Sitting of 11 May 1988

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

    Companies (Extra-territorial Controls)
    Ms. Walley: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement about his policy towards the United States Government exerting extraterritorial controls over United Kingdom firms.
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Alan Clark): We have asserted on many occasions our rejection of United States claims to extra-territorial jurisdiction which infringe on United Kingdom sovereignty.
    Ms. Walley: I thank the Minister for his reply, but I should have liked a fuller explanation of the way in which he thinks that this policy will affect the £2 billion trade deficit in the information technology industry in the United Kingdom. Given the damaging effects that it is having on not only my constituents but on others thoughout the country, does he agree that the time is right to ensure that United States law does not apply here? Will he take steps to do something about it?
    Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please.
    Ms. Walley: Does the Minister agree with The Daily Telegraph that this amounts to "RAM-shackle protectionism"?
    Mr. Clark: I do not think that it has any effect on the trade deficit, although I should be interested to hear any case that the hon. Lady could draw to my attention. The problem with the United States' extra-territorial claims is that they carry, latent within them, a threat to cut off supplies to United Kingdom manufacturers if they do not conform to certain requirements of the extra-territorial provisions. If anything, it could be argued loosely that it has a beneficial effect on our trade rather than otherwise.
    Mr. Batiste: Does my hon. Friend agree that the right way forward in this complex matter is to strengthen COCOM? How does he propose to deal with the problem, particularly as post-1992 some members of the European Community will not be members of COCOM?
    Mr. Clark: I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend. If the opposite of strengthening is weakening, I would say that COCOM needs to be relaxed rather than strengthened. One of the problems with COCOM is that it is too comprehensive, pays little regard to obsolescence and the list of items included thereon is far too long.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Is not the Government's attitude towards the American Government over this matter spineless? British companies and individuals faced with prosecution under American law, which does not apply in the United Kingdom, are put in a difficult position. One of my constituents cannot leave the country for fear of threat of prosecution from the American Government, but the British Government are not prepared to do anything to refute the allegation or to support him.
    Mr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. There is no compulsion on British firms to accord with the provisions of the extra-territorial legislation in the United States. Any British company that wants to resist it will receive the fullest support of my Department.
    Mr. Stott: Is the Minister aware that the equipment that is being caught by these regulations is not necessarily state of the art stuff? It is equipment that he and I use in our offices. He must be aware that a growing number of British companies must go through the rigmarale of filling in forms to satisfy the United States Department of Commerce, which is having an increasingly corrosive effect on relations between the United States and its allies. Is it not time that his Department did something more positive? I suggest that the Minister might consider using some of the provisions of the Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980 to signal to the United States that this country is not prepared to accept extra-territorial laws, which are affecting British companies and damaging British trade.
    Mr. Clark: The British Government have made absolutely no concessions to the United States' extra-territorial provisions. If a British firm feels that its commercial interests are best served by acceding to the provisions, that is a matter for it. If it wishes to enlist our support in resisting them, we should be very glad to offer it. The United Kingdom does not accept the provisions and has always rejected them. The form filling to which the hon. Gentleman referred is in no sense a statutory obligation. It is purely a matter of convenience which some firms adopt to speed up their internal auditing processes.

    Manufactured Goods
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the latest balance of trade in manufactured goods.
    Mr. Alan Clark: In the first quarter of 1988 there was an estimated deficit on trade in manufacturers of £2·9 billion.
    Mr. Canavan: When does the Minister expect the Government to get trade in manufactured goods back to the surplus that they inherited from the previous Labour Government?
    Mr. Clark: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave him on 13 January. In case he has forgotten what it was, I recommended that he ask his constituents and, if he thought it advisable, that he reproach them—
    Mr. Canavan: Answer the question.
    Mr. Clark:—that he reproach them for their propensity to buy foreign imports—
    Mr. Canavan: When do the Government hope to get back in surplus? Answer the question.
    Mr. Clark: I shall answer the question at some length, because I attach importance to it.
    Mr. Speaker: I do hope not.
    Mr. Clark: I am divided between my wish to accede to your desire, Mr. Speaker, and the vociferous requests by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan).
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the balance could be in my favour today.
    Mr. Clark: All sectors of finished manufactures are in equilibrium, except consumer goods.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend agree that two problems face manufacturing industries and the balance at present? First, it seems that the Government, for some unknown reason, wish to keep the pound higher than it conceivably should be, which is dangerous for manufacturing industry. Secondly, when there is a monopolies and mergers problem, which we all have in manufacturing industry, the Government must look to 1992 and not stop companies such as Cadbury and Rowntree, which may like to merge, when others are not stopped from approaching them. Do we not have to look at this as a matter of urgency, and not in some cosy, quiet way?
    Mr. Clark: I have great respect for my hon. Friend's judgment, but I do not necessarily extend it to his judgment of so-called real exchange rate values. The three strongest manufacturing exporters in the world—Japan, Germany and Switzerland—have the three strongest currencies.
    Mr. James Lamond: Why does the Minister not try to help resolve the dreadful balance of payments problem and save his own job at the same time by clamping down much more firmly on the unfair competition from Turkish yarn and textiles, which is beginning to threaten the fragile recovery of our textile industry and is already causing redundancies in textile firms in the north-west of England?
    Mr. Clark: The industry, which is co-operating with my officials, is preparing an anti-dumping case. The hon. Gentleman will be interested to hear that the figures for the first quarter of this year show that imports of Turkish acrylic yarn are down by 75 per cent.
    Sir John Farr: Is my hon. Friend aware that the other day one of the biggest hosiery manufacturers in Leicester equipped itself with Italian knitting machines? When purchases of that magnitude go abroad, does my hon. Friend look into the reason why, and if not, does he not think that in future large acquisitions of such foreign machinery should be monitored?
    Mr. Clark: I do not find that objectionable. I regret that we do not make knitting machines in this country that are acceptable to the firm in my hon. Friend's constituency. As I told the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), we are in equilibrium on capital goods, exports and imports. If those machines are used to manufacture finished products that will be exported and sold, all the better, I say.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Roger Stott. Sorry, Mr. Austin Mitchell.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That shows the benefit of appearing on television so frequently.
    Does the Minister realise that his complacent answer amounted to saying that we are in balance except for the deficit in manufactured trade? Does he not realise the horrendous effect of the 18 per cent. rise of the pound sterling in real terms since the end of 1986, which will be disastrous for manufacturing industry? To illustrate that, may I ask him whether, in his view, the deficit in manufactured trade—in the first quarter it was running at£11·5 billion per annum compared to a surplus in 1978 of £.5·5 billion, updated to 1987 values, which is a turnaround of £17 billion in manufactured trade—represents a loss of 750,000 jobs, 1 million jobs or 12·5 million jobs?
    Mr. Clark: The figures that I gave the hon. Gentleman are up to date. They are for the first quarter of this year, when the exchange rate factor applied in the manufacturing sector. The only sector in which we are in deficit is consumer goods.

    Northern Region (Ministerial Visits)
    Mr. Devlin: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his recent visits to the northern region.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I have made two recent visits to the northern region. On 13 April I attended the first Action for Cities roadshow in Newcastle. This was well attended by local business men, who demonstrated their commitment to the regeneration of the inner cities by making many specific offers of assistance. On 15 April I visited Teesside and saw some very encouraging signs that the regional economy is steadily improving and that regional pride and self-confidence are returning.
    Mr. Devlin: As unemployment in the assisted and intermediate areas of the region and in my constituency has fallen by 3 percentage points in the past 12 to 18 months, will my right hon. and learned Friend make a further statement on the industry in the region and the way in which it is picking up and creating jobs?
    Mr. Clarke: At my hon. Friend's invitation, on 15 April I visited two successful companies in Stockton, and I cut the first sod of a factory site for a third company. I saw why the regional economy is improving. My hon. Friend might have added that job vacancies in the region doubled during 1987. The best survey of his local economy came from the Teesside chamber of commerce. It surveyed its members and discovered that 68 per cent. had increased sales in the first quarter of 1988, 62 per cent. reported increases in home orders, 45 per cent. had increased their work force compared with three months ago, 92 per cent. expect their work force to increase or stay the same in the next 12 months, 87 per cent expect to improve turnover in the next three months, and 84 per cent. expect to increase productivity. The Teesside economy is getting off its sick bed and becoming a healthy economy again.
    Mr. Radice: On his trip to the northern region, was the Minister made aware of the critical shortage of factory

    305
    space, especially of units over 10,000 sq ft? Will he tell the House what the Government are doing to rectify that critical shortage, which threatens to choke off the upswing in the northern economy about which he has been talking?
    Mr. Clarke: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman finding a cause for gloom out of so much good news.
    Mr. Radice: It is a serious problem.
    Mr. Clarke: It is a serious problem, because there has been a rapid increase in the demand for new factory space by businesses that want to open in the North-east. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that demand is now outstripping supply. He knows the provisions that we made to English Estates and the assisted areas across the country. The time is now ripe for the private sector to provide factory buildings in the north-east as well. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, with demand and the state of the local economy being so high, it is obvious that private sector development of factories in that region is about to burgeon as well.
    Mr. Fallon: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the northern region depends heavily on foreign investment? It has more to lose than probably any other English region from political barriers being erected to commercially judged takeovers.
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. The north-east has been found to be an attractive place to invest by the Japanese and by the first Korean investors, as well as by many European and American investors. Those foreign investors are welcome to put their money into the development of industry within these shores.
    Mr. Caborn: Can the Minister confirm that the integrated operations development programmes submitted to his Department have been passed to the Commission in Brussels? To date, the local authorities which have submitted those programmes have not received any word from his Department. Can he inform the House of the scale and timetable of article 15 of the structural fund? What is his Department's position? The structural programmes are for three to five years, but, we believe, the article 15 money is for only one year.
    Mr. Clarke: I believe that most of the integrated submissions have been made, but I shall let the hon. Gentleman know exactly which have now been made. No doubt he is most interested in the submission affecting his area. I know that the Birmingham submission has been made, and I believe that most of the others have also been made. With regard to article 15, we have accepted the local authority claims, but we are not taking a view. It is a matter between the local authorities and the Commission. Again, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman giving him the precise position on that.

    Research and Development
    Mr. Darling: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what recent representations he has received on the United Kingdom's spending on research and development.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John Butcher): Ministers of this Department receive representations
    306
    regularly on all aspects of Britain"s research and development activities, including spending, from a variety of interested individuals and organisations.
    Mr. Darling: Why does this country spend the lowest proportion of GDP on research and development of all our major competitors? Will not our balance of payments continue to deteriorate unless something is done about that? What do the Government intend to do to ensure increased spending on research and development?
    Mr. Butcher: The hon. Gentleman has raised two points. He referred to the performance and spending from the private sector and industry, and to the level of spending sponsored by public funds. I shall answer his questions very clearly. If we consider Government-funded research and development as a percentage of GDP in 1985, we find that the figure for the United Kingdom is 1·3 per cent. for France 1·5 per cent., for West Germany 1·1 per cent., for Japan at 0·5 per cent., and for the United States 1·3 per cent. We compare quite favourably with the middle ground of the leading industrial nations.
    However, the hon. Gentleman has a point when he refers to the performance of our industry in matching its competitors in other parts of the world. We are significantly below the international average in that respect. Given that the private sector and industry are now making excellent profits, we should ensure that they are doing their job and increasing the proportion of spending on research and development.
    Sir Ian Lloyd: My hon. Friend will be aware from the reports made by our science attaché in Washington that the United States has recently allocated $200 million to research into the human genome. What representations has my hon. Friend received from our scientific community on that subject? What importance do the Government attach to it, and how much are we proposing to spend on it?
    Mr. Butcher: No representations on that subject have come to my office from our scientific community. I suspect that in the first instance those representations might go to another Department as the sponsoring Department. However, I shall examine the position to discover whether representations have been made to another Department and write to my hon. Friend.
    Dr. Bray: Is the Minister not aware that a paper on the support for the international project to map the human genome has been submitted to and considered by the advisory council on science and technology? Is there no liaison between Government Departments on these matters? Is he aware that it is a very important programme which has technological applications, and applications in the treatment of disease and perhaps, most important of all, in basic research? Will he confirm that there is no danger of funds being diverted from the basic research budget to make up the deficiencies in support for industrial research from the Minister's Department?
    Mr. Butcher: As I explained very clearly, there are different sponsoring Departments for different types of research. In the final analysis, bids from different Departments will, of course, eventually go through to the advisory council on science and technology, and if they are of major importance they may go to a sub-committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, which

    307
    also considers those issues. Any major enabling technology or technique of that nature will receive the fullest consideration.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We are making very slow progress today. I ask the House for brief questions and we will then receive shorter answers.

    Business Support Services
    Mr. Forth: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress he has made in examining the possibilities of using outside agencies to deliver some of the business support services currently provided by his Department.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: All the consultancy initiatives within the enterprise initiative are administered by outside agencies. Discussions are in hand with the chambers of commerce and other bodies about the delivery of some of the services to exporters. Good progress is being made.
    Mr. Forth: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his reply. Are there other encouraging signs that the process can be taken further and faster on the basis that advice provided by the private sector can be provided more effectively and flexibly? Will he confirm that the Department of Trade and Industry would receive much better value for taxpayers' money by spending it in that way rather than keeping work in-house?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend, and that is why the consultancy advice under the enterprise initiative will be given by private sector consultancies. I am glad to say that the number of applications for consultancies means that we are well on target for the 1,000 consultancies a month that we forecast in the White Paper in January. All that consultancy advice will be given by good quality specialists in their respective fields drawn from the private sector.
    Mr. Cousins: Does the Minister accept the European Court of Auditors' criticism of the way in which his Department administers consultancy grants in the regions? Will he introduce competitive practices in consultancy and marketing grants to enable small firms to survive in the region against large national accountancy firms?
    Mr. Clarke: The report from the European Court of Auditors, which I confess I have not yet studied, will refer to past consultancies which, no doubt, were made available under the business improvement scheme under the auspices of the European Community. No one has had any chance yet to audit the progress that we are making under the enterprise initiative scheme. We are seeking to ensure cost effectiveness, and I am sure that we are achieving that. The response from companies that are seeking consultancy shows that we are providing a service that is welcomed by industry.

    Manufacturing Investment (West Midlands)
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the figures for manufacturing investment in the west midlands for the years 1983 and 1987.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Robert Atkins: Regional investment data for 1987 are not yet available. Net capital expenditure, at 1980 prices, by manufacturing industry in the west midlands in 1983 and 1986 was £489 million and £603 million respectively.
    Mr. Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that those excellent figures show that the west midlands manufacturing industry has been enabled to increase its productivity by 7 per cent. last year, to increase market share and thereby to increase employment in the industry? Will he confirm that any further improvements in competitiveness depend crucially on further improvements in productivity, which depend on wage settlements reflecting increasing productivity, but not exceeding it?
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend has made the case exactly.
    Mr. Nellist: Is not the figure that really matters the assets per worker in factories in the west midlands, which is still at a historically low level in real terms, because companies in the west midlands prefer to take the wealth that workers create in short-term profits rather than invest for the future? Is that not the real reason why under this Government the west midlands and the rest of the country are becoming the warehouse of the world, instead of what used to be known as the workshop of the world?
    Mr. Atkins: The west midlands is an extremely important part of Britain. Many of my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in the area will vouchsafe what we know to be true, which is that many of the workers in the west midlands are doing extremely well and tend to vote Conservative in greater numbers as a result of their prosperity.
    Mr. Gould: Does the Minister recall that in a debate last week of great importance to investment in the west midlands I questioned the assertion of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that Rover had recorded record exports last year? Will the Minister ask his right hon. and learned Friend whether he has now confirmed, as my researchers have, that Rover's exports last year of 165,000 cars fell well short of the 200,000 that it exported in 1979? Will he now admit the error to the House and set the record straight?
    Mr. Atkins: They were record exports in value, not volume.

    CBI
    Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met the director general of the Confederation of British Industry; and what matters were discussed.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: My last meeting with the director general of the CBI was on 25 January. Our discussions on that occasion were mainly concerned with inner-city issues.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Did my right hon. Friend have an opportunity to discuss with members of the CBI the latest issue of Fortune magazine? If so, did they notice the article entitled, "Britain is Back" about the British economic miracle? While there is no place for complacency, and though it may be that Fortune slightly overstated the case,

    309
    is not that article further proof that the Government's industrial policies are working, and should not the Opposition accept that fact?
    Mr. Clarke: I do not recall any opportunity to discuss the Fortune article, but passing reference may have been made to the praise that we received from the retiring Japanese ambassador about the British economic miracle. I agree with my hon. Friend that we must sustain our achievement, and the CBI takes an optimistic view of the future prospects of British industry in its latest survey. We must continue all the good work, which is now earning such praise from all around the world.
    Mr. Salmond: Did the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster take the opportunity to explain to the director general of the CBI the developing mystery of United Kingdom competition policy, whereby takeover bids for companies with golden shares are not referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission but the minority holdings of companies without golden shares are referred to the MMC? Is it not the case that competition policy is such that only companies with headquarters in London are afforded any protection?
    Mr. Clarke: If there is a certain amount of mystery about our competition policy, it is because not enough Members have read the document that we recently published on mergers policy. It clearly states the criteria that we think ought to be applied. We believe that one should look mainly at the effects of competition on the British economy in protecting the interests of the British consumer. There are also powers taking account of the wider public interest. All those matters are considered consistently and sensibly by the Government on the advice of the director general as well.
    Mr. John Marshall: When my right hon. and learned Friend next meets the director general of the CBI, will he discuss the view, with which many of us are in sympathy, that if the United Kingdom is the only EEC country to allow hostile bids from outside its shores, there is a risk that we shall become a branch factory economy? Will my right hon. and learned Friend also discuss the view that there should be reciprocity in takeover bids between this country and Switzerland?
    Mr. Clarke: I am sure that we are not the only European country allowing bids from outside its shores. Within the European Community we are aiming for free movement of capital, from which I am sure the Community will benefit. As I explained in the exchanges on this subject yesterday, if there is no reciprocity between countries, that factor can he taken into account when considering whether to refer a bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. We are awaiting the director general's advice on the particular case which I know concerns my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Blair: As the Minister referred to the White Paper on mergers policy, I may tell him that it stated:
    "As for the suggestion that the competition authorities are too parochial in their approach and should take a wider European or indeed global view of markets, the Government believe the criticism to be based on a misunderstanding."
    Is that still the Government's view? If not, and if competition policy is changing, will the Minister ensure that any changes are first notified to the House and do not escape in dribs and drabs of ministerial speeches?
    Mr. Clarke: The quotation that the hon. Gentleman gave is entirely accurate, but it deals with a separate point. There are many areas of manufacturing and service industry where, if one looks at the market, it is found to be an international market. In 1992 we shall be looking to a single market within the European Community, so one must consider the impact of competition within that new market. It would be a mistake to confine one's view to the United Kingdom market, which would lead one into examining too much of a microcosm of the whole picture.
    Yesterday, the Opposition—or at least the hon. Gentleman—seemed to be taking an extremely parochial view. As I see it, their policy is that no foreigner should be encouraged to invest in this country and that no English man should be encouraged to invest abroad. That is completely out of date and untenable in modern economic conditions.

    Sugar Confectionery
    Mr. Gregory: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what tariff is imposed by Japan on United Kingdom sugar confectionery; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Alan Clark: The Japanese tariff on United Kingdom sugar confectionery is 35 per cent. We shall be pressing in the Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations for it to be reduced. Meanwhile, we are taking appropriate opportunities to tell the Japanese Government that we regard the level of the duty as excessive.
    Mr. Gregory: We hear increasingly from the Government Front Bench about the round of discussions, but when will my hon. Friend stop drinking sake with the Japanese ambassador and get to grips with the problem, so that we may enjoy free and fair trade? There should be an opportunity for United Kingdom sugar confectionery and other manufactured goods—particularly, Scotch whisky—to enter the Japanese market.
    Mr. Clark: The level of tariffs raised by the Japanese is on average lower than that raised by the European Community. If I may mention chocolate without having to answer a question about Rowntree, I point out to my hon. Friend that the tariff on chocolate has been reduced from 20 to 10 per cent. Our exports of confectionery to Japan amount to more than £4 million per annum, whereas its exports of confectionery to Britain total only £52,000.
    Mr. Henderson: Is the Minister aware that we may not be in a position to export any chocolate to Japan shortly unless action is quickly taken on the matters referred to yesterday? We were discussing the possibility of a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission of the Nestle bid for Rowntree, and 42 per cent. of the company's shares were in foreign ownership by the end of the day. Is he also aware that Mr. Kenneth Dixon—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I called the hon. Gentleman on this subject yesterday. This question is about Japan.
    Mr. Clark: I do not see how any of the factors that the hon. Gentleman mentioned will inhibit our exports of chocolate to Japan, which last year amounted to £1·2 million.

    National Transputer Support Centre
    Mr. Knight: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assistance he is giving to the national transputer support centre.
    Mr. Butcher: The Sheffield transputer centre is one of six transputer centres supported by the joint Department of Trade and Industry/Science and Engineering Research Council initiative to encourage the wider use of transputers. It is run jointly by the University of Sheffield and the Sheffield City polytechnic. My Department has contributed £635,000 to the transputer initiative.
    Mr. Knight: Does my hon. Friend accept that, because there is a clear benefit to industry, it should be prepared to support these activities and develop the transputer for the market? Does he agree that this is the direction in which we should be moving—a greater role for private sector support?
    Mr. Butcher: My hon. Friend will have noticed that in my Department's White Paper and subsequent announcements in the enterprise initiative this is precisely the way in which we want expenditure to move. The closer one gets to the markets, the less need there is for public sector funding, and the converse also applies. We believe that at long last the age of the transputer has arrived. It is showing signs of being a great success and I believe that its incorporation in super-minis, in particular, will bring great benefits in market terms.

    Leasing
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the value of the leasing industry in (a) 1987 and (b) 1986.
    Mr. Atkins: The latest estimate of finance provided by the leasing industry in 1987 is £.3·4 billion at 1980 prices. The corresponding amount in 1986 was £3·1 billion at 1980 prices.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Does my hon. Friend agree that that reply shows the contribution made to the United Kingdom economy by the service sector? Would it be true to say that the service sector in this country—
    Mr. Tony Banks: Stop reading, Fergus.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is perfectly OK. The hon. Member is glancing at his notes.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Does my hon. Friend agree that the service sector contributes twice as much to the economy in output and three times as much in employment as the manufacturing sector?
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend has stolen my thunder. He is quite right.

    Internal Market
    Mr. Wallace: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what further plans his Department has to publicise the implications of the internal market to industry.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The Government are already taking a number of measures to alert business to the single European market and the vital importance of preparing
    312
    for it now. These include regional conferences, detailed literature, national advertising and a telephone hotline. The single market campaign will run until 1992, but we shall continually assess its exact form in the light of current needs.
    Mr. Wallace: Is the Chancellor aware of the recent CBI survey in Scotland, which showed that 34 per cent. of companies did not even know about the introduction of the single market in 1992? What further steps does he propose to take in Scotland, bearing in mind the difficulties that the peripheral areas face in trading because of transport costs? Will he ensure that his Department puts a forceful case to the European Commission for continuing to make available European regional development fund moneys for the Highlands and Islands?
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman's first point helps make the case for this campaign. When we started in England we found a low level of awareness and understanding among British industry. Already, after the first few weeks of the campaign, there has been a substantial increase in awareness, with more businesses preparing themselves for what they have to do for the changes of 1992. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will mount a similar campaign there.
    As for the hon. Gentleman's last point, I assure him that we shall be pressing that case on the European Commission and in our discussions in the Council of Ministers with other member countries.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that for Britain to get the maximum benefit from the internal market we need dynamic British companies? Will he ensure that countries that prevent British companies from making takeover bids are not allowed to launch predatory attacks from a safe base? We have accepted the principle of reciprocity in financial services. Should we not do the same for manufacturing industry? Would it not be a good start to refer the Rowntree bid?
    Mr. Clarke: The single market will be of considerable benefit to all the economies of the EC. We are creating a large market of 320 million people, which will attract a lot of inward investment. One of Britain's main aims must be to attract a disproportionate share of that inward investment compared with other countries. That still leaves us looking at individual bids, as I said yesterday on the case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory). Whether a similar bid could be made in the country from which the investment comes is a relevant factor, but it is only one of the factors that have to be considered once we have the director general's advice.
    Mr. Macdonald: Will the Chancellor confirm that the reported growth in manufacturing exports to Europe in the last quarter of last year was based upon statistical distortions and that manufacturing exports over the past two quarters have been stagnant, if not, indeed, in decline, confirming that the Government's policies have done nothing to prepare British industry for the single market?
    Mr. Clarke: I always treat trade figures with caution, not least because my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade is considerably more expert on them than I am. Certainly recent trade figures should be treated with caution,

    313
    because the way in which they are compiled has been changed since the beginning of this year. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the proportion of British trade going into the EC has gone up from about 34 per cent. when we joined the Community to about 50 per cent. now. It is a most important market. It is a fast-growing market and British industry is now extremely competitive and well placed to take advantage of it.
    Mr. Page: Will not our future success within the internal market in the EC depend on the establishment of standards? What steps is my right hon. and learned Friend taking to ensure that British standards are accepted and adopted within the EEC?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is right to say that the question of common standards is a matter of the highest priority. As we move towards the completion of the single market we are making a strong input to ensure that British standards are properly acknowledged and are not simply replaced by those of our competitors. We are also seeking the support of British industry in all the detailed work that is required to ensure that acceptable standards are in place so that we can have a genuinely free market by 1992.
    Mr. Gould: Is the Chancellor satisfied that high-volume babble from advertising men is enough to match the much more careful analysis being made by other Governments in conjunction with industry of where their strengths and weaknesses truly lie, and of what advantages and disadvantages they can expect from the internal market? Is there not a worrying sense of dé jà vu about all this? Did we not hear the same hype and complacency in the 1970s and was that not followed by a massive loss of market share to European rivals? Is not the only real difference that on that occasion Lord Stokes at least had enough confidence in his own commercial judgment, even though he turned out to be wrong, to pay for his own full-page advertisements?
    Mr. Clarke: I recommend that the hon. Gentleman gets hold of the substantial amount of literature that accompanies our presentation so that he can inform himself better of what the Government are advising British industry on when it comes to the single market. I well remember the hon. Gentleman, when he represented a different constituency, being one of the foremost opponents of our ever entering the EC. I suspect that inwardly he has not changed his opinion since that time. I am surprised that the late Lord Stokes' judgment is called in aid of any of these industrial matters. I have been studying some of the Labour party's advertising campaigns of the 1970s—television campaigns and whole-page advertisements, with leading industrialists and trade unionists urging the country to support the Government in backing price freezes and wage restraints. The difference was that that Government were dreary, second-rate and boring, like their advertisements—
    Mr. Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Chancellor is making a speech.
    Mr. Speaker: I rather agree. It does not appear to have much to do with the implications of the internal market.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: When my right hon. and learned Friend publicises the implications of the internal market for British industry, I hope that he will make clear the important need to be even more competitive,
    314
    particularly in manufacturing industry. Is not one way of doing that, both before and after 1992, to ensure a better supply of professional engineers and engineering skills? That is the way forward, so that British firms can compete more effectively with industry overseas. After all, we are producing fewer professional engineers than the Japanese. What are we going to do about that?
    Mr. Clarke: I can be brief on this occasion because I strongly agree with my hon. Friend both that we need to be competitive and that we shall find it difficult to remain competitive if we do not encourage the training of sufficient people in engineering skills of the right quality. We shall continue to give that matter close attention.

    Economic Growth
    Mr. Henderson: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether his Department is planning any new initiatives to stimulate the economy in the regions outside the south-east.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: My Department's recently announced enterprise initiative includes a range of measures which are designed to take into account the needs of the regions and inner cities. The services provided under the initiative will change over time, as the needs of business change.
    Mr. Henderson: Will the Minister confirm that at his various breakfast meetings in the north and the south industrialists have told him of the important link between industrial development and housing provision? Will he make representations to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on the need to prevent further housing development in the green belt in the south, thus preventing further congestion of the south and helping the north?
    Mr. Clarke: North-eastern Labour Members arc ingenious. A moment ago the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) found gloom in the booming state of northern industry—or certainly its rapid expansion—but the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) now wants to change the subject to housing. It is certainly necessary to provide proper housing for the employees of industry in the north-east, and the proposals of my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning to revive the private sector and encourage private investment in rented accommodation will benefit the north-east as well as other parts of the country.
    Mr. Tim Smith: Is not the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) right? Would not one way of stimulating the economy in regions outside the south-east be to pursue tougher planning policies on industrial, commercial and residential development in the south-east, so that employers looking for more labour would be encouraged to go to areas of high unemployment? Then, perhaps, the housebuilders might be encouraged to go with them.
    Mr. Clarke: If I am to be fair, I might apply to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) the strictures that I applied to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North. The nub of my hon. Friend's question must be directed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. As a midlands Member of

    315
    Parliament and an Industry Minister, I certainly have an interest in prosperity spreading northwards. The sheer pressure of economics—the cost of land and the difficulty of recruiting staff in the south—is helping to stimulate the expansion of the economy in the midlands, the north and the inner cities.
    Mr. Eastham: The rest of the country obviously recognises the seriousness of the north-south divide. May I impress that on the Minister in relation to the Channel tunnel project? Will he at least ensure that some of the contractual work, such as the consequential heavy engineering, will go to Scotland, the north-east and the north-west?
    Mr. Clarke: As I understand it, quite an amount of work from the Channel tunnel project is going to the assisted areas, although it is not for the Government to place that work. I believe that the economy of the north has a great deal to gain from the Channel tunnel and improved communications with the continent. The recent actions of the National Union of Seamen underline the need for the rapid completion of the Channel tunnel, and we all hope that it is being dug even more quickly while present events continue.

    Rental and Leased Cars
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what were the total number of rental and leased cars in (a) 1987 and (b) 1986.
    Mr. Atkins: Estimates by the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association suggest that the population of rental and leasing cars was more than a million in 1987, a substantial rise on the figure of 889,000 in 1986.
    Mr. Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that that answer reflects the wider success of the car industry, which recorded an 8 per cent. growth in new car sales in the last financial year? Will he join me in congratulating fleet hire companies such as PHH in my constituency on their contribution to cost-effective vehicle use in British industry?
    Mr. Atkins: I am delighted to associate myself with my hon. Friend's compliment to PHH. Firms such as PHH, which is one of the market leaders, are rightly well-regarded for the service that they provide and for their contribution to small and large company profitability. My hon. Friend is right in his assessment of the figures, they are yet another indication of the success of the Government's economic policies.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that one or two of these cars are almost certainly rented or leased by employees at the Girvan factory of Rowntree-Mackintosh in my constituency? I share the view that the proposed takeover of that company should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. As so many hon. Members on both sides of the House are saying that, surely the Minister must be getting the message.
    Mr. Atkins: I do not think that that has a lot to do with rental and leasing.

    Financial Services Act
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on the workings of the Financial Services Act.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: My Department has received a large number of inquiries and comments about the Financial Services Act in the 18 months since Royal Assent.
    Mr. McAvoy: I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he tell the House how many hundreds, if not thousands, of firms are operating under the Act with only interim authorisation? Given the recent scandal of EYAS Securities, which had to be prevented from trading only a few days after the Act came into operation, what steps is he taking to ensure that the consumer is properly protected?
    Mr. Clarke: It is true that at the moment quite a number of firms are operating with provisional approval. However, even those that have interim authorisation will be subject to much more effective regulation than hitherto. They will be required to observe conduct of business rules which give better protection to investors than that currently available.
    Mr. Robert Banks: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is highly regrettable that the Financial Services Act does not contain any provisions which would frustrate the attempt by a Swiss company to take over a company such as Rowntree, bearing in mind that the share structure of that company is such that the vital voting shares can be held only by those whom the company agrees can hold them, and that this would militate seriously against any company being able to take over Nestle, which might by that time have swallowed up Rowntree? Is he aware, furthermore, that Rowntree is a very old company established in 1725 and is vital to the industry in York and the surrounding areas?
    Mr. Clarke: By one means or another I am being subjected to a number of questions about the state of Swiss law. Personally, I do not approve of the state of Swiss law, and if I were Swiss I would improve it and make sure that Swiss management was exposed to the same commercial pressures as our own. The fact that it is not, as I have said, in some circumstances can be relevant when considering a merger application. However, we have to consider the wider public interest. I know of the concern in my hon. Friend's constituency in Yorkshire, and I can assure him that we will be confirming this as quickly as possible when we have the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Following the closure of IDB last year and Afcor Investments a week and a half ago both—events that I predicted last year would happen, as investors drew my attention to their loss of hundreds of thousands of pounds in over-the-counter shares—is it not quite clear that many fraudsters and swindlers operate in the over-the-counter market? Is it not about time that the Government intervened to protect the public by making the investor protection legislation work? People cannot continue losing money on that scale.
    Mr. Clarke: I do not know whether that was another notable figure confessing to the use of soothsayers, but the

    317
    hon. Gentleman was obviously very prescient if he gave that advice to his constituents. He is making a case for the provisions of the Financial Services Act, and I can assure him that they will provide much more stringent protection for the private investor in this country in future. Certainly we are determined to ensure that they do that.

    Industry (Competitiveness)
    Mr. Turner: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what measures his Department is planning to improve the competitiveness of British industry.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Improving competitiveness is primarily a matter for industry itself. Through the enterprise initiative my Department already offers a comprehensive range of practical advice and assistance on which firms can draw. This will be revised from time to time as the needs of business change.
    Mr. Turner: Is the Minister aware of the damage that the rising exchange rate can do to Britain's industrial competitiveness? As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that he does not believe that the rate can be sustained, will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster tell us when he thinks it will begin to fall? Will the Minister tell the House when he will support industry instead of the City speculators?
    Mr. Clarke: I do not intend to make any predictions about future exchange rates, and I advise the hon. Gentleman to seek the no doubt expensive advice of those who study the currency markets, who might try to guide him. These matters are not completely under the control of the Finance Minister of any single country. We play our part in seeking to achieve reasonably stable exchange rates and to eliminate unnecessary speculative short-term changes, but in the end it is the markets that determine the level of exchange rates. It is up to British industry to respond by improving its competitiveness in the face of whatever pressures it faces in the market place.
    Mr. Hayward: Will my right hon. and learned Friend disregard any strictures from the Opposition Benches about competitiveness, since the Opposition have the most heavily over-manned Front Bench that has ever been seen in this Chamber, to the extent that their own workers and slaves on the Back Benches cannot even make contributions?
    Mr. Clarke: I think that it is the first manifestation of the new industrial strategy that this large Front Bench team is meant to be working on. No doubt it will wish to apply to British industry principles that are similar to the ones that it applied in the past.
    Mr. Hoyle: How will the competitiveness of British industry be improved if Rowntree is taken over by Nestle? Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster ensure that this matter is referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?
    Mr. Clarke: I can make no more comments on this bid than I have made in the last two days. Heaven forbid that I should ever be repetitive in this Chamber, so the hon. Gentleman knows what I said to him yesterday. To expose the management of companies to all the competitive pressures of the market place, which include vulnerability to acquisition by those who believe that they can improve
    318
    the performance of a company, helps to raise the performance of the economy as a whole. We have to determine whether that is the major factor in this case, where the public interest lies and whether there is any case for referring it to the MMC. We shall do this once we have received the advice of the director general upon it.
    Mr. Hind: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, due to the success of the Government's policies, there is a shortage of factory space in the north of England? What efforts is he making with the private sector to encourage factory building, which is bound to increase, and thereby improve, the competitiveness of British industry?
    Mr. Clarke: We have ensured that English Estates has more resources available to it this year to help the assisted areas. I agree with my hon. Friend that we are now looking to the private sector to meet that demand. One aspect of the improvement of the economy in the north-west is that rents for accommodation are likely to rise because more profitable firms can afford to pay higher rents. That, in turn, will stimulate further development. We must do everything that we can to encourage that development, and the Government will take whatever steps they can towards that end.

    European Regional Development Fund
    Mr. Kennedy: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects next to discuss matters relating to the structure of the European regional development fund with other European Community Ministers; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Atkins: The next Foreign Affairs Council, on 24 and 25 May, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will attend, is due to discuss the Commission's proposal for a new framework regulation for all the Community's structural funds, with a view to its adoption.
    We shall be concerned to ensure that the European regional development fund continues to make its important contribution to British regional development.
    Mr. Kennedy: I thank the Minister for his reply On 24 and 25 May, will he and his Department make every possible effort to ensure that the British Government's representatives at those meetings maintain the pressure that the Euro-MP, Winnie Ewing, the local authorities, the Highlands and Islands Development Board and parliamentary representatives in this House from the Highlands and Islands of Scotland have exerted over the past few months to ensure that our access to and eligibility for support from the ERDF, which is crucial to our part of the country, is retained?
    Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman will know that recently I had the pleasure of receiving a delegation from the Highlands and Islands. I was pleased to be able to tell the delegation, as I can now tell the House, that I am happy to follow the lead taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in supporting most strongly the Highlands and Islands bid for its fair share of the ERDF. We shall continue to fight our corner as strongly as we can.
    Mr. Cryer: In addition to safeguarding ERDF funds from the Common Market, when the Minister is in communication with the Common Market will he tell it that imports of yarn from Turkey are damaging areas in Yorkshire and Humberside, such as Bradford in my constituency, that they have caused the loss of jobs and short-time working in the textile spinning industry, and that the safeguard clause, which is a pretty weak one, negotiated by this Government should be brought into operation as a matter of urgency?
    Mr. Atkins: If the hon. Gentleman had been here earlier this afternoon he would have heard my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade give a definitive answer about a reduction in Turkish yarn imports. Since the hon. Gentleman himself knows as much about the European Parliament as most, I suggest that he takes it up there as well.

    South Africa
    Mr. Nellist: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the current level of British investment in South Africa.
    Mr. Alan Clark: Information on the level of United Kingdom direct investment in South Africa is derived from a triennial inquiry conducted by my Department. Based on the latest available results, the book value of United Kingdom direct investment in South Africa, including oil, banking and insurance, was £2,725 million at the end of 1984. Information on portfolio investment by country is not available.
    Mr. Nellist: Is not the real figure three or four times that? Despite February's draconian banning of trade unions and other opposition forces, and despite the show trials of Moses Mayekiso, the head of the second largest trade union, and others in South Africa, is not the real reason why the Government refuse to take economic action against the apartheid regime the level of British investment there and the profits from South Africa for British firms, which make donations to the Tory party? Does that not mean more to the Minister and to the
    320
    Government than the suffering of millions of black workers and their families in South Africa under the detestable regime?
    Mr. Clark: I am glad to act as a foil to the hon. Gentleman for one of his favourite star turns in the House. I submit meekly to his familiar diatribe. Encouraging trade with and maintaining current investment already in South Africa will, we believe, help to protect the jobs of the majority of people in that country.
    Later—
    Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It will have been within your hearing that in answer to a question the Minister for Trade referred to the so-called European Parliament. May I have your assurance that permission will not be given to Ministers to avoid accountability in this Parliament by referring to that useless talking shop in Strasbourg?
    Mr. Speaker: I hear it described variously as the European Parliament or the European Assembly.

    BILLS PRESENTED
      SOLICITORS (SCOTLAND)
      Mr. Alistair Darling, supported by Mr. John Smith, Mr. Donald Dewar, Mr. Menzies Campbell, Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. Frank Doran, presented a Bill to amend the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 13 May and to be printed. [Bill 165.]
      HORSES, PONIES AND DONKEYS (No. 2) BILL
      Mr. David Amess, supported by Sir Bernard Braine, Mr. David Alton, Mr. Gerald Bermingham, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Robin Corbett, Mr. Stan Crowther, Miss Janet Fookes, Mr. Harry Greenway, Mr. Ken Hargreaves, Mr. Greg Knight and Mr. Allan Roberts, presented a Bill to protect horses, ponies and donkeys against cruel tethering; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 13 May and to be printed. [Bill 166.]

Dock Labour (Amendment and Limitation)
3.32 pm
Mr. David Davis (Boothferry): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to limit the provision of rights of registered dockers under the Dock Labour Employment Scheme to the lifetime of those in current employment; to remove from the local and national dock labour boards their responsibilities for recruitment and discipline of registered dock workers, and to provide that, in the absence of a negotiated agreement between the Transport and General Workers Union and the port employers on other matters covered by the Dock Labour Scheme, the Dock Labour Scheme and all other related enactments shall cease with effect from 31st December 1992.
The proposed Bill has three aims. First, it is to stop any further entries in the dock labour register as members who are on the register retire or resign. Secondly, it is to strike out of the current dock legislation those items which cause the worst abuses, particularly on control of discipline and recruitment. Finally and most important, the Bill aims to create a timetable for both sides of the port industry to negotiate an end to the current practices which cripple the industry, and to give us a new industry by the critical date of 1992. In the event of a failure to achieve that, the Bill would lead to the abolition of the dock labour scheme.
The scheme deliberately puts a sword of Damocles over both sides. I shall explain later how there is already a sword of Damocles over dock employers. In that respect the Bill will encourage the development of some measures which Opposition Members have already asked for. On this part of the Bill I am indebted to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) for his ideas.
I can best deal with the problem of discipline by example. In a port on Humberside three years ago a docker was imprisoned, having been convicted of smuggling. When he came out of prison, he was reinstated. It was impossible to dismiss him despite the fact that he had been imprisoned for a criminal offence and that that offence was directly related to his work. That problem is replicated around the country, for example, in cases of theft and other offences. As a result, it is impossible to maintain discipline in the docks, as every docker knows, and, more important, as every customer knows, who then takes his trade elsewhere. The Bill will eliminate that problem.
There are a number of other sad practices that add to the costs of the docks. One of them is known as "bobbing" or, in my constituency port of Goole, as "welting". It is caused by the labour board instructing the docks as to how many people they can employ to do a certain job. The board always instructs too many so that, for example, a Swedish liner service out of Goole has 27 people allocated to it. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House should give the hon. Gentleman a fair hearing and then we can proceed with the next debate, which is an important one.
Mr. Davis: Those 27 people are never all present. At most, there will be 18, so the customer pays for 30 per cent. of his work force who do not work. That practice must end as soon as possible.
"Ghosting" is the technique whereby dock workers are required to mark people who do not work in the docks.
322
That applies even to non-existent jobs. For example, there is a new cement loading unit at Goole. When a cement ship comes in, the crew attaches a pipe and the ship is emptied automatically. Two dockers are required to "ghost" that process. The customer has to pay for two dockers to do nothing and who may not even be there.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: What about safety?
Mr. Davis: The only safety aspect is whether either one of the dockers falls into the dock.
The scheme increases the cost of the industry in competition with Europe. In Rotterdam and Amsterdam, the cost of loading and unloading ships is between £2·50 and £3·50 a tonne. In Britain, it is between £7·50 and £15 a tonne, three to five times as much. It is ludicrous to expect that that will not affect the pattern of trade. That is just the tip of the iceberg.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Not in a ten-minute Bill. I have not heard anything so far that is out of order.
Mr. Madden rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not our convention to raise points of order during the moving of a ten-minute Bill, unless it is a matter of order that requires my urgent attention. I have not heard anything out of order.
Mr. Madden rose—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows our conventions. Ten-minute Bills are not interrupted unless a matter of order requires the attention of the Chair. I have not heard anything that requires my attention as a matter of order and, therefore, I cannot deal with it.
Mr. Madden: It is a matter of order.
Mr. Speaker: I asked the hon. Gentleman on a former occasion whether it was a matter of order for me and it turned out not to be. I shall not take it too well if that happens this time.
Mr. Madden: You, Mr. Speaker, will recall that during the moving of a ten-minute Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) I rose on a point of order and you accepted my point of order. On this occasion, the hon. Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) is, according to the Register of Members' Interests, a director of Tate and Lyle. I should have thought that, as that company has a direct interest in the docks and in shipping, it would have been appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to have made known his interest.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is riot necessary to mention an interest during a debate if it is in the Register of Members' Interests. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has a direct interest in the matter.
Mr. Davis: I am not aware of having any interest to declare in this matter. I shall shorten what I had intended to say to save time. The net effect of the scheme is the destruction of jobs in Britain. More important, it destroys jobs in the poorest and most difficult areas of Britain. Opposition Members claim that they represent such areas.

323
In 1992, the Single European Act will be implemented. Yesterday the European Commission published the Cecchini report, which said that between 1·75 million and 5 million new jobs would stem from that Act. Most of those jobs, which will be in Britain, should go to the north-east, the east coast ports, Yorkshire and Humberside and the east of Scotland. Hon. Members who represent those areas should concern themselves with that.
If our ports are competitive, the jobs will go to the areas I have mentioned, but if they are not one of three things will happen. First—and worse—jobs will not be created at all. Secondly, they may go to non-scheme ports such as Felixstowe. Thirdly, trade may be diverted through the Channel tunnel. None of those is in the interests of the north or the north-east.
I should like to quote what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) said during a Consolidated Fund debate on the dock labour scheme:
"Nothing in the world is sacrosanct. Of course there must be changes and developments, but surely we all want them to be reached on a proper, sensible and agreed basis … All the aspects can be negotiated."—[Official Report, 10 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 596.]
I agree with those wise words. My Bill would allow scope for such negotiation. It would allow time for the industry to find its own solution. That time is limited, however, on both sides.
In April 1990, the European Commission's permission to our Government to subsidise compensation schemes runs out. There is no guarantee that that permission will be renewed. That means that dock employers will have, if they have their own interests at heart, to try to get a scheme sorted out by April 1990. There is pressure on them and on the dock unions.
The Bill would create a sword of Damocles and the right conditions for the negotiated outcome which some Opposition Members said that they wanted when we last debated this issue. If Opposition Members really believe that they stand for the interests of the unemployed, and not for vested interests and narrow factions, they will come into the Aye Lobby with us and will not follow the narrow factions into the No Lobby.
3.42 pm
Mr. Eddie Loyden rose—
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to oppose the Bill?
Mr. Loyden: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
This is another back-door attempt by Conservative Members to wreck the national dock labour scheme. This issue was last debated only on 10 March when the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) accused me of treating the House to a highly emotional history lesson. There will be a repeat performance today because my perception of the history is not the same as that of Conservative Members.
When I went to elementary school, I listened to a teacher who was showing us a map of the world and said, "All that pink is ours." A nine-year-old said, "If that is so, why is my dad unemployed and why am I in my bare feet?" All the glories of the empire and 1066 and the rest are meaningless. I learned my history from my experience and as a working-class person who worked in the transport
324
industry and as a seaman. The hon. Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) lacks such credentials. I declare my interest as a member of the Transport and General Workers Union. I declare that interest readily. I act in the interests of those whom I represent.
Today, Mr. Speaker, you unveiled a bust of the late Ernie Bevin, who was once Foreign Secretary. I disagreed with him on a number of things. As the leader of the Transport and General Workers Union and the architect of the national dock labour scheme, however, I know that he is held in the greatest respect in the minds of dockers and working-class people. [Interruption.]
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Shut your mouth!
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we have a very important debate after this business in which many right hon. and hon. Members hope to take part. Perhaps the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) will get on with his speech.
The Conservative party intends to end the security and order that exists in the dock industry. Its consistent opposition to the National Dock Labour Board arises out of its opposition to any protection for workers, and it is part of the Government's continuing attack on the trade union movement and organised labour.
Conservative Members want to see a return to casual labour on the docks. They want us to go back to the pre-1940s when men assembled at the docks to find work but half of whom were sent home without it and without pay. Men worked at the docks into their 70s and 80s because there was no pension; therefore, they had to continue working to live. The misery and deprivation of dockers and their families is fully chronicled. It is disgraceful that Conservative Members should be trying to revert to the days of exploitation of dock workers. They want to end the system that was introduced by Ernie Bevin, which was endorsed by several reports, including that of the Shaw inquiry and the Devlin report in 1964. Devlin recognised that the order that had been established in the ports was beneficial to the industry.
Members of my union who work in non-scheme ports should see through the intentions of Conservative Members. They enjoy their standards and conditions of work because of the national dock labour scheme. Conservative Members, who from time to time praise the non-scheme ports, should speak the truth. They will attack dockers at Felixstowe and at the non-scheme ports if this safeguard is removed, which is the benchmark of the standards that are prevalent throughout the industry.
Hon. Members who want to honour Ernie Bevin—I doubt whether many Conservative Members will want to do so—should recognise what he did in the 1940s in transforming a cruel and inhumane industry into one that gave men dignity and decent standards of life. They should not vote for the Bill but enter the Lobby and vote against the treachery of the Conservative party.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19.
(Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 120, Noes 167.

Division No. 297]

[3.50 pm

AYES

Aitken, Jonathan

Atkinson, David

Alexander, Richard

Bevan, David Gilroy

325

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Kilfedder, James

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Kirkhope, Timothy

Boswell, Tim

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Latham, Michael

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Lawrence, Ivan

Bowis, John

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Mans, Keith

Brazier, Julian

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

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

Mates, Michael

Buck, Sir Antony

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Butler, Chris

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Butterfill, John

Miller, Hal

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Mills, Iain

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Mudd, David

Carrington, Matthew

Nelson, Anthony

Cash, William

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Chapman, Sydney

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Conway, Derek

Paice, James

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Patnick, Irvine

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Cran, James

Porter, David (Waveney)

Curry, David

Price, Sir David

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

Raffan, Keith

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Redwood, John

Day, Stephen

Riddick, Graham

Dicks, Terry

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Dover, Den

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Fallon, Michael

Rost, Peter

Farr, Sir John

Shaw, David (Dover)

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Forth, Eric

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Fox, Sir Marcus

Shersby, Michael

Franks, Cecil

Sims, Roger

Fry, Peter

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Gardiner, George

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Gill, Christopher

Stanbrook, Ivor

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Stevens, Lewis

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Stokes, John

Gorst, John

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Gow, Ian

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Gower, Sir Raymond

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Thorne, Neil

Haselhurst, Alan

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Hayes, Jerry

Waller, Gary

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Ward, John

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Warren, Kenneth

Hill, James

Watts, John

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Whitney, Ray

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Irvine, Michael

Woodcock, Mike

Irving, Charles

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Janman, Tim

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Mr. Nicholas Bennett and

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Mr. Jacques Arnold.

NOES

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Allen, Graham

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Alton, David

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Anderson, Donald

Buchan, Norman

Ashton, Joe

Buckley, George J.

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Caborn, Richard

Barron, Kevin

Callaghan, Jim

Battle, John

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Beckett, Margaret

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Bell, Stuart

Canavan, Dennis

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

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

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Bidwell, Sydney

Clay, Bob

Blair, Tony

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Boyes, Roland

Cohen, Harry

Bradley, Keith

Coleman, Donald

326

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Marek, Dr John

Corbyn, Jeremy

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Cousins, Jim

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Crowther, Stan

Martlew, Eric

Cryer, Bob

Maxton, John

Cummings, John

Meacher, Michael

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Meale, Alan

Darling, Alistair

Michael, Alun

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

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

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Dixon, Don

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Dobson, Frank

Morgan, Rhodri

Doran, Frank

Morley, Elliott

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Eadie, Alexander

Mullin, Chris

Eastham, Ken

Murphy, Paul

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Nellist, Dave

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

O'Brien, William

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Fatchett, Derek

Parry, Robert

Flynn, Paul

Patchett, Terry

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Pendry, Tom

Foster, Derek

Pike, Peter L.

Foulkes, George

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Fyfe, Maria

Prescott, John

Galloway, George

Primarolo, Dawn

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Radice, Giles

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Redmond, Martin

Golding, Mrs Llin

Reid, Dr John

Gould, Bryan

Richardson, Jo

Graham, Thomas

Robertson, George

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Robinson, Geoffrey

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Rogers, Allan

Grocott, Bruce

Rooker, Jeff

Hardy, Peter

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Harman, Ms Harriet

Rowlands, Ted

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Ruddock, Joan

Haynes, Frank

Salmond, Alex

Heffer, Eric S.

Sheerman, Barry

Hinchliffe, David

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Home Robertson, John

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Skinner, Dennis

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Hoyle, Doug

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

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

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

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Snape, Peter

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Spearing, Nigel

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Stott, Roger

Illsley, Eric

Strang, Gavin

Ingram, Adam

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Turner, Dennis

Lamond, James

Walley, Joan

Leighton, Ron

Wareing, Robert N.

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Lewis, Terry

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Litherland, Robert

Wigley, Dafydd

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Loyden, Eddie

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

McAllion, John

Winnick, David

McAvoy, Thomas

Wise, Mrs Audrey

McFall, John

Young, David (Bolton SE)

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

McKelvey, William

Tellers for the Noes:

McLeish, Henry

Mr. Tony Banks and

McNamara, Kevin

Mr. Max Madden.

McWilliam, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Opposition Day
[11th Allotted Day]
Opposition Day

  Seamen's Dispute
  3.58 pm
  Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move,
  That this House, noting that the National Union of Seamen is willing to accept binding arbitration and has agreed, subject to safety and reasonable crewing conditions, to accept the P & O proposals if phased over three years, well before the Channel Tunnel becomes operational in 1993, and taking account of the risk to safety for passengers as well as for seafarers from P & O proposals to cut crewing levels by 20 per cent., recruit untrained crews and introduce a fourteen hour shift day, calls upon the Government to use its influence to bring P & O to the negotiating table and to accept binding arbitration to obtain a settlement which will allow all seafarers affected by this dispute to return to work with justice, and to set up an independent inquiry into the impact of the Channel Tunnel on safety standards and the economics of ferry traffic.
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Meacher: The Opposition have called for this debate—and I must state at the outset that we regret that the Government have not seen fit to hold this very important debate in their own time—because we believe that the dispute, which is now in its 14th week, can be resolved only by both sides getting back round the negotiating table. We believe that the maximum parliamentary and public pressure must now be exerted to bring that about.
  The origins of the dispute date back to last year when P and O advised the National Union of Seamen that there was a need for rationalisation in Dover to help ferries compete with the Channel tunnel. The NUS accepted that from the start, and it still does. It made that acceptance clear at the meeting in Dover last October between the union's port committee and the P and O chairman, Sir Jeffrey Sterling.
  At that meeting, undertakings were given that any rationalisation programme would be phased in over five years to coincide with the scheduled opening of the Channel tunnel in 1993. Only six weeks later, on 4 December, P and O demanded that £6 million and not a penny less should be slashed immediately from the annual wage bill of £35 million. That is a huge cut of 17 per cent.
  The P and O proposals involved 400 redundancies plus a package of pay cuts, longer shifts and more days worked. On 2 February crews from all 11 ships of P and O European Ferries held secret ballots on the proposals and decided overwhelmingly that immediate application was not acceptable for safety and other reasons. P and O announced that the changes would be implemented on 4 March and the strike began.
  The central point is that, although the proposals are oppressive—and the subsequent option B offered by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service and the P and O red book are essentially variants on the same theme—the NUS has been and is now prepared to implement the proposals so long as they are phased in over a reasonable period to take account of safety factors.
  328
  At ACAS in March, the NUS said that it would agree to savings of £2 million a year for the next three years giving P and O all that it asked for and the changes could then be introduced steadily and safely. In fact, the NUS has gone even further. It has repeatedly made clear that it is willing to accept binding arbitration and it has been asking for that for 13 weeks. P and O has refused arbitration, rejected ACAS and vetoed negotiations which it broke off after Easter.
  P and O has stated its reasons for that stance in its statement which I believe has been circulated to all hon. Members. I want to examine that case. First, P and O states:
  "P and O European Ferries Dover makes a totally inadequate return on capital—less than 10 per cent.—and investment in new ships or even major refurbishment is impossible."
  That seems to be a rather surprising statement when P and O reported to its shareholders that last year was a bumper year during which its profits nearly doubled to a record £275 million of which no less than £41 million came from passenger ships and ferries. It was such a good year that Sir Jeffrey Sterling felt justified in paying himself an extra £635 a week from that record profit level.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: No. I want to make some progress and get into the case. I will give way later.
  If that record figure of profit is not too bad, next year looks even more promising. City stockbrokers Phillips and Drew expect P and O profits to rise next year to £350 million, including £60 million from passenger ships and ferries. That is a 50 per cent. increase in profits in that area. That is hardly the picture of a company with its back to the wall fighting for commercial survival.
  P and O also claims in its statement:
  "The business faces many future challenges not least of which are the probable loss of duty free sales and the introduction of VAT on passenger tickets, fuel and shipstores in 1992 and the opening of the Channel Tunnel in 1993."
  Even if duty-free sales were abolished in 1992 through the implementation of the Single European Act, such a proposal could be vetoed by just one member state.
  The EEC Commissioner, Mr. Stanley Clinton Davis, has said that there is little prospect of duty-free sales being abolished. Even if they were abolished, P and O's competitors, Sealink, Sally Line, the short-haul airlines, the hovercraft services and even EuroTunnel, would all be equally affected. There would be no relative loss to P and O. The same argument applies to VAT on tickets, fuel and ships' stores. There is no evidence that that will be introduced. There is clearly no reason why P and O must have the proposals introduced immediately.
  P and O also claims in its statement:
  "Shore staff have been reduced and savings made in other shore costs. Parallel savings are required afloat and agreement with the officers has been reached. A similar agreement is necessary with the ratings."
  That might seem to be a surprising requirement when, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, a British able seaman grade 1 is already now cheaper to employ than his French, Belgian, Danish, Norwegian, West German and Dutch counterparts. Only Greek, Spanish and Portugese seafarers earn less. P and O also claims that wages have risen by 24 per cent. over the past five years, as if that were too large a rise.

