learned Lord was supported by my almost equally learned friend sitting on my right, which adds a special force to what the noble and learned Lord said.
918
I was interested also to hear the intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in support of the amendment. Indeed, I notice that the noble Baroness has attached her name to almost every amendment to the Bill tabled by the Opposition.
Baroness Seear: Not every amendment.
Lord Trefgarne: Perhaps not every amendment, but a great many tabled by the Opposition enjoy the support of the noble Baroness. Indeed, during earlier discussions on this Bill the noble Baroness spoke in support of Opposition amendments to which she had not specifically attached her name but with which she nonetheless found herself in agreement. Whether this comparatively new departure by the Liberal Party totally aligning itself with the views of the Opposition represents the result of the removal of Dr. David Owen as an inhibiting influence on the views of the noble Baroness, I cannot say. Nonetheless, she is of course entitled to express her views.
Baroness Seear: Would the noble Lord not waste the time of the Committee by discussing my relations with the Labour Party?
Lord Trefgarne: I think I am entitled to comment upon the speech of the noble Baroness speaking from the Liberal Front Bench in support of this amendment. If the noble Baroness wishes to avoid any comment upon what she says, then she has only to keep in her place.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Would the noble Lord give way—
Lord Trefgarne: Are we going to reduce everything to this childish party-points scoring? The House of Commons does it rather better than this House. I am sorry if the noble Lord is so sensitive about criticism of his party's policy. This is a highly political measure. I recognise that it represents the embodiment of what this party thinks on these matters. The amendments tabled by the Opposition represent their view on the matter. They are entitled to express their views, and I am entitled to express mine. The noble Baroness is also entitled to express her views. I too am entitled to criticise the views that are offered in criticism of this Bill.
It may help if I explain that the adjustment of powers made by Clause 24 follows from the transfer from the Commission to the Secretary of State of Jobcentre activities so that the new Employment Service could be created. This new service combines the management of the Department of Employment's network of unemployment benefit offices with that of Jobcentres. Our aim is to create a service which can ensure that the unemployed have the best possible help to take up the expanding job opportunities on offer. Many of the unemployed have lost touch with the jobs market. While in the past they will have continued to attend benefit offices, their contact with Jobcentres has often been limited to the occasional scrutiny of the self-service displays. The new service will mean that it will be easier for Jobcentre staff to give help regularly and individually to the unemployed, particularly the longer-term unemployed.

919
Clause 24 gives the Secretary of State his own powers in the longer term to run the new Employment Service. The effect of this amendment would be to take that power away because it would prevent him from running the Employment Service except in consultation with the commission.
Concern has also been expressed that the commission should be consulted about training. As your Lordships will be aware, the commission is now able to focus its efforts on training following the formation of the new Employment Service. The adjustments made by Clause 24 should not in practice affect the work carried out now by the commission nor should it affect its relationship in practice with the Secretary of State. Paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 makes it clear that the commission shall continue to carry (out after the Bill comes into force) the same activities as at present. There is also formal provision in Clause 24 for dialogue between the commission and the Secretary of State.
There has always been a flow of information in both directions and an exchange of thoughts and ideas. I see no reason why that should stop. Section 2(4) of the 1973 Act as amended by the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to carry out his duty by authorising the commission to act on his behalf, which he can hardly do without agreement. We envisage this will be the way in which functions are normally delegated. Furthermore, Clause 24 provides in new Section 3(2) of the 1973 Act for the commission to continue to submit proposals to the Secretary of State from time to time in relation to its functions.
I hope in the light of that explanation, and in particular as regards the difficulties referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, the noble Baroness will see fit to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Phillips: Before my noble friend replies, perhaps I may seek clarification. I had the privilege of speaking at the Dispatch Box for five years. I was told that you speak for the Government or on this side you speak for the Opposition. If you wish to express your own views you go to the Back-Benches. Can we have clarification of what the noble Lord said at the outset? He said he was allowed to express his own point of view. Was he expressing his own personal point of view or was he expressing the views of Her Majesty's Government?
Lord Trefgarne: Happily, the two are coincident.
Lord Somers: Perhaps I may point out one matter to the noble Lord. Has it occurred to him that it is a great mistake to give absolute power into the hands of any one political official? I am not wishing to throw any disparagement on the Minister we have at present, but one must remember that one of the features of our much-vaunted democratic system is that Secretaries of State come and Secretaries of State go. It might be our misfortune to have quite the wrong man in that position. Therefore I believe it to be very much better that we should have some means by which his choice is kept in check.
Lord Trefgarne: It is a feature of our system to which the noble Lord rightly draws attention that Secretaries of State come and go. If the electorate so decides, the Secretary of State might become one of a different political persuasion. That is how the system works. The fact of the matter is that Parliament often provides powers to the Secretary of State. Naturally, the Bill now before the Committee has been drafted by the Government with a view to its provisions being implemented by this Secretary of State and his Conservative successors. I dare say and hope that that will continue for a long time.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Nothing that the Minister has said has set at rest my fears about the centralisation of power which I believe this Bill indicates. The comments that he made about delegation and about Jobcentres, and so on, still indicate that the Secretary of State will have a very substantial concentration of power if the Bill goes through unamended. It is not my intention this afternoon to press this amendment. That is not because of what the Minister had to say, but because of the comments made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. He pointed out an unlooked-for result of the wording of this amendment which could mean that consultation with other bodies such as the Equal Opportunities Commission would be ruled out if we simply specify by way of amendment that there should be consultation with the Training Commission. That is not what we had intended in putting down the amendment; and that is what other noble Lords understood who spoke to this amendment.
I regard the comments of the Minister as entirely unsatisfactory because he has not dealt in any way with the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, about the Training Commission and the wealth of expertise that is available through the commission. Neither has the Minister dealt with any of the the comments or criticisms that have been made about the over-concentration of power in the hands of the Secretary of State. Even so, we shall not press the amendment at this point in time. I beg leave to withdraw it. However, we may look at the matter again on Report.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Nugent of Guildford): Is it the pleasure of the Committee that this amendment be withdrawn?
Lord Trefgarne: No.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Question before the Committee is that this amendment be agreed to.
On Question, amendment negatived.
4 p.m.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 120A:
Page 24, line 39, at end insert—
("(2) All arrangements made under this section shall make suitable provision for disabled people.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is tabled in order to make certain that the care taken by the Manpower Services Commission to make special

921
provision for disabled people shall be incorporated into the new legislation. I have no doubt that the Minister will tell us that this is already adequately covered. We do not accept that that is so and we want to make absolutely certain that it will happen. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I too am anxious that the commission should have a responsibility with regard to the training and employment of disabled people, including the mentally handicapped who are the largest group of disabled people in this country. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in reading the Bill as containing no reference whatever to disabled people. Perhaps there is some hidden reference which a superficial reading of the Bill does not reveal. If that is so we should be told what it is, but I doubt whether there is one. If no responsibility of this kind is placed upon the newly formed Training Commission perhaps some other statutory body will have the responsibility. However, I do not know of one.
Having said that, and bearing in mind that the noble Baroness presented the amendment in a somewhat probing manner, I do not think that it is in the right place in the clause. Instead of being a new subsection (2) of new Section 2 of the 1973 Act it should become subsection (3). It would be better that way. In addition, I should have preferred it to read,
"shall make provision for training and employment of disabled people who are unemployed".
That is the intention. I do not think that the word "suitable" is necessary or, if I may say so, suitable at that point. I hope that we shall have a reasoned and sympathetic reply from my noble friend.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support the amendment and wish also to adopt the type of formula put forward by my noble friend Lord Renton as to the wording. "Suitable" raises problems in relation to the wording of new Section 2(1):
"The Secretary of State shall make such arrangements as he considers appropriate".
Then we have "suitable" and it does not marry too well as a matter of drafting.
Secondly, and subject to correction, I do not think that the Committee will find anything about the disabled in this Bill and, indeed, would not expect to do so in Part II because Clause 24 amends the 1973 Act. In the 1973 Act there is no express reference to the disabled. However, we have developed so much in our care for the disabled since 1973 that the point is valid today. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing forward the amendment.
I agree with my noble friend that the amendment is in the wrong place. I think it should go in Clause 25 where it deals with statutory instruments. However, I do not want to detain the Committee and I am fully content to leave it to the Minister and his advisers to decide where it should go. My only concern is that if possible we should have the sympathy of my noble friend for the principle of the matter.
Lord Basnett: I support the amendment and await with interest the contribution of the Minister. However, I should like to say a few words in support
922
of the amendment because it is important to those with disabilities. During the Second Reading debate I drew attention to the fact that Part II of the Employment Bill will establish a commission with responsibility to provide vocational training. I said:
"There is no direct requirement in the Bill for the Training Commission to provide any special services to disabled people".—[Official Report, 22/2/88; col. 958.]
I suggested that that was an omission and would need to be repaired at this stage. I was supported in this view by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who on the same day at col. 960 said:
"I hope and believe that the Training Commission will have provision for the training of disabled persons. If there is any omission in that respect I very much hope that my noble friend will deal with it".
There is such an omission.
The Government may argue that the Secretary of State already has a general duty to make provision for disabled people. In that case the amendment would emphasise that commitment and restate existing government policy. However, there is a far more important reason for the amendment. It would remind those who formulate policy that disabled people's needs must be taken into account when existing schemes are evaluated and any new schemes are designed. Recent experience has emphasised the need for this.
In the recent past the Manpower Services Commission's schemes, such as YTS, have failed initially to take account of the particular requirements of disabled people. Pressure from organisations such as RADAR, the Spastics Society and the Royal National Institute for the Blind have brought about improvements. This has taken some time and has meant that disabled people have had to wait until schemes have been modified. During the interim period they have missed out on their fair share of training opportunities. This amendment would ensure that such oversights were avoided in the future.
The amendment has a real not merely a presentational appearance. It has the same real purpose as a similar clause already contained in the Bill in respect of women and girls. I do not need to remind the Committee of the disadvantaged position of the disabled in the labour market. I am sure that all noble Lords will support any action to provide wider training for this purpose. This amendment is widely supported. It offends no principle and subverts no purpose of the Bill. It helps and is seen to help the disabled. When the Minister replies I hope that he will accept the purpose of the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I do not know the extent to which the noble Lord, Lord Basnett, has looked at what the Manpower Services Commission has been doing for the disabled over the past few years but it is widely admired all over Europe. The working up of schemes of the Manpower Services Commission took time for everybody and took time for the disabled. The noble Lord was quite right about that.
Various bodies have assisted the Manpower Services Commission through the years to develop those schemes. They are now absolutely magnificent. When I looked at the Bill I thought that it was the glory of the Manpower Services Commission that it

923
does not have to keep saying that everything is different for the disabled. Its responsibilities include people with every kind of disability so long as they can take part in the scheme. Its responsibilities in training generally can apply to anybody. That is why I thought it was not mentioned. I look forward to my noble friend's reply to make sure that that is in fact so and that it is merely a continuation of the present situation. If there is any difference of course the amendment is necessary; but, if there is not, I suggest that it is not.
Lord Renton: If my noble friend would allow me, I should like to ask her whether she is suggesting that the Manpower Services Commission was doing all this great work without being placed under any expressed statutory responsibility to do so?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am bound to confess that I cannot remember the precise wording of the Act on the subject. All I know is that the services and the training are now there and—it is not as my noble friend suggested—we are not merely talking about unemployed young people, we are talking about people with disabilities in training for work on the YTS. We are talking about the whole range of training and opportunities which will help people obtain employment.
Lady Kinloss: I support the amendment. The Bill pledges to encourage the participation of women and girls in the scheme. In that case, why can we not take this opportunity to demonstrate a similar commitment to make suitable provision for disabled people? In the past, special employment measures and training schemes have provided the few avenues through which disabled people have been able to obtain employment. In building for sound employment prospects in the future, the best practices from old schemes need to be carried forward into the new programme. The amendment argues for participation, not exemption, and gives legislative backing to attempts to make provision for disabled people.
Lord Trefgarne: I was hoping to intervene when most Members of the Committee had expressed their views so that I could perhaps respond to all of them at the same time.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: I should like to say a few additional words from the Cross Benches, to emphasise the point that this is not a suggestion involving just the party politicians. As I understand it, present practice and the proposed arrangements take into account the needs of the disabled. Therefore, the acceptance of this amendment would not mean changes in what is at present being done and what is proposed, despite the points that have been made earlier in the debate. However, to put it at its lowest, I believe it would be an important gesture to give statutory backing to this provision. It would have the practical effect of ensuring that future programmes were bound to take account of such a requirement.
Sadly, I must say, be it fair or unfair, that there are many disabled people who have some doubts as to
924
whether the Government really understand their position and their needs. However, this is not the occasion to discuss the view taken in another place regarding the amendment about disabled people passed in this Chamber on the Local Government Bill; but it is relevant to the extent that that decision, and the reasons given for it by the Government, will not do anything to diminish those doubts. It seems to me that here we offer a chance—whether it is in the right place or has the right phraseology, is a matter for discussion—for the Government to show that they care.
Lord Trefgarne: I fully appreciate the good intentions behind the amendment but I assure noble Lords that the duty on the Secretary of State, under Clause 24, clearly includes a requirement to make provision for the disabled. This provision also allows him to make special arrangements for this group of people to take account of their particular needs and problems.
The duty to make appropriate arrangements to assist persons to:
"select, train for, obtain and retain employment suitable for their.… capacities"
was placed upon the MSC when it was established under the Employment and Training Act 1973. This gave the commission the power to run specialised services for the disabled, incorporating other powers in the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944. There is no change in the nature of the Secretary of State's powers and duties towards disabled people in the Bill. That same duty is transferred to the Secretary of State in Clause 24 of the Bill and will apply to the commission whenever the Secretary of State delegates his powers to it. A power is also retained in the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 to run specialised services for the disabled, such as sheltered employment.
I turn to the point made by the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, when she referred to the parallel between women and girls on the one hand and disabled people on the other, given that women and girls are indeed mentioned. That provision emerges from Section 2(2)(b) of the Employment and Training Act 1973, which relates to women and girls, and is reproduced in the Bill in the new Section 2. This provision, which was inserted in this Chamber during Committee stage in 1973, is purely presentational and simply states a specific power already included in the general power of Section 2(1).
Noble Lords have argued that we should also make specific provision for the disabled along the same lines. But if we were to list all the specific applications of the general duty in Section 2(1), it would be a very long list. It may indeed arise because of the difficulty referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, when he spoke to an earlier amendment; namely, that by reciting a list of specific powers you then exclude those that are not mentioned. I am sure that that is not what members of the Committee have in mind. However I am—
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Seear: Does the Minister agree that, by including women and girls, he has already offended in that way?
Lord Trefgarne: I was in fact just saying that that particular amendment was inserted in the 1973 legislation by this Chamber and, as I understand it, against the advice of the Government on that occasion. That is why I was able to say that I believe it was thought unnecessary at that time by the Government.
Lord McCarthy: Can the Minister say whether it has done any harm?
Lord Trefgarne: No, I do not suppose that it has done any harm. However, if the noble Lord will allow me to continue he may be reassured by what I have to say. For the reasons that I have given. I have already explained why I do not think that the amendment is necessary. But, having said that, I understand that your Lordships have strong views on the issue, as was evidenced by the speeches made on the previous Bill to which the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, referred. In the circumstances, I undertake to have another look at the wording of this passage to see whether it is possible to underline and clarify beyond peradventure the Government's intentions in the matter.
I should stress that I am not making a formal commitment to bring forward another amendment, because I may, after taking advice, find that that course is not necessary. However, I undertake to look again at the matter, and if the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment perhaps she and I can be in touch between now and the next stage of the Bill's proceedings to see whether there is a way to underline and clarify the Government's intentions.
Baroness Seear: Coming from the noble Lord, that offer is most gracious indeed. I shall therefore be extremely glad to withdraw the amendment on those conditions.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 120B:
Page 25, line 26, at end insert ("and such an allowance shall be paid unless such facilities are reasonably suitable to his capacities, aptitudes and requirements, and are of reasonable overall quality").
The noble Baroness said: The Bill makes provision for young people to be paid a bridging allowance, for a maximum of eight weeks in any one year, to tide them over while attempts are made to find them a training place. It has repeatedly been stated by Ministers that everyone will have a place. However, there are problems with that approach, and those are basically the reasons for the amendment which I move.
First, the mere promise of a YTS offer does not take sufficient account of the need to provide suitable training for young people; suitable in terms of their own capacities and aspirations and suitable in terms of the needs of the economy as a whole. Secondly, the absolute nature of the Government's determination to withdraw the bridging allowance after eight weeks could result in young people being left without any financial support. With such benefit entitlement withdrawn young people will lose an imporant element of choice in post-school life.
At present, the quality of training on offer is generally agreed to be patchy. The MSC itself admits that fact and agrees that by international standards our schemes are not good ones. One hopes of course that standards will improve, but in the meantime there would appear to be a paucity of options for young people looking for suitable training. There is the further criticism that, despite all the emphasis given by everyone to equal opportunities, the YTS does not yet pay sufficient attention to job training for female trainees in non-traditional areas; 92 per cent. of female YTS trainees are engaged in the caring and personal services sector; and only 3·5 per cent. in mechanical engineering, for example. So, what about choices in non-traditional areas for young women?
There is genuine concern that choice will be inhibited by the Bill's provisions. The scheme cannot be deemed suitable if unwilling trainees are forced into it by lack of financial support. The worry is that young people will not be offered or find suitable training.
Despite government claims that there are enough places on YTS, doubts about that still exist. At Christmas 1987, some 2,305 young people were still waiting to receive the offer of a YTS place. There are special problems in rural areas. The MSC sponsored a review entitled YTS in rural areas, and identified transport and travel as a most serious problem. In some cases, trainees have to make round trips of between 80 and 100 miles to complete the off-job content of their programme. Such young people often have a long wait for a place through no fault of their own. There would also appear to be continuing problems for young black people in the inner cities. The Government have committed themselves to find YTS places for every unemployed 16- and 17-year old within four months of their leaving school or two months of leaving YTS or a job. That is a welcome commitment, but there is no safety net for young people if that cannot be achieved. Nor is there any attempt made in the Bill to ensure that places offered to them, will be suitable. The amendment seeks to do both those things. I therefore commend it to the Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: I support the amendment, but not for the reasons that the Minister implied previously. Employers do not want conscript trainees. Those who have been involved in running a training course know that anyone who is there against his or her will is an extremely disruptive element. It is highly undesirable that people should be pushed into training programmes in which they do not wish to participate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, referred to the position of girls. In the areas with which I am especially concerned, we have a concentration of ethnic minorities. They have complained forcefully, rightly or wrongly, that they obtain the least favourable youth training scheme opportunities—those at the bottom of the pile.
If we are honest, we know that although the YTS has improved a great deal, some of the training is still not of the kind that we could say is up to the quality that we want. We are all working hard to get it up to that quality, but until that stage is reached it is highly undesirable that people should be forced into

927
training programmes which are not good and which they do not wish to enter. In that respect, I hope that the Government will reconsider the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I oppose the amendment. It is wrong to have a mandatory provision of a financial nature such as this in this clause of the Bill. Surely that is contrary to the spirit of the drafting of the clause. I can see no justification for it.
Baroness Phillips: There is a provision which already refers to payment. It would seem to include the element that needs to be covered by an amendment of this kind. It provides:
"shall not include the payment of any such allowance to a person—

(i) for any period after that person has attained the age of eighteen years; or

(ii) for any period for which child benefit is payable in respect of that person;"

As I understand it, there could be a lapse of a year. There is a difference between the end of child benefit payment and the beginning of the period which is referred to. That is why an amendment of this kind which makes no such reference would be useful.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: But there is no mandatory requirement as to payment in subsection (3)(a). The amendment imports a mandatory requirement.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: On a separate point, I question one word in the amendment. I see the argument that the facilities should be reasonably suitable to the capacities and attitudes of the person concerned and of reasonable overall quality. The word which I think calls for some explanation is "requirements". As I understand it, the word "requirements" puts the decision in the hands of the young person concerned, who could, if he or she felt so inclined, say, "Oh well, I require training in some speciality such as an astronaut or pop singer or something exciting," but which is not a heavily populated occupation.
The amendment goes too far. I shall be interested to hear in what sense the word "requirements" is used. As it stands at the moment, and as far as I understand it at the moment, that word is a great weakness in the amendment.
Lord Trefgarne: I believe that the noble Baroness is concerned that the opportunities offered to young people may not be suitable and that because of the time limits which are proposed on the payment of the YTS bridging allowance young people may be coerced into accepting unsuitable places of, perhaps, dubious quality. I cannot accept that proposition. The extension of the child benefit period for three months for Easter and Christmas school leavers and four months for summer school leavers provides ample opportunity for young people to consider all the options available to them.The bridging allowance is available for nearly two months and this time should be more than adequate to match an individual with a suitable YTS place. I recognise that in some instances there may be special needs to take account of and that is why there will be no time limit imposed
928
on the payment of the bridging allowance to registered disabled young people.
If it is suggested that eight weeks in not a sufficient period of time for young people to find a suitable YTS place, I suggest that it represents a reasonable period of time for a person who has been in work or on YTS to look around for a new job or to take up the offer of a new place on the YTS programme. We guarantee a YTS place within this period and there should therefore be no question of young people being left without support. We shall, of course, want to keep all aspects of the YTS, including this one, under review.
I could speak at greater length about the guarantee, but I hope that what I have said will persuade the noble Baroness not to press her amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: The amendment was concerned to ensure that a safety net was available if young people did not obtain places within the eight weeks. As I attempted to demonstrate when moving the amendment, it is by no means certain that eight weeks will be sufficient in a number of places. I mentioned rural areas. There are special problems for ethnic minorities, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, referred.
I am glad that there is apparently to be no limit for registered disabled people. That is of course to be welcomed. I am also glad to learn that it is intended to keep the scheme under review. I shall not press the amendment to a Division at present, but I am not altogether happy that the Minister's reply adequately dealt with the arguments put from these Benches, especially as we feel that it is necessary to have some kind of safety net or fallback if it should transpire in certain places and in certain circumstances that no YTS places will be available for some young people despite the Government's intentions that there should be.
Nevertheless, in view of what has been said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Rochester Lord Rochester moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 25, line 26, at end insert ("and the amount of any such allowance shall be—

(i) determined only after consultation with the Commission; and

(ii) reviewed annually; and

(iii) subject to approval by a resolution of each House of Parliament").

The noble Lord said: My understanding is that the Government's intention is that the amount of the bridging allowance should be set initially at £15 per week, and, as has been said, it will last for a maximum period of eight weeks. The first question which arises on this amendment is whether the amount and the length of time for which the allowance is to be paid are adequate, given that £15 is considerably below the level of supplementary benefit now payable and that it is questionable whether the Government will be able to fulfil their commitment to offer employment or training to young people or every young person within only eight weeks of leaving a scheme or losing a job.
To say the least, it remains to be seen whether the amount proposed for the allowance and the period envisaged for its payment will prove adequate. Nevertheless, it appears from subsection (3)(a) of Clause 24 that the amount of the allowance is to be determined by the Secretary of State alone and that, unlike payment of benefit, there is no requirement that it should be reviewed periodically or made subject to parliamentary approval.
I am bound to say that I see this as just one example of the excessive powers which the Secretary of State is to be accorded under Part II of the Bill. The purpose of this amendment is therefore to diminish those powers in this instance in three ways. First, before deciding on the amount of allowance to be paid the Secretary of State would be obliged to consult the body best qualified for the purpose; namely, the Training Commission. I suggest that the point made earlier by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, relating to other bodies—that is, bodies other than the Training Commission which might be consulted—has less application in this case. Secondly, if this amendment were agreed the amount would have to be reviewed at annual intervals. Thirdly, it would be subject to approval by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
The Minister will no doubt say in reply that the provisions of Clause 24 are not concerned with social security legislation but merely adjust powers already available to the executive under the Employment and Training Act 1973. He may further claim that the amount of the bridging allowance should not be made subject to parliamentary approval, both because payments made under the 1973 Act are not subject to scrutiny by the legislature and because the allowance is not technically a form of income support. He may even add that in any case the benefit upratings do not have to be approved by parliamentary resolution but are tabled in orders which can only be prayed against.
I am nevertheless moving this amendment for two reasons. First, it will give the Minister the opportunity to justify—if he can—both the amount and the period of payment now contemplated for the bridging allowance. However, I am doing so mainly because in my view the Government's proposals in this paragraph are a good example, as I said at Second Reading, of their reluctance to consult, their distaste for consensus and the excessive centralisation of their decision-making. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I oppose the amendment. I wish to speak to the amendment as it stands and not, if the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, will forgive me, as he moved it, because I found that extremely difficult to follow. I should wish to do justice to what he said and to study it, but I could not follow the reasoned support for the amendment save for one point which went home. That was the desire to diminish the powers of the Secretary of State. That I understand and that I can speak to.
The noble Lord wishes to diminish the powers of the Secretary of State in three ways: first, so that the amount of the allowance shall be determined only
930
after consultation with the commissioner. Far from reducing the impact of the observations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, it heightens them by the use of the word "only". What will the courts make of that?
The second way to reduce the powers of the Secretary of State is to review annually. Annually may be too short a period; it may be too long; it may be unnecessary. One should seek to maintain, in this sphere of all spheres, a measure of flexibility. The amendment as it stands in sub-paragraph (ii) is far too rigid.
Thirdly and lastly, it says:
"subject to approval by a resolution of each House of Parliament".
It is not understood why the amount of the allowance should be subject to approval by Parliament or why Parliament should be concerned with the original determination or any review determination from time to time. Surely the Committee would agree on all sides that this would impose an unnecessary and unacceptable burden on both Houses of Parliament.
Lord Renton: I agree with what my noble friend said. I just add on the last point that requiring an affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament before, for example, an increase in payment could become valid and be made could cause delay, because there are occasions, especially when there is an election in the autumn, when Parliament may not be sitting between the end of July, let us say, and well into October. That could be a cause of hardship.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I intervened formerly with great reluctance because other Members of the Committee are experts on this matter, and I certainly am not. I intervened purely to draw attention to a legal technicality, but since what I said has been invoked again, perhaps I may say that I think that the noble Lord, Lord Rochester is right. With great respect, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, is right.
It all turns on sub-paragraph (i):
"determined only after consultation with the Commission".
That does not exclude consultation with other bodies. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, reads it as though it said:
"shall be determined after consultation only with the Commission".
but that is not what it says. As regards whether the technical points which I raised were false or valid, I do not think that in any way invalidates this amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I rise to support the amendment from these Benches. I agree with much of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. As regards the provision in sub-paragraph (iii), which reads:
"subject to approval by a resolution of each House of Parliament",
I do not understand the objection. It is my understanding that when there are increases in benefit generally through regulations, those regulations have to be laid before each House of Parliament. I see little difference between doing that in relation to increases in benefit and the procedure suggested in relation to a review of the allowance. It is essential that the allowance is kept under review

931
annually. As it presently stands it is far too modest. The amendment would ensure that it was subject to review in each House. I therefore commend the amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I believe that the noble Baroness has misled herself on the procedure regarding other increases in benefits. She said quite rightly that the orders had to be laid before Parliament. But only in a very limited number of cases are they subject to the affirmative procedure which the amendment contemplates for the allowance. The vast majority—I speak from memory—are laid and they can be prayed against in either House if any noble Lord or Member of another place wishes to do so. That is a totally different procedure from the affirmative resolution.
That leads me to my second point. The procedure outlined in the amendment would be a slow and cumbrous one. First, the commission would have to be consulted; it would not necessarily be sitting at any particular time of year. There would be an annual review, a laying of the orders, and a further delay if Parliament was in recess or, if Parliament was sitting, for parliamentary time to deal with the matter. That seems to be an extraordinarily cumbrous way of proceeding.
Surely the better way, which is the more usual way in respect of a great many such provisions, is to leave the matter to the Minister, as the Bill proposes. If the Minister makes a decision which either House of Parliament does not like, either House then has perfectly good means of calling the Minister to account, asking him to explain and (certainly in the case of another place) voting against him. Surely that is a more straightforward, flexible and speedy method of dealing with the matter, rather than having a cumbrous set of manoeuvres.
Lord Renton: And it is more usual.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: Perhaps I may start by mentioning the guarantee of a YTS place to which the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, referred in his opening remarks. I believe that I can set aside the anxiety which was expressed about whether the MSC will be able to meet its guarantee to provide a YTS place for any 16 or 17 year-old who would otherwise be unemployed.
I say straightaway that the MSC is confident that it will meet the guarantee. The undertaking has not been given lightly. The new guarantee builds on a well-established track record. Over 99 per cent. of the guarantee group has been offered a suitable YTS place every year since 1983. Next year it will do better. There are currently over 100,000 vacant places in all parts of the country. We have provided the commission with the funds to enable it to create an additional 30,000 places this year. That will certainly ensure that all young people who want a YTS place will get one.
Turning specifically to the issues raised by the amendment, it is said that the commission ought to be consulted about the bridging allowance in the same way as it is consulted about the YTS allowance.
932
As the Committee is aware, we are always happy to receive the advice of the commission. But the level of the allowance must be a matter for the Government. The YTS bridging allowance is intended for people who are without a YTS place for a short time. It is a short-term allowance which will be paid by the Department of Employment to those who are committed to taking up a YTS place. It would therefore be inappropriate to consult the commission about its level.
It is argued that the bridging allowance is a form of income support and should therefore be subject to the affirmative resolution of both Houses. The argument is based on a misunderstanding of the new allowance. The YTS bridging allowance is not a form of income support and I suggest that it would be inappropriate for Parliament to review it as if it were. The bridging allowance is not intended to support young people over a long period of time. The guarantee of a YTS place for all unemployed people under 18 will mean that no one in that age group will be unemployed. We are providing a bridging allowance because we recognise that a YTS place will not always be immediately available when a young person leaves a job or a previous YTS place.
For those young people who are unable to take up a YTS place because of, for example, long-term sickness or severe disability, income support will continue. The allowance is a payment made under the powers contained in Section 2 of the Employment and Training Act 1973 as amended by Clause 24 of the Bill. No payments made under the powers of the 1973 Act are subject to such a requirement. I hope that in the light of those considerations and the difficulties referred to in other parts of the Committee the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord Rochester: I thank all Members of the Committee who have taken part in our exchange. I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for his response to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. As the noble and learned Lord said, in effect the amendment does not say that the amount of the allowance should be determined after consultation with the commission alone; it says that it should be determined:
"only after consultation with the Commission".
The noble and learned Lord made that point better than I can, and I am happy to leave the matter there.
The second point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, was that the suggestion in the amendment was that the amount of allowance should be reviewed annually. As regards that point, in putting the amendment down in that way it was my intention to suggest not that the amount of the allowance could not be reviewed more frequently than annually but that it should be subject to at least annual review.
The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said that I had asserted the allowance was a form of income support. When he comes to study what I said in my opening remarks, he will see that I anticipated that the Government would deny that it is a form of income support. However, I see that there are procedural difficulties with the third element of the amendment which suggests that the amount of allowance should

933
be subject to approval by a resolution of each House of Parliament. As I said in moving the amendment, my intention was largely to draw the Government out by asking them to justify the amount of £15 which was initially set for the allowance and also justify the period of time over which it should be paid.
I am not altogether satisfied with the response to those two points. However, in the light of the discussion I do not propose to press the amendment. There are many other amendments with which we must deal. It is possible that I shall wish to return to at least part of the amendment at a later stage. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 24 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McCarthy: We gave notice that we wish to oppose that this clause stand part of the Bill because, as the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, rightly suggests, this is the takeover clause. This is the clause which most clearly exhibits the Government's distaste for consensus. This is the clause which buries the best of all the tripartite bodies, the Manpower Services Commission. What takes its place will no longer be able to formulate its own detailed policies within guidelines set down by the Government. As I see it, it will no longer he free to publish its own criticisms of Government policy as the Manpower Services Commission undoubtedly was, and sometimes did quite sharply. It will no longer be encouraged nor in any real sense will it be free to undertake its own research, produce its own figures and engage in a dialogue with the Government and with the country over manpower services in the name of its tripartite representatives.
This is a sorry day. The Manpower Services Commission was not created by a Labour Government; it was created by a previous Conservative Government. No Member of this House contributed more to the ideas behind the Manpower Services Commission than the noble Lord, Lord Carr, who unfortunately is not in his place.
We regard this as a very sorry day. In opposing this clause we ask the Government to give better reasons than any we have been given so far as to why this clause is necessary. So far as I know, the only time that this clause has been considered in any detail by the Government was when the Secretary of State made one of his rare interventions in another place to the Standing Committee on 26th January (cols. 709–714). He said that the clause was necessary to give the Secretary of State direct powers to run training and manpower services which were formerly the responsibility of the MSC. We know that. The clause says that. He said that only in this way could be fulfilled the new functions which were to be carried out by the Government and by the newly renamed body in relation to an expanded YTS and the new 600,000 place scheme for unemployed adults, and so on.
In my reading of his speech he did not say—indeed the Government have never said—why it is necessary for direct powers to be given to the Secretary of State
934
in this way. We have never been told, and I hope that we shall be told this evening, what was wrong with the operation of Sections 2 and 3 of the old Employment and Training Act 1973. For example, we have heard no allegations that the Manpower Services Commission under its series of distinguished chairmen has at any time sabotaged the Government's manpower policy or that it failed to fulfil any objectives or directions given to it by the Secretary of State.
We know, because they have said so, that carrying out the instructions of the Secretary of State often caused the distinguished members of the Manpower Services Commission great heartsearching. In particular we know that the previous chairman of the MSC, Sir Bryan Nicholson, strove with might and main against the use of compulsion in the YTS. We know that as a result of that struggle, which he lost, he left the Manpower Services Commission. In fact we know that there are virtually no members of the MSC who really believe in what the Government are doing in the area of compulsion. Because they have made it public, we know that the TUC nominees have indulged in much heart searching, not only on this issue but also on others, such as the size of the allowance to be paid under YTS, the winding up of the community programme and the inadequacy of the provisions made for training within the YTS.
We have to ask the question yet again, and I ask the Minister tonight. After making their criticisms public, is it suggested that the members of the MSC ever failed to co-operate fully with the Government? Is sabotage alleged? Is that why it is being stripped of its powers? Is that why, under the previous clause, it is being packed with poodles? Is that why? What of the powers of independent investigation and research, which the MSC performed so well? Was that the problem? Was that the difficulty? When the MSC discovered and published the fact that the overwhelming majority of employers was against compulsion, was that something that it should not have done? Is that something that the new body will be allowed to do?
In its follow up survey the MSC discovered that only 50 per cent. of the YTS go on to a job, 28 per cent. go back on to the dole, 3 per cent. enter full-time education, 6 per cent. re-enter the YTS and that in some parts of the country much higher figures go on to the dole. In other words, figures were discovered which are impossible to square with the claims made by the Secretary of State on the radio, in the newspaper or on 26th January in Standing Committee (col. 711) that the vast majority of YTS trainees leave to take a job or to receive further training or education. Those statements by the Secretary of State are impossible to square with what has been produced by the MSC. Must the MSC he put down because of such data?
These are the questions that we ask. We ask them in the context of a series of amendments. We are very pleased to note the support they have received. The Minister has said that those amendments were either unnecessary, unclear, unworkable or unwise. We asked about the possibility of regular consultation with the new commission. The Minister said that it was unnecessary and that the amendment was

935
unclear—he may have been right as far as clarity is concerned.
We asked for more reasonable facilities and for a safety net to be placed under the scheme. He said that it was unworkable. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, suggested that, if the amendment was carried, anybody with three O-levels might demand to be an astronaut
Lord Graham of Edmonton: He is a high flier!
Lord McCarthy: The Minister said that it was unworkable. We asked for better allowances with some independence, if only on the part of Parliament. We were told that that was unwise, unnecessary, unclear and unworkable.
Only in relation to one amendment, concerning special arrangements for the disabled, did the Minister offer to go away and think again—and I give the Minister credit for that. It was unnecessary, unclear but nevertheless he offered to go away and look at it. It is not enough, and we shall divide the House.
Lord Trefgarne: The Committee—
5 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way, but if he wishes to intervene we shall listen to him with the greatest of interest. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, obviously enjoyed himself—as did your Lordships—in his good, romping speech, of which I venture to suggest he does not really believe half.
What was that great phrase—that the Training Commission was to be "packed with poodles"? That is a very entertaining phrase, but highly offensive to a number of people whose names are not yet known. It assumes in advance that they would be poodles of the Secretary of State. Equally, there is the allegation that what caused this clause to be imposed was the idea that there had been sabotage of the MSC. All that is good, romping stuff, but it does not help the Committee very much in coming to a conclusion on the matter.
The noble Lord was good enough to refer to one of my speeches on an amendment in which I suggested that the use of the word "requirements" in regard to the trainee might be helpful to those who had unreasonable requirements, because a requirement is something that one is entitled to require. I did not mention three O-levels. I assumed that anyone who wished to be an astronaut would probably have a great many more O-levels than that, although possibly for someone who intended to be a pop singer such a grading might be more appropriate.
As I understand it, the essence of this clause, which has been brought out in many speeches by senior Ministers—and in a moment or two the Minister will tell us the views of the Government—is the importance which the Government plainly attach to dealing firmly and efficiently with problems of unemployment and above all youth unemployment. Noble Lords opposite have often waxed very eloquent about unemployment in general and the dangers of youth unemployment in particular.
936
Personally I wholly agree with them. In the light of that situation the Government have decided on a great expansion of the YTS. The whole matter is of such importance and will involve such massive expenditure that surely it is right that the Government should accept far more responsibility than in the past for the efficient working of the system and that they should have the power to carry through the measures they think right and will work most efficiently.
Therefore unlike the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, I welcome this clause. I agree with him that it is one of the most important parts of the Bill. I believe that it will affect, and affect for the good, the wellbeing of a large part of the younger generation in this country. I believe that it will help to mould, and mould well, the lives of a very large number of young people in this land of ours. I therefore welcome it wholeheartedly.
Baroness Seear: I was extremely interested in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who told us that this proposal was intended to make the scheme more efficient. He said that it was an expensive scheme and that the Government needed to make it more efficient.
I should like to know from the Minister why it is more efficient to take away the scheme from the Manpower Services Commission and give it back to the Department of Employment. I would remind the Minister that when a previous Conservative Government set up the Manpower Services Commission it was largely because under the Department of Employment very little had happened. The employment service under the Department of Employment had an extremely poor reputation—and if the noble Lord wishes me to do so I can document that remark up to the hilt because I did a considerable amount of work on the matter at that time.
The training which was carried out by the the Department of Employment was almost negligible. That is why the Conservative predecessors of the Minister set up the Manpower Services Commission and drew into the work of the Manpower Services Commission people from both sides of industry and from other sources who had spent a lifetime working in this field and were highly knowledgeable about it. I ask the noble Lord to tell us why he considers that it will make the service more efficient to take it away from that body and put it back to the Department of Employment. Perhaps I may add that the noble Lord asked me earlier today why I was collaborating with the Labour Party. The answer is that bad Bills make strange bedfellows, and this is a thoroughly bad Bill.
Lord McCarthy: In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, perhaps I may say that I mainly asked questions and that I am looking forward to the Government's answers. I have no desire to be offensive. He knows more about that than I. What I said was, I believe, more plausible than what he said about astronauts.
Lord Trefgarne: I hope that in a very few words I can persuade the Committee to agree that this clause should remain part of the Bill. The fact of the matter is that in recent months—indeed, in the past year or

937
so—the level of unemployment in this country has been steadily declining. Of course it is still at too high a level, and therefore the Government believe very firmly that the emphasis must now lie on ensuring that those people who need proper new or additional training must be given the opportunity to undertake it.
That is why we are changing the name of the Manpower Services Commission, but above all changing the emphasis of its work so that in future it will be able to co-ordinate and in some cases to provide the training that is required. Not all the training will be provided by the Manpower Services Commission, or the Training Commission as it will be called. Much of it will be provided by other organisations, and in particular by a great many of our existing companies.
It is clearly important that the emphasis on the role of the newly-named commission should be such that it can co-ordinate that training, provide it and deliver it to the people who are in need of it. That is the essence of this clause. It is an important and fundamental purpose of this Bill and I commend it to the Committee.
5.6 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 24 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 135; Not-Contents, 77

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Allerton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Ampthill, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Arran, E.

Gisborough, L.

Bauer, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Gormanston, V.

Belhaven and Slenton, L.

Grantchester, L.

Beloff, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Belstead, L.

Greenway, L.

Blatch, B.

Gridley, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Halsbury, E.

Butterworth, L.

Harrowby, E.

Caithness, E.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Harvington, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hayter, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Hesketh, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hives, L.

Carnock, L.

Holderness, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Cawley, L.

Hood, V.

Colnbrook, L.

Hooper, B.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Cottesloe, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Cowley, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kenilworth, L.

Cross, V.

Killearn, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Kimball, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Kinloss, Ly.

De Freyne, L.

Kitchener, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lane-Fox, B.

Derwent, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Digby, L.

Lawrence, L.

Dundee, E.

Layton, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

938

Loch, L.

St. Davids, V.

Long, V.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Lothian, M.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Luke, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Lurgan, L.

Sandford, L.

Lyell, L.

Seebohm, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Selkirk, E.

Manton, L.

Semphill, Ly.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Sharples, B.

Merrivale, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Mersey, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Milverton, L.

Somers, L.

Morris, L.

Strange, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Moyne, L.

Munster, E.

Sudeley, L.

Nelson, E.

Terrington, L.

Newall, L.

Teviot, L.

Norfolk, D.

Teynham, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Onslow, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Orkney, E.

Trafford, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Pender, L.

Trumpington, B.

Quinton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Westbury, L.

Renton, L.

Windlesham, L.

Richardson, L.

Wise, L.

Rodney, L.

Wolfson, L.

Romney, E.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Rugby, L.

Yarborough, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kearton, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kennet, L.

Atllee, E.

Leatherland, L.

Aylestone, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Banks, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Basnett, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McCarthy, L.

Birk, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McNair, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Molloy, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, I.

Mulley, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Oram, L.

David, B.

Peston, L.

Diamond, L.

Phillips, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Pitt of Hampsead, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller]

Elwyn-Joncs, L.

Ennals, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ezra, L.

Rochester, L.

Falkland, V.

Seear, B.

Fitt, L.

Serota, B.

Foot, L.

Stallard, L.

Gallacher, L.

Stedman, B.

Galpern, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Grey, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Underhill, L.

Hughes, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Walston, L.

Jacques, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jay, L.

White, B.

Jeger, B.

Wigoder, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 24 agreed to accordingly.
5.14 p.m.
Clause 25 [Status of trainees etc.]:
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 121A.
Page 27, line 20, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: Clause 25 deals with the legal status of trainees. Since the White Paper Training for Employment, published by the Government last February, spoke of their programme being intended to deal with some 600,000 people a year, we are dealing with the legal rights of a significant section of the population.
Clause 25, as it stands, gives the Secretary of State a broad, almost total, discretion to determine by order the legal status of all these people, the nature of payments to them, and indeed to modify any other enactment in so doing. Indeed, it is remarkably wide in subsection (1)(c) that my honourable friends in another place remarked upon the language, to which the Minister of State, Mr. Cope at col. 730 of the Committee stage, said that the words there written "have no specific purpose at present", although he went on to say that lawyers had recommended that they be put in.
This is another case where, as we have seen already in the Committee this afternoon, the discretion of the Minister is very wide. We say two things in our Amendment No. 121A and Amendment No. 121B, if I may speak to that also. First, we say that there should be a presumption as to the legal rights of those who are called trainees that they enjoy the same rights as employees. Secondly, we say that there is a need for flexibility—for reasons to which I shall come—and that there is a need for the Secretary of State to have a somewhat narrower range of powers that he would use after explaining his intention to do so to both Houses.
Although perhaps some of us have rather stronger doubts about the quality of schemes that have emerged over the past five years than have been mentioned earlier today, nothing divides these Benches from the Government about the need for training schemes of high quality, that reach those who are unemployed, and the need for legal flexibility to cope with the situation. However, we do not understand why those who are in such schemes should not presumptively enjoy the rights of employees.
If one takes the two main types of scheme specified in the Government's White Paper, in employer-based schemes they will be working—albeit, one hopes, also learning and training—on the job, in the office or factory. They will be producing work and value for another. If one considers the project-based training schemes—such as the well-known insulation of old peoples' homes, which is so often discussed in debates on the matter—and if one considers young people on such schemes, they are engaging in services. But the idea that they necessarily must be fundamentally different under the law from those who are working beside them as employees seems very strange unless there is a particular reason in favour of the trainees. That is why we believe that the Government's aim is to keep most trainees in a position where they do not enjoy these legal incidents because that goes with the Government's attitude of refusing the rate for the job and insisting upon workfare benefit plus £10, as is stated in the White Paper.
It is right that this matter be set out properly because it is a complex situation which emerges upon
940
an already complex state of the law. The law of employment is in a chaotic state and the Government have done nothing to help it in the past eight years. That is to say that the basic concepts of the law are in turmoil. For most purposes and for most statutes those at work divide themselves into those under a contract of employment, or employees, and those under contracts for services, who are usually the self-employed or independent contractors. Under some statutes there is also a legal category of worker, but that poses few problems here.
These two basic legal building blocks have in some ways become fragmented. The Court of Appeal in 1986 held that a metal worker, who had been employed explicitly on a self-employed basis for four years, was in law really an employee; and in 1983 casual waiters, who had for years been regularly employed by Trust House Forte, were held in law not to be employees. From those cases one gains the flavour of what has happened. This is not the occasion to cure that ambiguity. For the most part, for millions of workers their status as employees is safe.
However, the Bill raises a third oddity that has emerged. There have grown up categories of people who work but who are in a sense not known to the law at all except as categories sui generis. I put aside the problem of clergymen, who the Judicial Committee recently observed were not the servants of the Church but the servants of God. That is perhaps not a problem here. I put aside police cadets, who have emerged as a category quite impossible to fathom, but I do not put aside the main category of oddity, the trainee.
The horrifying status of trainees as a kind of legal no man's land was revealed in 1982 and 1983 when decisions showed that not only in the first case was a young worker on a work experience scheme on a farm not covered by the unfair dismissal laws, because he was not an employee, but secondly, in 1983, a young woman worker was not covered by the Race Relations Act because she was neither an employee nor a self-employed person under a contract for services.
The Government hastily made orders—for that they should take credit, and we give it happily—to bring trainees for the most part within the scope of the Race Relations and the Sex Discrimination Acts, and also of Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
We agree that there is need for flexibility to make orders of that kind. It was said in another place in Committee—again I quote the Minister of State at col. 727 of the Committee proceedings on 26th January—
"but equality of opportunity in training requires positive discrimination".
I think we should prefer to say "affirmative action". But however one puts it, one knows that the Sex Discrimination and the Race Relations Acts allow for discriminatory measures in order to help those who need special measures in ethnic minorities, and for women workers.
The Government's point is only half right; that is to say that the Government suffered from a confusion of categories. It is possible to discriminate in training

941
under those sections of the Acts in many cases where the workers are themselves employees. What one must not do is discriminate in the employment of the employees, so it is not necessary for the most part that a trainee should have a status other than as employee for that purpose. There are a few cases where it is needed, and our amendment provides for that.
The purpose and thrust of the amendment is to ask the Government: why on earth not start with the presumption that trainees are employees so far as concerns their rights? How easy it would have been for the Government to do that. After all, governments in France and Italy have had for some years now specially devised work training contracts. Indeed, there is a British precedent. Although the Government have allowed apprenticeships to wither on the industrial vine, the legal category of apprenticeship is still there It could have been adapted. I do not say that all the old feudal incidents should have been brought in, although the Government may be attracted by some of them. I have in mind the master's duty to the apprentice to provide him with medicines, which the Government might have seen as a useful opportunity to promote private medicine. We should of course not wish to do anything of that kind, but we should wish to take the contract of apprenticeship and update it to include trainees.
In most of the employment legislation, unamended by the Government, the apprentice is included in the provisions for unfair dismissal, maternity rights, equal pay, race and sex discrimination, health and safety laws far wider than the Government's proposals, guarantee payments in regard to insolvency and in part, not wholly, redundancy. Is there not something unseemly, absurd and unjust in setting two young people at the bench, one an apprentice with rights under all those laws and legislation and the other a trainee? The Government and the law say to him, "You can only have a little hit of health and safety, race and sex discrimination protection. For the rest you are out".
It is this kind of approach that makes young people dislike the whole process of YTS. Today has proved again, I believe, that the Government have no conception whatever of why young people resist YTS and why they dislike some of the training schemes, especially in the urban areas and in ethnic minorities. However, that is another broad debate, but here is a little aspect of it. Why cannot we say, "All right, we cannot do a lot of other things, but we can give you as far as possible the rights of employees"?
There was a point at which I thought that perhaps the Government intended to do that because they have taken such a wide discretion in the clause. Indeed, in the Bill it looks as though it is possible that the Government will do that, but in relation to two other aspects one realises that they will not. First, in Committee in another place, at col. 731 on 26th January, the Minister of State rehearsed the protection under health and safety, race relations and sex discrimination legislation, and he went on:
"there are no other purposes at the moment, although the clause is drafted to allow an order-making power to be used under future legislation".
942
He was being pressed to give unfair dismissal rights.
The White Paper is even clearer. Indeed, I find the White Paper offensive to trainees because, having set out all the things that the Government want to do—that is certainly not offensive and has high aims—it then says:
"Participants on the new programme will be trainees not employees".
Why should that be? Of course some people could not be in that position and the Minister will have to make a special order; but for the most part why not begin by saying, "We offer you these courses", especially when they say: "We will prosecute you if you do not take them"—to which we come in a moment. If you say those things, why not say: These are the courses. We believe you ought to accept them when they are reasonable and high quality and what is more when you go to that office, factory, farm or whatever and work side by side with others who are fortunate enough perhaps to have a secure job, so far as we can we shall make your rights parallel to theirs. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: The powers contained in Clause 25(1)(a) to (c) allow the Secretary of State to clarify the rights of individuals on Government schemes in relation to legislation affecting the workplace where a doubt arises. Sometimes it has been thought necessary to give trainees specific protections where they would not otherwise have them. This was done, for example, in relation to the Health and Safety at Work Act where YTS trainees have been given the protection of employees. The power in Clause 25(1)(d) would also enable the Secretary of State to specify how payments to such individuals are to be treated; for example, whether or not the payment should be subject to deductions for National Insurance contributions.
The Noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, has asked whether it is right that trainees should be treated as employees. He takes the view that participants on Government schemes should be normally employees and have full employment protection rights. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of our training programmes, although the noble Lord agreed with high-quality training. We are offering, through such excellent opportunities as YTS and the planned new adult training programme, a real chance to the unemployed to enhance their future employment prospects. We can offer these opportunities only if employers are willing to help in the training of the unemployed in addition to the training they would already carry out for their own employees. If we were to require that employers should offer people on these schemes a contract of employment, this would reduce severely the opportunities available and everyone would be worse off as a consequence.
I hope that, in introducing that aspect, I go some way to assuring the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, of the reasons why we have not given presumptions of similar rights as between employees and trainees.
However, I agree that it is right that trainees should have the full protection of the law for health and safety and against sexual and racial discrimination. This is why YTS trainees were given the protections of