  329
  The NUS members have received an average annual increase of only 4·5 per cent. a year, which is less than the rate of inflation. Nevertheless, P and O now states that it wants the same agreement with ratings that it has already reached with the officers. I imagine that that may not be too difficult to achieve since NUS ratings must work 24 hour shifts, but officers are required to work only 12 hour shifts.
  Mr. Keith Mans: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that seamen from other EEC countries work longer hours and that is why they are paid more?
  Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I will spell out the hours worked in detail in a moment. British seafarers are paid less for working longer hours.
  P and O also claims in its statement:
  "The union has consistently failed to enter into any commitment to change outdated work practices."
  Like the statement made by the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) a moment ago, the P and O statement is simply untrue. The union has given a commitment to change working practices. P and O has sought to give the impression that there will be a bonanza for seamen. P and O's full page newspaper advertisement, which I am sure that many hon. Members will have seen, refers to
  "our offer of between £11,000 and £17,000 per year with up to 243 days off."
  That sounds pretty enticing. However, P and O neglects to say that only a tiny number of senior ratings and skilled craftsmen will earn anything like the top figure. P and O also somehow omits to point out what I should have thought was a very relevant point—that the salaries are for a working week of 72 hours.
  The 243 days off also sounds very attractive, but is also equally misleading. A seafarer's working shift is twice as long as that of an industrial worker on shore. We must also consider the rest time. Even the allotted six hours of rest may be broken up into two or three different two or three-hour periods and they are punctuated by engine vibration, Tannoy announcements and by any emergency such as safety drills or sickness cover for which the seafarers remain on call.
  Contrary to the impression given by P and O, a seaman is already at a considerable disadvantage compared with the average industrial worker in terms of working hours. The ordinary worker ashore spends an average of 42 hours a week at work and enjoys five weeks' annual holiday with weekends and bank holidays off. That is about 2,000 hours at work each year. Before the strike, the P and O ferry worker was working 93 24-hour shifts a year, which is over 2,200 hours a year. P and O is now proposing 122 24-hour shifts a year. That will be over 2,900 working hours a year, nearly 50 per cent. more time spent at work each year than the average industrial worker.
  Another consequence of the proposed work system is that P and O seamen will be denied even two weeks' holiday with their families. The maximum period that could be spent ashore under the P and O proposals would be one week. The P and O offer—the company likes to call it an offer—far from being generous, is extremely harsh.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: The hon. Gentleman claims that seamen are being asked to work a large number of hours. What proportion of the 24-hour shifts are they asleep?
  Mr. Meacher: The maximum time that is possible for sleep is about five and a half hours. That is the maximum
  330
  from the time that the seamen heaves a shift until the time that he rises and prepares for the next shift. Anyone who has tried to sleep on board ship with clanking chains, Tannoy announcements and emergencies such as drunks on deck who have to be dealt with will know that it is possible to get only a very small amount of sleep. The hon. Gentleman is making my point He is emphasising that the proposals are extremely dangerous because of the fatigue that they will generate.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will my hon. Friend. hear in mind that, when the Government inspectors were sent on 10 May to the Pride of Bruges to check it for safety, they found that there were six seamen short with the necessary marine evacuation escape system certificates. Such is the nature of the reduction in crew members. As a result, it was necessary to bring in six members of the catering staff so that the company could get away with it. The funds of the National Union of Seamen have been sequestrated in the face of that sort of action. It is people like Sterling who should be in court and sequestrated, not the NUS.
  Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to make such a statement in this debate without declaring that he has an interest? The hon. Gentleman had a cut-price, grace-and-favour flat from the National Union of Seamen without even declaring it in the Register of Members' Interests. The hon. Gentleman makes himself out to be a seagreen incorruptible and yet he has not even bothered to declare that fact.
  Mr. Meacher: What the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) has just said is untrue. If he believes that it is true, I suggest that he says it outside. On the other hand, what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has said is exactly true. There are appalling consequences for safety to which I shall be referring. My hon. Friend referred to sequestration, and it is true that the NUS's assets have been removed from the union's control. If there were any justice in Thatcherite Britain, the assets of P and O would have been taken away to pay full compensation to the victims of the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster.
  One other matter is referred to in the P and O statement with which I must deal. The passage reads:
  "The Red Book is a revised and improved offer of the terms and conditions of employment of the ACAS proposal, incorporating certain changes requested by the union arid offering an additional £400 per year per man on the Zeebrugge and Boulogne services."
  "Offer" is certainly a curious word to use to describe a pay cut for some of up to £25 a week, with 28 days more to be worked each year for no extra money, no guarantee of proper rest periods at sea, no payment for excess hours and 459 redundancies.
  It is claimed that there will be an extra payment of £400 a year on the Boulogne and Zeebrugge services. It is curious that P and O neglects to point out that seamen will have to work an extra 700 hours a year to earn that sum at precisely 57p an hour. I wonder how many Conservative Members would accept such an offer.
  Both P and O and the Minister have made much of the claim that 60 per cent. of NUS members have accepted the new terms. If that is true, why is it that only two of P and O's 11-ship Channel fleet are now sailing?
  Mr. David Shaw: Intimidation.
  Mr. Meacher: I know that the hon. Gentleman is obsessed with intimidation. The tactics of P and O, which are, "You either accept the red book terms or you are sacked", is a form of intimidation in most people's eyes.
  To date, less than 12 per cent. of the NUS members are willing to work. Of those who returned the signed red book agreement, the majority wish now to claim redundancy money or had no intention of crossing a picket line. The NUS has sworn statements from no fewer than 260 members who have now retracted their earlier decision to return to work. Several of the original strike breakers have now rejoined the strike. There is no drift back to work. Instead there is a drift back to strike.
  The NUS will not and cannot accept immediate implementation of the P and O red book because there are real safety risks involved in the proposals. P and O's recruitment of untrained staff, the reduction of crewing levels by 20 per cent. and the introduction of an 18-hour shift all put at risk passenger safety only 14 months after the Herald of Free Enterprise went down last year.
  Under the P and O proposals, if the Herald of Free Enterprise were to sail tonight from Zeebrugge to return to Dover, it would have a crew of only 65 officers and ratings. That would be 15 fewer than on that fateful night last year. Each of the fewer crew members would be required to work substantially longer and more tiring shifts.
  It is not only the NUS and the Labour party that are deeply concerned about safety aspects. At the annual P and O shareholders' meeting last week, a shareholder commented on the Herald of Free Enterprise tragedy being dismissed in one or two lines in the annual report. He said:
  "I hang my head in shame as a shareholder."
  Shareholders should be even more ashamed by the revelation of a Kent constabulary report that during the aftermath of the Zeebrugge tragedy Mr. Peter Ford, the P and O European Ferries chairman, tried to persuade the police to use company figures that showed a higher number of survivors.
  Nor is the Secretary of State blameless. Last week he said:
  "There have been general inspections of ships and their equipment, carried out in Rotterdam by Department of Transport surveyors. Emergency procedure drills were conducted before the ships left Rotterdam".—[Official Report, 5 May 1988; Vol. 132, c. 1016.]
  The Secretary of State did not say that those inspections were concerned only with the structural seaworthiness of the ferries and with whether officers and crews possessed the requisite qualifications. The hours which crews are required to work are a fundamental determinant of maritime safety, but they are not regulated by the Department of Trade.
  I go further. The Government's amendment to our motion states, among other things, that:
  "stringent safety inspections have been carried out by Department of Transport surveyors on the P & O ferries 'Pride of Bruges' and 'Pride of Kent', covering not only the vessels themselves and their equipment, but also the manning arrangements and the training of the crew."
  I shall put that statement to the test. Today, I have been given by officers and able seamen a number of examples that I shall pass on to the House. The Department of Transport inspector passed the Pride of Bruges as being fit to sail at the end of last month, even though the forward draught marks were not visible. Those marks are a key
  332
  safety standard and are vital in checking a ship's stability and its angle in the water. In their absence, stability is checked, I understand, by shoving a stick down the side of the ship.
  Only a few weeks after the Pride of Bruges was inspected, a motor-driven lifeboat was launched to give the new crew some experience of lifeboat procedure. It broke down. The lifeboat crew radioed the ship and the other motor-driven lifeboat—and there was only one other—was sent to rescue them. That, too, broke down.
  The Government have made specific reference to manning. I ask the Secretary of State to comment on this matter. Although all crew members have a vital life-saving role to play in the event of an emergency, I am informed that on 24 January the P and O vessel the Pride of Dover sailed from Calais to Dover 15 per cent. down on its basic catering staff manning levels despite an almost full capacity passenger load.
  I am advised also, as one of the many other examples which have reached my office in the past few days, that bosun Frank Franklin signed off sick from the Pride of Free Enterprise—[Interruption.] I suggest that hon. Members listen to these important details. Bosun Frank Franklin signed off sick on 4 March 1987 and he was not replaced. He left the company officially and permanently on 20 may 1987 and was not replaced. On 17 June last year, the muster sheets still listed Frank Franklin as a crew member. That is one of many examples.
  Anyone who examines the muster sheets will see that they regularly record people who have been off sick for six or eight months registered as crew members. Indeed, when the NUS met P and O's accountant and managing director at the end of February to examine the fleet's wage bill, it was found that one person who was on long-term secondment and another who was dead were both listed as crew members.
  My final examples concern health and safety, for which the Secretary of State has specific responsibility. I know of a case of the deck crew responsible for chaining down the wagons on the car decks complaining last year about exhaust fumes. As nothing was done, they started to wear breathing masks to protect themselves. They were told by P and O to stop wearing the masks because it would alarm the passengers. I am advised also that one reason why crews are sometimes a little slow in closing bow doors—the significance of which will not be lost on anyone—is so that they may enjoy a little more fresh air, and yet the company has still not accepted an NUS request for air conditioning.
  Last year, on the Pride of Free Enterprise—which has been renamed the Pride of Bruges—the hydraulic system for closing the inner doors broke down. It was not fixed for two months, until the ship went for a refit. In the meantime, the only way of closing the bow doors was to use block and tackle. Those examples completely belie the complacent and self-satisfied statements to be found in the Government's amendment.
  If all the necessary safety inspections had been carried out, how is it that the "Brass Tacks" television programme broadcast a week ago found that the Pride of Bruges—a sister ship of the Herald of Free Enterprise—frequently broke safety rules? Why did it operate last August bank holiday between Dover and Calais with insufficient seamen to man the back-up fire-fighting team? What would have happened if a fire had broken out in those circumstances? Why do ships still sail when indicator lights on the bridge designed to inform officers when the bow and stern doors

  333
  are closed frequently malfunction? Why do officers continue to finish shifts over-fatigued, and why were some officers on that television programme frightened to reveal their identities before the camera when discussing the company's safety record?
  I come to my first example. If the Secretary of State is so satisfied with his safety inspections, why is it that, according to information I have been given today, which I shall pass on to him, the P and O vessel Viking Venturer sailed from Falmouth to Portsmouth last Sunday night with seven blackleg, unregistered crew who had been recruited via a travel agent in Falmouth which is not licensed to supply labour—breaking all the ship safety rules? It was a shareholder who at the P and O meeting quoted a sentence from the report of Mr. Justice Sheen's inquiry following the Zeebrugge disaster which I shall repeat:
  "From top to bottom the body corporate"
  —he was referring to P and O European Ferries—
  "was infected with the disease of sloppiness."
  Even that sloppy Townsend Thoresen management, as it then was, rejected as being unsafe working conditions similar to those which P and O is now trying to enforce. In Townsend Thoresen's submissions to ACAS in January 1986, during a previous dispute with the NUS, it stated:
  "Extended hours of work of this magnitude without rest would compromise the safety of the ship and its passengers and crew."
  Those were the words of Townsend Thoresen's management two years ago. If that was true two years ago, why is it not true today?
  As to the crucial issue of safety, there are two central questions which the Government have always ducked but which the Secretary of State must answer this afternoon. First, why is it that, after the wholesale indictment of the Sheen inquiry on ship safety, P and O has never been prosecuted over its responsibility for the Zeebrugge disaster? It has not even been required to undertake a fundamental redesign of its unsafe, pre-1980 ferries. Secondly, why is it also, if market forces are pushing the ferry companies into choosing between secure business and passenger safety, that the Government will not set up a full inquiry into the economic impact of the Channel tunnel on ferry safety standards? I hope that the Minister will be able to erase suspicion that the Government's reluctance to act on both counts might just have something to do with P and O's contribution of £100,000 last year to Tory party funds.
  The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House who is the treasurer of the Labour party?
  Mr. Meacher: The treasurer of the Labour party, as the Secretary of State knows very well, is the general secretary of the NUS, Mr. Sam McCluskie. The difference between the relationship of Sam McCluskie with the Labour party and that of Sir Jeffrey Sterling with the Conservative party is that Sir Jeffrey has had a huge pay-off in lack of prosecutions and lack of any investigation into the safety of his ships.
  Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman has just made a serious allegation. Is he prepared to repeat it outside the House?
  Mr. Meacher: The Secretary of State—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] The Secretary of State made an
  334
  ugly innuendo about Mr. Sam McCluskie. I made a statement about what, to the great majority of impartial observers, would appear to be the relationship between Sir Jeffrey Sterling and the Conservative party. If I am wrong about that relationship and about the fact that there has been no prosecution of P and O for Zeebrugge and no investigation into the safety of P and O ships, and about all the evidence that has been produced today, and if the Secretary of State can give me a convincing and unequivocal statement to that effect, I shall gladly withdraw.
  There can be no more classic illustration than this strike of the irrelevance of the Government's anti-union legislation and the damage it has done in preventing the resolution of disputes. The sacking of 2,000 seamen at Dover in the course of an industrial dispute, using a power given to employers nowhere in western Europe apart from in Thatcherite Britain, has not solved the dispute; it has aggravated it. The secondary action law, based on the sham that the issue with P and O is entirely unrelated to the issue with Sealink, when Sealink had made it clear that it would implement the same proposals as P and O, has not solved and cannot solve the dispute; it has aggravated it. Sequestration has not solved and will not resolve the dispute. It has merely opened the way to an uncontrollable rash of unofficial disputes, and it has also aggravated the original underlying issues of the dispute.
  If ever there was a need for a Government committed to negotiation rather than confrontation it is now. The sole responsibility for this continuing dispute lies with the intransigence and unreasonableness of P and O. If the Government now wash their hands, Pontius Pilate-like, of their links with P and O and of their responsibilities for safety, they will have shown beyond all doubt that they are much more concerned with union breaking than with the industrial welfare of this country.
  Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will have heard the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) several minutes ago refer to the fact—I see he has snuck out of the Chamber—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman waited until he had gone out.
  Mr. Skinner: The hon. Member for Amber Valley said that I was speaking on behalf of the seamen because I had been living at a flat owned by that union. He said that it was possibly a subsidised or grace-and-favour flat.
  I want to place on record the fact that at no time while I was living at that abode was the flat anything other than regulated by the laws of the land—by the rent officer in the appropriate district. Never at any time was the flat subsidised by the NUS. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to do now what you would do if such a remark happened to have been made by an Opposition Member, and I ask you to demand that the remarks be withdrawn the moment the hon. Gentleman reappears in the Chamber.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The hon. Gentleman has made his point. We must now get on with the debate.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have dealt with the point of order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that this is a very short debate and many hon. Members wish to speak.
  Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a short and important debate, but the aspersions cast on my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) must be dealt with. It is up to you to protect the integrity of the House and to demand that the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) withdraw his allegations.
  4.37 pm
  The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): I beg to move to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'noting that Government policies have established a sound and stable legal framework for the conduct of industrial relations which has significantly reduced the incidence and impact of diputes; that the National Union of Seamen has rejected various proposals for resolving this dispute; that stringent safety inspections have been carried out by Department of Transport surveyors on the P & O ferries 'Pride of Bruges' and 'Pride of Kent', covering not only the vessels themselves and their equipment, but also the manning arrangements and the training of the crew; believes that the resolution of industrial disputes must be a matter for the parties concerned operating within the law and within their economic circumstances; and condemns acts of intimidation and unlawful secondary action designed to resolve industrial disputes by means outside the law.'.
  We have just heard a large number of charges and allegations about safety from the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). He made a nasty little speech, adding unsubstantiated allegation to unsubstantiated allegation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will deal in detail with points that the hon. Gentleman made about the Department of Transport and together we shall try to show that the allegations are simply untrue. We shall also investigate the new allegations made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West, and make public our findings on them.
  The hon. Gentleman's first allegation was that Government surveyors found that the crew were short of six certificated persons to operate the marine escape system. I am told that that is untrue and that the surveyor found that there were more than enough certificated persons on board both ships.
  We have also heard the charge that the Government's policy is unduly influenced by the interests of P and O. We shall take what the hon. Gentleman said later in his speech as a complete withdrawal of the nasty allegation he made at one stage. The general allegation is also untrue. I found it extraordinary that he should accuse anyone of partiality given that he has shown his own independence by appearing on the picket line of the NUS. We know exactly where his orders come from. In this dispute he is acting as a spokesman of the NUS.
  Most significantly, we have heard almost nothing about the unlawful secondary action of the NUS, which has been the root cause of much of the trouble. We have heard little or nothing about its effect on companies such as Sealink and on the free movement of passengers and freight. We have heard little or nothing about the two days of talks at the TUC, in which the NUS shop stewards once again refused to call off their secondary action. We have heard nothing about the Labour party's position on the NUS refusal to observe the law of the land.
  336
  The reason why the Government introduced legislation on secondary action was to prevent industrial action from being used as a weapon against those who are not directly involved with the company in dispute. The Government's action has been confirmed by two general elections. In any test of public opinion there is no doubt that the measures that we have taken are supported by the vast majority of the British public. The Labour party promises to scrap that law. That is only one more reason why it will remain firmly anchored to the Opposition Benches.
  Mr. Graham Allen: I am sure that the House is grateful for the history lesson, but the House, the public and the seamen want to know whether the Government are prepared to intervene to try to bring the dispute to an end.
  Mr. Fowler: I am covering that precise point.
  We want to know from the Opposition their position on secondary action which is now causing vast difficulty throughout the country.
  Mr. Allen: What are the Government going to do about it?
  Mr. Fowler: What is beyond doubt is that measures on secondary action—
  Mr. Allen: What are the Government going to do about it?
  Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman must stop being so pompous. He cannot duck his responsibilities, or those of the Labour party, by such mindless chanting.
  The NUS has the right to seek to change the law. There is no question about that. The hon. Member for Oldham, West has the right to promise to change the law. But it must be recognised that no one has the right to refuse to observe the law as it stands. I hope that the hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce rose—
  Mr. Allan Rogers rose—
  Mr. Fowler: No, I shall not give way for the moment.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Oldham, West will now make it clear that he accepts the law and that he will advise the NUS to lift its unlawful secondary action. I challenge the hon. Gentleman to make the Labour party's position clear.
  Mr. Bob Cryer rose—
  Mr. Rogers rose—
  Mr. Fowler: I shall not give way.
  I challenge the hon. Member for Oldham, West to condemn secondary action in Britain.
  Mr. Cryer rose—
  Mr. Fowler: The House and the country will draw their own conclusion.
  Mr. Donald Coleman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that it does this House no good to have more than one hon. Member standing in his place during the debate?
  Mr. Fowler: The hon. Member for Oldham, West—
  Mr. Rogers rose—
  Mr. Fowler: No, I shall not give way.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West shows a cringing indifference to the welfare of the British public. The fact is this. Nothing obliged Mr. McCluskie to lead his union into conflict with the law. What has brought the NUS to its present crisis is an obstinate determination to seize, by unlawful means if necessary, what it failed to obtain at the negotiating table.
  The law on secondary action is there to protect those who are not involved in a dispute, including companies, from having gratuitous loss or damage inflicted upon them. I must repeat that it is entirely right that such companies should be protected against the reckless and indiscriminate action of a frustrated union.
  Mr. Rogers rose—
  Mr. Fowler: No, I shall not give way.
  Nor can it be argued that the NUS has in any sense been caught unawares. The basic injunction banning unlawful secondary action was granted on 1 February, and sequestration was first applied for on 11 February. The union has known for three months precisely what legal risks it was running, and the instructions given to its bank to move its funds showed that it understood the implications of the sequestration imposed on other unions in the past. It has deliberately chosen to disobey the law and it is suffering the penalties which the law provides. It is impossible not to share the views of the judge in the case who said:
  "The National Union of Seamen has been flagrantly, repeatedly and gravely in breach of the injunction granted by this court … Members and their leaders have only themselves to blame. This is the clearest possible case of deliberate, attempted suicide."
  Mr. Rogers: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fowler: No, I shall not give way.
  The Opposition's motion advances a number of bogus—
  Mr. Rogers rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not persist. The Secretary of State has made it clear that he is not giving way.
  Mr. Fowler: The Opposition's motion advances a number of bogus arguments, and none is more bogus than the allegations on safety. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will deal at greater length with those matters later, but certain fundamental points have to be made at the outset.
  First, safety is an absolute statutory duty. It is an offence to sail boats which are unsafe through undermanning. Moreover, watch-keeping arrangements must be adequate to avoid fatigue. All allegations are investigated and, I repeat, any new allegations will be investigated and offenders will be liable to prosecution.
  Secondly, the two ferries plying between Dover and Zeebrugge, the Pride of Kent and the Pride of Bruges, have been exhaustively inspected—not only the vessels themselves and their equipment, but the manning and training of the crew. They must be the most inspected ferries ever to operate from British ports.
  Thirdly, it is wholly false to say that P and O operates or proposes to operate with untrained crews. All crews,
  338
  whatever their tasks, are given training both ashore and on board about their duties in ensuring the safety of passengers in all circumstances.
  Fourthly, the suggestion that the P and O proposals involve undermanning which endangers passenger safety is also false. Crew members may be reduced, but essential safety duties governed by Department of Transport standards are covered.
  I repeat for the third time that all allegations, including those made months after the event—some of the allegations of the hon. Member for Oldham, West go back to last year—are being and will be investigated. But we all know that safety is not at the heart of this dispute. It is a smokescreen. Indeed, Mr. McCluskie has said time and again that the dispute is not about the substance of the P and O proposals but about their phasing in. He accepts the new arrangements, but questions their timing. That surely gives the lie to the whole safety argument mounted by the Opposition.
  The Opposition ask the Government to use their influence to bring P and O to the negotiating table. should remind the House that P and O was at the negotiating table for several months; that it made significant relaxations to its original proposals; that it lifted deadlines on two or three occasions to allow further time for negotiations; that it participated fully in ACAS conciliation activities from mid-March, and that since the beginning of February those negotiations were conducted under the duress of a strike at Dover.
  It was not until all those processes had been exhausted and three months of strike endured that P and O put its final—again improved—offer direct to its employees at Dover. The NUS did not put that offer to the membership—there was no secret ballot on that—but sought further concessions. However, more than 1,000 P and O staff accepted the terms and the company was able to restart ferry operations from Dover.
  Mr. Stanley Orme: Why does not the Secretary of State recommend that P and O goes to arbitration? As the NUS has accepted, the dispute has gone through a category of developments and we now want that final development; we want the dispute to go to arbitration. Why does not the Secretary of State recommend that?
  Mr. Fowler: If the right hon. Gentleman will wait a few minutes, I shall come to precisely that point.
  The Government's view—it is one to which the Labour party usually subscribes when in government—is that disputes should be settled by the parties within the law. Even if that were not the position, there is no case whatever, against the background that I have set out, for the Government seeking to intervene as the Opposition suggest.
  The Opposition's motion moves from a reference to the negotiating table to binding arbitration, to which the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) referred. There is an important difference between negotiation and arbitration. In negotiation both parties are able to protect what they consider to be their fundamental interests. No doubt the NUS and P and O did that throughout the prolonged negotiations leading up to the company's letter to its employees on 14 April.
  Arbitration takes away that protection and hands over judgment on vital commercial matters to outsiders with no

  339
  stake whatever in the success or failure of the company. [Interruption.] If they want to go to ACAS, there is no problem. Sometimes people are prepared to hand that judgment over, either on an ad hoc basis or as the final stage of an agreed procedure. But the decision whether to do so must remain a matter for the parties, in the light of their own circumstances. It is not a matter for the Government.
  Mr. John Prescott: The Secretary of State knows that I was party to some of the discussions, at the invitation of the union and Sir Jeffrey. The dispute was about how the £6 million was made up and how much could be saved. There is a genuine dispute between the NUS and P and O about how the figures were arrived at, although I shall not go into the details now. The NUS said, "Let us go to independent arbitration on the question of the figures. If your figures are right, we shall accept them, but if our interpretation is right, we will not." We are talking not about all the commercial details but about how the figure of £6 million is arrived at. That is the simple issue, but Sir Jeffrey does not want anybody going over any of his figures or subjecting them to discussion.
  Mr. Fowler: I know of the hon. Gentleman's interest in and knowledge of this subject. If people are prepared to go to arbitration at some stage, that is a matter for them; it is a decision for the parties concerned. [Interruption.] It must be. There is nothing new in what I am saying. That principle was applied by Labour Ministers, too.
  The motion also calls for an independent inquiry into the impact of the Channel tunnel on the economics of ferry traffic. There cannot be many people who want yet another inquiry into the Channel tunnel. The history of the Channel tunnel is a history of inquiries. Labour Members are trying to go back to another age in industrial relations. They must recognise that the tunnel is now being built; the decision has been made. It is up to everyone concerned to make decisions accordingly.
  One aspect of the dispute that has received too little attention is the fact that it is handing business on a plate to foreign-manned vessels. Surely we all want an effective and competitive British ferry industry. That is not being achieved by the actions in the dispute, which has caused disruption at the ports, now added to by the actions of the lorry drivers. It has caused hardship and inconvenience to the travelling public and financial loss to companies and members of the NUS. Regrettably and indefensibly, it has also given rise to examples of intimidation and arrest. To date, there have been some 103 reported cases of intimidation, threatening phone calls and daubing of houses and about 17 arrests. That should be condemned by both sides of the House.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what he intends to do about the lorry blockade—not by union members but by individuals? What laws apply to those individuals and how does he propose to deal with that situation?
  Mr. Fowler: As the hon. Gentleman knows, talks are going on at the moment between Sealink and the harbour board and the lorry drivers affected. If we have further news, we shall convey it to the House as soon as we can.
  340
  The Government's role is threefold. First, we must ensure the safety of vessels. I entirely accept that, as does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. Secondly, we must ensure that public order is maintained. Thirdly, we must provide a framework of law in which disputes can be resolved.
  We should also be clear where the rights of the public lie in cases such as this. First, there is a right to work without being harassed, intimidated, assaulted or threatened. Secondly, people have a right to make up their own minds whether to strike or cross a picket line. Thirdly, workers have a right to decide whether to sign a contract. Fourthly, everyone has a right to unimpeded access to the ports. There is no right to spread a strike to companies unconnected with the central dispute. There is no right to stop fellow workers going to work or to use force where persuasion has failed. Finally, there is no right to pick and choose which laws to obey. That is why I ask the House to reject the motion.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It will be evident to the House that a very large number of hon. Members on both sides wish to speak in this short debate, so I appeal for short contributions.
  4.57 pm
  Mr. Frank Doran: I am a new Member of the House, and a major cause of frustration is that in my short time here I have repeatedly seen the Government duck their responsibilities. I thought that we had sunk as low as we could yesterday when the Prime Minister attempted to foist responsibility for the housing benefit cuts on to local authorities, but what we have just heard from the Secretary of State for Employment boggles the mind. He is attempting to deny responsibility—the responsibility of this Government and his predecessors—for changes in industrial relations law which have meant that an industrial dispute no longer starts with negotiation and with the parties round the table. The Government have removed any encouragement to adopt that course. Instead, we have immediate recourse to the courts and to dismissal notices. It is no wonder that the strike has spread across the country.
  Regardless of the laws that the Secretary of State attempted to state, in the full knowledge that the Secretary of State for Transport is blind to the safety laws that the country demands, there must come a time—
  Mr. Rogers: Selective recognition of the law.
  Mr. Doran: It is selective recognition, as my hon. Friend says.
  I am worried about the effects that the dispute is having on my constituency. I represent part of the city of Aberdeen, which has a substantial seafaring community. In my constituency there are more than 4,000 registered members of the National Union of Seamen. As far as I am aware, they are all involved in the dispute. There are also a large number of interests that are quite separate from the dispute. The dispute, which started in Dover and which seems to be about the balance sheet of P and O rather than about anything else, is having an effect on the ferry service to the northern islands and has disrupted supplies to the North sea oil industry.

  341
  On Monday I travelled to London to come to the House on the same train as a full-time officer of the National Union of Seamen, Mr. Harry Bygate, who is based in Aberdeen. We spent most of the journey looking through the various writs that had been served upon him. He has now received 18 writs from 18 separate supply companies based in Aberdeen and in other parts of the country. Every one of those writs tells its own story. Every one of those writs means that industrial relations in those companies have been disrupted.
  I make no apologies for repeating that P and O, Sealink and every other employer now feels that there is no option but to bring the courts into the dispute at the earliest possible stage, as that provides a major strategic advantage. Negotiation has gone out of the window. There is no incentive for an employer to negotiate, whether that employer is at the heart of the dispute, as P and O is, or whether it is a simple, one-man operation attempting to send vital supplies to the North sea industry. Employers now go to the courts.
  The Government, by avoiding their responsibility to the wider interests of this country, are ignoring the serious implications for the future. I must express my disappointment that the Secretary of State simply thumped the table, referred to the various statutes for which the Government have been responsible, and ignored the effect of that law on the wider community. The Government make apologies for their own supporters, the chairman and the board of P and O, but ignore the rest of the country. That raises very serious questions.
  I shall give the House one example of the way in which P and O has conducted the dispute. The ferry link from Aberdeen to Shetland is vital, as it carries essential goods and provisions to the islands. The National Union of Seamen is very conscious of the effect that any industrial dispute would have on the service to the islands. Last year it negotiated with the Shetland Islands council an agreement to ensure that essential supplies to the island would be maintained. One ferry per week would be allowed to leave from Aberdeen carrying essential supplies.
  As soon as the dispute began, the Shetland Islands council was contacted. The NUS agreed that it would allow that one ferry to go and that the wages of the staff would be paid direct to charity. None of the NUS members would receive any payment. They would work voluntarily to ensure that that vital link to the islands was preserved.
  P and O was contacted and asked whether it would allow the profits for that trip to be paid to the nominated charity or to a charity of its choice. The NUS was prepared to leave the choice of charity to the Shetland Islands council. The response from P and O was, "No. We want our profits." The whole dispute is about profit. Nothing from P and O, and nothing from the Government, has suggested anything else.
  Mr. James Wallace: The hon. Gentleman has illustrated the position clearly. Undoubtedly, the shipments to Shetland are very welcome indeed. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in my constituency there is considerable sympathy for NUS members, and considerable scepticism about P and O's case? Will he explain why the case against P and O is jeopardised when secondary action is taken against, for example, the one-man operation in Aberdeen that supplies
  342
  the North sea oil rigs? Does he not think that that muddies the waters and does not allow the focus to be on the real dispute with P and O?
  Mr. Doran: I was coming to that. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to point out that the dispute is with P and O. I am trying to make the point that the dispute has not spread because of secondary action by the NUS, which in my constituency has made its position fairly clear. It stated in court this morning that the action that was taken had nothing to do with the P and O dispute, but occurred because the union's funds were sequestrated. The NUS members have come out because their union has been attacked.
  Clearly, the Minister and P and O do not understand the affection in which the union is held. Recently, I was proud to attend the one hundredth anniversary of the NUS in Aberdeen. It was a very moving occasion, when representatives of the city from all walks of life paid tribute to the work of the union.
  I have no hesitation in saying that the city of Aberdeen supports the dispute. Last week there was a benefit concert. for the NUS which more than 1,300 people attended. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow.. Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) has reminded me that I should point out that the district council election in Aberdeen was held two days after that concert, and the Labour party took back control.
  There is huge support for the National Union of Seamen, and the Government's failure to become involved in the dispute, and the cavalier way in which the Secretary of State dismissed the pressure that the Government could bring to bear on P and O to return to the negotiating table, to allow arbitration and have the claims of both sides independently and objectively tested, show that the Government care nothing for industrial relations. They are concerned for their friends and for profits, and for nothing else. The interests of the British people, the North sea oil industry and industrial relations throughout the merchant shipping industry mean nothing to the Government. They are concerned only with profit and with their friends, and they should be castigated for that.
  5.6 pm
  Sir David Price: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) made a fair point on the extent to which the strike has spread, but he has failed to answer his own question about who is responsible for it.
  Let us be absolutely clear that this is not a general industrial dispute between the ship owners, as represented by the British Shipping Federation, and the National Union of Seamen. Nor is it an industrial dispute involving ferries in general. Those who know the industry reasonably well will recognise that the whole method by which ferries are operated is completely different from the method by which deep sea ships are operated. The way of life for the crews concerned is entirely different.
  There could be a case for saying that, given the challenge of the Channel tunnel, there might be grounds for a general dispute between crew members, the unions involved and the owners. However, that is not the case. It is an absolutely specific dispute between P and O, European Ferries (Dover) Ltd., and the National Union of Seamen. It does not involve the other ferry companies. Indeed, Sealink, the main competitor to P and O Ferries, has made it very clear that there is no dispute between it

  343
  and the NUS. It is worth reminding ourselves that P and O Ferries is no longer a member of the British Shipping Federation. Hence the National Maritime Board is not, and cannot be, involved in the current dispute.
  Therefore, the dispute does not of itself raise the issue of how seamen in general are employed, how the terms of their employment are settled, which trade union should represent them, or, indeed, whether they should be members of a trade union. Nor does it raise the wider issue of what is loosely called the closed shop at sea.
  Mr. Michael J. Martin: Does the hon. Gentleman, with his knowledge of shipping, agree that the fact that the funds have been sequestrated means that the dispute has spread to the deep sea merchant seamen because they will not allow their union to be attacked in that way?
  Sir David Price: The dispute is not about that. I am trying to help the House by attempting to define precisely what the dispute is about.
  It therefore follows that any industrial action taken against other shipping companies than P and O must, by definition, be illegal secondary action and must be condemned. That appears to be the view of the courts and that is what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment confirmed. Consequently I raise the inappropriateness—that is the most modest word that I can use—of the action taken by the National Union of Seamen against Sealink.
  Apart from Sealink not being in dispute with the union, it has offered to take on, perhaps only on a temporary basis, some of the seamen who are redundant because of the action taken by P and O. I can think of no less constructive way of attempting to solve the dispute than the action that the NUS has taken against Sealink. I have no personal interest to declare in Sealink. I am looking at the matter objectively. Are the Opposition really able to support some of the wilder demonstrations involving secondary picketing in a dispute that should be confined to P and O Ferries? On many occasions my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) has referred in the House to incidents that do not help to resolve the dispute.
  Sealink appears to be on a hiding to nothing. So are the poor old lorry drivers. They have every reason to be angry, but they seem to be completely disregarded by all the parties to the dispute. A number of long-distance lorry drivers live in my constituency. Many other hon. Members will share that experience. Lorry drivers are greatly affected by the dispute. They are the victims of a dispute over which they have no control and to which they are not parties. P and O and the National Union of Seamen ought to think carefully about what is happening to lorry drivers.
  Reason and good sense will prevail only when secondary action, with all its consequent overtones, is called off. The dispute is between the National Union of Seamen and P and O. Nobody else is directly involved. My oft-repeated view is that the Floor of the House of Commons is not the right place to attempt to resolve an industrial dispute; nor is it right to attempt to resolve it on television. The speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and the interventions of hon. Members on both sides of the House support my view.
  344
  Where should we look for a resolution of the dispute? There are two classic ways to resolve it—by arbitration or by conciliation. Hon. Members know that they are not the same. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to that distinction and I believe that all hon. Members agreed with him. In theory, both arbitration and conciliation remain available, but both options require the active participation of both parties. To use an old saying,
  "It takes two to tango."
  If one party to the dispute is not prepared to participate, there is little that one can do about it.
  P and O has said that the time has passed for such approaches and that it has made new arrangements with half its work force. Some may say that P and O should be more co-operative, but as half its work force has accepted the so-called red book offer, P and O argues that it does not need to reopen negotiations with the National Union of Seamen. Where necessary, it is recruiting new employees on the basis of the red book offer. In those circumstances, I do not believe that hon. Members have a legal or a moral locus in the dispute other than in the important area of safety, specifically relating to crew manning and crew qualifications. I shall leave it at that until my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport addresses the House.
  Mr. Rogers: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir David Price: No. I want to make only a short speech because many other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.
  I am using this occasion to offer my personal advice to Jeffrey Sterling and Sam McCluskie. When I was a manager in industry, I was very much involved in many areas of industrial relations that were said to be sensitive, but we never lost an hour, let alone a day or a week, of work through an industrial dispute. I understand fairly well the trade union movement. My first boss, a large, 17-stone Glaswegian engineer, said to me once:
  "David, it's often our duty in life to stand on our colleagues' feet, but always resist the temptation to push them down in public."
  5.16 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The speech of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) was certainly more reasoned in tone than that of the earlier contributions. At the risk of losing any friends that I may have in the House, I must say that the Front Bench speeches displayed the unacceptable faces of both the Labour and the Conservative parties. It became a straight shouting match. Both sides were selective over the facts that they chose to use to promote their arguments. It is important that the facts should be considered in the round.
  The hon. Member for Eastleigh referred to secondary picketing. It is not just a legal question. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) has laid himself open to criticism. Sequestration took place because of secondary picketing. I am not sure that in law it is a defence to say that the subsequent extension of secondary picketing was due to sequestration. Leaving aside the law, secondary picketing seems to me to be a very unwise tactic for the NUS to adopt. The dispute is between the NUS and P and O. To target Sealink is extraordinary because Sealink is a potentially useful ally of the union.
  I do not understand why the NUS cannot see that the best way to defeat P and O is for it to have a successful

  345
  competitor that can offer additional services. If it were successful, it would keep P and O ships in port and out of operation. That would provide the NUS with a much better chance of pressing its dispute to a successful conclusion. At the least, it would ensure that conciliation and arbitration were used.
  I should have liked the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) to urge the Dover port committee to listen to the advice of Sam McCluskie. He should have asked for the secondary picketing to be called off and for all attention to be concentrated on the union's dispute with P and O. It is regrettable that the Secretary of State for Employment failed to condemn the intransigence of the P and O management. P and O is clearly intent on becoming a non-union company. It is possibly even paving the way for becoming a non-British company.
  In the last two days Government spokesmen have referred to the right of trade unions in Poland freely to organise and pursue their legitimate ends, but quite different speeches have been made by Ministers in the context of the legitimate actions of unions in this country. The P and O management is exploiting a weak union and the law, and it is doing so in such a way as to raise a number of serious questions.
  There is evidence that at the meeting of P and O shareholders last week the management did not have the support of all its shareholders. Members will have seen the article in The Guardian which said:
  "thc company was accused of intimidating the workforce, being used as the militant wing of the Conservative party and neglecting safety. The chairman, Sir Jeffrey Sterling, was urged to resign unless he went back to the negotiating table and was even accused of doing more moonlighting than some of the employees he had criticised."
  Those criticisms were made by shareholders of the company, but their attempt to raise the issue was ruled out of order. Victor Keegan, the author of The Guardian article, asked the pertinent question; should there not have been a secret ballot of the shareholders to find out whether that view had significant support? The point that I am making is that shareholders in P and O are less than happy about the conduct of its management and its intransigence. That is an interesting and relevant development.
  Even more to the point, the Secretary of State seemed to imply that he did not see a role for arbitration in resolving disputes. He seemed to suggest that that method of resolving disputes should not apply in this case or in future. When there is intransigence and inability to resolve a dispute, conciliation and arbitration are necessary. It would have been a welcome move if the Secretary of State had at least taken the opportunity to encourage the management to take account of that.
  The safety issues that have been raised have been dismissed in a cavalier manner. Representations made to me show that there is real public concern. For the Government to be so offhand when the tragic memory of the Zeebrugge disaster is so fresh in people's minds is alarming. The management of P and O is seeking to ensure that its crews work much longer hours and on a smaller staffing ratio. It has already been made clear that if the new arrangements had been in operation, the Herald of Free Enterprise would have sailed with 15 fewer crew and staff and that they would have been more overworked and more tired than they were at the time of the disaster.
  That suggests that there should be independent regulation of staffing methods rather than that being left to the commercial judgment of a management which has
  346
  already been shown to be severely flawed. In these circumstances, the Government have not given the assurances that would inspire public confidence that they put safety above commercial interest and profit. it seems that they have not learnt the lesson of the Zeebrugge tragedy. The public would have expected the Minister to demonstrate that the Government had done so.
  I support free enterprise enthusiastically, but it should be fair. The crucial difference between the approach of my party and that of the Government is that fairness is not of interest to the Government, either in the operation of the market or in the balance between management and employees in the operation of companies. It is extraordinary that the Government do not believe that they have any locus or responsibility in the matter.
  It would be helpful if the Labour Front Bench would urge the Dover committee to accept the advice of Sam McCluskie to call off secondary picketing and concentrate on the dispute with P and O, and if the Secretary of State for Transport put pressure on the P and O management to recognise that a negotiated settlement is in everyone's interest if British-owned ferries are to have a constructive future in the strategic interest of ensuring that, as an island nation, we have safe, well-operated, efficient and consumer-satisfying ferry services operating across the Channel.
  5.24 pm
  Mr. David Shaw: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me in this important debate which concerns my constituency. As always on matters concerning his constituency, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) is in his place on the Bench beside me. He has followed events closely throughout the dispute. He has been deeply concerned about the intimidation and other threats in his constituency because of the dispute.
  As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the conventions of the House prevent my hon. and learned Friend from taking part in the debate, but both he and I wish to thank first and foremost the police who have had a very difficult task throughout the dispute. I visited the police station in Dover to get a briefing on the position. Many policemen have been involved, not just from Kent but from other counties. They have had to work long hours. When missiles were thrown in one incident which started at 1.30 am, policemen who had gone off duty at 11 pm had to be called back. We should not forget that policewomen are also carrying out police duties on the picket lines, and we must thank them as well.
  I also wish to pay tribute to all those, striking or not, who work in the ferry industry in Dover and Folkestone. Some 6,000 people work directly in the industry and many more are involved indirectly. About two thirds of them are not involved in the dispute and they want to get on with their jobs. Over the last 30 years the ferry industry in Dover and Folkestone has expanded considerably. Sadly, there have been quite a few strikes; 1985 was a bad year when there were five strikes. Consequently, profitability has been low. Figures supplied by the trade union research unit at Ruskin college, Oxford, show that the profits of P and O today are less than they were 10 years ago. These are the trade unions' own figures. I have them here for any hon. Member who wishes to inspect them.

  347
  The changes that will be required in the ferry industry are severe and deep. The Channel tunnel is fundamental to those changes. Also, in 1992 the removal of duty-free goods and Customs barriers will necessitate changes in the ferry industry. Indeed, the trade union research unit report said:
  "There can be little argument concerning the need to rationalise the present ferry operations to compete with the tunnel."
  The dispute is a tragedy for the working people of Dover and for the shopkeepers and the small business men of Dover and Deal. It is also a tragedy for the lorry drivers whose frustration has resulted in their queueing on the M20. It is a tragedy for people all over the country who have been affected by it. My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) has brought to my attention the fact that in her constituency a small transport firm is threatened with being put out of business. Eight families are heavily involved.
  Since the strike began I have had considerable contact with all parties in the dispute, including members of the National Union of Seamen and of the National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers. As well as speaking to union officials and company representatives, I have talked to shopkeepers, freight companies and others affected by the dispute. There is no question but that many trade unionists were sensible and moderate. Early in the dispute many told me that they did not like the original blue book terms issued by the company in December. Some of the officers thought that those terms were difficult for the crews to operate.
  I put those points to P and O which was at ACAS at the time, undergoing the advisory, conciliation and arbitration procedures. ACAS suggested new terms. P and O took on board the points that had been put to me and those put by ACAS. After three months of negotiations and arbitration, the company produced new terms known as the red book. The union then rejected those terms without explaining them to its members.
  Mr. Prescott: The members rejected them.
  Mr. Shaw: The union rejected them. I shall come to that point in a moment.
  The union members raised a number of concerns with me and I am sure that hon. Members will not object if I detain them with some of the detailed points. They wanted to know how long the red book terms would last. I put that point to the company which said that it envisaged that they would last at least two years. That was a reasonable request from reasonable trade unionists who were worried that the terms might be renegotiated in six months.
  The union members wanted to know why the basic pay was below National Maritime Board rates, so I put that point to the company. The company explained to me that the rates of pay were between £11,000 and £17,000, of which many people in this country would be envious. However, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) failed to mention that not only is that basic rate of pay payable, but that there is in addition a cash profit-sharing scheme and a shares profit-sharing scheme.
  When I put those points to the union members, they asked how the profit-sharing scheme worked. They said that they were not aware of a cash profit-sharing scheme. They said that the union officials had not told them about
  348
  that scheme. I therefore asked the company how it worked, as any logical and sensible person would do. The company told me that, in North Sea Ferries, part of P and O, where a successful profit-sharing scheme is in operation, it can mean another 30 pay days per year if the company is successful. That is in addition to the shares profit-sharing schemes.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Is my hon. Friend aware that those incentives were not available to ordinary seamen when I was a member of the National Union of Seamen and an employee of P and O in 1965?
  Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend makes a good and valid point. When I go on to mention some of the other terms and conditions, I expect that his mouth will water and that he will wonder why he left shipping and came to the House of Commons.
  Many of the men were concerned about the rest periods, just as many hon. Members would be concerned. Is it true, as the Labour party has said in its statements, that men can be required to work for 18 hours non-stop? Of course it is not true. They have 10 hours off and six hours off for sleep are guaranteed, except in emergencies. Out of a 24-hour period, the normal working period would be 14 hours, but that 14-hour period would be broken up by meal breaks and by a sleep break. [Interruption.] The men have meal breaks, just as anyone else does.
  I discovered that there were other points that the union officials had not explained to their members. Trade union officials told me that the red book redundancies were worse than the blue book redundancies. When I put that point to the company, it said that there were 100 fewer redundancies under the red book terms than there had been under the blue book terms. It is no wonder that there is a strike when the union officials do not properly explain the contracts to their members.
  Mr. Prescott: The points mentioned by the hon. Gentleman were spelt out in the document given to the company and distributed to every member who voted on it. In one case, where the members wanted to vote, the owners instructed the courts to intervene to stop the NUS conducting a secret ballot.
  Mr. Shaw: I shall deal with the ballot procedures in a moment. Those procedures are very interesting.
  At my meeting with the union officials and members, I asked how they would decide whether to accept the new terms, including the good pay and other favourable aspects. They told me that there would be a car park meeting. I asked why they had decided to hold such a meeting. That question was also asked by others, so it was not a case of a Tory MP creating political bias. There were 20 union members—about half of those present at the meeting in Dover—who said that they wanted a secret ballot, although the union insisted on a car park meeting.
  Mr. Prescott: The courts stopped them.
  Mr. Shaw: No, they did not. I received anonymous phone calls at home, asking why the union would not give its members their dignity by allowing a secret ballot. Then I discovered a letter from the union, dated 22 January, telling its members that there would be a secret ballot. The union proposed a postal ballot to its membership. According to an article in The Times of 6 May, the letter stated:

  349
  "the outcome of negotiations with the company on new work rotas would be 'placed before the fleet by way of a postal ballot and you alone will decide whether to accept or reject the offer'."
  Why did the union not do that? The headline of the letters page of my local newspaper the East Kent Mercury asked:
  "Why wasn't there a secret ballot?"
  That is what a seaman's wife who wrote to the paper wants to know. She said:
  "Nothing has been said of the fact that there was not a secret ballot at the start of this strike and that at all the open meetings, where there was a show of hands, many of the people there were not even employees of P and O."
  Mr. Allen: Read us another one.
  Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman wants another letter. The Dover Express has another letter for him. Unfortunately, the writer of that letter was too terrified to give details of his or her name and address, but the newspaper is prepared to supply the name and address, if necessary. It asked:
  "Isn't it time the union held a secret ballot for its Dover members?"
  Those are the letters of ordinary men and women who work on the ferries. Those people want a secret ballot. Hon. Members will wonder what happened in those car park meetings in Dover. Was the 30-page contract discussed? Were all the terms and conditions discussed? Were the £17,000-a-year salaries discussed? I accept that those salaries are at the top of the range, but were the £11,000 to £17,000 salaries discussed? The details were not discussed.
  The motion, which I heard myself, was, "Do you think that the company should go back and negotiate more?" One might just as well ask a man whether he has stopped beating his wife. Obviously, if one asks people whether the company should go back and negotiate further, they will say yes, especially in an open meeting surrounded by many people who do not even appear to he employees of P and O. It was a disgraceful meeting in the car park. There should have been a secret ballot.
  Mr. Prescott: Why?
  Mr. Shaw: There should have been a secret ballot because the hon. Gentleman, who is a member of the NUS. said:
  "My trade union actively ballots, in most cases by way of postal ballot, on matters concerning strikes, the election of officials, the political fund—;the political fund will now be governed by legislation—and various other matters. In other words, ballots are an integral part of my union.—[0fficial Report, 23 April 1985; Vol. 77, c. 777.]
  Why no secret ballot then?
  Mr. Prescott: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that he has presented no evidence to support the charges that he is making. It is written in all our union books, and has been for a long time, that we have secret ballots. The newspaper quotation that the hon. Gentleman gave confirms the union's policy. We have ballots at the outcome of negotiations.
  Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman has got to do it. If he wants it, let him have it. He must say now—I shall give way to him if he wishes—that he will go to Sam McCluskie and the Dover port committee and ask for a secret ballot.
  Hon. Members: Answer.
  Mr. Prescott: The NUS has made it clear that, when agreement has been reached in negotiations, the matter will be put to the members in a secret ballot. [HoN MEMBERS: "When?"] When the union concludes negotiations and when Sir Jeffrey Sterling comes back to the negotiating table.
  Mr. Shaw: I fear that the hon. Gentleman lacks credibility. Only one secret ballot has been held. I have here the yellow paper on which it was conducted. It shows the terms on which people have accepted work. Some 1,100 have accepted, and 985 of them were audited by the closing date by the treasurer of Kent university, who is generally accepted as independent. The paper says, "I"—there is then a space for the full name and rank—
  "apply for employment on the new terms and conditions proposed by the Arbitration and Conciliation and Advisory Service as detailed in the enclosed document."
  Mr. Prescott: That is not a secret ballot.
  Mr. Shaw: It must be a secret ballot because the forms were carried back to the P and O offices by members of the postal workers union. Unless Opposition Members maintain that communications workers opened the mail, it must have been a secret ballot.
  Mr. Prescott: A secret ballot paper does not show a person's name.
  Mr. Shaw: I should be grateful if Opposition Members would allow me to continue. I wish to finish to allow others to speak.
  The House will want to know some of the terms that are being offered. I spoke earlier of the salaries being offered and of the cash profit-sharing scheme and the shares profit-sharing scheme. There is free travel at least once a year for signatories to the new terms. Duty-free goods are available at special prices. There are other benefits.
  The House will be aware that the 24 hours on, 24 hours off service is already operated by other shipping lines. There are many shipping lines which operate around the British coast that work two crews per ship. P and O proposes three crews per ship. That is a change from 3·6 and an improvement on the original blue book terms of 2·4. P and O's main competitor in Dover—Sealink— already operates 24 hours on, 24 hours off terms. Indeed, they were negotiated by the NUS with Sealink two years ago.
  I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth), who has experience of working in P and O and was a member of the NUS, had one week's compassionate leave available to him. That is what P and O is putting on offer. This hard-nosed employer, as the Opposition describe it, is making one week's compassionate leave available for anybody who has a relative who dies. I did not get that when I was at work.
  The terms cannot be all that bad—1,100 people have accepted and 5,000 more applicants have not been accepted. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will consider all these factors. There is no question but that safety is paramount. It is not, however, the scaremongering safety that we heard about from the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). What he said was unrealistic, unsubstantiated and, for all we know, untrue.

  351
  The public will want reassurance, as I am sure hon. Members will. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be able to confirm what I have been told following my inquiries—that his inspectors have checked and approved the ships, lifeboats, operating procedures and crewing arrangements of each P and O ship that puts to sea.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West frequently talks about the number of crew being reduced. He fails to say that his figures are for the Zeebrugge route and that the main change to that route is that one restaurant is being closed. The majority of the crew he referred to are waiters and waitresses who will not be required because of a restaurant closure.
  The House will want to know that the company has assured me that any question about safety that I or any other hon. Member wants to raise with it will be dealt with. The company has assured me that its practice is always to overcrew.
  Mr. George Galloway: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that some of those waiters and waitresses on whom Conservative Members spat and are still spitting their contempt saved lives during the Zeebrugge disaster involving the Herald of Free Enterprise? They are vital members of the crew when accidents or fires occur.
  Mr. Shaw: I freely confirm that, in my constituency and in many others, seamen lost their lives and saved the lives of others. They were seamen involved in all aspects of work. They are all important. That is why the company told me, following my inquiry, that it is the practice always to overcrew ships in case somebody goes sick. There are therefore always enough people to man lifeboats and to cope with accidents.
  If any examples of that not being the case are reported to me, I shall be happy to investigate and pursue them. I would be the first to shout in the House if that happened, and I have told Sealink and P and O that. I represent a ferry port, as does my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe. It is important to both of us that the ferries are safe, because our constituents work on them, travel on them and earn their livelihoods from them.
  One aspect of the terms will make ferries safer than ever before. The company has insisted—it is fundamental to the terms—that no alcohol will be consumed by any crew member on board a ship.
  I spoke earlier about the difficulties facing the police. I would like to think that all hon. Members condemn the acts of violence and intimidation. People with weapons have been arrested. There has been damage to somebody's car. A company tie was tied around the windscreen wipers with the message, "Next time, this will be around your son's neck." Missiles have been thrown at coaches. Homes have been daubed with paint. They are not just seamen's homes—an 81-year-widow's home was daubed.
  The intimidation is dreadful. Lists of people who are working have been assembled and circulated on picket lines. The subjects then receive telephone calls. A video recording was made of people disembarking the aeroplane when they went to crew ships. The videos were taken because, the union admitted, it wanted to have a record of
  352
  who was going to work. There have been pickets at coach pick-up points. People are frightened to drive their cars across the picket line, so they have been picked up by coaches. There have been pickets at those pick-up points and one was shown on television saying to a man getting on a coach, "You have got to live in Dover for the rest of your life."
  Mr. Andy Stewart: I have been listening carefully to my hon. Friend. Will he convey my constituents' sympathies to his constituents? We endured similar circumstances for 12 months, but in the end right prevailed.
  Mr. Shaw: I accept those sympathies on behalf of my constituents. I read the interventions and speeches made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) during debates on the miners' dispute. It is with annoyance and infuriation that I find some aspects of the miners' dispute being used in the seamen's dispute.
  Mr. Prescott: It is the same legislation.
  Mr. Shaw: Is the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) saying that he approves of intimidation at coach pick-up points?
  Mr. Prescott: No, I do not; nor does the National Union of Seamen. The police have been in attendance at all those pick-up points and they say that there has been none of the sort of intimidation that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
  Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman must wonder why about 100 acts of intimidation are being investigated by the police and why 17 people have been arrested. If the hon. Gentleman looks at some of the videos on television he will see a member of the National Union of Seamen making such remarks as people get on to coaches. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will ensure that people do not picket coaches as people are getting on them.
  Many members of the public are asking why the Opposition's motion does not condemn or mention acts of violence and intimidation. Many members of the public will want to know why speeches made by Opposition Members show no care about 81-year-old widows having their homes daubed with paint in the middle of the night. Opposition Members express care for 81-year-olds only during debates that suit them. Many members of the public are asking why the Labour party called on the labour movement to show solidarity in every possible way. Many of my constituents are wondering what that solidarity meant, particularly as that statement was made following acts of violence and intimidation, which have continued since it was made.
  Many people are beginning to ask what the Labour party has done in this dispute. Has it helped to solve it? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Has it issued statements condemning violence? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Has it supported Sealink employees who have been prevented from working by secondary action? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Has it supported the 1,100 seamen who want to work? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Has it supported the 700 officers, and their union, who want to work? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Has it supported the many trade unionists who want a secret ballot? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] What has the Labour party done? [HON. MEMBERS:

  353
  "Nothing."' No, it has done something. It has used the dispute to fight the leadership election for the Labour party. Eight Labour Members—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Noise prolongs speeches.
  Mr. Shaw: At least eight Labour Members have been on the picket lines. They have been noticed by Labour supporters in my constituency. One may wonder what is happening to those Labour supporters in my constituency. My agent is receiving telephone calls from them and they are saying that they will never vote for the Labour party again.
  In 1966 the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Hafer) used some moderate words and said that disputes should be handled with care and moderation. Why do Labour Members go on the picket lines and use words such as, "War", "Struggle" and "the need for victory"?
  The needs of my constituents are to get back to work, to be free to work, to be free of violence and intimidation, to allow our shopkeepers and small business men to return to normal trading and to keep the port of Dover open and the ferry industry going. I hope that the Government will support those needs, because, if they do so, my constituents and those of other hon. Members will benefit and the only losers will be those who do not want a settlement.
  5.55 pm
  Mr. Tony Benn: I now understand why P and O put £100,000 into the Tory party. It has received very good value from the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw). He told the House how he took every query raised by the seamen to the company and took the company's argument back. Apparently, seamen do not need a trade union because the hon. Gentleman will look after their interests, wherever they are in the world. They need only make a telephone call to the hon. Gentleman. P and O made a wise choice in picking the hon. Member for Dover. His speech was quite appropriate for a car park full of readers of The Sun, and no doubt those are the people who will follow it tomorrow.
  One of the most odious aspects of the debate is that, after all the phoney patriotism of the Tory party about our seafarers during the Falklands war, and all that we as a nation owe to the seafarers who took part in the convoys during the last war, the true interests of seafarers should be treated with such contempt by the party that allows the Union Jack to flutter over its conferences.
  We are discussing the safety of passengers, and nothing that has been said or done by Ministers responsible for safety at sea has been adequate, given the loss of life in the Zeebrugge disaster. The manager responsible for the Chernobyl power station was imprisoned following the death of people there, but there has been no appropriate action here, so it is hard to believe that the Government do anything other than share the desire of P and O to maximise its profitability.
  When Ministers talk about the right to work—this dispute is about the dismissal of people—it is so hypocritical as not to carry weight with anybody listening outside the House. And if there were a ballot by seafarers on whether they want Sir Jeffrey Sterling to run their company, I have no doubt whatever what the outcome would be.
  354
  The debate has a certain quality, because the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), in his role as a kind manager, tried to warn the Front Bench not to be so provocative. We had "a Guardian leading article of a speech" from the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr Bruce). He not only wrote his own speech, but actually read from a Guardian article too. He knows quite well that there is sharp conflict in the House, because the two sides take completely different views about what should be done.
  Ministers represent P arid O and its interests. I understand that they employed Sir Jeffrey Sterling to advise on the anti-union legislation. When he became chairman of the company, he put money into the Tory party and enjoyed the benefits of the legislation that he helped to draft with the assistance of judges, who under our curious system are appointed by the Prime Minister.
  The Opposition are closely linked to the National Union of Seamen. That union is affiliated to the Labour party because it wants a voice in the House against the sort of Tory party that is facing us. The hon. Member for Dover made a lot of Sam McCluskie being treasurer of the Labour party. That is true, and we are proud of it, but the National Union of Seamen cannot put money into the Labour party without a conference decision being made. Who held a ballot in P and O to authorise Sir Jeffrey Sterling's decision to put money into the Tory party?
  It is also true—and I am proud of it—that the Labour party's national executive committee, with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in the chair, was unanimous in passing a resolution supporting the NUS and asking others to support it. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) went on the picket line as the Front-Bench spokesman and gave great hope to those who wanted to feel that in the House we spoke for them. In addition, my hon. Friend gave a marvellous presentation in the House today of the seamen's case, bringing out the fact that they want arbitration and a settlement of the dispute. It is against that background that the House must consider what is happening.
  What is occurring today is the culmination of a long strategy that the Government have followed to attack and, if possible, to destroy trade unionism in Britain. It began with the readiness to spend £5 billion or £6 billion trying to defeat the miners and printers. It was followed by the use of the phoney argument of security to get rid of all the trade unions at GCHQ, under American pressure. How one is safer if a person who was in a union is not a member any more, I have never understood. If a man would give up his union membership for £1,000, I should have thought that that might throw doubt on his commitment to the security of the state. But that was done by threat. Then the Government fully supported Ford in trying to force upon the car workers in Dundee unions which they did not wish to be their representatives.
  Now there is full support of P and O and the attempt to destroy the NUS through derecognition by P and O, after a long period of recognition as part of old maritime arrangements. The courts have been used to threaten sequestration if the NUS held a ballot. That has happened after all that we were told about ballots for this and ballots for that. When the NUS wanted a ballot, the judge, no doubt appointed with such an idea in mind, told the union that it would lose its funds if it consulted its members. So much for the hypocritical argument that we heard from the Tory party. The courts have stolen the money that belongs

  355
  to seamen who are not involved in the dispute. The hon. Member for Eastleigh asked why the dispute should not be limited a bit, but the courts, through the legislation that he supports, have stolen the funds contributed by seamen who have nothing whatever to do with the NUS action.
  Those are arguments that are understood outside the House. It amounts to the reimposition of the Combination Acts to make effective trade unionism illegal. The key question for us in the Labour party is how to defeat that strategy. None of my hon. Friends who will speak in the debate expects to have any influence on the Tory party, but we must try to point out to our friends who are in struggle how to win that struggle, because Labour Members want the seafarers to win. Their objective is arbitration. But if it is denied, the purpose of my right hon. and hon. Friends is that the seamen should win against P and O. Let there be no question about that.
  The answer is that the seamen's victory will depend upon their own efforts. It will not depend upon speeches that are made in the House. We shall be trounced tonight in the Lobby in accordance with the predictions, just as we were with the computer predictions at the previous general election. But the seafarers have the capacity to win. On the radio at lunchtime I heard an hon. Member saying that the time has come for wiser counsels to prevail. That showed that he recognised, as the hon. Member for Eastleigh recognised, that the seafarers have done very well in getting their case over to the public. Victory also depends on the amount of industrial support that is available to them from other unions. Public support is growing. I read about the lorry drivers putting in their penn'orth, which shows that the Government's legislation is not capable of dealing with the situation.
  The seafarers will decide how to run their own strike. It is not for anybody in the House to tell them what to do, and court action will not stop them, for one simple reason. When the unions began, they did not have any money to sequestrate in the first place. If the courts steal the unions' money, they will go on without it because, unlike companies, trade unionism is not measured by the bank balance. It is measured by what is in people's hearts when they feel that their cause is right. One can steal their money and take away their offices and typewriters, but one cannot beat trade unionism by court action. It cannot be done in Poland, and it cannot be done here. That point needs to be made.
  When trade unionism began, it was illegal. It was established by breaking unjust laws. I know that nobody in the House likes this to be said, because we sit in a little club and pretend that we gave every liberty to everybody from this Chamber. It is not true. That is why we enjoy the right to worship as we like, the right to have trade unions and the right of men to vote. The Prime Minister would not have been Prime Minister if the suffragettes had not broken the law to force women's suffrage.
  Mr. John Redwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Benn: I shall not give way because I am coming to the end of my speech. [HON. MEMBERS: "They do not like it."] Of course the Tory party does not like it.
  In the end, the five Employment Acts carried through by the Tory party will be repealed, just as the Taff Vale
  356
  judgment was repealed by legislation, and just as the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act was repealed by a subsequent Government—
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Benn: I am not giving way, and it is not a point of order.
  Mr. Arnold: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it appropriate to have a leadership election speech in this debate?
  Mr. Benn: What really frightens the Tory party is that the Leader of the Opposition is leading a completely united party. That is what it is all about.
  The Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act was repealed, and the Industrial Relations Act was repealed. I believe that the seafarers' struggle has a better chance of succeeding than that of the miners or the printers, because many other things have happened in the meantime. A parallel has been drawn with the miners. I tell the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) that the miners' support groups, established four years ago, are back in action and have been giving money and support to the seamen in their struggle. The printers are doing the same.
  Those who watch the Tory party, with its long pretence of fairness, have also seen the Budget, the social security changes, the poll tax and all the other things that have happened.
  Mr. Redwood rose—
  Mr. Benn: I am not giving way. I am in almost my last sentence.
  The Tory party has been critical of the trade union movement for a long time. I looked for the root of some of the arguments and found two quotations. The first is about industrial action:
  "the real intention was to strike a full blow in the face of the State's authority, against the middle classes and against disciplined order".
  The second quotation speaks of the trade union movement as
  "being used merely as the battering ram for the class war."
  The first quotation is from Mussolini's autobiography, and the second is from "Mein Kampf" by Adolf Hitler.
  I said in the House the other day—I invite hon. Members and my colleagues to look at it—that weekend speeches by Ministers and the policies that they follow in respect of the trade union movement can be traced right back to what was said in the 1920s and 1930s in Italy and Germany. Combine that with the attack on the Greater London council and on local authorities, and the court protection to deny us the right to read what Peter Wright wrote in "Spycatcher", and one gets a very clear idea of a Government who are set to undermine democratic rights in this country.
  And in the struggle for democratic rights, nobody has done more than the trade union movement to win the rights of working people in industry and to build democracy.
  6.9 pm
  Mr. James Hill: I have never seen a better demolition job done on the Labour party than that done this afternoon by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw). He not only answered every point—

  357
  certainly to my satisfaction—but he carried the fight into the enemy camp, and he had some of the heavies in the Opposition reeling from shock. I congratulate him. As an hon. Member representing a Southampton constituency, I have been worried that secondary picketing might slow down the progress of the port of Southampton. This afternoon we have had a difficulty, of course, with the QE2. I have received a telephone message that all the picketing by the National Union of Seamen to prevent the QE2 from sailing this afternoon has been to no avail. It sailed just after 4 o'clock, and is now beginning to make its return journey to New York. The NUS seems to be losing the battle outside the Dover area.
  I have a newspaper cutting about the Canberra. The NUS has pleaded with its members on the Canberra to come out on strike. As the Canberra is a P and O liner, one would have thought that the union would have been successful. Even two coachloads of pickets at the entrance to Southampton docks were prevented from succeeding by a heavy police reinforcement. I do not think that the NUS is obeying the legislation when it brings two coachloads of pickets from another area to prevent a ship sailing from the port of Southampton. It is breaking the law.
  The NUS does not seem to mind any more. It has had its money sequestered; it has been shut out of its offices; two Opposition Members have lost their flats; and the whole thing is beginning to look rather nasty for some of its members. Nevertheless, it is still prepared to break the law—and breaking the law it is. The NUS is being found out, not only by the majority of the members of the NUS, but by the British public. Think of the hardship suffered by the British public and also the French citizens who are on holiday here.
  Damage is also being caused to our export-import industry that uses the Channel ferries. Think how Opposition Members will crow in a couple of months' time when our import and export figures look distorted. They will say that it is the Government's fault. They will not realise that they need look no further than this rather unfortunate deadlock caused by the National Union of Seamen.
  There was some plagiarism this afternoon by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). Hon. Members may recall that a presidential candidate in the United States had to resign because he used a speech given by the Leader of the Opposition. Either the hon. Member for Oldham. West wrote the article attributed to Mr. Sam McCluskie in The Sunday Times on Sunday or it was written by Mr. McCluskie. I heard the hon. Member for Oldham, West on television and this afternoon, and he said, almost word for word, what was contained in that article under the smiling face of Sam McCluskie. Someone has to be using plagiarism to enhance his own speeches. Will the Opposition tell us who wrote the article?
  As an hon. Member representing a Southampton constituency, may I say that the difficulty is that, although we no longer have cross-Channel ferries, the National Union of Seamen has been effective enough to stop cross-Channel ferries at the port of Portsmouth. It is not only causing difficulties for visitors to islands such as Jersey and Guernsey, but also people in the transport industry in carrying out their normal trade. There are many such people in Southampton.
  The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said that he was all for complete freedom. He would go on the picket line. He would aid and abet if he could, because
  358
  that is his way of life and he can see no other way forward, The right hon. Gentleman must realise the terrible harm that would be done if we gave a distorted view to those workers in the NUS or, indeed, to the public.
  Mr. Redwood: I was sorry that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) would not take my intervention, because I wanted to clarify whether he was saying that, to further this dispute, members of the National Union of Seamen should break the law, and suggesting that judges were biased. I hope that he will withdraw that remark as it is a damaging slur on the fine tradition of neutrality of the law.
  Mr. Hill: I agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield went further. He said that the Government were appointing judges who would do their will and would sequestrate the funds of a union without evidence; the judges would be obedient to the Government. The right hon. Gentleman must know that that is nonsense. That is the politics of the 1930s. The right hon. Gentleman must be answered. I hope that an Opposition Member will answer him because he is getting away with a false argument.
  Mr. Eddie Loyden: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the statement made by a judge, that the NUS must stop pussyfooting about? Does not that show clear bias?
  Mr. Hill: Am I seriously being asked whether the Government told a judge to make a statement containing the word "pussyfooting"? The judge must be answerable for his own words. However, there is anxiety about the pattern followed after the sequestration of funds. Advisers of Mr. Scargill are now coming to help. A newspaper headline states:
  "Striking seamen divert cash to beat asset freeze."
  They are trying to circumvent the law. If they think like the right hon. Gentleman, possibly they will justify it. But the law is the law, and they have broken the law. Until they purge their contempt of court and receive their funds back, they will have to stay in this position.
  P and O management and the NUS will not get around the table because of straightforward commercial opposition. The law of the land is straightforward. Although the Government have the Arbitration, Conciliation and Advisory Service to bring both sides together, they will not intervene. If both sides are rigidly opposed, they must slug it out to the end. That is the only way to resolve the dispute. As long as the NUS members realise that their union officials are telling them, "Slug it out to the end, lads; we shall win", because that is the name of the game, it will be a slug to the end. However, I think that the cooler and more intelligent reasoning in the NUS—similar to that on the Canberra and QE2—will gradually prevail, and it will be realised that there must be a meeting of minds about the difficulties of 1992, the possibility of VAT, the removal of duty-free goods and the dangers of the Channel tunnel. The two sides must come together. We cannot let almost historic dinosaur-type trade union quotes decide the issue.
  6.19 pm
  Mr. Eric S. Heifer: The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) made a very interesting speech, but I trust that the public will not take much notice

  359
  of it. He referred to the lack of credibility of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). The hon. Member for Dover suggested that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and I were on the picket lines in Dover advocating violence. I was asked by a representative of my local press whether that was true, and I replied, as I cannot reply in this House, that it was a deliberate lie, and that was printed in the local press. I want to make it absolutely clear that no one has been talking about violence on the picket lines. Reference has been made to intimidation. What about the intimidation of workers in the National Union of Seamen who have been told to accept the conditions and sign, or they will be sacked? Is that not intimidation?
  The hon. Member for Dover referred to those who had agreed to the conditions and said that 5,000 people had applied for jobs. I am surprised at that. With 2·5 million or 3 million people unemployed in this country, I am amazed that only 5,000 applied for the jobs. I should not have been surprised if 50,000 had applied. The level of unemployment is being used as a weapon against the trade union movement and workers who are trying to maintain decent conditions which they have negotiated over the years.
  Mr. Mans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heffer: No, I will not give way.
  The hon. Member for Dover made several other points. He was kind enough to refer to a speech that I made in the House in 1966 when the National Union of Seamen held an official strike. I recall my speech very well. My Front-Bench colleagues at the time were talking about a small group of politically motivated men running the official strike. I explained that there was another group of politically motivated men and women in No. 10 Downing street. I believed then that the NUS was right, and I have a right to say that.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East is aware, there was a great unofficial strike in 1960. For my sins, together with the then hon. Member for Bootle, Mr. Simon Mahon, I was asked to be a mediator by the Liverpool Trades Council and the Labour party. We were not asked to mediate between the employers and the union, because the real mediation had to take place between the rank and file of the union and the union leadership.
  There was a great surge at the time among the membership. They wanted to create a new union. We said that they should not do that, but should remain in the union and fight to democratise it. They democratised it and made it one of the most democratic unions in this country. They did not need legislation to introduce ballots. They created a democratic organisation and got rid of the leadership, which I believe was in the pockets of the employers at the time. They made it one of the most democratic unions in the country, and that is what it remains.
  The hon. Member for Dover referred to the blue book and the red book. I did not see the blue book, but I have seen the red one. If the red book is an improvement on the blue book, God help us. I can understand why NUS members are not prepared to accept the red book. Those who have accepted it have done so under pressure.
  Mr. Benn: Pressure of dismissal.
  Mr. Heffer: That is right. They are worried about their future.
  Do those hon. Members who have never put their hands to any employment believe that the workers go on strike because they want to? Do they honestly believe that workers are only too happy to lose their wages and go home to their wives and say, "I am sorry, love. I am not bringing in any money at the end of the week"? Do hon. Members believe that the workers in this country are stupid?
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: No, but the hon. Gentleman is.
  Mr. Heffer: I know about this because I have worked in industry and the hon. Lady has not. That is the difference.
  Mrs. Gorman: Withdraw.
  Mr. Heffer: No, I will not withdraw it, because it is true. I have already received abuse from the hon. Member for Dover and many others.
  I watched the faces of people such as Dunlop on television. Anyone who has watched Dunlop on television knows who is backing him. He is being backed by the Government and their legislation. That is the truth of the matter.
  The trade union movement and the NUS in particular at this juncture are fighting for their very existence. The trade union movement is threatened by the Government's anti-trade union legislation, which is the worst in Europe and rather like Jaruzelski's legislation in Poland. Conservative Members are brave and support the rights of Polish workers to have trade unions, but when it comes to our trade unions, it is a different story. I believe that Solidarity has a right to exist in Poland. Because I live in this country, I defend the rights of our workers to have the democratic organisation which Conservative Members do not accept and in which they cannot believe.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East answered the point about the secret ballot. The NUS was prepared to have another ballot, but it was taken to court, and that stopped the ballot. Conservative Members are only too well aware of that.
  Mr. Rogers: I agree with my hon. Friend that many Conservative Members are neo-Fascists—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is aware that that is not a parliamentary expression. Please will he withdraw it and say something else?
  Mr. Rogers: I understand that to call Conservative Members Fascists is out of order. However, I understand that Mr. Speaker has ruled previously—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that he must not argue with the Chair. Will he withdraw the expression?
  Mr. Rogers: For the purposes of the debate, and in pursuance of the advocacy of my colleagues, I will withdraw that expression. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) is aware of the extreme political Right-wing views of Conservative Members. Does he accept that it is sickening hypocrisy for a succession of Conservative Members to claim that the Government will not intervene in the dispute because it is

  361
  a commercial issue, while the Prime Minister has on at least six occasions since January met Sir Jeffrey Sterling, the owner of P and O? Is that non-intervention?
  Mr. Heffer: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. I heard a Minister on the radio this morning discussing the issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). I was not surprised by what the Minister said, but it was remarkable how he repeatedly stated that it was nothing to do with the Government. He said that the Government could not intervene. Previous Tory Governments, even the Heath Government—if I may use that expression—were prepared on occasion to intervene in the national interest. Instead, the Government equate the national interest with the class interest of those whom they represent. That is their national interest. It has nothing to do with any real national interest.
  I support the motion. It is not the greatest motion in the world, and it does not necessarily say everything that I would want it to say, but it is important in the sense that it raises all the important issues. It should he supported even by Conservative Members. They should have sufficient interest in the future of the shipping industry to realise that they should support the motion.
  I use the Channel ferries regularly when travelling from Dover to France. I use that general term because there are ports other than Calais. I am interested particularly in safety. How can the Government say that they are concerned about safety when the numbers of seamen will be reduced? If they are really concerned about the safety of passengers, they must be concerned also about crew numbers. That must follow if they are to ensure that there is genuine safety. That is the real issue, apart from the future of the National Union of Seamen.
  The Government are dodging their responsibility of ensuring that there is safety for the passengers and crews of the future. They are dodging also their responsibility to the shipping industry generally and to the ferries in particular.
  Mr. Loyden: My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) talked about seamen working an 18-hour day, and about rest periods. What will be the consequences for safety if seamen work an 18-hour uninterrupted shift? Will my hon. Friend spell out the implications to the House?
  Mr. Heffer: I think that my hon. Friend has done that in implied terms in making that intervention. I believe that he is right.
  I referred the other day to the port manager of Heysham harbour cutting a rope of the Tynwald with a chainsaw on 30 April while that vessel was berthed at Heysham. I received a written answer from a Department of Employment Minister, part of which I shall read. It states:
  "I have been asked to reply. No. The Merchant Shipping Act did not apply to the incident referred. On the information available neither the ship, its crew nor any person ashore were endangered by the action of the harbour master and there was no contravention of any legal requirement."—[Official Report, 9 May 1988; Vol. 133, c. 22.]
  I also received a letter from Sea Containers, which was written by none other than the public affairs manager. I shall not quote the entire letter, which I would describe as a whitewash. Part of it reads:
  "The Tynwald was secured by six ropes (three at each end of the ship). There are two head ropes, two stern ropes and two spring ropes (one at the forehead and one aft)."
  362
  Incidentally, I was being told to suck eggs, because one knows about these matters after working on a line of docks for a long time. The letter continues:
  "The port master cut the forehead spring rope and was proceeding to cut the head rope when the ship's master instructed him to stop. The third rope also went slack and then the other ropes were released. The ship moved from one berth to another under its own power and thus this became a normal manoeuvre from berth to berth."
  So a normal manoeuvre involves the cutting of ropes. I have never heard anything like it. The Government are not prepared to take action against an illegal act. Their response shows that they consider themselves to be above the law. However, when the NUS takes legitimate action and organises secondary pickets, it is made clear that it is not above the law. That proves our case and makes it clear where the Government stand.
  6.35 pm
  Mr. Robert Hughes: This has been a debate of some passion. That is understandable because we are dealing with issues of great concern to hon. Members and to those whom we represent. I urge Conservative Members to buy a copy of the tape recording of these proceedings. They should listen to themselves chanting in unison with the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw). If they do that, they will hear echoes of Nuremberg and they will be ashamed of themselves.
  It is regrettable that the Secretary of State for Employment said that he would say nothing new. Unfortunately, that was true. More is the pity. He should have said something new.
  There is no doubt that the genesis of the dispute lies in the Channel tunnel. We have all known from the beginning that there would be difficulties. We argued that there should be proper arrangements for the ferries, including competition checks. The Government told us that everything would be sorted out if the issue were left to market forces. That is why we are landed in this mess.
  There has been great apprehension in the ferry fleets, and most of it has been stoked up by the owners. They have emphasised the dangers facing the ferries, the number of jobs that will have to go and the problems that will be faced. The apprehension has been fostered by the owners. The NUS understands that changes will be required. There is a general agreement that jobs will have to go, but it is with great reluctance that that has been acceped by the union. We have a dispute because P and O has insisted repeatedly that the changes must take place by March. This has precluded any proper period of phasing.
  An emotionally charged issue in an emotionally charged area has been made all the more difficult by the fact that Sealink stepped in and said that, if P and O got its way, it, Sealink, would develop the same conditions. That was a secondary threat. It is not for us to take lessons from Conservative Members on secondary action when threats are being made by other ferry owners.
  The problem is compounded by the difficulties that are created by industrial relations legislation. The law has not helped in any sense to stabilise matters. If the parties to an industrial dispute find themselves in the legal arena, there is no sensible way out of it. The Government do not understand solidarity action within trade unions. They do not understand the loyalty of members to their unions. The Government live in ignorance of the fact that

  363
  industrial disputes have their own momentum and dynamism. They refuse to recognise that what is required of them is some form of conciliation and arbitration.
  There are those who take a charitable view of the Secretary of State for Employment and say that he would like to be tempted by the forbidden fruit of conciliation but he is afraid to let that happen in case he succeeds, finds that conciliation works and gets a taste for it. He knows that if that happened he would be taken to No. 10 Downing street and sent on a long march to purgatory, either to Northern Ireland or to the loneliness of the Government Back Benches. That is the problem.
  There are less charitable people, some of whom are realists. I am one of those realists, and I believe that conciliation is anathema to the Government. They think that the right to manage means that might is right. Their view is that, no matter who is harmed in the process and irrespective of the damage that is done to the nation, industrial disputes must be resolved by a trial of strength. In ordinary circumstances, that would be bad enough, but in this instance the Secretary of State should surely have a restraining influence on the Secretary of State for Employment. His constant theme over the past 14 months—ever since the Zeebrugge disaster—is that safety is paramount. We have been told that safety comes first.
  It is a disgrace that, whenever safety has been mentioned this evening, Conservative Members have sniggered or laughed. They did not laugh and snigger 14 months ago when tributes were being paid to seamen for saving lives in the Zeebrugge disaster. They did not laugh and snigger when seamen gave of their best in the Falklands dispute. All of that has been forgotten. Conservative Members did not laugh and snigger either when the "Brass Tacks" programme was mentioned. I concede to the Secretary of State that he has written to me to say that there will be a rigorous inquiry. I hope that it will concentrate on safety. Nowhere in the P and O proposals is there any assessment of the safety aspects of the new crewing proposals. That is not to be found in the red book, in the blue book, or anywhere else.
  Nor has there been any assessment of the consequences of fatigue in respect of reaction time. In 1982 the Department of Transport was concerned about fatigue among watch keepers and said that it would study the subject. But nothing has happened since 1982, apart from pious words. Are our memories so short? Have our memories of Zeebrugge been dulled by other disasters? Have our recollections been blunted by the fact that Zeebrugge was followed by the King's Cross disaster, as is suggested in the newspapers today? How can the Secretary of State for Transport be sure that the safety conditions are so good that he can put his name to the Government amendment?
  The Secretary of State might do well to look back on his pious words of the day after the King's Cross disaster, and to his complacent remarks about how safety was paramount in London Transport. However, if he reads the inquiry evidence, he will learn that safety conditions were not as he described them to be. In the light of that evidence, the Minister should be more careful about dismissing safety and the dangers of fatigue among seamen.
  364
  The Secretary of State must bear in mind that this is not the end of the story, whatever may happen in respect of the P and O dispute. What we are afraid of, and what we cannot afford, is a job auction among ferry operators in the North sea. P and O say that one of the main reasons why it wants to alter crewing conditions is that that will double the company's profits. What will happen in two years? The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) gave the game away. He said that at least the deal was available for two years. What will happen after that if P and O and Sealink, as well as other operators, discover that their profits are not as large as they once thought? Will crew members be reduced yet again? Will even longer working hours be imposed on the grounds that it is only efficiency and profit that matter? If the Secretary of State believes that that is the way to deal with matters, he is living in a fool's paradise.
  The greatest irony of all is that the ports are being blocked not by the National Union of Seamen or by the Transport and General Workers Union but by freelance truck drivers. They are all friends of Mrs. Thatcher, saying that they do not support the NUS and that they are not in favour of strikes. They say also that they want the dispute to be settled. Had those freelance truck drivers been union members, Ron Todd would have been in court today and the TGWU would have had its funds sequestered. What will the Government do about those lorry drivers? I ask the Secretary of State that question, but he remains silent because he does not know the answer.
  If those truck drivers had been TGWU members, practically every newspaper would have carried banner headlines about hooliganism and intimidation. Instead of that—I do not want to overdraw the case—it seems that they are being held up as heroes. The industrial relations law has no relevance or meaning in respect of the way in which those lorry drivers choose to deal with the situation, and we do not know how the Government intend to react.
  The lorry drivers are clearly saying that they want negotiations restarted and the dispute settled by discussion and negotiation. That is a common refrain among both lorry drivers and the National Union of Seamen. It is a common refrain even among P and O shareholders. They are also saying that negotiations should be restarted or that the dispute should be sent to arbitration. Everyone is willing to go to arbitration, and certainly the NUS is willing. The only people who appear to be standing back are Sir Jeffrey Sterling and the Government. All the voices that have been raised in this matter and all the newspaper articles are saying that they want the matter to be settled by negotiation. It is true that ACAS has been in touch from time to time during the past 14 weeks. However, there is a significant difference between an ACAS that is working with the enthusiastic support of the Government and an ACAS that is working in the face of sustained Government hostility to conciliation. The dispute could be quickly resolved if only the Government would have the sense to deal with it by conciliation.
  Is there anyone in the Cabinet who has the vision and the courage to understand what is happening? Is there anyone in the Cabinet who remembers our debt to the seafarers of the Falklands and Zeebrugge? Is there anyone in the Cabinet with the courage to stand for justice and who appreciates that the dispute can be resolved if only they had the vision to intervene? I hope that someone will be prepared to take up that challenge. If no one in the Cabinet is prepared to do so, I ask the House to take up

  365
  that challenge. I ask the House to vote for our motion so that the dispute may be settled in the best possible way, which is by reconciliation and conciliation to the benefit of all those involved, including the seamen and the people of Dover. The House will do a great service to the nation if it passes our motion.
  6.46 pm
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): I can start by telling the House some good news, which is pleasing—and it will be particularly pleasing to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). The information that I have just been given is that National Union of Seamen members employed on oil rig supply ships will be instructed by their union tomorrow to return to work. I am told that that undertaking was made at Edinburgh quarter sessions today. That is one dispute which will be out of the way, and I hope that it is a precedent for other disputes. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), the seamen's dispute is with P and O European Ferries and not with other people.
  In the short time available to me I shall concentrate on the issue that has dominated practically every speech from both sides of the House, safety, for which I have direct responsibility. Those who are worried about the safety of the present P and O service have voiced three main anxieties. They say that crew numbers are being reduced to unacceptable levels; that untrained crews are being employed; and that crews are being asked to work unreasonably long hours. I can reassure the House on all three points.
  The revised crew complement, including officers, for the two ships presently sailing—the Pride of Bruges and the Pride of Kent—complies with all the statutory manning level requirements. Those deal with the numbers and qualifications of officers to be carried on a ship. They specify also the number of crew members to be on board who have to be certificated as proficient in the operation and use of survival craft. They require the owner to ensure that there are sufficient qualified ratings to permit the master and chief engineer to organise the watch keeping arrangement with proper regard to the need for rest periods.
  The revised complement meets all those statutory requirements. P and O has sought and obtained from my Department a safe manning certificate that specifies the minimum number of officers and ratings considered necessary for the safe running of the ship. The revised complement complies with the terms of the certificate.
  The safe manning of a ship is not just a matter of having the correct number of crew on board; it is also a question of deploying them effectively. That is the crucial point. Therefore, a reduction in manning levels does not lead to a reduction in safety standards. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) reminded the House on Monday that the NUS itself is not opposed to P and O's proposals on reduced manning levels. The disagreement between the company and the union relates to the timetable for achieving those reductions. The union is prepared, over a period of years, to accept reductions. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Either the revised crewing arrangements are safe or they are not. If they are safe, as my Department is satisfied that they are, they can be introduced. Delay may be attractive to the
  366
  NUS for many reasons, but safety is not one of them. If the ships will be safe in three years' time, one cannot argue that safety is the cause of the present dispute.
  It has been suggested that untrained crews are being employed. The vessels have the proper complement of qualified officers on board and the requisite number of certificated seafarers, so the suggestion that crews are untrained is wrong. Many crew members have experience in ferries; others are new recruits to P and O but are experienced seafarers.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West criticised the work of my surveyors over the past few days. They have made a comprehensive inspection of each ship and have watched each crew implementing the revised emergency procedures and safety drills: the muster drills, the fire-fighting procedures and the lifeboat drills. The inspections were made and the drills were witnessed before the ships left their lay-up berths in Rotterdam, and the drills were witnessed again when the crews were changed at Dover. On each occasion, my surveyors were satisfied that the requisite numbers of qualified personnel were on board and that they were properly trained in all the relevant procedures. If and when further P and O ships are brought back into service, the same rigorous inspections will be made, so that that form of scaremongering is wholly irresponsible.
  I can assure the House that the letter and spirit of the law were complied with; and I can also assure the House that the crews of these ships have proved to my surveyors that they are able to put their training into practice if ever the need should unfortunately arise.
  The last anxiety about safety relates to the length of hours worked. As I understand it, the length of shifts worked under the new manning arrangements being introduced by P and O are as follows. Ratings on ferries to Calais work 12-hour shifts. Ratings on ferries to Zeebrugge and Boulogne are on board ship for 24-hour shifts. That, as my hon. Friends have said, is a pattern already in use on cross-Channel ferries on a number of routes. Such ratings usually have 14 hours on duty and 10 hours off. Officers work 12-hour shifts, as they have done for many years.
  My surveyors are fully satisfied—this point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw)—that the crewing arrangements permit watch keeping duties to be undertaken without risk of fatigue. Perhaps before finishing with this subject I should remind the House that P and O seafarers spend 24 hours on ship for 122 days a year. They are present at their place of work for the equivalent of two and a half days a week; and they are actually on duty for the equivalent of fewer than one and a half days a week. I leave it to the House to decide whether these arrangements are excessively fatiguing.
  Mr. Prescott: They are not true.
  Mr. Channon: They are indeed true.
  Before leaving the issue of safety, I turn to the references made to "Brass Tacks" and to other criticisms of ferry safety. I wrote to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North about them a few days ago. A former employee of P and O alleged that one of its vessels sailed last August with a deck crew of 11, against a complement of 17. That allegation is now being fully investigated. I cannot yet say whether it is true or whether any offence has been committed. If an offence has been committed, appropriate

  367
  action will be taken. It is very unfortunate that such an allegation was not made until nine months after the event. The criticisms are serious ones. If they are true, why were they not made earlier? Why were they made in the middle of an industrial dispute rather than a few days after the alleged event? However, the delay will not prevent us from establishing the facts of the matter. They will be fully investigated and I can assure the House that appropriate action will be taken.
  The blockade by the lorry drivers is a serious source of disruption, although I hope that the talks today will bring a breakthrough. I can well understand the frustration of the lorry drivers, which my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh pointed out. None of us can condone the form that their action has taken. The drivers have made their point. Their action is not helping to resolve the dispute; they are causing an obstruction; and they have been warned by Dover harbour board that legal action is possible.
  Above all, truckers, seafarers and all involved in the dispute should reflect on the long-term implications of their actions. The Channel tunnel will be completed in 1993. If transport by road and ferry is to compete with the tunnel, it will have to do so on price and reliability. Do hon. Members imagine that the events of the past few weeks have enhanced the reputation of the ferries or the likelihood of their being able to compete effectively with the Channel tunnel? The House must judge the wisdom of these actions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh said, it is doubtful whether a debate in the House during a delicate industrial dispute such as this will help.
  Opposition Members stated a number of things over and over again in the debate—especially the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). It will be utterly clear to anyone who has heard the debate or who reads reports of it that the Labour party has in no way shaken off its anachronistic view of the British economy. We are no longer living in the subsidised 1970s; we are living in the efficient 1980s. Competitiveness and efficiency count now. These, together with safety, are the features that are required if a public service is to function effectively. No one should be under any illusion about the attitude of the Labour party in the debate. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)—we have heard all the Opposition leadership candidates today—has said:
  "The whole history of the Labour movement emphasises the need to ally politically with industrial action".
  The most alarming feature of the debate has been the irresponsible behaviour of the Opposition. Regular appearances on the picket lines and inflammatory speeches this evening have been their contribution. Do they think that all this will help to achieve a speedily negotiated settlement of the dispute? The right hon. Member for Chesterfield was honest enough not to pretend that the debate would make any difference—he said it would not—and that what happened outside the House was what mattered. However, if anyone is influenced by what we say in the House tonight, I urge hon. Members to face up to their responsibilities when advising people outside the House. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield may not become the leader of the Labour party, but it is clear that his ideas are still prevalent within it on issues of this sort.
  This strike and the attitude of the Labour party are living proof that these attitudes have not yet died. As my
  368
  hon. Friend the Member for Dover pointed out, in the past few weeks at Dover there have been 103 reports of intimidation and 17 arrests. In this debate, not one member of the Labour party criticised that intimidation or suggested that the unions should obey the law. Not one of them believes in the rule of law. Do not the Opposition recognise that people have the right to work without fear or intimidation? The Labour party puts the right to strike above the right to work. It appears that Opposition Members do not believe in the rule of law when it does not suit them. They blame the judges, or anyone else.
  The Labour party should stop fuelling the dispute with promises of solidarity or of a special strike fund. The time has come for Opposition Members to use their influence with the NUS to tell it to respect the laws of the land. Why do they not condemn secondary picketing and law breakers? Why do they not condemn the continuation of outdated working practices that cost the nation and workers dear? The Labour party is acting against the interests of those it pretends to represent. I ask the House to reject this ridiculous motion so that we may get a sensible result to the dispute—not one motivated by the outdated ideological ideas of the Labour party, which have been shown so clearly in the debate.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 205, Noes 317.

  Division No. 298]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Allen, Graham

  Dalyell, Tam

  Anderson, Donald

  Darling, Alistair

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Ashton, Joe

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

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

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Dewar, Donald

  Barron, Kevin

  Dixon, Don

  Battle, John

  Dobson, Frank

  Beckett, Margaret

  Doran, Frank

  Bell, Stuart

  Douglas, Dick

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

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

  Eadie, Alexander

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Eastham, Ken

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Blair, Tony

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Boateng, Paul

  Fatchett, Derek

  Boyes, Roland

  Faulds, Andrew

  Bradley, Keith

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Fisher, Mark

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Flynn, Paul

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Buchan, Norman

  Foster, Derek

  Buckley, George J.

  Foulkes, George

  Caborn, Richard

  Fraser, John

  Callaghan, Jim

  Fyfe, Maria

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Galloway, George

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  George, Bruce

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Clay, Bob

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Gordon, Mildred

  Cohen, Harry

  Gould, Bryan

  Coleman, Donald

  Graham, Thomas

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Cousins, Jim

  Grocott, Bruce

  Cox, Tom

  Hardy, Peter

  Crowther, Stan

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Cryer, Bob

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Cummings, John

  Haynes, Frank

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Alexander, Richard

  Batiste, Spencer

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Allason, Rupert

  Bellingham, Henry

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Bendall, Vivian

  Amess, David

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Amos, Alan

  Benyon, W.

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Atkins, Robert

  Body, Sir Richard

  Atkinson, David

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Boswell, Tim

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Baldry, Tony

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  O'Neill, Martin

  Henderson, Doug

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hinchliffe, David

  Parry, Robert

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Patchett, Terry

  Holland, Stuart

  Pendry, Tom

  Home Robertson, John

  Pike, Peter L.

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Prescott, John

  Hoyle, Doug

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Radice, Giles

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Randall, Stuart

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Redmond, Martin

  Illsley, Eric

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Ingram, Adam

  Reid, Dr John

  Janner, Greville

  Richardson, Jo

  John, Brynmor

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Robertson, George

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Rogers, Allan

  Lambie, David

  Rooker, Jeff

  Lamond, James

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Rowlands, Ted

  Leighton, Ron

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Salmond, Alex

  Lewis, Terry

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Litherland, Robert

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Loyden, Eddie

  Skinner, Dennis

  McAllion, John

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McAvoy, Thomas

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

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  McFall, John

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

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Snape, Peter

  McKelvey, William

  Soley, Clive

  McLeish, Henry

  Spearing, Nigel

  McTaggart, Bob

  Stott, Roger

  McWilliam, John

  Strang, Gavin

  Madden, Max

  Straw, Jack

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Marek, Dr John

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Turner, Dennis

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Wall, Pat

  Martlew, Eric

  Walley, Joan

  Maxton, John

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Meacher, Michael

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Meale, Alan

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Winnick, David

  Morley. Elliott

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Mullin, Chris

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Murphy, Paul

  Mr. Alun Michael and

  Nellist, Dave

  Mrs. Llin Golding.

  O'Brien, William

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Grist, Ian

  Bowis, John

  Ground, Patrick

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Grylls, Michael

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Brazier, Julian

  Hannam, John

  Bright, Graham

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

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Harris, David

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

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Burt, Alistair

  Hayward, Robert

  Butcher, John

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Butler, Chris

  Heddle, John

  Butterfill, John

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hill, James

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hind, Kenneth

  Cartwright, John

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Cash, William

  Holt, Richard

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Chapman, Sydney

  Howard, Michael

  Chope, Christopher

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Churchill, Mr

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

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

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hunter, Andrew

  Conway, Derek

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Irvine, Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Irving, Charles

  Cope, John

  Jack, Michael

  Cormack, Patrick

  Janman, Tim

  Couchman, James

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Cran, James

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Critchley, Julian

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Curry, David

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

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

  Key, Robert

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Kilfedder, James

  Day, Stephen

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Devlin, Tim

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dicks, Terry

  Knapman, Roger

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Dover, Den

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Dunn, Bob

  Knowles, Michael

  Durant, Tony

  Knox, David

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Latham, Michael

  Fallon, Michael

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Farr, Sir John

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Forman, Nigel

  Lightbown, David

  Forth, Eric

  Lilley, Peter

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Franks, Cecil

  Lord, Michael

  Freeman, Roger

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  French, Douglas

  McCrindle, Robert

  Fry, Peter

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Gardiner, George

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Gill, Christopher

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Madel, David

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Malins, Humfrey

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Mans, Keith

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Maples, John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Marland, Paul

  Gorst, John

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gow, Ian

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Mates, Michael

  Gregory, Conal

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Mellor, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Speller, Tony

  Miller, Hal

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Mills, Iain

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Squire, Robin

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Moate, Roger

  Steen, Anthony

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Stern, Michael

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Stokes, John

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Mudd, David

  Sumberg, David

  Neale, Gerrard

  Summerson, Hugo

  Nelson, Anthony

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Neubert, Michael

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Thorne, Neil

  Page, Richard

  Thurnham, Peter

  Paice, James

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Tracey, Richard

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Tredinnick, David

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Trippier, David

  Pawsey, James

  Trotter, Neville

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Viggers, Peter

  Portillo, Michael

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Price, Sir David

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Raffan, Keith

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Redwood, John

  Walden, George

  Renton, Tim

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Waller, Gary

  Riddick, Graham

  Walters, Dennis

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Ward, John

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Watts, John

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Wells, Bowen

  Rost, Peter

  Whitney, Ray

  Rowe, Andrew

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Ryder, Richard

  Wilkinson, John

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Wilshire, David

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Scott, Nicholas

  Wolfson, Mark

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wood, Timothy

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Woodcock, Mike

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Yeo, Tim

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Shersby, Michael

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sims, Roger

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 217.

  Division No. 299]

  [7.12 pm

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Amos, Alan

  Alexander, Richard

  Arbuthnot, James

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Allason, Rupert

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Amess, David

  Atkins, Robert

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Barron, Kevin

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Battle, John

  Allen, Graham

  Beckett, Margaret

  Alton, David

  Beith, A. J.

  Anderson, Donald

  Bell, Stuart

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Ashton, Joe

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

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Atkinson, David

  Franks, Cecil

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Freeman, Roger

  Baldry, Tony

  French, Douglas

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Fry, Peter

  Batiste, Spencer

  Gardiner, George

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Gill, Christopher

  Bellingham, Henry

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Bendall, Vivian

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Benyon, W.

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Gorst, John

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Gow, Ian

  Body, Sir Richard

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Boswell, Tim

  Gregory, Conal

  Bottomley, Peter

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Grist, Ian

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Ground, Patrick

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Grylls, Michael

  Bowis, John

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Hannam, John

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

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

  Brazier, Julian

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Bright, Graham

  Harris, David

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hawkins, Christopher

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

  Hayes, Jerry

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Hayward, Robert

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Heddle, John

  Butcher, John

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Butler, Chris

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Butterfill, John

  Hill, James

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Holt, Richard

  Carttiss, Michael

  Howard, Michael

  Cash, William

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Chope, Christopher

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Churchill, Mr

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

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

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Irvine, Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Irving, Charles

  Conway, Derek

  Jack, Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Janman, Tim

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Cope, John

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Couchman, James

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Cran, James

  Key, Robert

  Critchley, Julian

  Kilfedder, James

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Curry, David

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

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

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Knapman, Roger

  Day, Stephen

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Devlin, Tim

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Knowles, Michael

  Dicks, Terry

  Knox, David

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Dunn, Bob

  Latham, Michael

  Durant, Tony

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Fallon, Michael

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Farr, Sir John

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lightbown, David

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lilley, Peter

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Forman, Nigel

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Forth, Eric

  Lord, Michael

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Shersby, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Sims, Roger

  Madel, David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Malins, Humfrey

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Mans, Keith

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Maples, John

  Speller, Tony

  Marland, Paul

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Squire, Robin

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Steen, Anthony

  Mellor, David

  Stern, Michael

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stevens, Lewis

  Miller, Hal

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Mills, Iain

  Stokes, John

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Sumberg, David

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mudd, David

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Neale, Gerrard

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Neubert, Michael

  Thorne, Neil

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Thurnham, Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Tracey, Richard

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Tredinnick, David

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Trippier, David

  Page, Richard

  Trotter, Neville

  Paice, James

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Patnick, Irvine

  Viggers, Peter

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Pawsey, James

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Walden, George

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Waller, Gary

  Portillo, Michael

  Walters, Dennis

  Price, Sir David

  Ward, John

  Raffan, Keith

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Redwood, John

  Warren, Kenneth

  Renton, Tim

  Watts, John

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Wells, Bowen

  Riddick, Graham

  Whitney, Ray

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Wilkinson, John

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Wilshire, David

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Rost, Peter

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Rowe, Andrew

  Wolfson, Mark

  Ryder, Richard

  Wood, Timothy

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Woodcock, Mike

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Yeo, Tim

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Blair, Tony

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Boateng, Paul

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Boyes, Roland

  Howells, Geraint

  Bradley, Keith

  Hoyle, Doug

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Buchan, Norman

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Buckley, George J.

  Illsley, Eric

  Caborn, Richard

  Ingram, Adam

  Callaghan, Jim

  Janner, Greville

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  John, Brynmor

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Clay, Bob

  Lambie, David

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Lamond, James

  Cohen, Harry

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Coleman, Donald

  Leighton, Ron

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Lewis, Terry

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Litherland, Robert

  Cousins, Jim

  Livsey, Richard

  Cox, Tom

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Crowther, Stan

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Cryer, Bob

  Loyden, Eddie

  Cummings, John

  McAllion, John

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Dalyell, Tam

  McFall, John

  Darling, Alistair

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  McKelvey, William

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Maclennan, Robert

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

  McTaggart, Bob

  Dewar, Donald

  McWilliam, John

  Dixon, Don

  Madden, Max

  Doran, Frank

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Douglas, Dick

  Marek, Dr John

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Eastham, Ken

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Martlew, Eric

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Maxton, John

  Fatchett, Derek

  Meacher, Michael

  Faulds, Andrew

  Meale, Alan

  Fearn, Ronald

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Fisher, Mark

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Flynn, Paul

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Foster, Derek

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Foulkes, George

  Morley, Elliott

  Fraser, John

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Galloway, George

  Mullin, Chris

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Murphy, Paul

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Nellist, Dave

  George, Bruce

  O'Brien, William

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  O'Neill, Martin

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Gordon, Mildred

  Parry, Robert

  Gould, Bryan

  Patchett, Terry

  Graham, Thomas

  Pendry, Tom

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Prescott, John

  Grocott, Bruce

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hardy, Peter

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Radice, Giles

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Randall, Stuart

  Haynes, Frank

  Redmond, Martin

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Henderson, Doug

  Reid, Dr John

  Hinchliffe, David

  Richardson, Jo

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Holland, Stuart

  Robertson, George

  Home Robertson, John

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Rogers, Allan

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Turner, Dennis

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wall, Pat

  Salmond, Alex

  Wallace, James

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Walley, Joan

  Sheerman, Barry

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wigley, Dafydd

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

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

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

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Snape, Peter

  Winnick, David

  Soley, Clive

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Spearing, Nigel

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Stott, Roger

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Strang, Gavin

  Mr. Alun Michael and

  Straw, Jack

  Mrs. Llin Golding.

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House, noting that Government policies have established a sound and stable legal framework for the conduct of industrial relations which has significantly reduced the incidence and impact of disputes; that the National Union of Seamen has rejected various proposals for resolving this dispute; that stringent safety inspections have been carried out by Department of Transport surveyors on the P & O ferries 'Pride of Bruges' and 'Pride of Kent', covering not only the vessels themselves and their equipment, but also the manning arrangements and the training of the crew; believes that the resolution of industrial disputes must be a matter for the parties concerned operating within the law and within their economic circumstances; and condemns acts of intimidation and unlawful secondary action designed to resolve industrial disputes by means outside the law.'.

  Points of Order
  7.26 pm
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. By way of a written question to the Minister of State, Home Office I raised questions concerning the number of qualified and non-qualified persons employed over various dates in the magistrates courts in each of the petty sessional divisions of England and Wales. Tonight I received, dated 11 May, what might be called an advance copy of the response, on which I had a holding answer on 21 April which merely states:
  "I have today written to the hon. Member and a copy of the reply has been placed in the Library."
  When one asks za parliamentary question, the object of the exercise is for not only the hon. Member but the public to find out what the situation is. The general public does not have access to the Library of the House of Commons, but over the past few years I have noticed that this practice has grown. If Members of Parliament are to do their job properly, it is only right and proper that the question should appear in Hansard. Therefore, I raise this issue as a matter of principle.
  Mr. Speaker: I do not think that anything out of order has occurred. I understand that that is done regularly, particularly when lengthy documents are involved.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Does it concern the next Bill? I think that we should get on to the Bill.
  Mr. Cryer: It concerns the previous debate, Mr. Speaker. When you, Mr. Speaker, were not in the Chair, the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim), on a point of order, suggested that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), in an intervention, had omitted to make a declaration that he was receiving an advantage from the NUS. You, Mr. Speaker, will know that it was uncalled for, untrue and dishonest of the hon. Member for Amber Valley to make that suggestion.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover is not, in the words of the hon. Member for Amber Valley, in receipt of any grace-and-favour advantage from the NUS. The flat in which he has been staying for some time has had a fair rent fixed under the legislation for 14 years. In any event, during the dispute my hon. Friend has not been living in that flat. The hon. Member for Amber Valley suggested that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover has been less than forthright about this issue. That is patently untrue and casts doubts on a Member of this House. When doubt of that kind is cast, it is usual for the hon. Member who has cast that doubt to withdraw his comment. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to require the hon. Member for Amber Valley to withdraw the uncalled-for and disreputable aspersion that he has cast on my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover.
  Mr. Dave Nellist: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is big enough to look after himself, but it would be worth while to look tomorrow at the exchanges in Hansard and at the disgraceful allegation by the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim), who used the phrase, "a cut-price, grace-and-favour flat." Had my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) been living in a cut-price flat, which clearly he was not, he ought to have been congratulated on saving Parliament money. A Member of Parliament's rent is paid out of the London allowance and any hon. Member who is able to negotiate a cheaper rent for his flat is saving Parliament money.
  The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) is recorded in the Register of Members' Interests as having 11 directorships and consultancies, including Corporate and Public Affairs Strategy Limited. When I tabled an early-day motion during the Land Rover strike, the hon. Gentleman tabled an amendment that, word for word, was the management's case during the dispute, from which people may draw the conclusion that by means of one of his consultancies he was acting on behalf of the Land Rover management in this place.
  That is OK, but then the hon. Gentleman accused my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover, who has no grace-and-favour relationship with the National Union of Seamen. He is a Member sponsored by the National Union of Mineworkers. He has correctly notified the House of that fact each year since the Register of Members' Interests was compiled. After looking at Hansard tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, you ought to require the hon. Member for Amber Valley to make a personal statement to the House withdrawing the allegation and personally apologising to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is always very quick to demand financial details about other hon. Members—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that we ought to go into that matter now. I call the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim).
  Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief statement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] After an intervention earlier today by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), I asked Mr. Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, whether it was in order for somebody who had not declared a possible interest—[HoN. MEMBERS: "An interest."]—an interest in the National Union of Seamen not to declare it. I stated that the hon. Member for Bolsover had lived in a flat for which he paid a grace-and-favour rent and that later I had found out that the rent was only £18.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: No.
  Mr. Oppenheim: Despite the fact that I stayed in the Chamber for some time after making that point of order, the hon. Member for Bolsover chose to wait until I had left before stating that it was not a subsidised rent but that it had been fixed by the rent officer. I suggest that a rent of £18 must have been fixed a long time ago.
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter on which I can adjudicate. It is not a matter for me.
  Mr. Frank Dobson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) referred to the rent that had previously been paid by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) as a cut-price rent. He also suggested that he had been failing in his duty to the House by not declaring that he was paying a subsidised rent.
  It is improper for the hon. Member for Amber Valley to suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover should have registered that rent in the Register of Members' Interests. If, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover says, it was a registered rent, there can be no question of it being a subsidised rent. At the very least, Mr. Speaker, I think that you ought to rule that if it were a registered rent, my hon. Friend should not be expected to declare such a rent in the Register of Members' Interests, otherwise any hon. Member who is paying a rent or who has a mortgage would be obliged to say how much was being paid.
  Mr. Speaker: I think—
  Mr. Skinner rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will allow me to deal with this point, because I think I can help him. I confirm that, if the rent had been judged to be a fair rent by the rent tribunal, what the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said was correct. Last week the hon. Member for Bolsover gave me the reasons why he had moved out of the flat. I am sure that the whole House will agree that the hon. Member for Bolsover is a man of high integrity. I respect the fact that he gave me that information and also the reasons that he gave me for his decision.

  Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7.35 pm
  Mr. Michael Welsh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Hon. Members know that I am not familiar with all the procedures of the House, and on this occasion I seem to have let myself down. The Order Paper reads:
  On Second Reading of the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill, to move, That the Bill be read a second time upon this day six months.
  As a mere Back Bencher, I thought that six months meant six months. As there was an objection on 28 January, six months from 28 January would be 28 July, not 11 May. If the six months are to run from the day of the Bill's deposit, which was 27 November, that will not be until 28 May, which is a Saturday. I do not suppose that any hon. Member wants to come here on a Saturday to deal with this important business. When a period of six months is given, is it really six months, or can the Government, at their whim, set down business for consideration on any day that they desire?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): The setting down of private business is the responsibility of the Chairman of Ways and Means. It is not a Government responsibility. The hon. Gentleman is drawing attention to a motion on the Order Paper, not to a decision. A motion is used as a device to prevent a Bill from being given its Second Reading without debate. The fact that we are having a debate now makes that motion entirely nugatory.
  Mr. Martin Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Bill in its present form does not seem to me to be acceptable, and I ask for your guidance and advice. The Government are supporting the Bill. I had been led to understand that Governments do not involve themselves with private business. A large number of people in Nottinghamshire, Yorkshire and Lancashire will be affected by the Bill. The EEC turned down an application for grant-aid because the proposal would have an adverse effect on other similar installations. As the Government and many other people are involved, I suggest that this is a hybrid Bill and that it is unacceptable in its present form.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Of course, the Bill has been, as it must, before the Examiners to ensure that Standing Orders have been complied with. The Examiners reported the Bill to the House on 18 December and were satisfied that Standing Orders had been complied with. The Bill may have effects on a wide section of the community, but that is a matter for debate and a matter to be taken into account by the House when it reaches its conclusion.
  Mr. Peter Hardy: On an entirely different point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In fact, I have two points of order, the second having developed from the first. This morning in the post I received a statement from the promoters of the Bill. This seemed to be an act of slovenliness, giving hon. Members grossly inadequate notice. I looked at the copy of "Erskine May" in the Aye Lobby, where I found a relevant paragraph on page 890. I then consulted the appropriate officer. I also consulted the copy of "Erskine May" in the Chamber. The same

  379
  paragraph appears in the edition of "Erskine May" in the Chamber, not on page 890, but on page 969. I also discovered that there was no copy of "Erskine May" in the No Lobby. That is one point of order.
  The second point of order arises from the paragraph in "Erskine May" which says:
  "If any stage of a bill is proceeded with when the notice has not been duly given, or the proper interval allowed,"—
  I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to pay particular attention to the next words—
  "or if notice is taken of any other formality, the proceeding will be null and void, and the stage must be repeated."
  I accept that custom and practice weigh heavily in determining the decisions of the House, but I suggest that the custom and practice of promoters of private Bills in not giving Members adequate time to study their statement justifies our suggesting to the Government that they ought not to proceed with the Bill, particularly as hon. Members received the statement from the promoters only this morning.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that the statement which is often sent by promoters and their agents is purely a courtesy matter. There is no obligation in Standing Orders for them to do so.
  As to the difference in various editions of "Erskine May", the hon. Gentleman is a sophisticated and, if I may say so without seeming to flatter him, learned Member. I am sure that he will make the appropriate moves to ensure that in future the "Erskine May" editions are consistent wherever they are available to hon. Members.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recall that some two years ago the House ran into considerable difficulty with a private Bill dealing with the Felixstowe Dock and Harbour Board. That Bill divided the House on party political lines. Because of difficulties when the Bill went into Committee, a special Committee was set up to examine the procedure on private Bills.
  Would it not be more appropriate for the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill to be delayed until that Committee has completed its deliberations? There is a grave danger that we are starting on another Bill which will involve almost all the same problems as the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill. The Government seem to be sympathetic to this Bill because they have sandwiched it between two pieces of business on which there is a three-line Whip. The Government seem to be treating it as another Government Bill in the guise of private business.
  We will have difficulty when we look for four hon. Members to sit in Committee in a semi-judicial role. The whole private Bill procedure is being brought into disrepute. The matter was rehearsed on the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill. There was a consensus in the House that a special Committee should be set up to examine the procedure. Therefore, it would be better to delay further consideration of this Bill until the report of the Committee is received and acted on, or we may have a rerun of the procedural difficulties on the earlier legislation.
  I should have thought that even the promoters would want to avoid the difficulties and the expense that might be incurred. My hon. Friends would no doubt prefer to
  380
  debate the merits of the Bill as a Government measure, going through the public Bill procedure, rather than using the difficult and arcane procedure for a private Bill.
  Mr. Frank Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not disregarding the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), but the point of order which the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) wishes to raise may also be relevant.
  Mr. Dobson: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is closely related to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). The House, together with the House of Lords, established a Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure because of dissatisfaction with various aspects of the existing procedure, but in particular with Bills such as the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill which seek to obtain planning permission from Parliament rather than follow the usual procedure which more humble citizens have to follow of seeking consent from the local planning authority.
  I understand that the Joint Committee has completed, or is about to complete, the taking of evidence and will report shortly. In the circumstances, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you might be prepared to postpone consideration of Bills through which promoters seek planning permission from us rather than from a local authority. To allow such Bills, including this one, to proceed is likely to bring the House into even more disrepute than the disrepute which rightly poured in on us because of the general conduct and the proceedings on the infamous Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill, which led to the setting up of the Joint Committee.
  The evidence that has been presented to the Joint Committee in this parliamentary Session is not available to hon. Members, but the 1986–87 Joint Committee, which unanimously recommended that in this Session of Parliament we should establish a new Joint Committee to consider the matter further, received evidence from such organisations as the Ramblers Association, the Countryside Commission, the Nature Conservancy Council, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Open Spaces Society, all of whom argued that promoters of private Bills should in future be required to obtain planning permission from their local authority before coming to the House—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. With respect, the hon. Gentleman knows that we cannot now go over all the matters which we hope the Joint Committee will examine. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will address himself to a point of order with which I can deal.
  Mr. Dobson: Even at this late stage, although the Bill is set down for consideration now, as it raises all the issues which caused so much concern before and which seem likely—so I am told—to result in a unanimous recommendation from the Joint Committee that planning permissions by Parliament shall not be permitted in future by way of private Bills, and as there is an abundance of other private Bills which do not seek planning permission, I ask whether you would be prepared to abandon the

  381
  business tonight. It is premature for us to consider it, and it would be ridiculous and damaging for us to go through with it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must tell the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) that I have neither the authority nor the power to do what they propose. The matters which they have raised can be taken into account in debate. Both hon. Gentlemen seem to be anticipating a debate upon which we have not yet embarked, and equally anticipating its outcome. It might be sensible to await the outcome.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) for drawing attention to the fact that the Joint Committee has been sitting and has, I understand, been doing excellent work. I hope that it will soon be in a position to make recommendations. In the meantime, any right hon. or hon. Member who has proposals to make to the Joint Committee should do so before it completes its deliberations.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Because of your special position in this matter, would it be true to say that the Committee will change this archaic procedure if representations are made privately—that is right and proper, as you say—and if, at times such as these, representations are seen to be made by hon. Members on both sides of the House? The Government have been able to use this system of private Bills for what could be public Bills in a fashion—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I alone accept responsibility for the setting down of private business. It is entirely my responsibility. The other business set down for the same day is a matter for the other authorities of the House. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the previous debate was on an Opposition day. The business was set down by the Opposition. We cannot now seek to replicate matters that have been considered by the Joint Committee.
  Mr. Frank Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to draw you into my point of order, but I recognise that you, as Chairman of Ways and Means, are responsible for putting the Bill on the agenda and having it considered tonight. However, putting that aside, I smell a rat. You must hear my point of order.
  The Secretary of State for Energy, that silver-haired and silver-tongued gentleman who stands at the Dispatch Box when we debate energy matters, is knocking around in the precincts of the House. I know what he is here for. We have been set up. I know what the Bill means and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as a Yorkshire man, know what it means. There is something going on here, and I do not like what I smell.
  The Government Chief Whip is present. He does not often attend debates on private Bills. The Government are on the move and backing this Bill to push it through. They have a payroll vote tonight. They have done that before, and they are doing it again tonight—make no mistake about it.
  I do not want to fall out with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I simply want to say that there is a rat running in this Chamber. That is what it is all about. So far as the Government are concerned, the Bill is—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman a good run, but he has not come to a point of order for me. All this business of rats and smells is not the responsibility of the Chair.
  Mrs. Ann Clwyd: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have some knowledge of the matters under discussion, although not of the substance of the Bill. My hon. Friends are right to smell a rat. They also smelt a rat in connection with the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill, and they were right to do so. With that Bill, the company was eventually forced to offer a champagne party in the House.
  I was a member of the Committee that considered that Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and you were most helpful and gave us a great deal of advice. I remember that well because I was profoundly worried about the pressure that was being put on hon. Members considering the Bill. There was no doubt that the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company, which I believe was at that time paying about £60,000 a year towards—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady knows that we cannot keep running back to that Bill. She need:lot remind me about it. I shall never forget it. However, we should now be dealing with the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill.
  Mrs. Clwyd: I am a member of the Joint Committee that is considering the reform of the procedure. By the summer we will have produced a report suggesting various reforms. It would, of course, be improper for me to reveal the contents of that report, and I am sure that the House would not expect me to do so. However, I do not think that I shall be stepping out of line if I say that we have taken a great deal of evidence from those who profit from the procedure and from those who are concerned about the abuse of the procedure and believe that it should more properly be the substance of a planning inquiry and not be brought in through the back door, as so often happens.
  You will remember that Disraeli perhaps I should say that you will not remember—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. With respect, I do not see how Disraeli can be brought into a point of order.
  Mr. Barry Porter rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps we should let the hon. Lady conclude her point of order.
  Mrs. Clwyd: As I said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would not want to reveal the contents of the report to Parliament, but there is no doubt that many people are worried about the misuse of the present procedure. In 1841 Disraeli said that the procedure should be reformed. It has taken almost 150 years.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady knows better than anyone in the House that we have set up machinery to do precisely what she is urging should be done. Perhaps we should now allow another hon. Member to speak.
  Mr. Barry Porter: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have all had a little fun, but Opposition Member's tactics are clear. Is it not time to ensure that we proceed with this important debate, as it is in your power to do? Although I am always willing to listen to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), I should much

  383
  prefer to hear her views on this matter in private. Although this is amusing, there are people in the Gallery listening to the debate who wish to hear the essence of the debate and the detailed arguments, rather than the comic procedure that we have had to put up with so far.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is right.
  Mr. Michael Brown: Under the Transport Act 1981, the former British Transport Docks Board, which is a nationalised undertaking—
  Mr. Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a genuine point of order on which I seek your ruling. It is related to Member's interests.
  Under Standing Order No. 120, which governs the conduct of private business, hon. Members serving in Committee on an opposed private Bill must sign a declaration that they have no personal or constituency interest in the matter. The Bill is asking us to take over in part the functions of the local planning authority.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must know that the Second Reading motion has not even been moved yet, let alone decided upon. These are matters of which the House is well aware. I think the House will ensure that the Standing Orders are complied with when, if the Bill receives a Second Reading, a Committee is set up. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman ought to defer such a point of order until it becomes relevant.
  Mr. Dobson: I was referring to the procedure governing the Committee, because it is an indication that Parliament, in its wisdom, is concerned about the declaration of interests generally. We do not need a Second Reading debate to tell us—it is spelt out on the face of the Bill—that we are being asked to give planning permission. What I am asking you to do, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is to rule that, as Parliament requires that hon. Members must, when they talk on these matters, declare their interests publicly, in
  these peculiar circumstances—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot precede every debate in the House with a rehearsal of the relevant Standing Orders and the expression of the hope that hon. Members who take part will comply with the Standing Orders. We assume that hon. Members, being honourable and intelligent, will comply with the Standing Order. Points of order become relevant when there is a breach of those Standing Orders.
  Mr. Michael Brown: Although Associated British Ports is owned by a holding company—
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that we have heard sufficient points of order. We have had 30 minutes of points of order and I am not prepared to take any more at this stage.
  Mr. Brown: Associated British Ports has, since its privatisation, established for itself—
  Mr. Bermingham rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman was called at the very beginning of the time spent on points of
  384
  order. I am not prepared at this stage to take any further points of order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not persist in challenging my ruling.
  8.3 pm
  Mr. Brown: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Since its privatisation, Associated British Ports has established an excellent record of profitability, growth and well-planned investment. I served with the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on the Standing Committee which considered the Transport Bill in 1981. The 1981 Act brought Associated British Ports into existence. I remember the hon. Gentleman rightly making a lot of play of his opposition to the transfer of the old British Transport Docks Board into a private company because he felt that the change would starve ABP of investment.
  I am delighted to be able to advise the hon. Gentleman that the ports of Immingham and Grimsby, which I have the pleasure to represent—in conjunction with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell)—have, since being in the hands of ABP, gone from strength to strength. In 1987–88, about 30·9 million tonnes of cargo passed through Immingham. The hon. Gentleman, and his colleagues who represent the Opposition on transport matters, will recall that section 9 of the Transport Act 1981 requires ABP to provide such port facilities as it thinks necessary.
  Mr. Redmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: I shall not give way at this stage as it is only right that I should put the arguments in favour of the Bill on the record.
  Part I is formal and is in well-precedented terms. It deals with definitions and incorporates, with modifications to suit local conditions, provisions found in public Acts which are usually applied by private Acts.
  Part II would empower ABP to acquire compulsorily land or rights inland to construct the proposed works, which are in part III.
  Part III seeks the authority of Parliament to construct marine works. This is the central purpose of the Bill. ABP wants to construct port facilities which are perceived to be needed to cater for the continuing trend towards larger and more cost-effective vessels.
  Mr. Redmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: Perhaps I may set out the main purpose of part III first, as I suspect that it is on that that the hon. Gentleman will want to express a view.
  Associated British Ports must provide for the new larger vessels if it is to remain competitive. Because the works are to be constructed in tidal water, Parliament's consent, as opposed to the local authority's consent, is required. Clause 8 sets out the proposed works, and clause 16 describes the proposed extension of the harbour limits at Port Talbot.
  Works 1, 2, and 3 are intended to create a new facility for dry bulk cargo in the river Humber near Immingham, which is in my constituency. Work I comprises a jetty and jetty head. Work 2 is a secondary jetty designed to give additional access to the jetty head. Work 3 consists of

  385
  reclamation landwards of the jetty head to provide additional back-up land in line with the anticipated increase in use of the jetty complex.
  The port of Immingham is one of the busiest and most successful in the country. It currently handles some 30·9 million tonnes of traffic each year. That very success sometimes leads to congestion in our enclosed dock system. Many of the cargoes that are presently handled in the enclosed dock could be handled more efficiently if the proposed jetty were built.
  Mr. Hardy: The hon. Gentleman says that there is congestion in the port and I would not dispute that. Will he confirm, however, that the Humberside Port Owners Association is not in favour of the Bill?
  Mr. Brown: I am not able to confirm or deny that. The point of the work, however, is to overcome the problem of the constraint of lock gates. The purpose of the Bill is to enable larger ships which carry dry bulk cargoes to be handled without the constraints of the enclosed dock. The congestion that sometimes arises is caused by the dock gates, and a jetty would get over the problem.
  The cargo that ABP anticipates could be handled are pyrites, ferrous sulphate, clay, iron ore, sand, rutile, illmenite, soda ash, petroleum coke, coal, titanium slag, grain and ferro alloys. I am aware that some hon. Members on both sides of the House are worried about the Bill, but I shall try first to express my views and those of the promoters on the technical aspects of the Bill. Some hon. Members may not have had an opportunity to consider them.
  Mr. Eddie Loyden: Do I take it that the hon. Gentleman is talking about a jetty which will be subjected to the full range of tidal movements?
  Mr. Brown: Yes. That is one of the good things about the Bill. With dock gates, the tides sometimes constrain orderly working of the port. A tremendous project is proposed.
  The work would provide room in the enclosed dock for a greater volume of cargoes which can be handled suitably only in dock. It would also provide a unique dry bulk facility out in the river for larger vessels. ABP advises me that it is confident that the new facilities would enable expensive trans-shipment to continental ports to be dispensed with as larger vessels could sail from foreign destinations direct to the new jetty terminal in the Humber.
  Opposition Members may feel that the work might help foreign imports of which they do not approve. If the Bill is defeated, however, large bulk vessels will have to go, as they increasingly have to already, to the port of Rotterdam and break down their cargoes into much smaller boats, which would come to wharves outside the national dock labour scheme. Opposition Members know what problems that would present for traffic and villages.
  Given the nature of the debate that we had earlier on the ten-minute Bill, it must surely be agreed that if there is to be investment in ports such as Hull, Grimsby and Immingham and large ports such as Liverpool, we must encourage port facilities to be concentrated where we have put the infrastructure. We do not want large cargoes going to Rotterdam, being broken down and sent to small wharfs.
  Mr. David Hinchliffe (Wakefield): I should like to clarify the hon. Gentleman's position on the Bill. According to the January-February edition of Anti-Apartheid News, the hon. Gentleman has connections with an organisation called he Office of the South African Coal Industry, which promotes imports of South African coal. According to The Times of 5 April 1988, the hon. Gentleman was part of a recent Conservative party delegation to South Africa which called for the ending of sanctions against imports of South African coal. Are those reports true? If so, who paid for the trip to South Africa? Is the hon. Gentleman actively involved in promoting the importation of South African coal? Does he get paid for so doing?
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman asks a perfectly proper question, but he should have done his homework and referred to the Register of Members' Interests. If he had done so, he would have seen that I have a nil declaration. I have no financial interests, apart from a small income from Yorkshire Television and The Guardian. I have no financial connection with any other business whatsoever.
  I freely and proudly confirm that I have had the opportunity to see many bulk terminals around the world, as one would expect of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes. I have seen the Richards Bay terminal near Durban, and I freely confirm that I was a guest of the Chamber of Mines in South Africa. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Register of Members' Interests, he will see that those matters are declared.
  Mr. Kevin Barron: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: No. I shall not give way, because I must make progress.
  Work No. 4 describes a proposed quay that is intended to provide berths in the Great Ouse river at King's Lynn. This is building on success, for, although King's Lynn port is small, it is very busy and primarily handles grain, agricultural exports and timber and steel imports. It handles other traffic, including containers, cars, scrap metal, coal and coke. The new berths would enable larger ships to call at the port. At present, all the available facilities for cargo handling are located inside the enclosed docks and the size of vessel is limited by the entrance lock. It is envisaged that traffic such as grain exports and animal feed imports will use the new berth.
  Mr. Henry Bellingham (Norfolk, North-West): My hon. Friend is aware that last year was the best ever for the port of King's Lynn. It is a thriving, thrusting, go-ahead port. The main problem is that there are two enclosed docks, which greatly restrict the length and width of vessels that are able to enter it. The riverside quay is essential for the expansion of the port to attract the larger, wider and longer vessels. Is my hon. Friend aware that the overwhelming majority of the people who work in King's Lynn dock and the Transport and General Workers Union, which represents most of the dockers who work there, are completely behind the Bill? Is my hon. Friend aware that if some Opposition Members succeed in sabotaging the Bill, my constituents, whose jobs depend on this measure, would regard their behaviour with dismay?