943
employees under the Health and Safety at Work Act. Furthermore, the Health and Safety Commission is currently consulting on draft regulations to apply these protections to other training programmes. It is also why we have designated training providers for programmes such as YTS and the Sex Discrimination and Race Relations Acts so that trainees on these schemes enjoy proper protection.
In regard to the new adult training programme, we intend to ensure similar protection for participants. The commission has recommended that trainees on the new programme are treated in the same way for health and safety and equal opportunities as trainees on YTS and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has accepted its recommendations in full.
The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, said that he thought trainees would be deterred from joining the schemes as a result of not having the same rights. While I do not believe that to be the case, even if it is but only to a small extent the danger would be far greater if we were to deter employers from recruiting prospective trainees. That would be the case if we were to give the presumption which the noble Lord seeks. As a result of looking at the problem in that way, perhaps the noble Lord will at this stage see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I am glad that he confirmed much of what I said about race relations and sex discrimination. I hope that I gave credit to the Government for extending protection in 1983, but they did so only after two cases revealed a scandal. The Government acted because of the burgeoning protests about the number of trainees injured in training schemes in 1982–83. I tell the Minister that it will be after other scandals in regard to other areas of employment protection rights that the Government will have to move again, and I do not understand why it is that they cannot move a little now.
The Minister's central point was that if one gives to trainees the employment protection rights, employers will be more reluctant to recruit people on employer-based training projects. I shall not say to the Minister that I do not believe him but that I do not believe it. I do not believe it because nowadays most employers, even small employers, are fairly well advised about such matters. They would know perfectly well that the trainee would not be with them long enough to build up rights in respect of unfair dismissal. However, where the trainee stays in a job where continuous service is a possibility, why should he not count the period of his training towards the unfair dismissal protection? In most cases, whether it be one year or 18 months since the Government in their unwisdom saw fit to extend the qualifying period to two years before unfair dismissal can be claimed, that situation would not normally arise and it would not deter an employer.
After looking at other employment protection provisions I say to the Minister that I do not believe that, for the most part, our employers who will cooperate in the scheme are of such a character that they will consider it right to have working at the bench people who are so deprived of rights as compared with others alongside them. I do not
944
believe that most employers would take that view. The noble Earl did not spell out the issue but spoke vaguely, as the Government often do, about employment protection rights being burgeoned on business and deterring employers. If there is a problem as regards that right, it should be part of the scheme that the Government will somehow help an employer with a genuine problem and not take away the rights of the worker.
If the Minister says that trainees might be deterred, I do not say that their legal rights will be a central point in that. Perhaps we should both be surprised to learn of the number of unemployed young people who know a great deal about the scheme, although in the White Paper the Government write about people as though they know little about it. Often that is not true and they are aware of the situation. However, their objections would be more towards the matters about which we shall speak later; namely, of being conscripted into the scheme under penalties and threat of penalties.
Quite apart from the Government's inept performance in regard to trade union co-operation and tripartism, the three points taken together (the abolition of tripartism; the conscription of young people; and the general approach of the Government) may well ruin what could and should be a good scheme. I do not understand why the Government cannot give a little and say that they will extend Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work Act; that they will look at other provisions in that Act; that they will look beyond race relations and sex discrimination at guarantee payments or maternity rights. Why not deal a little further with equal pay and maternity rights?
I hope that when the Government look to the Report stage they will go a little further in pronouncing the presumptive rights of trainees. If they do not do so, the clause which will be laid on the statute book will not give the Minister a general discretion which he will use in favour of making trainees into employees. It will be a general discretion which he will use against making trainees into those with employment rights because that has been made clear in the White Paper. We must pass to other matters which are linked to this amendment and I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 121B not moved].
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Amendment of the Social Security Act 1975 with respect to the refusal of training, etc]:
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 121C:
Page 28, line 8, at beginning insert ("subject to paragraph (ee)")
The noble Lord said: With this amendment I should like to take Amendment No. 121D. We come now to Clause 26. If we take the view, as we did, that Clause 24 is the most important and fundamental clause in Part II of the Bill, I believe we take the view that Clause 26 is the most objectionable clause in Part II of the Bill. This clause lays down the conditions under which people who unreasonably refuse a training place or who are dismissed from a training place can be disqualified from benefit. That is the issue which the amendment addresses.
The amendments focus on the creation of an appeal system, if it is alleged by the employer that an individual worker has lost his place or has had his place taken away from him as a result of misconduct. In the first instance the problem, as we see it, is that it is clear that the misconduct is the concept of misconduct as applied in social security law and as applied by the adjudicating officer if the individual appeals to a social security appeals tribunal. The problem is that this concept of misconduct is so much wider than the equivalent concept of misconduct in unfair dismissal.
Moreover, it is not merely a question of the way in which the concept has developed. In the case of unfair dismissal, once misconduct is established it is still for the tribunal to decide whether in all the circumstances it is fair and reasonable to regard it as a fair reason for dismissal. It is partly a question of observance by the employer of certain satisfactory procedures such as warnings and the element of natural justice. As far as we understand it, none of the sophisticated and —from the point of view of the employee—extremely helpful qualifications applies to the concept of misconduct as it is interpreted and applied in social security legislation.
The interpretation there has always been that if someone is dismissed on grounds of misconduct the essential matter is whether, in the opinion of the employer, he is significantly to blame. If he is significantly to blame and as a result the employer takes the view that he is no longer a suitable employee, then misconduct is accepted. Thus if one looks at the examples of cases of misconduct in social security law, in particular circumstances one can see examples which may well have gone another way in an industrial tribunal on issues of unfair dismissal. For example, individuals who get drunk in their own time away from the employer can be denied benefit; sexual offenders who offend on a Sunday far from the workplace can be thought to be no longer a suitable employee. People can be disbarred from benefit when the only offence is that of being sick and not informing the employer.
As long ago as 1932 the Royal Commission on the subject said that that concept, as used for social security purposes, was to wide and unfortunate. However, that is a concept which is now to be imported into the disqualification of benefit for those who are dismissed from a training place. In effect, that leaves the matter entirely to the word of the employer as to whether or not the individual receives benefit.
The only justification for the perpetuation of the notion of misconduct in social security for so long was that it was only applied for a relatively short period. The normal period for which individuals who were dismissed and in respect of whom the employer alleged misconduct were disqualified from benefit was six weeks. The concept of misconduct as it developed was never satisfactory. Indeed, it is perfectly reasonable for people to say something should have been done long before this Government took office. However, at least we can say that until October 1986 the disqualification period was normally six weeks—six weeks right back to the establishment of the whole concept in 1911, through
946
the 1920s and 1930s until October 1986. At that time this Government were the first Government to more than double the period for normal benefit disqualification to 13 weeks. The justification of the time was that to increase the period from six to 13 weeks would help market mobility; an argument which will be familar to the Committee because it is the argument that the Government give for virtually everything.
However, next April there is to be a further doubling of the period of disqualification on grounds of misconduct to 26 weeks. Therefore, this quadrupled period of disqualification is now to be taken from the normal area of social security legislation into the area of training. Also, an individual who is disqualified for misconduct will have a 40 per cent. cut in supplementary benefit to be going on with. If he is seriously ill, the cut will be reduced to 20 per cent. Of course it is not just hoped that it will improve the mobility of the labour market; it will save £37 million a year. Since the period during which workers will be off the register will be doubled, it will be worth another 200,000 or 300,000, if not more, on the unemployment figures.
Apart from that, is it justified? In particular, is it justified when it is applied in training places? We do not argue that the measure should be done away with. This amendment has a far more modest intention than that. It merely says that if disqualification is introduced on grounds of misconduct then the individual on the training scheme should have access to some form of independent arbitration—third party arbitration or, if not third party independent arbitration, perhaps access to an industrial tribunal. If access is given to an industrial tribunal, we feel that there is a chance that some of the more balanced, fairer and wider criteria used by industrial tribunals might be introduced into the question of misconduct. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: It appears to me that the amendment is all about fairness. Misconduct means a serious breach of contract of employment. The words:
"lost his place…through his misconduct"
mean that the real reason for the loss of the place is guilt of industrial misconduct. Therefore, in every case there must be two issues: was he guilty of conduct that amounts to misconduct and, if yes, was his misconduct the real cause of the loss of his place on the approved training scheme? Both these questions are capable of giving rise to very real and genuine disputes of a purely factual nature.
For employees—that is, people fortunate enough to be in work—misconduct, when established, often means the loss of employment. However, anyone dismissed who loses his employment because of an allegation of misconduct is entitled to take his case to an industrial tribunal. Industrial tribunals decide these cases daily. They decide whether a worker was dismissed unfairly or fairly. Therefore, the question of principle on this amendment is this: Why should not the same principle apply to the loss of a place on an approved training scheme as applies to the loss of employment?

947
A place on an approved training scheme offers some opportunity—perhaps not very great opportunity but real opportunity—to the individual concerned for obtaining employment. That is to him or to her at least as vital an interest—he or she being unemployed—as is the retention of employment for those who are fortunate enough to be employed. Therefore, the question of principle which this amendment poses surely is this: Why should the principle which applies to loss of employment because of misconduct not equally apply to the loss of the opportunity of employment through membership of an approved training scheme? I suggest that that is a question of principle which the Minister should address and respond to.
I hope that the answer is not that these cases can be dealt with by social security tribunals. Those tribunals are concerned only with whether or not there was misconduct according to a rather curious definition of misconduct. However, the important point of difference is that the industrial tribunals are concerned not only with whether there was misconduct but also whether it was, in all the circumstances, fair to dismiss by reason of misconduct. That is a wholly different and independent consideration. It allows all sorts of personal mitigating factors to be taken into account in ways that the social security tribunals, in practice and indeed in principle, do not countenance.
Therefore, when I consider—and, I hope, when other Members of the Committee consider—the likely backgrounds of so many on approved training schemes and the pressures to which they are inevitably subjected, I am driven to think that the same protection as applies in loss of employment cases should apply to those who lose their places on approved training schemes. That is the protection that must be established—that it was in all the circumstances fair that they should be deprived of their place because of misconduct.
Baroness Seear: I very much hope that the Government will agree to look closely at this amendment. We are all extremely anxious—and it is common ground between us—that the reputation of the YTS should be high and that potential trainees should see it as a desirable opportunity. One only needs a few cases in which it is felt that a job has been lost and the traineeship has been lost without consideration of fairness to prejudice a great many people against it. That makes the headlines and it is very bad for the scheme, particularly now that the penalties are tough—26 weeks is a very long time; it is half a year. A 40 per cent cut in benefit reduces the young person's benefit to a very meagre amount of money to spend. That is a very serious penalty. Surely it is in nobody's interest, and certainly not that of the Government, that it should be possible to say that a young person suffers these penalties without having the opportunity to have his or her case independently looked at. I hope the noble Lord will take that on board.
Lord Trefgarne: I fully share the concern of the Committee that benefit sanctions should not be applied to those who have good cause for refusing, failing to accept, or for leaving a place on an
948
approved training scheme. As I shall expand in the discussions on this and other amendments to this clause, such safeguards are already contained in the provisions set out in Clause 26. However, perhaps I may first pencil in some of the background to these provisions.
Members of the Committee opposite may believe that Clause 26 introduces a new power to apply benefit penalties to those who do not take advantage of the training opportunities available on Government schemes. It has been a principle in law since 1946, and even before, that people should not be able to turn down an opportunity of help in favour of resting on benefit. Indeed, the honourable Member for Oldham, West, Mr. Michael Meacher, speaking on behalf of the Opposition in another place, said on 21st January that:
"No one objects to a measure of compulsion as a last resort for individuals who are blatantly malingering … it is perfectly reasonable to deny benefit to people who patently and unreasonably refuse to avail themselves of a job or a training scheme."—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee F; 21/1/88; cols. 633–34.]
It may be helpful if I explain that principle in more detail. First, everyone claiming unemployment benefit is required by law to be available for work and this has been the position for more than 70 years. The principle was first set out in Section 86(3) of the National Insurance Act 1911, introduced, if my memory serves me right, by the then Mr. Lloyd George. It was carried over into other legislation in 1921, 1946 and, finally, in 1975 in Section 17 of the Social Security Act 1975. If someone repeatedly rejects all offers of help, including opportunities on training programmes, this may give rise to doubts as to their availability.
Secondly, the power to apply benefit sanctions to people who refuse a place on an approved training scheme or who leave prematurely, like the requirement to be available for work, dates back to Beveridge. It was first laid down in the National Insurance Act 1946 and carried over into Section 20 of the Social Security Act 1975.
As the risk of incurring again the wrath of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, I remind them that both Lloyd George and Beveridge were distinguished members of the Liberal Party.
Baroness Seear: We are most grateful for the good publicity on the excellent record of the Liberal Party.
Lord Trefgarne: I am always anxious to help.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: Has the Minister shuffled his papers? The question to which this amendment is directed, and no other question, is whether individuals on approved training schemes should lose their places by reason of single acts of misconduct. Does the Minister propose to address directly the subject matter of this amendment and not to entertain us with history?
Lord Trefgarne: I am grateful for the advice of the noble Lord. Far from being the significant change to which noble Lords opposite have referred. Clause 26 simply rectifies an anomaly in Section 20 of the 1975 Act by bringing the provisions on employment and

949
training fully into line. Clause 26 closes a loophole which allows a trainee to engineer his own dismissal from an approved training scheme, through misconduct, without the threat of benefit sanctions; whereas had the trainee been an employee, benefit sanctions would apply. At the outset I said I wanted to pencil in the broad background to this amendment and that is what I have done.
I turn now to the proposition that claimants can turn down unsuitable places. The provisions of Section 20 of the Social Security Act 1975—
Lord Irvine of Lairg: The subject of this amendment is not the turning down of places offered but the removal from existing places by reason of misconduct. Can the noble Lord address the subject of the amendment?
Lord Renton: As I understand it, we are discussing only Amendments Nos. 121C and 121D.
6 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: I am grateful for the advice from the noble Lord opposite, and from my noble friend. I have gone into the background of the essence of the provision and the amendment before the Committee. It is the question of the individual rights of trainees. Several noble Lords have suggested that all trainees on our schemes should have the rights of employees and an employment contract. It may help if I explain that many employers take on additional trainees surplus to their employee requirements. For example, that applies to YTS trainees because they recognise their responsibility to train for the future of the country and not just for their own particular needs. It would clearly be wrong to demand that these surplus trainees should have the same rights as employees, but to insist that they should have even more extensive rights of appeal than their fellow employees would be very unfair and would place an intolerable burden on employers. Employers may choose not to take on trainees rather than to attempt to shoulder such a burden which would result in less help for unemployed people.
I am sorry that the noble Lord does not like the basis upon which we bring forward this proposal. I recognise that he sees certain difficulties with it, but we believe it is an essential proposition and I hope noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Before the Minister finally sits down, perhaps I may raise one matter now that he has nearly (but not quite) reached the question of misconduct. I am sure that the noble Lord's memory stretches to the years 1974–79 which was the first time in two decisions of those years that the Social Security Commissioners decided that they were not bound by the decisions of industrial tribunals. Therefore this problem has been with us for only 10 years or so and that is why the Government ought to look at it. He did not tell us whether he was going to look at it and perhaps he will do so.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Will the noble Lord deal with the very precise and detailed questions put to
950
him by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg? He did not in any way answer the points made by the noble Lord and I am sure many of us would be very gratified were he to do so.
Lord Trefgarne: I am sorry if I do not respond in the way that the noble Lord hopes regarding the amendment. The essence of the proposition contained in this clause is one that I have referred to and I do not believe I can help the noble Lord further.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: The noble Lord has been most generous in giving way and I am grateful to him for doing so again. It may be my own fault that I have not put the question as clearly as I desired. Does the Minister accept that there can be cases where someone on an approved training scheme has misconducted himself but that it would still be unfair to take away his place because of this misconduct? Does the Minister accept that there can be such cases and that they should be catered for?
Lord Trefgarne: Perhaps I may help the noble Lord further in this way. I refer in particular to amendment No. 121C because we are dealing with that and Amendment No. 121D in the same debate. By requiring an appeal system prior to dismissal, Amendment No. 121C seeks to give a right of appeal to trainees way beyond the rights of employees. I suggest that this is quite impractical and unnecessary. It would be a major departure from current industrial relations law and practice to require employers to follow an appeals mechanism before dismissing an employee. The closest that current legislation comes to this is when an industrial tribunal makes an order for reinstatement in a case of unfair dismissal. Even then the law recognises that reinstatement is not always practicable and allows for compensation to be paid instead.
I do not believe that this is the time for us to consider such a radical reform of industrial relations law. We are concerned here with the application of benefit sanctions which I have described at some length.
Lord McCarthy: The noble Lord leaves me confused. We had a clause stand part debate not very long ago as regards Clause 24 to which he gave no answer at all. Now we have a much more precise amendment and he gives a clause stand part answer. However it does not concern Clause 24, but Clause 26. The Minister gives us a clause stand part answer in Clause 26. Perhaps when we reach the debate on whether this clause shall stand part he will tell us what he should have said at the clause stand part debate regarding Clause 24.
It is very confusing because as his clause stand part speech in answer to Amendment No. 121C went on, he began to give us an answer to Amendment No. 121B. He began to tell us the answer to the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, moved saying that trainees should be employees. That is not this amendment. Finally, as a result of the intervention of noble friends on this side of the House, as I understand the Minister, he reaches Amendment No. 121C but what he says is wrong. He says that we are trying to obtain for people that which

951
they do not have in other respects. In the area of training and misconduct we are trying to get something analogous to what happens in unfair dismissal cases generally. There is nothing unusual in this or anything which would set any unnecessary or unworthy precedent.
If the noble Lord had said, "Why did you not do this as regards the Social Security Bill, and why are you bringing it forward in this Bill?" I should have thought that was an answer. Perhaps we shall hear that answer in another clause stand part debate. The fact is that we are very familiar with this kind of answer. This answer is the same as, "Why do you not come Wednesday or why not do it on Friday?" We did not get that, but we have received an answer that we are trying to create some kind of precedent. We are not trying to do that. Any employer who has an agreement with a third party that he should go to that third party in the case of some alleged misconduct, would in fact do voluntarily what we are suggesting should be put on the face of the Bill.
We are only saying that if an employer decides not to do that then this provision should be processed not through the social security legislation but through the industrial tribunals set up to deal with unfair dismissal. There is nothing unusual or difficult in that. The fact of the matter is that when the Government finally get round to it they do not want to give the workers any rights.
Baroness Seear: Perhaps I may ask the Minister one thing. In plain straightforward English does he or does he not think it fair that a young trainee should lose his job for misconduct and suffer serious penalties as a consequence, without having the chance of having his case heard independently in some way?
I shall put it like this. Supposing a youngster has a row with his foreman. That is not an unknown situation. The foreman may be a most desirable person (as most of them are), but some of them can be a little difficult at times. The youngster and the foreman have a row, and the foreman says "You are out". Is this young man really to lose benefit for 26 weeks or, if he goes on social security, is he only to receive 40 per cent.? If he has been unreasonable and insubordinate to the foreman that is fair enough. It may or may not be fair enough. But at least let it be established by some independent party that the foreman was not suffering from a hangover. These things happen in real life; but perhaps the noble Lord does not know that people have hangovers in real life. When people have them, they do not behave as nicely as they do when they do not have a hangover. This is normal common practice. Is it not reasonable that the young man should have a chance to put his case to an independent person? That is all that we are asking.
Lord Trefgarne: I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, suggested that my answers have had a certain sameness about them regarding the amendments we have dealt with this afternoon. The fact of the matter is that some of the amendments have had a certain sameness about them. Naturally, I have tried to confine my replies to the essence of the
952
amendments that were offered to me. Perhaps I may help the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, specifically in this way. If a claimant is apparently dismissed for misconduct he is not without any right of appeal against the decision of the adjudication officer. He can go first to the independent social security appeal tribunal. Thereafter, if he thinks fit, he can go on a point of law to the Social Security Commissioner, to the Court of Appeal and even ultimately to this House.
Baroness Seear: The noble Lord, Lord Irvine, explained why that was an inadequate—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Trefgarne: I am sorry if the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, thinks that that is unsatisfactory, unacceptable or inadequate. It is fair for me to say that such machinery exists, and for the reasons I have described we do not think it would be appropriate to supply the alternate route which is suggested by noble Lords opposite.
Lord McCarthy: I am afraid that the noble Lord fails to satisfy us even as much as he satisfied us previously. I did not say that it was sameness. I said that it was out of place. Now that it is in place it is unacceptable and we shall divide the Committee.
6.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 121C) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 68; Not-Contents, 120.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Lawrence, L.

Ardwick, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Aylestone, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Barnett, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Basnett, L.

McCarthy, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Birk, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McNair, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carter, L.

Mishcon, L.

Craigavon, V.

Nathan, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Dean of Beswick, L.

Oram, L.

Diamond, L.

Phillips, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Fletcher, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rochester, L.

Galpern, L.

Salisbury, Bp.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Seear, B.

Grey, E.

Seebohm, L.

Grimond, L.

Serota, B.

Hampton, L.

Shannon, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stedman, B.

Hayter, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hughes, L.

Underhill, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jacques, L.

Walston, L.

Jay, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

953

NOT-CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Killearn, L.

Allerton, L.

Kimball, L.

Arran, E.

Kitchener, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Layton, L.

Bauer, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Beaverbrook, L.

Long, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lothian, M.

Beloff, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Belstead, L.

Lurgan, L.

Birdwood, L.

Lyell, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brookeborough, V.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Butterworth, L.

Merrivale, L.

Caithness, E.

Milverton, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Mottistone, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Munster, E.

Carnock, L.

Nelson, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Newall, L.

Cawley, L.

Norfolk, D.

Chelwood, L.

Norrie, L.

Coleraine, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Onslow, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Orkney, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cowley, E.

Pender, L.

Cross, V.

Quinton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Derwent, L.

Renwick, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Rodney, L.

Dundee, E.

Rugby, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Ferrers, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Geddes, L.

Sandford, L.

Gisborough, L.

Sharples, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Skeimersdale, L.

Grecnway, L.

Somers, L.

Gridley, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sudeley, L.

Halsbury, E.

Swansea, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Swinfen, L.

Harrowby, E.

Swinton, E.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Teynham, L.

Harvington, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Havers, L.

Trafford, L.

Hesketh, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hives, L.

Trumpington, B.

Holderness, L.

Tryon, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hood, V.

Westbury, L.

Hooper, B.

Windlesham, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wise, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Yarborough, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 121D not moved.]
6.20 p.m.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 121E:
Page 28, line 13, after ("has") insert ("on at least three occasions").
The noble Baroness said: If these young persons are to be penalised for refusing to take a place on a training programme, we would ask that they should have turned down an opening on no fewer than three occasions (not one occasion) before it is counted against them in the way described in the Bill.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that in a previous amendment perhaps the word
954
"requirements", in relation to the trainee, was going a bit far because you could interpret that as being a demand which could be made by the young person.
However, there is something less than "requirements" which I think we should take into account. After all, the career service which is strongly supported by the Government, aims to find out what the interests and aptitudes of a youngster are before suggesting any training—it would be helpful if the Minister were able to listen to me. The training, if it is good, is very expensive and it is a waste of training time if it is given to people who have no particular interest or aptitude for it. They cannot continue unreasonably saying that nothing suits them except to be a brain surgeon. We know that there are some people around like that, but they are a small minority. If a young person is really keen to do a certain type of training and it is a reasonable occupation for which to train that is not available in his or her area, it is not unreasonable for that person to try and hang out for it for a certain period of time.
In the end, it will be much better value for money—the phrase so beloved by the Government—if the youngsters are allowed to wait a little longer in order to find what they really want to do, because they will put their backs into it and make a success of it. But, on the other hand, to drive them into doing what they do not really want to do is likely to be a considerable waste of training. I accept that they cannot go on forever refusing such offers. That is why we suggest that they should be allowed to turn down what is offered up to three times before the penalties are invoked. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: We support the speech of the noble Baroness and indeed we have our names on the Marshalled List in respect of the amendment. This is an amendment which should commend itself to the Government. It should especially commend itself to the Minister because I wrote him down as saying that Clause 26 represents "no significant change in policy". Well, if that is so, this is a way of proving it.
We have not taken those three occasions out of the air. It is the basic way, from time immemorial, that clerks in the labour exchanges, in the job centres and in the benefit offices have interpreted their instructions. This is how they decided what "good cause" was in practice. They have offered the people who have come in one job and, if they have not taken it, they have then offered them another one, and finally, they have offered them a third one. If, after the three occasions, the man or girl behind the grille thought that that this meant that the person was not seeking work or seeking training—as it might be now—they have said: "I am afraid old fellow you have had too long a piece of string. You are off the benefit."
The trouble with the system is that it does not remove many people off benefit. A recent survey of the MSC showed that out of 25,000 young persons who refused YTS in 1987 benefits were only stopped in 700 cases; that is to say, 2·8 per cent. If the Minister takes the view that this situation should continue and nothing changes, my question to him is this: can the Government say—since the MSC will not be there—that they will commission another survey for 1988 or 1989 and that they expect the percentage to

955
be 2·8 per cent.? Or, will it be 28 per cent.? Or, will they stop doing the survey? That is how we shall see whether there has been any change in policy. However, if there has been no change in policy and if the Government do not wish to be tougher with the work-shy than they are now, there is no reason on earth why the Minister should not accept the amendment.
Lord Renton: I do not think that my noble friend should accept, or should be expected to accept, the amendment. The case that has been put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, seems to ignore the presence in the paragraph of the words "without good cause". They are in fact saying that even though the young man has without good cause refused or failed to apply for a place, or refused to accept one, three offers must be made to him before he suffers any disadvantage. That situation seems to me, if I may use jargon which has been used several times in connection with the Bill, to be going right over the top. Surely it is wrong that the officials who have to administer the scheme should, when they find someone unto-operative because he has "without good cause" failed to accept an offer, nevertheless have to ensure that on two further occasions an offer is put to him? That does not seem to be reasonable. I hope that my noble friend will not accept the amendment.
Lord McCarthy: Does the noble Lord not agree that we may be going over the top but we have been doing so for years? I understand what the noble Lord appears to want to do. What I should like the Government to say is whether they are coming down from the top.
Lord Renton: With the greatest respect, that is not relevant.
A noble Lord: It was just a joke.
Lord Trefgarne: I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for making the point, or at least one of the points, that I intended to make to your Lordships in response to the amendment. It is proposed in the amendment that the young person should indeed be entitled to turn down "without good cause" three opportunities of a training place that may be offered to him. Furthermore it is proposed that he should, at the same time, continue to enjoy the benefits that he was receiving. I do not think that that is a sensible or fair proposition.
I should add that before a potential trainee is made any offer he is of course carefully counselled and much consideration is given to what would be an appropriate course for him to take. Clearly there would be no interest in offering the trainee a course which is not suitable for him and which he might well therefore feel like refusing with good cause. There would be no benefit to anyone in offering him a course of that nature. The system is devised in such a way as to ensure that that situation does not arise.
Baroness Seear: Does the Minister agree that there are not adequate training places available for the desirable jobs? The training places at the top of the list—this is common to all of us working in the
956
field—are highly desirable. However, below that level, one has to take what is going and what is going is often not at all in line with that which a reasonable youngster wants to obtain.
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend answers that question I should say that we are not talking about jobs; we are talking about vacancies on training schemes, of which there are likely to be several available. Surely the provisions of the Bill have covered the position admirably.
Lord Trefgarne: My noble friend is again quite right in what he says. Indeed, as I said during the discussion on an earlier amendment, many thousands of additional courses will be made available this year and next year. This will ensure that there are an adequate number of places available for those who may need them, and also that there is an adequate range of choice of such courses so that those who advise the young people can select the best and most appropriate course for the young person in question.
The noble Baroness is of course quite right. There will be some courses right at the top of the desirable list which every young man in his right mind would be queuing up for. An astronaut's course, for example, if there were one available, would no doubt be desirable, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: A high-level course.
Lord Trefgarne: Yes, a high-level course. Equally, I dare say there will not be a great range of applicants suitably qualified for such a course. It will not be possible to offer many such desirable courses to young people, but there will be a considerable range of desirable courses tailored to the needs of the young people involved. My noble friend Lord Renton is right when he says that it is not satisfactory that applicants should be able to turn down three offers of a course without good cause.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Seear: Is the Minister not being overoptimistic? I do not know where he obtains his information that there will be a large number of extra courses. The Government are, rightly, busily trying to obtain extra places for the new job training scheme for older people. My information at local level is that officials are extremely worried about whether they will be able to find all the YTS places in addition to those for the job training schemes, if all the job training schemes are taken up. I hope that the Minister is right when he believes that there will be this large number of desirable courses. That is not what I am being told, and I should like to know from where he obtains his information.
Lord Trefgarne: When I held a different appointment in the Ministry of Defence I was responsible for the armed forces YTS. There were a number of desirable, excellent courses, and we were short of suitable applicants for them.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Before the Minister sits down, may I ask him whether he agrees—I

957
suspect that he might because he has addressed the Committee on the history of the social security/national insurance schemes way back to 1924 — that since such a date the issue of whether someone has rejected the offer of a job or training by reason of it being unsuitable, or, the obverse side of the coin, for good cause—involves such a high element of subjective assessment that it is bound to be a problem where young people are being offered, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has said, many jobs that do not offer the kind of training that they want? Would it not be wise, even if the Government cannot accept this amendment, for them to be a little more flexible on the question of "good cause" and the suitability of training courses, because it is here that the rub comes? People, especially young people, will feel conscripted if this Bill and the Social Security Bill go through.
Lord Trefgarne: As the noble Lord understands, we are talking about 16–18 year-olds. The proposition contained in the amendment is that they should be allowed, without good cause, to reject the offer of up to three courses. I do not think that is a sensible proposition. It is the proposition enshrined in the amendment. I do not think that the Committee should agree to it.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the noble Baroness decides what to do with her amendment, as she is the one who understands how the scheme works on the ground because she is involved with it on her area manpower board, I ask her whether it is not rather misleading to talk about YTS, as we did on the previous amendment and on this, as if it were comparable to applying for a job. The YTS guarantees a place. A number of girls and boys whom I know have gone on one scheme which was not 100 per cent. what they wanted. They managed to move to another. Some have managed to move to three because they have not found what they wanted. They are not sunk if they go on the wrong scheme. Is it not a much better discipline and much more realistic for them to approach training as is suggested in the Bill as it stands, but with the understanding that the real object is to put them into something in which they are interested, which they enjoy and which motivates them? That is what the youth training scheme is all about. I should be interested to know whether the noble Baroness agrees with me.
Baroness Seear: I do not hold out much hope that the Minister will be accommodating. However, I shall repeat what I said a few moments ago. He is greatly over-estimating the ability to offer suitable training programmes. I should rather see "on three occasions" than "good cause" written into the Bill, if it were a matter of changing the wording. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, was correct when she said that a young person who, on going into a training programme, finds that it is not what he or she wants, moves to another. If that is not what is wanted, he or she moves to another.
Surely it would be more sensible to take a little longer and to put those young people into the third position the first time rather than to waste training time in training post one and training post two, which
958
someone else could have had while they were occupying it. I know it is true and that a youngster who thought he wanted some training finds, when he gets the place, that his idea of that job is wrong. I agree that that is a good learning and desirable process. There is a taster element in that which can be useful. The situation is not always like that by any manner of means. It would be better initially to spend the time, money and effort to find the right programme. That is much less extravagant than having young people train for a bit, move onto something else, train and move onto something else again. We should allow them to wait until they find the right programme provided that they are doing that sensibly and responsibly. Of course we agree that that situation cannot go on indefinitely. I merely say that this proposal is not an efficient way to do that. We should allow them to have three goes at getting it right and then say, "You are being too choosy by half. You cannot go on like that". That is fine. Let them have the three goes. The Minister might feel happier if we took out "good cause" and put in "on three occasions"; that would cut the ground from under the feet of his argument.
Lord Trefgarne: It is not necessary to write in "refusal of a course with good cause" because that is already inherent in the provision.
Baroness Seear: As has been said what is good cause is highly subjective. Three times is a fact. One can say, "You have turned it down three times, and that is it". One can be as tough as one likes after that. That would be more efficient, economical and fairer to the youngster. I can see that we shall not have the amendment accepted at this time of night, having regard to the preceding results and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I know a young girl who wants to be a shepherdess—
Noble Lords: Withdrawn!
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 121F:
Page 28, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) After subsection (1), there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(1A) A person shall not be disqualified by reason of 'good cause' or 'neglect' under paragraphs (e), (f) and (g) above if he has left, failed to apply for, or otherwise taken up a place on a training scheme that is not reasonably suitable to his capacities, aptitudes and requirements." ").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment seeks again to underline the element of choice that we feel is so vital to the success of any training scheme. My noble friend Lord Wedderburn of Charlton has already spoken at length about our concern that we are having a provision which will conscript young people into unsuitable schemes. As we all know, the MSC has already said that the individual must count and that the training must be tailored to the needs of the individual. No training scheme can work without the principles that make for willing and committed participation by the trainees. A number of your Lordships have already said that on previous amendments.
It is to be hoped that every approved training scheme will be of good quality, and that every unemployed person, especially young people, joining will receive support and encouragement. Unfortunately, as we have seen, this does not always happen. So what we are doing with this amendment is to spell out precisely what we mean by "good cause".
There was a lot of discussion about "good cause" on the last amendment. We are saying in our amendment that a person shall not be disqualified from receiving benefit by reason of "good cause" or "neglect", if he has left, failed to apply for or otherwise taken up a place on a training scheme that is not reasonably suitable to his capacities, aptitudes and requirements. It is true that "requirements" appears again in this amendment, but nevertheless I think the wording indicates quite clearly that what we are lookng for here is an assurance that the schemes will be suitable and that people will not be denied benefit and forced into unsuitable schemes because they need the benefit. That is why we think that it is good to define "good cause" in this way. For those reasons I commend the amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Baroness pointed out very fairly that her amendment includes the word "requirements" which we discussed on an earlier amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, was good enough a little time ago to acknowledge that it was not an appropriate word in the context of the ealier amendment; nor, I would suggest to the Committee, in the context of this amendment.
If somebody's requirements are to be the dominating factor, they give that person virtual choice to demand a particular type of course which they want. Many young people are very sensible and will put forward sensible ideas. But some who have very high ambitions for themselves, or others who are perhaps not immune to the temptation of making difficulties, will pose as a requirement something that it is quite impossible to provide. Therefore apart from the broader considerations to which the Minister will no doubt refer in a moment, I would point out to the Committee that this amendment as it stands must be unacceptable because it shifts the balance of choice much too far.
Lord Mottistone: Some years ago I knew a young man who was out of a job. He was very ambitious, but he could not get the right sort of job. Without going through a long story, which would be a waste of time, I must tell you that he had to suffer all sorts of despair before he finally realised that the important thing was to have a job. He had two or three totally unsuitable jobs, but the great thing was that he was humble enough to accept them. The people who gave him those jobs moved him on to something better.
I know we are talking about training in this amendment, but I think it is important that the legislation should be strong enough not to make it too easy for the person who has ideas about himself which are too choosy, if you like, who is too sure that he should not do something which is nasty, dirty or
960
untidy. In my experience, with most of these schemes people try to adjust the scheme to the person as best they possibly can. But if it just happens that the scheme is not there, then it is no bad thing to be trained at any old something rather than not be trained at all.
This young man I am talking about has gone on to all sorts of greater more successful activities—not wildly successful but much more in accordance with his own abilities. He has been at the bottom level, and it has done him no harm at all to know what the bottom level is. One of his first jobs was digging in preparation for a tennis court in outer London when the ground was freezing one winter's day. It was totally unsuitable for him but he did it. This was very good.
I personally think that the principle behind a lot of these amendments is that the Opposition, in their great softness of heart, are trying to put forward things which are not good for the people whom they are trying to help. I hope very much that the Committee will resist not only this amendment but many of the ones which may follow it.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Before the noble Lord sits down, his speech was most helpful—
Lord Mottistone: I am glad.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: —but does he not appreciate that what he said was exactly what young people object to? They look at a place like this and say, "When their kids leave school sooner or later— it is usually later— they go off, they have a choice; they may not get the course they want, but off they go to college and university; whereas we are not merely told that we have YTS, with which some of our friends have not had good experience, though others may have, but we are told that we must take any course that is going". Does the noble Lord not understand that that is exactly the attitude that is objected to? I understand it may sometimes do good in the way which he describes, but to have it enunciated as a principle is what working boys and girls, men and women, object to.
Lord Mottistone: I am not talking about somebody who went to university.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I know you are not.
Lord Mottistone: I am talking more about the sort of person whom the noble Lord has just been mentioning. It is not therefore really relevant. But it is a fact that the young man himself realised that he had better get on and do what was in front of him.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I should like to back up my noble friend Lord Mottistone in what he has said. I do not know whether the noble Lord. Lord Wedderburn, has any YTS youngsters whom he has been employing, but I have employed quite a few young people. I always try to do so, but some of them have very grand ideas about what they want to do.
When I was a young man I had to do exactly what I was told. A great number of these young people who now come from state schools will not take

961
orders. I have in mind a young girl. If she was given an order, if she was told to do something and she did not want to do it, she burst into tears and complained that the foreman had shouted at her. It is really absurd. It will become rather like perpetual students who go from one university to another. They just want to pick and choose.
Lord Trefgarne: I daresay some of the bolshie ones come from public schools as well. Be that as it may, as I have already explained, the provisions of Section 20 of the Social Security Act 1975, as amended by Clause 26, already allow an individual to leave or turn down a place if he has good cause or if the training place offered is not a reasonable opportunity. If an approved training course would not help an individual get back into work or it was not suitable in his case, either because of his capacities, aptitudes or domestic circumstances, then that individual could refuse a place on it either because he had good cause to do so or because the training place was not a suitable opportunity for him.
Furthermore, as I have also explained, independent adjudicating authorities decide what is good cause and what is a reasonable opportunity. Such decisions can be complex matters and may need to take into account a variety of sensitive personal circumstances. They are helped in taking these decisions by extensive case law. While I recognise the intentions behind the Opposition amendments, I should point out that those amendments may actually be counter-productive by limiting the grounds which the adjudicating authorities could consider to those specified in the amendment when determining good cause. I am certain that that is not what was intended.
Perhaps I may stress again that the individual has a right of appeal against the adjudication officer's decision, initially to the independent social security appeal tribunal and thereafter, if he thinks fit, on a point of law to the social security commissioner and upwards through the Court of Appeal to your Lordships' House.
I hope therefore that the principle that is enunciated in this amendment and the difficulties to which I have referred will persuade the noble Baroness not to proceed with her amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I note what the Minister has said. In view of some of the points which he made, I am surprised that he is not accepting the amendment. It seemed to me that he was saying that it would be good cause if a trainee or a prospective trainee were to reject a place which was not suitable to his capacities, aptitudes, and so on.
However, the Minister is clearly not accepting the amendment, and that leads us to say that we are still concerned that the Government's intention is to ensure that people are conscripted—it is a strong word but one which has to be said—into schemes which may not be suitable for them. It may well not be a case of suitability or not wanting training. Such people may well find that no training is provided in a scheme to which they have been allocated. They may want to leave because no training is provided. They may want to get out of such a scheme and get
962
into another scheme which will provide them with training. They may wish to look again at the prospects and choices, such as they are, which are before them.
I share the views enunciated by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn. We are talking about young people who have been to state schools and who have not been subject to educational privilege. It is up to Parliament to ensure that those vulnerable young people are not conscripted in that way and put into schemes which may not give them anything. Certainly, if those schemes do not provide training, they will not provide those people with jobs or the reasonable possibility of jobs. I shall not press the amendment to a Division. However, we are dissatisfied with the response of the Government to what seem to us to be a reasonable set of amendments. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 121G:
Page 28, lint 17, at end insert —
("( ) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"( ) (a) For the purposes of (e); (f) and (g) above, no person studying for a recognised qualification shall be disqualified from receiving benefit;

(b) a recognised qualification shall be such a qualification as is prescribed by order made by the Secretary of State;

(c) no order shall be made under (b) above unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament." ").

The noble Baroness said: Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the Committee if, in moving Amendment No. 121G, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 121J and 121K. Those are grouped amendments. The purpose of Amendment No. 121G is to attempt to clear up the confusion which appears to exist in regard to what I believe is known as the "21-hour rule". Under current social security regulations, those who have been claiming benefit for three months or who have left a youth training scheme and are attending college for less than 21 hours a week can still continue to claim benefit. The only condition that such claimants have to meet is that they will end their studies and take up work if a suitable job becomes available. Those under the age of 19 years in non-advanced education and studying less than 12 hours a week can also receive benefit while remaining available for work.
Twenty-one hours a week allows an individual to study for a wide range of qualifications, including A-levels, RSA examinations or City and Guild examinations. It is clear that unemployed people with qualifications stand a far better chance of obtaining employment than those with no qualifications. The 21-hour rule is widely regarded as providing an opportunity for study and self-improvement.
Evidence concerning the rule is not easy to come by. However, information from colleges around the country appears to indicate that it is widely used. For example, I understand that the principal of Handsworth College in Birmingham has said that 3,000 out of 3,400 students are on benefit. As I said earlier, there has been some confusion as to whether or not the 21-hour rule will be affected. The

963
amendment attempts to deal with that and it indicates clearly that study for a recognised qualification will entitle the claimant to continued benefit.
Perhaps I may now turn to Amendments Nos. 121J and 121K. Amendment No. 121J is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 121K. The object of that amendment is to ensure that training schemes will make provision for persons to gain a recognised qualification if they so wish. I am sure that that will commend itself to the Committee, and I hope also to the Government. As has been stated many times, we do not have as high a standard of education and post-training education as we should like. For example, in Britain only 32 per cent. of our 16 and 17 year-olds are in education, compared to over 95 per cent. in Japan. We are seeking in this amendment to allow a person on a designated training programme to study for a recognised qualification. We think that it is important to target training so that trainees can have something to aim for and know that it is to their advantage to study for a recognised qualification.
The question arises of what a recognised qualification is. Paragraph (b) states:
"A recognised qualification shall be such a qualification as is prescribed by order made by the Secretary of State",
and paragraph (c) states:
"No order shall be made under (b) above unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament".
The intention of the amendment is to ensure that young people on training schemes know that there is a list of recognised qualifications to which they can aspire and that an approved training scheme must make provision for a person who wants to gain a recognised qualification to do so via the approved training scheme. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: As I understand it the amendments seek, first, to make it impossible for someone who is studying for a recognised qualification to be denied unemployment benefit if he refuses a course of approved training; secondly, to stipulate that all courses of approved training shall lead to a recognised qualification; and, thirdly, to require recognised qualifications to be prescribed by order of the Secretary of State after approval by both Houses of Parliament. I shall try to deal with each of those matters in turn.
The noble Baroness has said that someone who is already studying for a qualification which will help him to find work should not be forced into government training schemes by the threat of benefit sanctions. The sanctions in Section 20 relate to unemployment benefit. One of the basic conditions for the receipt of unemployment benefit is that the claimant should be available for work. He must be able to follow up any suitable job opportunity without delay. If he is studying in normal working hours, he must be prepared to give up the course at once if he is offered a job. If there is any doubt about that, a decision is sought from the independent adjudicating authorities.
It would therefore be rare for someone studying for a recognised qualification to be receiving benefit. The only likely case where someone might receive benefit
964
while studying is under the so-called 21-hour rule. There is concern that those studying under that rule might be forced to give up their studies and go onto approved training schemes or face benefit sanctions. I believe that I can reassure the Committee on that point. The Government agree that someone who has left full-time education and wishes to occupy his time usefully by undertaking some study while looking for work should be allowed to do so. Therefore, a person may study for up to 21 hours and still be entitled to income support, provided he has already been unemployed and receiving benefit for at least three months and is available for work.
I am pleased to be able to reassure the Committee that, despite recent press reports to the contrary, those arrangements will be carried over into income support from April. It would also be regarded as a positive outcome at a Restart interview if anyone were pursuing a suitable course of study within the terms of the 21-hour rule so long as he remained available for work. Even if a claimant studying under the rule were offered a place on an approved training scheme and refused it, the adjudicating authorities could decide that he had good cause for refusal under the existing provisions of Section 20. Each case would depend on its merits. Therefore, I believe that the amendment is unnecessary. I hope that what I have said will persuade the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment. I believe that there is very little between us on the point.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the Minister for that response. We shall look closely at what he has said in Hansard as regards the 21-hour rule and see whether it meets the concerns that led us to put the amendment down. I am not certain whether the Minister had completed his response on Amendments Nos. 121J and 121K concerning recognised qualifications. Perhaps he had not.
Lord Trefgarne: I edited slightly the reply that I gave in the interests of brevity at this late hour. I could offer more information about the vocational qualifications. Perhaps I may write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Turner of Camden: In view of that response I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): I call Amendment No. 121H.
Lord Mishcon: It may be convenient, since the hour has just struck seven, for a certain decision to be taken which was announced for seven o'clock.
Lord Trefgarne: I had thought that it might be appropriate to continue as far as the end of Clause 26. As always, I am in the hands of the Committee.
Lord McCarthy: I think it might have been appropriate if we had known that.
Lord Trefgarne: I apologise if the usual channels have not operated with their normal efficiency.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Question is, That the House be now resumed.
Lord Trefgarne: Order! I have not moved that the House he resumed and that we adjourn. However, I am very happy to do so if that is the wish of the House. I also suggest that we continue discussion of the Employment Bill at 8 p.m. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Matrimonial Proceedings (Transfers) Bill [H.L.]
7 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): 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.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Foreign Marriage (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this is a modest measure aimed at tidying up the legislation relating to marriage abroad. We are concerned with two types of foreign marriage: first, the consular marriage; that is, a marriage celebrated before or by a British marriage officer, and secondly marriages performed by services chaplains or other authorised people. The principal Act governing this area, although somewhat amended, is now only four years short of its hundredth birthday.
The Bill is narrower in scope than its origins might have led us to expect. In 1984, in the wake of the unenthusiastic reaction from all quarters to the Hague Convention on Celebration and Recognition of the Validity of Marriages, the English and Scottish Law Commissions established a working party to assist in the consideration of the reform of the choice of law rules relating to marriage. Choice of law is a complex and intriguing topic, but one with which in the event I need not trouble your Lordships.
When the Law Commissions, to whom we are as ever indebted, issued their joint report on the topic last July, their conclusion was that the case for comprehensive legislation was not made out. There were no major areas where the existing law seemed to be wrong. And further, since some choice of law rules are still in the process of development, it would not be desirable to crystallise them in statutory form at present.
However the Commissions felt that there was a case for detailed reform in a related area, that of the
966
Foreign Marriage Act 1892. That Act itself consolidated earlier statutes
"relating to the marriage of British subjects outside the United Kingdom".
The precise meaning of British subject is a topic to which I shall return.
In essence the Act provides two exceptions to the general rule that a marriage which is formally invalid by the law of the country in which it is celebrated is also formally invalid within the United Kingdom: those are the consular marriage and the marriage of members of British forces serving abroad.
Section 1 of the 1892 Act provides that a marriage—a consular marriage—celebrated in any foreign country by or before a marriage officer, and in the statutory form, shall, where one party is a British subject, be as valid as if it had been solemnised in the United Kingdom with a due observance of all forms. Subsequent sections prescribe various, mainly directory, requirements.
In the late 19th century British subject meant, broadly, any person born within Her Majesty's dominions and allegiance, or on board a British ship, and anyone born outside the dominions but whose father was a British subject.
The British Nationality Act 1981 however gives to the term British subject where it appears in legislation enacted before 1983—and so including the 1892 Act—the meaning,
"a person who has the status of a Commonwealth citizen".
That would leave within the scope of the Act citizens of such countries as Australia, Canada, Singapore and Zimbabwe who are not only unlikely to wish to use the facilities provided under it, but whose laws no doubt make their own provision for overseas marriage and which make no reciprocal provision for United Kingdom nationals.
Clause 1 of the Bill therefore, drawing on a precedent in the 1986 Outer Space Act, is designed to exclude from the ambit of the 1892 Act, so far as possible, persons not now holding any form of British nationality. We hope in that way to preserve the original intentions of the 1892 Act while avoiding its encompassing an unrealistically wide range of people.
The Bill includes several disparate, detailed and technical changes to the law relating to consular marriages and for that reason they are not easy to describe briefly. If there is a single theme, however, it is to remove the weighting in the original Act in favour of England and the Anglican church in what is United Kingdom legislation. The practical effect is generally not great; but, as a Scot, I can only commend the shift of emphasis.
The 1892 Act for example requires that the English law as to parental consent shall apply in all cases regardless of whether the person to be married is domiciled in Scotland or Northern Ireland, whereas in fact in Scotland parental consent is not required for the marriage of a minor, and the Northern Irish law is rather stricter than the English law. Clause 2 of the Bill therefore applies the law of that part of the United Kingdom in which the person has his or her domicile. Only those domiciled outside the United Kingdom altogether will continue to be bound by the English law in any event.

967
There are certain amendments to the 1892 Act consequential upon that general principle. For example, the form of the oath as to the satisfaction of the consent requirements is adjusted in subsection (2). Similarly, Clause 3 removes the old requirement that an objection, a caveat, entered against the solemnisation of a marriage should in cases of doubt be transmitted to a Secretary of State and then to the Registrar General for England and Wales for his decision. It is now to be sent to whichever of the Registrars General, for England and Wales, for Scotland or Northern Ireland is appropriate.
Section 8, subsection (2), of the 1892 Act lays down conditions as to the place and times at which and by whom a marriage may be celebrated, and as to the presence of witnesses. It goes on to provide that a marriage may be solemnised
"according to the rites of the Church of England or such other form and ceremony as the parties thereto see fit to adopt".
In that context, your Lordships may accept that the present reference in the 1892 Act to the rites of the Church of England adds nothing. Neither does the declaration in set form required by subsection (3) from those adopting a different ceremony that they know of no legal impediment to their marriage, and that they take their partner to be their lawful wedded husband or wife, even when the chosen ceremony itself contains appropriate declarations to the same effect. Clause 4 seeks to set these matters right.
Section 22 of the 1892 Act in its original form declared the validity of
"marriages solemnised within the British lines"
by a chaplain or officer. A wider provision was substituted by the Foreign Marriages Act 1947 validating marriages celebrated by a forces chaplain in any foreign territory, where one of the parties is a member of the forces serving there, or a person employed there in such other capacity as may be prescribed. The Foreign Marriage (Armed Forces) Order 1964 prescribed, among others, members of Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service. The section does not at present cover accompanying civilian personnel, school teachers for example, or dependent children. The former can be accommodated by extending the 1964 order. To accommodate the latter, provision is required by primary legislation, and that is achieved by Clause 6. The definition of children in that clause is still needed today, even though the relevant parts of the Family Law Reform Act 1987, which will deal with those born outside marriage, are shortly to come into force.
The Law Commissions recommended finally that the opportunity should be taken to repeal a series of exotic and spent marriage confirmation Acts, including an Act of 1858 validating marriages in Tahiti and Ningpo, and an Act of 1867 relating to marriages in the chapel of the St. John Del Rey Mining Company, Morro Velho, Brazil. These and other colourful specimens find themselves bundled together in an undignified manner in the schedule.
Before concluding I should add one brief comment about the position of Northern Ireland. The Bill extends to Northern Ireland, as this is a topic which has consistently been dealt with by legislation on a United Kingdom basis. Much of the 1892 Act touches upon matters—consular officers, marriages
968
of Her Majesty's forces—which were outside the competence of the former Parliament of Northern Ireland, and since direct rule are reserved or excepted matters. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
7.12 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for guiding us through these esoteric provisions with his usual clarity of language and customary lucidity. There are a few matters which deserve comment when an important Bill of this kind comes before the House. After all, it affects the lives and futures of many people within the United Kingdom and outside it.
When he explained Clause 1 of the Bill the noble and learned Lord said that this was obviously a sensible measure in view of the new definitions under the British Nationality Act 1981. That provision, which now makes it very clear that persons who do not now hold any form of British nationality are not covered by this legislation, would appear to be perfectly sound and sensible.
The noble and learned Lord then moved on to explain Clause 2 of the Bill and with a narrowness of view that I refuse to associate with him in any of his speeches said that there was some sort of holiness about Scots law and some sort of preference that Scots law ought to hold. I readily accept that it does so in his heart and mind but it may be a matter at least for doubt that Scots law, as he seems to take for granted, is always the best law even for people who are domiciled in Scotland but who have their ordinary residence outside its borders.
Noble Lords will remember romantic tales of Gretna Green and stories of couples who escaped across the border in order to take part in the holy rite of matrimony even though their parents did not regard their action as quite as holy as they did at that particular juncture in their young lives. Under this clause it is now envisaged that those who have Scots domicile but are resident abroad—or rather who want to travel over the border—can marry without the consent of their parents being required if one of the parties concerned is under the age of 18. If I may say so, as a humble advocate of the advantages of English law and obviously that which appertains to Wales and Northern Ireland as well, I am not quite so sure that that is a very sound provision.
I do not want to interfere with Scots law and the fact that that law does not require parental consent, but I should have thought that anyone under 18 who is a citizen of the United Kingdom and is married in this country should have to have the consent of parents before that marriage is validated. When the noble and learned Lord replies I shall welcome any views he expresses on something that at least ought to be mentioned and not receive just a passing comment on Second Reading of the Bill.
I think that the noble and learned Lord was absolutely right to agree with the view of the Law Commissions that this is not necessarily the time for a comprehensive restatement of the choice of law rules relating to marriage. As we rightly should, we are amending and repealing legislation which is