  387
  Does he agree that those Opposition Members' attempts at sabotage are hypocritical and that they do not care about jobs in East Anglia and in constituencies such as mine?
  Mr. Brown: I confirm that the Transport and General Workers Union has been solidly behind these proposals, which will be of much benefit to my hon. Friend's constituency. It is estimated that the proposed works will cost about £4 million and, as my hon. Friend rightly said, the additional provision is essential to the success of the King's Lynn port. I hope that Opposition hon. Gentlemen will listen to the debate and be convinced of the reasons why they should vote for the Bill. Thus far, I do not think that anything out of order has taken place.
  Mrs. Llin Golding: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have listened to the hon. Gentleman. Silverdale quarry in my constituency will be gravely affected by the Bill. The hon. Gentleman persists in addressing his remarks to hon. Gentlemen. He has not once directed his remarks to me.
  Mr. Brown: I apologise profusely to the hon. Lady.
  As hon. Ladies and Gentlemen will be aware, part IV of the Bill—this might have been of interest to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) had she been present—relates to provisions for Port Talbot. Clause 15 sets out the various provisions relating to Port Talbot and clause 16 extends the geographical limits of the harbour. This provision is required so that the dredged approach channel may be extended, lighted, buoyed and subject to the harbour master's jurisdiction. It is intended to ensure the safety of shipping in the area.
  Port Talbot tidal harbour is a specialised facility which was constructed to allow the British Steel Corporation to bring in essential raw materials at a suitable deep-water harbour, conveniently placed for the steel works at Margam and Llanwern. The intention is to deepen and lengthen the dredged channel forming the approach to the tidal harbour so that the BSC may use larger vessels, thereby leading to economies of scale to make it more competitive against foreign manufacturers. I am sure that every hon. Gentleman and hon. Lady who represents a steel-producing constituency in south Wales will join me in the Aye Lobby. This is a major beneficial provision for the steel industry in south Wales.
  At present, the annual tonnage of raw materials handled at Port Talbot is 7·5 million, of which iron ore amounts to 5·6 million. The largest vessel used at present has a capacity of only 100,000 tonnes, and it is expected that the improved channel will enable the use of vessels that carry up to 150,000 tonnes.
  Part V contains a standard protective provision for the Crown, which is normal in Bills of this kind. Part VI deals with all the works and, in clause 18, places a time limit of 10 years on the proposed development for the purposes of class XII of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1977.
  Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is gabbling through a prepared brief. "Erskine May" says that printed notes are available by way of guidance for a speaker, but reading straight from notes is not permitted.
  388
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will adjust his speaking rate and debate the matter rather than gabble a prepared brief at us.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: In the hallowed phrase, hon. Members are allowed to refer to copious notes.
  Mr. Brown: I am anxious to make progress, because I am aware that the Bill evokes a certain amount of passion among Opposition Members. I am acutely aware of the fact that many hon. Members wish to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have a responsibility on behalf of the promoters—and as the hon. Member whose constituency will benefit from the provisions of the Bill—to set out the technical matters that the Bill raises, as well as other matters that may touch on the constituencies of other hon. Members.
  Clause 19 requires Associated British Ports to pay all the expenses of the promotion of the Bill and enables it to do so out of revenue. These clauses are standard provisions that are normal in a private Bill.
  Mr. Redmond rose—
  Mr. Brown: I should like to press on because I have a duty to the House to make some progress.
  I shall refer to those who rightly petitioned against the Bill—it was within their rights. Eleven petitions against the Bill were deposited, and they fall into two groups. The first group, which numbers five petitions, consists of companies or bodies making specific points aimed at the protection of their interests in the locality of the Immingham and King's Lynn works. Those petitioners are the Anglian Water Authority, Calor Gas Limited, Conoco Limited, Humber Oil Terminals Trustee Limited jointly with Associated Petroleum Terminals (Immingham) Limited and, finally, the British Coal Corporation. All those bodies have legal interests in installations at close proximity to the proposed works, for example, sea defence works, jetties, conveyor systems and so on. Consultations and negotiations with the petitioners are well advanced and a great deal of progress has been made with ABP. As ABP readily acknowledges that it must indemnify legitimate interests that may be adversely affected, for example, if the approach to a neighbouring berth were to suffer additional siltation, it is fully expected that, with one exception, settlement will have been reached with the petitioners by the time the Bill is considered by a Committee in the House.
  Mr. Graham Allen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: No, because there is one petitioner that I think the hon. Gentleman would wish me to deal with, which may affect his constituency and several others in Nottinghamshire.
  Protection will be given by the ABP to the Department of Energy, which owns a jetty upstream of the proposed works at Immingham. Consultations have taken place with the Health and Safety Executive to make certain that the proposed works fully meet all safety regulations that are relevant to the busy industrial area of Immingham and to the river Humber, which is Britain's busiest waterway.
  I mentioned one exception to the hope of a settlement with the petitioners that I named. It concerns British Coal, which petitioned seeking protection for its neighbouring port installations and with which it is expected full

  389
  agreement will be reached for those installations. However, British Coal's petition contains, in paragraph 21, a more fundamental objection to the Bill, which is in line with the objections being made by the other group of petitioners to which I shall now refer.
  I shall refer to those petitioners, if you will forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as political petitioners because their petitions are purely political and have nothing to do with the technical aspects of the works that I have described. [Interruption.] I do not say that in any derogatory sense. I make it clear that I fully accept that the petitioners are perfectly entitled to petition, and they have exercised their right. Those petitioners are the National Union of Mineworkers, the Union of Democratic Mineworkers—
  Mr. Eric Illsley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it correct for the hon. Gentleman to refer to those petitioners as political, by which he means the Coalfield Communities Campaign and the National Union of Mineworkers, but to refer to the Transport and General Workers Union as supporting the Bill? Surely that is unfair.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a legitimate point for debate, but it is not a point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Brown: I should like to make it absolutely clear that, when I use the word "political", I use the word with a small "p" and in no sense in a derogatory way.
  Mr. Allen: If the hon. Gentleman is expressing concern about petitioners and the views of those who may object to the Bill, why has he chosen to pilot it through the House rather than go through the normal planning permission process with a full public local inquiry, so that all those whom he calls political could put a full case in public and perhaps have their view heard by a judge? A decision could be made at a proper public inquiry after all the issues had been discussed rather than the hon. Gentleman trying to sneak the matter through in this way.
  Mr. Brown: I should have thought that if we were to rely on the other method by which planning permission can be given, there would be far less opportunity than there is under the private Bill procedure for Opposition Members and petitioners to make their case.
  On occasions, I have objected to private Bills and I have served on a private Bill committee, and I have followed private business from the point of view of promoters and petitioners, so if the hon. Gentleman has been in the House for as long as me—I have been here for nine years now—he will realise that under that procedure there is a tremendous scope to ensure that petitions are fully heard and adjudicated on in a much fairer way, from the point of view of the petitioners, than under normal planning procedures, which might involve a local borough council or a county council. I should have thought that this was a much better way to ensure that those who object to the Bill have the opportunity to have their say.
  Those are the petitions that it is difficult for Associated British Ports to meet. Hon. Members who have blocked the Second Reading of the Bill are doing so on the same ground as that stated in the second group of petitions that I listed. That is that the proposed works at Immingham and King's Lynn and, indeed, the proposed improvements to the harbour at Port Talbot, are intended for or at any
  390
  rate could be used for the importation of foreign coal. The NUM petition states flatly that, for that reason, the Bill should not be allowed to proceed.
  The other political petitioners say that the Bill should not be allowed to proceed unless safeguards are inserted to prevent the consequences that they foresee. The only way in which ABP could go ahead and construct the works, and yet satisfy those petitioners, would be by binding itself never to accept any imported coal through the new works. Of course, that is not possible for any commercial body. ABP's perceived function is to provide and operate modern efficient port facilities to meet market demands and to be free to compete for all traffic, whether inward or outward bound, including coal, or any other commodity.
  I stress that the proposed port facilities at Immingham are not simply for imports. Ports and port industries have two purposes: they are for exports as much as for imports. Hon. Ladies and hon. Gentlemen would do well to remember that it was only a short time ago, just before the mining dispute in 1984, that some 5 million tonnes of British coal were exported from the port of Immingham, perhaps from the mines in constituencies represented by Opposition Members. I remind hon. Ladies and hon. Gentlemen that from the 'British Coal press release just two days ago—they can take heart from it—it is clear that the present collapse in the price of world coal is unsustainable. The world price of coal is likely to rise. As a consequence of the efficiency of our mining industry, and probably in the mid-1990s, when the jetty facilities at Immingham are completed, it is likely that British Coal will be in the market for exporting, and it will need port facilities to do so. The Bill provides for those facilities.
  I stress to hon. Ladies and hon. Gentlemen that the purpose of the Bill is to recognise that there are times when British Coal as well as British Steel has required port facilities to export its commodities. It was only a few years ago, when I represented. the steel constituency of Scunthorpe, that the BSC was concerned about imports taking away its home market. Now it is in the export business and it needs export outlets and growing port facilities.
  Mr. Michael Welsh: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way on an important issue. He said that the facilities would be for all sorts of imports, and he was grateful for that. If all sorts of imports can come in, is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is possible for nuclear waste to be imported, and to be dumped in our constituencies? If he is saying that, does he agree with it? I do not. I ask the hon. Gentleman: does he?
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman raises a point that is of great concern to me. But I cannot imagine that many people in the United Kingdom will import nuclear waste. It is highly unlikely that many people will require the port facilities for that, but, theoretically, if someone wanted to import vast quantities of nuclear waste, he could use Immingham docks. He could use the docks without the Bill, but he might not be able to bring so much in, so I suppose that theoretically what the hon. Gentleman says is possible.
  The opposition by the coal interests to the proposals contained in the Bill amounts to an attack on free trade. The coal interests are using a private Bill legitimately, but they are using it to make a political point. The conception

  391
  and execution of an energy policy for the United Kingdom is a Government matter, and Opposition Members should not use opposition to a private Bill—
  Mr. Ted Leadbitter: As I understand it—this is an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to correct me and to enlighten the House—he travelled to South Africa with his expenses paid, hospitality given, and took part in discussions. Did he at any time discuss with the mining interests in South Africa the possibility of their exporting coal to this country? Did South Africa demonstrate that because of the changing situation regarding energy policies in this country there is a market for its coal? If the hon. Gentleman did take part in such a discussion, will he be precise about it? If he did not do so, will he make that clear to us?
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is an assiduous and senior Member of the House. I thought that he would have done his homework, examined the Register of Members' Interests and seen my declaration that I visited South Africa as a guest of the Chamber of Mines, and that my accommodation and travel expenses were provided. There is no secret about that.
  Mr. Leadbitter rose—
  Mr. Brown: I now come to the other points that the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) referred to. I raised the issue while I was in South Africa and he will be interested in the answer. There is a punitive export rate on the South African rand. It is not practical, across the exchanges, for the South African coal industry to export coal to this country. The hon. Gentleman should be aware also that Britain is a member of the European Community, which has imposed sanctions on South African coal. I should have thought that he would recognise the safeguards that exist. He should know, as an hon. Member with great experience of the coal industry, that the South African coal industry is flat broke. It has no investment possibilities for exporting its product.
  Mr. Leadbitter: Why did the hon. Gentleman go there?
  Mr. Brown: I went there because I wanted to see the export coal terminal at Richards Bay in Durban, and on behalf of those hon. Members who may one day see the coal that is produced in the mines in their constituencies being afforded the same sort of exporting coal facility at the port of Immingham. I should dearly like to see a Richards Bay at Immingham, and not one in South Africa. That is why I invite Opposition Members to consider the points that I make. [Interruption.] It is sad that instead of greeting better port facilities as an opportunity to export coal mined in the United Kingdom, the petitioners, not only shrink from this opportunity but actively and by political means, seek a protectionist policy. It is as though they have neither the will nor the ability to compete with foreign coal producers.
  I voted against joining the Common Market in 1975, but I realise that in 1992, for better or worse, we shall be a member of the single European market. Products will go to the port of Rotterdam and be broken down and sent to—
  Mr. Illsley: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why he visited a coal export terminal at Richards Bay? How does
  392
  he square that with his latest statement that the South African coal industry is flat broke and cannot export that coal? If that is the case, why does it have this export terminal?
  Mr. Brown: Because it has been there for many years. Of course, their export markets are not Europe; they are the Pacific rim. I thought that the hon. Gentleman, with whom I serve on the Select Committee on Energy, would know that.
  Mr. Allen rose—
  Mr. Brown: I give way for the last time.
  Mr. Allen: When South Africa exports coal to nations other than Europe, is there a prohibition on that coal being traded on the spot market in Rotterdam or anywhere else and thus finding its way into British ports? If the hon. Gentleman did visit Richards Bay, why did he do so when it is an old, out-of-date, unused facility? I assumed that he would want to see a modern facility.
  Mr. Brown: I visited the Richards Bay facility because it is one of the largest facilities in the world. If one represents the port of Immingham and wants to see that port thrive, one would go to that sort of facility. Whether one likes it or not, South Africa is in the coal business. South Africa is supplied by the same coal technology which supplies the mines which are represented by Opposition Members.
  Mr. Allen rose—
  Mr. Brown: No, I am not going to give way any more. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and be able to make his own speech.
  We have to accept that Britain will be part of a wider Europe in 1992, whether we like it or not. If we are to take advantage of that opportunity—as France will do under the Socialist President Mitterrand—we have to be better than other countries. We must ensure that there are port facilities. We must ensure that the dockers in my constituency play their part in sending British goods across to the continent and to other parts of the world. As I have explained, the powers sought by ABP are designed to meet the needs of its markets and the many customers who will use the new facilities.
  If the exporters and importers of a nation which is proud of its free trade tradition are denied the use of facilities that they need because of the opposition of one vested interest, that will be a grave injustice. That is why I invite the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  8.36 pm
  Mr. Kevin Barron: I offer my condolences to the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). On 5 May he wrote a letter to his hon. Friends asking them to support the private Bill tonight. When he moved the Bill, there were 10 of his colleagues on the Government Benches. The number reduced to seven at one stage. The number is now up to eight, if one includes the Minister. It seems that his letter did not carry a lot of weight. I wonder what it will be like in the Lobby at 10 o'clock, if there is a Division. Will his hon. Friends respond to his three-line Whip? Below the request in his letter for supporters to attend at 10 o'clock there are three lines.

  393
  There are one or two other points in the letter that I should mention. The hon. Gentleman has been more honest with the House than he was in his letter. He said that the major part of the Bill relating to Immingham is about coal and very little else. in the letter which he sent to his right hon. and hon. Friends he said that the port could be used for the importation of coal. Of course, he knows that it will be used for coal imports. That is why British Coal is one of the 11 petitioners against the Bill. It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman has not put British Coal in his list of political petitioners.
  Mr. Michael Brown: That is because British Coal is petitioning to protect its port interests at the terminals.
  Mr. Barron: I shall be mentioning some of British Coal's interests as contained in the literature that it has been sending to hon. Members. Its interests go further than the Immingham terminal that it is using. Its interests lie in my constituency as well as in other hon. Members' constituencies. In the letter of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes there is the sentence:
  "In both cases, an essentially private enterprise development faces opposition from public sector vested interests."
  The hon. Gentleman is saying that the Bill of the newly privatised Associated British Ports should be defended because it is a privatised port rather than for any other reason.
  The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes referred to the petition from the National Union of Mineworkers containing the name of the president, Arthur Scargill. It is a great pity that the hon. Gentleman did not refer to the other political petitioners such as Calor Gas and Conoco Ltd. The hon. Gentleman mentioned his visit to South Africa. He should recall that it is recorded in the Register of Members' Interests that he visited America not too long ago as a guest of Conoco. Twice during his speech the hon. Gentleman said that with regard to his visit to South Africa we should look at the Register of Members' Interests—[Interruption.]
  I consulted the Register of Members' Interests this afternoon. Four Conservative Members went on that delegation to South Africa and two of them registered that fact in the Register of Members' Interests. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes did not.
  Mr. Michael Brown: It is registered there.
  Mr. Barron: I have looked at the register twice and the hon. Gentleman's visit is not registered there.
  Mr. Brown: If the hon. Gentleman telephones the office which compiles the Register of Members' Interests, he will learn that my visit is registered. I have a copy of the entry. I do not know when the volume which the hon. Gentleman examined was published. If he telephones—and I am surprised that he did not do that this afternoon because that is what I would have done—he will receive the full details.
  Mr. Barron: It is very strange that I looked in the updated version kept in the Library, not in the Vote Office, and I saw that two of his hon. Friends who accompanied him on the visit registered in time for that fact to be entered in the updated copy in the Library. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes invited Opposition Members to
  394
  look in the Register of Members' Interests. The hon. Gentleman is not registered in the register as having visited South Africa with that delegation.
  It is true, as the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes rightly explained, that the South African Government discriminate against their own coal industry. On 5 April 1988 The Times carried an article which examined in some detail the visit made by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes and his three colleagues to South Africa as the guests of the South African coal mining industry. The article states, referring to the delegation:
  "They also feel it should be supported in its opposition to the discriminatory legislation enforced by the South African government."
  The hon. Gentleman is arguing for the South African Government to remove that discrimination which he claims prevents them from exporting coal to Britain. He went to South Africa to argue that and he came back here and argued that the South African Government should stop doing that presumably to open the gates for South African coal, without South African Government discrimination, to come into Britain.
  If we pass the Bill, the consequences will be very grave for the regional and national interests. It has become obvious since the publication of the White Paper on privatising electricity that the only competition will exist through the price of coal for the generators. While the nuclear industry is cushioned, the coal industry will be challenged. The Bill is the first—unfortunately, it will riot be the last—challenge to the British coal industry in current legislation.
  It is obvious that the facilities will be used for importing coal and that the effects of such imports on the demand for and supply of indigenous coal products must be heeded. It is a well-known fact that present international coal prices are well below sustainable levels in the medium to long term. Although prices have increased recently, that has been offset by the increase in sterling against the dollar. In view of that, substantial coal imports through the Humber could close a minimum of 10 million tonnes of capacity in the midlands and Yorkshire coalfields which would in future prove economic against world prices. Imports would also interfere with British Coal's current cost reduction and restructuring and that is compounded by the uncertainties arising from the Government's privatisation. There is no certainty about the terms and conditions under which British Coal will supply the newly privati;ed electricity supply industry.
  It is worth noting at this stage that no industry of that scale can sustain a coherent investment programme of future market projections during all that uncertainty. Because of that, importing coal at an unsustainably low price would not only reduce British Coal's sales and output, but would permanently damage areas that have already borne the brunt of a contracting industry.
  Mr. Allan McKay (Barnsley, West and Penistone): Has my hon. Friend seen the report in the Sheffield and Barnsley Star which contains a report from the Financial Times business section stating that 40 potentially profitable pits will be axed by 1990 if the Government encourage coal imports?
  Mr. Barron: That is right. I hope that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes will listen to these implications and will stop talking to his friends.

  395
  The report to which my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) has referred is titled
  "Coal on the Market: Can British Coal Survive Privatisation?"
  and was produced by the Financial Times business information service last Monday. It states:
  "Much British deep-mined coal can compete well with imports in 1990—but by 1995 the mines should be competing so well as to restrict imports to the periphery of the power station market … By 1995 any savings made by an all-out import policy in 1990 would have disappeared and the electricity supply industry would be paying millions of pounds more for imported coal than by buying British … There is a severe risk that many deep mines which could compete with imported coal in 1995 will be closed by 1990 if the government encourage an early free-for-all on imports."
  That is exactly what is happening with the Bill tonight.
  Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Does my hon. Friend realise that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) is fully aware of the facts that he has given? Like me, the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes has the privilege of being a member of the Select Committee on Energy and he heard expert witnesses expressing concern about the effects on the British coal mining industry arising from the privatisation of electricity and the threat of major imports of up to 30 million tonnes. That coal could not be imported without these new ports.
  Mr. Barron: That is right. My hon. Friend has struck a true note. We all know what is behind the Bill.
  I want to refer to the Bill's history. The Bill's promoters applied for EEC assistance under the integrated development operation programme for the region covering some of south Yorkshire and Humberside. That application was rejected because it was argued that to fund a project in one part of an area that damaged another was not within its scope and that refusal was perfectly correct as the coal mining areas of Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire will be dramatically affected by the Bill if it is carried through all its stages.
  There are five coal mines in my constituency which supply between 80 per cent. and 95 per cent. of their production to one of four power stations—
  Mr. Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it correct and in order for a Conservative Member to consult with members of the public who may have a vested interest in this discussion?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am concerned only with what happens in the Chamber, and that is a difficult enough job without the hon. Gentleman inviting me to deal with something outside the Chamber.
  Mr. Barron: The coal mines in my constituency supply coal to two generators in Yorkshire and two in Nottinghamshire. The terminal referred to in the Bill will threaten those collieries.
  We are effectively being asked to add to the 19 per cent. unemployment level in the Rotherham and Mexborough travel-to-work area. We are being asked to threaten jobs in an area where 51·3 per cent. of the male unemployed have been claiming benefit for more than a year. In March, 4,310 young people were on Government schemes or seeking work through the Rotherham careers office.
  396
  Between November 1987 and February 1988, only 55 full-time and three part-time vacancies were notified for the 4,310 young people seeking work in the area. In March, there were 499 unfilled vacancies at the jobcentre in the area which I represent and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther). In other words, there was one vacancy for every 40 unemployed people.
  The Bill would make matters worse in the interests of profit for a newly privatised electricity supply industry. It would not act in the national interest. In the past decade British Coal has reduced its work force by 60 per cent., and the work force has been reduced by over half in the past three years. More than 125,000 job losses have been the direct and miserable cost of the coal industry's restructuring. The price has been paid by the mining communities. What more can these communities realistically be expected to give if there are to be further cuts in their areas?
  What is to be done for the thousands of young people who have no opportunity to work? Some of them have been unemployed for four, five or six years. Many have never had a job, and they would love to take one if the opportunity came their way. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes is giving us the opportunity to cause further job destruction by expanding the port at Immingham.
  Mr. Michael Welsh: I agree with my hon. Friend's arguments on unemployment. Does he agree that it would be foolish to embark on an undertaking to bring minerals into this country when we have a 300-year supply of coal? Surely such importation would increase unemployment and ruin the balance of payments. Would it not be foolish to pay for imports when we can produce what is needed? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill should be rejected?
  Mr. Barron: I concur with my hon. Friend's remarks. He will be aware of the damage that was caused to the balance of payments following the increase in oil prices in the early 1970s. That was a classic example. It seemed that we were prepared to cut off our noses to spite our faces. Warnings were issued by the British mining industry for many years that importing energy at such a high level was wrong. It was seen to be wrong when the price of oil on the world market increased fourfold in a short period.
  I know that a three-line Whip has been sent to Conservative Members. They have been asked to support the Bill's Second Reading. Although there have never been more than 10 Conservative Members in the Chamber since the debate began, I suspect that we shall see more than 10 of them when the Question is put.
  There is a strong rumour that the chairman of Associated British Ports has met the Minister to ensure that the Bill enjoys prime parliamentary time, that there will be a healthy vote in its favour, and that it will have some chance of success. It is a disgrace that it has been introduced in such a manner. It has been rushed through, and accompanying it is a flimsy letter from the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes that fails to deal with the problems that will arise in many areas. I note that the hon. Gentleman smiles. I am talking about Rother Valley, which is Labour controlled, and other areas that some of his hon. Friends represent. These areas will be under attack if the Bill is enacted and implemented.
  Mr. Redmond: My hon. Friend has made a serious allegation. I hope that he will ask the Minister to give a categoric denial that the chairman of Associated British Ports has met the Minister or any departmental officials with a view to pushing the Bill through the House.
  Mr. Barron: If the Minister intervenes in the debate, I hope that he will tell us whether the rumour to which I have referred is true. As I have said, it is strongly rumoured that there has been a direct approach to someone within the Department by the chairman of Associated British Ports.
  I shall bring my remarks to a close as I am aware that others wish to participate in the debate. It may be that we shall not have sufficient time to complete our consideration of the Bill on Second Reading this evening because of the number of hon. Members who wish to speak. It may be necessary for the debate to be continued at a later date.
  The communities that I represent, along with many that are represented by others in this place, have paid the price of restructuring, and it will be paid by future generations. These communities should be allowed to reap some of the benefits that should accompany increases in productivity. We are all aware of the increases in productivity that have been achieved in the coal industry over the past three years, and I want to ensure that the communities that I represent benefit accordingly. One way of ensuring that they do so would be to reject the Bill. Let us ensure that if there is a Division on Second Reading this evening there will be a majority against it.
  If the Bill is given a Second Reading tonight and later is enacted, its effect will be to exploit our people and the peoples of other countries. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes has visited South Africa and he has seen the exploitation in that country's coal mines. I urge him to change his mind and to join us in rejecting the Bill's Second Reading.
  8.56 pm
  The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): My intervention will be brief and will follow entirely traditional lines. The normal advice that is given to the House by all Governments, regardless of party, is that a private Bill should be allowed a Second Reading. That does not imply that the Government support it. It means that the Bill should be allowed to be considered in Committee so that it can be examined in detail on its merits. The promoter and sponsors can advance the case for it, and the petitioners can argue for amendment or rejection.
  The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) referred to what he described as a strong rumour that I had met the chairman of Associated British Ports to have my arm twisted or my ear bent in receiving his views on why the Bill should proceed. I have not met the chairman of Associated British Ports in respect of the Bill. I have no knowledge of whether any other Minister or officials in the Department of Transport have done so. That has no bearing on what I have to say this evening.
  I shall not comment on the Bill. All the arguments have been advanced for and against it.
  Mr. Barron: If the Bill proceeds after its Second Reading tonight, will the Minister ensure that nobody else from his Department—perhaps even the Secretary of State
  398
  himself—has met the promoters of the Bill, and will he make that information available at the Committee stage or at another opportunity?
  Mr. Mitchell: Had I or my colleagues been persuaded by the chairman of Associated British Ports, we might have been expected to express a view that was favourable to the details of the Bill. I have been carefully telling the House that I am adopting the traditional stance of not commenting on the Bill or on the arguments that have been made for or against it. I merely urge the House to give the Bill a Second Reading, so that the case can be properly heard. The House owes that much to the promoters. My action is not meant to show support for the Bill, but reflects the Government's purely conventional and neutral position. It is on that basis that I hope the House will allow the Bill to make progress, so that it may be considered in greater depth at the Committee stage.
  9 pm
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Minister tells the House that the Government, with their usual neutrality, have nothing to do with the Bill. I remind Conservative Members who have not turned up for this debate, important though it is, and also my hon. Friends, that the same Minister, during the progress of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill, assured the House that the Government were strictly neutral. Yet during the course of the long evening when that Bill was debated the Prime Minister herself voted on it on at least seven occasions, thereby demonstrating that the Government's neutrality was as bogus on that occasion as is the Minister's pretence that the Government have no interest in this Bill.
  I say to the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) that he would do himself a considerable favour if he would be less assiduous in trying to persuade the powers that be in the Government to arrange matters nicely for him. Conservative Members were in the House for a Whipped vote at 7 o'clock, and we know that they will be present again later tonight for another Whipped vote. We know that the sponsor of the Bill has written to his hon. Friends in such a way that it was described as a private three-line whip. That does not lead us to believe that there has been no jiggery-pokery with the Government's business managers.
  Mr. Michael Brown: The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) should be aware that the time allocated for today's private business is not a matter for the Government, or for the Opposition, but is arranged on the instructions of the Chairman of Ways and Means. I make no secret of the fact that I have invited my hon. Friends by letter to consider the points that I have made, and I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) has written to every Conservative Member asking them to join the Opposition Lobby.
  Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman surprises me, either with his innocence or his naivety. I agree that the allocation of private business is a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means. However, if the hon. Gentleman is trying to persuade me that it was other than the Government's business managers who allocated the debate that is to take place after this Second Reading, he is out of his head. He knows as well as I do that it is the Leader of the House, in conjunction with the Chief Whip and the business managers of his party, who make sure

  399
  that at the end of the day the Government govern. It is the Government's business managers who decide what business is transacted. Those same Government business managers ensured that Whipped business would be taking place after this private business, thereby guaranteeing that many of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends—and friends of apartheid—would be present to vote for the Bill.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: So far the hon. Gentleman has made no real argument against the Bill. It is not our fault that the Opposition changed the subject of today's debate and introduced contention after today's business was announced last week. The fact that Conservative Members are present to vote on certain issues should not surprise him. He should address himself more to the arguments relating to the Bill than to the business of the day.
  Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) will forgive me if I do not always accept his advice on the content of my speeches or how I should present them. Having listened to the hon. Gentleman on many occasions, I find that I generally do better without his assistance. I shall not labour the point, but the hon. Gentleman is a little newer to the House than is his hon. Friend, and is a little duller. I shall try to explain again to him that it was the Government's business managers who allocated the business after this Second Reading, so guaranteeing that Conservative Members would be present in force tonight.
  The Government, far from being neutral, are showing all the signs that they have shown in the past of wanting to support the Bill. The reason for doing so is simple, and it is the one given by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron). The Bill is all part of the process of fattening up the CEGB for privatisation—fattening up revenues for the Government's coffers. It does not take an economic or mathematical genius to know that if the CEGB can operate with imported coal bought on the stock market—as it wants to—where prices, for this brief moment of history, are well below those of British Coal, it will be in a position to lower its costs and increase its prices. And the Government will be able to maximise their profits when privatisation of the CEGB takes place.
  I am sure that many of my hon. Friends from the coal mining communities will make their points about the coal industry. They are better informed about it than I am. However, I shall make a few before moving on—
  Mr. Harry Barnes: Although it is a fiction that the Government maintain neutrality, there is a case for them not to operate that fiction and to ask us to move against the measure. The preamble to the Bill states:
  "The purposes of this Act cannot be effected without the authority of Parliament".
  That shows that the Bill is claiming that these things can be done only by means of a Bill of this kind. However, we know that planning permission being sought through the normal procedures from authorities in different parts of the country would be another way of achieving the Bill's aims. So the Bill is a fraud and the Government should take that into account when considering their attitude to it.
  Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend raises an important point, which the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes might
  400
  want to consider. He told the House—surprisingly—that he thought this procedure was a better one for prosecuting a matter such as this. I have stated before that it would be far better if Parliament had nothing to do with these private Bills, which tend to be squalid little affairs. Accusations are often made—and justified—that Conservative Members are acting in the interests of some rather dubious groups, in this country or further afield.
  The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes has already been questioned about his links with the South African coal industry. If he would like to tell us how far his negotiations with that industry extend, he would do the House a favour. We would then be able to put his claims of disinterestedness to the test. At the moment they do not look good, in view of the accusations about his links with the South African coal industry.
  Such issues, which may be hidden in this sort of procedure, would not be hidden if the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) of having proper planning mechanisms and local public inquiries were followed. In that way, local interest groups and people who would be affected could make clear their objections, which could be properly examined. That would be a more acceptable way of handling this.
  We know that more than 100 Conservative Members who will be needed for the closure are secreted around the House, but the problem is that fewer than a dozen of them are present to hear the reasons that would justify, or not, their decision to vote for the Bill. That is why this procedure is objectionable to us. It fails to deal with the needs of those who petitioned against the Bill and, more generally, the needs of the nation. That is why the Government cannot escape their responsibility for such Bills. The Minister may tell the House that the Government's traditional posture on these issues is one of neutrality, but the Government do not always maintain such neutrality. The Minister, on many occasions, far from saying that the House should give a Bill a Second Reading so that the Standing Committee can get on with its examination of it, has made it clear, for instance, that the Government support the promoters of British Rail Bills.
  It simply is not good enough for the Minister to pretend that the Government have no interest. Nor is it acceptable for the Minister to tell the House that the Government have no views on whether this development, which will have a major impact on British ports policy, is in the interests of the nation's ports or is an acceptable scheme and to say that the Government are neutral. It is not even acceptable for the Minister not to have a view on whether the petitioners' arguments are relevant. Several petitioners have raised substantive points and the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes has failed to answer the criticisms that have been made.
  In fairness, I should say that the hon. Gentleman has approached me on one issue, and I want to raise that with him now. One of the petitioners is Calor Gas, which has a storage facility which contains some 300 tonnes of liquid petroleum gas. I think that all hon. Members will accept that that is a considerable quantity of such potential danger—
  Mr. Hardy: Horrifying.
  Mr. Lloyd: For such a store to be put in jeopardy would be unacceptable to all hon. Members. Calor Gas has petitioned against the Bill because it is worried about the

  401
  safety of its facility. When neither the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, the sponsor of the Bill, nor the Minister addresses that issue, but simply says that it can be dealt with at another stage when the petitioners can have their say is not good enough. The House would be negligent if it did not take such real anxieties into account on Second Reading.
  Mr. Michael Brown: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's anxieties and I have consulted the promoters about them. I have been advised by them that they have met the Health and Safety Executive and the Glanford borough council, which is the planning authority, and a representative of Calor. They are pressing the Health and Safety Executive for a definitive statement to reassure Calor that it will not lose its consent as a result of ABP's activities.
  Having advertised the Bill, ABP has had no adverse comments from the Health and Safety Executive and, until receiving the Calor petition, did not appreciate how anxious the company was. Calor and Coneco are customers of ABP, and it will want to do everything to reassure them because they are major customers and users of the facilities. I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that, if the Bill receives its Second Reading and goes to a Private Bill Committee, such legitimate issues can be considered, with Calor as petitioners.
  Mr. Lloyd: I do not find it reassuring that a company with such high credentials as we are told ABP has should sponsor a Bill for which it seeks a Second Reading in the House of Commons without having addressed fundamental safety issues. The hon. Gentleman can correct me if I am wrong, but my information is that ABP did not approach the Health and Safety Executive in an attempt to discover the position.
  The hon. Gentleman's explanation is inadequate in another respect. It is not satisfactory if ABP's only reason for wanting to have the matter resolved is simply that it values two large commercial supporters with whom it has substantial dealings. Once again, the actions of the promoters of the Bill and the Government leave a lot to be desired.
  The issue of that installation is fundamental, because Calor Gas says that its store will be within 50m of vessels that will be moored on the new jetty if it is built. That is sufficient to make it extremely worried about whether it would be allowed to continue operating at that jetty under existing regulations—the Health and Safety Executive guidance note GS40 on the loading and unloading of bulk flammable liquids and gases, and the API standard 2510 on design and construction of liquid petroleum gas installations. My hon. Friends and I would be the first to argue that if Calor Gas can no longer operate the installation in a manner compatible with safety, the facility must be closed down. If the building of the new jetty will make the liquid petroleum gas installation unsafe, it would be negligent of the House to fail to have the facility closed down.
  Mr. David Mitchell: Perhaps it might help the hon. Gentleman and reassure the House to know that the Conoco and Calor Gas operation is a notified installation under the Notification of Installations Handling Hazardous Substances Regulations 1982, so the Health and Safety Executive will certainly be considering the matter if the Bill proceeds.
  Mr. Lloyd: That is exactly the point. The House will, indeed, be considering the matter if the Bill proceeds. However, it is a fact of life that the HSE should have been approached by Associated British Ports before the Bill came before the House. It is certainly my clear understanding—the HSE can speak for itself—that the HSE feels considerable unease, to say the least, about the way in which the matter has been handled and the fact that it was not consulted by ABP before this stage. That should give us no cause to he happy about the way in which the Bill has been handled.
  The installation is the single most important matter that has been raised because of the clear implications of 300 tonnes of liquid petroleum gas going up in flames, but there are other—
  Mr. Mitchell: I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Barron: The Minister is defending the Bill.
  Mr. Mitchell: No. I am simply trying to put it on record that if the Bill proceeds and the Health and Safety Executive feels that there is a risk, that body will be able to deal, not with this proposal, but with the risk item, which is the liquid gas installation and storage facility. The HSE has power to deal with that matter at its discretion.
  Mr. Hardy: Will my hon. Friend comment on, and seek the Minister's further comments on, the fact that when we debated the Hampshire (Lyndhurst) Bypass Bill the Government were able to confirm to the House that the two public agencies responsible for advising them on that Bill—the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission—had given advice, even though they had then ignored it? In this case, at the same stage of the Bill's consideration, the Government cannot give us the advice of the public agency that should be responsible for giving advice. As the explosive capacity of liquid petroleum gas is horrific in its proportion and volume, it is remiss of the Government not to make available the sort of advice that was made available on previous Bills. As the Government have not provided that advice, will my hon. Friend suggest to the Minister, not only that he should abstain on Second Reading, but that he should ensure that his ministerial colleagues do the same?
  Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend gives the Minister some sensible advice. Clearly, the statutory body responsible, the HSE, has not been in a position to comment. It is amazing that the Government can remain neutral when they should have taken expert advice from the HSE. The Minister could then properly have informed hon. Members about whether the proposed development was inherently unsafe or whether it was acceptable and posed no threat to the gas storage installation.
  Mr. Mitchell: With great respect, the hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. The Health and Safety Executive is not involved in the matters that are proposed in the Bill. That is not its responsibility. Its responsibility is to decide whether the gas installation should be allowed to continue if the Bill became law and the jetty was used. I make it absolutely clear that the Health and Safety Executive does not have a responsibility for the jetty that is proposed in the Bill. It does have a responsibility for the gas installation nearby. If it took the view that the gas

  403
  installation was not acceptable in that close proximity, it would have powers to deal with the gas installation, but not with the jetty.
  Mr. Lloyd: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the technical process, and I agree with him that that is the formal logic. Nevertheless, that situation serves merely to highlight my anxieties. If the Minister is telling the House that the Government, in their neutral attitude to the Bill, are so laid back that they will not take seriously a threat to 300 tonnes of liquid petroleum gas until such time as the HSE has had the opportunity to find out whether vessels will ram the storage terminals, I must tell him that he should not be doing the job that he is doing tonight in the House.
  Mr. Barron: Is my hon. Friend aware that Ian Greer Associates wrote to me this morning about the effect on the gas installation? The Minister seems to be defending the Bill. The letter says:
  "The promoters have met Calor Gas but as of yet they have offered no amendment to the Bill or given an explanation which is satisfactory to Calor."
  Indeed, it is believed that the results of the Bill will be the closure of the gas installation and will cost the jobs that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) says he wants to encourage in his constituency.
  Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend was kind enough to give me a copy of that letter. On this occasion Calor Gas has behaved in a completely reputable way. Obviously it has a commercial interest to defend, but it is also determined to defend its reputation as an operator that does not want to endanger the lives of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people.
  The Minister should have been able to tell the promoters of the Bill and Opposition Members that the Government can say definitively that the development does not jeopardise that installation, or alternatively that the Government cannot support the Bill tonight because the threat to the installation is so great that it risks devastation and loss of human life on a massive scale.
  I shall now turn to another significant item raised by a petitioner against the Bill. The Anglian water authority, which is responsible for land drainage, water courses and effectively for the whole water system in the area of this development, has expressed grave doubts which could not be considered to be motivated by private gain or personal profit. Its doubts stem from the floods on the east coast in 1953. Although I am rather too young to remember that time, I am aware that there was considerable loss of life. As a result, at considerable expense, the Anglian water authority and its predecessor bodies managed to erect a system of sea defences which have protected that coast for all those years.
  The Anglian water authority has expressed grave anxiety about the proposed developments by Associated British Ports. It believes that the developments will jeopardise the sea defences that it has provided. It believes that during the construction phase of the jetty, and later when the jetty has been established, it will so fundamentally alter the manner in which the water system works that it will threaten the sea defences and expose the
  404
  constituency of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes and others to the devastating flooding that occurred on that coast 35 years ago.
  Associated British Ports has completed a model of the development. Such a model should have existed long before now. Expert information in the form of mathematical and physical models should have been made available to all those concerned. The Minister of State ought to have been able to allay the fears of hon. Members by saying that there is no threat to the sea defences, as suggested by the Anglian water authority. The Minister has told us that he is neutral. He has also told the House that he is unable to provide expert information about liquid petroleum gas. Furthermore, the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes is unable to say whether there is a real threat to the sea defences in that area. This is a matter of such fundamental importance that one can say that the promoters have been negligent in promoting a Bill for which they have been unable to provide the appropriate information.
  Mr. Allen: Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that 70 per cent. of the deep mine coal capacity in Nottinghamshire goes to power stations in the Trent valley? If a port with a capacity of 5 million tonnes is created, it will have a tremendously detrimental effect on the mining industry in Nottinghamshire and throughout the east midlands.
  Mr. Lloyd: I have already made that point. One of the reasons for the Bill is that it provides the Government with a means of fattening up the CEGB for privatisation. An inevitable part of that process is the importation of cheap coal that can be bought at Rotterdam and elsewhere. It allows the CEGB to reduce its costs and increase its profits. It also allows this bankrupt Chancellor of the Exchequer to prop up Government expenditure, as he has done every year since he became Chancellor, with the proceeds of the privatisation that has ripped off the British public. In this case he will be ripping off the jobs of miners in the midlands and elsewhere, including those of miners in the constituencies of Conservative Members. I know that that worries at least one Conservative Member, and perhaps that is to his credit.
  Miners' jobs are of critical importance. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) has this evening handed me a letter from people in his area. They are anxious about the knock-on effect in the diminished south Wales coalfields if they come under pressure from the midlands coalfields because their coal is displaced by imported coal.
  The problem over the 300 tonnes of liquid petroleum gas is of such devastating importance, if this development gets it wrong, that the House would be failing in its duty if it did not take the matter on board. The undermining of the sea defences on the east coast is another matter of such importance that the House would be failing in its duty if it adopted a position of benign neutrality, as urged by the Minister of State. I urge my hon. Friends and also the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes to follow the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley and reject the Bill. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes should consider whether he ought to say to the promoters that, as that information is not available, he is not prepared to vote for the Bill.
  9.29 pm
  Mr. Andy Stewart: The Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill is an innocent title for a Bill which would more honestly reflect its aims if it were called the Destruction of the British Coal Industry Bill. As with most cover titles, nothing is revealed until we turn the pages and find the hallmark of the international coal producers whose covetous eyes are on the British coal market. Their initial aim is to kill off the indigenous supply and reap their reward by blackmailing their customers into paying their inflated price on a take-it-or-freeze option.
  However, one of the limitless virtues of the Government is not leaving the country open to internal or external blackmail. We well remember the hike in energy prices in 1973 as a result of another international cartel operation. The resulting largesse stimulated a flood of development, led by the oil companies, of opencast coal mines in the lowest-cost reserves anywhere, however remote, in the world, the favourite countries being Australia, South Africa and Colombia. Their plan was to meet the extra demand for coal worldwide, but the optimistic forecast did not materialise because of the industrial recession and the completion of nuclear power stations ordered in the 1970s. That left the speculating producers with a huge surplus of unwanted coal, their predicament being heightened by the collapse of oil prices 18 months ago. Solutions had to be found to salvage their investments.
  The first solution was to mothball mines where possible. The second was to use the supermarket technique of loss leaders to attract customers. Alas, from which countries would they come? The United States of America? No. United States power stations are persuaded not to buy foreign coal. In 1986, out of a total market of 630 million tonnes, only 1 million tonnes were imported into the United States. France has protection, but needs very little coal since 78 per cent, of its energy requirements come from non-coal power stations. West Germany, the most successful country in Europe, has a fully protected coal industry. Britain, with its 100 million-tonne market, has no legal protection and is an obvious choice for coal dumping. Ports capable of handling super coal tankers are needed; hence our debate.
  The supporters of the Bill have told the House of its virtues in job creation, cheaper coal and cheaper electricity but have glossed over its real intention—the destruction of Britain's successful and profitable coalfield in Nottinghamshire by offering coal at prices below the cost of production to Nottinghamshire's existing five 2,000 MW power stations, with a further new one to be built alongside an existing station at West Burton. The present international coal prices, valued in sterling, are substantially below the levels sustainable in the medium to long term. The position is endorsed in the document published recently by Coopers and Lybrand called "Coal in Crisis". If, during the period of unsustainably low prices, substantial coal imports were to come into the Humber, they could threaten with irreversible closure a minimum of 10 million tonnes of capacity in the midlands coalfields.
  Mr. McLoughlin: Does my hon. Friend agree that this will also threaten the great investment which has been put into British Coal by the Government? Rather than wanting to see an end to British Coal, the Government
  406
  have shown overwhelming commitment in the amount of investment in particular in the areas where the miners stood strong and steadfast behing their right to work during the inflicted 12-month coal strike.
  Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend has put the point well. I agree that the Government have honoured their commitment to the coal industry.
  Recent prices are not sufficient to earn profits for the main coal exporting mines. A return on capital has been put off by the biggest of the new mines in an effort to drive out the competition. The Bill reminds me of the Trojan horse—innocent looking but devastating in its effect. The aim is to kill British Coal's goose, the Nottinghamshire coalfields, where 50 per cent. of British Coal's profits are generated, and the remaining coalfields will die by themselves. How else can the international coal producers capture a market other than by loss leader prices? This raises a fundamental question, do we really want electricity supplies to be in the hands of foreigners, or do we support British Coal and the miners who have brought about such a radical transformation to their industry in the three years since the strike?
  The wages and productivity deals freely negotiated by the Union of Democratic Mineworkers and subsequently imposed on members of the National Union of Mineworkers have been the basis for productivity in British Coal rising by 60 per cent. and coal prices at power stations being reduced by 22 per cent. in real terms. Collieries are continuing to improve their performances. At present rates of improvement, they will be highly competitive by 1992. However, there is a period before then when many will be vulnerable to subsidised coal imports. It would be tragic to threaten the progress that British collieries are making for the very short-term gains from imported coal.
  Mr. Allen: Will the hon. Gentleman apply his remarks to collieries in his constituency where a number of my constituents worked, notably Linby colliery, which was closed recently, Babbington colliery, which was closed two years ago, and Hucknall colliery, which was closed a year ago? All those collieries are either within or on the borders of the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Surely that is a product not of any ports Bill, but of the whole economic philosophy of the Government, as directed towards the mining industry? Where was the hon. Gentleman when those closures occurred?
  Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman should do his homework better. Hucknall colliery had £100 million of taxpayers' money expended on it and, when the twelfth seam of coal, which was expected to contain 25 million tonnes, was reached, there was nothing but sandstone. How does he expect to keep a business open with no coal? That is why it closed. It was closed with the agreement of the people concerned.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We are digressing from the subject of the debate.
  Mr. Stewart: The threat to the progress made by British collieries has been endorsed in "Coal on the Market" by Michael Prior and Gerard McCloskey, which states:
  "Much British deep-mined coal can compete well with imports in 1990—but by 1995 the mines should be competing so well as to restrict imports to the periphery of the power station market…By 1995 any saving made by an all-out import policy in 1990 would have disappeared and the

  407
  electricity supply industry would be paying millions of pounds more for imported coal than by buying British…There is a severe risk that many deep mines which could compete with imported coal in 1995 will be closed by 1990 if the government encourage an early free-for-all on imports."
  The UDM has always accepted fair and unfettered competition, but this potential threat to Nottinghamshire would be catastrophic. Already, restructuring has seen 15,000 men leave the industry with six pit closures. Today British Coal in Nottinghamshire employs 27,000 people, generating over £320 million to the local economy. It pays £5·6 million in rates and spends £130 million on goods and services, as well as being the largest industrial employer in the country.
  The coal industry and its employees also generate further employment in the service sector and manufacturing industry. When the country faced a shutdown of the coal industry in 1984, it was the Nottinghamshire miners and their families who put their industry and country first. Since then, they have led the industry into a new era of successful industrial relations and productivity with one objective in mind—to stay in business. If the House rejects the Bill, they will do just that and the country's dividends will be tenfold.
  9.39 pm
  Mr. Alexander Eadie: One of the most significant points to emerge from the debate is that the Bill may be defective because the proposed site will be very close to the Calor Gas undertaking. It is unfortunate that, when trying to give the House information in response to a legitimate inquiry, the Minister appeared to say, "If there is a difficulty, Calor Gas will have to move to allow the port to proceed." We have probably identified why the Bill should not have been presented to the House. It is certainly defective in regard to Immingham.
  The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) put me in mind of the presidential election campaign fought by Barry Goldwater, the Republican candidate, whose friends thought up a phrase to help him which ran, "In your heart you know he's right." The hon. Gentleman tried to tell us that, in our hearts, we know he is right. The Democrats thought of another phrase, however. They came up with, "In your guts, you know he's nuts." We have an absurd proposition before us.
  The Bill involves substantial sums of money—£34·5 million has been mentioned. I suppose that this is not the time to ask where the money is coming from, but it is fair to ask whether it is a wise investment. Some of us are worried about the impact of the proposed works on employment in other industries such as coal and railways.
  I must protest at the limitation on the time available to debate this important issue. Many of my hon. Friends want to speak, but will be unable to do so. This is not a local issue, but a national one. We have to ask why the Bill exists. We have also to ask about the background to our debating it here.
  The Bill covers quite a bit of country. It goes from Immingham in Humberside to King's Lynn in Norfolk and Port Talbot in West Glamorgan. It is estimated that the works at Immingham will cost £13·5 million and that those at King's Lynn will cost £4 million. I do not know whether it is a defect in the Bill or an attempt to keep us in sublime ignorance, but, although Port Talbot is
  408
  mentioned, there is no estimate of what the works there will cost. The money involved in the Bill will be far more substantial than the figures that we have been given.
  Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have little doubt that the Bill has been sprung as a result of the Government's proposal to privatise the electricity supply industry. No doubt to get backing for his privatisation proposals, the Secretary of State for Energy announced that he would present no opposition to the purchase of foreign coal in preference to British coal. The Secretary of State calls that choice and working for the market. Coal importers all over the world cannot believe their luck to have such a push-over as the Secretary of State and this Government. We are aware of the history of the Department of Energy. Its terms of reference are to liquidate the nation's assets.
  Substantial sums of money are involved in the Bill, so it is only right and proper to ask whether the proposed investment is worthwhile. It is geared, as the sponsor of the Bill confessed, to provide a facility for importing foreign coal. Millions of pounds worth of foreign investment is identified in the Bill, but does it make economic sense to accept that investment when by doing so we shall liquidate billions of pounds that have already been invested in the British coal industry, plant manufacturing industry and jobs? I shall explain what I mean when I talk about liquidating billions of pounds worth of investment. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) came close to answering the question when he said that it is nonsense to liquidate the billions of pounds that have been invested in the mining industry.
  We recently had a debate on the coal industry and were able to identify what has happened to it. We were able to say that at the end of the miners' strike 169 pits had been closed and that by the end of March 1988 only 96 were likely to be left, even after three new pits had been opened at the Selby complex. Total manpower has fallen from 220,000 to 127,000—a reduction of 93,000, of whom 78,000 were mineworkers. Those are only figures and do not tell of the misery and pain that that caused mining communities. It went under the name of restructuring, and it was a contraction of manpower and job loss without parallel in recent times in any industry.
  As to the market for British coal, there is little doubt that the industry's future is tied up with that of the electricity industry. Over 75 per cent. of British Coal's sales are made to the Central Electricity Generating Board and the South of Scotland Electricity Board. Since 1982–83, 70 per cent. of its total output has gone to those sources.
  It is a matter of record—my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) referred to this matter in his speech—that the CEGB told the Energy Select Committee in 1986 that it could import 30 million tonnes of coal within three years. Since that time, the Secretary of State seems to have been helping that process. He has given permission for the 8 million tonnes a year deep water port at Fawley near Southampton. The Bill is one of two that seeks approval for two ports on the Humber capable of handling 5 million tonnes a year. The SSEB has facilities to import 1 million tonnes.
  Mr. Alan Meale: I am pleased that my hon. Friend is saying that foreign coal that comes into the dock, if it is approved, will go directly to the power stations. Is he aware that in the central area coalfields of Nottinghamshire, Yorkshire and the midlands, 65 million

  409
  tonnes is produced and supplied to local markets, and 50 million tonnes of that goes directly to power stations? Is he further aware that in Nottinghamshire, at Blidworth, 51 per cent. of the coal goes directly to power stations? I can also give the following figures: 80 per cent. at Calverton, 87 per cent. at Ollerton, 93 per cent. at Thoresby, 95 per cent. at Creswell, 97 per cent. at Harworth, 98 per cent. at Bilsthorpe, and 98 per cent. at Silverhill. At Bevercotes, Cotgrave, Sherwood, Welbeck and Clipston, 100 per cent. goes to power stations. Was my hon. Friend aware of that?
  Mr Eadie: My hon. Friend has given accurate figures in his intervention. If I have time, I shall identify all the pits that are involved when we discuss importing foreign coal.
  The Government seem to encourage those initiatives and act as if they were blind to the consequences for British Coal and its long-standing arrangements with the electricity industry. The free market is the optimum mechanism of planning the production of coal and electricity, despite the fact that Sir Robert Haslam, among others, has warned that the international coal market is not and is unlikely to become a free market.
  We must bear in mind that the displacement of 30 million tonnes of coal could mean the closure of about 50 collieries and the loss of nearly 47.000 jobs. On the basis of the CEGB's schedule, the link between certain pits and power stations, and the cost structure of collieries, one can construct an impact table in which collieries are ranked from high cost to low cost.
  I should like to confirm what has been said about the effect of the proposed works at Immingham on Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire. We are talking about eight pit closures involving 9,000 jobs. Mining communities can no longer afford such job losses.
  In considering the proposals, I want to look at every area in the United Kingdom against the background of 30 million tonnes of coal imports—incidentally, the figure has been increased to 50 million tonnes.
  At present there are four pits in Scotland. There will be none left. In the north-east there are seven pits, and one will be left. In north Yorkshire there are now 14 pits and six will be left. In south Yorkshire there are 19 pits and 11 will be left. In Nottinghamshire there are 19 pits and 10 will be left. In the central area—the midlands and north Derbyshire—there are nine pits and four will be left. In the western area there are 11 pits and six will be left. In south Wales there are 14 pits and five will be left. There will be a slaughter.
  Mr. Lofthouse: Does my hon. Friend agree that, apart from the 50,000 men in the mining industry to whom he referred, another 30,000 in supporting industries will be made redundant?
  Mr. Eadie: I was coming to that point, but I gather that I must leave time for the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, who is sponsoring the Bill, to speak. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is fair enough. I shall go on because I have a great deal more to say.
  I want to protest on behalf of my hon. Friends in the only way that is possible now. We are not debating the issue adequately. It is a national issue. The average age of the men in the mining industry is 34 and they are being thrown on to the scrap heap. That is a scandal.
  Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo (Nottingham, South): Will the hon. Gentleman watch the clock so that one more
  410
  speaker from the Conservative Benches may speak? He may find that there is support from these Benches for his arguments.
  Mr. Eadie: If I allow time for one more speaker, it has to be for an hon. Member who has been here during the debate. If the hon. Gentleman wants to take part in the debate, he should attend throughout.
  I wish to develop some of the important arguments. We must look at the point raised by the hon. Member for Sherwood, my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley and to some extent by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd). What about the cost of this proposal? I have said already that it is stupid to talk about an investment of millions of pounds to liquidate an investment of billions of pounds. We can look at the cost of the kind of proposal in the Bill.
  British Coal figures that were prepared for the Manvers colliery independent review body hearing show that the average cost of making a Manvers miner redundant under the existing scheme is £24,700 by way of lump sum payments. If those payments were made to 47,000 more miners, the cost would be £1·16 billion—not millions. The Government have already paid out in excess of £2 billion in redundancy payments to miners. There must be added to those figures the annual cost of unemployment in lost taxes and national insurance contributions, and in unemployment payments. The total cost of redundancies in the coal or related industries is likely to be around £7,000 million. Although I talked about 47,000 miners becoming redundant, there could be 78.000 or 79,000 jobs lost altogether. The sponsor of the Bill has told us about jobs involved in his proposition. Any fair-minded person seeing his proposition, which put thousands of jobs in danger, will realise that it is the economics of bedlam and lunacy.
  Mr. Michael Brown rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put, but MR. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Mr. Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Of course, I respect your judgment in these matters. I am not seeking in any way to challenge it, but I would draw your attention to your own comments last Friday 6 May, in column 1147 of Hansard.
  You kindly undertook that you would have regard to points of order being taken out of time in a debate. I realise that was on an amendment and that we are now talking about a Second Reading. However, when the Chairman of Ways and Means was in the Chair, I sought to move the Second Reading of the Bill at 7.35 pm and for half an hour of my speech there were a number of points of order. I would have thought, Mr. Speaker, that you might have borne that fact in mind when considering my request for a motion to put the Question.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. All those factors are borne in mind, but I have also to bear in mind the fact that many hon. Members on both sides of the House still wish to take part in the debate.
  Mr. Eadie: I want to begin to conclude my remarks. We have learned tonight that a Department of Energy Minister has stated that the Government intend to

  411
  privatise the coal industry in the next Parliament. I believe that the Bill is related to that. We will be talking about more and more job losses in mining.
  The Government tell us that they are very cost conscious. They are not. This is probably one of the most extravagant Governments in living memory. I could go on to identify—
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  European Community (Indirect Tax Harmonisation)
  10 pm
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 8199/87 on indirect tax rates and structures, 8200/87 on value added tax rates, 8201/87 on the removal of fiscal frontiers, 8202/87 on a value added tax clearing mechanism for intra-Community sales, 8203/87 + COR 1 on convergence of rates of value added tax and excise duties, 8204/87 and 8205/87 on taxes on cigarettes and other manufactured tobacco, 8206/87 on excise duty on mineral oils and 8207/87 + COR 1 on excise duty on alcohol.
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the Opposition amendment.
  Mr. Lilley: This is a very timely debate. Next weekend the Economic and Financial Affairs Council, hereafter known as ECOFIN, is meeting informally to discuss approximation. It is right that the House should have the opportunity to discuss these matters beforehand, if not to hear them. I know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will study carefully the views that will be expressed by hon. Members tonight.
  I am very grateful both to the Select Committee on European Legislation and to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee for their invaluable reports.Both reports confirm that, in most significant areas, the Government's overall approach is one which most hon.Members support.
  Perhaps it would help if I summarised the three main features of the Commission's proposals. First, the Commission has proposed the approximation of value
  added tax rates. All member states would apply two positive rates—a standard rate between 14 per cent. and 20 per cent.; and a reduced rate between 4 per cent. and 9 per cent. There would therefore be no scope to apply a zero rate. The reduced rate would apply to foodstuffs, excluding alcohol, energy for heating and lighting, water, passenger transport, pharmaceutical products, and to books, newspapers and periodicals. All other taxable items would be standard rated.
  The second major feature of the proposals is that exports would no longer be zero rated. Tax would be charged across frontiers, at a rate applicable in the exporting country. A clearing house would reallocate displaced revenues to member states in which goods or services are consumed.
  Third, the Commission has proposed a complete harmonisation of rates on excise duties. The proposed rates are based on a mixture of weighted and arithmetic Community averages.
  Before commenting on the proposals, I should emphasise that the Government share the Commission's ultimate objective to create a single internal market by removing unnecessary obstacles to trade. We are wholeheartedly committed to that, but, as we have already made clear, we have fundamental difficulties with the Commission's approach.
  We simply do not think it is necessary for the completion of the internal market that tax rates be approximated. Moreover, we have a major difficulty with the Commission's proposals for zero rates. As drafted, the

  413
  proposal makes no provision for zero rates, although the Commission has hinted at temporary derogations for member states with particular difficulties.
  We have made specific pledges to the electorate to retain zero rating on food, fuel and power, and children's clothing. I can assure the House that we neither wish nor intend to resile from those pledges. So I would have been happy to accept the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and our hon.Friends.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: In view of the Minister's spendid assurance about VAT on fuel, if the European Court of Justice tells the Government in about three weeks' time that they are breaking the law by not levying VAT on gas and electricity on industry and commerce—on every small and big firm in this country—will the Government stand firm and reject the European Court's decision?
  Mr. Lilley: We are talking about fuel and power for domestic consumption, which is not an issue in the infraction case. If the infraction case were to go against us in the matter of fuel and power for industry, that would not represent a burden for industry. It would be offset against the value added tax levied on output.
  Apart from the specific pledges of zero rating on other goods, no specific pledges have been made that would restrict the freedom of action of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We believe that it should remain for my right hon. Friend, who is responsible to this Parliament, to decide whether to retain zero rates on the items on which specific pledges have been made.
  Mr. Michael Foot: Is there any good reason why we should not now have a pledge on books and newspapers, an issue that has caused so much interest and concern? Why cannot we have a simple pledge on that score, which would relax or remove some of the controversy?
  Mr. Lilley: It has been the practice of successive Governments not to limit the freedom of action of Chancellors of the Exchequer in that way. In the exceptional circumstances of a general election, specific pledges were made. We do not intend to limit the freedom of action of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in any other way. My right hon. Friend made it clear at the meeting of ECOFIN in November 1987 that the United Kingdom cannot accept proposals that would in any way restrict its ability to retain zero rates of VAT.
  We have other areas of difficulty with the Commission's proposals of which the most important are its proposals for excise duty on alcohol and tobacco. The Commission's use of average rates means that in the United Kingdom the duty on alcoholic beverages would fall by between 40 and 85 per cent. while the duty on cigarettes would fall by about 10 per cent. Changes of this magnitude would have a marked effect on Britain's health and social policy. We have made it clear that the United Kingdom has fundamental difficulties with the Commission's approach in this respect.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: As the Minister knows, the difficulties that he has described will return again and again, producing uncertainty in the publishing industry, for example, and in other areas to which he has referred. Can he say that the chief organiser of these
  414
  difficulties, Lord Cockfield, who is an appointee of the Prime Minister—he is the source of all these ridiculous proposals—will be replaced when his term of office comes to an end? In that way the source of these difficulties will be diminished.
  Mr. Lilley: No, I cannot give that assurance. I can say to the hon. Gentleman that Britain is not alone in having problems with these proposals.
  Mr. Michael Fallon: My hon. Friend has spoken of the Government's objection to the changes in excise duty on tobacco and their objection to the magnitude of the change that would be involved. Will he confirm that the Government object also to the sheer crudity of taking an arithmetical average as a means of achieving the harmonisation of excise duty?
  Mr. Lilley: I have said that we do not think that it is necessary for achieving the ultimate objective, so I am inclined to accept my hon. Friend's point of view.
  As I have said, the United Kingdom is not alone in facing difficulties with the proposals. Almost every member state has problems with the concept of a clearing house for VAT revenues. As proposed, the clearing house would be largely unaccountable, inauditable and open to fraud. The overall tax proposals would cause some countries that rely heavily on indirect taxes to lose a substantial amount of Government revenue, and others would have to increase indirect taxes substantially, or even impose them for the first time, on specific products.
  Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Will my hon. Friend accept that many of us have a tremendous amount of sympathy for him in his position, he being at heart a sensible person who is living in a world of nonsense? How can it be right that those of us who like to smoke, as I do every now and again, and those who like to drink, as I do every now and again, will find that harmonisation will make drinking and smoking cheaper and make all other sensible things more expensive? Many of us accept that 1992 will be a good year for this country, but how can harmonisation be anything other than a great nonsense?
  Mr. Lilley: I admire my hon. Friend's integrity in being able to withstand the prospect of cheapening his vices, and opposing the proposals which would bring that about.
  We ought not to forget that the ultimate objective, both of the Commission's proposals and of our own approach to the internal market, is to dismantle unnecessary barriers to trade. The Commission has made clear the fact that it views its proposals simply as a necessary precondition of obtaining agreement on the dismantlement of barriers. Unfortunately, there is now a danger of getting bogged down in disagreements on that intermediate step. Therefore, attention is turning to the idea that we should move directly to starting to dismantle unnecessary barriers.
  Mr. John Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the United States, the fact that different states impose individual levels of local tax appears to create no such barriers? Is that not a much better model for the European Community than the line proposed by the Commission?
  Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and it is one that I intended making. I am grateful to him

  415
  for making it for me. He is correct in saying that experience in the United States has shown that individual states can retain fiscal powers without damaging the self-evident internal market that the United States as a whole possesses.
  Differences in VAT rates in Europe are usually small by comparison with the other factors that may affect prices either side of national borders and bring about a cross-border trading distortion.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: Does the Minister accept that VAT on public transport is a relatively small component compared with the subsidy which most other European nations apply to their public transport systems? Will the Minister ensure that our partners in the Community accept that fact, before insisting that we impose VAT on our largely unsubsidised fare levels?
  Mr. Lilley: I accept the hon. Member's point, but I do not believe we shall need to deploy that argument because of wider differences and difficulties which we are not alone in facing.
  The Commission itself has acknowledged the attractiveness of taking steps towards beginning to dismantle barriers before starting on the process of approximation. We believe there is ground for hope in that respect.
  Mr. Ron Leighton: Instead of saying that the Government have difficulties with these matters, why cannot the Minister make a clear and unambiguous statement, with no here or there, that the taxation of the British people is a matter for the House and for no one else? We should be taking these decisions, not a body unelected by the British people and not removable by them.
  Mr. Lilley: I gave clear and unequivocal pledges in the matter of zero rates, as the hon. Gentleman will recall. We have already conceded in some respects the power to tax to the European Community. Not long ago, I reported to the House the European Court of Justice case affecting spectacles, which ruling the House will be bound to observe—and the Government accept that it is so bound. I could not go as far as the hon. Gentleman wishes.
  The Opposition amendment has been selected for debate and I presume that its intention is to ensure tighter parliamentary control over European fiscal legislation. I have every sympathy with that objective. However, the amendment ignores the excellent work of our European Select Committee in ensuring that Commission proposals are debated before they are finalised. The amendment will also hamper the Government's ability to negotiate forcefully on Britain's behalf, as well as making it harder for member states ever to achieve agreement. It is unworkable and unnecessary. I imagine that that is why the procedure incorporated in the amendment was firmly rejected by the last Labour Government.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is the Minister saying that, important though the Procedure Committee precautions are, he is denying the right of the House to decide what tax shall be placed upon the British people? If he is saying that, he is rolling back 300 years of constitutional history.
  Mr. Lilley: I have just been reading the reports of the debate in 1976, in which the hon. Gentleman took part. His Government were then preparing to negotiate the sixth VAT directive. He made a similar point then and failed to persuade his own Government, and I am afraid he will not persuade me. It will be interesting to hear how erstwhile members of that Government and their supporters square the contents of the amendment with the practice of the last Labour Government.
  Mr. Spearing: What about the Single European Act?
  Mr. Lilley: This is not changed one whit by that.
  It is still early days. Last November, ECOFIN referred these proposals from the European Commission to its economic policy committee for economic evaluation. The committee's interim report to ECOFIN in April highlighted many of the problem areas inherent in the Commission's proposals. The committee recommended that, irrespective of what Ministers eventually decided about harmonisation, member states should take steps as soon as possible to reduce obstacles to trade. That is an approach with which the Government can heartily agree.
  Ultimately, any change to European tax law requires the unanimous agreement of member states. So the United Kingdom's position is safeguarded and there is no question of our being obliged to accept proposals with which we disagree. I repeat: the pledges that we have given to the electorate on zero rates are firm commitments by which the Government stand.
  I have deliberately kept my remarks as brief as possible to enable as many hon. Members as possible to contribute. The purpose of the debate is to allow the Government to sense the feeling of the House. I look forward to hearing the views of hon. Members before ministerial discussion of these proposals gets under way.
  10.17 pm
  Dr. John Marek: I beg to move, at the end of the Question to add:
  `and supports the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his recent statement that value added tax harmonisation is a distraction; and resolves that no Minister of the Crown shall give assent to any European Economic Community Instrument that authorises variation in the scope or rate of value added tax or excise duties payable in the United Kingdom unless authorised to do so by a Resolution of this House.'
  We accept that frontier controls play a part in the control and administration of value added tax and excise duties for the United Kingdom. The Commission proposes their abolition by 1 December 1992 and says that great benefits will accrue to the Common Market as a result. Lord Cockfield, the Common Market Commissioner who is in charge of creating the single European market, said at Monday's launch of a book on the Cecchini report that the case for integrating the economies of the member states was fully proved. The study is optimistic about the effects of achieving a single European market, and we do not disagree with that, although we reserve our position on the degree of projected economic improvement.
  The Commission says that it is essential that VAT and customs and excise duties be harmonised within the Community so that frontier controls can be abolished and a clearing house can be established to redistribute VAT and allocate it to the member states of the Community to which it is due.
  I do not believe that these measures are necessary for further economic progress within the Community. Other

  417
  factors affect company decisions about where to locate and the main conditions that are necessary for fair competition. Differences in costs to industry and variations in tax structures between member states are certainly two such factors. The Commission has conducted a survey of 11,000 business men and the results show that the various VAT rates are not thought to be a serious barrier to intra-Community trade. The survey, which was carried out in 1986 by the Bureau Europeen des Unions de Consommateurs, found that prices of pharmaceuticals varied by as much as 500 per cent. between member states. Video recorders were 63 per cent. more expensive in Denmark than in the Netherlands, despite the fact that VAT was only 4 per cent. higher in the former. Prices of spare parts for well-known makes of car vary between countries by up to 52 per cent., before VAT. So I am sure that the rate of VAT and indirect taxes are not important for companies when making their decisions on location, or for competition and pricing policy. It is far more likely that the availability or otherwise of regional development grants, for example, will be seen as more important.
  However, there are some problems with the present system. The main justification for VAT harmonisation is the Commission's desire to keep cross-border shopping under control. That happens to some extent in areas such as Luxembourg, the Rhine valley and the border between Denmark and Schleswig-Holstein. I have not heard the Danish Government complaining too bitterly about the cost of the present system, nor have I heard such complaints from the countries surrounding Luxembourg.
  The United States manages to live with different taxation in different states despite urban borders such as that between New York state and New Jersey. There are liquor shops in one state but not in another in places throughout America, but that is not seen as intolerable.
  The problem, if problem there be, is that a member state of the Community can attract retail customers by levying a lower rate of VAT than its neighbour. If the rate is sufficiently low and the geography is favourable, for example, if there is no Channel, and if the articles or goods are suitable—funerals, for example, are clearly not suitable—retail customers may be attracted across the state border.
  That outlines the problem with the Commission's proposals. In order to overcome what may be a problem between some states in some places in the EC, the Commission proposes an all-embracing set of rules. First, it is surely not necessary to set an upper limit to any range of VAT as it is the possibility of member states bidding one another down that causes cross-border shopping problems. Secondly, Commission-identified problems do not occur throughout the Community, but only in some places. The United Kingdom, because of the Channel, is virtually unaffected by different VAT rates in other member states. Again, other factors are more important. Thirdly, some goods, as I have said, such as funerals, are simply not subject to cross-border shopping.
  There are other reasons for not accepting the proposals. If implemented, through the extension of the VAT base, they would affect the standard of living of the poorer households. I know that the Government do not care one jot for those. That has been shown by their Budget measures and the cuts in social security and housing benefit—
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): Unworthy.
  Dr. Marek: It is not unworthy; it is absolutely right. The Government do not care one jot about the standard of living of the poorer households. However, enough of that. There is some cross-party accord on this matter and I shall endeavour to be diplomatic from now on. Nevertheless, the poorest households will be hit hardest if VAT is charged at positive rates on items such as food, energy or public transport.
  For example, households on an income of under £60 a week—that includes many households with pensioners and people who are unemployed—spend 43 per cent. of their incomes on goods that are currently zero rated. That is made up of 23 per cent. on zero-rated food and 20 per cent. on other zero-rated items. Contrast that with moderately wealthy families on £450 a week. They spend only 19 per cent. of their incomes on zero-rated goods—10 per cent. on food and 9 per cent. on the others.
  Looking at the matter another way, the poorest fifth of all households spent 24·7 per cent. of their disposable incomes in 1985 in direct taxes compared with the top fifth who spent only 18·6 per cent. Many of those poorer households are too poor to pay income tax, but they spend one quarter of their income on other taxes. That is one of the most important statements that I shall make tonight.
  The imposition of VAT on books, periodicals and newspapers will damage the quality of those items. It will damage the financial viability of regional and local newspapers. It will be a tax on knowledge. It will be a tax on bibles. It will reduce the number of books available to public libraries and schools. I am sure that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends will wish to make those points much more pungently than I do. The social benefits of reading cannot be disputed. That is particularly true at present when there is considerable anxiety about the problems of illiteracy. It would be an act of madness to restrict access to the printed word, inevitably hurting the poorest and weakest members of our society when education reform deserves a place near the top of any political agenda.
  The printed word is not limited to books.
  Mr. Barry Porter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Marek: I shall give way once, but it will be the last time because I want to put the Opposition's case and, like the Economic Secretary, I want to give Back Benchers plenty of time to make their comments in this short debate.
  Mr. Porter: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I admire his intellect, but if he would halve his pace and double his volume, we might be able to understand what he is saying.
  Dr. Marek: I take that as a helpful comment. Perhaps it should be addressed to those who control the microphones. If they could double the volume, we might get somewhere.
  The Government would do well to remember the words of the late Iain Macleod, when VAT was first introduced in the United Kingdom:
  "On the general principle of avoiding tax on knowledge we intend that books, journals, newspapers and broadcasting should be at zero rate."
  I wonder what has happened to the Conservative party since then.

  419
  The effect on deaf people will be noticeable and adverse. Amplifying aids that allow the hard of hearing to use the telephone and enjoy television would be made to bear VAT as would visual alarms such as flashing doorbells or vibrating pillow alarms. It would be VAT not at the lower rate but at the standard rate—a minimum of 14 per cent. if the Commission's proposals go through unamended. The proposals would also require charity shops to charge VAT on donated goods sold retail.
  All that is being proposed with a view to abolishing frontier controls, but frontier controls will almost certainly not be abolished because they will be necessary for public security and to control drug trafficking and immigration. It has not been demonstrated that for the abolition of fiscal frontiers VAT needs to be harmonised. Tax adjustments for goods crossing intra-Community borders do not have to be made on site, with documents on the spot; they can be made elsewhere. There is no reason for upper limits on VAT, and any lower limits ought to be left to the countries affected by cross-border problems to sort out. At the very least, the lower band must be made to start at zero if it is ever introduced. It is right and necessary for some items to be zero rated and our present zero-rated goods and services account for about one quarter of total consumer expenditure in the United Kingdom. There may just be a case for a minimum duty or tax on fuel oil, used by industry, because that feeds into industrial costs, but I can think of no other instance in which a case can be made out.
  It is unacceptable to impose a minimum of 14 per cent. on children's clothing in place of the present zero rate. It is unacceptable to put VAT on food. It is a pity that some food carried VAT already, although I realise that there are problems because of the revenue that it brings to the Treasury. It is unacceptable to raise VAT on items such as energy, books, newspapers, medicines and transport. As the Prime Minister said before the last election,
  "Look, if anyone tried to put VAT on children's clothes and shoes they would never, never, never get it through the House."
  Three times, the Prime Minister said "never". The purpose of our amendment is to make absolutely sure that any such measures come through the House, and I hope that I have the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House on this important matter.
  The amendment merely seeks to support the Chancellor in the difficult negotiations that he will have. It is a supportive amendment to enable the House, representing the people of this country, to decide these issues. Equally, the amendment is not intended to antagonise the Commission or other members of the Community, as they value democracy as much as we do.
  Let me deal with the harmonisation of excise duties. The Commission's proposals would mean that the tax would go down by about £2·40 on a bottle of spirits and by about 75p on a bottle of wine. There would be a considerable increase in the consumption of alcohol, with appreciable injurious consequences to the health of the nation. We must remember that alcohol-related problems already cost the country about £2 billion a year. The cost of a packet of cigarettes would fall by 12p with a resulting increase in smoking and consequently in illness and deaths from lung cancer.
  Those effects would be just as unacceptable to the country as the imposition of proposals to harmonise VAT.
  420
  In any case, there is likely to be very strong opposition to the proposals on excise duties by various member states such as Spain and Portugal. It must be best to preserve the ability of each member country to set its own excise duties.
  An alternative method of controlling and administering the movement of dutiable goods across frontiers is by a system of revenue marking for goods that leave the linked bonded warehouse system that is proposed. Particular markings would give a right for a product to be sold in any particular part of the Community in uniformity, and uniformity in duties would not be required. Cross-border retail shopping would occur in some areas, but, again, for reasons previously stated, I do not consider that to be an important or insurmountable problem.
  The Opposition wish to suspend judgment on any such system, and merely ask the Economic Secretary about its costs. How much will it cost to operate? What will its compliance ratio be? Would evasion be possible on a large scale, or by a few criminals? Would there be any variance in those answers if the questions were asked about different states in the Community? If there is an EEC summit meeting, some compromise by the United Kingdom will be inevitable. Will such a system be regarded seriously by other member states, and will it have general approval from the public? If that cannot be demonstrated, I foresee great problems, as harmonisation of excise duties is not an acceptable solution.
  I also ask whether there is a further hidden agenda and whether the Commission is putting forward its proposals not only on the specious ground of the necessity of abolishing frontier controls, but because it eventually wishes to harmonise corporation and income taxes. If so, it should tell us and clearly spell out its long-term intentions.
  I shall make one final point on the proposed clearing house for VAT reconciliation payments. Companies will have to be careful about their documentation of imports, but as the revenue authorities will be able to recover their money from the clearing house, I imagine that many member states will not be too precise about exactly what was imported. A whole new bureaucracy will be created and our experience with the CAP should make us shudder. What will happen when the inevitable happens and the clearing house cannot balance the books? A rough and ready solution may be found, but we may be sure that this country will lose out. Our collection system is more efficient and more accurate, and as a result, as usual, we will lose out if such a system is established.
  Mrs. Boothroyd—I mean Madam Deputy Speaker—I apologise. Yesterday, you were Mrs. Boothroyd and today you are Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I have never been Mrs. Boothroyd in my life.
  Dr. Marek: I hope I have shown that the harmonisation of VAT and excise duties is, to use the Chancellor's word, a distraction from the aim of the unified market in 1992. It is unnecessary for achieving the aim of abolishing frontier controls. The problems of distortion of competition by the judicious use of excise duties can be solved in a different way.
  The Opposition are resolute in their insistence that zero rating should continue to apply for essentials such as food, children's clothes, fuel, transport, medicines and other important items that are free of VAT at present.

  421
  Derogation is not enough as it may not be permanent. By the time that derogation is considered the argument will have been abandoned.
  Our amendment supports the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his attempts to persuade the Economic Community of the correctness of those arguments. It also seeks to commit any Minister—a Tory Minister or a subsequent Labour Minister—to consult and receive the
  422
  assent of the House before any change is made to the rates of VAT or excise duties payable here. In doing so, it is setting out unequivocally the wish of the House that any powers to be given to the Economic Community or any changes in VAT or excise duties will be made as a result of a decisiom of this House. I recommed that the Government accept the amendment and invite all hon. Members to support it in the Lobby if necessary.
  10.34 pm
  Mr. Terence L. Higgins: My hon. Friend the Minister rightly said that this is a timely debate. It provides the House with an opportunity to express its views in advance of the EEC meetings that are about to take place. The Minister was kind enough to say that the Treasury Select Committee's third report on the "European Commission's Proposals on the Approximation of Indirect Taxation" is invaluable. That is the best compliment that the Committee has received so far on any of its reports.
  In responding to that report the Government made it absolutely clear that they agree with the Committee's views. It is important to consider the arguments that we addressed in the report, but the fundamental point is the one that the Government accepted. They said:
  "The Government agrees with the Committee that the European Commission has not demonstrated that tax approximation is necessary for the completion of the internal market."
  I agree with the Minister about the importance of working towards the completion of the internal market, but I feel bound to say that proposals of the kind that we are debating this evening do not advance the cause of creating a common internal market. On the contrary, they are likely to prove extremely divisive. Therefore, I hope that the House will back the Government by saying that there is no need for these measures and that it is important to preserve the concept of zero rating.
  The evidence that the Committee took from Lord Cockfield was valuable and it is attached to the report. It highlights a number of important points. It shows clearly that Lord Cockfield is preoccupied with the need to remove customs barriers, whatever the cost in terms of distorting the Community's tax system. I am not unbiased. Almost 15 years ago I had the task of steering through the original legislation on value added tax. When we were preparing for that series of debates we had the advantage of seeing the mistakes that had been made elsewhere in Europe. We learnt from those mistakes. We devised a system of indirect taxation, value added tax, which in my view is vastly superior to any other system in Europe.
  That system had two essential features, the first of which was that we should have zero rating, which meant that essential items, such as food, would not be taxed. When we introduced value added tax we abolished selective employment tax, which had caused great anguish, and also purchase tax. The objectionable feature of purchase tax was that it was a multiple-rate tax that sought to discriminate between one item and another. We said that we intended to abolish purchase tax and that instead there should be zero rating for essential items, with above that a single positive rate so that distortions would not arise.
  This is a retrograde proposal. It will mean a return to asking whether one item is a luxury and whether another is not a luxury. If there is to be harmonisation, it is important that it should be introduced on the basis of the best available type of tax. I believe that that is the one that we have. We should fight in Europe for zero rating and for a single positive rate of tax.
  Lord Cockfield and the Commission propose, not exactly the lowest common denominator, but what would be the easiest to negotiate by averaging all items. It would
  424
  European Community 424 result in a hotch-potch which nobody would be happy with and which anybody who gave any thought to the matter would realise was unsatisfactory. The only reason for such a proposal is that it would lead to the removal of customs posts. That seems to me to be the question that preoccupies the Commission, rather than the creation of a sensible taxation system.
  There are very real problems, and in his evidence Lord Cockfield made it clear that costs may have to be borne if one is to retain a degree of independence. If that is so, it may be worthwhile paying the price in VAT. As was rightly pointed out a moment ago, we are also concerned with harmonising indirect taxes of other kinds, particularly the revenue duties on tobacco, alcohol and so on. Again, these are taxes which over the years the House has debated for many hours, days and weeks in some cases.
  The taxes are imposed for good social as well as revenue reasons. It is wrong to suppose that the arguments can suddenly be overwhelmed in the interests of so-called approximation. It will not be easy to harmonise, because there are many interests in the Community, particularly in countries which produce alcoholic drink, including this country, where the social arguments may be countered by arguments on behalf of the producers. None the less, it would be absurd if we were to reduce the tax on tobacco, for example, by 12p a packet when we consider the costs that tobacco puts on the Health Service. Surely that is one reason why we should not agree with the proposals.
  The Government should tell the Commission that we are not prepared to go along with the abolition of zero rating and the other measures that it proposes. The Treasury and Civil Service Committee suggested that we should make that clear at the outset, otherwise in the course of the negotiations it would be one counter to be traded. We should say at the start that any question of abolishing zero rating is not on and then proceed to negotiate on other aspects on which it may be necessary to make concessions.
  I shall not speak for much longer, because many other hon. Members wish to speak, but I want to stress that the danger of going along the route of approximation is that we will be stuck with the outcome. There is no existing machinery within the Community for changing it except by reopening the whole package. Therefore, we would be giving up a major fiscal weapon which is necessary to reflect the difference between one country and another until such time as we gradually become a single market. It would be dangerous to say that we will put the whole weight of economic management within the United Kingdom on to direct rather than indirect taxation. I do not have time to develop that aspect, but it should be considered.
  I make one final point to the Opposition. I hope that I may have the attention of the shadow Chancellor. The Opposition, together with many other hon. Members, have put down amendments to the motion. It is extremely important that we remain united on the issue. I do not believe that there is any difference in the House on it. We have heard why the Government cannot accept the Opposition amendment. Having expressed their views, the Opposition should not press the amendment to a Division, because that would create the impression that there is disagreement. I believe that the House is united in opposition to the abolition of zero rating and the other proposals, which are not only damaging, but unnecessary.
  10.43 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: In following the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), who chairs the Treasury Select Committee, I can add evidence to the united feeling in the House on harmonisation. I, too, am strongly opposed to it. Indeed, it is an extraordinary achievement of the Commission that it has managed to unite those who are in favour of British membership of the EEC and of the development of the single European market and those who are wholly opposed to both concepts. That seems to have been a slightly perverse thing for Lord Cockfield and others to have set about doing.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Select Committee discussions. There was a curious exchange in the Select Committee. I refer not to the exchanges between the noble Lord Cockfield and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) which had a rather more acerbic quality to them, but to the point where Lord Cockfield said:
  "in the Global Communication we said that the Member States should study the proposals and they should respond to them and we are waiting for them to respond".
  The Government have taken the view that it would be inappropriate to respond by that means and that they should simply do so by speaking at the ECOFIN meeting. It was curious that there should be a breakdown in communication and that the Commissioner should be under a wholly different apprehension from the Government about how those discussions were to proceed.
  Mr. John Marshall: Do I hear the hon. Gentleman correctly? Is he now going against the proposals put forward by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), the leader of his party, only a few weeks ago?
  Mr. Beith: I am happy to say that I am and that I did so at the time. If Conservative Members had been as successful in dissuading their party leader from pursuing unwise and mistaken tax proposals as we were, they would not now be saddled with the poll tax.
  The act of harmonisation was in no way necessary for the achievement of the internal market. The achievement of the internal market is extremely important and valuable to this country. I was genuinely pleased to hear the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) assert that the Labour party believes that the creation of a single internal market is of importance and value. I did not hear loud cheers from behind him, but his assertion is welcome.
  As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, the measures are a distraction from the achievement of a single market and an irritant. They are just the sort of measures that get the European Commission a bad name and undermine the effort to achieve wider European unity. They are not necessary because it should be obvious to the Commission that it is possible to have different levels of taxes at the point of sale in a single economic unit without making the coherence of that unit impossible to maintain.
  The United States has been quoted as an example of a country with widely varying sales taxes. It is perfectly feasible to have different levels of taxes operating at the point of sale and those differences do not alter the price to the customer of a commodity in the country in which he buys it. If they had a direct bearing on the price of the product in that country, they would represent a distortion
  426
  of trade, but they do not have that effect and, therefore, they are not a significant impediment to the internal market.
  Value added tax has not caused most of the differences in prices of commodities between Britain and other Community countries. VAT did not make cars enormously cheaper, for a period, in Belgium than they were in the United Kingdom. It was primarily the manufacturers' pricing policies which led people to buy cars in Belgium and import them into the United Kingdom and which led the Government into all those complications about whether they should be left-hand or right-hand drive cars. That was the manufacturers' pricing policy responding to the market conditions. We hope that those conditions will change in a single internal market, but VAT was not the cause of those conditions.
  An alarming down side would result from harmonisation, which would not allow for a rational decision about the tax level. That is of course true in the case of VAT because of the effect on major budget items, such as children's clothes and food, and on items for which, for other reasons, we think it important to keep zero rating, for example, books and newspapers.
  It becomes particularly powerful as an argument when we consider excise duties. The idea that we should now reduce the price of a bottle of spirits by over £2 is absurd, given the enormous problems that are known to exist with alcohol and the fact that a ministerial committee is currently considering ways of tackling the problem and has had lamentably little influence upon the Chancellor so far. Similarly, a 12p reduction in the price of cigarettes would be absurd.
  I am prepared to contemplate that, in the future, Europe might, in a concerted way, work out what might be a sensible health policy to guide taxation in some of those areas. However, we are a long way from that at present and we are certainly not in a position where it would be logical to determine the price of those commodities and the tax burdens on them by a process of averaging what is done in this country and what is done in Greece, which is at the opposite end of the scale.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, who appears merely to be repeating what so many hon. Members have already said. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is advising the House, and me in particular, about how we should vote at the end of this important debate. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Government's stand is not strong enough, or is he merely repeating arguments that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), the Government and my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) made? I would appreciate it if the hon. Gentleman could say what he thinks the House should do.
  Mr. Beith: I am not saying that the Government's stand is not strong enough, but I would have welcomed a clearer and more unequivocal pledge from them on books and newspapers.
  Dr. Marek: They did not make a pledge.
  Mr. Beith: That is right. The question that I was asked did not concern books and newspapers; it was whether I think that the Government are taking a firm enough stand on the harmonisation proposals of the European Community. As far as I can see, they are. I have mentioned

  427
  the apparent failure of communication between Lord Cockfield and the Government. It may be that Lord Cockfield is the one who has got the procedure wrong. No doubt the Minister will clarify that at the end of the debate.
  Mr. Lilley: I think that I can offer the hon. Gentleman a better answer to give my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who wanted to know to whom his remarks were addressed. They were addressed to the dual leadership of his party. The motion that the hon. Gentleman would have liked to support, and which I would have been happy to endorse, says that the
  "objective of establishing the internal market in 1992 in no way requires the approximation of value added tax rates and excise duties".
  "Hear, hear", we all say, but the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) went on record saying:
  "Europe cannot get rid of its internal customs barriers so long as VAT rates within the Community range from zero to 38 per cent."
  Admittedly that was in a manifesto which, after being declared dead as a parrot, became a personal statement of deeply held views, but has the hon. Gentleman been able to overcome the deeply held views of the leaders of his party?
  Mr. Beith: I think that it is on record that I have. When I gave way to the Minister I thought that he would throw some light on the matter for which he is responsible, which is telling Lord Cockfield the Government's view on the matter. As he has failed to do that now, I hope that he will be able to shed some light on it later. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not take the opportunity that I gave him. On the other matter, I have already made my position clear.
  It comes strange from some hon. Members who have spoken that they profess to want to proceed to the single European market but they are not prepared to provide the conditions essential to its creation. Freedom of capital movements and the ability to concert macroeconomic policy are important, and we cannot proceed to a successful single European market if we are prepared to make no sacrifices of national sovereignty in the process.
  We return to the fundamental arguments that we had when we joined the Community in the first place. The Government are suffering from a much longer lasting disagreement than that to which the Economic Secretary referred a moment ago. They are still unable to resolve their internal disagreement about whether Britain will join the European monetary system in time for the establishment of the single European market in 1992. I put the question to the Chancellor when he gave evidence to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. He was unable to add anything. Treasury Ministers have so far failed to overrule the Prime Minister's continuing objections. If the Government could settle the issue by making it clear that they will not engage in the harmonisation that is asked for and then turn their mind to the far more pressing and important question of achieving British membership of the EMS, they would be doing the country, and Europe, a service.
  There ought to be no doubt about the fact that there is virtually no support in the House for the harmonisation
  428
  proposals. If, however, we took a vote on who is prepared to back the true development of a single European market, we might find that the House is more divided.
  10.53 pm
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: VAT is a subject that is close to my heart, especially with regard to children's shoes.
  Shortly after becoming a Member of Parliament, I led a deputation to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Anthony Barber, to try to persuade him not to put VAT on children's shoes. I believe firmly that it is essential to do nothing to deter parents from buying well fitting shoes, and price is unquestionably an important factor. We succeeded in persuading him.
  I have never been quite certain, but I have a distinct feeling that the fact that a sufficient number of us stood by the Bar of the House while he made his winding-up speech to have defeated the Government if he had not made the concession may have made some slight impression on him. I have always liked to believe that that was so.
  Research has shown clearly that ill-fitting shoes can inflict permanent damage on children's feet which may not show until later in life. In the first few years of life, children's feet double in size and continue to grow rapidly up to seven years. They do not stop growing rapidly until the mid-teens. It is vital that shoes are changed as soon as they become even fractionally too small. The Prime Minister has said repeatedly that she will never allow VAT to be imposed on children's shoes. I am sure that she will keep her word. I was glad to hear the Minister's robust support of that promise in his speech tonight.
  However, we now have these quite extraordinary proposals, fortunately only intended as a basis for discussion among member states. Two levels of VAT in broad bands are proposed to allow member states some latitude. They also acknowledge the possible need for some derogations from the VAT rules, especially in relation to zero rating. Fair enough. But it is incredible that they do not include children's shoes among the lower band or the social goods band. Children's feet have to last a lifetime. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) has plenty of genes injected into her, but other people have other things.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Hormones.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It is possible to get a new heart, new lungs, new kidneys and even a new brain—I think that my hon. Friend could do with some of those—but one cannot get new feet. Therefore, it is vital to look after them carefully in infancy and childhood. We should insist that children's shoes are put on a lower social goods band and that the band is changed from the proposed rate of 4 to 9 per cent. to 0 to 6 per cent. That would cost only 160 million ecu across the Community. Surely that is a small price to pay for a lifetime of healthy feet.
  I very much hope that those proposals will be made by the Government and accepted by the Economic Community so that we no longer have to rely on derogation but have the zero rate permanently enshrined in European legislation.
  10.57 pm
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am pleased to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Lancaster

  429
  (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), particularly on the subject of children's shoes. I have here a copy of the debate on 16 May 1972 when, despite her protestations, the hon. Lady, when she could have done, did not move her amendment My former hon. Friend, now Lord Barnett, moved an amendment to counter the proposal by the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), supported by the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), to impose VAT on children's shoes.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: No.
  Mr. Spearing: It is no good the hon. Lady saying no, because she knows it is true.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It is not.
  Mr. Spearing: It is.
  On 16 May 1972 my hon. Friend, now Lord Barnett, moved the amendment to insert the words:
  "Children's footwear of the type and size at present free from purchase tax".
  That amendment was voted against, not only by the right hon. Member for Finchley, but by the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit).
  A second amendment was to insert the words:
  "Garments and footwear of a kind suitable for young children's wear".—[Official Report, 16 May 1972; Vol. 837, c.246.]
  Among those voting no was the hon. Member for Lancaster. so I hope that we shall hear no more from her and from the Prime Minister about their desire not to impose VAT because the Prime Minister, in Cabinet—which was different from the one that she presides over now—and in the House, agreed with the idea of imposing VAT on children's shoes.
  I do not say that the Prime Minister is not genuine in her conversion to the belief that VAT should not be imposed, but she sometimes misleads the House when she says that the House will never vote for it. Although it did not do so then, and although the Government had to change their mind, she tried to make the House vote for those very things. That detracts from the vigour and strength with which the Prime Minister upholds the pledge that she gave at the election.
  Dame Jill Knight: At that time there was not enough knowledge on what the wrong size shoes would do for children's feet. We had a long briefing on the matter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) said, she led a deputation on the issue. It was recognised at that time that many adults could wear small size shoes. Therefore, it was difficult to say that small sizes should be zero rated. It was decided that the rate should be determined by the type of shoe rather than by the size of shoe. There was a great deal of discussion on the matter.
  Mr. Spearing: No doubt that is true, but the difficulty which the hon. Lady said was dealt with in 1972 will be with us again. I do not think what she has said is relevant. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury, some of my hon. Friends and the Government want the speed of and movement towards harmonisation to be decided by the House. Unless that is decided by the House, it will be decided in negotiations by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer or a Minister. In those circumstances, the House becomes a consultative assembly. Conservative Members may deny that, but it is
  430
  the truth. By not passing the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), the House would he saying that we will not have the final word on this issue. We will give the power to negotiate and decide to the Executive. We will give the power to the Executive to decide the tax and we do not reserve to ourselves a veto on the extent and degree of the strength of that Executive. Whether the Executive be in Whitehall or in Brussels, that is the position. Some hon. Members may want that. If they do, they should say so.
  Mr. George Walden rose—
  Mr. Spearing: I am tempted to give way, but I do not think that I should. We are constrained by time.
  We have before us the proposals of the Commission, which the Government have commented on in their explanatory memorandum. The proposals have been summarised in the report of the Select Committee. It is not the Select Committee which decides whether we have a debate, although it can recommend that. It is the House that decides whether we should have a debate before a decision is taken. However, decisions are sometimes taken before we have a debate. The role of the Select Committee is to draw attention to matters, but it cannot decide that we should have a debate. One problem tonight is that we are debating eight proposals in an hour-and-a-half. In former years each one of those proposals would have been a major feature of the domestic British Budget. Is there any Conservative Member who would deny that? Each of the main proposals in the documents before us would have been a major matter for our Exchequer. We are attempting to debate those eight super primary pieces of legislation in the time that is given to a single statutory instrument of secondary legislation.
  Mr. Walden: Am I alone in sensing a little disproportion in the hon. Gentleman's remarks? We started with children's shoes, and that has now built up into a major constitutional principle. There is a little gap in between that needs to be filled. To begin with, it is a matter of common sense that most people in this country can afford to buy children's shoes, with or without harmonisation. Harmonisation would bring with it the means to direct extra funds to the small minority of people who need help. To go from there to build a huge and surrealistic issue of constitutional propriety seems to be rather indulgent, romantic and grotesque.
  Mr. Spearing: I am sorry that I shall not be able to give way again. The hon. Gentleman has spoilt the debate. He is wrong. I started my speech on that matter because of remarks that had been made and because I happened to have the information with me. This is about our constitution. It is about the power of the House and the power of Conservative Members to decide what taxes should be levied on the people whom they represent. It is about the power of the Executive, and the power of the House to control the Executive. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), who I thought was a knowledgeable and intelligent person, does not seem to understand that. He had better read his constitutional history.
  The Government have not given the House much information on this matter. It was through parliamentary questions, mainly those of 23 and 24 March, that I had to get my information. I wrote to the Minister on 30 March

  431
  on a matter relating to those answers but did not receive an answer until today, after four telephone calls and a personal approach. I am not blaming the Minister for that, although he should take some responsibility. The Minister and the House are not being informed about these important matters, hence the ignorant remarks of the hon. Member for Buckingham.
  The tables that I have quoted do not give any information about water and sewerage. Unless sewerage services are to be confined to taking sewage from septic tanks, I calculate that on a £1 billion turnover on sewerage there must be about £150 million VAT, and that on £800 million on water at 4 per cent., about £50 million. Can the Minister tell us what the rate of VAT will be on water?
  The Minister asked me about my opposition to the sixth directive in 1976. We opposed it because we knew that the derogations were only temporary. I do not believe that hon. Members knew what they were voting for, any more than the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak ( Mr. Beaumont-Dark) did over the Single European Act, or the hon. Member for Buckingham if he votes against our motion tonight. If he does so, he will be voting power to the Executive in a way that has not happened in this country for several hundred years.
  I believe that the Opposition amendment is not only constitutionally right, but right because it will achieve the objectives that the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) outlined. He said, "We do not like this. We want to go ahead steadily." He is in favour of harmonisation, but in a different way from some of us. That judgment should be for the House of Commons and should not be left to a Minister.
  The Minister has said, as has the Prime Minister, "We shall not constrain the Chancellor of the Exchequer." That means that they will not constrain any Minister in Brussels, where they may happen to go for package bargaining and where, at some point, they will have to give way. They have not given any pledge on public transport, on instruments for disabled people, on books, even educational books, on newspapers such as The Sun, or on any other written matter. Surely the House cannot put up with a tax on knowledge. If Conservative Members do not vote for our amendment tonight, they will be saying, "We shall leave that judgment in the hands of the Executive", and not retain it in the hands of the House of Commons, where it should be.
  I should dearly love to make other points, but I am not sure that I should, because the time constraints are such, and the matter is of such great importance, that other hon. Members should speak. However, I wish to conclude on one major and important point.
  At the moment the power of the House is constrained by the treaty of Rome and by section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972. We cannot work outside those self-imposed pieces of written constitution. However, in negotiating this whole question of VAT and excise we can have control of our Executive within those constraints. There is nothing in either the treaty of Rome or section 2 (1) of the European Communities Act 1972 that is inconsistent with the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. That is illustrated by the fact that the Danish Folketing keeps control over its Ministers when they go to Brussels. We are not asking for
  432
  that total control over all negotiations. We are asking that the House of Commons shall control and be the back-marker in negotiations on VAT and excise. That is much less than the control exercised by the Folketing over its Ministers.
  By their votes tonight, hon. Members will determine whether the control of the House over Ministers in Whitehall is less than that of the Folketing over its Government? If hon. Members vote against the amendment, that is what they will determine.
  This year, 1988, is constitutionally important for many reasons. As we will learn later, the foundations were laid in 1688 for this House to have control over the Executive, over its power to tax, to borrow money and to legislate. We have an opportunity tonight, within the terms of the treaty of Rome and of the legislation already passed by the House, to retain some of that power. If hon. Members do not vote for that opportunity they will throw away, not their power, because we are the trustees here, but those of the elected people, not just for now, but for the foreseeable future.
  11.11 pm
  Mr. Alan Haselhurst: If the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) had continued for a few more minutes, we might have got back to 1066, such is his perception of the great affairs unfolding before us in Europe. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) that I will not repeat what others have said so far. I am sorry if the unanimity that my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) believes to exist in the House is slightly qualified in my case.
  I believe that the House is approaching this matter with extraordinary timidity. There was a defensive and negative aura to most of the speeches. I wonder how this debate will be read in our partner countries. They must think that we have problems that are so unique that they are not experienced on the continent of Europe. That is an extraordinary view.
  It is odd that the greatest boldness lies in the neutrality of the Government's motion. The amendments are far more restrictive and narrow in their outlook. We need hardly wonder why the Liberal party is defunct after the way in which the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed ( Mr. Beith) spoke. Liberals will be turning in their graves at the narrowness of the hon. Gentleman's attitude because the Liberal party always trumpeted that it was more enthusiastic for Europe than the Conservative party or anyone else. That view was certainly not obvious from the hon. Gentleman's speech, but, after all, the Liberal party is dead.
  I want to see the creation of a common market and I believe that it should be an area without frontiers. Real benefits will flow for the countries of the European Community when that is achieved. If we are to compete effectively with Japan and the United States, we must organise ourselves on that basis. While I do not want to get into too detailed an argument about the exact importance of the removal of fiscal barriers, that would make a positive contribution to the creation of a better single market.
  My approach is to ask why should it not be done, not why should it be done. Why should we think that the proposal is so appalling that we cannot contemplate it? I

  433
  concede that the difficulties are obvious enough. I am not saying that we should take the first offer of the Commission straight away, and it is right that we should negotiate from our national position of what we think is right. I am not prepared necessarily to dispute with my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing that we should negotiate to try to secure the best system in the belief that currently we have one of the best systems. We should negotiate with a view to getting something on which we can agree.
  I hope that we shall be able to address the matter rather more objectively than did the hon. Member for Newham, South. I hope also that we shall be able to do so without political partisanship. If all political parties that are represented in the House believe that the United Kingdom should be a member of the European Community, it will help the national interest if we have a collective approach to what our taxation policies are to be and whether we are to have effective harmonisation within Europe. If we are to be continually sniped at in Government by an Opposition who say, "If you do this it will be unpopular with the public and we shall vote against it", Britain's national position will not be assisted in trying to achieve the best possible system of approximation, or harmonisation, of taxes within the Community.
  I deplore the fact that there are those who suggest that we should run away from this issue and parties that try to take a narrow, partisan advantage at a time when we must face major issues. The reason why we seem to be running away from the issues, if I deduce it correctly from the debate, is that some of us are scared about further concessions of national sovereignty. In the world into which we are moving, national sovereignty is of shrinking importance. I am as proud of Britain as anyone, but the way in which the world is now organised means that we achieve sovereignty only by binding together with other countries. We took that decision by joining the European Community in the first place. We are not giving away anything that is basically essential by wanting to move towards tax harmonisation.
  We shall have less opportunity to determine our own taxes, but the opportunity to do so is not being squeezed out altogether. We are being invited to consider a range of taxes, which will still give us some choice. If we are arguing within the context of two bands rather than a single rate of tax, I am prepared to argue that we should try to secure a lower band which starts at zero. Of course that should be our negotiating position. We would have choice within that band to determine what our tax rates should be.
  We should bear in mind the advantages that a powerful, unified market will create. Only in the past few days we have received a report from the Commission which attempts to set out the advantages that we can secure by achieving a real single market. We could hope to improve the Community's total gross domestic product by about 4·5 per cent. and increase employment by 1·75 million over the medium term. These are real and solid advantages which we can obtain for our people if we are prepared to be imaginative enough.
  Our second difficulty appears to be over the problem of taxing some items that we have not taxed before. I am slightly surprised that in some instances there is fear on the Government Back Benches about this. I understand that it is part of the Government's approach that we should try
  434
  to transfer the burden from direct to indirect taxation. I am glad that we are not restricting the options of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on VAT.
  It would seem that there is a need for education. Anyone who listened to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, might well believe that there are people in the rest of Europe who are downtrodden and poor as a result of VAT being imposed in their countries on certain items that are zero rated in Britain. Yet we spend much of our time comparing the British economy with the economies of continental Europe and discussing how much further we must still go to improve our standard of living in certain respects.
  I do not believe that the Commission's proposals will lead to fundamental difficulties for the British people if we examine them carefully. We hear the argument about levying VAT on books. I read in The Sunday Times recently that the profit margin on books is considerable and that books could be discounted, if only the distributers and retailers were prepared to allow it to happen, by as much as £3 on a £12·95 volume. If that is correct, even VAT of 4 per cent. seems hardly a matter for anxiety.
  The same argument is advanced on newspapers. If VAT of 4 per cent. were levied on newspapers, I do not see how that would inhibit readership levels. In the recent past, some of the proprietors have increased the price of many national dailies by as much as 20 per cent. in one fell swoop. We must put those matters into perspective and not run away from some of the possibilities we might have to face in our negotiations. The British public are capable of discussing such matters reasonably.
  We must, of course, defend our national interest and negotiate carefully, but let us at least make clear what is in our national interest. I believe that it is to ensure that the European common market can bring for all our people the economic advances that are no longer within the compass of a single national economy.
  11.20 pm
  Mr. Robert Litherland: The Minister said that he would like to know the strength of feeling among hon. Members in respect of particular subjects. I am concerned about the possible imposition of value added tax on reading matter. That my concern is widely shared is clearly shown by the number of hon. Members who have signed or tabled early-day motions on the subject. My own early-day motion 210 has been signed by 124 hon. Members, and motions tabled by Conservative Members, including that of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), have attracted a similar number of signatories. The expression of concern spreads right across the political spectrum.
  The depth of concern is also shown by the number and variety of organisations supporting the contention that value added tax on the printed word is a tax on education. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may argue that there is a case for value added tax in that sector, pointing out that the mere process of producing a book, newspaper or periodical from wood pulp or newsprint adds value to that raw product. He may argue also that ours is the only country which grants exemption for zero rating, and that taxing newspapers, magazines and books is only the same as taxing other forms of entertainment and is therefore acceptable.

  435
  However, we are all aware of the instability of the newspaper industry. That industry is renowned for its razor-sharp competition. Recently in Manchester, the Mirror Group announced a jobs cutback, with some 136 journalists being made redundant. That represents another shift away from Manchester and the north-west to London-based printing firms. Any additional tax burden could mean the closure of more titles, especially in the provinces.
  The effect on employment of the imposition of VAT on reading matter could be catastrophic. The print unions estimate that some 13,000 jobs would be at risk. The industry would be reduced to even fewer ownerships than at present. Publishing houses—especially the smaller firms—would be at risk. Even more at risk would be the most recent enterprises in that field.
  It has been pointed out in all the correspondence I have received on this subject that the most damaging effect of all would be on schoolchildren, students, and those who use libraries. In my maiden speech, I made the point that to a child a book should be an adventure. A book meant for a small child should not be considered as a taxable object. What Government would deny a child access to a book? Value added tax on printed matter of that kind would be viewed as a further cut in education resources.
  It would also be seen as an attack on adult education. What is the point of encouraging further education if there is to be a tax that will deter people from making progress in education? To impose a value added tax on knowledge flies in the face of public opinion. What Government would deny access for the under-privileged—especially the educationally under-privileged—to these books? The printed word is a means of communication and should be dear to all who believe in the furtherance of the knowledge that is vital to our progress as a human race. It should be above being used to swell the coffers of the Treasury.
  We are talking about harmony, and I hope for that tonight when we call on the Government to listen to the people, and the House, and not to Brussels. They should maintain our right to zero rating on the printed word.
  11.26 pm
  Dr. Marek: First, we should have had a much longer debate—of at least three hours, if not a whole day. The Opposition pressed for that, and it is regrettable that the Government got the feeling of the House wrong and held a debate of only one and a half hours.
  Secondly, it is a great pity that the Government have not given a pledge not to impose VAT on books, newspapers and periodicals. No hon. Memer wants such an imposition.
  Thirdly, we have heard no good reason from the Government or Conservative Members why anyone should not support the Labour amendment. The arguments for it prevailed, and it would unite the House. It would support the Chancellor in the difficult negotiations that he will have, and I commend it to the House.
  Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You know that this procedure follows that laid down for statutory instruments. Standing Order 14(b) says that if the Speaker is of the view that
  436
  "the time for debate has not been adequate, he shall, instead of putting the question … interrupt the business, and the debate shall stand adjourned".
  As this may be the last time that the House can discuss these matters before the Government start negotiations, I ask you to exercise your right under that Standing Order.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I have given careful consideration to the Standing Order and tonight's debate. I must tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that this is a take-note motion. The legislation is in the early stages of gestation; it is what I would call a preliminary canter over the field. There will be ample opportunities for further debate on this, and I shall put the Question at 11.30 pm
  11.28 pm
  Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for that ruling. I am grateful, too, to the House for showing support from all sides for the two essential components of the Government's position.
  We support the underlying objective of a freer internal market in Europe. To achieve that it is not necessary to move along the proposals for approximation and harmonisation as spelt out by the Commission.
  I am sad that the Opposition Front Bench did not take up my challenge to explain why it wants us to accept its amendment, which runs flat contrary to the practice and position of the last Labour Government, let alone all other ones. The amendment goes far further than anyone has proposed in the past. it goes flat contrary to the existing rules, to which the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) referred and which were laid down by a resolution of the House. It states:
  "no Minister of the Crown should give agreement in the Council of Ministers to any proposal for European Legislation which has been recommended by the Select Committee on European Legislation … for further consideration by the House before the House have given it that consideration unless—

  (a) that Committee has indicated that agreement need not be withheld, or

  (b) the Minister concerned decides that for special reasons agreement should not be withheld; and in the latter case the Minister should, at the first opportunity thereafter, explain the reasons for his decision to the House."

  Those are tight and binding conditions which have informed and ruled our debates on these matters so far. It would be unfortunate to introduce the rules proposed by the amendment because that would mean that every jot and tittle of European legislation would have to come before the House before it could be formally endorsed in the Council of Ministers by a Minister of this Government. As the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) knows in his heart, having been a Minister in the previous Labour Government, that would make it impractical—
  It being half-past Eleven o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 ( Exempted business), That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 92, Noes 215.

  Division No. 300]

  [11.30 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Graham

  Boyes, Roland

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Barron, Kevin

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Battle, John

  Buchan, Norman

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Buckley, George J.

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Butcher, John

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Butler, Chris

  Allason, Rupert

  Butterfill, John

  Amess, David

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Amos, Alan

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Cash, William

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Atkins, Robert

  Chapman, Sydney

  Atkinson, David

  Chope, Christopher

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Churchill, Mr

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Baldry. Tony

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Colvin, Michael

  Batiste, Spencer

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Beith, A. J.

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Couchman, James

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Cran, James

  Benyon, W.

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Curry, David

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

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

  Boswell, Tim

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Day, Stephen

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Devlin, Tim

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Bowis, John

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Dunn, Bob

  Brazier, Julian

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Bright, Graham

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fallon, Michael

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

  Favell, Tony

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Fearn. Ronald

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Burt, Alistair

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Clay, Bob

  McWilliam, John

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Mahon. Mrs Alice

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Marek, Dr John

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Maxton, John

  Crowther, Stan

  Meale, Alan

  Cryer, Bob

  Michael, Alun

  Cummings, John

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Milian, Rt Hon Bruce

  Dalyell, Tam

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Darling, Alistair

  Morley, Elliott

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

  Mullin, Chris

  Dewar, Donald

  Murphy, Paul

  Dixon, Don

  Nellist, Dave

  Dobson, Frank

  O'Neill, Martin

  Eastham, Ken

  Patchett, Terry

  Flynn, Paul

  Pike, Peter L.

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Prescott, John

  Foster, Derek

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Fyfe, Maria

  Redmond, Martin

  Galloway, George

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Robertson, George

  George, Bruce

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Salmond, Alex

  Gordon, Mildred

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Grocott, Bruce

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Hardy, Peter

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

  Haynes, Frank

  Snape, Peter

  Henderson, Doug

  Spearing, Nigel

  Holland, Stuart

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Wall, Pat

  Illsley, Eric

  Walley, Joan

  Ingram, Adam

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Lamond, James

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Winnick, David

  Leighton, Ron

  Litherland, Robert

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Mr. Allen McKay and

  McAllion, John

  Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

  Forman, Nigel

  Neubert, Michael

  Forth, Eric

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Franks, Cecil

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Freeman, Roger

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  French, Douglas

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Gardiner, George

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Paice, James

  Gill, Christopher

  Patnick, Irvine

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Pawsey, James

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Gow, Ian

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Gregory, Conal

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Grist, Ian

  Raffan, Keith

  Grylls, Michael

  Redwood, John

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

  Renton, Tim

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Harris, David

  Riddick, Graham

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Rowe, Andrew

  Hayes, Jerry

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Hayward, Robert

  Ryder, Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Hind, Kenneth

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Holt, Richard

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Howard, Michael

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Sims, Roger

  Irvine, Michael

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Jack, Michael

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Janman, Tim

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Squire, Robin

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Stern, Michael

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Stevens, Lewis

  Knapman, Roger

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Sumberg, David

  Knowles, Michael

  Summerson, Hugo

  Knox, David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Thorne, Neil

  Lightbown, David

  Thurnham, Peter

  Lilley, Peter

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Tredinnick, David

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Lord, Michael

  Viggers, Peter

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Walden, George

  Malins, Humfrey

  Wallace, James

  Mans, Keith

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Whitney, Ray

  Mellor, David

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Miller, Hal

  Wilshire, David

  Mills, Iain

  Wolfson, Mark

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Wood, Timothy

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Woodcock, Mike

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and

  Nelson, Anthony

  Mr. Tony Durant.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 8199/87 on indirect tax rates and structures,

  439
  8200/87 on value added tax rates, 8201/87 on the removal of fiscal frontiers, 8202/87 on a value added tax clearing mechanism frorintra-Community sales, 8203/87 + COR 1 on convergence of rates of value added tax and excise duties, 8204/87 and 8205/87 on taxes on cigarettes and other manufactured tobacco, 8206/87 on excise duty on mineral oils and 8207/87 + COR 1 on excise duty on alcohol.
  11.43 pm
  Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to you for taking this point of order, as I am for your ruling at the end of the debate. Although, as you indicated, there may be further debates on the legislation, the Government have discharged their responsibility to the House and I am aware of no procedure that guarantees further debates before decisions are made in Brussels. It is true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Government, or any other hon. Member may raise such a debate, but that cannot be guaranteed.
  Secondly, the seven directives that we have discussed tonight may, if followed up, have to come back to the House for legislation for the United Kingdom. If that happens, the terms of the decision in Brussels will have to be complied with by the House, for if a decision by the House was other than the decision by Brussels, the House would be in breach of the treaty.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The very convoluted point of order put by the hon. Gentleman, who I know is an expert on European matters, has been noted.

  Orders of the Day

    FOREIGN MARRIAGE (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90 (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    Question agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments &c.)

    HOUSING
    That the draft Housing Defects (Reinstatement Grant) (Amendment of Conditions for Assistance) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 22nd March, be approved—[Mr. Ryder.]
    Question agreed to.

  A249 Road (Sheerness)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ryder]
  11.45 pm
  Mr. Roger Moate: The story of the A249 road to Sheerness is a story that should gladden the hearts of our competitors abroad and that should make the British people weep.
  In an age when we pride ourselves on the claim that we have got Britain moving, we cannot get a good road built to one of our main deep water ports, to a major industrial growth area, to a large resident population in the prosperous south-east of England. I welcome this chance to tell the House of our problems in securing a first-class road link from the M2 and M20 motorways to the port of Sheerness, the town of Sheerness and the Isle of Sheppey. I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport will be visiting us to see for himself on 20 May. I hope that he will then understand our frustration and that after his visit he will inject into his Department a political determination to plan and to build soon a continuous and good road link to Sheerness.
  Let me remind my hon. Friend of what I am sure he knows but that many, apparently, do not. The Isle of Sheppey is a real island. It is linked to the Kent mainland by one bridge—a lifting bridge that was opened in 1960. It is now heavily overloaded and is undergoing major repairs. The bridge has been raised 60,000 times since it was built to allow yachts and commercial shipping to use the river Swale.
  Sheppey has a population of 33,000, rising to probably over 80,000 in the summer. It is a major and expanding industrial area, about which I shall say more in a moment. It has an important deep water port, about which I shall also say more in a moment. My hon. Friend will find, as he leaves the motorway, a winding, single carriageway road for several miles, passing through the villages of Bobbing and Iwade. He will see our lifting bridge. He will also see another single carriageway road over the Sheppey marshes linking up with a stretch of new bypass that leads almost, but not quite—we never quite make it to the port—to Sheerness and to the docks.
  The road is narrow and winding, passing is almost impossible. Traffic is usually heavy. Certainly at peak hours, with repairs and perhaps the bridge lifted, delays and tailbacks can be great and the frustration even greater. However, I can almost guarantee that, when my hon. Friend the Minister comes, there will be no jams, no delays and no bridge up and that he will sail through without delay. That is life. However, the position is generally as I have described it.
  It is not my purpose to talk about our problems with road repairs, but it would be wrong not to put on record the frustration of the Sheppey community and others about the coincidence, despite all the assurances we received beforehand, of major repair works on the bridge, on the A249, on the M2 and on the M20 simultaneously. It makes those of us who live in Kent feel as though we are totally beleaguered.
  I acknowledge readily that there are some road plans in the pipeline, but I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that when nothing comes out of the end of the pipeline people grow somewhat cynical and frustrated. Let
  442
  me take, for example, the (wade bypass. I have a letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport dated 3 November 1982. It reads:
  "We hope to be in a position to consult the public on the route during the summer of 1983. The normal statutory processes will then follow, which would allow the work to start in 1986."
  We have not even got into a planning inquiry yet and the prospects of that starting seem to diminish all the time. Can my hon. Friend tell me what has gone wrong?
  Let me remind my hon. Friend of some offerings from his Department regarding improving the road north of the bridge. On 28 July 1986, two years ago, he told me that that was a candidate for inclusion in the road programme. In regard to the same stretch of road, on 23 April 1987 he said that the Department was bearing the question in mind in the current review. Five days later, on 28 April, he told me that it had not been possible to add a scheme. He then held out the hope that there might be some additional consideration later in the year, but that came to nothing. These are modest extracts from the massive file.
  We have had meetings with Ministers, petitions to Downing street, endless correspondence and so on. The Sheppey Industries Association, VOICE, the employers' organisation for Swale, and the borough council have all been tireless in pressing the case, let it be said, not just For a local road for local interests which any hon. Member would always espouse, but for a national route of fundamental importance to the road network, to industrial output and also to the ordinary motorist and to the residents of the locality.
  It is not my purpose to speak at length about the Kingsferry bridge because it is too big a subject to deal with in a short Adjournment debate. The Government know that Swale borough council recently commissioned Mott, Hay & Anderson, eminent consulting engineers, to undertake a feasibility study into a new Swale crossing. We should congratulate the council on its initiative and the engineers on their report.
  The estimated cost of a single carriageway bridge would be £18 million. The cheapest tunnel would be £24 million. This is a nettle which the Government will have to grasp before long. The consultants said that a second crossing would probably be justified in about 10 years' time. If we start planning now, it will be 10 years plus before we get a second crossing. At the very least we should be taking serious initial steps to put the new crossing into the programme. In the meantime, there are various traffic management suggestions which could improve traffic flows. These should be considered urgently by the Department.
  May I draw the attention of my hon. Friend to the traffic figures which show that there is complete justification for dualling the road north of the bridge? At the bridge itself last October the count was 20,200 vehicles a day. This flows on to the narrow single carriageway for which, I understand, the design flow now would be little more than 10,000 vehicles a day. We should compare that with, say, the A20 at Harrietsham where there are 28,000 vehicles a day. Admittedly that is more, but it is getting a three-lane motorway bypass. The A226 at Gravesend, with only 15,000 vehicles a day, is getting its bypass now. At Thanet way, where again the figures are less than for Sheppey way, miraculously dualling has leapt into the programme and work has been started. Perhaps that is because it is a county programme. Somehow the county

  443
  seems to be able to get on with the job more quickly than the Department does when trunk roads are involved. It is also noteworthy that the number of heavy goods vehicles on Sheppey way is 13 per cent., which is considerably higher than the national average. There again the growth forecast for traffic is also higher than the national average.
  With regard to growth, even in recent months there have been announcements of new industrial investment at Ridham dock and on the island. With all the industrial land that is available for development and the strategically important location of Sheppey, it is obvious that traffic growth will continue apace. Sheppey is already an important industrial area. For example, we have Sheerness Steel, one of our national success stories. It is a major steel industry which produces 5 per cent. of the total national steel production. Despite the company's commitment to rail traffic, rail sidings and its wagon fleet, it still uses 240 vehicles in its works. It is a great success story for the United Kingdom, but it faces tremendous road problems. There are glass, electrical, pharmaceutical and other steel industries and a range of other significant employers. There is major Canadian, Japanese, German and American investment. Sheppey is truly an international island.
  However, the greatest success story is that of the port of Sheerness which, from the darkest days following the closure of the naval dockyard, has transformed itself into one of the most thrusting and competitive ports in the United Kingdom. It is the largest fruit port and the largest car terminal for imported vehicles in the United Kingdom. It is one of the largest and the fastest expanding port in forest products, such as paper, pulp and timber.
  The ferry business there has grown dramatically and continues to expand at a rapid rate. Last year, the Olau Line, with its three superb ferries, carried 570,000 passengers, 104,000 passenger cars, 4,000 coaches, 60,000 freight units and 35,000 trade cars, but that capacity will be enormously increased when the two new ferries are delivered soon. The port generates almost 2,000 jobs. Sheerness is now, excluding oil and bulk carriers, the fifth largest port in the United Kingdom, yet it does not have a decent link road from the motorway.
  The strategic importance of Sheerness is even greater than I have indicated. It is the only deep-sea port in Kent, and indeed in the south-east, as far as Southampton, that can service the international shipping trade in respect of the Channel tunnel. With 40 ft of deep water at low tide, Sheerness has some of the deepest water in the United Kingdom and is, apart from the wretched road link, the ideal deep-water port to service the Channel.
  If we are to attract major shipping lines to the United Kingdom and then tranship, via rail or road, through to Europe, Sheerness is the ideal location. If it happens the other way round, Britain will lose that trade and the jobs and economic spin-off from it. It is evident that a first-class road system linking Sheerness to the motorways is an integral part of any sensible strategy for the south-east, so why have we been left behind? Why have we not had the same priority as other places? More important, will the Minister use his authority to ensure that we now receive priority?
  Let me spell out briefly what is being sought and what could be achieved by the Minister putting his weight
  444
  behind the scheme. First, the general objective is to establish that there needs to be a dual carriageway from the M20 to Sheerness, certainly as far as the new Queenborough bypass on the island. Secondly, the proposed dualling of the section from the M2 to the A2 is in the programme. May we have construction urgently and without any slippage?
  Thirdly, the Iwade bypass from Key street on the A2 to Sheppey bridge is in the programme. I welcome the proposed dual carriageway and readily accept that it will be a superb road of immense benefit, but we are becoming alarmed at possible slippage. It has not yet even gone to public inquiry. Will the Minister stress to his officials that it is a priority route and that no delay can be tolerated?
  Fourthly, north of the bridge, from the bridge to the Queenborough bypass, we need a dual carriageway, either as a road improvement via Cowstead corner or, preferably, a new fairly short stretch of dual carriageway as a direct link from the bridge to the Queenborough bypass. That is not a major road scheme in terms of distance, cost, land acquisition or engineering. When my hon. Friend sees that miserably inadequate stretch of road, stuck between the proposed end of the new dual carriageway to the south and the new Queenborough bypass to the north, he will understand our frustration. If he agrees, will he please put it into an early construction schedule and not into a distant programme for the 21st century?
  Fifth is the scheme for the entrance to the Sheerness docks. I believe that it is ready to go. May we please get construction started? Sixthly, I return to the really difficult problem—the Kingsferry bridge. I do not think that there is an immediate, satisfactory solution, but the Government should authorise investigation into the best long-term solution—it has to be a tunnel or a second bridge—while backing interim management schemes to improve traffic flows over the bridge.
  Of one thing I am absolutely sure: with dual carriageways either side of the bridge, there will be major improvements in traffic flow. We must not hold up the dualling of the road on the ground that the bridge is a bottleneck. That is a recipe for eternal inaction.
  Most of what I am asking for is already committed. Most of it is already in the programme. Therefore, what we need is not money but speed, no slippage, no further delays, a sense of purpose and action. The other improvements that we seek, especially those north of the bridge, are not costly in road spending terms. All it needs is a simple political commitment to the concept of a first-class road to Sheerness soon, and a ministerial boot up backsides if there is any avoidable delay.
  If we really are trying to build a modern Britain, will my hon. Friend the Minister please do his bit to ensure that we have a modern road to this vital part of the United Kingdom?
  12.1 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) for raising the important matter of the A249 to Sheerness. He has for many years pressed successive Ministers through correspondence, meetings and visits to the area. He has also had a good deal of success. His aim is to improve the A249, which is the only access from the mainland to the

  445
  Isle of Sheppey and its expanding port of Sheerness. His ardent campaign for improvements has been ably supported by the Sheppey Industries Association, VOICE—Voice of Industrial Company Employers in Swale is, I think, the plain English—and local authorities. I pay tribute to his energy and to his concern for his constituency.
  By a mixture of oratory and rough language my hon. Friend has perhaps given me a foretaste of what I shall experience when I visit the area. I am sorry that I was not able to go on the previously appointed day, and when I do go I do not intend to make any earth-shattering announcement. We shall, however, reconsider the need for improvements to the A249 between Kingsferry bridge and the Queenborough bypass in the next review of the trunk road programme. To assist us in our consideration, a scheme identification study on the relevant section of the A249 is to be carried out by Kent county council. We shall arrange for the study to cover the possibility of providing extra capacity at the bridge, although it is too early, as my hon. Friend said, to say whether that can be justified or, to put it more moderately, when it can be justified.
  The trunk road programme remains one of the Government's priorities. We are determined to do as much as possible to continue to develop the trunk road network for present and future traffic needs. The major schemes on the A249 that are already programmed are good examples of schemes that meet our policy of improving roads to ports and getting traffic out of villages. Further improvements to the A249 will be considered in the next review. I look forward to my planned visit to the A249 on 20 May, when I shall meet my hon. Friend and the Sheppey business community.
  My hon. Friend referred to the port of Sheerness. The Government fully accept its importance to the local area and to the nation, and the need to improve access to it. If I have time, I shall say more about that. Sheerness, which is owned and operated by the Medway Port Authority, is, as my hon. Friend said, the fifth largest continental car ferry port after Dover, Portsmouth, Harwich and Ramsgate. It handles more than 1·5 million tonnes of cargo each year. Half of that is accounted for by 50,000 freight vehicles on the Olau Line service to Flushing. There are also 700,000 passengers and 100,000 cars. The port also handles car import operations and other deep-sea trade. Confidence in the future success of the port is shown by the opening by the Medway Port Authority of a £9 million car terminal in February 1987. The Olau Line has also announced the building of two new jumbo ferries, an investment of £100 million. They will enter service on the Sheerness-Flushing route in 1989 and 1990. To meet that demand, MPA plans to start new berth construction later this year.
  My hon. Friend talked at length about the A249. It is clearly the vital link both to the port and to the industrial and commercial interests of Sheppey. It is a lifeline to those who live and work there. The A249 extends for about 20 miles north-eastwards from Maidstone to Sheerness, and has major junctions with the M20, M2 and A2. Before 1979, the A249 was the responsibility of Kent county council. Because of the industrial development on Sheppey and expansion of the port of Sheerness, it was decided to transfer responsibility for the section between the M2 and Sheerness dock to the Secretary of State for Transport. A short section northwards from the M2 to Chestnut street was trunked in July 1979, and the
  446
  remainder—about 10 miles—to the docks in October 1983. South of the M2, the A249 is the responsibility of Kent county council.
  Between the M2 and Sheerness the road is a single carriageway of varying standards of alignment and visibility. The route undoubtedly has a very poor accident record. In the three years from 1984 to 1986 there have been 145 injury accidents—seven involving fatalities, 44 serious injuries and 94 slight injury. For every injury accident, there are many damage-only ones.
  The present traffic on the M2 to Kingsferry bridge section is in the range of 13,000 to 16,500 vehicles a day, taking a I6-hour day. As my hon. Friend said, to overcome those problems we have two major schemes under preparation comprehensively to improve the A249 to dual two-lane carriageway standards from the M2 to Kingsferry bridge. The latter is a combined road and rail crossing, and the only crossing to the Isle of Sheppey.
  I realise that, welcome though those schemes are to my hon. Friend and his supporters, they do not satisfy their demands to replace the Kingsferry bridge and to upgrade the road northwards to Sheerness docks. I hope to deal first with the programmed schemes and come to the suggestions for further improvements.
  The Iwade bypass was added to the programme in February 1982. What started off as a scheme for a small local bypass of the village of Iwade has been extended to cover the four miles between the A2 at Key street and Kingsferry bridge. The scheme will provide substantial relief to the village of Iwade and the neighbouring communities of Bobbing and Howt Green, as well as greatly improving the road link to Sheerness docks. Public consultation was held in December 1985 and a preferred route, which runs to the east of the present A249, was announced in December 1986.
  Last autumn we had hoped that by now we should be able to publish the necessary statutory orders for our preferred scheme under the Highways Act. For reasons over which we had no direct control, the programme for the Iwade bypass has slipped. Kent county council has recently brought forward, in its transport policies programme, proposals for a Sittingbourne link to connect directly with our scheme. That means that a new interchange will be needed. We accept that it is sensible to take account of the Sittingbourne link in our planning for the Iwade bypass scheme, but it will require us to take a fresh look at the traffic and economics for the combined proposals. In particular, it could have a consequential effect on our present proposals for the A249-A2 junction at Key street. All that will inevitably delay the publication of the draft orders for the Iwade scheme. We now hope that the draft orders for Iwade will be published early next year and that the proposals for the scheme and those for the Sittingbourne link will be dealt with at inquiries at about the same time, possibly later in 1989. Experience suggests that it is unlikely that an inquiry can be avoided.
  I realise that any delay is disappointing. My hon. Friend talked about assurances. It is my policy to try to avoid giving assurances. I spend most of my time picking up ones given by Hore-Belisha and various Ministers at the Department of Transport between him and me. My hon. Friend also asked whether I would grasp the nettle. I have a special pair of gloves because there are so many nettles in road planning that it would become painful otherwise.