969
obviously completely out of date and out of harmony with present conditions. But at some time in the future it may be a very good idea to have some consolidating enactment (including the provisions of this amendment Bill) which will set out very clearly the state of our law in regard to the choice of law rules relating to marriage.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, we owe a debt to the Law Commissions for the thought that has clearly gone into this Bill. Indeed, the shortness of the Bill reflects the conclusions of the Law Commissions that comprehensive legislation was not called for in areas in which the law was either developing or had already developed satisfactorily. My only regret is that it did not touch upon the bewildering topic of the law relating to marriages on ships, which I have never understood, and simply brings to my mind Humphrey Bogart on the "African Queen".
The limited changes in the Bill are nevertheless valuable. Certainty in the law of marriage is always important because it affects status but there must be a measure of flexibility because the right to marry is a basic freedom. How much freedom should be allowed in exercising that right is perhaps not so easy to assess.
Clause 4 of the Bill echoes the 1892 Act in allowing parties to marry:
"according to such form and ceremony as [they] see fit to adopt."
which seems to give scope for exotic invention—providing of course that they state that there is no lawful impediment to their matrimony. There may be an impediment to their exotic invention, I suppose.
Clause 6 of the Bill gives a sensible extension of Section 22 of the 1892 Act to cover civilians accompanying the armed forces serving abroad. I hope that they would take more care than a soldier whom I once represented. He was, I think, serving in Belize and he woke up one morning with a hangover alongside a local lady who was clutching a certificate of marriage. A ceremony had undoubtedly taken place, although he had absolutely no recollection whatsoever of it. He was relieved to have the marriage annulled.
Clause 7 repeals a number of Acts listed in a schedule which are said to be spent. They present an impressive imperial-sounding list. We shall have to do without the Fiji Marriage Act of 1878 and the Basutoland and British Bechuanaland Marriage Act of 1889.
The main rationalisation in the Bill is that touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. It is effected by Clause 2, which provides that a Scotsman marrying abroad will no longer have to comply with the requirements of parental consent imposed by English Law. Although the law of Scotland is more relaxed in respect of parental consent and, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has just said, Gretna Green has thrived on that relaxed view, the fact is that there is at least one other area in which Scottish law is more restrictive.
The English Marriage Act provides that a man may not marry his grandmother. The Scottish Marriage
970
Act is more cautious. It stipulates that a man may not marry his great grandmother. Looking at this Bill in the round, we can conclude that at best it is a useful measure of law reform. At worst it prevents a Scotsman marrying his great grandmother in Fiji. If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor feels that we can live with that restriction, then we should do likewise.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am very grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken on this Bill. As has been pointed out, the main matter with which the Bill deals is in Clause 2. Clause 1 is important but Clause 2 is the one to which attention has been drawn in the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Meston.
Section 2 deals with the consent required to the marriage rather than other matters about possible impediments to the marriage. However, in so far as the clause deals with consent, I should like to say a word about the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I have always been careful to refrain from making comparisons in general between the law of Scotland and the law of England and Wales with regard to their qualities. In Clause 2 we are seeking to provide Scots law for Scots people; English and Welsh law for English and Welsh people; and Northern Irish law for Northern Irish people. Even if I were convinced to a greater degree than I am perhaps at present that the English law on this matter was superior to the Scots, I have difficulty in seeing why it should be applied to a Scots person marrying abroad when it does not apply to a Scots person marrying at home. That is the injustice that this clause seeks to correct. It gives the benefit of Scottish law not to any English person marrying in England or abroad but to Scots people domiciled in Scotland marrying abroad. That appears to me to be just. They must take the law of the country in which they are domiciled when they are getting the benefit of the foreign marriage legislation.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in his amusing and very erudite discussion, would the noble and learned Lord care to mention the logic of why someone who ought to be subject to English law can go over the Border and can then be subject to Scots law? Why should not English law be equally binding on an English national?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this Bill does not touch on that question. This Bill is the Foreign Marriage (Amendment) Bill and it relates to marriages which are foreign. Within the context of this Bill the marriage of an English person at Gretna Green—even if it had advantages—would not be a foreign marriage. Therefore this provision does not operate on it. This gives the benefit of their own law to people who use the arrangement of the Foreign Marriage Act. I believe that your Lordships would think this just, equitable and right. Therefore, with I think the support of noble Lords who have spoken, I renew my Motion that the Bill be read a second time.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Duchy of Lancaster Bill
7.24 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Duchy of Lancaster is primarily a land and property-owning institution whose revenues support the privy purse. The creation of the inheritance which became the Duchy dates from 1265 and its affairs have been administered by a chancellor of that name since 1399.
Although a royal possession since the accession of Henry Bolingbroke, the Duchy—by virtue of its earliest charters—has always been held for the sovereign's benefit separately from all other Crown lands.The original charters placed no restrictions upon the chancellor and his council in the management of the Duchy's estates. However, the legislation which was introduced early in the 18th century to restrain the alienation of Crown lands encompassed the Duchy's holdings in its application. These restrictions have either been gradually removed or substantially amended over the years. Other bodies which were originally affected by the restraints, namely the Crown Estates and the Duchy of Cornwall, are now able as a result of legislation granted for their benefit to enter into leasing arrangements for their properties which meet the requirements of the market place of today. The Duchy of Lancaster seeks no more than to be put in the same position as any other landowner—Crown or commoner—in this respect; and that is the purpose of the short Bill which I bring before your Lordships today.
The restrictions which still have an adverse effect on the management of the Duchy's properties are those which limit the letting of land or land and buildings to a term of 99 years, and which restrict the amount of rental which may be taken under those circumstances by way of a prepayment or premium. No more than one-third of the revenue receivable in this way may be capitalised.
The Duchy would not itself object to entering into leases on this basis as no landowner wishes to grant a longer term than is absolutely necessary; and it is one of the Duchy's management objectives to sustain its revenue income in preference to making capital disposals. There has, however, been a change in market conditions. The circumstances under which such leases are granted are normally those where a new building is to be erected or a substantial refurbishment of existing property is to take place. For many years builders and developers have been prepared to invest money in property on a leasehold basis in exchange for a term of 99 years. They are now no longer able to obtain funds for their investments on such a basis. Periods of 125 or even 250 years are sought according to the scale of the development and its location. The Duchy of Lancaster now finds itself in the unfortunate position of being one of the very few landowners who are unable to meet the requirements of the market place in this way.
Commercial considerations also determine the extent to which a builder or developer is prepared to pay a rental under a building lease as opposed to pay part rental and part premium. This point may be
972
illustrated by way of a simple example. Suppose a block of property containing buildings which are ready for redevelopment or substantial reconstruction are worth, in their existing condition, £1 million. The costs of developing or refurbishing those buildings may amount to a further £1 million. Under a typical modern leasing arrangement the landowner contributes the former element (the land) while the building lessee contributes the latter (the finance) and executes the development. In return, each party may seek to share the rental from the completed development in proportion to the value of their original contributions. In the example given, the rental received would be shared equally.
However, the property funding market may dictate otherwise. Financing institutions may insist that, while recognising the basic division of value, they are prepared to provide funds only if the landowner's share is partly redeemed from the start by the payment of a capital sum or premium. There are no set rules for such negotiations and the attitude of the institutions varies according to market conditions. However, it is not uncommon for the stipulation to be made that something of the order of 80 per cent. of the landowner's share is capitalised. The effect of the present restrictions, which limit both the length of lease that the Duchy may grant and the percentage of income which may be capitalised, is that redevelopment or refurbishment opportunities for property which the Duchy owns may prove impossible to fund by way of a building lease.
The problem is not a theoretical one. Part of the Duchy's historic inheritance—dating back to 1284—includes properties in the Manor of Savoy. Recently a group of properties on the Strand became in urgent need of renewal. Planning permission for a new building was obtained and for over 12 months a leading firm of surveyors endeavoured to negotiate terms on the open market for the redevelopment of the property within the framework of the Duchy's existing leasing powers. This unfortunately proved to be impossible. The costs of redevelopment were beyond those which the Duchy was able to fund internally and the freehold of the site had to be sold. Although the terms of the sale itself were satisfactory and the proceeds were reinvested, were the process to be repeated over a period of years the Duchy would find that either it retained the ownership of properties which were becoming dilapidated or that it had to sell the freehold of an historic inheritance.
I refer briefly to the schedule to the Bill. It details enactments which would be repealed. I have previously referred to the fact that the original restrictions on the Duchy's powers have been modified over the years. These modifications have taken the form of extending the Duchy's powers in certain instances, either in legislation specific to the Duchy or in other legislation which referred to the Duchy. The Bill before your Lordships would make redundant these limited extensions of the Duchy's powers and consequently their repeal is sought for administrative tidiness.
In summary the Bill seeks to do no more than to put the Duchy of Lancaster in the same position—no better but no worse—than that of other landowners and I therefore recommend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Beaverbrook.)
7.32 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, who would think that the Government had entered into some kind of conspiracy in regard to an innocent Bill of this kind which is brought before your Lordships for Second Reading? I say that because today is the day before Budget day. The Minister, I think deliberately, did not read the section from the Act which we are meant to be dealing with today. I say in all solemnity that the House should be reminded of the section of the Act passed 286 years ago—I repeat that the Bill comes before the House on the eve of the Budget. I refer to Section V of the Crown Lands Act 1702. I say with a slight smile that your Lordships ought to be reminded of the relevance of that section to the present occasion. Section V reads as follows:
"And whereas the necessary Expences of supporting the Crown or the greatest part of them were formerly defrayed by a Land Revenue which hath from time to time been impaired and diminished by the Grants of former Kings and Queens of this Realm so that Her Majesties Land Revenues at present can afford very little towards the Support of Her Government nevertheless from time to time upon the Determination of the particular Estates whereupon many Reversions and Remainders in the Crown do now depend or expect and by such Lands Tenements and Hereditaments as may hereafter descent escheat or otherwise accrue or come to Her Majesty Her Heirs or Successors the Land Revenues of the Crown in Fines Rents and other Profits thereof may hereafter be increased and consequently the Burthen upon the Estates of the Subjects of this Realm may be eased and lessened in all future Provisions to be made".
The Act was passed some 286 years ago so that the burden upon the taxpayer might be alleviated and the estates of the Crown might increase in value. Here we are, the day before the Budget day, altering the whole of this provision. Accordingly, one would have thought, it is a deliberate measure to increase tomorrow the burden upon the taxpayer. All the forecasts that have been made so far would appear not to carry out such a conspiracy, but I merely mention this for your Lordships' amusement, together with the fact that, again possibly in anticipation of tomorrow, Section VII of that old Act refers to the following:
"And to the Intent the Inheritance which Her Majesty hath of and in the said Hereditary Duties of Excise upon Beer Ale and other Liquors and of and in the said Revenue arising … in the small Branches of Her Majesties Revenue".
Again with great diplomacy and care, the Minister did not anticipate the Budget speech by a reference to these hereditary duties of excise upon beer, ale and other liquors.
Beyond these completely irrelevant observations I have nothing but support for the Bill now before your Lordships.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am glad to be reminded by my noble friend of the terms of Section V of the Crown Lands Act 1702, because I have mislaid my copy and have been unable to consult it.
I am probably the only Member of your Lordships' House now who was at one time Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I had the responsibility of looking after the affairs for quite a time when I was in the Government of Harold Wilson in 1964. I
974
arrived there just in time for the celebrations of the 700th anniversary of the beginning of the Duchy, which was quite a party at St. James's Palace. We had other most enjoyable proceedings in connection with the long history of this turbulent creation, which is now becoming more of an anachronism than ever.
The beginning of the Duchy of Lancaster was in conflict and war, the plunder of civil war, rebellions against the Crown and retaliations by the Crown. When I see the plaque in the parish church at Evesham to the memory of Simon de Montfort, the founder of English representative government, I can scarce forbear to say that he was a Plantagenet adventurer who came over here to claim the title and the estates of the Earl of Leicester. He married the King's sister, rebelled against him, defeated him at the Battle of Lewes in 1264 and then trailed Henry the monarch, around the country like a performing bear, a virtually captive monarch. The supporters of the King reassembled their forces and in counteraction at the Battle of Evesham they defeated the rebel forces and slew Simon de Montfort. That is how the Duchy began, because on his death the Crown sequestrated the whole of the lands and estates of the Earl of Leicester, Simon de Montfort, and created the Earldom of Lancaster. That is how the Duchy began.
When I first went there I was intrigued to define the origin of the estate of the Duchy. Was it war booty? Was it plunder? Was it nationalisation without compensation? Was it sheer confiscation? What was the moral basis for the Duchy? How did it come to have this preferential position in the affairs and fortunes of the Crown.
We ought to bear in mind that the proposed changes (which I fully support) will result in the increased wealth of the Duchy of Lancaster, and the whole of the revenues of the Duchy are the property of the Crown. The only substantial payment made from Duchy funds goes to support the privy purse, as my noble friend said. The proposals contained in this short Bill will add to the resources of the Duchy, will add to the resources and income of the Duchy and thereby will add to the tax-free resources available to the Crown. We must not overlook that matter. I do not begrudge it but we must bear in mind the fact that it is a relic of the days when the Crown had vast estates throughout the land and decided to put them into the hands of the state in return for a civil list provision.
During my time in office the Duchy of Lancaster was the Queen's hedge against inflation. At that time the monarch had to come to Parliament for the revision of the financial grants made to the privy purse. No monarch liked coming to Parliament to apply for more money because it could arouse all kinds of criticisms of the monarchy, the behaviour of the royal family and so forth.
While people such as William Hamilton were around—who is no longer in another place but who was vocal on such matters—the Crown did not like coming to Parliament unless it was forced. Queen Victoria hated coming to Parliament for more money because during her reign there was a strong republican element in society. No one likes to come to Parliament to ask for more money, least of all Members of the House of Commons. The privy

975
purse, along with the salaries of the Members of the House of Commons, is now on a regulatory basis and it is no longer necessary to trouble Parliament for increases in pay.
The Duchy is still a substantial supplement to the resources of the monarch. The Budget of tomorrow will make no difference to the Duchy, whether or not the standard rate of income tax is reduced. Plenty of other concessions that might be made in the Budget tomorrow will not benefit the Duchy because it pays no tax. Exemption from direct taxation is part of the prerogative of the Crown. Again, I do not begrudge that. I believe that if one has a monarchy one should keep it in proper repair and at a standard of dignity and affluence consistent with the life, work and heavy responsibilities of the Head of State. I am all in favour of that. However, we have not had a Duchy of Lancaster Bill before Parliament for 68 years, and I am taking the opportunity to remind noble Lords of the existence of this unique institution which still remains as part of the history of our country.
When on social occasions I have been asked about the Duchy of Lancaster, I have explained that it is an independent territory within the United Kingdom with only taxation and foreign policy reserved to the Westminster Government. The Duchy appoints the magistrates and county court judges and it owns all the river beds. What is the Duchy expected to do with all the river beds in Lancashire? It owns 120 farms; it has the gift of 40 clergy livings; it owns nearly all the pot holes in Derbyshire and it charges people to go down the pot holes, look at them and get lost in them. The Duchy has all kinds of wonderful things at its disposal.
I tell the House quite frankly that I became bored with my Cabinet job as a link-man of Cabinet committees. I had the responsibilities of a great landowner with broad acres by the thousand and woodlands which I refused to cut down. The fact I would not cut down any trees upset the Duchy, which stated that that surrendered all the principles of good forestry. I said, "I don't cut down trees even so". I felt that the Ducal power that had been in the hands of the aristocracy of Britain for centuries was at last in my hands and I greatly enjoyed it. I went to rent dinners. It was wonderful but I still had a link job in the Cabinet and was in charge of the future of social security.
To be serious, this Bill is necessary to bring the situation up-to-date. The restrictions previously placed on the funds and uses of the Duchy of Lancaster have existed largely to restrain the monarchs from exploiting their control over the Duchy. Some monarchs almost scattered the resources of the Duchy in a profligate way and they had to be restrained. The restrictions were implemented to safeguard the capital assets of the Duchy. It is quite clear that they cannot be fully exploited within the market and property conditions of today, and the proposals are necessary.
One must not lose sight of the fact that it is an anachronism in the provisions for the royal money of today. It is still virtually a private fief and it has not been surrendered because of its origin. The rest of the Crown lands were surrendered to the state in return for Parliament's provision of a privy purse and a Civil
976
List to sustain it. One wonders how long that will continue.
The Duchy of Cornwall is in a somewhat different position. The convenience of the Duchy of Lancaster to government is that there is a Chancellor of the Duchy who is nearly always in the Cabinet. He is a convenient person to whom responsibilities can be given within the government machinery and with no immediate departmental responsibility. In 1988 we are fundamentally changing the straitjacket which has surrounded the freedom of the Duchy to use its assets to the best commercial advantage.
I cannot imagine that the Chancellor of the Duchy will need to take much advantage of the new power to give charities easy terms in land tenure because in my time in office the whole of the Duchy was almost a philanthropic institution. I raised the rents of over 100 farms by one-third and was questioned as to why I was doing so. My answer was that it was in order to bring them up to the level of 1870. I said that if any farmers had a grievance against that they could go to an independent tribunal. I undertook that if it recommended a reduction the farmers would receive that, but that if an increase was recommended I would not impose it. I do not believe that many farmers appealed on those terms. The Duchy will now have the opportunity of giving more attention to charitable appeals, at least in the conditions of leasing land. I support the Bill. I greatly enjoyed my stay in office, and I have also enjoyed talking about the work of the Duchy of Lancaster.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to say a few words about the Bill. One would have to be extremely unreasonable to say that there is anything inherently objectionable in the Bill; it is manifestly desirable and has the approval of us all. One of the advantages that it has provided is to give the House the good fortune of hearing a former Chancellor of the Duchy speaking a few moments ago. I have asked three previous holders of the office exactly what is done by the Chancellor of the Duchy. I knew that he appointed magistrates, but I was unclear as to his other responsibilities. All noble Lords now have the advantage of knowing precisely the powers of the Chancellor of the Duchy.
It is right to say that the Duchy has a strange historical background. I understand that when the Duchy was first incorporated there were no limitations on the power of the Chancellor. However, it was found necessary eventually to introduce some limitations on his powers because of the misbehaviour at the time of the Stuart monarchs.
It is useful to remember what the Stuart monarchs did which was criticised by Parliament and led to a whole series of legislative provisions through the centuries. Their greatest offence was to sell off the assets of the Duchy of Lancaster and to use the resulting capital as immediate revenue. We have heard of that matter in a rather different context in the last few years. On this occasion my noble friend Lord Diamond is not present. He normally draws attention to the fact that the present Government have an enthusiasm for selling off the family silver. That was precisely the issue which engaged the attention of Parliament three centuries ago and led to

977
the beginning of the whole series of legislative processes, of which this is the most recent.
Having said that, I believe this has been an interesting debate. We have had the historical researches of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has reminded us of the significance of the battle of Lewes in 1264 and, indeed, the significance of a most agreeable party in 1964 to which, unhappily, some of us were not invited. With those words, I support the Bill.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, as always in this House, I shall be extremely brief on this matter. I am drawn to my feet by the notion that the Duchy of Lancaster goes back to the battle in 1264 and is obviously a very ancient part of our constitutional arrangements. However, I must remind the House—however gently and however briefly—that we are a United Kingdom; and apart from 1264, in 1603 there was the union of the crowns, and in 1707 there was the union of parliaments. Although the Duchy of Lancaster is of great interest to some parts of the United Kingdom, it is only of marginal interest to some other parts of the United Kingdom. We wish it no harm in that respect but we wish merely to remind constitutionalists that the Duchy of Lancaster is a very local matter and is a local matter only to part of the United Kingdom.
Beyond that, I have very little to say except to take up a point made a few moments ago by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, when he referred to the iniquities of the Stuarts. They were no doubt worthy of criticism. Coming from my part of the world—namely, the Lowlands, where the Stuarts were not the most popular of people—I have no doubt about that. However, being aware of the shortcomings of the Stuarts does not necessarily mean that one is enthusiastic about the activities of the Hanoverians. They were all right in their way and I dare say, in a sense, we still have them with us.
My last words are these. The inquity of the Stuarts and the follies of the Hanoverians must not lead us to imagine that the peculiarities of the younger royals of the present day are exactly what we want in our society. We have nothing to say against our younger royals apart from the fact that we think they ought to behave themselves rather better than they do.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, will not wish me to follow him down that route. I am certainly not going to and I do not believe that he would expect it.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, for giving us such an interesting insight into his stewardship of the Duchy. He comes from a long line of distinguished chancellors which included my grandfather many years ago. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Harris of Greenwich and Lord Mishcon. I am sure that the noble Lord did not really expect me to give the House a preview of tomorrow's Budget but I am sure he will not be too disappointed! In the meantime, I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.55 to 8 p.m.]

Employment Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 26.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 121H:
Page 28, line 17, at end insert—
("(3) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"( )(a) Paragraphs (e), (f) and (g) above shall not apply to a person who—

(i) has been on local authority care within the previous 24 months;

(ii) is on hail or under supervision of a probation officer;

(iii) is mentally or physically handicapped or mentally ill but is not so ill that he is incapable of work;

(iv) is a lone parent;

(v) is registered blind;

(vi) is pregnant (but only for the period commencing 11 weeks before the expected date of confinement and ending 7 weeks after the date pregnancy ends);

(vii) is incapable of work by reason of some disease or bodily or mental disablement (excluding the temporarily sick);

(viii) is a carer;

(ix) is a refugee attending a course for the purpose of learning English (for more than 15 hours a week);

(x) would face exceptional hardship if refused benefit:

(b) in (a) above, a carer is a person who takes primary responsibility in the home for the care of a person who, because of handicap or illness needs almost continuous care.".").

The noble Baroness said: The Committee will see that this amendment puts less onerous conditions on certain categories of people in relation to the obligation to accept training places and, consequently, the risk of penalties if they fail so to do.
The list contained in Amendment No. 121H is taken from a list incorporated in the Social Security Bill with the approval of Mr. Portillo, the Minister in the other place. It may well be said by the Minister that that being so, there is no need to reproduce the list in this Bill. However, this list which makes certain modifications to the existing legislation is in regulations—it is not in the Bill itself—and because we think it is very important that these categories of people should be treated differently we should like to see them on the face of the Bill and not merely incorporated in regulations.
Members of the Committee will agree that all the people in the categories in the list suffer from exceptional handicaps of one kind or another which makes it very much more difficult for them to be acceptable or to accept the kind of training which will be on offer and that it takes them time to adjust so that they can take advantage of the training.
I have some special knowledge of the problems; for example, young people who have been in detention. The agency with which I am concerned—the Apex Trust—finds in its training programmes that in some cases it takes a considerable time for youngsters who have been in detention to adjust themselves to the outside world and to acquire the habits and attitudes which make training and subsequent employment a practical proposition. I will not go through the whole list but I think the Committee will agree that in all

979
such cases there are special conditions which mean that it is much more difficult for them to perform and it is therefore inappropriate to apply the same kind of regulations that apply to normal able-bodied people without handicap.
As I have said, the special problem of these people is recognised in the Social Security Bill by amendments in the regulations to be made for that Bill by the Minister in another place, but we hope that the Government will see their way to incorporate these categories into this Bill because it is a matter of considerable importance. The problems of employment are more widespread and complex than those relating to social security. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: As I have already stressed, it has been a principle of benefit legislation since 1911 that to receive unemployment benefit one must be available for work. However, I am sure we are all in agreement that it is right that some people should not have to be available for work in order to receive income support. Most of the categories presented in this amendment are unnecessary as the people concerned would not be required to be available for work in the first place to claim income support. In such cases benefit sanctions are not of course appropriate. Categories (iv) to (ix) in the amendment fall into this item.
Categories (i) to (iii) are, I agree, all particularly vulnerable sections of the community. However, they have much to benefit from government training programmes and the guidance and assistance of the employment service. People who have been institutionalised find it harder to help themselves, and we do them no favours by allowing them to withdraw from society and rest on benefit.
In the case of a disabled person the adjudication officer can ask for specialist medical advice to help him make his decision on the suitability of a training opportunity for the person concerned. In exceptional hardship cases (category (x)) the adjudication officer has discretion to disqualify for a period of less than 13 weeks (increased to 26 weeks from April) and to abate the claimant's personal income support by 20 per cent. rather than 40 per cent. in certain cases (where the claimant has £100 or less capital and there is pregnancy or serious illness in the family). Income support of course continues to be paid in full for all the claimant's dependants. It is never affected by these disqualification provisions.
I refer to some of our exchanges earlier today on the question of the 21—hour rule. I should perhaps have made it clear—I am sure Members of the Committee opposite understand already—that the 21-hour rule does not generally apply to young people but only to older people. Therefore, I hope that I can set the record straight. I hope too that I have been able to set at rest the mind of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, as regards her amendment.
Baroness Seear: I am sorry that the Minister is not prepared to accept this amendment. Although I accept what he said in some respects, in our view these categories should be protected by being put on the face of the Bill and not have to rely, as he suggested, on the existing provision in the regulations of the Social Security Bill.
980
However, considering the result of previous amendments in testing the opinion of the Committee, I shall ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 121J and 121K not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 26 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McCarthy: We gave notice that we wished to speak against clause stand part, and we are reinforced in that view by what the Minister said. In my submission he has given the game away. He said that Clause 23 was purely formal; that Clause 24 made little difference; that the functions of the Training Commission were much the same as those of the Manpower Services Commission; that Clause 25 was insignificant and that the change in the status of trainees was not important.
The noble Lord began by saying that this clause, Clause 26, was not particularly important and involved no change in principle because, from the time of the beginnings of social security legislation and back to the days of Beveridge and beyond, everyone had accepted that in certain circumstances there would be a denial of benefit. We are not saying that in no circumstances whatever should there be a denial of benefit, either in respect of people refusing to take work or refusal to take training places. We are not saying that in no circumstances whatever should there he a denial of benefit. This is all about terms. It is about the degree of humanity and concern and the degree of understanding which is operated by the representatives of the DHSS, basing their position on government policy.
We suggest that the Minister has given the game away because as regards our amendments he opposed any sensible definition of good cause. He has also given the game away because he refused our amendments in respect of the three jobs test. We argued that the present rate of disqualification (which is something like 3 per cent.) was the consequence of operating the present test. The degree of excitement and horror which was exhibited on the Benches opposite when the practical application and the consequences of the three jobs test (or the three training places test) was explained to the noble Lords opposite is an indication of how far they hope and intend that the disqualification rate should rise. This is not something for which Members opposite have any support from the Manpower Services Commission (as it was) or the TUC, the CBI or from the overwhelming majority of employers, especially the good ones, who will in fact be involved with training places. They do not want compulsion or the threat of denial of six months' benefit to be used significantly to raise the disqualification rate.
It will be the ordinary rank-and-file civil servants who will be expected to throw away their existing tests. They have developed those precisely because they are objective and precisely because they get them out of the problem of trying to decide on various subjective assessments whether to believe the employer, the worker or who to believe. The civil servants will be asked to throw away these tests in the interests of driving up the disqualification rate in order to save the cost of training and to get people off the register.

981
We say that there is no justification whatever for this. In all the studies that have been done (including those carried out by the Government themselves) the overwhelming majority of young people say that they prefer work or training to the dole. The most recent study shows that all but 2 per cent. of young people and school-leavers—that is to say, one in 500—prefer work or training to the dole. We say that there is no evidence to justify this and all informed opinion is against this provision. Therefore we must oppose the Question that this clause shall stand part of the Bill.
Lord Trefgarne: Following the transfer of the jobcentre network from the Manpower Services Commission to the new Employment Service, an amendment was necessary to Section 20 of the Social Security Act 1975. In amending Section 20 to make it clear that staff of the Department of Employment as well as staff of the MSC may notify vacancies to jobseekers, we have also taken this opportunity to rectify an existing anomaly in the benefit sanctions. We are closing the loophole which allows a trainee on an approved scheme, dismissed from his or her place for misconduct, to receive unemployment benefit in full while an employee dismissed for the same reason would have benefit disqualified or reduced for 13 weeks.
This clause also provides a definition of training which makes it clear that, as has always been accepted, training includes work experience. These are broad enabling provisions. No sanctions can be imposed until a training scheme is formally approved by the Secretary of State. However, if someone persistently refuses all offers of help (which may include a place on a training scheme) it may raise doubts about his availability for work. If a person is not available for work, then he is not entitled to receive unemployment benefit. The law has always said that someone drawing unemployment benefit cannot refuse all offers of help and simply rest on benefits.
The principle of social security legislation that people claiming benefit should be available for work dates back a very long time indeed. Subsequent social security legislation passed by various governments, including Labour Governments, has upheld this principle.
Perhaps I may at this stage make a brief apology. During the course of our earlier discussions on this topic I quoted an honourable Member in another place. I have now been advised that I should not have done that and I apologise to the Committee and to the honourable Member concerned.
The social security commissioner has interpreted the principle to which I have referred to mean that people must not just be available for work but must be actively seeking it. The independent adjudication officer will take into account a claimant's whole history on benefit, his response to offers of help and inquiries about what he is doing to find work himself before deciding whether he or she is available or work.
That is the essence of what the clause is about. I invite the Committee to agree that it should remain part of the Bill.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Seear: Through all these discussions it comes over very strongly that what the Government really believe is that there are a very large number of people who are trying to avoid getting jobs and who are skiving on benefit. Let us not pull our punches over this matter. We do not believe that the evidence supports that view. We recognise that there are some; but what appears to us to be happening as regards this legislation is that the whole approach to training and employment is overshadowed all the time by the conviction of the Government that there are a great many people who do not want to work. I challenge the Government to produce evidence of this. I ask them to look at this Bill as something which is genuinely trying to establish good training, and we should not be setting traps for people who try to evade it. Can the Minister please comment?
Lord Trefgarne: I absolutely reject the proposition which lies at the heart of the intervention by the noble Baroness. What this clause is seeking to do is simply to enshrine a legislative feature which has been on our statute book for at least 60 to 70 years. I do not believe that the noble Baroness is entitled to make the accusation on the basis of these provisions.
Lord McCarthy: If the noble Lord is right, then for goodness sake why is it necessary? It is not true that it does not apply to training. It does apply to training. The present one-in-three principle and the 2 or 3 per cent. are disallowed benefit. It works with training and with employment. If the Government do not wish to make a major change why have we Clause 26?
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clauses 27 and 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Crown employees and contracts etc.]:
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 121L:
Page 29, line 40, at end insert—
("(a) the law relating to the terms of that office or employment;").
The noble Lord said: We now find ourselves in Part III of the Bill in which Clause 29 relates to the position of those in employment of the Crown. Although this is a post-prandial discussion with scarely a crowded Chamber, I submit to the Committee that this is a very important matter. The Civil Service employment relationship in many ways has been a legal and practical problem for many years. It is a tribute to the past work of those on the official and the trade union side during this century that they have overcome all the obstacles in their path in such a magnificent way. I shall submit in a moment that this is a tradition which this Government appear not to adhere to.
I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 121L, 121M, and 121N, which I believe should be grouped together. We say about Clause 29 that it purports to clarify part of an area of doubt in the law relating to employment under the Crown but that it does so unfairly and inadequately and should receive one or more of the three amendments to which I shall refer.
The position of the holder of an office of employment under the Crown is a difficult area. On the legal side it is generally agreed that, by reason of the prerogative, the Crown enjoys a power to dismiss the civil servant (as I shall refer to such people) at pleasure. Yet paradoxically the civil servant or the established civil servant holds one of the most secure positions in the realm with a tenure far more secure, contrary to popular belief and the belief, it seems, of the Secretary of State for Education and Science, than that of university teachers. The civil servant enjoys that position for a number of reasons, and one ought to mention at least the two most important.
The first is the sophisticated system of collective consultation and bargaining which was born out of the intelligent acceptance by government of the recommendations of the Whitley Committee in the middle of the First World War. The second is the statutory support in legislation of administrations of both parties applying in part or in whole employment protection provisions in an appropriate way modified to Crown employment. These two together have woven a texture of considerable importance.
I come now to the clause and our amendments but I shall first address to the Minister a question about Clause 29. It may as well come here and it will take only a moment. People are asking why in subsection (1) there is reference to an,
"office or employment under the Crown",
while in subsection (3) there is reference to,
"employment under or for the purposes of any government department".
I do not think that that is sinister, but there are those who do. Perhaps when he comes to reply the Minister will explain that difference in drafting.
Clause 29 cures a doubt for a particular purpose. The doubt is said to be whether those in Crown employment have a contract of employment. The Minister and the Committee will not wish me to try to cite all the learned articles and textbooks that have been written on this subject. Fortunately it is not necessary to do so because one need only say that there is a doubt. Indeed, the basic elements of Crown employment are still uncertain. Here I fear I must mention a judicial decision. It is sometimes said that the Crown can alter the terms of the employment at will, as well as dismiss at will. Most authorities assume that that is so. However, in the recent case of Regina v. Civil Service Appeals Board ex-parte Bruce, Mr. Justice Roch doubted whether that is so. So there is a wide area of doubt.
Clause 29 does not cure the doubt in toto. It erects the relationship of Crown employment in a contract for one purpose and one purpose only; namely, that a third party will be liable if it induces a breach of contract. Some say that this is meant to reinforce the position of the Government in getting at those who produce books such as Spycatcher. I doubt that very much. It is quite obvious what it is for. It is to get the Civil Service trade unions.
The Government have made no bones about this in another place. They want to be sure that they can obtain injunctions against Civil Service trade unions for inducing a breach of the employment contract as it will be deemed to be, just as they can against other trade unions. This puts them in line of succession of
984
their policy. They have vandalised the consensus of Civil Service employment relationships ever since they came to office. They tore up the Civil Service arbitration agreement in 1981, they banned trade unionism without consultation at GCHQ in 1984, and they now assume or presume in their legislation that the relationship is a contract—but not for any benefit to the civil servant, not for any benefit to the Crown employment relationship, but for their benefit so that they can sue trade unions in the courts.
It so happens that this matter emerged in the Bruce case, to which I have already referred. I should say immediately that the case came before the Divisional Court and that it is my understanding that it may be going to the Court of Appeal. Therefore I wish to say nothing about the merits of the case. I may be wrong in thinking that, but in case it goes to the Court of Appeal I wish to say nothing about the merits. I merely record that it is a case of a civil servant who had an appeal rejected by the Civil Service Appeals Board and attempted to obtain judicial review of that decision.
The important point is that in the course of the litigation the Crown was called upon to elucidate its position in respect of the employment relationship with Mr. Bruce. If it was a contract of employment he could not have judicial review. To put it very crudely, one can have judicial review of a matter which is a duty in public law but for private law matters—for example, a breach of contract—one must sue in the ordinary way in the High Court and pursue normal civil remedies.
The Crown took the position that Mr. Bruce could not obtain judicial review because he had a contract of employment. Not only that, but an affidavit was put in by Miss Mueller, the second permanent secretary in the Cabinet Office management and personnel office—and I quote only what is in the judgments—who was advised that she could aver in her affidavit that there was a contract of employment with the Crown. It was put to her that the Civil Service code states that the civil servant does not have a contract of employment. She said for the Crown that that did not matter.
In 1985, when they settled these pleadings, the Government said to the court that there is a contract of employment with the civil servant. In this Bill they are saying, "Well, it looks as though there is not, so we had better deem it to be one. However, we shall only deem it to be one in respect of our ability to sue the trade union". That is the ground of our first amendment. It says: if it be a contract, let it be a contract. Let the law relating to rights and duties determine the rights of both sides in the civil law, with one exception. This is important and I am sure that the Minister will have noted this in our amendment.
We say that the terms should become enforceable as a contract. That would still include the Crown's right to dismiss at pleasure. If the Minister tells me that my first amendment will exclude the Crown's right—I am sure he will not, but in case he does—he will be wrong. Our amendment includes the Crown's right to dismiss at pleasure. That is a matter of negotiation between the parties if the Crown is ever to divest itself of that prerogative.
Secondly, in the Bruce case Mr. Justice Roch rejected the Crown's submission. The web of