  447
  Our experience shows that a scheme should be taken forward only after careful preparation. We want to get the design right and to avoid unnecessary delays later. The scheme, to improve the A249 to dual carriageway standards between its junctions with the A2 at Key street and the M2 at Stockbury, was added to the programme in the 1985 review. Public consultation on two route options was held in February 1987. We expect to announce the preferred route decision this summer. We hope thereafter to be able to proceed fairly quickly with the scheme, but timing will depend on the necessary statutory procedures.
  We recognise the importance of the A249, but it was not possible within the resources available and against competing pressures of other schemes to add a scheme to the programme at last year's review, either for a second crossing of the Swale or an improvement north of the Kingsferry bridge. We have said many times that the cost of a second crossing would be considerable and hard to justify. That is still the case.
  The Department's view on a replacement bridge received some support from the results of a study commissioned by Swale district council, which concluded that although the present bridge and its operation did cause delays, any major improvement would be difficult to justify economically. However, I hope that the announcement that we are asking Kent county council to see what can be done will be of some comfort.
  As my hon. Friend knows, the Kingsferry bridge is jointly owned by British Rail and the Department. British Rail operates it and is responsible for maintenance. In June 1985 the Department was informed of possible chloride problems. Testing by BR confirmed the presence of chloride contamination in the deck of the bridge. Extensive remedial works were started in early December last year. Early in the contract it became clear that contamination was much worse than feared and required a greater degree of remedial work.
  Because of the importance of communication with
  448
  Sheppey, we considered carefully with BR the requirements to be imposed on the contractor to keep delays to a minimum. We have been able, by night-time working, to keep two lanes of traffic open between 6 am and 8 pm. Traffic flow through the works has inevitably been slowed. There have been delays.
  BR says that the remedial work is nearing completion and is expected to be finished by the end of June. My hon. Friend will wish to know that the necessary rewaterproofing and resurfacing works cannot be carried out without extending the existing night-time single lane operations to include some daytime lane closures. A press notice will be issued. We intend to allow single lane operation from 8 pm to noon on both Fridays and Saturdays. Every effort will be made to reduce this and to keep traffic disruption to a minimum.
  Problems with planning and executing the Kingsferry bridge repairs have resulted in a backlog of essential work and postponed schemes. While the Department is anxious to avoid more than one set of roadworks at a time on the A249, works cannot be postponed indefinitely. It is planned to avoid roadworks on the A249 during the summer school holiday period.
  I say to my hon. Friend that if every hon. Member pushed as hard as he did, my job would be more difficult than it is. When I visit on 20 May, I expect to come with my ears and my eyes, rather than with my mouth. I look forward to seeing for myself and hearing from my hon. Friend and those associated with him in working to give the best road communication with the Isle of Sheppey.
  When I heard that my hon. Friend had secured this important debate, I hoped that it was to celebrate what I call our joint campaign to build the Rochester way relief road. One of the first things that I remember when I came to the House was my hon. Friend asking for that road to be completed. I apologise for the fact that we managed to open that road before solving the problems of the A249 to Sheerness.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.

SCOTLAND

  Forestry
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the names and areas of land for which instalments of forestry grant aid have been paid in Sutherland and Caithness since 1 April 1981.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will instruct the Forestry Commission to publish details in future in its annual report of(a) the area of land approved for forestry gant aid and (b) the area of planting for which grants were paid for (i) conifers, (ii) mixed woodlands and (iii) pure broadleaves in each of the Forestry Commission's conservancies in that year.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I shall ask the forestry commissioners to consider whether more detailed information on private planting might reasonably be provided in their annual reports.

  Housing
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what plans he has to review existing tolerable standard laws for housing;

  (2) whether he intends making severe condensation in a house a reason for declaring a house unfit for habitation;

  (3) whether he intends to make lack of bath or shower a condition for a house being regarded as substandard.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We are currently reviewing the statutory tolerable standard for houses in the context of our proposed reform of the home improvement and repair grants system, as outlined in the White Paper "Housing: The Government's Proposals for Scotland," published last November. We expect to issue a detailed consultation paper on our reform proposals shortly for comment.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what revenue has been received by his Department since 11 November 1987 from the payment of fees for subject access to personal records, pursuant to the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984

  Mr. Rifkind
  No valid applications have been received from the general public under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984 and consequently no revenue has been received by the Scottish Office.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications under the provisions of 110
  the Data Protection Act 1984 for subject access to personal records held by his Department he has received since 11 November 1987.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Eighteen valid applications have been received under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984; all have been from staff within the Scottish Office.

  Chronically Sick Young People
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total number of residential places available in each health board area for the young chronically sick.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information is not held centrally in precisely the form requested. Information about beds available for young chronic sick people in NHS hospitals in each health board in Scotland is contained in table 3 of "Scottish Hospital Activity Statistics" published by the information and statistics division, Scottish Health Service Common Services Agency. Residential places for physically disabled people are also provided in residential homes registered by local authority social work departments. Information about these can be found in the "Statistical Bulletin: Residential Accommodation," published by the Scottish Education Department, social work services group. Further relevant information is contained in the annual report presented under the provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. All of these documents are available in the Library.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the most recent estimate of the number of young chronically sick in each health board area.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not held centrally.

  Items in Lieu of Tax
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if any further items have been accepted in lieu of tax in the current financial year.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I am pleased to announce that the following item has been accepted in lieu of tax:

  Item

  Amount of Tax Satisfied £

  The portrait of John Gray of Carntyne by Sir Henry Raeburn

  96,250

  The portrait has been allocated to Aberdeen art gallery and museum in accordance with the conditions upon which it was offered.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the average rate paid by a domestic ratepayer in each Scottish local authority in 1988–89, together with his estimate for the community charge which would be payable by each payer in 1988–89 had the community charge system been in operation.

  Mr. Lang
  The table shows present estimates of the average rate bill paid by a domestic ratepayer and the estimated level of community charge which would be
  111
  necessary to replace domestic rate income in 1988–89. Neither set of figures reflects the rate reduction of 5·6p proposed for Lothian regional council. The community charge figures are those that would be required to raise the same revenue for each authority in domestic rates in the current year. They do not represent forecasts of the level of charge when the new system is introduced in 1989–90.

  Average domestic rate bill 1988–89 £

  Community charge districts plus regions (including community water charge)£

  Berwickshire

  353

  205

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  355

  207

  Roxburgh

  354

  211

  Tweeddale

  374

  205

  Clackmannan

  449

  245

  Falkirk

  426

  233

  Stirling

  583

  270

  Annandale and Eskdale

  380

  210

  Nithsdale

  396

  210

  Stewartry

  398

  210

  Wigtown

  353

  203

  Dunfermline

  461

  247

  Kirkcaldy

  457

  258

  North East Fife

  518

  261

  Aberdeen City

  431

  220

  Banff and Buchan

  342

  208

  Gordon

  391

  206

  Kincardine and Deeside

  395

  201

  Moray

  335

  201

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  376

  201

  Caithness

  310

  202

  Inverness

  424

  204

  Lochaber

  356

  214

  Nairn

  421

  200

  Ross and Cromarty

  361

  209

  Skye and Lochalsh

  248

  200

  Sutherland

  246

  195

  East Lothian

  630

  331

  Edinburgh City

  639

  334

  Midlothian

  590

  323

  West Lothian

  544

  316

  Argyll and Bute

  444

  274

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  885

  283

  Clydebank

  468

  267

  Clydesdale

  504

  263

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  544

  266

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  430

  256

  Cunninghame

  512

  279

  Dumbarton

  582

  281

  East Kilbride

  567

  261

  Eastwood

  792

  264

  Glasgow City

  505

  291

  Hamilton

  550

  272

  Inverclyde

  515

  263

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  484

  268

  Kyle and Carrick

  578

  274

  Monklands

  522

  266

  Motherwell

  500

  261

  Renfrew

  540

  273

  Strathkelvin

  606

  266

  Angus

  423

  245

  Dundee City

  485

  275

  Perth and Kinross

  462

  249

  Orkney

  191

  107

  Shetland

  384

  201

  Western Isles

  220

  125

  Scotland

  498

  266

ENERGY

  Nuclear Reactors (Fuel Consumption)
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the quantity in tonnes of fresh fuel consumed per year by(a) a 500 MW Magnox reactor, (b) a 1300 MW advanced gas-cooled reactor, and (c) an 1100 MW pressurised water reactor.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is an operational matter for the Central Electricity Generating Board and I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Uranium
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the quantity in tonnes of depleted uranium produced from the Magnox reprocessing operation at Sellafield which has been re-enriched and used as nuclear fuel since its inception.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Over 15,000 tonnes of depleted uranium from the reprocessing of Magnox irradiated fuel have been enriched for use in civil nuclear fuel.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are his Department's target reductions in energy usage for 1988–89; what is his Department's target reduction in electricity usage for lighting in 1988–89; and what investment his Department is planning to make in new energy-efficient lighting equipment in 1988–89 to achieve those target reductions.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My Department has no plans to invest in new energy-efficient measures in our main building, where we are the principal tenants, as we will be vacating the premises in the summer of 1989. My Department, though, has set a target reduction in electricity consumption within its control, for 1988–89, of 7 per cent. Electricity used for lighting cannot be identified separately from overall electricity consumption.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central of 24 February,Official Report, column 240, if he will list the bodies and agencies for which Ministers are responsible which are to be involved directly or indirectly, in the physical protection of plutonium transported from Sellafield to Japan.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The police and other agencies will be involved as necessary.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what demand British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. expects for plutonium for the manufacture of fresh fuel for electricity generation in Japanese reactors from the mid 1990s.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a matter for BNFL and I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what factors are taken into account apart from physical protection in assessing alternative forms of transport for exporting plutonium overseas.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Safety and physical protection are the two most important factors in assessing alternative
  113
  forms of transport for exporting any nuclear material overseas. The cost of transporting the material must also be taken into account.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the countries which currently send spent Magnox fuel to Sellafield for reprocessing; how much plutonium has been returned to these countries; and how it was transported.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Japan and Italy currently send spent magnox fuel to Sellafield for reprocessing. Some 2½tonnes of plutonium from the reprocessing of such fuel has been returned to either the country of origin or, on the instructions of its owner, to a third country. The plutonium was transported by air or by sea in accordance with IAEA safety regulations.

  Information relating to specific consignments is confidential for reasons of security and commercial sensitivity.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether plutonium production ability was a factor in the choice of design for the advanced gas-cooled reactors at Hinkley Point in Somerset.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The choice of individual reactor design is a matter for the Central Electricity Generating Board and I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Thermal Oxide Fuel
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the countries currently under contract to send spent thermal oxide fuel to Sellafield for reprocessing in the mid-1990s.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The countries which have thermal oxide reprocessing contracts with British Nuclear Fuels plc which still have to send fuel to Seltafield for reprocessing in the new thermal oxide reprocessing plant are the Netherlands, the Federal Republic of Germany, Switzerland, Italy and Japan. BNFL also has fuel for reprocessing from Canada, Sweden and Spain which has already been delivered.

  Air-sea Combat Manoeuvring System
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on his assessment of the likely effects on North sea gas and oil installation manufacturing in(a) East Anglia and (b) the United Kingdom generally, of the air-sea combat manoeuvring system.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I understand that British Aerospace is considering a project which would involve the fabrication of six small towers. United Kingdom fabrication yards should be in a strong position to compete for the work if the project goes ahead.

  Power Stations (Comparative Costs)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will publish his Department's calculations of the relative costs of a coal-fired station in relation to Sizewell B, referred to in his decision letter of 12 March 1987 on the Central Electricity Generating Board's application to construct Sizewell B; and if he will make a statement.
  114
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have nothing to add to the letter issued by my right hon. Friend on 12 March 1987, which adequately states the grounds for his decision to give consent to the power station at Sizewell B.

  AGRs (Refuelling Shutdowns)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy on how many occasions on average advanced gas-cooled reactors have to be shut down each year for refuelling; and if he will estimate the cost of these shutdowns.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is an operational matter For the Central Electricity Generating Board and I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Electricity Generation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what minimum proportion of the minimum non-fossil fuel generated electricity in the privately owned electricity industry structure he proposes for England and Wales he envisages will be generated from nuclear stations.

  Mr. Parkinson
  [pursuant to his reply, 28 March 1988, c. 295–96.]: As the White Paper on privatising electricity (Cm. 322) made clear, the Government have decided that the obligation will be expressed in terms of a requirement for the distribution companies to contract for a specified minimum proportion of non-fossil fuelled capacity. This will ensure that both nuclear capacity and renewable sources of power will be able to make a contribution to maintaining diversity of fuel sources in the electricity supply system. The distribution companies will be able to seek such capacity from any source, including own generation (within any general limits on this that may be laid down), providing any necessary safety, planning and other consents are obtained. The obligation will set a minimum level of non-fossil fuelled capacity; there will be nothing to prevent distribution companies contracting for or generating companies building a higher level of plant.

  It is intended that the requirement will be embodied in an order in the form of a statutory instrument made by the Secretary of State under powers to be sought in the main privatisation legislation. What follows is therefore subject to Parliament approving that legislation.

  The Government believe that, in order to give an effective and clear statement of strategic priorities, and to set the background for the series of power station applications submitted and intended to be submitted by the Central Electricity Generating Board (the benefit of which will be transferred to the CEGB's successor companies), it would be right to set the obligation as a level to be obtained in the future. The White Paper made it clear that the proportion of non-fossil fuelled generating capacity required to be under contract would be fixed at a level achievable at the time of privatisation. The precise level is still under consideration. However the Governent's present intention is that, when it is set, the figure for the year 2000 will not be below the present level of existing and committed nuclear and renewable generating capacity.

WALES

  Data Protection
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what revenue has been received by his Department since 11 November 1987 from the payment of fees for subject access to personal records, pursuant to the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  None.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many applications under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984 for subject access to personal records held by his Department he has received since 11 November 1987.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  One.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Energy Saving
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are his Department's target reductions in energy usage for 1988–89; what is his Department's target reduction in electricity usage for lighting in 1988–89; and what investment his Department is planning to make in new energy-efficient lighting equipment in 1988–89 to achieve those target reductions.

  Mr. Hurd
  My Department has set a target reduction of 0·45 per cent. in energy usage for 1988–89. Investment in energy efficiency measures, including wherever possible the introduction of more energy-efficient lighting equipment, is planned to amount to £690,000, of which investment in energy-efficient lighting equipment accounts or £10,000 supplemented by general maintenance expenditure. Because of the wide range of operational requirements and types of building occupied by the Department it is not practicable to specify targets for particular forms of electricity usage such as lighting.

  Political Parties (Annual Accounts)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to oblige political parties to file and publish annual accounts.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No.

  Nationality Application
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the minimum and what is the maximum fee currently required to be remitted by an applicant for British nationality; and where he deposits such fees between the time they are removed from the applicants' envelopes and the time that the applicants are informed as to the result of their applications.

  Mr. Renton
  The prescribed fees for British citizenship are as set out. On receipt of each application, the fee is taken as an appropriation in aid into class XI, vote 3, and is accounted for in the appropriation account for that vote.

  £

  Naturalisation

  170

  except for the spouse of a British citizen for which the fee is

  60

  116

  £

  Registration of an adult

  60

  Registration of a minor

  60

  except for registration under the provisions of section 9 of the British Nationality Act 1981 for which the fee is

  10

  Data Protection
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what revenue has been received by the Metropolitan police, since 11 November 1987, from the payment of fees for subject access to personal records, pursuant to the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that to 5 May 1988 the force had received £1,490 in fees for access to personal records under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what revenue has been received by his Department since 11 November 1987 from the payment of fees for subject access to personal records, pursuant to the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Mr. Renton
  During the period 11 November 1987 to 6 May 1988 the Department received £127·50 in fees for subject access to personal records under the provisons of the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to how many applications under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984 for subject access to personal records held by the Metropolitan police have been received since 11 November 1987.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has provided the following information:

  Subject access applications: 11 November 1987 to 5 May 1988 Metropolitan police

  Number

  Applications for data held solely on Metropolitan police computers

  11

  Applications for data held on Metropolitan police computers and on the police national computer

  58

  Applications for data held solely on the police national computer

  52

  Total applications for subject access

  12l

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984 for subject access to personal records held by his Department he has received since 11 November 1987.

  Mr. Renton
  During the period 11 November 1987 to 6 May 1988 the Department received 21 requests for subject access.

  Police National Computer
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements are being made by
  117
  his Department or other Government agencies to provide cost-effective communications systems for police national computer U2.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Department is considering a number of options for the provision of a cost-effective communications system for the replacement police national computer.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements will be made for tendering for civil works contracts associated with police national computer U2; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  All contracts for civil works at the PNC site at Hendon, associated with the replacement police national computer system, will be let by the Metropolitan police (which is responsible for providing services to that site) under its normal tendering procedure.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what stage has been reached for specifications for data processing equipment for police national computer U2.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The operational requirement for the replacement police national computer was issued to potential suppliers on 3 May 1988. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff are currently employed full or part-time on planning or development work for police national computer U2.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  As at 9 May 1988, 48 staff (42 civil servants and six seconded police officers) were employed full-time, and one civil servant was employed part-time, on planning and development work for the replacement police national computer.

  Children's Homes
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average time taken for the Metropolitan police to record examinations of applicants to work in children's homes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that at present it is taking on average 47 days to deal with inquiries from local authorities about applicants for posts which involve substantial access to children. Separate figures are not available for inquiries about applicants for posts in children's homes run by local authorities.

  Births (Holloway Prison)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many babies have been born in Her Majesty's prison, Holloway in each year since 1979 and in local hospitals to prisoners in Holloway.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The available details are as follows:

  Number of babies born:

  Period

  in Holloway

  in hospital2

  1979

  1

  18

  1980

  —

  20

  1981

  —

  28

  118

  Number of babies born:

  Period

  in Holloway

  in hospital2

  1982

  1

  10

  1983

  1

  24

  January 1984-March 19851

  1

  28

  April 1985-March 1986

  1

  27

  April 1986-March 1987

  —

  26

  April 1987-March 1988

  —

  31

  1 Due to changes in the collection period the statistics for January 1984-March 1985 cover a 15 month period.

  2 In outside hospital to Holloway inmates.

  Arrangements are always made for babies to be born in outside hospitals unless emergencies prevent this.

  Passports
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make inquiries into the reasons why Mr. Emrys Frederick Williams of 154 Maplin Way, Thorpe Bay, Southend-on-Sea, Essex, who sent his passport for renewal to the passport office, Peterborough, on 16 March, to enable him to attend his daughter's wedding in the United States of America, has not yet received his passport, although the Department acknowledged the receipt of his application on 23 March (Number 7); and when he expects the passport office to be able to deal with passport applications more expeditiously.

  Mr. Renton
  A replacement passport was posted on 9 May. Applications showing an early date of travel are given priority at the passport, offices. As Mr. Williams had indicated that he did not intend to travel until 5 July, his application was not regarded as urgent.

  I announced on 31 March, at columns 680–81, in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), a number of special measures to reduce delays at the passport offices in advance of computerisation of the passport-issuing system.

  Crime (Clear-up Rates)
  Mr. John
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, for each police force in England and Wales, the clear-up rate, at the latest convenient date, of the following crimes:(a) murder and manslaughter, (b) offences against the person, (c) arson, (d) robbery, burglary and theft, (e) offences against property, including wilful and malicious damage; and if he will set out the corresponding rates for the same date five years previously.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 3 May 1988]: The number of notifiable offences cleared up by the police in 1987 was 1·23 million, 9 per cent. higher than in 1982. Clear-up rates for the largest major groups of offences are listed in the following tables. More detailed analyses of offences recorded and cleared up by type of offence are generally published by chief officers of police in their annual reports, copies of which are available in the Library. For some types of offences such as homicide and arson, the annual numbers recorded and cleared up by some forces are small and subject to appreciable fluctuations, so that clear-up rates based on these numbers may be misleading.
  119

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police: clear up rate by offence group and police force area—England and Wales 1982

  Percentage

  Police force area

  Total12

  Violence against the person

  Burglary

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  Fraud and forgery

  Criminal damage1

  Avon and Somerset

  40

  85

  28

  37

  83

  38

  Bedfordshire

  39

  77

  29

  40

  61

  23

  Cambridgeshire

  40

  85

  34

  38

  69

  30

  Cheshire

  52

  90

  40

  52

  90

  47

  Cleveland

  46

  81

  40

  47

  61

  30

  Cumbria

  43

  90

  34

  43

  74

  38

  Derbyshire

  46

  86

  31

  47

  90

  27

  Devon and Cornwall

  45

  88

  32

  43

  86

  32

  Dorset

  41

  79

  33

  37

  84

  35

  Durham

  45

  87

  32

  45

  91

  38

  Essex

  40

  80

  32

  41

  65

  27

  Gloucestershire

  42

  68

  30

  44

  72

  31

  Greater Manchester

  40

  75

  24

  42

  91

  29

  Hampshire

  34

  75

  23

  34

  65

  28

  Hertfordshire

  47

  83

  40

  47

  86

  27

  Humberside

  41

  83

  32

  42

  78

  29

  Kent

  41

  78

  40

  40

  54

  30

  Lancashire

  45

  89

  34

  45

  85

  38

  Leicestershire

  46

  82

  39

  44

  81

  35

  Lincolnshire

  52

  86

  38

  55

  73

  36

  London, City of

  20

  56

  19

  13

  58

  32

  Merseyside

  40

  63

  37

  39

  79

  25

  Metropolitan Police District

  16

  54

  8

  16

  45

  11

  Norfolk

  37

  83

  28

  37

  82

  27

  Northamptonshire

  41

  83

  31

  41

  81

  31

  Northumbria

  49

  79

  40

  54

  58

  29

  North Yorkshire

  43

  90

  29

  44

  82

  37

  Nottinghamshire

  43

  74

  40

  43

  60

  25

  South Yorkshire

  49

  82

  39

  51

  81

  31

  Staffordshire

  49

  91

  40

  48

  71

  34

  Suffolk

  45

  86

  30

  46

  70

  30

  Surrey

  31

  78

  17

  32

  55

  29

  Sussex

  45

  85

  30

  48

  72

  39

  Thames Valley

  39

  79

  29

  39

  75

  30

  Warwickshire

  39

  86

  34

  37

  72

  31

  West Mercia

  43

  88

  35

  42

  77

  33

  West Midlands

  33

  68

  31

  33

  53

  21

  West Yorkshire

  42

  76

  42

  40

  69

  27

  Wiltshire

  40

  88

  30

  39

  67

  25

  England

  36

  75

  28

  36

  68

  25

  Dyfed-Powys

  57

  95

  50

  51

  96

  52

  Gwent

  57

  91

  42

  57

  92

  46

  North Wales

  50

  82

  37

  51

  80

  38

  South Wales

  47

  85

  41

  46

  85

  35

  Wales

  50

  87

  41

  49

  87

  39

  England and Wales

  37

  76

  29

  37

  69

  26

  1 Excluding offences of 'other criminal damage' of value £20 and under.

  2 Including offences in the sexual offences, robbery and 'other notifiable offences' group which are not shown separately in this table.

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police: clear up rate by offence group and police force area England and Wales 1987

  Percentages

  Police force area

  Total12

  Violence against the person

  Burglary

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  Fraud and forgery

  Criminal damage1

  Avon and Somerset

  30

  83

  17

  27

  75

  27

  Bedfordshire

  29

  72

  22

  27

  59

  19

  Cambridgeshire

  35

  83

  26

  33

  66

  29

  Cheshire

  40

  87

  25

  40

  83

  42

  Cleveland

  34

  72

  29

  34

  58

  23

  Cumbria

  46

  90

  35

  45

  81

  42

  Derbyshire

  45

  87

  27

  45

  84

  37

  Devon and Cornwall

  39

  84

  29

  37

  79

  29

  Dorset

  36

  89

  23

  30

  83

  35

  Durham

  42

  84

  33

  41

  18

  53

  Essex

  35

  79

  25

  36

  60

  22

  Gloucestershire

  38

  98

  25

  38

  82

  31

  120 121

  Police force area

  Total12

  Violence against the person

  Burglary

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  Fraud and forgery

  Criminal damage1

  Greater Manchester

  27

  72

  18

  25

  83

  19

  Hampshire

  34

  77

  26

  32

  73

  26

  Hertfordshire

  44

  81

  25

  44

  90

  29

  Humberside

  32

  77

  23

  32

  55

  22

  Kent

  33

  80

  26

  31

  60

  26

  Lancashire

  46

  84

  37

  43

  92

  40

  Leicestershire

  45

  83

  41

  42

  76

  31

  Lincolnshire

  37

  78

  29

  37

  61

  24

  London, City of

  19

  80

  25

  12

  46

  23

  Merseyside

  43

  54

  44

  43

  73

  24

  Metropolitan Police District

  16

  53

  8

  15

  47

  11

  Norfolk

  36

  82

  30

  36

  72

  25

  Northamptonshire

  41

  79

  40

  40

  65

  22

  Northumbria

  44

  76

  41

  46

  71

  21

  North Yorkshire

  34

  94

  20

  34

  77

  33

  Nottinghamshire

  34

  75

  27

  31

  57

  23

  South Yorkshire

  43

  83

  35

  44

  75

  30

  Staffordshire

  42

  83

  31

  41

  68

  32

  Suffolk

  45

  85

  30

  47

  71

  3I

  Surrey

  34

  87

  18

  32

  66

  31

  Sussex

  32

  77

  18

  32

  64

  29

  Thames Valley

  31

  72

  21

  30

  67

  21

  Warwickshire

  34

  83

  28

  33

  66

  24

  West Mercia

  42

  90

  34

  40

  74

  34

  West Midlands

  36

  67

  45

  32

  55

  18

  West Yorkshire

  39

  80

  35

  18

  73

  26

  Wiltshire

  36

  78

  21

  15

  66

  30

  England

  33

  74

  27

  31

  66

  22

  Dyfed-Powys

  51

  94

  35

  43

  91

  42

  Gwent

  53

  91

  41

  49

  92

  47

  North Wales

  43

  90

  27

  42

  87

  36

  South Wales

  39

  82

  33

  39

  74

  28

  Wales

  43

  87

  32

  41

  84

  34

  England and Wales

  33

  75

  27

  32

  67

  23

  1 Excluding offences of 'other criminal damage' of value £20 and under.

  2 Including offences in the sexual offences, robbery and 'other notifiable offences' group which are not shown separately in this table.

  Petty Sessional Divisions
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many persons with the appropriate qualifications were employed by each petty sessional division in England and Wales at 3I December 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987 and the latest date available;

  (2) what was the establishment figure for persons with appropriate qualifications for each petty sessional division in England and Wales at 3I December 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987 and the latest date available;

  (3) how many ancillary persons were employed in each of the petty sessional divisions of England and Wales at 31 December 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987 and the latest date available;

  (4) what was the establishment figures for ancillary persons employed by each petty sessional division of England and Wales at 31 December 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987 and the latest date available.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 21 April 1988]: I have today written to the hon. Member, and a copy of the reply has been placed in the Library.

PRIME MINISTER

  Data Protection
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what revenue has been received by the Cabinet Office since [1 November 1987 for the payment of fees for subject access to personal records, pursuant to the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984;

  (2) how many applications under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984 for subject access to personal records held by the Cabinet Office have been received since 11 November 1987.

  The Prime Minister
  Twenty-two subject access requests have been received. All but one were from staff who are not charged a fee. The Cabinet Office has received £10 in revenue.

  VAT
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has advised the European Council of Her Majesty's Government's objection to the levying of value added tax on food, fuel, and children's clothing; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made our position
  123
  perfectly clear to the Economic and Finance Council (ECOFIN) which is the appropriate forum for discussion of the European Commission's proposals for tax approximation.

  Great Ormond Street Hospital
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister, further to her answer to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras on 3 May,Official Report, column 350, whether the Hospitals for Sick Children special health authority ever asked the Government to meet the full costs of the refurbishment of Great Ormond street hospital for sick children.

  The Prime Minister
  The Hospitals for Sick Children special health authority has made no formal proposal for the Government to meet the full cost of its rebuilding programme. The authority has always accepted that the Government would not fully fund this scheme.

  Visits
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister (I) why she did not inform right hon. and hon. Members representing central London constituencies that she proposed to cease the practice of informing them of her intentions to visit their constituencies;

  (2) why she informs right hon. and hon. Members representing constituencies outside central London of her intentions to visit their constituencies;

  (3) how many times, since she decided not to inform right hon. and hon. Members representing central London constituencies of visits to their constituencies, she has visited Holborn and St. Pancras;

  (4) when she ceased to make it her practice to inform right hon. and hon. Members representing seats in central London of her intentions to visit their constituency;

  (5) which constituencies are covered by her decision not to inform right hon. and hon. Members representing central London constituencies of her intentions to visit their constituency;

  (6) why she has decided not to inform right hon. and hon. Members representing central London constituencies of her intentions to visit their constituency.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my replies of 3 May 1988, at column 350. My usual practice has always been to inform any Members of a visit to his or her constituency shortly before the visit is due to take place, as a courtesy to the hon. Member concerned. It would be impractical to do so, however, in relation to central London because of the frequency of visits in that area which I undertake in the course of my duties. Records are not readily available of the visits I undertake to these central London constituencies, which for this purpose include the city of London and Westminster, South, Chelsea, Kensington, Westminster, North, Holborn and St. Pancras and Islington, South and Finsbury.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment is available to him on the level of economic growth in Zimbabwe in each year since 1983.
  124
  Mr. Mellor
  The rate of economic growth in Zimbabwe as measured by the estimated growth in the gross domestic product is as follows for each year since 1983:

  Year

  Per cent.

  1983

  -4·2

  1984

  2·6

  1985

  9·3

  1986

  2·3

  1987

  0·3

  Source IMF staff papers.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his assessment of the extent to which Zimbabwe has benefited from joining the Lome convention and improved access to European Community markets.

  Mr. Mellor
  Over the five years to 1990 Zimbabwe will get 73 million ecu (about £50 million) in planned aid from the European development fund, in addition to benefiting from SADCC and other regional projects. Zimbabwe also receives loans from the European Investment Bank and emergency aid, and is eligible for finance under the stabex scheme.

  Under the Lomé convention, Zimbabwe's exports of its industrial products and the great majority of its agricultural products enter the Community free of tariff and other restrictions.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list current development projects in Zimbabwe for which United Kingdom national, Commonwealth or European Community assistance is given and the value of that assistance.

  Mr. Mellor
  Under the bilateral aid programme to Zimbabwe, Britain is currently financing the following projects at a total cost of £28·598 million:

  Project

  £ million

  Land Resettlement Grant 1981

  20·000

  Project Loan 1982

  Water Bowsers

  0·475

  Veterinary Faculty Equipment

  0·740

  Land Rover Rehabilitation

  0·707

  Cold Storage Commission Equipment

  0·757

  Kwekwe Roasting Plant

  0·317

  Migrant Pest Control

  0·050

  Tractor Rehabilitation Grant 1986

  1·200

  Rural Development Grant 1986

  Lister Diesels Assembly

  1·897

  Lister Diesels Rehabilitation

  0·385

  Dairy Marketing Board

  0·490

  Nyanyadzi Irrigation

  0·280

  Cotton Marketing Board

  1·300

  28·598

  In addition, we expect to spend about £6 million in 1988–89 on technical co-operation activities.

  The Commonwealth fund for technical co-operation is currently funding with grants estimated at £67,800 a number of projects in Zimbabwe involving the provision of experts.

  Projects in Zimbabwe currently being financed by the European Community from the fifth and sixth European development funds are as follows:
  125

  Total allocation £ million

  Grant funding

  Veterinary faculty, University of Zimbabwe

  5·17

  Fruit and vegetable development programme

  0·43

  Matabeleland South Rural Water Project

  0·76

  Aid to Grain Marketing Board

  0·96

  Microprojects programmes III

  2·07

  Technical assistance to Zimbabwe Development Bank

  0·34

  Regional tsetse and trypanosomiasis control

  5·76

  Regional railways training

  1·38

  Agriculture Finance Corporation

  2·41

  Expert development programme

  3·03

  Konyati and Gatske-Gatske communal lands

  2·07

  Reintegration of qualified nationals

  0·52

  Special loan funding

  Smallholder coffee, fruit, vegetable. irrigated food crop development

  2·90

  Tsetse and trypanosomiasis control

  2·69

  Matabeleland South Rural Water Project

  2·07

  Aid to Grain Marketing Board

  3·88

  Agricultural Finance Corporation

  13·79

  European Investment Bank risk capital

  Zimbabwe Development Bank

  3·10

  The United Kingdom share of this total of £53·33 million is about £9 million.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list United Kingdom contributors to Zimbabwe through national, Commonwealth and European Community action in each year since 1983.

  Mr. Mellor
  United Kingdom bilateral aid expenditure and the estimated British share of Commonwealth and European Community aid expenditure to Zimbabwe since 1983 have been as follows:

  (£000s)

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  United Kingdom bilateral aid

  19,453

  15,062

  23,636

  12,242

  Estimated United Kingdom share of European Community aid

  1,590

  4,470

  700

  600

  Estimated United Kingdom share of Commonwealth aid

  79

  89

  107

  78

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what other measures he has taken, or proposes to take, to assist the Zimbabwe Government to strengthen their national economy and to decrease their dependence on the economy of the Republic of South Africa.

  Mr. Mellor
  All our bilateral aid to Zimbabwe aims to strengthen the national economy. In addition, we support the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference, of which Zimbabwe is a member.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what revenue has been received by the Overseas Development Adminstration since 11 November 1987 from the payment of fees for subject access to personal records, pursuant to the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984.
  126
  Mr. Mellor
  None. Members of the Overseas Development Administration's staff, overseas pensioners and staff employed under the aid programme are not charged for reasonable access to their personal records.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984 for subject access to personal records held by the Overseas Development Administration he has received since 11 November 1987.

  Mr. Mellor
  Four.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to meet the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals to discuss the arrangements for the introduction of the community charge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  No. The arrangements for the introduction of the community charge are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I understand that officials of his Department will be meeting representatives of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals in the near future.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what arrangements he intends to make regarding the qualifications and suitability of persons to be employed as teachers in city technology colleges.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Teachers at city technology colleges will be employed by the charitable trust established to run the colleges, and appointed by the governing bodies and the principals acting on behalf of the governing bodies. My right hon. Friend will require, as a condition of grant, that CTCs will normally employ as teachers those who have qualified teacher status.

  CTCs will be registered independent schools within the meaning of the Education Act 1944. As such they will fall within the scope of my right hon. Friend's powers under section 71 of that Act with regard to the suitability of persons employed as teachers. Like other schools, CTCs will also have access to my Department's information on those teachers who have been excluded from the profession, or restricted in their activities.

  Schools (Healthy Eating)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools in the United Kingdom have taken part in schemes under the inner urban aid fund to promote healthy eating among school children; and if he will make a statement about the schemes' effectiveness.

  Mr. Dunn
  The information is not available. Many local education authorities are actively involved in promoting healthy eating at school.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to expand the assisted places scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  The Government are committed to expanding the assisted places scheme to an eventual total of 35,000 places in England and Wales. We have made a start by allocating some additional places to schools already participating in the APS from September 1988. Expansion will continue in line with the availability of resources.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the implications for United Kingdom policy on the maintenance of stability in southern Africa of Zimbabwe's policy of maintaining a military presence in Mozambique.

  Mr. Mellor
  We welcome the assistance which the Zimbabwe Government are providing to the Mozambican Government in their efforts to restore peace to Mozambique.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has made any representations to, or received representations from, the African National Congress with regard to that organisation's use of Zimbabwe as a route into South Africa.

  Mr. Mellor
  No, but we have made clear on many occasions our opposition to cross-border incursions from whatever quarter.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the use by the African National Congress of Zimbabwe as a route into South Africa.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have repeatedly condemned crossborder incursions. Our opposition to the use of violence by the ANC is well known.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the implications for United Kingdom policy towards relations with Zimbabwe of the reported merging of the Zanu and Zapu political movements in Zimbabwe.

  Mr. Mellor
  This is an internal matter for Zimbabwe. We welcome the generally improved internal security situation which appears to have stemmed from it.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the implications for United Kingdom policy on the maintenance of stability in southern Africa of Zimbabwe's policy towards its neighbouring countries and the African National Congress.

  Mr. Mellor
  We wish to encourage stability in the region and to that end we attach importance to regional co-operation in southern Africa, as is demonstrated by our support for SADCC and the FLS. Our policy towards the African National Congress is well known.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what revenue has been received by his Department since 11 November 1987 from the payment of fees for subject access to personal records, pursuant to the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not make a charge for subject access to present or former members of staff. As all the applications have fallen into this category, no revenue from the payment of fees has accrued.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984 for subject access to personal records held by his Department he has received since 11 November 1987.

  Mr. Mellor
  Since 11 November 1987 the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has received 27 requests for subject access, all from present or former members of staff.

THE ARTS

  Eastern Arts
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received since his last announcement of funding for Eastern Arts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  I have received no such representations. The funding of regional arts associations is a matter for the Arts Council.

  Arts Council (Consultants)
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts (1) what information he has on the total costs of consultancies engaged by the Arts Council in each of the past five years;

  (2) whether he will list the arts consultants that his Department has employed in each of the past five years, the projects on which they have worked and the cost per consultancy.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answers 29 April and 9 May 1988]: I have been advised that this information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. But the major consultants, and the projects for which they were engaged by the Arts Council in 1987–88, at a total cost of £145,103, were:

  Consultant

  Project

  Dewe Rogerson Ltd.

  An Urban Renaissance

  Newchurch & Co. Ltd.

  Upstart

  Peat Marwick, McLintock & Co.

  Advice on accountancy matters and incentive funding

  Price Waterhouse & Co.

  Incentive funding

ENVIRONMENT

  Building Industry
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the forecasts for growth in the building industry in 1988(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in other European nations.
  129
  Mr. Trippier
  Forecast percentage changes in construction output in real terms in 1988 over 1987 are set out in the table.

  Country

  Percentage change 1988–87

  West Germany

  -0·5

  Belgium

  -1·0

  Denmark

  -7·4

  France

  1·6

  Great Britain

  1 3·0

  Italy

  0·8

  Netherlands

  -0·9

  Norway

  -1·4

  Austria

  1·0

  Sweden

  1·4

  Switzerland

  0·2

  1 Excludes Channel tunnel project.

  Forecasts for the United Kingdom are not available.

  These forecasts were compiled by Euroconstruct, a biannual conference of European forecasting organisations, at its winter meeting at the beginning of December 1987. Britain is represented by NEDO and stockbrokers James Capel. The British forecasts reflect the views of NEDO's joint forecasting committee. My Department does not publish forecasts of construction output. The next Euroconstruct meeting is in July, when these forecasts will be reviewed.

  In April the National Council of Building Material Producers forecast the change at 8 per cent. for Great Britain. It is expected that the forecast by NEDO's committee will be revised upwards when they meet in May-June.

  Rent Acts
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many private properties there are for rent outside the Rent Acts in England and Wales.

  Mrs. Roe
  This information is not available.

  Wetlands
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next intends to announce the designation of an area either as a site under the Ramsar convention on the conservation of wetlands of international importance or as a special protection area under the European Community directive on the conservation of wild birds or both.

  Mr. Moynihan
  We are currently considering a number of proposals put forward by the Nature Conservancy Council for the classification of sites as special protection areas under the EC birds directive and/or as wetlands of international importance under the Ramsar convention. While we shall endeavour to reach a decision on these cases as expeditiously as possible, I cannot forecast when the next classification of a site will be announced. Classification of sites in Scotland is the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will list the criteria and guidelines for the identification of wetlands of international importance for listing under the Ramsar convention which were adopted by the third conference of contracting 130
  parties to the convention at Regina, Canada, in June 1987; and what is the extent to which the criteria and guidelines will be adopted in identifying wetlands of international importance in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The criteria and guidelines for the identification of wetlands of international importance for listing under the Ramsar convention which were revised at the third conference of contracting parties at Regina, are as follows:

  Criteria for Identifying Wetlands of International Importance for Designation for the List under Article 2 of the Ramsar Convention

  As revised at the Third Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties in Regina

  A wetland is suitable for inclusion in the List if it meets any of the criteria set out below:

  1. Criteria for assessing the value of representative or unique wetlands.

  A wetland should be considered internationally important if it is a particularly good example of a specific type of wetland characteristic of its region.

  2. General criteria for using plants or animals to identify wetlands of importance.

  A wetland should be considered internationally important if

  (a) it supports an appreciable assemblage of rare, vulnerable or endangered species or subspecies of plant or animal, or an appreciable number of individuals of any one or more of these species; or

  (b) it is of special value for maintaining the genetic and ecological diversity of a region because of the quality and peculiarities of its flora and fauna; or

  (c) it is of special value as the habitat of plants or animals at a critical stage of their biological cycles: or

  (d) it is of special value for its endemic plant or animal species or communities.

  3. Specific criteria for using waterfowl to identify wetlands of importance.

  A wetland should be considered internationally important if:

  (a) it regularly supports 20,000 waterfowl; or

  (b) it regularly supports substantial numbers of individuals from particular groups of waterfowl, indicative of wetland values, productivity or diversity; or

  (c) where data on populations are available, it regularly supports 1 per cent. of the individuals in a population of one species or subspecies of waterfowl.

  LDDC (Extension)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he proposes any extension to the London Docklands Development Corporation similiar to the extensions recently announced to the Merseyside Development Corporation.

  Mr. Trippier
  No.

  Coastal Footpaths (North Devon)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to how many miles of coastal footpaths are now open to the public along the north Devon coast from Somerset to Cornwall; and how many more miles are needed to complete this route.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Approval last year of the link between Braunton and Westward Ho completed the Somerset and north Devon coast path. The whole of the Devon section of this long-distance route, which covers approximately 89 miles, is now open and available to the public.

  Enterprise Zones
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report a list of those studies commissioned during the last five years by his Department on enterprise zones.

  Mr. Trippier
  My Department commissioned an evaluation of the enterprise zone experiment in 1986. No other studies have been commissioned in the last five years.

  Water (Nitrate Content)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the working party investigating the problem of the nitrate content in water is due to report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have nothing further to add to my statement of 20 January in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East (Mr. Taylor), at column 742.

  Houses (Multiple Occupation)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the local authorities in England and Wales which have been visited by the environmental health officer seconded to his Department to advise on houses in multiple occupation, since 3 November 1987.

  Mrs. Roe
  Since 3 November 1987 the Department's environmental health advisor has visited environmental health departments in the following English local authorities. The adviser's remit does not extend to Wales.

  Blackpool

  Camden

  Hereford

  Lancaster

  Leeds

  Manchester

  Portsmouth

  Reading

  Thanet

  Woodspring

  Data Protection
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what revenue has been received by his Department since 11 November 1987 from the payment of fees for subject access to personal records, pursuant to the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Mr. Ridley
  £20.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many applications under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984 for subject access to personal records held by his Department he has received since 11 November 1987.

  Mr. Ridley
  By 9 May 1988 my Department—including PSA—had received 426 applications. All but three have come from existing or former employees of the Department about their personal records.

  Landlord and Tenant Act 1987
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to introduce the commencement orders relating to those parts of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 so far unenacted.
  132
  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend intends to make the commencement order for the remaining provisions in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 before the summer recess, after consultation with interested parties.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he estimates that the availability of the community charge register to the general public will make the register more accurate; and whether he will list those organisations and individuals, other than individuals whose details appear in the register and the community charge officer, who are likely to be involved in maintaining the accuracy of information found on the register.

  Mr. Howard
  The general public will have a legitimate interest in the accuracy of the community charge register. We have therefore decided to ensure that an extract from the register will be available for public inspection. It is impossible to predict in detail what contacts there might be between registration officers and individuals or organisations.

  Local Authorities (Finance)
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment pursuant to his answer of 3 May,Official Report, column 390, if he will list in the Official Report those authorities to which he has granted additional capital allocations or additional borrowing approval from 1 April 1981 to 9 March 1988 and, in each case, give the amount of the additional allocations and borrowing approval, the project for which it was issued and the reasons for issuing it.

  Mr. Ridley
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. For instance, over 750 allocations were issued in response to the Department's letter of 29 October 1982, a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Member.

  Zoological Society of London
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will announce details of further financial support to the Zoological Society of London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  The Zoological Society of London has been receiving an annual grant and capital support from my Department for a number of years, in recognition of its special status as a centre of zoological excellence. This support has secured the viability of the society. It has enabled it in particular to sustain its famous collections of animals at Regent's Park and Whipsnade and to meet the costs of the Institute of Zoology, which enjoys considerable international renown.

  Last year the society and my Department jointly engaged a team of leading consultants, headed by Peat Marwick McLintock, to report on the scope for improving the zoos' financial performance and implications for future Government support. We have decided, in the light of the consultants' findings, that a radical change in approach is needed. This recognises that ZSL has distinctive and separate roles in the field of scientific research and species conservation, on the one hand, and

  133
  in the promotion of public understanding and enjoyment of animals, presented in attractive surroundings, on the other.

  London zoo and Whipsnade have enjoyed enormous popularity with generations of London families and visitors from further afield. But the zoos need to renew their existing infrastructure and invest in new attractions to retain and build on this well-deserved popularity. The consultants have indicated that, given the right kinds of management skills, the zoos have the opportunity to remain world leaders and to become financially self-sufficient.

  The Government accepts that ZSL's scientific work through the Institute of Zoology should receive continuing support. But as far as the zoos themselves are concerned, the Government believe that continued annual subsidy from public funds is no longer appropriate. Nevertheless, some limited further assistance is needed to set the society on its new path.

  The Government and ZSL have accordingly reached agreement on the following terms:

  (a) After the end of the present financial year, annual funding for ZSL's Institute of Zoology will be provided through the Universities Funding Council (which is intended to replace the University Grants Committee from 1 April 1989) and the University of London. From then on ultimate responsibility will rest with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

  (b) ZSL will establish a new operating subsidiary company, to run the two zoos. The company will have a new managing director and specialist management team provided by the Grant Leisure Group Ltd., initially for a period of three years.

  (c) The society has undertaken that the management of the new company will produce a master development plan. My Department will then provide ZSL with a once-and-for-all capital endowment of up to £10 million, payable by November 1988. I have agreed with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to fund these resources either from savings within my own programme, or if necessary by call on the Reserve.

  (d) Subject to agreement on detailed terms, I propose to grant to the society a new 60-year lease in respect of the Regent's Park site, under the terms of the Crown Estate Act 1961. This will include an extra 10 acres of land from the park which the society has the option of taking under the Act, and arrangements will he made for the society to take over the management of the Gloucester Slips coach and car park. There will be no payment under the lease initially, but I shall he reviewing the terms of it once the society's financial position is assured.

  The Government believe it is right to recognise, through the proposed endowment, the particular significance of London zoo's long association with Regent's Park and its impact on the amenities of the royal park as a whole. I am glad to say that Westminster city council welcomes the concept of looking at a long-term strategy for Regent's Park zoo. South Bedfordshire district council, too, is very supportive of the concept of a revitalised Whipsnade.

  I am very grateful to the president and hon. treasurer of the society and their colleagues for the willing cooperation which has made all this possible. The society has shown its confidence in the management skills of Mr. Grant and his team, who bring with them an impressive record of success in zoos and other visitor attractions.

  I am confident that these new arrangements will give the greatest possible scope to ZSL to make a success of its operations and to raise private capital for new investment. They will enable the Government to withdraw from what I consider to be an inappropriate regime of subsidy. The
  134
  Government have done their bit. It is now up the public to show their support for ZSL and to demonstrate that they want to see zoos of this eminence continuing into the 21st century.

  National Rivers Authority
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether water authorities are now able to start making preparations for the establishment of the National Rivers Authority.

  Mr. Ridley
  Following the granting of Royal Assent to the Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Act, my noble Friend the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Water has today invited the English water authorities to prepare schemes of organisation in accordance with guidelines he has sent to them. My hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales, has issued a similar invitation to the chairman of Welsh Water. Copies of the guidelines have been laid in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Water and Sewerage
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what conclusions he has reached on the comments made in response to the consultation paper on water and sewerage law published by his Department and the Welsh Office in March 1986.

  Mr. Moynihan
  We received many positive and constructive responses to our consultation paper. As a result we have in some cases modified or discarded our original proposals.

  We have, in particular, decided not to proceed with the proposals for transferring to undertakers responsibility for private sewers and water supply pipes. We recognise the problems faced by some householders, particularly those whose sewers are not adopted. These are, however, responsibilities which go with the properties concerned and purchasers of property need to take them into account just as they do other maintenance obligations. To transfer responsibility to undertakers would mean customers in general having to meet the cost. The existing legislation permits the owners of private sewers to apply to the relevant water authority to have their sewer adopted and there is a right of appeal to the Secretary of State if the authority refuses. This is an important safeguard, which we intend to preserve.

  I am placing a summary of our revised proposals in the Libraries of both Houses. I believe the changes we propose will provide a modern operational framework which will serve the water industry well in the years ahead. Provision to implement these changes will be made in the main water privatisation Bill.

  Sporting Events
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many football matches the Minister with responsibility for sport, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan), has attended in the course of his official duties in the last year; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 10 May 1988]: I have attended 15 matches so far this season; these being the following:

  135

  Venue

  Date

  Football League Centenary Match Bobby Robson's 11 v. The Rest of the World

  8 August 1987

  West Germany v. England

  9 September 1987

  Tottenham Hotspur v. Wimbledon

  31 October 1987

  Metropolitan Police 5-a-side Tournament

  26 November

  Finals Wembley Arena

  1987

  Luton Town v. Derby County

  16 January 1988

  Hartlepool United v. Crewe Alexandra

  27 February 1988

  England v. Holland

  23 March 1988

  Derby County v. Arsenal

  26 March 1988

  Union Berlin v. Rott Weiss Erfurt (East Germany)

  1 April 1988

  The Littlewoods Cup Final Luton Town v. Arsenal

  24 April 1988

  In addition, I attended Charlton Athletic's home games against:

  Venue

  Date

  Arsenal

  3 October 1987

  Chelsea

  20 December 1987

  Liverpool

  23 Januaryl988

  Newcastle United

  23 April 1988

  and its game at Manchester United on 1 January 1988.

  I shall also be attending the following:

  Venue

  Date

  The FA Cup Final

  14 May 1988

  England v. Colombia—Rous Cup

  24 May 1988

  England v. Republic of Ireland—European Championships in West Germany

  12 June 1988

  Green Belt
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy towards proposals for private sector sponsored transport infrastructure projects in the green belt; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We are rigorously adhering to Government policy towards all proposals under the planning Acts for development in the green belt. This policy is clearly stated in PPG2—copies of which are in the Library—which states:"Inside a Green Belt, approval should not be given, except in very special circumstances, for the construction of new buildings or for the change of use of existing buildings for purposes other than agriculture and forestry, outdoor sport, cemeteries, institutions standing in extensive grounds, or other uses appropriate to a rural area."

DEFENCE

  Brigadier Geoffrey Slater
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason the Army has required Brigadier Geoffrey Slater to retire from his post as head of 23 Base Workshops at Wettar, in the Federal Republic of Germany; if he is to be charged with any offence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Following allegations against Brigadier Slater, which were made in an anonymous letter to Headquarters British Army of the Rhine, it was decided that it was in the best interests of Brigadier Slater and of the Army that he be removed from his appointment.

  After a full investigation by the special investigation branch of the Royal Military Police and by Brigadier
  136
  Slater's commanding officer and after taking legal advice, it was decided that it was more appropriate to deal with the matter administratively.

  Air-Sea Combat Manoeuvring System
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his assessment of the air-sea combat manoeuvring system, in respect of its likely effects on North sea gas and oil installations.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Further to my answer at column 622, on 31 March, British Aerospace's unsolicited proposals to construct an air combat manoeuvring installation in the North sea continue to be studied by this Department, taking account of all relevant factors. I have nothing further to add at this stage.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what revenue has been received by his Department since 11 November 1987 from the payment of fees for subject access to personal records, pursuant to the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The revenue received by the Ministry of Defence from the payment of fees for subject access to personal records, pursuant to the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984, is nil.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many applications under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984 for subject access to personal records held by his Department he has received since 11 November 1987.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  As at 1 May 1988, 4,322 applications under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984 for subject access to personal records have been received by the major pay and personnel database centres in the Ministry of Defence.

  Gibraltar (Shootings)
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether there were any British Army personnel directly involved in the recent shooting incident in Gibraltar.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Yes.

  Machrihanish Air Base
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the actual and proposed developments at Machrihanish air base following its increasing use by military aircraft and personnel.

  Mr. Freeman
  Subject to securing the necessary funding from NATO sources, it is intended to carry out a programme of modernisation of the facilities at RAF Machrihanish over the next seven years or so. Our plans are still at a relatively early stage of development, but we shall be approaching the local planning authorities very shortly for formal consultation on our outline proposals.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will detail any alterations at present being carried out or being planned for the future at Machrihanish air base.
  137
  Mr. Freeman
  Some work is curently under way to provide increased protection to existing facilities at Machrihanish. It is too early to give details of the proposed future modernisation projects. but further consultation will take place in the normal way with local planning authorities when design work reaches an appropriate stage.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Balance of Payments
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the state of the balance of payments on current account at the end of 1988.

  Mr. Major
  At Budget time my right hon. Friend the Chancellor forecast a deficit on the current account of £4 billion in 1988.

  Business Expansion Scheme
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was raised under the business expansion scheme in(a) 1987–88 and (b) 1986–87.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  It is provisionally estimated that over £165 million was raised in 1986–87. Information for 1987–88 is not yet available.

  Trade Deficit
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has as to which Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries are predicting a greater trade deficit per head than the United Kingdom for 1988.

  Mr. Lilley
  On the OECD's last published forecasts for 1988, nine OECD countries will have larger current account deficits, per head of the population, than the United Kingdom.

  Balance of Trade
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the balance of trade for 1988.

  Mr. Major
  At Budget time my right hon. Friend the Chancellor forecast a deficit on visible trade of £12½ billion in 1988. Combined with a projected surplus on invisibles of £8½ billion, the current account was forecast to be in deficit by £4 billion, less than 1 per cent. of GDP.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the balance in manufactured trade for 1988.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the balance in manufactured trade for 1988.

  Mr. Major
  At Budget time, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor forecast a deficit of £8½ billion on manufactured trade during 1988. With substantial surplus expected on trade in services and oil and on net earnings from overseas assets, the current account deficit is forecast to be £4 billion, less than 1 per cent. of GDP.
  138
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of his estimate of the anual trade balance for 1988 has now been reached by the monthly figures.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of his estimate of the annual trade balance for 1988 has now been reached by the monthly figures.

  Mr. Major
  At Budget time my right hon. Friend the Chancellor forecast a visible trade deficit of £12½ billion in 1988. The deficit in the first quarter was £3·6 billion.

  Industrial Competitiveness
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any information on the effects of top tax rates on industrial competitiveness.

  Mr. Major
  Maintaining tax rates in line with or below those of our main competitors is vital if Britain is to retain and motivate its most talented and enterprising individuals.

  Disposable Incomes
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish in the Official Report his latest estimate of average per capita disposable incomes for each region of the United Kingdom, taking into account average mortgage repayments in each region.

  Mr. Major
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 1 March, at column 503. No more recent information will be available until towards the end of the year.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what revenue has been received by his Department since 11 November 1987 from the payment of fees for subject access to personal records, pursuant to the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984;

  (2) how many applications under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984 for subject access to personal records held by his Department he has received since 11 November 1987.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Treasury has received no applications for subject access under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984. It has received no revenue since 11 November 1987 from the payment of related fees.

  Taxation (Harmonisation)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish tables showing the changes which would occur in tax levels on petrol, cigarettes, alcohol and other items of consumer expenditure in consequence of the measures recommended by the European Commission for the harmonisation of indirect taxation.

  Mr. Lilley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the replies I gave to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on 23 March at columns 124–26 (tables (a) and (c)) and 24 March at column 196.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the increase or
  139
  decrease in tax revenue stemming from petrol and diesel oil, alcohol, tobacco and other items, respectively, in consequence of the recommendations of the EEC Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the replies I gave to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on 23 March at columns 124–26 (table (b)) and 24 March at column 196.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has received information from the EEC Commission about whether its tax harmonisation proposals will be subject to unanimity; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  No such information is necessary. The unanimity requirement is written into article 17 of the Single European Act.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact on United Kingdom industry and commerce of the proposals by the EEC Commission on tax on petrol and diesel oil; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  We estimate that the direct impact of the Commission's proposals for the harmonisation of the duties on petrol and diesel oil would be a reduction in duty payable of approximately £250 million in a full year.

  VAT
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he now expects to receive the decision of the European Court on the case initiated by the Commission on the levying of value added tax on gas, electricity, water, sewerage and protective clothing and footwear supplied to industry and commerce and on the levying of value added tax on all new commercial and industrial buildings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 10 May 1988]: The European Court of Justice has not yet given an indication of a likely date for delivery of its judgment.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Teaching Company Scheme
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to promote industry's awareness of the teaching company scheme.

  Mr. Butcher
  The teaching company scheme is being promoted as part of the enterprise initiative.

  Advertising Agencies
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which advertising agencies have been used by his Department in the last year.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which advertising agencies have been used by his Department in the last year.

  Mr. Butcher
  The agencies contracted to work on DTI campaigns for the financial year 1987–88 were—

  Ayer Barker

  Charles Barker

  140

  D'Arcy Masius Benton and Bowles

  Doyle, Dane, Bernbach and Needham

  WCRS Matthews Marcantonio

  J. Walter Thompson

  DBF Advertising

  Single European Market
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether, in negotiating measures aimed at the completion of a single European market, he will make it his policy to encourage other member countries of the European Community to adopt a comprehensive programme of deregulation similar to that carried out in Britain.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Yes. It is a cornerstone of our policy on completing the single market that no measure should impose unnecessary burdens on business. There is general agreement that the benefits of the single market can best be realised in a liberal market with the minimum of red tape. We therefore frequently discuss deregulation with other member states.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what response he has had to efforts to ensure that business men in all regions of the country are made aware of the opportunities presented by the completion of the single European market in 1992.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Government are already taking a number of measures to alert business to the single European market and the vital importance of preparing for it now. These include regional conferences, detailed literature, national advertising and a telephone hotline. The single market campaign will run until 1992, but its exact form will he continually assessed in the light of current needs.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a further statement on the Government's preparations for the European single market.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Government have launched a five-year campaign to encourage firms in every part of the country to prepare for completion of the single European market. As part of the campaign there will be 20 regional conference and many more seminars. This will be supported by a comprehensive information service including detailed literature, DTI's Spearhead computer database, our 1992 telephone hotline, and national advertising.

  Local Enterprise
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has met the representatives of the ACC, ADC and the AMA to discuss the report "Stimulating Local Enterprise—The Local Authority Role."

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  No.

  Business Prospects (Warrington)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his assessment of business prospects in the Warrington area.

  Mr. Atkins
  United Kingdom GDP is forecast to increase by 3 per cent. and manufacturing output by 5 per cent. this year. The strengthening of incentives in this
  141
  year's Budget and the help available through the enterprise initiative will ensure that business in Warrington continues to be well placed to take its full share of this growth.

  Consumer Protection
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received seeking new legislation to protect consumers.

  Mr. Butcher
  Suggestions for new legislation to protect consumers are received from a wide range of organisations and individuals. Careful consideration is given to all proposals, bearing in mind the Government's wish to avoid placing undue burdens on business. Our aim is rather to protect consumers by ensuring that they have good and sufficient information on which to make a reasoned choice.

  Manufactured Goods
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the current deficit in manufactured goods with the EEC up to the most recent practicable date in 1988.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  In the 12 months to March 1988, there was an estimated deficit of £10·5 billion on the balance of payments basis.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the level of exports of manufactured goods in 1988 so far; and what equivalent information he has for 1987.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the level of exports of manufactured goods in 1988 so far; and what was the equivalent figure for 1987.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  In the first three months of 1988 exports of manufactured goods were valued at £14·9 billion. The equivalent figure for the first three months of 1987 was £14·8 billion.

  Management Buyouts
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total value of management buyouts in(a) 1987 and (b)

  Mr. Butcher
  About £3·2 billion and £1·2 billion respectively.

  Ministerial Visits (Northumberland)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what recent ministerial visits have been made by Ministers from his Department to Northumberland.

  Mr. Atkins
  I visited Northumberland on 30 March.

  Aircraft Equipment Manufacturers
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will consider making launch aid available for aircraft equipment manufacturers.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  My Department's policy has been to provide launch aid only to airframe and aeroengine manufacturers. Equipment companies may be eligible to apply for other forms of support under the Department's enterprise initiative.

  Microwave Distribution System
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the latest information he has on the feasibility of the microwave distribution system.

  Mr. Butcher
  A report on the economic and technical feasibility of microwave video distribution systems, commissioned from Touche Ross by my Department and the Home Office, was delivered in December 1987. The report shows that, given certain assumptions about the spectrum that might be made available, six and perhaps up to 12 additional television services could be provided to areas covering some 70 per cent. of United Kingdom households, though not everyone within such areas would receive an acceptable signal. The Government are at present considering the report together with other information, in the context of wider decisions on the future structure of broadcasting.

  Business Consultancy Service
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if his Department's proposed business consultancy service will extend to start-ups; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Start-up companies are not specifically precluded from applying for the business planning initiative, but experience has shown that their needs are generally best helped through agencies such as the small firms service and local enterprise agencies. The consultancy initiatives are aimed primarily at helping existing business to become aware of new methods and opportunities through the use of specialist outside advice.

  Fixed Investment
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which Overseas Economic Co-operation and Development countries spend(a) a larger and (b) a smaller share of their gross domestic product on fixed investment than the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Comparisons for most OECD countries are readily available only for 1986. In that year the following OECD countries spent a larger share of the GDP on fixed investment than the United Kingdom:Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Turkey and the United States.

  Belgium spent a smaller share of GDP on fixed investment than the United Kingdom. Comparable figures for other OECD countries are not available.

  Computing Service Industry
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to improve the methods for assessing the performance of the United Kingdom computing service industry in comparison with overseas competitors.

  Mr. Butcher
  I do not seek to assess the performance of the private sector. The Department does, however, collect and publish information about the billings of the computing services sector (including its billings to overseas clients). These arrangements have recently been strengthened to improve the quality of the figures. This
  143
  information is published in the relevant Business Monitor. The Government also support the efforts of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to establish a framework which will enable international comparisons of this kind of information to be made.

  Solvents
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will introduce legislation to provide that potentially dangerous solvents in shops shall be kept in locked cabinets.

  Mr. Butcher
  No. Re-Solv, the non-profit-making body set up by the industry to combat solvent abuse, is issuing guidance to retailers, part funded by Government, which advises them to keep "sniffable" products locked up, out of reach, under the counter or under direct supervision. I prefer this to compulsion.

  Competitiveness
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has recently received on the United Kingdom's competitiveness.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Most of the contacts that my Department has with industry and commerce involve having a bearing on United Kingdom competitiveness in one way or another.

  Society of British Aerospace Companies
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to meet the president of the Society of British Aerospace Companies; and what matters will be raised.

  Mr. Atkins
  There are no plans for a meeting at present. However should the SBAC president wish to see me I would of course be happy to discuss whatever matters he wished to raise.

  New Technology (North-West)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to encourage the growth of new technology industries in the north-west of England.

  Mr. Butcher
  The Government have created the necessary conditions for such growth by establishing the right climate for enterprise and the development of new industry nationally.

  In the north-west, as elsewhere, my Department is actively promoting the various elements of the enterprise initiative, which give particular attention to the needs of areas such as the north-west. We are working with a number of regional bodies on initiatives to attract both new technology industries to the region, to foster the growth of new technology-based firms and the application of new technology to existing industry.

  The enterprise initiative offers wide-ranging support for all business, including specialised consultancy advice for small and medium-sized firms. In the assisted areas and urban programme areas support for up to two thirds of the costs of such consultancy projects is available. Elsewhere we support 50 per cent. of the costs. We have introduced a special scheme—regional enterprise grants—to help
  144
  firms in the development areas, with fewer than 25 employees to finance their innovation and investment projects, and have extended the small firms merit award for research and technology (SMART). Assistance is available towards the cost of collaborative research projects, and regional selective assistance is available for investment projects by new and existing firms in the assisted areas.

  The Department has recently announced an increased grant of £450,000 to INWARD, the north-west's regional development organisation concerned with attracting inward investment, including new technology companies, to the region.

  English Estates North West is helping in the development of new technology companies in the region through its investment in Wavertree technology park in Liverpool, the Salford university business park and the technology exchange at Bolton.

  The Department's regional office has been closely involved in the formation of Nimtech-NW, a private sector initiative to encourage and accelerate the development of science-based industries in the north-west. Nimtech is now the focus for the north-west's regional technology centre, which, with Government funding support, is working in close co-operation with the region's eight universities and polytechnics to improve technology transfer and skills training throughout the region. The region has a well-established tradition of collaboration between industry and the academic sector. This strength is further reflected in Manchester recently attracting the new private sector and Government sponsored centre for exploitation for science and technology, and Salford university winning the competition to host the Department's national advanced robotics research centre.

  Columbus Project
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement about British involvement in the Columbus project.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I refer the hon. Member to my statement in the House on 18 April in response to questions by my hon. Friends the Members for Corby (Mr. Powell) and for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor).

  Companies (Extra-territorial Controls)
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement about his policy towards the United States Government exerting extraterritorial controls over United Kingdom firms.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  We have asserted on many occasions our rejection of US claims to extra-territorial jurisdiction which infringe on United Kingdom sovereignty.

  Sub-Post Offices
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what discussions he has had with the chairman of the Post Ofice on the problems of rural sub-post offices.

  Mr. Butcher
  My right hon. and learned Friend meets the chairman of the Post Office from time to time to discuss matters of current interest including rural sub-post offices.
  145
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what were the total hours of opening of sub-post offices in(a) 1986 and (b)

  Mr. Butcher
  This is a matter for the Post Office and I have asked the chairman of the Post Office to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has met representatives of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters and Mistresses to discuss rural sub-post offices.

  Mr. Butcher
  I met representatives of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters on 15 October last year to discuss issues of interest to their members, including rural sub-post offices.

  "Take the Initiative" Campaign
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give the amount of public funds spent on his Department's current "Take the Initiative" advertising campaign.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The estimated cost up to the end of May of the current DTI advertising campaign to promote the enterprise initiative is £7·4 million.

  Trade Balance
  Mr. Wall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster with which countries of the Economic European Community the United Kingdom is running a positive trade balance.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster with which Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries the United Kingdom is running a positive trade balance.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  All European Community countries are members of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. In the last 12 months United Kingdom trade was in surplus with the United States of America, Australia, Canada, Irish Republic, Greece and Spain.

  Enterprise Initiative (North-West)
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give details of the support that has been made available under the enterprise initiative to businesses in the north-west.

  Mr. Atkins
  A total of 2,319 specific inquiries for consultancy support under the Department's enterprise initiative have been received from businesses in the northwest up to 29 April 1988. At that date, these inquiries had resulted in 721 applications for consultancies being processed. A total of 389 business reviews have been completed, of which 322 have been forwarded to scheme contractors.

  Insider Dealing
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the current operation of the Company Securities (Insider Dealing) Act.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  My Department considers all allegations of possible contraventions of the Company 146
  Securities (Insider Dealing) Act 1985 which are referred to it. In appropriate cases, if the circumstances suggest there may have been such a contravention, inspectors are appointed under section 177 of the Financial Services Act 1986 to carry out an investigation. There are at present 15 cases where inspectors are investigating possible contraventions, and nine cases are under consideration for investigation. Since January 1987 there have been three convictions and one acquittal on charges of contravening the Act. Criminal proceedings have begun in three more cases. The operation of the Act is kept under review.

  Foreign Companies
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he plans to continue to make support available to foreign companies wishing to set up operations in any of the assisted areas.

  Mr. Atkins
  The DTI's enterprise initiative includes a range of assistance available in the assisted areas to United Kingdom and foreign-owned companies for investment projects which meet the relevant criteria.

  Trade Deficit
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the trade deficit so far in 1988.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  In the first three months of 1988 there was an estimated deficit of £1·8 billion on the current account.

  Basildon
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what figures he has for the growth in the number of businesses in Basildon.

  Mr. Atkins
  There are no figures which indicate precisely the growth of businesses in Basildon. However the Business Statistics Office register for businesses for VAT purposes shows the following for Basildon district:

  Number of businesses registered for VAT

  Number

  End 1981

  2,370

  End 1986

  3,043

  Per cent. increase

  28·45

  Figures for 1987 are not yet available

  Manufacturing Investment
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he is aware of any research on the effect of interest rates on the level of manufacturing investment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has on the connection between the level of manufacturing investment and the level of interest rates.

  Mr. Atkins
  There has been a large amount of research on this subject, including "Factor Prices in the Treasury Model", by C. Kelly and D. Owen (GES working paper No. 83). A copy is lodged in the House of Commons Library.
  147
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster by how much manufacturing investment fell between 1979 and 1987.

  Mr. Butcher
  The latest estimate of investment in manufacturing industry, including leased assets, for 1987 is £7·4 billion at 1980 prices. The corresponding investment in 1979 and 1983 was £8·2 billion and £5·6 billion respectively at 1980 prices.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the most recent figures for manufacturing investment; what the percentage change has been since 1979; and which Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries have a greater increase or decrease over this period.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The most recent figures of investment in manufacturing industry, including leased assets, are for 1987—for which the latest estimate is £7·4 billion at 1980 prices. The corresponding investment in 1979 and 1983 was £8·2 billion and £5·6 billion respectively at 1980 prices. These figures show a decrease of 9 per cent. between 1979 and 1987, and an increase of 33 per cent. between 1983 and 1987. Figures for OECD countries are not available on a comparable basis over this period. Available figures for OECD countries are published in "OECD National Accounts 1973–1985".

  Scandinavia (Trade)
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the current level of trade with Scandinavia.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  For the three months to March 1988, United Kingdom trade with Scandinavia was: exports £1,229·6 million and imports £2,557·2 million. These figures should be treated with more than the usual caution because of major changes to customs procedures introduced in January 1988, details of which were given in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) on 7 December 1987,Official Report, columns 34–35.

  Restrictive Trade Practices
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the response to his recent Green Paper on restrictive trade practices.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The reaction to the Green Paper has been generally favourable, although we are as yet in the early stages of consultation and have therefore had few formal responses.

  Exchange Rate
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what recent representations he has received from industry concerning the effects of changes in the exchange rate.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  My Department has recently received representations from a number of firms and trade organisations about the possible effects of recent exchange rate movements.

  Mr. Beaumont-Dark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his latest assessment of the 148
  impact of the sterling exchange rate on the export performance of British industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Export performance is affected by a variety of factors, of which variation in exchange rates is only one. The improved design, quality and reliability of many British products has contributed substantially to our improved competitiveness and export performance in recent years.

  Airbus
  Mr. Cartiss
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met French and German Ministers to discuss the Airbus project.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I last met French and German Ministers to discuss the Airbus programme in Hanover on 5 May. We discussed the reorganisation of Airbus Industrie and co-operation between Airbus Industrie and McDonnell Douglas.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress is being made on the constitutional and financial restructuring of Airbus Industrie in order to make it more publicly accountable.

  Mr. Atkins
  I and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster met the aerospace Ministers of France and the Federal Republic of Germany and the Spanish ambassador to Germany, representing the aerospace Minister of Spain, in Hanover on 5 May to consider the preliminary response of the Airbus partners to the proposals for restructuring the consortium contained in the report of the four independent experts known as the Airbus "wise men".

  We noted with satisfaction that the Airbus partners and Airbus Industrie have responded promptly in studying the wise men's recommendations and reaching agreement in principle to their proposals. We asked the industrialists to start to implement the restructuring without delay with a view to establishing the structure of the new organisation by autumn, with full implementation from the end of 1988 at the latest.

  Imports (Voluntary Restraint)
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will consider publishing official estimates of the effects of voluntary restraint arrangements on imports into the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Voluntary restraint arrangements generally seek to limit imports of a particular product or range of products to agreed levels. The effects of such arrangements on imports vary according to the levels and coverage of the agreement, the extent to which it is respected and whether there is scope to switch production to areas that are perceived as less sensitive by the industry. The conditions set in individual voluntary restraint agreements are not published and the advice I received on the impact on imports was based on commercially confidential information.

  Advertising
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give the amount spent by his Department on advertising for each year since 1984.
  149
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Information is not readily available for expenditure on advertising other than that spent centrally by my Department.

  The figures which are readily available are:

  £ million

  1984–85

  2·1

  1985–86

  1·2

  1986–87

  0·9

  1987–88

  17·9

  1 provisional.

  Budget allocations for advertising during 1988–89 are still under discussion.

  British Steel
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received regarding the proposals to transfer British Steel to the private sector.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have received a small number of letters from various parties about points of detail. I have received a few representations about the principle of privatisation.

  CBI
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met representatives of the Confederation of British Industry; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim).

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what support is being made available to small businesses under the enterprise initiative to encourage innovation in new technology.

  Mr. Butcher
  Small firms can participate in collaborative research, with other firms, higher education institutions, technology organisations, or Government research establishments. The Department offers grants of up to 50 per cent. of the cost. The teaching company scheme is also available.

  Firms with fewer than 200 employees can compete for 100 Awards in the small firms merit award for research and technology (SMART) competition. The awards are for 75 per cent. of the cost of developing a new product or process (up to total costs of £50,000). Applications close on 30 June 1988.

  In development areas, firms with fewer than 25 employees can apply for regional enterprise grants. The innovation grant provides 50 per cent. of the agreed project cost up to a maximum grant of £25,000. I will arrange to send my hon. Friend details of these schemes.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the latest figures available for the level of funding for research and development provided by industry.

  Mr. Maude
  Industry spent £3·6 billion on the research and development which it performed in 1986. The 150
  information was contained in an article on the results of the 1986 survey of industrial research and development published in British Business on 5 February 1988. A copy of this is in the Library.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he is satisfied with the level of spending by industry on research and development.

  Mr. Butcher
  There are some companies and industries in the United Kingdom whose innovation record is outstanding, but in general the level and growth of British industry's spending on R and D have been lower as a proportion of GDP than its main overseas competitors. The Government have created the right climate to enable industry to invest more in R and D. A major objective of my Department's innovation policy is to encourage industry to fund more of its own R and D and to encourage co-operation between companies and the academic science base, for the purpose of increased wealth creation and competitiveness.

  Aerospace Industry
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what will be the effects on the United Kingdom aerospace industry of the decision by Her Majesty's Government to proceed with development of the European fighter aircraft.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The United Kingdom will have a 33 per cent. share in the development phase of the European fighter aircraft. British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce will be playing a leading role, and major opportunities will be opened up for British industry. The development phase alone will give direct long-term employment to an estimated 3,000–4,000 people in the United Kingdom.

  Consumer Goods (Safety)
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what measures he has introduced to improve the safety standards applying to consumer goods.

  Mr. Butcher
  The safety of consumers has been greatly improved by the implementation of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. From 1. October 1987, under the general safety requirement, it became a criminal offence to supply any consumer product that is not reasonably safe. This requirement is closely linked to standards of safety. The European Community directive on product liability, implemented by the same Act, came into force on 1 March 1988 which means that, if defective products reach the market and people are injured by them, it will be much easier to obtain redress through the courts.

  In addition to the general safety requirement, the safety of a range of products is covered by specific regulations. New regulations are to be introduced covering the flammability of the upholstered furniture and bedding; and it is the intention to introduce further regulations to implement a number of EC directives, including those covering the safety of toys and certain electical products.

  Departmental Offices (Relocation)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress has been made in the relocation out of London of offices under his Department's control since 1979.
  151
  Mr. Butcher
  My Department is making good progress. Some 50 per cent. of the Department is already outside London and plans to relocate at least a further 1,600 posts in the period 1987–91 are being implemented.

  Misleading Credit Advertising
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress he is making in his campaign to tackle misleading credit advertising.

  Mr. Maude
  On 23 March my Department circulated revised draft regulations which simplify and clarify the existing provisions of the Consumer Credit (Advertisements) Regulations and contain important additional safeguards for borrowers, particularly in the area of secured lending. Comments on the draft regulations have been requested by 20 May 1988.

  Financial Services Act
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a further statement on the implementation of the Financial Services Act.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Section 3 of the Financial Services Act was brought into force on 29 April. The other principal provisions in the Act, relating to the authorisation and regulation of persons carrying on investment business in the United Kingdom, were also commenced on that date.

  Inner City Policy
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a further statement on inner city policy.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Government have stepped up the attack on urban decay and have given priority to encouraging investment in inner city areas through a range of measures amounting to some £3,000 million in 1988–89. They launched a new Action for Cities drive in March 1988 which included a new urban development corporation in Sheffield and the extension of the existing corporation in Merseyside, in addition to the earlier announcement of proposals to establish new corporations in Leeds, central Manchester and Bristol; streamlined grants to encourage the development of inner city land and buildings; more help for small businesses in inner city areas; further Government support for links between schools and employers; new crime prevention initiatives and better inner city roads. Good progress has already been made with these new measures.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is very shortly to lay orders before the House to establish the urban development corporations in Leeds, Bristol, central Manchester and Sheffield. Approvals worth over £7 million have been made for projects eligible for city grant.

  The first of six new small firms service offices was opened by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment in Sheffield on 19 April. Others are planned for Leicester, Derby, Blackburn, Middlesbrough and Wolverhampton.

  My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office launched the first of 20 safer cities crime prevention projects in Wolverhampton on 7 April.
  152
  Two successful breakfast presentations to senior business men have been held in Newcastle and Leeds, with others to follow in Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool and London. They have helped to encourage business interest in inner city regeneration, and nearly 100 companies have made positive offers of help.

  Over 40 inquiries have been received from companies, employer groups and other organisations about the schools-industry compacts initiative, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has written to major employers inviting them to take advantage of development funds available to establish compacts.

  Several possible projects have been identified for potential support under the local enterprise agency project scheme. New city action teams based in Leeds and Nottingham, in addition to those already established in Birmingham, Liverpool, London, Manchester and Newcastle upon Tyne are helping to pull together the various Government programmes involved and to sustain the momentum of local regeneration. At neighbourhood level, 16 inner city task forces support projects which open up job and enterprise opportunities for local residents. They have to date made contact with some 400 companies.

  Internal Market
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what response there has been to the Europe Open for Business campaign.

  Mr. Stanbrook
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what response he has had to his plans for preparing British companies for completion of the internal market in 1992.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Government are already taking a number of measures to alert business to the single European market and the vital importance of preparing for it now. These include regional conferences, detailed literature, national advertising and a telephone hotline. The single market campaign will run until 1992 but its exact form will be continually assessed in the light of current needs.

  Govan Shipbuilders
  Mr. Milian
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if any decision has yet been reached on the possible sale of Govan Shipbuilders; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  No. British Shipbuilders are still negotiating with Kvaerner Industries.

  Space Research
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a further statement on his policy towards British participation in space research projects.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) on 18 April 1988 at columns 350–51.

  Car Production
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the latest figures for car production in the United Kingdom.
  153
  Mr. Atkins
  Provisional figures indicate that production of passenger cars in March 1988 was 106,000 units, seasonally adusted.

  Timber Industry
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met representatives of the timber industry to discuss the future of home-produced timber; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  My ministerial colleagues and I are in close touch with representatives of markets for home-produced and other timber, but I have not yet met representatives of the producers of such timber.

  Spearhead Single Market Database
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what type of information will be made available to business through the Spearhead single market database.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Spearhead database gives information on current and prospective measures in the single market programme and gives access to the full texts of the relevant Community legislation. It provides details of measures which have been adopted by the Community, but which have not yet entered into force; summaries of proposals under discussions, together with contacts in the appropriate Government Departments; and information on other proposals which the Commission has said it intends to table between now and 1992.

  Balance of Trade (West Germany)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the most recently available figure for the balance of trade with West Germany.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  In the 12 months to March 1988, United Kingdom visible trade with FR Germany was in deficit by £6·8 billion on the overseas trade statistics basis.

  Schools and Industry
  Mr. Chapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress he is making towards achieving his specific objectives for forging closer links between schools and industry.

  Mr. Butcher
  A number of measures to forge closer collaborative links between industry and schools were announced as part of the enterprise initiative in the White Paper "DTI—the department for Enterprise" published on 12 January 1988. Three new targets were set:—every year, 10 per cent. of teachers should have the opportunity to gain some personal experience of the world of business;
  —every young person should have two or more weeks of work experience, suited to his or her ability and needs, before leaving school;
  every trainee teacher should gain an appreciation of the needs of employers and the importance of links between schools and employers.

  In addition, the Government's policy statement "Action of Cities", announced by the Prime Minister on 7 March contained a range of initiatives including the Department of Employment's proposals to develop compacts. initially in 12 of the urban programme areas.
  154
  My Department will be working closely with DES and MSC to foster these partnerships and a wide range of other links between schools and business.

  British Shipbuilders
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on the future of British Shipbuilders.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have received a number of representations.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met the chairman of British Shipbuilders; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I remain in close touch with the chairman of British Shipbuilders on the full range of issues currently of concern to the corporation.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met the chairman of British Shipbuilders; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I remain in close touch with the chairman of British Shipbuilders on the full range of issues currently of concern to the corporation.

  Rating Reform
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will discuss with the Post Office Director of Counters the practicality of making poll tax payable through post offices.

  Mr. Butcher
  This would be a commercial matter for negotiation between the Post Office and the statutory levying authorities and I have no plans to discuss it with the Post Office.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the increase in manufacturing productivity in Britain since 1979; and what is the comparable record of the United Kingdom's major industrial competitors.

  Mr. Butcher
  Between 1979 and 1987, output per head in the manufacturing sector increased by 37 per cent. The comparable increases for our major competitors are:

  Percentage

  Italy1

  35

  USA

  31

  Japan

  26

  Canada

  24

  France1

  19

  Germany

  16

  1 First three quarters of 1987 only.

  Source:

  United Kingdom: CSO.

  countries: OECD and IMF.

  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the most recent figure for output in manufacturing industry; and what was the figure for the same months 14 years ago.

  Mr. Butcher
  In February 1988 manufacturing output was at a level of 110·3, based on 1980 equal to 100. This
  155
  is over 1 per cent, higher than the level of 109·0 for February 1974. But my hon. Friend will appreciate that monthly data can be erratic. A firmer basis for comparison would be that in the three months to February 1988, manufacturing output was over 2 per cent. higher than in the same period 14 years ago and over 21 per cent. higher than in the trough of the recession in 1981.

  Local Businesses
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he has taken to improve communications between his Department and business at a local level.

  Mr. Atkins
  The close communications which my Department's regional offices already maintain with business is being reinforced at the local level by the opening of some 24 satellite offices throughout England making 35 local offices in all. DTI regional offices have a particular responsibility for marketing the DTI services for business described in the White Paper "DTI—the department for Enterprise" laid before the House in January and to which business response has been excellent.

  In addition, 16 task forces and eight city action teams have been set up part of whose role is to assist companies wishing to become involved in urban regeneration. With Ministers from other Departments I am meeting senior representatives of business and industry at a series of working breakfasts to highlight opportunities for them in the inner cities.

  Inner City Renewal
  Mr. Andrew Hargreaves
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how he plans to increase further private sector investment in inner city renewal.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Government will encourage greater private investment in inner cities through the new and expanded urban development corporations, city grant, which bridges the gap between cost and profitability and by other new measures aimed at small firms, including support under the enterprise initiative to help inner city businesses improve their performance. We also intend to increase the supply of managed accommodation for new businesses in inner cities through English Estates. Locally, city action teams and task forces will continue to work in partnership with business. Ministers are giving a series of breakfast presentations to senior business men in major cities to give companies practical advice about how they can help the drive to make the deprived districts of their own city more prosperous and how the Government can support them.

  Council of Ministers (Shipbuilding)
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last discussed shipbuilding within the European Community's Council of Ministers; and what was the content of the discussions.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I last discussed shipbuilding matters in the Council of Ministers in December 1987. The topic was the Renaval programme of assistance to regions affected by the Community-wide decline in merchant shipbuilding. At that meeting I pressed hard for rapid progress to be made on the scheme. Detailed negotiations are continuing.

  Departmental Advertising
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the principal objectives of his Department's advertising and promotional activities.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The emphasis of DTI policies as set out in the White Paper "DTI—the department for Enterprise" is on transferring information particularly to small and medium sized companies. Advertising and related promotional activities are quick and efficient ways of achieving improved communications with business. We are particularly seeking to improve business managers' knowledge of the services available to companies under the enterprise initiative, the variety of ways in which companies can work with Government in regenerating inner cities, the need to prepare for the European single market in 1992 and the opportunities for trade and investment in Japan.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his Department's planned spending on(a) television advertising and (b) press advertising in the current year.

  Mr. Butcher
  The overall press and television advertising plans for DTI in the current year are still under discussion. Major commitments during the first three months of 1988–89 are as follows:

  Television £ million

  Press £ million

  Single European Market Campaign

  3·8

  0·62

  Enterprise Initiative Campaign

  —

  0·63

  Mergers
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the response to his recent paper on the policy and procedures of merger control.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The paper set out the conclusions of the review of mergers policy, and took account of views submitted during the course of the review. The main lines of these conclusions have been known for some time, and have attracted some public comment; but the paper did not formally invite responses, and my Department has received none.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment he has made in planning his policy on privatisation of industries for which he is responsible of the extent to which standards of service to customers have been maintained in privatised industries.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The circumstances surrounding each privatisation are different and all relevant factors are taken into account in the planning of each new privatisation. However, I believe that standards of service to customers are more likely to be improved when the management of the business has full commercial freedom and is exposed to the pressures of a competitive market.

  Chemicals Industry
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what forecasts he has for the level of new investment in the chemicals industry in 1988.
  157
  Mr. Atkins
  The Chemical Industry Association's investment intentions survey for 1988 shows that capital spending in the chemical sector in 1988 is expected to rise to £1,740 million, which allowing for inflation is an increase of nearly 19 per cent. on 1987.

  Consumers Association
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met the chairman of the Consumers Association; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Butcher
  I met the chairman and director general of the Consumers Association on Wednesday 23 March and we discussed a number of topics relevant to consumers.

  Business (Best Practice)
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to promote best practice to British business.

  Mr. Atkins
  The enterprise initiative is a national programme which aims to raise the performance of management by promoting the use of best practice. The key element in the enterprise initiative is the six consultancy initiatives, covering marketing (including export marketing), design, quality, manufacturing systems, business planning, and financial and information systems. Their aim is to improve management skills in these key areas in small and medium-sized firms by encouraging them to use specialist outside advice.

  Other elements of the enterprise initiative, notably the business and education initiative and the research and technology initiative, are also concerned with technology transfer and encouraging the promotion of best practice throughout industry and commerce.

  Investment and Job Creation
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to ensure that investment and the creation of employment will be secured in areas of high unemployment which have recently been classified as requiring the maximum level of regional support.

  Mr. Atkins
  The DTI, through its recently launched enterprise initiative, offers a range of incentives to encourage business development throughout the country. Regional selective assistance is available for investment projects undertaken by firms in assisted areas; regional enterprise grants are available for small firms in development areas with fewer than 25 employees to support investment and innovation projects; and in all asssisted and urban programme areas the DTI will pay two thirds of the cost of consultancy projects in marketing, design, quality, manufacturing systems, business planning, and financial and information systems.

  Drug Companies
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the level of capital investment by Britain's drug companies in(a) 1987 and (b)

  Mr. Atkins
  In 1986, the latest year for which investment data by industry are available, the net capital 158
  expenditure in the pharmaceutical products industry was £396 million, at current prices. The comparable figure for 1985 is £346 million.

  Source: Annual Census of Production.

  British National Space Centre
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he has any proposals to strengthen the British national space centre.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  As announced in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) on 18 April 1988 at columns 350–51, Mr. Arthur Pryor has been appointed director general of the British national space centre. He will be reviewing the effectiveness of the centre as part of his new responsibilities.

  Robots
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the level of usage of robots in British industry; and what equivalent information he has about other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the level of usage of robots in British industry; and what equivalent information he has for other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries.

  Mr. Butcher
  Robots in use in British industry numbered 4,303 at the end of 1987. This shows a total increase of 14·5 per cent. and an increased growth rate of 30 per cent. on the previous year's figures.

  The table shows the level of usage of robots in the OECD countries in 1986. The figures are produced by the International Federation of Robotics.

  Country

  Robots in use in 1986

  Australia

  800

  Austria

  250

  Belgium

  1,050

  Denmark

  210

  Finland

  336

  Germany

  12,400

  France

  5,273

  Italy

  5,000

  Japan

  118,000

  Netherlands

  630

  New Zealand

  42

  Norway

  396

  Spain

  854

  Sweden

  2,383

  Switzerland

  382

  United Kingdom

  3,683

  United States of America

  25,000

  Canada

  11,753

  1 at the end 1983.

  Source: AFRI.

  No figures are available for the following OECD countries:

  Greece

  Luxembourg

  Iceland

  Portugal

  Ireland

  Turkey

  New Car Sales
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the level of new car sales for the first quarter of 1988.

  Mr. Atkins
  There were 584,832 new cars registered in the United Kingdom in the first quarter of 1988.

  Rover Group
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what recent representations he has received regarding the proposed takeover of Rover Group by British Aerospace.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Since my statement on 29 March we have received 25 letters on this subject.

  Scotch Whisky
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress is being made to ensure the implementation of GATT agreements with Japan to protect the Scotch whisky industry from discriminatory import taxation.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  This issue was high on the agenda when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met the Japanese Prime Minister, Mr. Takeshita, last week. Mr. Takeshita was left in no doubt that we attach the greatest importance to a speedy resolution of this problem, with the introduction of a non-discriminatory tax system which allows Scotch whisky to compete on equal terms with other spirits. He undertook to take a personal interest in the resolution of this issue.

  Confectionery Companies
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make it his policy to prevent the acquisition of British confectionery companies by Swiss interests.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  No. Each individual case will be for consideration in the normal way under the provisions of the Fair Trading Act.

  Investigation Policy
  Mr. Hargreaves
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his policy on investigation under the Companies Act 1985 and the Financial Services Act 1986.

  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has been reviewing the investigation powers and procedures under these Acts in the light of recent experience of operating them.

  Fair and efficient markets depend on effective enforcement of the law and of self-regulatory requirements. Investigation powers have a key role to play in this. Their purpose is to discover the facts so that, if there has been misconduct, appropriate prosecution or regulatory action can be taken. The value of the existing powers is demonstrated by the results obtained. In the last two years, for example, following investigations under the Companies Act, criminal proceedings were brought in 28 cases involving the management of 47 companies and leading to penalties ranging from fines to, in one instance,
  160
  imprisonment for 15 years. In addition, 61 companies were wound up in the public interest and nine people were disqualified from acting as directors. In the relatively short time that the Financial Services Act investigation powers have been in force, two people have been convicted of insider dealing as a direct result of investigations by inspectors, and legal proceedings are in train in two further cases.

  These results demonstrate the contribution which the investigation powers make to the detection of malpractice. But, of course, not all investigations reveal malpractice. Their purpose is to find out the facts so that decisions can be taken on whether further action is needed. None of the investigation powers can be used unless there is a good reason. Some of the powers have higher thresholds. There is no question of the Secretary of State having the power to undertake "witch hunts", as has been suggested. But when in my judgment the statutory criteria are met, the Department will continue to use the powers when circumstances make it appropriate to do so. In exercising my discretion, we shall apply the same broad standards as our predecessors have done.

  My Department has recently completed a review of existing investigation powers and procedures with a view
  to ensuring that investigations are undertaken as effectively and quickly as is compatible with a thorough and fair inquiry.

  The review concluded that in general the present range of powers matched the different purposes and circumstances of investigation required in the United Kingdom, but that there was a need for more scope and flexibility in the way they could be used and for clarification of some of the provisions to improve efficiency.

  Accordingly, it is intended to introduce the proposed
  changes to the law at the next convenient opportunity:—

  (i) enabling the general powers of company investigation under Section 432 of the Companies Act also to be used in certain cases (broadly suspected fraud, misfeasance or misconduct) when the prime purpose is to consider the case for prosecution or regulatory action and there is no intention to publish a report;

  (ii) strengthening various powers, including extending the existing powers to seek a search warrant for relevant books and papers and (subject to the Secretary of State's approval) to obtain information about relevant bank accounts, and tidying up the provisions on freezing share dealings;

  (iii) extending the existing powers to recover the cost of investigations from persons who are convicted on a prosecution instituted as a result of an investigation;

  (iv) enabling the Secretary of State to appoint outsiders to undertake inquiries under Section 447 of the Companies Act;

  (v) simplifying the exchange of information between DTI investigators involved in different cases;

  (vi) enabling the Secretary of State to terminate insider dealing investigations when no further purpose would be served by continuing and to terminate Companies Act inspections when it is more appropriate for further action to be handled by the serious fraud office or, in Scotland, through the Lord Advocate.

  The review also concluded that, because of growing international links in corporate activity, and to help improve mutual co-operation with other countries, it would be helpful if the United Kingdom could do more than at present to assist overseas regulators. We are therefore also considering whether to introduce provisions for the Secretary of State to exercise powers to assist overseas regulatory authorities in some situations in which he cannot at present, when he is satisfied there is good reason to do so. We will bring forward proposals in due course if we do decide to proceed.
  161
  Additionally, steps will be taken to ensure more guidance and support for outside inspectors, closer working between DTI staff and outside inspectors and more use of criminal lawyers in investigation work.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has also reviewed the practice on announcing investigations. In the case of major investigations with a wider public interest, mounted under sections 432 and 442 of the Companies Act, that normally lead to a published report, it is clearly right to announce these when they are set up. This is existing practice as regards investigations into public companies, and I propose to extend it to such investigations into private companies. Inquiries under section 447 are much more limited in scope and are intended only to look at the books and papers of a company and seek explanations of them. It has never been the practice to announce these and the Department is satisfied that this should continue to be the case. Public announcement would undermine the effectiveness of the inquiries and would unduly damage the business of the companies concerned. We would consider confirming the existence of such an inquiry only if it had already been announced by the company concerned and no further prejudicial consequence was involved in such confirmation. The same applies to inquiries under section 105 of the Financial Services Act.

  Insider dealing investigations under section 177 of the Financial Services Act involve independent inspectors, but the reports are not published. The purpose is to ascertain whether there has been a contravention of the Company Securities (Insider Dealing) Act 1985 and in appropriate cases the investigation may lead to prosecution. We have decided that, in the main, the interests of efficiency and justice are best served by not normally announcing or confirming these investigations. However, the Department will consider making an announcement if it is in the public interest, for example, if public officials are thought to be involved or if there has already been publicity for an investigation and we judge that it would be less damaging to the individuals or organisations concerned and appropriate in the circumstances if I were to acknowledge the existence of an investigation.

  Finally, the Department has reviewed the resources available within my Department for investigation and related work. Resources have been considerably increased over recent years and the results are now beginning to be seen as staff gain experience. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has concluded that a further increase in resources devoted to this work is needed in order to speed up the handling of the cases. He has also decided that to improve co-ordination, key enforcement activities of the Department should be brought together in one division. These functions include decisions on cases where it is appropriate to undertake investigations under the powers in the Companies and Financial Services Acts; carrying out investigations under section 447 of the Companies Act; liaison with outside inspectors; determination of appropriate action when reports are received; and the prosecution of offences for which the Department has particular responsibility, including insider dealing and other offences under the companies legislation, and insolvency offences.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are his Department's target reductions in energy usage for 1988–89; what is his Department's target reduction in electricity usage for lighting in 1988–89; and what investment his Department is planning to make in new energy-efficient lighting equipment in 1988–89 to achieve those target reductions.

  Mr. Butcher
  My Department has set a target reduction of 5 per cent. in energy usage for 1988–89; the target for electricity usage for lighting is 7 per cent. Investment in energy-efficiency measures, including the introduction of energy-efficient lighting equipment, will amount to £228,000 in 1988–89.

TRANSPORT

  Motorway Network
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to extend the motorway network.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We are continuing to develop the motorway network to meet both present and future traffic needs. We have 60 miles of new motorway and motorway improvements currently under construction. We plan to start work on a further 150 miles over the next five years.

  Traffic Growth
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his Department's estimates are for traffic growth in 1990, 1995 and 2000.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department's estimates of traffic growth between 1987 and the dates requested are as follows:

  Low growth per cent.

  High growth per cent.

  1987–1990

  4

  8

  1987–1995

  9

  19

  1987–2000

  12

  28

  The estimates are presented as a range to reflect uncertainty about factors underlying traffic growth, such as GDP and fuel prices. They are based on the forecasts given in "National Road Traffic Forecasts, 1984", issued by the Department in March, 1985.

  The Department's forecasts are of long-term growth, and cannot sensibly be used to forecast annual growth rates in specific future years.

  1987 has been used as a base year because that is the latest year for which observed national traffic data are available. It is normal practice to base forecasts on the latest available traffic data. so that they take account of all past trends.

  Road Improvements
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how he plans to ensure that plans for road improvements keep pace with traffic growths up to the year 2000.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We are continuing to develop the trunk road network. We have a large new construction and
  163
  improvement programme worth some £5 billion. It is regularly reviewed. Schemes are added as the need is identified.

  Humberside Airport
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the plans of the Civil Aviation Authority to carry out a formal investigation, with a view to prosecution of officials of Humberside airport and on the response to such plans from the general manager of the airport: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We understand that the Civil Aviation Authority has no plans for investigation or prosecution of Humberside airport officials.

  Motor Cycles (Leg Protectors)
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the comments which he has received from individual motor cyclists and from the British Motorcyclists Federation, regarding his proposals for leg protectors; and what response he has made.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We welcome the stimulus to research by motor cycle manufacturers into the serious problem of leg injuries that has resulted from the widespread public debate about suitable protector design. Over 13,000 motor cyclists a year receive in-patient hospital treatment following road accidents, most of these accidents occur at low speeds—under 30mph. Over 60 per cent. of the serious injuries they suffered were to their legs, often leading to permanent disability. We circulated a draft specification for leg protectors to interested organisations for comments last July. This has generated a great deal of correspondence, including co-ordinated letter-writing campaigns. Unfortunately, some of the criticism was ill-informed.

  We propose to work closely with manufacturers and other expert bodies over the next year in developing solutions to the leg injury problem. A letter has gone to the organisations consulted last July outlining how the research is to be carried forward over the next 12 months and making it clear that they will be included in consultation on the fruits of this co-operative effort next summer. Copies are available in the Library.

  The Department will wish to be thoroughly assured of the safety benefits of any specification, whether the proposal that emerges is recommended as a requirement for all new vehicles, or might be prescribed as a safety standard for manufacturers to use when offering leg protectors as an option to their customers.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) 8 March,Official Report, Columns 27–28, what is the maximum velocity of impact that flasks carrying plutonium are expected to withstand under the most stringent current international standards.
  164
  Mr. David Mitchell
  The International Atomic Energy Agency regulations require flasks to withstand a free drop of 9 m with a terminal velocity of 30 mph, on to any unyielding target. This is equivalent to an impact of about 65 mph on to hard rock or 75 mph on to concrete. The IAEA is currently reviewing these standards in relation to the transport of plutonium by air. In the meantime, British Nuclear Fuels plc is designing a flask to meet the United States regulatory criteria which involve an impact velocity of 288 mph.

  Transport Infrastructure Projects
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidelines on the scope of possible projects he has given to private sector companies considering making proposals for private sector-sponsored transport infrastructure projects; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend has written to a number of prominent firms in the finance and construction industries inviting their ideas in general terms on the possibilities for private sector infrastructure projects. He has asked them to put forward ideas for building and operating infrastructure in ways which are more cost-effective than current methods and preferably to look for novel concepts which will complement existing and planned public sector provision. The firms have also been provided with a copy of the paper which the Government put to the civil engineering EDC clarifying the Ryrie rules.

  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what specific proposals from private sector companies for private sector sponsored transport infrastucture projects he has received since 1 January; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of ideas on privately funded infrastructure projects this year including suggestions for:

  —a road tunnel under the Thames

  —a second tier on the M25

  —a rail link to the Channel tunnel

  —improvements to the public transport surface access to Heathrow airport

  —a light rapid transit system for Avon.

  A large number of more general ideas have also been put forward recently, largely in response to my right hon. Friend's letter of March 28 to firms in the finance and construction industries inviting their views on privately financed transport infrastructure projects.

  London Underground
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions in each of the past five years people have fallen in front of London Underground trains.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The table shows how many incidents have been reported where people have fallen under trains on all the lines of London Underground Limited during the last four years. Figures for 1983 are not readily available.
  165

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Fatal

  Major

  Minor

  Fatal

  Major

  Minor

  Fatal

  Major

  Minor

  Fatal

  Major

  Minor

  Trespassers

  19

  10

  5

  19

  9

  5

  15

  9

  —

  20

  1

  4

  Suicides

  22

  3

  —

  24

  10

  1

  33

  6

  —

  20

  10

  1

  Others

  1

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  3

  4

  —

  1

  —

  176

  Totals

  42

  13

  5

  47

  19

  6

  51

  19

  —

  41

  11

  81

  1 A new reporting order was introduced from 1 January 1987 which has resulted in more comprehensive reporting of minor injuries.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assurances he has received from British Rail as to whether the planned fleet of high speed passenger trains operating through the Channel tunnel will be able to use existing British Rail lines; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  It is an essential in the specification for these trains that they must be able to operate satisfactorily on existing electrified British Rail lines.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Cereals
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimated increase or decrease in production in percentage terms of(a) wheat, (b) barley and (c) maize in 1988 by comparison with 1987 (i) in the United Kingdom and (ii) in the EEC as a whole.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Given the significance of the weather for cereal yields, it is not possible to produce a reliable forecast of United Kingdom cereal production before the harvest. However, the latest forecasts of Community production of cereals in 1988 produced by the European statistical office show the following changes when compared with the provisional production figures for 1987:

  Percentage change

  Common Wheat

  7·7

  Durum Wheat

  -3·1

  Barley

  1·0

  Maize

  5·4

  Other Cereals

  0·6

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if all Forestry Commission district offices in England have been circulated with a copy of the statement made by the Secretary of State for the Environment on behalf of their two Ministries on 16 March and whether the Forestry Commission has issued instructions to all districts on the implementation of the guidelines contained in that statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I confirm that a copy of the statement was sent to all Forestry Commission forest district offices in England on 16 March. Further instructions to the forest districts must await the guidance letter which I promised in the statement and which is in preparation. In the meantime, the commission is delaying decisions on grant applications likely to be affected by the new policy.

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his Department has any evidence of morbidity in babies resulting from the drinking of milk from animals treated with bovine somatotropin.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My Department has no such evidence.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the trials being carried out at the AFRC Institute for grassland and animal production on bovine somatotropin will be completed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Field trials on bovine somatotropin (and all other medicinal products) must be conducted under the authority of an animal test certificate issued under the Medicines Act 1968. Such certificates are granted for two years but are normally renewable. I cannot, at this stage, therefore, give a completion date.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is yet in a position to draw up guidelines for the commercial administration of bov:ine somatotropin, including monitoring of performance and health.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  We are not yet in a position to draw up such guidelines.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what revenue has been received by his Department since 11 November 1987 from the payment of fees for subject access to personal records, pursuant to the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My Ministry charges fees for subject access to personal records, only for requests from members of the public, not from employees. To date, no requests for access have been received from members of the public and, therefore, no revenue has been received.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many applications under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984 for subject access to personal records held by his Department he has received since 11 November 1987.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  To date, my Ministry has received 37 applications for subject access to personal data. The applications relate to a total of 121 registrations under the Act and all have been from Ministry employees.

  Badgers
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food how many of the badgers taken in each parish for 1986 and 1987, respectively, were subsequently found to be carrying tuberculosis.
  167
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The number of badgers found to be positive for bovine tuberculosis on post mortem are shown in the following table.

  Parishes where badgers may be removed automatically

  County and Parish

  1986

  1987

  Avon

  Batheaston

  0

  10

  Cold Ashton

  2

  1

  English Combe

  0

  10

  Hawkesbury

  0

  2

  St. Catherine

  0

  10

  Cornwall

  Camborne

  10

  1

  Helland

  0

  10

  Kirkhampton

  10

  10

  Linkinhorne

  10

  2

  Ludgvan

  10

  0

  Michaelstow

  0

  10

  Merwenstowe

  10

  0

  Sancreed

  3

  10

  South Hill

  2

  2

  Stithians

  2

  10

  Stoke Climsland

  10

  0

  St. Gulvias

  2

  10

  St. Just

  8

  10

  St. Neot

  0

  10

  St. Veep

  10

  9

  Wendron

  0

  7

  Devon

  Hartland

  10

  0

  Manaton

  10

  8

  Dorset

  Cheselbourne

  0

  1

  Stoke Abbott

  10

  3

  Gloucestershire

  Alderley

  10

  0

  Bisley with

  Lypiatt

  2

  1

  Boxwell with

  Leighterton

  10

  8

  Coates

  10

  0

  Edgeworth

  0

  0

  North Nibley

  1

  10

  Nympsfield

  0

  10

  Painswick

  10

  2

  Prestbury

  3

  0

  Standish

  11

  10

  Stinchcombe

  2

  10

  Stroud

  10

  2

  Uley

  0

  1

  Whittington

  3

  10

  Wotton Under

  Edge

  10

  10

  Somerset

  Cheddar

  10

  0

  Wiltshire

  Box

  7

  0

  Compton Bassett

  1

  10

  North Wraxall

  6

  10

  Dyfed

  Bettws Evan

  10

  0

  Llangeler

  0

  0

  Parishes where prior approval of the Consultative Panel on Badgers and Tuberculosis is required before removal

  Avon

  Pucklechurch

  0

  10

  168

  County and Parish

  1986

  1987

  Cornwall

  Davidstowe

  10

  3

  Menheniot

  10

  0

  St. Martin

  10

  0

  Devon

  Holsworthy

  10

  8

  Milton Damerel

  10

  1

  Sutcombe

  10

  3

  Thornbury

  10

  0

  Gloucester

  Brookthorpe

  10

  0

  Duntisbourne

  Rouse

  10

  7

  Moreton Valence

  4

  0

  Somerset

  Rodney Stoke

  10

  0

  Westbury sub

  Mendip

  10

  2

  Wiltshire

  Brokenborough

  10

  2

  Malmesbury St.

  Paul without

  10

  0

  Sherston

  10

  0

  Dyfed

  Llanddarog

  10

  0

  Llanwinio

  10

  0

  1 Denotes no badgers removed.

EMPLOYMENT

  London Docklands
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action he is taking to locate the Docklands liaison group in the Docklands.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There are no plans to re-locate the London docklands liaison group in the area covered by the London Docklands Development Corporation.

  A decision has been taken to retain the London docklands liaison group in the current location (Aldgate) because of its close proximity to the LDDC area and the operational advantages of being co-located with MSC's east London area office.

  Training Schemes
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the main differences between the new job training scheme and the proposed new adult training programme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Employment training combines the best features of a number of the existing programmes it will replace, including the community programme and the new job training scheme. A major new feature will be the training agent, who will carry out an objective initial assessment for each entrant and draw up a personal action plan, agreed with each individual, which will form the basis of their training programme. Employment training will be more flexible than new JTS, enabling participants to progress through a wide range of training options. These will include project-based training, enterprise training, placements with employers and an entitlement to at least 40 per cent. off-the-job training. The emphasis will
  169
  be on quality and wherever possible, training will lead to a recognised vocational qualification, or a credit towards one.

  Community Programme
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what would the community enterprise programme wage be now had it been increased in line with inflation since its inception.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The maximum average wage payable to adult employees on the community enterprise programme was £83 per week at its inception in April 1981. This would have risen to £116·60 per week if the programme still existed and the wage had risen in line with inflation.

  The community enterprise programme was superseded by the community programme in October 1982.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether community programme workers joining after 1 March and eligible to transfer to the new adult employment training scheme in September will incur benefit penalties if they leave at the end of their period of six months on wages.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) on 24 March 1988, at column 164.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment why the MSC has withdrawn funding and support for the training programme for black community programme managers in Birmingham; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  A training course to help black people to set up as independent sponsors of projects under the community programme commenced on 10 August 1987. The course is jointly sponsored by the MSC, Handsworth task force and the city of Birmingham local authority. The MSC has not withdrawn funding. The course reached its scheduled completion date on 6 May 1988.

  The MSC is arranging for the trainees involved in this course to be employed by community programme sponsors.

  Blind Persons (Reader Service)
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have used the personal reader service for the blind in each year since its introduction.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The personal reader service for the blind was introduced into YTS in April 1986. in 1986–87, four trainees used the service, and in 1987–88 a further three. The service was introduced into new JTS in November 1987: no one on that scheme has used the service so far.

  Table A

  Total Employees in Employment

  Not Seasonally Adjusted Thousands

  South East

  Greater London

  East Anglia

  South West

  West Midlands

  East Midlands

  Yorks and Humber

  North West

  North

  Wales

  Scotland

  Northern Ireland

  1986

  June

  7,349

  3,467

  762

  1,566

  2,017

  1,518

  1,786

  2,262

  1,078

  861

  1,888

  489

  September

  7,363

  3,467

  775

  1,577

  2,037

  1,514

  1,789

  2,271

  1,081

  863

  1,886

  488

  December

  7,403

  3,487

  784

  1,569

  2,050

  1,519

  1,795

  2,283

  1,086

  862

  1,874

  489

  Restart Programme
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will pro vide figures of the cost of the restart programme for the financial years 1986–87 and 1987–88, and an estimate of the cost of the programme for 1988–89; and what criteria and evaluative techniques are used to measure the success of the programme.

  Mr. Lee
  The main aim of the restart counselling programme is to contact all long-term unemployed people and to offer them positive help back to work.

  The main measures of success of the programme are the number of long-term unemployed people contacted, the number interviewed, and the percentage of those interviewed who are offered positive help. This information is collected monthly.

  Between July 1986 and March 1988, some 4·4 million people were contacted, 3·5 million interviewed and 89 per cent. of those offered positive help.

  The costs of the counselling programme are as follows:

  1986–87 £22 million.

  1987–88 £40 million (estimated outturn).

  1988–89 £41 million (estimate).

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide monthly figures from June 1986 to the most recent date for which information is available for(a) the number of employees in employment for each of the standard regions, (b) the unemployment figures by claimant count for each of the standard regions, (c) an estimation of how much of the reduction in unemployment by claimant count is a result of (i) people moving into full-time work. (ii) people moving into part-time work, (iii) community programmes and other adult schemes, (iv) people being removed from the claimant count by being offered other state benefits, (v) restart interviews leading to people removing themselves from the claimant count without work or training destination and (vii) people leaving the register as a result of claims investigations.

  Mr. Lee
  Following is the available information. Table A gives the number of employees in employment, which is available only quarterly, for each of the standard regions in the United Kingdom from June 1986 to the latest available date. Table B similarly shows seasonally adjusted adult unemployment monthly from June 1986.

  The information requested in part (c) is not available. It is impossible to make reliable estimates of the effect on the changes in the unemployment count of the various potential influences. During the period of strong economic growth and an improving jobs market, such as we are currently experiencing, many more people are encouraged to look for work. Some of the jobs were taken by people who were not previously unemployed claimants.
  171

  South East

  Greater London

  East Anglia

  South West

  West Midlands

  East Midlands

  Yorks and Humber

  North West

  North

  Wales

  Scotland

  Northern Ireland

  1987

  March

  7,377

  3,454

  780

  1,555

  2,039

  1,505

  1,778

  2,259

  1,077

  852

  1,862

  485

  June

  7,448

  3,474

  795

  1,592

  2,051

  1,528

  1,802

  2,262

  1,090

  863

  1,886

  485

  September

  7,495

  3,503

  809

  1,591

  2,064

  1,540

  1,808

  2,268

  1,092

  873

  1,879

  493

  December

  7,552

  3,528

  819

  1,586

  2,093

  1,552

  1,817

  2,287

  1,099

  870

  1,878

  496

  Table B

  Total seasonally adjusted adult unemployment

  Thousands

  South East

  Greater London

  East Anglia

  South West

  West Midlands

  East Midlands

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  North West

  North

  Wales

  Scotland

  Northern Ireland

  1986

  June

  119·2

  404·6

  82·1

  203·4

  337·2

  197·2

  304·5

  437·6

  226·2

  174·9

  341·2

  125·7

  July

  778·5

  404·2

  82·6

  203·9

  337·0

  197·7

  304·3

  436·9

  225·9

  173·9

  343·0

  126·5

  August

  775·9

  403·5

  82·6

  203·3

  337·2

  198·2

  304·3

  434·9

  225·1

  172·9

  344·8

  127·4

  September

  769·2

  400·8

  81·9

  201·3

  334·9

  197·1

  302·5

  432·3

  223·2

  170·4

  345·4

  127·8

  October

  762·0

  397·5

  80·8

  199·6

  331·7

  196·1

  300·9

  428·3

  221·3

  169·0

  345·6

  128·1

  November

  755·5

  394·5

  80·7

  198·1

  331·3

  195·8

  299·1

  426·2

  221·6

  168·1

  346·5

  127·6

  December

  746·5

  390·5

  79·5

  195·3

  326·5

  193·4

  296·6

  422·7

  219·9

  166·0

  346·9

  127·4

  1987

  January

  744·0

  390·2

  79·6

  194·3

  324·9

  193·3

  295·3

  421·2

  218·9

  164·6

  348·6

  127·3

  February

  727·6

  381·6

  78·0

  191·1

  319·2

  191·3

  291·9

  416·3

  217·7

  161·5

  345·9

  126·1

  March

  716·1

  377·5

  77·0

  188·1

  316·1

  189·5

  293·5

  413·0

  216·2

  159·3

  343·3

  125·4

  April

  708·6

  373·5

  76·0

  186·9

  313·0

  189·3

  290·1

  410·8

  216·1

  158·6

  345·9

  126·0

  May

  692·8

  368·5

  74·0

  180·8

  305·8

  184·6

  281·7

  401·0

  211·9

  155·4

  336·8

  126·1

  June

  681·3

  362·9

  72·9

  179·2

  302·2

  182·8

  281·5

  398·9

  210·1

  154·1

  333·9

  125·5

  July

  668·0

  357·3

  71·3

  175·9

  296·4

  179·8

  276·2

  391·3

  206·3

  152·3

  330·7

  125·2

  August

  654·3

  351·0

  69·8

  172·7

  290·7

  176·3

  271·6

  385·5

  203·3

  150·8

  326·2

  124·6

  September

  639·8

  344·7

  68·1

  167·7

  284·2

  173·1

  266·9

  379·1

  200·9

  148·5

  320·3

  123·7

  October

  623·4

  338·4

  65·7

  162·9

  278·4

  169·1

  261·3

  372·0

  197·5

  145·2

  315·5

  122·7

  November

  603·9

  331·0

  62·7

  158·8

  272·0

  165·2

  256·3

  364·1

  193·5

  142·4

  311·3

  120·7

  December

  590·8

  326·2

  61·3

  156·7

  268·5

  163·1

  253·1

  360·6

  191·4

  140·2

  308·7

  119·7

  1988

  January

  572·9

  318·6

  59·6

  154·2

  262·5

  159·5

  248·8

  356·1

  188·5

  138·0

  306·2

  118·4

  February

  564·2

  318·0

  58·3

  151·8

  258·1

  158·2

  245·8

  351·2

  187·6

  136·8

  303·4

  117·2

  March

  557·1

  315·8

  57·0

  149·1

  254·8

  156·1

  243·4

  347·8

  187·0

  135·9

  300·1

  116·4

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to publicise successful prosecutions for unemployment benefit fraud in each region; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  While my Department encourages publicity for large-scale fraud drives, we generally do not actively seek publicity for individual successful prosecutions.

  Training Schemes
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the benefit position of adult claimants who leave the proposed new employment training scheme for adults before the end of their agreed training programme, in relation to their previous level of benefit; and in what circumstances an adult claimant will face benefit penalties for either refusing to join, or leaving a place early, in the proposed employment training scheme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  People who leave employment training early will be entitled to claim unemployment benefit or income support, provided that they meet the statutory conditions for entitlement to these benefits. The level of benefit of those who have previously received these benefits may alter if their circumstances have changed 172
  while on the programme. Refusal of a place on employment training or leaving the programme early will not in themselves be grounds for refusal of benefit.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Pharmaceutical Services
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will test the effectiveness of the pharmaceutical services in National Health Service hospitals by putting them out to tender.

  Mr. Newton
  We encourage health authorities to consider the possibilities for securing greater cost-effectiveness in the provision of all NHS services. Going out to tender for a particular service is one such possibility, but we have no central initiative in mind to extend the range of services subject to mandatory tender action.

  Southern Derbyshire District Health Authority
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how much money Southern Derbyshire district health authority has spent in local authority rates in each year from 1978–79 to the present.

  Mr. Newton
  Following is information derived from the annual accounts of the Southern Derbyshire health authority since its establishment on 1 April 1982:
  173

  Total expenditure on contributions in lieu of rates

  £000

  1982–83

  1,096

  1983–84

  1,204

  1984–85

  1,388

  1985–86

  1,416

  1986–871

  1,669

  1 latest available.

  Note:

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

  Rates
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the 10 district authorities in England with the highest percentage rate rises in the current year; and which of these authorities fall within the present criteria for possible rate capping.

  Mr. Newton
  Information on health authorities expenditure on contributions in lieu of rates is not collected in-year but is recorded in their annual accounts. Health authorities' annual accounts for the financial year 1987–88 are not due for submission to the Department until the end of June 1988 and information for that year will be available in the autumn.