985
difficulty becomes curiouser and curiouser. I hope that the Minister will stop me, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, did the other day, if he feels that I am going too fast. In his decision—whether it will be upheld by the Court of Appeal we do not know tonight—Mr. Justice Roch said:
"I am prepared to accept that the Crown believes that the public interest is better served by there being contracts between itself and its civil servants…contracts which will contain terms which the Crown will be able to enforce in the courts…and that the Crown now intends to create contracts with its civil servants".
The Crown had so averred in its affidavits. But, Mr. Justice Roch held, it had not got there yet; no doubt it soon would.
The second amendment goes further than the first one. The first amendment shows our customary moderation but the second one goes perhaps a little further than is our wont. The second amendment gives all rights and remedies of such a relationship, which would of course mean remedies which would not normally bind the Crown. However, that seemed to be the Crown's or the Government's intention in the affidavit that was made. That is shown not merely by the affidavit but by the case it put to the court, which was that it wanted the whole thing to be a contract.
I must say that it is my understanding that the Civil Service unions, through the Council of Civil Service Unions, have themselves expressed a view that civil service employment should be based on contract. I also understand, not least because of the affidavits in the Bruce case but also from other evidence that one can read in the newspapers, that the Government have been preparing this position since 1985. Therefore I say: why on earth in an Employment Bill bring in a clause that is so partial and mean on its face? It gives the Government the right to sue for breach of contract as though there were contracts—just in case there is not—when the Government themselves have advocated for years now—and so it seems have the Council of Civil Service Unions—the argument that the relationship should be put on what is usually described as a decent modern footing of contract.
Again, I say that provision does not exlcude aspects of the prerogative, but once you get on to the basis of contract many small problems fall away. I shall mention one example. It is still a little doubtful whether a civil servant can sue to recover money which is due to him under the terms of his employment. Of course, if it were contract that difficulty would be cleared away. There are various problems of that nature which the parties have been talking to one another about for years. One does not understand whether the people who put forward the Bill know what is happening in the Cabinet Office. Indeed, with this Government one often feels that their right hand does not know what the other right hand is doing! Surely it is bizarre to put forward the Bill in this form. As regards our first two amendments, we expect the first, being a moderate one, to be accepted, but as for the second, which goes a little further, we expect the Minister to think about it.
There is, however, a third amendment. I am speaking to all three at once so that I may deal adequately with the case. If none of them is acceptable to the Government, they must be saying one of three things. They can say, "We don't want the
986
civil servant to have any rights". I do not think they will be saying that and I am sure they will be advised not to do so. Secondly, they could by saying, "We don't want a civil law contract base for the relationship". That would of course be different from everything they told the court, but a government are entitled to a change of mind even from one day to the next. Then, thirdly, what will they say? They cannot then say that the civil servant should have no remedy in public law because that would mean returning to the first proposition, thus giving him or her no rights at all.
They have three possibilities. As the fundamental relationship they can have the civil servant with no rights or almost no rights except what statute expressly gives him. Secondly, they can have him with contract rights, or, thirdly, they can have him with public law rights. I do not favour the third alternative. I think that the fashion of favour towards the remedy of judicial review—which certainly affects my young colleagues—is one that will possibly burn itself out; but that is a minority position. Many people say that one of the great developments of the law during the last decade has been the remedy of judicial review. Judicial review is where the court will swiftly—it is a swift procedure—and with severe straight remedies deal with any failure of breach of duty in public law.
However, there is a problem in the employment area of how to ascertain what is a public law position and what is a private law position. That problem was caused by the Walsh case of 1985. That case is discussed in the Bruce case, to which I have already referred, and I shall not weary the Committee with it. However, it is as simple as this. Some public servants, including civil servants, have been regarded as being employed on the basis of public duties and others have been regarded as employed not in the Civil Service but elsewhere as under contracts of employment which involve private law remedies. It is a fairly new distinction in our law but it is there. I say to the Government that the third amendment—give or take its drafting—offers one the public law way.
Surely the Government cannot stand on Clause 29 without some amendment and be consistent with themselves. Nor indeed would it be wise now that they have raised the issue themselves, in the clause, to leave the civil servant problem where it has been for hundreds of years with doubts and obscurities. What is the point in so doing? Why not accept what the Government themselves told the court in the Bruce case—that the relationship should be and is contractual in its base (the first amendment); or if the Government do not wish to do so, why not move to a public duty enforcement?
The three amendments hold together and I hope that the noble Lords speaking on behalf of the Government will answer those points and measure their answers accordingly, because what they say is a matter of the greatest importance to the Civil Service unions and also to the official side, I beg to move.
The Earl of Dundee: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, for his remarks. He said that the clause implies that civil servants do not have contracts of employment. That is not the case because the clause itself begins with the words:
"Where any person holds any office or employment".

987
It is therefore entirely mutual as to whether civil servants in general have contracts of employment and whether any particular civil servant has such a contract.
The noble Lord also said, "If it be a contract let it be a contract." Although it was out of context I have great sympathy with his remarks. I do not think that the Bill is the right vehicle to legislate on the general character of the relationship between Crown servants and the Crown, or on their terms and conditions of service, which are currently subject to discussion with the relevant unions. That is not to say that I am coming down firmly in favour of putting forward the view that there should never be a contract of employment, I am merely saying that I do not think the Bill is the right place to legislate. Indeed, Clause 29(1) does leave that question open.
I turn now to address the other parts of the noble Lord's overall amendment and especially the second part where he wishes merely to give the right to civil servants to have some remedy against the Crown, as indeed other employees have against their employers. I must say to the noble Lord that I do not think there is a need for such a provision. Civil servants already have common law rights and are covered by many of the provisions of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. Moreover, judicial review is available in appropriate cases.
On the question of judicial review and the third of the noble Lord's amendments in which he seeks to institute judicial review as the appropriate remedy for the aggrieved party, the amendment assumes that that would be the most suitable remedy in respect of the alleged failure by the Crown. Judicial review may already be available to civil servants in appropriate cases. In other cases more appropriate remedies already exist; for example, a civil servant may sue for arrears of payment or in respect of unfair dismissal.
I was interested to hear everything that the noble Lord had to say in support of the three amendments. I do not believe that the Bill is the appropriate vehicle for effecting them. Clause 29(3) relates solely to the right of employees under Clause 7 to require their employer to stop deducting union contributions from their wages. It is known as Section 18(7) of the Trade Union Act 1984, which contains a similar right for employees to require their employer to stop deducting the political levy element of their union contributions.
The entire argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, turns upon the claim that Clause 29(1) must represent a comprehensive resolution of the issue of the status of civil servants. The Government's view is that that issue, in the round, falls to be settled in another way: it is for the two parties to the relationship to resolve that issue. It is under discussion in the appropriate forum.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I thank the Minister for what he said. I was interested in the answer to the drafting problem. It does not solve the problem to say that subsection (3) is as it is because the 1984 Act is as it is. One might ask why the 1984 Act is as it is. Subsection (1) is different. However, we will no doubt have another look at that matter.
988
On the substantive issues, the Minister has maintained the government tradition with regard to the Civil Service relationship. For years, the Civil Service unions had the greatest difficulty in getting the Government to discuss contracts, because the Government stood on the base that there was no contract. Suddenly, in 1985, for a congeries of reasons the Government decided that there was a contract. It is no good the Minister telling me what Clause 29 does as if it were some ephemeral spirit distanced from himself; he is Clause 29 personified when he stands at that Box. Therefore, he must tell me why he is like he is. It is no good saying that the clause is neutral because the clause is neutral. In the Minister's other lives, as it were, in government, a few years ago he said there was no contract, and then to the court in the Bruce case he said there was a contract, and tonight he says he is neutral as to whether there is a contract or not. It will just not do. The Government cannot go on with this.
I am not going to have it said—this is a serious point—that we are trying to force the issue contrary to the wishes of the parties. That will not do. Even if we won our amendment, it would be for the parties to negotitate the terms of the contract. What I am saying—the Minister has not denied this—is that the Council of Civil Service Unions wants the base of the relationship to be a contract, whatever incidents, rights and duties are already dealt with by statute. It wants a broad base. The Government told the court that they wanted the base to be a contract.
We are therefore entitled to ask why on earth in a Bill, which is called an Employment Bill, and which by the Government's choice deals with civil servants—no one asked them to do it; they did it on their own—we have a clause on civil servants? We are therefore entitled to ask: why on earth did you not say what both sides appear to want? What are the Government afraid of? The Minister is afraid that the Bill is not the right vehicle.Why not? As my noble friend Lord McCarthy said earlier, this is a case of, "It would be all right last Wednesday; it might be next Friday, but not in this Bill, which is an employment Bill". What other Bill? Do the Government have plans for a Bill on the Civil Service or some other Bill that we do not know about in the great reservoir of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne? Is there a stock of Bills on the Civil Service? Of course there is not.
The Government chose to deal with the matter here because they were afraid that a court which said what the Bruce case said might on some small occasion on some small piece of industrial action stop them getting a little injunction. For that, the Government risk a great deal because the Civil Service unions have noticed that suddenly without consultation, on Clause 29—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, and he does not—the Government legislate on Civil Service relationships in order to get the unions under an injunction. Do they think that that will give rise to good industrial and Civil Service Whitley Council relationships? Do they think that that is the kind of matter for the Whitley Councils, which we saw invented, grow and blossom in the public service, where there is a great proud tradition? The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, may not like it, but he holds that great office in a Government who have inherited a proud tradition of Whitleyism, consultation and negotiation.

989
The clause will put all that even more at risk than the Government have already. I find the response astonishing. The other night, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said that our debates, when the Government do this sort thing, are a farce. He was right. I have to tell the noble Earl, who replied to me nicely and with great politeness, that I appreciate the style of what he said, but the content was a farce. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 121M and 121N not moved.]
8.45 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 30, line 16, leave out from ("employment") to end of line 18.
The noble Earl said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 30 and 31 agreed to.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 122A:
After Clause 31, insert the following new clause:
("Compensation.
(1) The Secretary of State shall, within one year following the passing of this Act, make regulations by statutory instrument giving the industrial tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal the power in such cases as they think fit and on such conditions as he shall prescribe to include in any sum awarded as compensation under this Act interest at the rate awarded by a Court of Record.
(2) Within one month of such regulations being made, the Secretary of State shall present to Parliament a report on the relationship between compensation granted by industrial tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal under this Act and in other jurisidictions, with such recommendations concerning interest as he considers appropriate.")
The noble Lord said: This is a quiet probing amendment which asks the Government for a statement on a matter of great importance on the law relating to industrial tribunals. In effect, it asks that compensation which is payable in the tribunals under this Act should carry interest at the normal rate.
The Committee will understand that the amendment has to be drafted in the way that it has because it could not be drafted to cover the entire jurisdiction of the industrial tribunals. One therefore has to ask the Government whether they will include interest on the compensation under this Act and whether immediately afterwards they will make a statement and recommendations dealing with the broad position. As I understand it, that is in order and within the Long Title; so I am advised. There is already a power by order to allow complainants to obtain interest on compensation from an industrial tribunal award under Schedule 3 to the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act. But the trouble is that the power has never been exercised by the Government. Mr. Justice Popplewell, the president of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, only last year himself called the failure to do this a blot on the administration of justice. The fact is that litigants, even those who succeed before industrial tribunals, are then held up by appeals and finally get their money perhaps a year later. In one case I know of, it was two years later and was some £2,000 which should really have carried interest and which in a
990
court of record would normally have carried interest in the rest of our jurisdictions.
The industrial tribunal report by Justice in 1987 says in paragraph 3.38:
"We do recommend as a matter of urgency that the Government should make this order."
This amendment is merely to ask the Government, please will that order be made, or will they accept this amendment and bring in interest on compensation for those involved in industrial tribunals generally under this amendment? I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: The Committee will no doubt begin to tire of me saying that there is no need for the amendment. I am afraid I have to repeat that observation as regards this amendment. But the noble Lord is not concerned about that, I think. The fact is that serious consideration is currently being given to the possibility of introducing just the sort of scheme that the noble Lord has described. I am afraid I cannot go any further than that at the present time, but I hope that the noble Lord will therefore accept that what he proposes is being given very serious consideration.
The amendment has, however, highlighted the fact that the Bill as drafted makes no provision for awards made by the Employment Appeal Tribunal under Clause 5 to be treated in the same way as industrial tribunal awards under that clause so far as interest is concerned. In other words, under the Bill as it now stands EAT awards under Clause 5 could not be made to carry interest, whereas tribunal awards made in similar circumstances could be made to do so.
This is an anomaly which needs to be remedied and the Government's Amendment No. 123 will ensure that awards made by the EAT under Clause 5 may be made to carry interest in the same way as industrial tribunal awards, including those made under Clause 5 and awards made by the EAT under Section 5 of the 1980 Act. I hope that this will reassure the noble Lord and that he will not want to press his amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: No, I shall not press the amendment, but the noble Lord said two things of great importance. The first is splendid and admirable, that the Government are giving serious consideration to bringing in interest on tribunal compensation awards, as I understood it. I hope that that serious consideration can be given before this Bill is enacted. It seems to me that if there is this serious consideration then there is no reason why it should not be done and any loose ends could be tied up if they need tying up.
The second point is the noble Lord's announcement or advertence to Amendment No. 123. Of course, this means, as I understand it, that awards falling from the Employment Appeal Tribunal would be in a slightly favourable position compared with, say, awards on unfair dismissal in the tribunals themselves. I am not sure of that, but I thank the noble Lord for raising the point. Perhaps he will say a little more on it when he moves Amendment No. 123, and perhaps we could look at it on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Renton): Perhaps I may put Clauses 32 and 33

991
together. The Question is, that Clauses 32 and 33 stand part of the Bill?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: If the Deputy Chairman of Committees will permit me, I wish to make a comment on Clause 33.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Very well, I shall put Clause 32 first and then we will move on to Clause 33. The Question, is, that Clause 32 stand part of the Bill? As many as are of that opinion will say—
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Clause 33—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I have put the Question that Clause 32 stand part of the Bill, if the noble Lord will allow me to do that.
Clause 32 agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Question now is, that Clause 33 stand part of the Bill?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: May I raise a point of order on what has just been done? I have given notice that I wanted to raise a matter on Clause 33, so that if we are discussing Clause 33 stand part then I wish to say something before that Motion is put. Am I in order?
Lord Trefgarne: The noble Lord is entirely in order. I believe the Lord Chairman will now put the Question that Clause 33 stand part of the Bill and the noble Lord can make his speech.
I understand that the Question has now been put. The House is awaiting the noble Lord's intervention.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I beg the pardon of the noble Lord, the Deputy Chairman of Committees.
The only point I wish to raise is on the first line of Clause 33 which states:
"This Act may be cited as the Employment Act 1988."
I have not put an amendment down at this stage but I suggest to the Minister that it is not an employment Act, it is mainly a trade union Act. To the extent to which it is something else besides being a trade union Act, it is a training Act. Indeed, one section of the Bill refers to employment and training. But I know there is something to be said for brevity in the Short Title of a Bill, but all previous Bills which contain as much reference to trade unions as this Bill have at least had the description "trade union" in the Short Title.
If the noble Lord looks at the grand total in this Bill he will see that the greater part of it relates to the internal affairs of trade unions, their ballots, their ballot papers, what they may do to their members. It is not employment. Indeed, employment as employment is scarcely in the Bill at all because the training part of the Bill refers in great detail to the new concept of training which only in certain circumstances will be employment.
So I hope that there is no intention behind this Short Title "Employment Act 1988" to obscure the reality of the fact that this is the fourth trade union Act in succession. I think we really ought to know the measure of attention which the trade unions have
992
received at the hands of Parliament and the Government in the past few years. It will be seen that this is the government of trade unions. The Bills have done things to trade unions. Not all of them have been fully acceptable, to put it mildly, but I do not wish to raise any controversy at the moment except that of the adequate and more truthful description of the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will consider this before we come to the final stages.
Lord McCarthy: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, in this and to say that of course this is not the first time it has happened. In 1980 we had an employment Bill which was also a trade union Bill. It took away the right to secondary action and restricted the trade union right to union membership agreements and did all sorts of other things. It was a trade union Bill.
Then in 1982 we had another employment Bill which was also a trade union Bill. It took away protection for trade unions against actions in tort. It was a very important trade union Bill. Only in 1984, for some reason which has never been clear to me, did the Government introduce a trade union Bill which they called a trade union Bill. That was a trade union Bill, but no more and no less a trade union Bill than in 1980 and 1982. It is not even the fourth; it is really the fifth. In 1986 we had the Wages Act, which was largely an attack on trade unionists and their right to collective bargaining and to represent their members in councils. Therefore, this is the fifth trade union Bill, and only one of them has been given the proper title.
9 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: I could elaborate at length upon the benefits to employment which will flow from the Bill, and indeed all the previous Acts which have been passed, having similar titles; but I would weary the Committee unduly if I did that.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that those who want to know in detail what the Bill provides should look to the Long Title. The Short Title can only express the purpose of the Bill in a word or two. I hope that the noble Lord does not think that there is any intention to deceive him or anyone else. That is not the case.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 123:
Page 38, line 36, at end insert—
("(4) In paragraphs 18 and 21A of Schedule 11 of that Act (rules and powers of the Employment Appeal Tribunal), after the words "section 5 of the Employment Act 1980", wherever they occur, there shall be inserted the words "or section 5 of the employment Act 1988"").
The noble Lord said: I referred to Amendment No. 123 a few moments ago, and indeed earlier, during the course of our deliberations in considering Amendment No. 38. I believe that the noble Lord accepts the purpose of the amendment. However, perhaps I may say a word in support of it.
It is essentially a technical amendment concerning the method of applying for compensation in respect of unjustifiable discipline. In brief, it ensures that if the individual makes his application for compensation to the Employment Appeals Tribunal and that tribunal decides that it should really have been made to an industrial tribunal because the union has revoked the finding and reversed the penalty, the EAT will have the power to remit the application to a tribunal. Similarly, a tribunal will be empowered to remit applications to the EAT.
Without the amendment, the EAT could only reject the application, leaving the individual to make a new application to an industrial tribunal. That would be unnecessarily bureaucratic and, depending upon how long the EAT took to come to its decision, could mean that the individual lost the right to apply for compensation because of the time limit specified in Clause 53. I hope that that explanation has helped the Committee, when added to the points which I made earlier on that matter, and that the amendment will be agreed.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 124:
Page 39, line 23, leave out from beginning to ("have") in line 24 and insert ("any provision of section (Election addresses) or 14 of the Employment Act 1988, the requirements imposed by virtue of that provision").
The noble Lord said: I have spoken to Amendment No. 124. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Basnett Lord Basnett moved Amendment No. 124A:
Page 39, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) After section 1(2) of that Act, there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(2A) Where a trade union is formed by amalgamation under the 1964 Act, the reference to 'some other position in that union' in subsection (1) above shall include a position in either or any of the trade unions which have amalgamated."").
The noble Lord said: I should like to move Amendment No. 124A in the name of my noble friend Lord Mulley, who is not able to be present this evening. In moving the amendment, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 135D. The amendments relate to a situation in respect of trade union amalgamations which I do not believe was foreseen either by the Government or by the trade unions until now, when certain amalgamations are currently coming to the fore.
The intention behind the first amendment is to provide that on amalgamation of two or more trade unions the members of the executive council of the new union who previously sat on the executive council of one of the other unions, if the rules of that new union so provide, should serve out their unexpired term of office.
The second related amendment provides that those currently permitted by the transitional provisions in the 1984 Act to serve on their executive council, notwithstanding that they have not yet been elected in accordance with that Act, may likewise serve the remainder of their period of office, should their trade union amalgamate with another.
It is a widespread view both in the Committee and beyond that amalgamations are to be welcomed as reducing this country's rather high number of trade unions. Since the Trade Union Act was passed, no full-blooded amalgamations have taken place. However, some are now in advanced stages of negotiation, while others are planned. The practical difficulties posed by the wording of the 1984 Act are now being encountered.
It is being realised, not that the one year period of grace is inappropriate, but that disregarding the pre-amalgamation elections in amalgamated unions is causing serious practical difficulties which understandably were not foreseen four years ago. Unions are now finding that the flexibility necessary for the happy marriage of two trade unions is being constrained by the fine print of the 1984 Act. Let me illustrate that with a concrete example.
Talks to amalgamate the GMB, of which I am a member, and APEX are at an advanced stage. On amalgamation, it is proposed that a white collar section should be established in the new union by combining the white collar members. That section will, quite lawfully, have reserved seats on the central executive council of the new union. However, the crucial point is that it is proposed that the voting for the election of the holders of those seats should not be restricted to the members of the white collar section of the new union. That is because those involved in the negotiations feel that sectional actions rather than just sectional seats would lead to sectionalism and possible fragmentation. They make no judgment or comment as to the operation of such a procedure in other trade unions. They simply believe that the history of their own unions shows that integration following amalgamation would best be achieved by not having sectional elections.
I stress to the Committee that both unions have complied with the Trade Union Act 1984. It is proposed that the new union should come into existence on 1st January 1989. For a transitional period its executive council would consist of the current GMB central executive council and seven members of the executive council of APEX. In 1991, which sees the expiry of the GMB executive's four-year period of office, elections would be held for the central executive council of the amalgamated union in compliance with any law then existing. The period between 1st January 1989 and the start of the election process in mid-1991 will, it is hoped, give APEX and GMB members a chance to get to know each other so that there is less likelihood of the 1991 election and subsequent elections being fought solely on the basis of loyalty to their former trade union rather than their new one, which is an essential prerequisite for creating a single trade union.
However, in its current form the Trade Union Act would prevent that happening. It would require elections to be held during 1989 so that the executive council of the new union would take office on 1st January 1990. It is simply impossible for the members of the two unions to get to know each other in that period. Both unions agree that the obvious and inevitable consequence of early elections would be to face them with a choice between two undesirable arrangements: either the APEX candidates would be swamped by GMB votes—and neither union wants that because they would not be properly represented

995
in the white collar reserve seats—or, to prevent that happening, the 1989 elections would have to be organised on the basis of sectional voting, thus establishing precisely the divisive pattern which both unions wish to avoid and which could take years to repair.
It cannot be right that two unions which comply with a law which is designed to ensure direct elections should face such a dilemma. Our amendments in no way endanger the principles of the 1984 Act. What is proposed is, first, a technical amendment to Section 1 of the 1984 Act which would treat a person properly elected to the executive council of one union as properly elected to any equivalent post in the new amalgamated union. That would enable an executive council member elected in one trade union to serve out the permitted term of office in the new union, provided of course that the instrument of transfer and the rules of the new union so provide.
The second consequential amendment is to Section 9 of the 1984 Act. Among other things, Section 9 provides that an executive council member who is elected within five years prior to the commencement of the Act may hold office for a maximum period of five years, notwithstanding that she or he was not elected in strict accordance with that Act. The second amendment therefore simply permits the unexpired part of that five-year period to be carried forward into the amalgamated union. In due course the relevance of the amendment will lapse through the passage of time.
These two amendments are minor in the sense that they are fully compatible with the principle and operation of the 1984 Act. I am advised that they cannot possibly be used by any person or union seeking to avoid or evade that Act or indeed any provision of the current Bill. I commend to the Committee these amendments, which acknowledge the genuine practicalities of the administration and organisation of trade unions. I hope that the Minister can accept the amendment, or, if not, that he will consider it. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: I hope that I can very quickly help the noble Lord on this matter. The Government have considerable sympathy with this proposal. We have not yet been able to reach a final conclusion on the matter. If the noble Lord is prepared to withdraw this amendment and not move his subsequent one, I shall undertake that that consideration shall be speeded up to the maximum extent possible with a view to reaching a conclusion before the next stage of the Bill, when it will be possible either for the Government to table an amendment should it prove necessary, or indeed for the noble Lord to table one himself.
Lord Basnett: I am sorry but I am not quite clear. Did the Minister wish me to withdraw the first amendment?
Lord Trefgarne: I am proposing that the noble Lord should withdraw this amendment and not move his next one.
Lord Basnett: I see. I withdraw the amendment and shall not move the next.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.15 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendments Nos. 125 to 129
Page 39, line 50, leave out ("subsections (2) to (7) of section") and insert ("section (Election addresses) or").
Page 39, line 51, leave out ("and").
Page 40, line 4, leave out ("subsections (2) to (7) of section") and insert ("sections (Election addresses) and").
Page 40, line 5, at end insert—("and
(c) after subsection (12) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(12A) The requirements of subsections (1) or (12) above that a person making an application under this section in relation to an election or seeking to enforce obedience to an enforcement order in relation to an election must be or have been a member of the union at a particular time shall not apply where the person who makes the application or seeks to enforce obedience to the order is or was a candidate in the election.").
Page 40, line 10, leave out ("subsections (2) to (7) of section") and insert ("sections (Election addresses) and").
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to Amendment No. 125. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I understand that Amendment No. 125 goes with the other amendments up to and including Amendment No. 129. That being so, I propose to put those amendments to the Committee en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 130:
Page 40, line 11, leave out ("and")
The noble Lord said: These amendments are again technical amendments which make clear the Government's original intention that the existing exemption for those nearing retirement under Section 8 of the 1984 Trade Union Act should be available only to those whose most recent election was by the fully postal method. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I understand that this amendment goes with Amendment No. 133, but I shall put Amendment No. 130 separately to the Committee.
Lord McCarthy: I am astonished. Did I hear the noble Lord aright, that he has moved Amendment No. 130 and spoken to Amendment No. 133? Is that correct? It is amazing. These Benches do not take the view that this is a technical amendment. This is the amendment above all for which there is no need. This is the amendment which is unnecessary, unwise and unacceptable.
Amendment No. 133 makes a distinction which the Minister has not sought to justify and which I should like him to justify. There is a particular distinction made between on the one hand an executive member—a member of a principal executive of a trade union—who has a vote, who has 10 years' service and has at most five years to his retirement (I repeat, who has a vote), and does not require a new election because he has a vote, and on the other hand an executive member without a vote who is in a precisely similar position but will require an election. We have to consider why there has been no satisfactory explanation for that peculiar characteristic and this amazing amendment.
We believe that this amendment represents the intervention into a public Bill of private interests and

997
private prejudices. I ask the Minister to think again. I regret that we may have to discuss this matter for some time but I had expected a full argument from the Minister. I certainly did not expect him to tell me that this was just a technical amendment. I am afraid it means that I have now to explain to the Committee at somewhat greater length what is involved.
I should like to begin by reminding the Committee that neither we nor the trade unions were ever consulted about the implications of this amendment. It was not mentioned in the manifesto, nor was the matter raised in another place, not was it in the Bill when it was introduced into this Chamber. It was not mentioned by the Minister on Second Reading, although I suggest, and hope to be able to show, that since our first day in Committee there is a sense in which we have been discussing this amendment and the Government's objectives in proposing it.
I apologise for going into such detail at this late hour but I am afraid that the story begins with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, whom I am sorry not to see in his place, and the answer given by the government Ministers. The record begins in Hansard of 8th March at col. 605. The Committee will remember that the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, began by making various general allegations about the presidential elections in the National Union of Mineworkers. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for the fact that we cannot avoid mentioning the name of Mr. Scargill.
The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, alleged that there had been an election which Mr. Scargill had won on a turnout of 118 per cent. We discover in our subsequent investigations that in fact the turnout was 89 per cent. and the only reason that it looked like 118 per cent. was because the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, did not count the votes from those miners who were on holiday. Nevertheless, despite that fact, the noble Lord went on to suggest malpractices and jiggery-pokery. At col. 606 in Hansard the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, said:
"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"—
and he was right. That is what we are doing now so that he would not now be able to stop in office for 11 years but only seven years less 11 days.
The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, is slightly wrong in his detailed application of this clause; but, broadly speaking, he is right. The Government have introduced this clause. It changes Mr. Scargill's device; it rules it out. The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, was slightly wrong on the details but as usual in principle he is correct except that this amendment not only applies to Mr. Scargill of the National Union of Mineworkers, but to several other people, most notably Mr. Todd of the Transport and General Workers Union. He will also be covered by this amendment although there were never consultations with the TUC and it was never mentioned until this moment in the Committee.
When the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, raised this question, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, was not prepared to come clean—if I may put it that way—on the implications of this amendment.
998
However, he went some part of the way. He pointed out that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, would not deal with what they termed the Scargill problem, and that it would "miss the target" to quote the noble Lord. At col. 610, the noble Lord said:
"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)"—
the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, was moving—
"would not therefore affect him"—
that is Mr. Scargill. I quote again:
"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 Government believe, therefore, that the amendment has undesirable effects while failing to hit the target at which it is aimed".
The Government had this amendment which hit the target and avoided, as they see it, the perfectly genuine article. When turning down our amendment to include the exclusion of non-elected general secretaries who had five years to serve, the Government returned to how they had drawn up their amendment. At col. 612 the noble Lord said:
"It is important, however, that the effective implementation of the clause"—
that is Clause 12—
"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".
Members of the Committee will remember that this was too much for my noble friend Lord Wedderburn who asked what the Committee was to make of the "age profile of those in scope". The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, reacted by suggesting that he had only just seen those words in his brief. He said:
"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."
At that point the noble Lord, Lord Murray, asked whether we could have the names of those people involved. Denied access to the Box at that moment, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said, somewhat unguardedly:—
"Perhaps I can reflect upon that request. Off the cuff I cannot think of any reason why we should not".
At that point, noble Lords will remember that there was much scribbling in the Box, much passing of paper and at col. 614 the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, corrected himself and a strange interchange took place, which is critical for our argument and therefore it needs to be quoted at some length. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said:
"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 said at that stage:
"I hope that the noble Lord will make himelf 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: Generally, by looking at their faces.".

999
At this point the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, said:
"I think that all we are anxious to know is what the Minister means—"
indeed we are—
"I think I am quoting him correctly—by 'the known facts'? Will he publish 'the known facts' to which he has referred"?
The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, by this time was thinking better of it:
"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!"—[Official Report, 8/3/1988; cols. 606–615.]
That is the end of the quotations and there the matter rests; but it points to a very significant and important issue which we feel we must raise and which we feel goes to the heart of the legitimacy and constitutionality of the Bill. It is still unexplained. I ask the Minister now how the change in the position of the non-voting, as against the voting, members of the executive (in particular the general secretary and the president)—this is the issue—relates to the other forms of exemption?
The Minister cannot say that he has had no notice of this because I very carefully in an amendment I put down in a previous debate listed for him the different categories and degrees of exemption which the Government are introducing into the Bill. First, there is the position of executive members who are not employees but who have one year to serve and who are exempt from the provisions of the Bill, as against those with two years to serve who are not exempt. Secondly, there are those executive members who are employees with five years to serve, who are elected by postal ballot, who have a vote and who are exempt from the provisions of the Bill. Thirdly, there are those EC members who are employees with five years or less to serve, who are elected by workplace ballot but who, because they have a vote—or rather that is the only distinguishing characteristic—are not covered by the Bill.
Those are the three categories, as against the two categories who are affected. Those with no vote with up to five years to go who are elected by workplace ballot, and now we are told must be re-elected, include Mr. Scargill and Mr. Todd. Those with no vote with up to three years to go who are elected by their executive or their annual conference and must be re-elected also include some notable people such as, for example, Mr. Alan Sapper, Mr. Clive Jenkins and a gentleman who in this Committee has always so far been called "Mr. Jill" by the Government for reasons that I do not know. He is of course Mr. K. Gill, ex-TASS. We are asking the Government what are the distinguishing characteristics of the first group as against the second. How does it arise that those whom the Government must assume to be more powerful because they have votes can rest their legitimacy under the Bill upon a workshop ballot? That is set against the case of those whom the Government must assume to be less powerful because
1000
they do not have a vote and must have a postal ballot under the terms of the Bill.
Our fundamental submission is that that goes against the basic principles of the Bill. Surely it imposes a test which is not germane to the Bill. Surely, in constitutional terms and in terms of possible hybridity, this distinction rests upon a class which is not genuine. The central principles of this Bill, and the 1984 Act before it, must be to include non-voting members of executives and make them subject to the general provisions of the 1984 legislation. That is the general principle that is germane to the Bill.
It is not a principle of the Bill to exclude those with votes because of what was done in the 1984 Act. Presumably the 1984 Act began with those who had votes because they were more powerful. This Bill is supposed to catch up with those who have no votes because it is a step-by-step approach. In the absence of a genuine, rational and overall explanation as to why those who are included are included and those who are excluded are excluded—and it is not merely a technical matter—we must look back at those remarks made by the Minister as to the profile of those who were included.
We must look back at his remarks about the target; to whom the target was directed; who the target is hitting; and who is hit in the central zone of the target. There we find Mr. Scargill, Mr. Todd, Mr. Sapper, Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Gill. We find those individuals who have something in common. Although they cannot conceivably be called a genuine class they are all alleged Left-wing officials who are particularly unpopular with the Government. We do not say that this makes it a hybrid Bill; we say that we would like the Government to tell us why it is not a hybrid Bill. We do not say that this disastrous, unfair clause is included here simply for spite because they have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, or from someone else, that Mr. Scargill has found some way round the Bill. We want the Government to tell us why we should not believe that, because that is what the facts suggest.
Lord Trefgarne: I am sorry that my opening remarks did not sufficiently explain to the noble Lord the purposes of the amendment. We discussed this issue at great length during an earlier stage of the Bill and I thought that the Committee would prefer a shorter rendition of those arguments in relation to this amendment.
As the Bill now stands, Section 8 of the 1984 Act will be amended so that members of the principal executive committee will not be required to be elected if they are within five years of retirement age; their previous election satisfies Section 2 of the 1984 Act and is held not more than 10 years before retirement age; they have been full-time employees of the union for at least 10 years; and, apart from the statutory election requirement, they are entitled to hold office until retirement.
It is clear from that explanation that one of the main conditions is that the individual's previous selection must have satisfied Section 2 of the 1984 Act. This section includes a requirement that the election be conducted by the fully postal method, and it has always been our intention that this should

1001
continue to be a principal condition in qualifying for the exemption.
However, although it is not clear on the face of the Bill, individuals who were required to be elected under that Act can satisfy the requirements of Section 2 by means of an election which satisfies Section 3; that is to say, a ballot conducted at the workplace. It is clearly wrong that individuals who are subject to that Act and who have been elected in accordance with its provisions should be penalised when it comes to the retirement exemption or that there should be any doubt as to whether or not they qualify.
Accordingly, the amendment clarifies the fact that where the position to which an individual was elected was that of a voting member of the executive at the time of the election, he can qualify for the retirement exemption by means of a workplace ballot held before the fully postal requirement of the Bill comes into force. The effect is that once the amendment is made and the provision enforced, those currently within the scope of the 1984 Act (that is to say, voting members of the executive who were elected at a workplace ballot) can continue to benefit from the retirement exemption, but others cannot benefit unless their election was fully postal.
The retirement exemption applies to all elected members of union executives; there are no doubt thousands of them. It would need the availability of resources beyond those of the department to do as some noble Lords have suggested which is to draw up this amendment so as to benefit a favoured few and disadvantage others. The amendment does no more than confirm the clear intention of the Bill that in future only fully postal ballots provide a basis for claiming the retirement exemption. However, it is only right to make clear that for those subject to the requirements of the 1984 Act, the existing provision that Section 2 can be satisfied by a ballot held at the workplace in accordance with Section 3 is not affected. That retirement exemption has always been directed at those who have been through an election, appointed members of PECs, who therefore continue to be unable to benefit from it. However, the Bill provides an entirely new retirement exemption in Clause 12(4) which all those within two years of retirement age when the extended election requirement comes into force will be able to benefit.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, asked why a person with a vote should be entitled to rely on a workplace ballot, whereas those without votes should not. The reason is that a PEC member with a vote will be relying on a workplace ballot which was required to satisfy the requirements of the 1984 Act and was open to the procedures of challenge and enforcement provided by that Act.
At the request of the noble Lord I have given a much fuller explanation of this amendment which I hope the Committee will now accept.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to say that we appreciate his explanation. However, will he address himself rather more to paragraph (b)? I appreciate that he has said something about paragraph (a). Albeit that he says that thousands of people may fall within (a)—I do not know about that but it may be so—is it not the case within (b) that the paragraph is
1002
consistent only with the selection of a very small number of persons occupying such positions? Will he explain why that test is applied to general secretaries and presidents in paragraph (b)?
Lord Trefgarne: This is an issue which we discussed at considerable length in response to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, a few days ago. Perhaps I may consider what the noble Lord has said. If I have anything to add, perhaps I may write to him.
Lord McCarthy: I should like to ask the noble Lord to consider something else. He spells out the case and spells out the Bill but he does not make the case. He says that these characters who have votes but who are covered by a workshop ballot can rely upon the Act. Of course they can rely upon the Act. The Minister makes the Act. We want to know the reason why the Government have decided that they are allowed to rely on the Act, whereas those who have no votes—the general secretaries and presidents who turn out to be a very small number—cannot rely on workshop ballots.
Lord Trefgarne: I have just explained that to the noble Lord in response to an earlier point.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: With respect to the noble Lord, I am always delighted to have correspondence with him, but he says that we have approached this matter on a previous sitting and therefore, he must know all about it because he was ready to debate it then. We were not. We have waited until now to debate the issue fully. Therefore, with great respect to the Minister, it is not good enough when one asks a central question to be told by him that he will write to us.
I put the question to the Minister again, in a slightly different form. Is it not the case that paragraph (b) is consistent only with the selection of a clear and small number of individuals? That is why it is there in what I might call, to summarise my noble friend Lord McCarthy's argument about voting and non-voting, its upside down form. It is inconsistent with the principles of the rest of the Bill. Is it not the case that that group comprises of persons whose private interests are therefore affected in a clear way by a paragraph— I insist on speaking of paragraph (b)—which purports to be the definition of a class? Is it not the case that this matter should be considered immediately, because the Minister will know that I am referring to a most serious matter?
The reading I have done makes me prepared to say, as a personal view—my noble friends and I have not had time to consider this at great length—that there is a clear prima facie case that this class is not a genuine class; that this Bill is therefore being used to affect private interests in a public Bill. The well-known principles of this and the other place are that where individual citizens find that their private interests are being manipulated in this way they have a right to give evidence to this Chamber. If there is a prima facie case of that sort it would be surprising if the Minister is prepared merely to write to me. He may not wish to take a final view; but we are asking him whether he has anything more to say about the way the class was drawn in paragraph (b), because so far he has added nothing at all.
Lord Trefgarne: At an earlier stage of this Bill the responsibility for raising individual cases rested not with the Government but with certain other Members of this Chamber. I wish to make it quite clear that this Bill is not drafted in a way that is aimed at some specific individual; it is aimed at a class of persons described in the amendment, clarified in particular by paragraph (b) to which the noble Lord referred. There is no question of this Bill being aimed at a particular person. It is aimed at the categories of persons described in the amendment, which we believe will form a relevant and important part of the Bill. I am not in a position to expand further upon the description given in the amendment which I believe is clear beyond peradventure.
However, given that the noble Lord has raised some doubts of his own, I have undertaken to consider whether there is any further clarification that I can give to the noble Lord, which undertaking I am happy to confirm.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: In calling Amendment No. 131, I proposed at the same time to put Amendment No. 132, which I understand goes with it, unless there is any objection.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendments Nos. 131 and 132:
Page 40, line 13, leave out ("section") and insert ("a provision of section (Election addresses) or")
Page 40, line 15, leave out ("of subsections (2) to (7) of the said section 14") and insert ("imposed by virture of that provision")
The noble Earl said: These amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 133:
Page 40, line 16, at end insert ("; and
(d) after the said subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(5) Where any person holds any such position as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above by virtue of an election held at any time before the coming into force of section 13(2) of the Employment Act 1988 (requirement of postal ballot), section 3 of this Act (non-postal ballots) shall be disregarded in determining for the purposes of that paragraph whether any election is an election in relation to which section 2 of this Act has been satisfied, unless the position to which that person was elected in that election was, at the time of the election, either—

(a) a position as a voting member of the principal executive committee of a trade union; or

(b) a position by virtue of election to which the person elected would become such a voting member." ").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 134:
Page 40, line 2l, leave out ("and (6B)") and insert ("to (6C)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 40, line 24, at end insert—
("(7) In section 10 of that Act (liability in tort in respect of action authorised or endorsed without the support of a ballot), for subsection (4) there shall be substituted the following subsections—
"(4) Subject to subsection (4A) below, in this section and section 11 of this Act references to the appropriate question are references to whichever of the questions set out in subsection (4) of section 11 of this Act is applicable to the strike or other industrial action in question.
(4A) Where both the questions mentioned in subsection (4) above are applicable in relation to any industrial action, an act inducing a breach or interference such as is mentioned in subsection (1) above shall be treated as an act for the purposes of which the requirement of paragraph (b) of subsection (3) above is satisfied if but only if that paragraph (or, as the case may be, that paragraph as it has effect by virtue of subsection (3A) above) is satisfied in relation to the question applicable to that part of the action in the course of which the breach or interference occurred."
(8) In section 11 of that Act (requirements to be satisfied in relation to the ballot)—

(a) in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) (persons entitled to vote), for the words from "called" to the end of the paragraph there shall be substituted the words "induced to take part or, as the case may be, to continue to take part in the strike or other industrial action; and";

(b) in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) (persons denied entitlement to vote), for the words from ",in", where it first occurs, to the end of the paragraph there shall be substituted the words "to take part or, as the case may be, to continue to take part in the strike or other industrial action;"

(c) in subsection (3) (method of voting), at the end there shall be inserted the words "and each voting paper must contain the following statement, namely—

'If you take part in a strike or other industrial action, you may be in breach of your contract of employment."'
(d) in subsection (4) (appropriate questions), for paragraphs (a) and (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—

"(a) a question (however framed) which requires the person answering it to say, by answering 'Yes' or 'No', whether he is prepared to take part or, as the case may be, to continue to take part in a strike;

(b) a question (however framed) which requires the person answering it to say, by answering 'Yes' or 'No' whether he is prepared to take part or, as the case may be, to continue to take part in action short of a strike.";

(e) for paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (8) there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—

"(b) individuals answering 'Yes' to the question or, as the case may be, to each question;

(c) individuals answering 'No' to the question or, as the case may be, to each question; and";

(f) in subsection (11) (interpretation), at the end there shall be inserted the words—
"and section 1(5) of the Employment Act 1988 shall apply for construing references in this section to a person being induced to take part or to continue to take part in any strike or other industrial action as it applies for the purposes of that section."").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I should like to begin by saying that none of the changes we have made, including these amendments to Schedule 3, alters the fact that an employer wishing to bring an action on the basis of the balloting requirement in the 1984 Act will be able to do so only—and I emphasise "only"—if he can show that a tort is involved. That is, that the union was inducing, or proposing to induce, its members to break (or perhaps to interfere with) their contracts of employment. The liability of the union under the 1984 Act is set out in sections 10(1) and 10(2). These sections are unaffected by any of the amendments.
1006
Industrial action involving breach or interference with the performance of contracts is subsumed within the wider concept of any industrial action which will found the member's right under Clause 1, but that extension does not apply to the employer.
The intention is that a union should only be required to hold one ballot in order to satisfy the requirements of both Clause 1 and Part II of the 1984 Act. The extension of the Clause 1 balloting requirement to cover inducement to any kind of industrial action necessitates consequential amendments to the balloting requirements of the 1984 Act to meet this point.
The ballot paper will be required to contain a statement similar to that which at present must appear in the question itself, advising voters that industrial action may involve breaches of contracts of employment. It is clearly important that voters are made aware of the seriousness of taking industrial action.
The amendments also produce some helpful clarification of the way in which Part II of the 1984 Act is intended to operate. For example, it is possible that under common law a union is liable for the inducement of interference with the performance of a contract of employment and would therefore have to hold a ballot under the 1984 Act. Neither of the questions which must appear on the ballot paper refers to interference with a performance of a contract. A union proposing to induce interference is therefore unable to ask a question appropriate to the industrial action it is proposing. The amendments to the statutory questions on balloting will enable a union to ask a question which is appropriate in these circumstances.
The amendments make clear that to satisfy the statutory requirements in relation to strike or non-strike action, the question to be asked in the ballot must relate to the type of action the union proposes to induce. If both types are concerned, both the questions must be asked, and support obtained by a majority for one type of action will not preserve immunity for the other.
The balloting requirements of the 1984 Act will not be satisfied if a member of a trade union who was denied entitlement to vote in a ballot is subsequently induced to take part in the industrial action to which the ballot relates, even if that member resists the inducement. This will make it clear that an employer has a similar right of action in such circumstances to that provided for trade union members under Clause 1 of the Bill. That is the effect of the amendment and I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: To that amendment there are three amendments proposed and I have to put each of them separately. I call first Amendment No. 135A as an amendment to Amendment No. 135.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved as an amendment to Amendment No. 135, Amendment No. 135A:
Sub-section (7), at end insert ("but where paragraph (b) is satisfied in a ballot in respect of a strike, and industrial action short of a strike

1007
is taken without any substantial interval in respect of the same dispute, such an act in the course of the said industrial action shall continue to be treated as one for the purposes of which that paragraph is satisfied.").
The noble Lord said: The noble Earl and I have been put into bat low down in the order. I feel that he and I will have to maintain a pretty solid stand on these matters because there is rather a lot to discuss. After all, what could be more important than a fundamental reconstruction (because that is what it is) of the strike ballot provisions which the Government thought they had right in 1984, thought they had right when they published the Bill and now find that it is necessary to reconstruct yet again. The noble Earl mentioned that there were technical difficulties here. I agree and we have had only 10 days to look at the matter. I cannot forbear to quote the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, in a case in 1983. He had had the advantage of some eight days of argument by learned counsel concerning the provisions of the 1980 and 1982 Acts. He said that these statutory provisions were still for him:
"drafted in a manner which, having regard to their subject matter and the persons who would be called upon to apply them, can in my view only be characterised as most regrettably lacking in the requisite degree of clarity".
With perhaps one exception, as the noble Earl described it, a good deal of this schedule falls under that heading. Does the new schedule clarify the strike, industrial action and ballot questions and unify into a simple whole the rules concerning ballots which must be held when either the employer or the member calls for the ballot? The first comment to make—and this is germane to the amendment—is that the noble Earl himself said that that was not so. In respect of the employer enforced ballot, if I may call it that, there has to be proof (or in an action for an injunction there has to be some argument which will stand up) that a tort has been committed, as the noble Earl put it. The Government have deliberately insisted that that is not the case when a union member calls for the ballot.
Let us say that there is industrial action on the shop floor. An arguments breaks out over whether there should be a ballot. It is no good thinking that one can go to any simplified rules under the Bill. First, one has to know who is asking, because the rules for the union member are different from those for the employer. That is relevant to the amendment in this way. I have to detain the Committee sufficiently to explain what I think anyone coming to the Marshalled List might regard at first sight as a rather complex amendment to a complex subsection.
As we understand it, in adding mandatorily to the ballot paper the words "You may be in breach of your contract of employment" the Government admit a particular point of great importance. By making the union write in, "You may be in breach of your contract of employment", they are accepting what we argued on Clause 1; namely, that some industrial action will not be in breach of the contract of employment. When we come to the questions on the employer-based ballot, they now refer to strike or industrial action. However, for the purposes of the 1984 Act there does not seem to be any definition of "industrial action" although there purports to be a definition of "industrial action" under Clause 1. Do the words mean the same here? Do they mean
1008
something different? If they mean something different, why? If they mean the same, what is the meaning?
The clarification which we need before we can approach the new subsection (7) introducing the new Sections 10(4) and 10(4A) into the 1984 Act comes about in this way. Subsection (4) is a new way of putting the mandatory questions. If it is a strike, the workers must vote on whether they will strike. If it is industrial action, they must vote on industrial action. If it is both they must vote on both. However, the noble Earl suggested—and we agree that this appears to be the effect of the subsection—that the act in question which comes up for decision must fall within one or the other.
That is applying a set of nice neat boxes to an industrial situation which is highly unlikely to be so simple; life is not as simple as that. The new subsection (4A) may come about in this way. The prospect may be of a strike and/or of industrial action. The national executive committee may want authority to call one or the other. Some members may be engaging in a strike which is under the 1984 Act (a concerted stoppage of work) and others may be engaging in a work to rule or a go slow, or even the action that we discussed in Clause 1.
Its advisers will have the utmost difficulty in advising it on the matter—which appears sometimes to be the intended result—because, as we have seen, there will be different rules demanded by the employers and the employees. Therefore the trade union will often decide to play it safe and ask both questions. For one thing it may not know and, indeed, in many situations it is desirable that it should not know because one would think that the pressure of any statutory provision would be to leave the matter open, while the parties are still in negotiation, so that if any industrial action has to be called it is the lesser rather than the more forceful.
When the ballot covers what happens only if all those who are on strike actually voted for it, that is all right; but when there is industrial action short of a strike, only those who voted for industrial action short of a strike are covered. In a ballot where one asks both questions one may of course receive different answers to one or the other. In our amendment we have not tried to rescue the trade unions, as it were, or the workers from all those complexities but we make one simple point. Where the ballot has been held on a strike question and industrial action short of the strike is taken without a substantial interval— where it is in the same dispute—then the act in respect of the industrial action, short of a strike, should be covered by the ballot.
The amendment is taking the simplest and the smallest exception to the Government's principles, although we hope that when the Government reconsider the position and accept our amendment—as we hope they will—they will look a little more generally at the formula. I repeat one of the major reasons for our amendment and how it would work. Where the executive of the union or the regional officials, if they have authority, call for strike action but there is still negotiation going on, then industrial action short of a strike—which they could

1009
he said to have induced—ought in our submission, if the ballot is favourable, still to be covered by protection of what is normally called immunity in terms of its legality.
We do not believe that most employers would want the situation otherwise. Most employers would not want to say that where there is a "yes" vote to strike and industrial action short of a strike breaks out, then it should be possible to obtain the injunction. It may be that more problems would arise in regard to dissident members. However, we are discussing here an amendment to the 1984 Act.
Finally, I should like to ask this question of the Minister. Subsections (4) and (4A) do not appear to be precisely matched in Clause 1. I can see that in the questions demanded in Clause 1 there is a general similarity but there is no precision in the matching up. Is that intentional or not?
In a phrase, this is an attempt to make it possible to hold ballots, as the Government accept in their general construction of the machinery, in such a way that where there is a vote for stronger action but negotiations are continuing, minor action—less than a strike in the full sense—would be covered so that there would be no action available for an injunction. We think that is not an unreasonable proposal, even on the Government's assumptions, I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before putting the amendment, I should point out that there is a misprint on the Marshalled List. Instead of "Sub-paragraph (7)" it should read "Subsection (7)". Perhaps we could take that as being so.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I listened to the Minister giving his reasons for moving the amendment. I have listened to other proceedings in this place and in another place on trade union and employment legislation. People have talked about legislating for strikes and industrial action. I wonder how many of the people who have legislated on those matters have first-hand knowledge of the subject. I am not talking about trade union leaders or employers; I am talking about the people who have been on strike or taken some form of industrial action at various times during their working lives.
The Government and those people who support ballots are making a mistake. In certain circumstances, I am in favour of ballots over strikes and other industrial action, but I wonder how they will be applied. The mistake being made by many people is to imagine that one can put strikes into pigeon-holes and categorise them. They feel that because we legislate, we will find some way to deal with them all. Nothing could be further from the truth.
There is a major misconception, because the Government are legislating on the basis of national strikes in national industries or large industries that employ many people. I have been a member of the AEU for 50 years. Before I came to this place, I started as an apprentice in the engineering industry in 1937. I have been on strike five times; four of them had nothing to do with the AEU. It might seem a little comical these days when I say that I took part
1010
in my first strike when I was fifteen. It was a national strike of apprentices in the engineering industry. I took part in my second strike during the war when I was 19. I was still an apprentice in the engineering industry. Those strikes were brought about because engineers had negotiated through the AEU what would seem to be a tawdry wage increase when we look at wage increases since then. The increase was three shillings a week for a skilled engineer. Because apprentices were not recognised as organised labour, although they were allowed to join a trade union—I was a member of Section 5 of the AEU—we received nothing. The apprentices struck. The strike during the war had a profound effect, but it was eventually ended after two or three weeks.
I have only once been called out on what I would call official strike action; I think it was in the early '50s. The AEU under the presidency of Bill Carron decided that because it could not come to a successful conclusion with the Engineering Employers' Federation it was necessary to take some form of industrial action. Anybody who knows the AEU knows that it has never been in the forefront of encouraging its members under any circumstances to strike. Even then, although it was an official strike, it was not totally national—more like a guerrilla strike where certain areas were called out and certain areas were left in.
I think the most profound strike that I was involved in was a strike at the largest factory where I worked. A shop steward was victimised and at a minute's notice he was put outside the factory in a most disgraceful manner by an employee. That resulted in more than 60 per cent. of the people in a workforce of over 20,000 downing tools immediately and walking out. They did not want to know whether the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions' local officials, the area officials, advised them to go back pending negotiations. What emanated from that was that the factory lost two or three weeks of production and it soured the industrial relations in that factory for a long time.
What I put to the Minister is this. Most of the strikes that take place in the United Kingdom do not have a national entity about them. They are establishment or factory strikes. It may be a surprise to some Members of the Committee and to the people who are drafting this type of legislation to know that in most factories where there are many people working, disputes are settled before they even have recourse to outside officials. Good shop stewards and good works committees like to organise their own house and at the last resort they bring in outside officials. In fact, on numerous occasions it is not unknown for the employers or the factory concerned to register a failure to agree in order to bring the full-time officials in so as to get a settlement and pass what the workers particularly want. I think the Government are making a mistake if they think that by proceeding with this legislation with the amendment moved in this form by the Minister they will solve their problem.
I put another two points to the Minister regarding industrial action. It may surprise the Committee to know that many people in industry still work on what used to be known as piecework because they earn more money by it. It is still a very large feature of

1011
factories where there are production lines and heavy use of machinery. What is the situation? Very often their industrial action takes the form of opting quite legally, historically, for a factory of maybe 3,000, 4,000, or even 10,000 men who are on piecework, what we call production bonus, to say suddenly, "No, we want to go back on day work". That means they can legally have a full week's pay. It may sound a puzzle to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, but I can assure him that these are the realities of life. It happens.
There is another name for it in some other industries, such as working to rule. But I can tell the Minister that in piecework factories it is a common feature of the disputes that when they are negotiating new prices on particular jobs, if an agreement cannot be reached then the worker or group of workers involved have a historical right to say, "We shall opt for day work". That means that the factory loses half its production while it still pays out the basic wage. That is legally enforceable.
Who does the Minister think the Government will punish if the worker in a large factory of workers employed by a large group of companies, such as GEC, General Motors or Fords, say: "We are not going to strike; we are going on day work without recourse to the national union officials"? How will the Government deal with that?
I can tell the Minister that that is not a hypothetical case. It has happened in the past and it will happen in the future. I say to the Minister and to the Government that people in factories will not be pushed about if their trade unions decide that they have to conform with every letter of the law. They will decide in the factories how they will operate. I do not know how the Government will deal with an outbreak of industrial unrest of that sort.
We recently had a situation where a strike at Fords was avoided because negotiations were finally completed. A ballot was taken and the men on the shop floor would not accept the deal that was done by the trade union leaders. That often happens. It is no good trade unions and general secretaries agreeing to deals on a national basis, or perhaps on a factory basis, if they cannot sell the deal to the workers involved. The situation at Fords might have been that the workers said: "We shall not go back; we will opt for day work". That would result in a loss of 50 per cent. of profit and output. However, overheads would still have to be met. Such losses can be more damaging than an out-and-out strike over a prolonged period.
I say to the Minister and to the noble Lord who is sitting beside him that they should not imagine that the legislation which we are now enshrining in law will solve all their industrial problems on the basis that ballots have been held here and there. There will be (and always has been) a mass of industrial disputes to which ballots taken by outside officials will be totally irrelevant. The people involved in the factories will have no regard to them. I hope that the Minister will convey to the Secretary of State that this particular matter might well, in many circumstances, be counterproductive.
10.15 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean, and I was interested in his remarks. He asked about local unofficial disputes. I can tell him that the balloting requirement under the Bill, as under the 1984 Act, applies only to official actions.
It has been claimed that the amendment does no more than seek to re-create the effect of Section 10(4) of the 1984 Act where it has been argued that the words "or includes a strike" which appeared in subsection (4)(a) imply that the union's immunity in respect of organising non-strike action would have been preserved had it obtained a majority "yes" vote in support of strike action, and strike action had been organised among some or all of those who were entitled to vote. If the justification for the amendment is simply that it puts the effect of the law back to what it was before the government amendment replaced the present Section 10(4) by the new subsections (4) and (4A), I have to say that that is not a strong argument although, if there has been uncertainty in the matter, I should equally concede that maybe the Government deserve to be teased.
What is clearly important is to get the law right. The Government believe that if a union is contemplating authorising or endorsing industrial action it should ask the members entitled to vote in a ballot to support or oppose the particular variety of industrial action concerned, for example strike or non-strike action, or to put questions in respect of both types if both are contemplated. To the extent that the Government's amendments represent a change to the present requirements as expressed in Section 10(4) of the 1984 Act, it is a minor change. However, it is one which is desirable and worth while because it will help to avoid confusion in the minds of all involved about the type of industrial action that has been authorised or endorsed.
The government amendment also removes an element of ambiguity in the law as it stands. If a union obtains majority support for organising strike action and had sought no such support for non-strike action it might nonetheless believe itself entitled to commence industrial action of the latter type; namely, non-strike action. It would be unclear, as the law stands, whether the prospect that the industrial action might at some stage be escalated to include strike action would be sufficient to preserve the union's immunity as provided for in Section 10(4A). That doubt will be removed.
The Committee will appreciate the importance of preserving consistency between the balloting requirements which will apply to protect a union from challenge by a member under Clause 1 of the Bill and to preserve its immunity from legal action brought by an employer, customer or supplier under Section 10 of the 1984 Act. In the absence of Clause 1 it might have been argued that so far as concerns an employer there was little practical difference whether the union's action took the form of a call to take strike or non-strike action. In both cases the employer's action against the union for acts taken without the support of a ballot would have been actions in tort.
As the Committee is aware, Clause 1 takes a different approach. The member's right is to restrain his union from inducing him and others to take any

1013
sort of industrial action, whether or not the union would be liable in tort for organising that action. It might matter a very great deal to a union member whether he and his colleagues were given the opportunity to say whether or not they supported their union organising a particular type of industrial action.
Accordingly, the member must be given the right to restrain his union from organising strike action if it has not asked and obtained a majority yes vote in response to a question which relates to strike action. The same applies with respect to non-strike action. Therefore it would not have been appropriate to replicate the terms of Section 10(4A) in Clause 1 of the Bill. Without the new Section 10, subsections (4) and (4A), in place of the current Section 10(4) of the 1984 Act, consistency between the balloting requirements for the purposes of that section of Clause 1 of the Bill would be lost.
It has been argued that the provisions of Section 10 as they stand, with the government amendment, would impose an immense burden on unions and that unions would be at risk of injunctions and damages unless they correctly identify the right question to ask in respect of any particular industrial action, or if the nature of industrial action changes after it starts.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, is slightly stretching our imaginations to argue that when industrial action is contemplated there will need to be a debate on the shop floor as to the nature of the action and the union's balloting obligations under Clause 1 and the 1984 Act respectively. Wherever official industrial action is contemplated the union will know that it is running a serious risk of challenge, from at least one of its members, if it fails to hold a ballot. The only significant uncertainty in some circumstances will be whether it also faces liability in tort.
The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, also expressed concern that the government amendment will face unions with a whole string of questions dealing with particular types of industrial action. However, we say that no reasonable person can argue that they should not ask the right question. All the union will have to do is decide whether the action it contemplates authorising or endorsing is to take the form of strike or non-strike action or both.
I simply cannot believe that it will present immense difficulties. Even if there were significant difficulties in deciding the nature of the industrial action concerned, or what is a far more realistic possibility that the union wanted to leave its options open, it will be free to ask its members both the questions described in Section 11(4), one of which is appropriate for strike action and the other for non-strike action.
The amendment in the name of the noble Lord is neither desirable nor necessary. The changes to Section 10 of the 1984 Act made by the government amendment are necessary both in themselves for the certainty that they introduce and to preserve consistency between the balloting requirements imposed by that section and Clause 1 of the Bill. Responsible trade unions who are concerned to give their members a proper voice in decisions about the organisation of industrial action and want to know how their members feel about the organisation of
1014
strike or non-strike action before deciding to authorise or endorse either, have nothing to fear from the government amendment and nothing to gain from the amendment in the name of the noble Lord opposite. Therefore, in the light of those remarks, I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Before the noble Earl sits down I should like him to explain certain matters to me. Suppose that there is the scenario in which an employer behaves rather stupidly towards a representative of organised labour in the factory. That does not happen very often but it does occur, if infrequently. Suppose further that the shop floor representative of the workforce is summarily dismissed (it may be the shop steward, chairman of the works committee or the secretary) and that very quickly he is put outside the factory. If the workers in that factory have confidence in the person whom they consider is being victimised, does the Minister think that they would bother about waiting for the official union machinery to move? It would be no use to them whatever. That type of action almost inevitably results in a lightning strike which can be of serious dimensions as I have just explained.
There will be a tightening of the corset when this particular Bill becomes an Act. Can the Minister explain how this legislation will help the workers in such a situation and whom they will hold responsible in law for it having occurred? Will the Government be involved in hundreds of prosecutions against individuals? I do not see any possibility of that happening.
The Earl of Dundee: I do not wish to say to the noble Lord that his diagnosis is incorrect. What we seek to achieve by this proposal is clarity. We wish to make sure that there is as little ambiguity as possible in the ballots that are presented and to align the 1984 Act with Clause 1 of the Bill for reasons which are now well known or are becoming well known as representing our intentions in the Bill.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am very grateful to my noble friend for tilling out so clearly what I call the Government's inept view that life is as simple as its categories. My noble friend Lord Dean has justified that again and again and the noble Earl has not replied. The noble Earl asked whether our amendment meant to take back the law to what it was previously. Of course not, because we are not trying to amend out of existence the new subsection (4A). Perhaps I may put the point again, and then make one other point which comes from the noble Earl's most fruitful response to this amendment.
The amendment takes a new law that provides that where both questions are put in respect of an Act, then the Act will satisfy the balloting laws if—but only if—it is satisfied in relation to the question applicable to that part of the action that occurs. It is pointless to suggest that this makes very little difference, or is what the noble Earl called a minor change. It makes the position more difficult for the union. It therefore makes it easier for employers and third parties to get injunctions.
The noble Earl has revealed one further point to me and to my noble friends, and we must think about

1015
it as we come to Report stage. He said that it is important to get the law right, but the trouble with the Employment Acts—as they are called—passed every other year is that they go further and further to the right, and this Bill is no exception. However, what is clear from what the noble Earl said—and we shall read it with interest—is that the Clause 1 ballots—demanded by members—are not parallel to the 1984 Act. That is clear. In Clause 1 the member need prove no case of there having been a tort committed, whereas under the 1984 Act, despite all these amendments, the employer or third party has to show a prima facie or arguable case of a tort. But when he responded to the valuable question of my noble friend Lord Dean about what was going to happen on the shop floor the noble Earl revealed to me how it would work.
This is the simple category. Under Clause 1 any member can always demand a ballot. Because industrial action is so wide he does not have to prove a tort. He does not have to prove anything except the words "industrial action". The member is therefore being put in to bat; and when the employer sees the result of the ballot—because the noble Earl says that the ballot is a common ballot with common questions—he will know whether he can go for an injunction. That is a most revealing and important simplification of how the matter will work. The interaction with my noble friend's description of the situation on the shop floor will make the position of those who are trying to redress a grievance of the kind that he outlined, with the support of their trade union, even more difficult.
I feel that this amendment has brought a most useful response from the Government. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 135B:
Sub-paragraph (8)(c), at end insert—
("(ca) nothing in this section, or in any code issued by the Secretary of State, shall restrict the right of the union to insert words lawfully explaining any matter or giving lawful advice to its members;").
The noble Lord said: This amendment arises from the new questions, and what I believe has been called in another place the health warning: that the ballot paper must carry the words the Government insist upon that tells those voting that if they take part in a strike or other industrial action they may be in breach of their contract of employment.
Our amendment accepts that position. It does not try to negate it. It is the Government's own phrase. Our amendment is directed towards the reality that trade unions nearly always advise their members when they conduct a ballot. First, there is information about the dispute. Then there may be something about the way in which the questions have come to be put, or sometimes about the union machinery. All these issues are very important indeed. We are fearful—I make no bones about it—that the Secretary of State may use his new power to issue a code to restrict the right of trade unions to advise their members on and with the ballot paper.
The codes issued by the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) have been very useful
1016
and effective codes in industrial relations because they are based upon tripartite consensus. However, the codes of the Secretary of State are political documents issued by the Secretary of State ex cathedra which, albeit they do not and cannot create new offences or liabilities, must be taken into account and into consideration by the courts. The best known is the example of the code on picketing which determines that normally the right number of pickets is six. Many judgments, which otherwise would have led the judge into consideration of all the circumstances, have simply applied that rule on picketing rather automatically.
We are afraid that the Government intend to issue codes which will restrict the trade unions' power and right to advise and speak to their members with the voting paper with the "health warning" upon it. Indeed it is known that employers' federations have already sent the Government their demands in this matter, demands that the union should include even the employers' case on the union ballot paper. We know where all this comes from, apart from the Government's fertile reservoir of imagination. It comes from inspection of statutes such as the Landrum Griffin statute in the United States. The gradual enlargement of restriction over union liberty, even to communicate with their members, is known there and we are fearful that the Government have it in mind here. There is no point in waiting to have consultation because the Government no longer meaningfully consult the trade union movement on this sort of matter.
We want to know whether the Government are considering issuing codes of this kind. That is the point of our amendment and I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: I think that I can give the noble Lord an assurance that the Government have no such plans to issue a code to require the unions to proceed as he outlined. Indeed, in considering whether or not a statutory code of practice would limit a union's rights to communicate lawful information or advice, I can also tell the noble Lord that any code of practice issued by the Secretary of State under the power which Clause 17 will provide will have the legal status of any code issued under the provisions of Section 3 of the 1980 Act.
Section 3(8) states that a failure on the part of any person to observe any provision of a code of practice issued under this section shall not of itself render him liable to any proceedings. If a union's action were not unlawful the fact that it did not conform to what might be described in any such code as "good practice" would not of itself make that action unlawful. Codes issued by the Secretary of State are not issued ex cathedra, as the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, alleges. They are subject to a statutory process of consultation as well as to the parliamentary approval that he would expect. The Secretary of State is under a statutory duty to consider any representations made to him on a draft code.
The intention of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, is helpful. The effect of the amendment however, would be unnecessary. Section 11(3) of the 1984 Act, as it stands with the Government amendment, will require the method of voting in a

1017
ballot on industrial action to be by the marking of a voting paper by the person voting and will require that voting paper to include a certain statement. There is nothing in that subsection, or indeed elsewhere in Section 11, which prevents the union from including any other statement on the voting paper provided that the nature of any such statement does not in itself amount to a breach of particular requirements. Unions have a perfect right to communicate lawful information by lawful means to their members. Neither the present law nor the provisions in the Bill will limit that right in any way. In the light of that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McCarthy: I should like to give the noble Earl a concrete example of the kind of situation that we have in mind, and then perhaps he will repeat his assurance. Is he saying that the Secretary of State would never think of including in the code a statement to the effect that a union will not be allowed to explain its own case to the members on the ballot paper if it does not explain the employer's case at the same time and to the same extent? Or that the union should not be allowed to call a strike, even though it had its ballot within 28 days, if it has not first put the employer's subsequent offer to its members? They are two simple restrictions which the Secretary of State may decide to include in his code of practice. Are we being told tonight that he will not do so?
Lord Dean of Beswick: The more I listen to the answers to some of the amendments, the more puzzled I become. I am completely convinced that the Government are in a minefield without any of the flails or tanks to get through. How would the Government cope with the situation of a large employee such as GEC which has four large plants on different sites in the United Kingdom? While the main union catering for the workers in the factories would be the AEU, a large percentage of workers belong to other trade unions and the four factories negotiate independently with their employer. Their employer opted out of the Engineering Employers' Federation some time ago so negotiations are on a factory basis with substantial workforces of thousands in each. What scenario would the Government draw up, bearing in mind that the employer may have made an offer which two factories would be obliged to accept but about which, for legitimate reasons, the other two factories will say, "We are not buying that. In our particular situation it would adversely affect us"? In those circumstances, how do the Government expect this legislation to help in such a situation, or will it be completely useless?
The Earl of Dundee: I am grateful to the Committee. However, I cannot comment on the specific cases mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. I should like to emphasise to him that there is nothing in the Bill which prevents the unions from giving legal advice in a lawful way.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I thought that I was delighted by the first few sentences of the noble Earl's response. I thought that he gave some kind of assurance about the Minister and the Government
1018
not having it in mind to plan codes of this restrictive kind. Despite the more cautious questions of my noble friends, I shall live with that expectation until I read Hansard. If I find that I am right, I shall be pleased; but if I find that I am wrong, I shall be sorry. In any event, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 135C:
Leave out sub-paragraph (8)(f)
The noble Lord said: This last amendment is rather important because in a fundamental way it relates to the restructuring of the right to withdraw labour and take industrial action. Although it is rather technical, nevertheless the whole law here is technical and therefore a major change is important from a practical point of view. Sub-paragraph (8)(f) which this amendment would take out, would transfer the effect of Section 1(5) in its description and definition of the nature of a person being induced to take industrial action to this part of the law as it applies to Clause 1.
The effect of that is to import into the 1984 Act—that is what I have called the employer enforced or third party enforced strike ballots—a qualification upon the meaning of "inducement" which is hopelessly and fundamentally inappropriate. Indeed, at first I thought that the Government might have made a mistake in that they wanted to transfer the meaning of industrial action from Clause 1 to the sections of the 1984 Act but that is not what they appear to want to do although we have not yet heard why this evening, although we may do on Report. That transfer seem to us quite wrong and we move to strike it out.
I must explain the reason for that. Under Clause 1 a member can demand a ballot for acts that are likely to subject members of the union to an inducement. As was said, no question of proving a tort arises. Indeed, as we have seen, no question of proving illegality arises. This is an extraordinary Bill where under Clause 1 persons are made to take a ballot for doing things which are perfectly lawful. Therefore, as I understood it, the Government introduced the concept that the inducement coming from the union to the members to take the action need not be effective. That is why in Clause 5—or what is left of it because I understand that the last five lines have been deleted by earlier amendments in Committee—references to an inducement in relation to a member of a union include references to an inducement which is or would be ineffective whether because of that member's unwillingness to be influenced by it or for any other reason. Therefore, it can be ineffective whether by reason of the member rejecting it or for any other reason.
The first point that arises is that the Minister has told us tonight that Sections 10 and 11 of the 1984 Act proceed on a quite different basis in respect of what I might call the trigger to the ballot. Here, some kind of argument or case is needed to present to the court that some kind of tort has been committed or is threatened by the defendant union. One does not commit that tort unless one actually induces or threatens to induce in an effective way.
Perhaps I may run through two or three points on that matter. It is true that an injunction can be

1019
obtained where the inducement is threatened but the threat must be of an effective inducement. It is true, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearce, said in a case in 1965 that:
"The fact that an inducement to break a contract is couched as an irresistible embargo rather than in terms of seduction does not make it any the less an inducement"
The embargo is real and effective. If you choose to do it by seduction, it certainly does not count for the law of tort if all you come up with are some preliminary but ineffective amorous overtures. That does not bring you within the area of tort at all. It is true that it does not matter in the law of tort if the inducee—if I may call him that—is willing to be induced. It does not even matter who spoke the first words. However, if he has already firmly decided not to perform his contract—and this may well be the case on the shop floor—then the persuasion is not normally an effective inducement for legal purposes. If the noble Lord refers to Clerk and Lindsell on The Law of Torts (Chapter 15 of its 15th edition) he will find authorities on the matter which the Committee will not wish me to cite now, but I assert that they are correct propositions.
What is this law that the Government are changing? The Government are saying that Part II of the 1984 Act still depends on tort, minus the basic rule of tort that the inducement must be effective either actually or in prospect. Why? How can the Government do that? What does it mean? We know that it may be the ineffectiveness comes about from the unwillingness of the member to be influenced; though quite what the point is of an injunction then is not clear. The real point is that it is to make it easier for employers and third parties to get injunctions, as we have seen from the previous debate, probably on the back of the ballot called for by a dissident member who may well be put up to the job.
Then there is the bizarre case of an inducement which is ineffective for some reason other than the unwillingness of the member to be induced. What is that all about? The union tries to induce but it is ineffective, not because the members are unwilling but for some other reason! I can tell the Minister that already lawyers are discussing this and wondering how it impinges on real life. Some have suggested that if the union distributes ballot pamphlets calling for industrial action to members who cannot read or who are blind, that is an ineffective inducement sufficient to meet the terms of the Bill; or that if they are exhorted orally by shop stewards and are deafened by a noise on the shop floor, that is an ineffective inducement under the Bill.
It is suggested that if a member is telephoned when he is away on holiday but someone else answers the telephone, that is subjecting him to an inducement. However, I think that one is wrong. It is absurd.
Let the Minister give me a less than absurd example of ineffective inducement which will be allowable in the law of tort and which is ineffective for some reason other than the member's unwillingness to be influenced. If all that is left is the member's unwillingness to be influenced, one does not have an inducement effective for the law of tort, anyway. Therefore, there are two objections.
I must explain to the Committee that very few people understand that when a third party or employer
1020
seeks an injunction he does not have to prove very much. Often he has not even issued his writ. He has to have a draft affidavit and a motion. He goes in with almost no notice. It is easy enough to get interlocutory injuctions now—sometimes ex parte—but on this law it will not be worth any union turning up in court. The Government have drafted a law which makes it impossible in 90 per cent. of cases even to defend if you get there in time, which often is not possible. Therefore, on its proper construction the government amendment is ludicrous in part because the only examples you find of its meanings are absurd. In so far as it is not absurd it is totally unfair and it is inconsistent with the principle that the Government say dominates Part II of the 1984 Act—namely, that the law of tort still applies—because they are removing an essential constituent of liability in tort. Therefore, I hope that the noble Earl can tell us that some further thought will be given to these extraordinary proposals. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: In speaking to the noble Lord's amendments I think we might agree that it is clearly wrong for a trade union to induce members to whom it has not given a vote in a ballot to take industrial action. Where a ballot is held it is particularly important to ensure that it covers those who are likely to be induced. The fact that some acts of inducement may be ineffective does not affect this principle. That is why we believe that both a union member and, where a tort has been committed, an employer or his customers and suppliers should have a right of action against a union in certain circumstances.
An employer will be able to take action against a trade union only if he can show that a tort is involved. The court would need to be convinced that the union was, or is likely to be, successful in inducing some members to break or interfere with the performance of their contracts. However, that is is no reason why the balloting provisions should rest on the outcome of a union's actions rather than the intention behind them. A union member will have a right of action against the union in circumstances where he is ineffectively induced to take industrial action in the absence of a ballot.
Under Clause 1 of the Bill sub-paragraph (8)(f) makes clear that an employer has a similar right of action in such circumstances. It would be unsatisfactory and anomalous if the two provisions differed in this respect. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, may have overlooked the significance of the fact that sub-paragraph (8)(f) affects the interpretation of "inducement" only to references in Section 11 of the 1984 Act. This deals with conditions to be satisfied in relation to ballots, not to the issue of liability or the employer's basic right which is to be determined under the terms of Section 10 of the 1984 Act to which sub-paragraph (8)(f) does not apply. If all inducements are ineffective there would be no tort and no liability.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am grateful to the Minister. I appreciate that we have an even more extraordinary position than I described; namely, that we have ineffective inducements effective for Clause 1; ineffective inducements effective for Section 11;

1021
ineffective inducements not effective for Section 10. With respect to the Minister, I do not believe that that gets him out of his problem on Part II of the 1984 Act. That is the first of my three brief points.
Secondly, to say that under Section 11 of the 1984 Act the principle is not affected by making the inducement ineffective is just not true. Of course it affects it. The Minister said something very important and that is my third point. I will read what I thought I heard the Minister to say in the middle of his response. He said that is was necessary to have this point about ineffective inducements being treated as effective because you might have a situation where some members were induced effectively and other members were unwilling to be induced. If that is what the Government want, then let them amend subsection (5). I believe that we could do it now, but perhaps we had better not try. What it would come to more or less would be that references in this section to an inducement where some members are effectively induced includes references to inducements which are ineffective in respect of other members. I do not know that I would like it, but I can quite see that would be within the logic of the Government. I believe that the rest is not. The noble Earl has said some very important things in respect of this matter and we have to look at it again on Report.
I conclude on the last point that we have on amendment in Committee by saying that we are very grateful to the Ministers for the statements they have made and for the advice they have given to us. However, we re-assert that in this part and in others, as the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has shown, this Bill has been vastly reconstructed by the amendments put late to your Lordships' Committee. We assert that on all those matters that are still not entirely clear from these complex amendments put down at such short notice, that we shall come back—and we have the right to do so—at Report on many of them. I believe this will be one of the matters where the relationship between Clause I and the 1984 Act will have to be looked at on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 135 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 135D and 136 not moved.]
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendments Nos. 137 to 141:
Page 40, line 29, leave out ("—
(a)").
Page 40, line 3l, leave out from ("fund)") to end of line 33.
Page 40, line 44, leave out from ("fund)") to end of line 45.
Page 40, line 47, after ("made") insert ("under subsection (4) of that section").
Page 41, leave out lines 6 and 7.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.
House adjourned at four minutes before eleven o'clock.

  ATTENDANCE CENTRE AND PROBATION HOSTEL: COSTS
  ATTENDANCE CENTRE AND PROBATION HOSTEL: COSTS
  STUN GUNS IN UK
  STUN GUNS IN UK
  STUN GUNS: BATTERIES
  STUN GUNS: BATTERIES
  EUROPEAN FOUNDATION PROPOSAL: FUNDING
  EUROPEAN FOUNDATION PROPOSAL: FUNDING
  AUSTRALIAN CITIZENS: UK WORK PERMITS
  AUSTRALIAN CITIZENS: UK WORK PERMITS
  AEROSPACE: MoD RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT COSTS
  AEROSPACE: MoD RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT COSTS
  LOCAL VETERINARY INSPECTORS: MAFF STATISTICS
  LOCAL VETERINARY INSPECTORS: MAFF STATISTICS
  VETERINARY SURGEONS: MAFF FEES
  VETERINARY SURGEONS: MAFF FEES
  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS: ADVISORY COST LIMIT
  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS: ADVISORY COST LIMIT
  DRIVING TESTS: REVIEW REPORT
  DRIVING TESTS: REVIEW REPORT