  Acute Medical Care
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportion of the health budget is allocated to acute medical care.

  Mr. Newton
  Estimated gross expenditure on acute hospital services represented 45 per cent. of total spending on the hospital and community health services for 1985–86.

  Nurse Contact Rate
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the district nurse contact rate for the over 65s in Trafford, Sheffield, Manchester City, West Lambeth and Stockport health authorities.

  Mr. Newton
  The available information is given in the table. Information is collected centrally on the number of persons treated by district nurses but not on the total number of treatments given.

  Number of persons and percentage of population, aged 65 and over, treated by district nurses during 1986

  District health authority

  Number of persons treated

  Percentage of population treated

  Trafford

  7,744

  23·4

  Sheffield

  16,066

  17·5

  Manchester Central

  2,315

  13·6

  West Lambeth

  1,426

  6·1

  Stockport

  8,942

  20·9

  Source: DHSS form LHS 27/3

  Disabled Persons (Rayner Scrutiny)
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to publish the results of 174
  the Rayner scrutiny on the supply and use of home equipment issued to temporarily or permanently disabled people in the community, commissioned by his Department in 1986.

  Mr. Newton
  This is currently under consideration.

  Consultant Urologists
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many consultant urologists are working in each health authority in England and Wales.

  Mr. Newton
  Figures are not available for all district health authorities. Information about medical staff is collected by employing authorities, which, for consultants, means regional health authorities, district health authorities designated for teaching purposes, and special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals in England, and district health authorities in Wales. Such information as is available is set out in the table.

  Table: Numbers of Consultants in post in Urology at 30 September 19861 in England and Wales

  Region

  Number (total) including:—

  DHA

  Number

  Northern

  13

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  4

  Yorkshire

  14

  Leeds Western

  2

  Leeds Eastern

  2

  Trent

  17

  Leicestershire

  3

  Nottingham

  4

  Sheffield

  4

  East Anglian

  11

  Cambridge

  3

  North West Thames

  12

  Parkside

  2

  Riverside

  5

  North East Thames

  29

  Hampstead

  1

  Bloomsbury

  13

  City and Hackney

  2

  Tower Hamlets

  3

  South East Thames

  24

  West Lambeth

  4

  Camberwell

  3

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  4

  South West Thames

  14

  Wandsworth

  3

  Wessex

  10

  Southampton and South West

  Hampshire

  2

  Oxford

  6

  Oxfordshire

  1

  South Western

  11

  Bristol and Weston

  2

  West Midlands

  20

  Central Birmingham

  2

  Mersey

  10

  Liverpool Central

  4

  North Western

  22

  Central Manchester

  2

  South Manchester

  5

  Salford

  2

  SHAS for the London Postgraduate Teaching Hospitals

  Hospitals for Sick Children

  3

  Royal Marsden

  3

  Hammersmith and Queen Charlottes

  1

  Wales

  8

  Gwent

  1

  Mid-Glamorgan

  1

  South Glamorgan

  3

  West Glamorgan

  2

  Pembrokeshire

  1

  1 Including permanent paid, honorary and locum staff.

  Körner Information Forms
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is monitoring the time taken in filling out Körner information forms by physiotherapists and occupational therapists in(a) the Nottingham district health authority and (b) generally; and if he will make a statement on the cost effectiveness of such information gathering.

  Mr. Newton
  The Department is not monitoring the time taken to collect Körner information: this is a matter for authorities which are individually responsible for implementing Körner.

  A variety of systems are being used to collect data about physiotherapy and occupational therapy. The aim of collecting this and other information is to assist management and professional staff in ensuring that resources are effectively used. The cost-effectiveness of the work in the short-term will therefore depend on what it shows, and what is done with it.

  Electorates
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the 25 largest parliamentary constituencies by electorate, with their electorates; and what is the average constituency electorate on the current register.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is as follows:

  Parliamentary constituencies

  Electors on the 1988 Register

  Milton Keynes

  103,210

  Isle of Wight

  100,785

  East Hampshire

  90,013

  Huntingdon

  89,657

  Swindon

  89,138

  Westbury

  89,001

  Eastleigh

  88,994

  Devizes

  88,110

  Peterborough

  86,630

  South Colchester and Maldon

  86,493

  Cirencester and Tewkesbury

  86,219

  Wokingham

  85,427

  Ryedale

  85,380

  The Wrekin

  85,327

  Crosby

  84,766

  South Suffolk

  84,631

  North Colchester

  84,594

  North West Surrey

  84,343

  Dudley West

  84,329

  East Berkshire

  83,950

  Waveney

  83,830

  South West Cambridgeshire

  83,673

  Chelmsford

  83,604

  Horsham

  83,568

  North Wiltshire

  83,439

  Average constituency electorate

  United Kingdom

  67,237

  England

  69,689

  Schemes Under Construction

  Contract Dates Start

  Complete

  Estimated Completion

  Northern RHA

  Darlington Memorial Maternity Department

  7 March 1988

  7 May 1989

  7 May 1989

  Furness General Scheme 2 Phase 1

  6 April 1986

  21 July 1988

  5 September 1988

  Social Security Fraud
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking to publicise successful prosecutions for social security fraud in each region; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department has not normally sought publicity for successful prosecutions. Where inquiries are made by members of the press following their attendance at court, regional information officers assist on matters of fact.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what revenue has been received by his Department since 11 November 1987 from the payment of fees for subject access to personal records, pursuant to the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Mr. Portillo
  None. The Department does not charge a fee.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many applications under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984 for subject access to personal records held by his Department he has received since 11 November 1987.

  Mr. Portillo
  At the close of business on Friday 6 May 1988, 364 applications had been received.

  Consultants (Suspected Fraud)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many cases of suspected fraudulent claims by hospital consultants were investigated during 1987; in how many cases fraud was discovered; how much money was involved; and what further action is being taken to prevent further instances.

  Mr. Newton
  This information is not collected centrally. It is the responsibility of health authorities to carry out any necessary checks on claims submitted by all NHS employees, including consultants.

  NHS Capital Schemes
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list by regional health authority and special health authority all capital schemes costing over £1 million which are currently in progress; and if he will give the estimated date of completion.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is included in the table.
  177

  Schemes Under Construction

  Contract Dates Start

  Complete

  Estimated Completion

  Hartlepool DGH Scheme 3 Phase 2

  4 January 1988

  4 April 1990

  4 April 1990

  Royal Victoria Infirmary Scheme 1 Phase 5

  4 January 1988

  4 July 1991

  4 July 1991

  South Cleveland GH Hemlington Brokerage (D)

  8 February 1988

  8 October 1989

  8 October 1989

  South Shields General Scheme 3 Phase 1

  24 January 1987

  25 January 1990

  25 January 1990

  St. Georges Hospital Boilerhouse

  29 June 1987

  29 December 1988

  7 November 1988

  Westmoreland DGH Scheme 1 Phase 1

  7 September 1987

  7 September 1990

  7 September 1990

  Yorkshire RHA

  Castle Hill Hospital Surgical Development

  23 November 1987

  11 February 1990

  11 February 1990

  High Royds Hospital Upgrading of Six Wards

  2 June 1986

  2 November 1988

  2 November 1988

  Hull Royal Infirmary PGMEC

  2 November 1987

  30 April 1989

  30 April 1989

  Pontefract Day Surgical Unit

  24 August 1987

  17 February 1989

  31 December 1988

  Scarborough Geriatric Day Hospital and Wards

  25 May 1987

  26 November 1988

  26 November 1988

  Scunthorpe DGH Phase 3B A and E Block

  15 September 1986

  10 October 1988

  10 October 1988

  Scunthorpe DGH Phase 4A(2) Four Storey Block

  20 July 1987

  18 August 1989

  18 August 1989

  Seacroft Hospital Leeds EPD Wards

  4 January 1988

  2 January 1989

  2 January 1989

  Staincliffe DGH Pathology Department (Extns and Imps)

  9 March 1987

  13 March 1989

  13 March 1989

  Staincliffe DGH Phase 1 (Nucleus)

  7 January 1985

  6 July 1988

  3 August 1988

  Trent RHA

  Bassetlaw DGH Phase 2

  30 June 1986

  22 September 1989

  6 October 1989

  Doncaster Royal Infirmary Childrens Unit

  20 October 1986

  6 November 1988

  6 November 1988

  Doncaster Royal Infirmary Phase 2 Path. Lab.

  17 August 1987

  9 September 1989

  9 September 1989

  Glenfield DGH Phase 2

  11 May 1987

  7 April 1990

  25 May 1990

  Kendray-Sub Phase 2B-Mental Illness Unit/Esmi

  2 November 1987

  7 August 1989

  7 August 1989

  Kings Mill—Mortuary and Histopathology

  13 April 1987

  22 July 1988

  22 August 1988

  Leicester Royal Infirmary Phase 4B

  26 October 1987

  1 July 1990

  1 July 1990

  Louth County

  28 September 1987

  12 February 1989

  12 February 1989

  Montagu Mexborough Wards and Theatres

  3 February 1986

  9 May 1988

  4 July 1988

  Northern General Renal Unit

  8 February 1988

  21 July 1989

  21 July 1989

  Pilgrim Hospital (Boston) Support Services

  6 April 1987

  30 September 1988

  12 October 1988

  Sheffield Childrens Phase 1 Development

  14 April 1986

  6 May 1988

  October 1988

  East Anglian RHA

  Kings Lynn London Road Contract 2

  15 June 1987

  2 October 1988

  2 October 1988

  Northgate—Conv. of Maternity Unit to Geriatric

  8 June 1987

  2 January 1989

  2 September 1988

  North West Thames RHA

  Central Middlesex Psychiatric Unit

  18 November 1985

  16 November 1987

  31 March 1988

  Charing Cross G.U. Unit

  2 November 1987

  7 October 1988

  7 October 1988

  Clayponds Geriatric Unit (Nucleus)

  1 February 1987

  14 October 1988

  14 October 1988

  Colindale Psychogeriatric Hospital

  9 November 1987

  7 August 1989

  7 August 1989

  Edgware General Hospital

  28 October 1985

  1 July 1988

  1 July 1938

  Gossoms End Day Unit

  23 February 1987

  10 October 1988

  10 October 1938

  Hemel Hempstead Phase 2—Unit for the Elderly

  1 February 1988

  10 November 1989

  10 November 1939

  Lister Residential Accommodation

  12 March 1984

  10 June 1985

  10 June 1985

  Marjory Waren Medical Centre

  2 November 1987

  1 November 1988

  1 November 1938

  Mount Vernon Medical Block

  18 May 1987

  18 December 1987

  24 February 1938

  North London Blood Transfusion Centre—Enabling Weeks

  1 June 1987

  14 October 1988

  14 October 1988

  North London Blood Transfusion Centre

  1 June 1987

  14 October 1988

  14 October 1988

  OE 11 Reorganisation of Acute Facilities Phase 1

  3 August 1987

  26 November 1989

  26 November 1989

  St. Alban's Redevelopment of Main Phase

  17 November 1986

  23 January 1989

  31 January 1989

  St. Stephen's Aids Centre

  27 April 1987

  1 April 1988

  1 April 1988

  North East Thames RHA

  Barking Elderly Care Services Department

  April 1987

  December 1988

  10 February 1989

  Chingford M.I. Residential and Day Unit

  4 January 1988

  3 February 1989

  3 February 1989

  Clacton Community Hospital Phase 2

  1 December 1986

  28 February 1988

  17 May 1988

  East Ham Memorial Accommodation for Mentally Ill

  4 January 1988

  30 June 1989

  30 June 1989

  Harold Wood Phase 2 School of Nursing

  6 May 1986

  8 September 1987

  29 April 1988

  High Wood—Extension to Laurels

  27 April 1987

  8 July 1988

  21 September 1988

  London Hospital (Mile End)

  2 February 1987

  29 April 1989

  1 May 1989

  North Middlesex Geriatric and Catering

  17 March 1986

  16 March 1988

  16 June 1988

  Rochford Geriatric Wards

  June 1986

  March 1988

  27 June 1988

  St. Ann's Geriatric Unit

  3 August 1987

  27 January 1989

  31 March 1989

  St. Ann's M.I. Day Hospital and ESMI

  6 October 1986

  30 November 1987

  3 May 1988

  Whipps Cross Phase 1

  18 April 1988

  19 November 1990

  19 November 1990

  Whittington Redevelopment Phase 1

  2 November 1987

  13 August 1990

  13 August 1990

  South East Thames RHA

  Eastbourne New DGH Phase 2

  23 June 1986

  31 December 1988

  31 December 1988

  Faversham Hospital Geriatric Wards

  2 March 1987

  2 June 1988

  2 June 1988

  Hastings DGH Pre-phase Works

  23 June 1986

  22 December 1987

  16 February 1988

  Medway DGH Phase 38

  6 October 1986

  31 March 1989

  14 June 1989

  R.V.H. Folkestone Phase 2

  2 March 1987

  25 November 1988

  25 November 1988

  Regional Distribution Centre

  17 December 1987

  13 October 1988

  13 October 1988

  178 179

  Schemes Under Construction

  Contract Dates Start

  Complete

  Estimated Completion

  St. Thomas' Hospital—South Wing

  1 June 1987

  31 May 1989

  31 May 1989

  South West Thames RHA

  Bognor Community Hospital

  1 February 1988

  30 July 1990

  30 July 1990

  Crawley Hospital Phase 4

  13 October 1986

  12 August 1988

  April 1988

  Earls Court Ambulance Station

  28 September 1987

  27 February 1989

  27 February 1989

  East Surrey DGH Phase 2 Frame Contract

  23 November 1987

  22 May 1990

  22 May 1990

  Horsham Hospital Mental Illness Unit

  7 September 1987

  7 June 1989

  7 June 1989

  Mid Sussex Phase 1

  14 July 1986

  13 July 1989

  30 November 1989

  Royal Surrey County Guildford Phase 2

  1 September 1986

  30 November 1989

  30 November 1989

  St. George's Phase 2 A and E Extension

  9 November 1987

  14 August 1988

  14 August 1988

  Wessex RHA

  Bournemouth DGH—Phase 1 (Nucleus)

  6 August 1984

  6 May 1987

  4 August 1988

  Odstock Hospital Salisbury—Phase 1 (Nucleus)

  4 January 1988

  24 May 1991

  24 May 1991

  Poole General Hospital—ESNI Assessment Unit—Day Hospital

  20 July 1987

  19 July 1989

  19 July 1989

  Royal United Bath—Operating Theatres

  28 November 1985

  14 February 1989

  7 March 1989

  St. Ann's Canford Cliffs—Extension Contract 1

  19 October 1987

  10 July 1989

  27 July 1989

  St. Martin's Bath Geriatric Wards

  27 May 1987

  8 March 1989

  8 March 1989

  St. Mary's Portsmouth

  24 August 1987

  22 November 1989

  22 November 1989

  St. Mary's—Isle of Wight—Phase 38 (Nucleus)

  28 October 1985

  11 September 1988

  14 May 1989

  Westbury Replacement of Sambourne Hospital

  4 January 1988

  21 May 1989

  21 May 1989

  Oxford RHA

  Buckingham—Phase 1

  23 November 1987

  25 October 1989

  25 October 1989

  Heatherwood Catering Pharmacy Workshops and Stores

  7 December 1987

  31 August 1989

  31 August 1989

  John RadclifTe Hospital—Phase 3

  26 May 1987

  25 November 1988

  25 November 1988

  Kettering—New Theatres and Spencer Ward

  20 July 1987

  9 January 1989

  9 January 1989

  Milton Keynes DGH—NI Unit

  18 May 1987

  14 April 1989

  14 April 1989

  Stoke Mandeville—OPD—Hospice

  4 January 1988

  3 July 1989

  3 July 1989

  Stoke Mandeville—Pathology

  5 October 1987

  3 February 1989

  3 February 1989

  Wexham Park—Rehabilitation Unit

  19 November 1986

  17 August 1988

  17 August 1988

  South Western RHA

  Cheltenham General Phase 18

  19 August 1985

  16 May 1988

  1 August 1988

  Cirencester Memorial Replacement and ESNI Beds

  6 January 1986

  15 August 1988

  30 April 1988

  Frenchay DGH Phase 1

  7 July 1986

  3 March 1989

  14 July 1989

  Glenside Sub—regional Secure Unit

  5 January 1987

  5 July 1988

  5 July 1988

  Gloucester Royal Phase 4B

  7 April 1986

  13 January 1989

  13 January 1989

  South Molton Hospital Geriatric and GP Unit

  24 February 1986

  19 February 1988

  6 April 1988

  Southmead Hospital—Pathology Phase 1

  16 March 1987

  27 March 1989

  27 March 1989

  Torbay DGH Geriatric Wards

  1 February 1988

  18 August 1989

  18 August 1989

  Williton New Geriatric Hospital

  24 November 1986

  26 August 1988

  26 August 1988

  West Midlands RHA

  Bromyard Community Hospital

  16 June 1986

  4 September 1988

  13 May 1988

  Burton (Outwoods) Psychiatric/Temporary Maternity

  22 September 1986

  19 March 1988

  2 June 1988

  Burton on Trent DGH (Central Production Unit)

  13 October 1986

  27 May 1988

  27 May 1988

  City General Stoke Surgical Accomm. (Nucleus)

  11 March 1985

  2 September 1988

  4 September 1988

  Dudley—Guest Rehabilitation Unit

  6 April 1987

  6 October 1988

  6 October 1988

  Edward Street—Psychiatric/Geriatric

  1 September 1986

  28 November 1988

  8 December 1988

  Good Hope Phase 2

  6 January 1986

  1 February 1988

  31 May 1988

  Good Hope Phase 3A

  7 July 1986

  3 January 1988

  30 April 1988

  Queen Elizabeth Birmingham—Phase 3 Contract 1

  7 April 1986

  31 July 1988

  1 September 1988

  Telford DGH Phase 1 (Nucleus)

  26 November 1984

  26 May 1988

  31 June 1988

  Walsall Phase 4A and 4B (Nucleus)

  7 January 1985

  7 July 1988

  2 October 1988

  Mersey RHA

  Alder Hey Paed. Cardiology and Inst. of Child Health

  18 March 1985

  18 September 1987

  April 1988

  Broadgreen Development Phase 1 (Nucleus)

  6 January 1986

  4 January 1988

  31 May 1988

  Clatterbridge Medical Unit (Nucleus)

  October 1986

  September 1988

  4 October 1988

  Fazakerley Hospital Acute M.I. Unit

  11 May 1987

  3 June 1988

  8 July 1988

  St. Helens Redevelopment Phase 1 Boiler House

  7 April 1986

  3 January 1988

  30 July 1988

  Warrington DGH Phase B (Nucleus)

  17 March 1986

  30 April 1988

  30 April 1988

  North Western RHA

  Chorley DGH Geriatric Unit

  29 June 1987

  25 December 1988

  24 January 1989

  Fairfield Phase 1

  5 July 1985

  1 February 1988

  15 April 1988

  Manchester Royal Infirmary Catering Block

  1 September 1987

  27 November 1989

  22 May 1989

  Manchester Royal Infirmary Phase 2

  14 July 1986

  13 January 1990

  5 January 1990

  Manchester Royal Infirmary Service Complex

  1 September 1986

  23 September 1988

  23 September 1988

  Oldham DGH Phase 1

  11 February 1985

  7 February 1988

  16 March 1988

  Queens Park Blackburn Phase 1 Paediatric

  4 June 1984

  4 June 1986

  18 March 1987

  Royal Preston Pathology Phase 2

  28 September 1987

  28 November 1989

  28 November 1989

  Whelley Hospital Phase 1

  26 May 1987

  24 November 1989

  24 November 1989

  180 181

  Schemes Under Construction

  Contract Dates Start

  Complete

  Estimated Completion

  Non RHA

  Blood Products Manufacturing Unit Elstree

  1 May 1983

  1 November 1985

  30 April 1988

  Great Ormond Street Boiler Plant Replacement

  18 August 1986

  30 June 1988

  30 June 1988

  Hammersmith Hospital Redevelopment Phase 1

  September 1985

  May 1988

  31 March 1988

  Maudsley Hospital Redevelopment Phase 1A

  1 June 1987

  23 October 1988

  21 November 1988

  Moorsfields Eye Hospital—Redevelopment Phase 2B

  5 February 1988

  National Heart and Chest Centre Brompton Phase I

  2 March 1987

  23 July 1989

  23 July 1989

  Total number of schemes = 134

  National Insurance Liability
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he is taking to prevent the avoidance of national insurance contribution liability through the payment of earnings in gilt.

  Mr. Portillo
  There has been an increase in the practice of paying part of remuneration in gilts to directors and other highly paid personnel. This is a device which avoids national insurance contribution liability. I have therefore today laid before the House regulations (The Social Security (Contributions) Amendment (No. 3) Regulations 1988) withdrawing the exemption from national insurance contributions which currently applies to gilts and other debt instruments. The regulations will have effect from tomorrow.

  Hospital qualified midwives13 At 30 September of each year

  Whole-time equivalent2

  Region

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Northern

  671

  904

  880

  987

  1,017

  1,039

  Yorkshire

  826

  994

  1,056

  1,102

  1,133

  1,182

  Trent

  867

  1,268

  1,205

  1,216

  1,275

  1,295

  East Anglian

  456

  532

  511

  549

  550

  575

  North West Thames

  765

  906

  876

  903

  926

  947

  North East Thames

  930

  1,108

  1,188

  1,185

  1,208

  1,197

  South East Thames

  914

  1,006

  1,052

  1,056

  1,053

  1,114

  South West Thames

  638

  743

  737

  771

  791

  773

  Wessex

  667

  789

  785

  806

  819

  823

  Oxford

  497

  640

  691

  710

  728

  757

  South Western

  526

  712

  762

  766

  795

  819

  West Midlands

  1,020

  1,264

  1,400

  1,522

  1,579

  1,621

  Mersey

  525

  704

  700

  699

  715

  751

  North Western

  1,080

  1,296

  1,388

  1,379

  1,456

  1,474

  London Post-Graduate Special Health Authorities

  99

  164

  174

  147

  174

  178

  England Total

  10,480

  13,028

  13,403

  13,795

  14,219

  14,543

  Hospital qualified midwives employed in special care baby units1 at 30 September of each year

  Whole-time equivalent2

  Region

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Northern

  29

  29

  33

  37

  37

  41

  Yorkshire

  35

  41

  59

  74

  88

  99

  Trent

  79

  91

  87

  83

  71

  71

  East Anglian

  37

  28

  22

  18

  26

  32

  North West Thames

  53

  61

  59

  56

  57

  62

  North East Thames

  39

  42

  45

  49

  53

  58

  South East Thames

  16

  28

  34

  56

  91

  70

  South West Thames

  24

  28

  24

  24

  40

  34

  Wessex

  28

  38

  46

  46

  44

  59

  Oxford

  18

  24

  37

  47

  40

  46

  South Western

  59

  46

  57

  54

  63

  70

  182
  Further action will be taken if it appears that other securities are being used to avoid national insurance contribution liability.

  Health Authorities (Staff)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will list for England and for each regional health authority for each year since 1981 the number of whole-time equivalent qualified midwives working(a) in hospital maternity units, (b) in special care baby units, (c) o in education and (d) as community midwives;

  (2) if he will list for England for each regional health authority for each year since 1981 the number of whole-time equivalent nurses working in (a) hospital maternity units and (b) special baby care units.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 26 April 1988]: The information requested is given in the tables.
  183

  Region

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  West Midlands

  27

  69

  70

  79

  100

  112

  Mersey

  51

  53

  47

  52

  52

  47

  North Western

  59

  63

  74

  91

  90

  109

  London post-graduate special health authorities

  —

  25

  19

  9

  11

  11

  England Total

  553

  667

  712

  773

  862

  921

  Hospital qualified midwives employed in education1 at 30 September of each year

  Whole-time equivalent2

  Region

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Northern

  24

  26

  29

  29

  32

  32

  Yorkshire

  47

  48

  44

  46

  48

  49

  Trent

  46

  44

  48

  48

  50

  53

  East Anglian

  15

  19

  21

  22

  23

  25

  North West Thames

  32

  36

  47

  46

  48

  48

  North East Thames

  52

  47

  61

  54

  59

  53

  South East Thames

  46

  47

  48

  48

  48

  75

  South West Thames

  30

  30

  34

  36

  29

  26

  Wessex

  25

  31

  31

  31

  39

  41

  Oxford

  24

  24

  24

  25

  26

  31

  South Western

  25

  28

  37

  39

  37

  35

  West Midlands

  48

  48

  58

  53

  59

  55

  Mersey

  32

  32

  30

  28

  27

  38

  North Western

  54

  55

  61

  70

  73

  64

  London Post-Graduate Special Health Authorities

  6

  7

  7

  5

  7

  7

  England Total

  506

  521

  580

  581

  605

  631

  Community midwives1 at 30 September of each year

  Whole-time equivalent2

  Region

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Northern

  221

  219

  228

  238

  245

  253

  Yorkshire

  260

  267

  288

  310

  323

  323

  Trent

  442

  452

  463

  472

  471

  475

  East Anglian

  194

  201

  217

  216

  221

  218

  North West Thames

  174

  194

  195

  205

  212

  230

  North East Thames

  240

  237

  250

  249

  262

  279

  South East Thames

  231

  249

  263

  285

  293

  316

  South West Thames

  168

  163

  169

  184

  195

  206

  Wessex

  165

  178

  194

  214

  224

  222

  Oxford

  168

  160

  163

  172

  191

  191

  South Western

  134

  138

  170

  178

  213

  217

  West Midlands

  419

  428

  452

  449

  495

  489

  Mersey

  217

  221

  227

  236

  237

  244

  North Western

  373

  395

  435

  445

  458

  466

  London post-graduate special health authorities

  —

  2

  1

  6

  —

  —

  England Total

  3,406

  3,504

  3,713

  3,858

  4,041

  4,127

  Nursing staff working in hospital maternity units1 4 30 September: 1981 to 1986

  Whole-time equivalent2

  Region

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Northern

  681

  663

  648

  616

  617

  589

  Yorkshire

  904

  945

  812

  753

  757

  722

  Trent

  1,120

  1,116

  1,083

  1,031

  992

  972

  East Anglian

  426

  423

  426

  435

  421

  424

  North West Thames

  611

  648

  593

  605

  583

  574

  Norh East Thames

  782

  838

  694

  666

  623

  596

  South East Thames

  797

  812

  770

  740

  731

  727

  South West Thames

  532

  450

  438

  412

  376

  398

  Wessex

  574

  543

  508

  494

  506

  493

  Oxford

  519

  559

  450

  491

  473

  464

  South Western

  798

  739

  620

  606

  576

  555

  West Midlands

  1,421

  1,451

  1,264

  1,138

  1,134

  1,137

  Mersey

  561

  559

  507

  487

  485

  474

  North Western

  965

  1,025

  922

  914

  853

  847

  184 185

  Region

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  London post-graduate special health authorities

  68

  134

  111

  130

  123

  124

  England Total

  10,759

  10,904

  9,844

  9,518

  9,250

  9,096

  Nursing staff worKing in special care baby units1 30 september: 1981 to 1986

  2Whole-time equivalents

  Region

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Northern

  82

  88

  95

  104

  114

  119

  Yorkshire

  49

  64

  77

  106

  122

  122

  Trent

  187

  245

  277

  265

  275

  282

  East Anglian

  84

  84

  86

  80

  88

  92

  North West Thames

  90

  80

  98

  112

  127

  137

  North East Thames

  36

  55

  63

  71

  63

  63

  South East Thames

  45

  71

  106

  125

  148

  145

  South West Thames

  45

  48

  59

  63

  57

  62

  Wessex

  56

  66

  69

  90

  110

  112

  Oxford

  62

  85

  70

  100

  104

  116

  South Western

  100

  112

  132

  135

  135

  121

  West Midlands

  101

  204

  201

  226

  274

  278

  Mersey

  80

  103

  90

  86

  85

  74

  North Western

  79

  103

  145

  160

  166

  186

  London post-graduate special health authorities

  1

  16

  14

  27

  29

  28

  England Total

  1,096

  1,423

  1,581

  1,750

  1,897

  1,937

  Source: DHSS Annual Census of NHS Non-Medical Manpower.

  1 Excludes students and agency staff.

  2 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest whole-time equivalent.

  3 Includes staff employed in Education and Special Care Baby Units.

  4 Includes staff in Special Care Baby Units.

  District Health Authorities (Costs)
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he proposes to take in the light of the significant variations between different district health authorities in the percentage of their total expenditure taken up by administrative and clerical costs; to what factors he attributes these variations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 29 April 1988]: I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) on 3 May at columns 490–98 which gave individual regional health authority and district health authority administrative and clerical staff figures together with cost and cost relative to population.

  Costs, particularly the costs relative to population for individual districts, can be influenced by a number of factors: (a) the presence or absence of regional services such as blood transfusion or ambulance services and regional specialties; (b) people crossing district boundaries for treatment and sub-regional resource allocations reflecting the pattern of service provision locally; (c) the fact that the population figures used are for resident population and make no allowances for differences in morbidity and age-sex structure of particular populations; (d) the payment of London weighting allowance to staff employed in relevant authorities within the four Thames regions.

  Baby Intensive Care Units (Leeds)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many special and intensive care units for babies have had(a) the number of beds reduced and (b) wards closed, in the Leeds Western health authority for each of the past five years;

  (2) what is the total number of places in special and intensive care units for babies in the Leeds Western health authority; and what was the corresponding figure for 1983.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 3 May 1988]: Leeds Western health authority is responsible for the provision of the health services indicated but I am advised that in 1983 there were 29 special care baby unit cots available at the Leeds maternity hospital and four neonatal intensive care cots at the general infirmary. These services transferred to the Clarendon wing at the general infirmary in 1983. Improved facilities and changes in medical practice have resulted in a different bed mix. There are currently 20 SCBU cots, six neonatal intensive care cots, and seven "transitional care beds" which are associated with more intensive nursing than would usually be required: a total, as in 1983, of 33. For further details the hon. Member may wish to approach the chairman of Leeds Western health authority.

  Statistical Bulletins
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish a list of each of the statistical bulletins published by his Department, the title, date, number of copies printed, number of copies distributed free of charge to Government, National Health Service and other users, and the numbers sold so far and the price.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 5 May 1988]: The information requested has been placed in the Library. The sales figures are the numbers sold up to the end of April 1988.

  British Pensioners (Canada)
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will place in the Library a copy of his reply to the letter of 17 December 1987 from the Minister of Health and Welfare of Canada, the right hon. Jack Epp, regarding British pensioners resident in Canada; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 5 May 1988]: The Canadian Minister of Health and Welfare, Mr. Jack Epp, wrote to the then Secretary of State for Social Services on 17 December 1986 about British pensioners resident in Canada. A reply was sent on his behalf by my noble Friend, the Baroness Trumpington, on 13 February 1987. I have arranged for a copy of this letter to be placed in the Library.

  This letter refers to another reply from the noble Baroness to a letter from Mr. Brian Howe, the Australian Minister for Social Security, on the same issue. As the two are complementary I have arranged for a copy of that letter to be placed in the Library also.

  Tinnitus
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the total amount which has been allocated during the current financial year for research into the condition known as tinnitus by his Department.

  Table: Senior hospital doctors: (England) (Whole-time equivalent) per 100,000 in-patient cases treated

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  England

  222

  220

  222

  227

  220

  218

  215

  217

  Northern

  217

  214

  220

  236

  223

  220

  220

  220

  Yorkshire

  188

  181

  188

  194

  183

  178

  177

  178

  Trent

  201

  200

  197

  206

  198

  198

  195

  200

  East Anglia

  239

  224

  228

  242

  231

  228

  229

  226

  North West Thames

  253

  251

  256

  242

  243

  239

  241

  240

  North East Thames

  236

  234

  238

  244

  238

  232

  239

  240

  South East Thames

  231

  234

  234

  232

  231

  223

  212

  220

  South West Thames

  246

  249

  250

  250

  244

  238

  238

  245

  Wessex

  216

  213

  208

  216

  211

  214

  214

  208

  Oxford

  216

  214

  216

  230

  224

  231

  228

  233

  South Western

  211

  213

  215

  218

  213

  209

  206

  205

  West Midlands

  217

  215

  216

  220

  213

  209

  206

  212

  Mersey

  210

  214

  211

  216

  207

  205

  203

  202

  North Western

  198

  203

  204

  212

  206

  206

  200

  203

  SHAs and BGs

  372

  376

  372

  387

  392

  408

  399

  405

  Notes to the Table

  (1) Includes permanent paid, honorary and locum staff in the grades of consultants, associate specialists and hospital practitioners within
  188
  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 6 May 1988]: I understand that the Medical Research Council, the main Government agency responsible for the promotion of medical and related biological research, and which receives its grant-in-aid from the Department of Education and Science, is funding some research into this condition and spent some £131,000 in 1986–87, the latest year for which information is available. Details are available in the MRC handbook, a copy of which is in the Library.

  The Department is not currently funding any research into tinnitus and has not allocated funds for such research in 1988–89.

  Taxes and Benefits
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his latest estimate of the numbers of working single people and of earners with dependent families who will have marginal rates of tax and benefit withdrawal in excess of 70 per cent. in 1988–89; and what will be the combined total number of people in that situation, including earners and their dependants.

  Mr. Scott
  [pursuant to his reply, 25 March 1988, c. 244–46]: On the basis of the figures set out in my previous reply the total numbers attached to tax units, where the head might face a combined marginal rate of tax payment and benefit withdrawal in excess of 70 per cent., is estimated to be no more than 2 million.

  Senior Doctors
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list for each regional health authority the number of senior doctors per 100,000 in-patients treated for each year since 1979 to the latest available date.

  Mr. Newton
  [pursuant to his reply, 21 April 1988, c. 548–50]: I regret that some of the information provided was incorrect. The correct information is set out in the table.
  189
  the medical specialties.

  (2) All figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number of the whole-time equivalent.

  (3) Because of the NHS restructuring in 1982 figures on in-patient cases treated for the four Thames regions and special health authorities are not strictly comparable over the whole period.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Mentally Handicapped People (Training)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State foe Northern Ireland if he will list by unit of management the number of training places for mentally handicapped and mentally ill patients under the four health and social sevices boards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  Training under the health and social services boards for mentally handicapped and mentally it patients comprises work-orientated activities, often linked to social skills programmes, conducted in specialist statutory facilities under the supervision of board staff For the mentally handicapped, training places arc provided in workshops, adult training centres and social education centres in the community and in day care unit' in mental handicap hospitals. For the mentally ill training is provided in industrial therapy units attached to the psychiatric hospitals. The table relates only to training provided by the statutory sector. The places shown include not only those specifically provided for the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped, but those in multi-client workshops in the community which are taken up by the mentally ill. The latest date for which central statistics are held on available training is 31 December 1986.

  In regard to the mentally ill client group living in the community a very considerable amount of training is, already provided, and more is planned by Industrial Therapy Organisation Ltd., a voluntary body supported by both regional and local statutory funding.

  The four health and social services boards are committed to a continuing assessment of the needs for training of the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped. particularly in the context of the increasing emphasis on helping these two client groups to lead as independent and fulfilling lives as possible within the community.

  Health and social services board and unit of management

  Places for the mentally handicapped

  Places for the mentally ill

  Eastern

  Down

  60

  East Belfast and Castlereagh Community

  130

  220

  Lisburn

  120

  Muckamore Abbey Hospital

  230

  North Down and Ards

  100

  North and West Belfast Community

  200

  8

  Purdysburn Hospital South Belfast Community

  211

  85

  Northern

  Antrim and Ballymena

  120

  220

  Coleraine, Ballymoney and Moyle

  55

  Lame and Carrickfergus

  220

  Magherafelt and Cookstown

  50

  Southern

  Armagh and Dungannon

  150

  131

  Craigavon and Banbridge

  100

  50

  Newry and Mourne

  27

  20

  190

  Health and social services board and unit of management

  Places for the mentally handicapped

  Places for the mentally ill

  Western

  Fermanagh

  74

  10

  Londonderry, Limavady and Strabane

  244

  120

  Omagh

  75

  88

  TOTAL

  2,166

  952

  Maintained Schools (Insurance Costs)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if grant provision to maintained schools allows for insurance costs for these properties.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Yes.

  Museums
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the present valuation of(a) property and (b) exhibits at the Ulster museum, Stranmillis, Belfast, and the Ulster Folk and Transport museum at Cultra.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what assessment he has made of the implications for employment levels at museums in Northern Ireland of current proposals to privatise services there; if he will defer those proposals; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the implications of privatising services at museums in Northern Ireland for the security of property and exhibits, with particular reference to the risk of bogus firms with paramilitary connections seeking to tender for contracts; and if he will make a statement;

  (3)what is the estimated value of annual savings to be made in public expenditure at (a) the Ulster museum, Stranmillis, and (b) the Ulster Folk and Transport museum, Cultra, from proposals to contract out catering, cleaning and security work.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The assessment of the implications for employment levels, the security of property and exhibits and the value of savings likely to be achieved are an integral part of an exercise which I have asked the trustees to undertake. The intention is that they should evaluate the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of contracting-out to competitive tender their cleaning, catering, security and warding services and to submit proposals.

  Potatoes
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland plans to introduce a potato stock feed scheme in the immediate future.

  Mr. Viggers
  No.
  191
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what criteria are required by the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland for the implementation of a potato stock feed scheme in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Viggers
  Under an agreement with the Ulster Farmers Union, the Government are obliged to use their best endeavours to ensure that the Northern Ireland market price over the season as a whole does not finish lower than the target price for potatoes for human consumption. For the 1987 crop the target price for ware potatoes is £46 per tonne.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the extent of the surplus of potatoes on the Northern Ireland potato market during the period September 1987 and March 1988.

  Mr. Viggers
  This information is not available, but any surplus would not appear to be substantial since average growers' prices remain above the 1987–88 target price.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what change there has been in the quantities of potatoes being exported from Northern Ireland since September 1987; what quantities were exported between September 1987 and March 1988; and what were the comparable figures for the two previous 12-month periods.

  Mr. Viggers
  The information requested, which relates to exports of seed and ware potatoes from Northern Ireland to Great Britain and foreign destinations, is as follows:

  '000 tonnes

  September 1987 to March 1988 (inclusive)

  90

  September 1986 to March 1987 (inclusive)

  88

  September 1985 to March 1986 (inclusive)

  73

  Labour Statistics
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement, giving figures for the last convenient period, of the fall in unemployment and provision of new jobs in the Province.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 5 May 1988]: Trends in unemployment in Northern Ireland over the last year have been very encouraging. Seasonally adjusted unemployment (excluding school leavers) decreased by 9,000
  192
  between March 1987 and March 1988 and has fallen in all but two of the past 17 months. This has been matched by improved results from the industrial development agencies. Between them the Industrial Development Board and the Local Enterprise Development Unit promoted 9,347 new jobs during the year ended 31 March 1988, compared to 8,431 in the previous year.

  GCSE
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give the cost of collection of GCSE assessments by Securicor during the week ended 29 April; whether the written papers will be transported by the postal system; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 9 May 1988]: These matters are the responsibility of the various examining bodies.

  Artificial Insemination Service
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications were submitted in response to the invitation to acquire the artificial insemination service; whether the successful applicant submitted the higher offer; what other factors and criteria were considerations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 9 May 1988]: The Department of Agriculture sought applications from organisations which wished to be considered for the grant of the licence to provide an AI service for cattle producers in Northern Ireland and no acquisition as such was involved. This was in accordance with a decision that the Department should disengage from provision of the AI service at 30 September 1988. Organisations with interest and potential capability were invited by public advertisement to apply for the licence. Acquisition of the Department's assets was not a requirement for grant of the licence.

  Four applications were received. In assessing the applications, the main factors and criteria were commitment to the cattle production sector, financial resources, operational proposals, managerial resources, breeding policy and semen procurement provisions. The application by AI Services (NI) Society Ltd. was deemed the most suitable.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Gloucester.
The Earl of St. Germans The Earl of St. Germans—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Air Traffic: Runway Capacity
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking in the light of the recommendation of the Civil Aviation Authority Committee under the chairmanship of the chairman of the authority that a government lead in securing the provision of additional runway capacity in the South-East is required if British civil aviation is to maintain its position.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has asked officials to collaborate with the CAA and BAA in reviewing forecast air traffic demand and the capacity required to meet it.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that that is the best Answer to this Question that has been given for five years? However, before he absorbs too much self-congratulation from that, will he bear in mind that an early decision will inevitably be required because of the enormous time-lag between the decision to build a runway and an aeroplane landing on it?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's remark. However, it would be wrong to start with any preconceptions as to the possible results of the study. I therefore think that we shall have to wait and see.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, the Minister is right about not having preconceptions and not taking them for granted. Is he aware that on 18th February the House was told that the initiative on capacity would now rest quite definitely with the CAA and that government would not ignore it as they did in 1984? Is he further aware that the committee recommended that this was a matter of extreme urgency?
On the reply that the Minister has just given to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is it likely that the review will give a little more consideration to the development of British civil aviation and a little less to the environmental lobbies?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it is a little early to know what the review will produce. However, we shall have to take environmental considerations into
1122
account as well as the needs of civil aviation. The difficulty is always to match the two.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the CAA report, CAP 537, published only recently, stresses in Part 2 that increased runway capacity would lead to increased airspace use, the capacity for which is very limited? Part 3 of that report outlines a number of points which require urgent decision. There is no easy answer to providing airspace capacity. That is the important issue on which it says that the Government must take certain decisions.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord is referring to the evidence given by the CAA to the Select Committee in another place which is currently investigating air traffic control safety. Of course airspace capacity is of great importance. There are three factors: runway capacity; airspace capacity; and terminal capacity. All three have to be taken into account.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, even the Government must be aware of the criticism emanating from all quarters—from airlines and tour operators alike—of the one runway policy at Gatwick. Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question that I consider is very serious. Are the Government convinced that it is safe to rely on the emergency runway at Gatwick as the only one in use every night while the main runway is being repaired? Am I right to wonder whether only a disaster will move the Government and the BAA to do something about the matter?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, aviation safety is a matter for the CAA. It is satisfied that the use of the emergency runway during runway repairs at night time at Gatwick is satisfactory. On the point about a second runway for Gatwick, that is ruled out until 2019 by an agreement between the BAA and the county council. That is the answer on that point.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in the light of his last answer, is my noble friend aware that that is flatly contradicted by what has been said by successive Ministers to the effect that the agreement between the BAA and the West Sussex County Council does not bind Her Majesty's Government? Will he very urgently reconsider that answer?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my answer was that there was an agreement between the BAA and West Sussex County Council until 2019 which ruled out a second runway for Gatwick. I am afraid that that is correct.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that successive Ministers have said that the agreement did not rule it out because it was an undertaking that did not bind the Government? Will he give further thought to this?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, obviously I shall give further thoughts to that matter, but I do not think there is a chance of a second runway at Gatwick, for the time being any way.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, is the Minister aware that on several occasions in the House we have been told that the Government do not hold themselves responsible for the agreement that was reached without their knowledge and without their consent? Will he please answer my question, which was a most serious one? Do the Government believe that it is safe at Gatwick, at an airport that size, to rely on an emergency runway in use every night while the main runway is being repaired? Do they consider that that is safe for passengers?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I believe I have already answered that point. Yes, taking the advice of the Civil Aviation Authority, which is responsible for safety matters, we believe that it is safe for Gatwick to use its emergency runway at night.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am sorry to return again on this matter, but does the Minister agree that the important issue is not that of runway capacity, to which noble Lords have referred, but of finding a way to give additional runway space if possible, provided that there is sufficient safe airspace capacity? Does he agree that these two issues must be taken into consideration? The safety of airspace is as important as runway space.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. As I said in an earlier answer, airspace capacity is equally important to runway capacity. I assure the House that safety must be paramount in all our considerations.
Lord Walston: My Lords, will the noble Lord elucidate for people such as myself who are ignorant of these matters on who is actually responsible for air safety? Is it with the Government that ultimate responsibility lies, or has it been delegated by the Government to the CAA? Does the ultimate responsibility lie with the CAA? If it is the former, have the Government the power and the desire to overrule the CAA if they come to the conclusion that what the CAA does is not compatible with safety?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, civil aviation safety is the statutory responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority. We are confident that the CAA is well able to fulfil that role.

Deaf-Blind Children: Training
2.45 p.m.
Viscount Tonypandy Viscount Tonypandy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are taking steps to improve the facilities for the training of children who are without sight and hearing.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the Government are presently preparing a policy statement on the educational needs of deaf-blind children. We hope to publish this soon.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, in thanking the noble Baroness for the spirit of that reply, may I ask her whether she can confirm that there are over 1,000 of these children but that there are training places available for 100 only? Will she be kind enough to publish the replies to the questionnaire which her department sent to local authorities in 1986?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords. The questionnaire was sent to local authorities, with a deadline of February 1987, but we have only recently received some responses. Some 79 local education authorities, or 81 per cent., replied to the questionnaire and the results show that there were 696 deaf-blind children for whom those local education authorities had responsibility. That represents about one in 10,000 of the total school population in England. I have no doubt that some of the information collected in the questionnaires will be part of the statement to be published in due course.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, what steps are Her Majesty's Government taking to train young people to teach in this very delicate field of blind and deaf children?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Government are well aware of the concern and the need for training in this area. At present there are no training courses specifically for teachers of double-handicapped deaf-blind children. I understand that the University of Birmingham, with the help of a grant from the Leverhulme Trust, is developing teacher training in this area. But generally speaking it is a post qualification in-service training course that is appropriate in such cases.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister aware that on these Benches there is a great deal of concern and that we look forward to the publication of the policy statement, which we shall want to debate in your Lordships' House? Without underestimating the importance of the statutory role of DES and the local authorities, will she say a word about the work of the voluntary organisation SENSE, the National Deaf, Blind and Rubella Association, and especially its pioneering work at its new centre in Birmingham?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords. One of the problems in this area has been a lack of information, hence the need for the questionnaire and the gathering of information. Department officials have met representatives of SENSE on a number of occasions and most recently in the last month. They have made very helpful contributions to our consideration and we shall be keeping in close touch with them. We are most grateful for the role that they have played.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the paper to which she referred will also deal with speech therapists as an adjunct to appropriate education provisions under statute?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the purpose of the statement will be to deal with the children who have the double handicap of being both deaf and blind. This is a complex subject and will involve to some extent the consideration of speech therapy.

Education Act 1981: Implementation
2.50 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the latest measures they are introducing to implement fully the provisions of the Education Act 1981.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, all the provisions of the Education Act 1981 are in force. The Act lays upon local education authorities certain duties in respect of provision for children with special educational needs. It is for local education authorities to determine their own priorities for the level of resources to be made available for the purposes of the Act.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, what are the reasons for so little having been done practically to implement all the provisions of the Act?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that the Warnock Report estimated that it would take until the end of the century for all its recommendations to be fully implemented. All local education authorities are now operating the procedures introduced by the 1981 Act. Prior to the Act, base lines for special education provision varied significantly among local eduction authorities. Some of the variation persists as some local authorities push ahead at different rates with reviews of their provisions. However, all are doing something. Some are doing more than others.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that those involved in the teaching of children with disabilities and children with special education needs are deeply concerned that the Education Reform Bill cuts across the provisions of the 1981 Act?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we do not believe that the provisions of the new Bill diminish the effects of the 1981 Act in any way. It is intended that all children, including those with special education needs, will benefit from the provisions of the Bill. Much is already being done in this area in respect of teachers and teacher training.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, is the Minister aware that people are concerned about the alternative local financial provisions being made under the Education Reform Bill and that it will be more difficult for local authorities to find the resources necessary to carry out their duties under the 1981 Act? That will apply particularly if the ILEA is abolished.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, no; I do not agree with the conclusions of the noble Lord. The Government's plans for local authority spending on education for 1988–89, announced last November, represent a cash increase of 7·9 per cent. over the 1987–88 plans. That is in addition to the substantial increase of 18·3 per cent. for the previous year. The plans for special education in 1988–89 are 8·3 per cent. higher than the 1987–88 plans. That increase should help local education authorities to pursue their policy priorities for special education.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the concern of many parents of handicapped children about the length of time taken from the original application to the fulfilling of the statement?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are aware that problems have emerged in local authorities in certain areas. Of course, they are being kept under review.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, in view of the close link between this Question and the previous Question, will the Minister say whether the policy statement that she referred to in connection with Question No. 2 goes any wider than deaf-blind children? Does it deal with other disabilities? Can she give some idea as to when the statement is likely to be published?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the statement relating to the previous Question standing in the name of the noble Viscount will be issued fairly soon, though I cannot give a date. It relates specifically to double-handicapped children. However, the department will be undertaking a review of the 1981 Act later this year. That will take into account the outcome of research projects, the advice of HMI, together with the findings of last year's report of the House of Commons Select Committee on Education, Science and the Arts on children with special education needs.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many people will be reassured if more is written into the present Education Reform Bill as regards the needs of children with special education needs?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the noble Baroness and her friends have made sure that we are fully aware of this particular area as it is affected by the Education Reform Bill. We are still in the process of considering the comments and concerns that have been expressed.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the key to the problem is an inadequate supply of trained teachers? Will she agree that, probably without doubt, this is the most skilled and rewarding branch of teaching? Will the Government initiate a campaign to encourage teachers—especially young teachers—to undertake in-service training for the teaching of the disabled, including the unfortunate children mentioned by my noble friend Lord Tonypandy?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am well aware of the importance of teachers in this area; my mother was a teacher in a special school. Much has been done. The Government have established national priorities with funding at 70 per cent. grant level for in-service training in order to meet the special education needs of children with learning difficulties in schools. Priority areas include teachers of children with disabilities of sight or hearing, or with severe learning difficulties; designated teachers within ordinary schools; and the training of education psychologists.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the Minister agree that the first part of her Answer was rather odd because the Warnock Report was published before the 1981 Act? Perhaps she will look at her Answer again. Is she aware that the real reason such little progress has been made is the lack of a definite commitment on the part of the Government to the integration of handicapped children into what might be described as the normal education system? In those circumstances, will she consider as a matter of urgency convening a meeting of all interested parties to consider what immediate steps can be taken to implement the more important parts of the Act?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I understand that the 1981 Act was largely based on the Warnock Report; hence my reference to the comments in the report. The department intends to conduct a review during which consultation with a number of interested parties and organisations will take place.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that it is quite unacceptable that the Government should be rushing the Education Reform Bill through the House before the proposals relating to handicapped and other children who are suffering have been properly processed?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we have said on many occasions that the Education Reform Bill is a framework Bill. These considerations will be taken fully into account in the implementation of the Bill.

US Nuclear Weapons in UK
2.57 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government:
In the event of an accident to a United States nuclear weapon in this country, who would be in charge of emergency arrangements outside the site.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, in the extremely unlikely event of a United States nuclear weapon accident in this country, the United Kingdom would retain sovereign rights over its territory and territorial waters. A formal arrangement with the United States Government exists for this purpose.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, in view of the spate of press articles a month or two ago suggesting that some members of the relevant parts of the United States' administration believed that, if an accident should occur on one of its bases in this country, their first task would be to secure control—I repeat, secure control—outside the base, can the noble Lord go a little further and describe the arrangements that exist between this country and the United States as regards such an emergency on our sovereign territory?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, the arrangements are perfectly straightforward. The United Kingdom will retain sovereignty over its territory and territorial waters, as the noble Lord would expect. Therefore there is no question of the United States acquiring sovereignty,
1128
or something similar, if that is what the noble Lord fears.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, would not the ratification of the INF treaty by the United States Senate reduce the chances of a nuclear weapons accident in this country by removing land-based weapons? On behalf of the Government will the noble Lord confirm support for the INF treaty?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I greatly admire the noble Lord's ingenuity but I do not believe that the INF treaty arises from this Question.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that yesterday there were press reports of a Russian satellite with a nuclear engine being out of control? Has consideration been given to what will be done when that falls down, as is predicted?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I fear that I must say the same to my noble friend as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Irving. That is another Question and if he tables it I shall be happy to answer it.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I shall try to elicit an answer from the Government to my Question. The noble Lord has told us that the Government will retain national sovereignty over their territory; that is obvious. My Question referred to who would be in charge of emergency arrangements. I repeat it. Would the United States forces be in charge of emergency arrangements or would the British Government and forces be in charge of them?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the arrangements for taking charge of the emergency services in such a situation would be exactly as with any other emergency; namely, primarily the British police.

Business
3 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say a word about the arrangements for the short debates standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, and my noble friend Lord Ferrier. Owing to the small number of speakers it is not necessary to propose a formal time limit for either debate, but I know that the House would appreciate it if noble Lords would confine their speeches to the limits compatible with the spirit of these short debates.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, perhaps I may thank the Chief Whip for making that statement. He will be aware that there is considerable concern in the House about possible dangers to the health of noble Lords following reports of widespread illness among your Lordships and members of the staff. Therefore, I ask him whether the Government will make a Statement on this matter at the earliest possible opportunity.
Lord Denham: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government expect to be in a position to make a Statement later this afternoon.

House of Lords Offices, Leave of Absence and Lords' Expenses, Privileges, Procedure of the House, Selection: Select Committee Membership
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move the five Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper en bloc. They all have the same purpose; namely, to make alterations to the membership of some of the Select Committees of the House to take account of the recent changes in the leadership of the Social and Liberal Democratic? Party and the Social Democratic Party in this House.
Moved, That the Lord Jenkins of Hillhead and the Lord Walston be appointed members of the Select Committee in the places of the Baroness Seear and the Lord Diamond, resigned;
That the Lord Walston be appointed a member of the Select Committee in place of the Baroness Stedman, resigned;
That the Lord Jenkins of Hillhead and the Baroness Stedman be appointed members of the Select Committee in the places of the Baroness Seear and the Lord Diamond, resigned;
That the Lord Jenkins of Hillhead and the Lord Walston be appointed members of the Select Committee in the places of the Baroness Seear and the Lord Diamond, resigned; and
That the Lord Jenkins of Hillhead and the Lord Walston be appointed members of the Select Committee in the places of the Baroness Seear and the Baroness Stedman, resigned—(Lord Aberdare.)

NHS Nursing Staff
3.2 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy rose to call attention to the conditions of employment of nursing staff in the National Health Service; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, perhaps I may immediately express how deeply she regrets that she cannot participate in this debate as she would have liked. We all know the valuable and knowledgeable contribution which she could have made. She is not here because she is attending a nurses' event elsewhere.
Perhaps I may also explain that events have moved rather quickly since I tabled my Motion. It has been on the Order Paper for some time and the Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine has now submitted its report. There can be little doubt that we all agree—those of us who have had time to read it—that it is a momentous review and has been received with a great deal of happiness among all the professions involved in medical science.
Therefore, I believe that it behoves us to take a glance at some of the primary points in this review. When one examines it one realises the unhappiness in the past four years in the nursing profession at the rundown of the National Health Service, or at least
1130
what people thought was a rundown. The profession believed that we were in the worst possible situation, spending more on a service that was becoming worse. Therefore, this review is very welcome.
Perhaps it behoves us to take a cursory glance at the history of the nursing profession in this country. The nurse demand was first created over 100 years ago. Now, as then, the family provided its own nursing service. When a child is ill with the measles or whatever, it is the mother or elder child who is the nurse. Therefore, the family provided its own nursing service. It is fundamental for us to acknowledge that all forms of illness create a dependency. The sick need not only medical treatment but personal service. We have steadily moved to that in this country. Indeed, by the middle of the 19th century a group of women was developed with skill and knowledge in the care of the sick. They had been carefully selected and trained. In short, the nurse had emerged. Before that the situation was totally haphazard.
Now, as then, demand for the nurses' services increased with demand for medical services. It would be quite impossible in this House not to mention the magnificent role in furthering the cause of nurses of Miss Florence Nightingale, OM. She made bitter attacks on the quality of recruitment of nurses. She pointed out that those people recruited as nurses were poverty stricken themselves. It was the work of Florence Nightingale that had such a marked effect. Her description of some hospital wards was significant. The nurses' quarters in the wards were nothing more than wooden cages where they lived and cooked their own food. There is not much doubt that Miss Nightingale was the most influential reformer of her time. Certain ladies in the Department of Health and Social Security like Mrs. Currie might do well to take note now and then and to read a little about Miss Florence Nightingale, OM.
The range of doctor specialisations also has a valuable role, and they recognise the valuable role of the nurse and the health visitors. They include general practitioners, doctors practising in community medicine and community health—that is, family planning and child health clinics—those who are community physicians with health authorities, clinical medical staff, those contracted with universities to teach students, doctors working in our armed forces, in our Civil Service and in our occupational health services and those working for companies. In all those instances every doctor acknowledges that the nurse is invaluable.
The creation of the National Health Service enhanced the life of our nation and also enhanced the medical profession. The growth of professional and medical trade unions like the Whitley Council have also made a remarkable contribution. We now have this vital body, the Nursing and Midwifery Staffs Negotiating Council. There is very little said about it, but throughout the past 20 years it has been negotiating all sorts of conditions and pay. By and large it has gone unsung. The only time it is brought to anyone's notice is when there is a collision, and everyone regrets that.
Perhaps I may say that the evidence submitted by the staff of the council to this pay review body could bring about profound changes in the structure of nursing and midwifery. For the nursing profession it

1131
is the most striking contribution since the days of Miss Nightingale herself. The Confederation of Health Service Employees, which covers all grades of nurses and auxiliaries, considers that this report will constitute a most profound change in the nursing sevice. However, it is concerned about neighbourhood schemes and the emergence of nursing practitioners. It also feels that education has to be improved. It takes pride in the fact that we have maintained a free health service.
Likewise, the confederation says that there are masses of details which it has given in evidence and that is true, as anyone will see if he reads the report. This contribution by CoHSE is a work of factual statistics allied to prevailing conditions. Indeed, it is a valuable assessment of considerable scholarship, and I believe that CoHSE is to be congratulated. There has been research from the broad membership of nurses on pay conditions, the relevance of market forces, the role of comparability—equal pay for equal value—and relativities with other groups of the NHS staff. It is quite a remarkable contribution.
The Royal College of Nursing has done a superb job in submitting evidence. It says:
"The Royal College of Nursing believes that there is a growing problem of recruiting and retaining nursing staff within the NHS. Whilst we welcome the recent pay settlement"—
and so does CoHSE—
"and agree that this will help to resolve some of the staff shortages which have been highlighted, particularly in specialist areas, many problems still remain regarding the working conditions of nurses, and it is now urgent that action should be taken to alleviate the situation".
No Carlton Club proposals are acceptable to the Royal College of Nursing or the Confederation of Health Service Employees.
What is equally and vitally important is that the great and humane role played by our health visitors should be recognised and due acceptance and acknowledgement given to the remarkable contribution which they make. They wish the health service still to be funded from taxation. Like the Royal College of Nursing and CoHSE, the Health Visitors' Association believes that the health service must be free at the point of delivery. The association also supports the Royal College and CoHSE in that there should be decent rewards reflecting justice for health visitors as well as for other forms of nursing. There is one disappointment that each association feels ought to be mentioned. There has been no increase in London weighting for nurses. I ask the Minister to say whether the Government are prepared to look again at that point.
I wish to pass very briefly to some very important statements of the review board. It states, for example, that it appreciates that it may take some time to bring about the changes which it has recommended because the data for which it has asked, particularly at a time when new data have been introduced in the National Health Service, remain unsatisfactory. I hope the Minister will note that point. It is a superb report by the review body but it believes that the submission of the data that it required was unsatisfactory.
The review body continues by saying that there are important issues in themselves but that consideration
1132
of them has taken place during a wide-ranging public debate on the future of the National Health Service. This was prompted in part by growing concern about the problems of recruitment and the retention of key staff. The review body states:
"As Chapter 8 indicates, our recommendations will result in a substantial increase in the paybill. This flows largely from the exceptional circumstances associated with the introduction of the new clinical grading structure, which will affect the vast majority of the nurses, midwives and health visitors covered in our review".
There is one other aspect that I feel I should bring to your Lordships' attention. It worries the review board, it is worrying everyone in medicine and I feel sure that Ministers are equally concerned. This relates to midwifery and nursing posts in special care baby units. Those units are having some harassing moments because among the highest vacancy rates are posts for specialist nurses who can deal with special care baby units. Other specialities with average vacancy rates include mental illness nursing and nursing of the mentally handicapped. There we have it; and it is worth repeating. Special care baby units, mental illness nursing and mentally handicapped nursing are all suffering from a shortage of staff. Something should be done about that, and I hope that the Government are prepared to say that something will be done.
The staff side provided a reasonable breakdown, compiled from newspapers, of wards closed and beds lost as a result of the shortage of nursing staff in the period 31st August to October 1987. The survey indicated that there are shortages in all regions and that they are not confined to London and the South-East. The staff side also referred to the independent surveys carried out by the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives and the Health Visitors' Association. They found evidence of substantial shortages across the country. The Health Visitors' Association discovered that out of 105 districts where health visitors are urgently required, nearly 50 to 60 per cent. were short of health visitors' visits. Therefore, the Health Visitors' Association needs more help.
The review states:
"We are concerned that the Health Departments have been able to provide little detailed and up to date statistical evidence to support their statement that there is no general recruitment and retention problem for nurses".
All the professional organisations, every doctor, every specialist, every group of nurses say that there is a serious shortage. The only body which does not agree is the DHSS. I find this to be quite remarkable. It is a massive challenge for the DHSS to tell the Royal College of Nursing, the Confederation of Health Service Employees, the doctors, the British Medical Association and the Health Visitors' Association, "You are all wrong and we are right". My point has to be made forcibly. I wished to put it mildly but I feel very deeply about it.
The review states:
"The Health Departments said that there were no problems in the recruitment and retention of unqualified staff, and that those nursing auxiliaries and assistants who would be placed in grade A should receive no more than a relatively modest cost of living increase".
The review body states that it is folly—and I agree—for the department to make such a disgraceful statement. I hope that the Government will note that folly is often more cruel in consequence than malice

1133
can be in the intent. It would be awful for us to throw out the recommendations of this remarkable review.
There are many other matters which I can raise but I hope I have said enough. This review board has worked magnificently and it has provided a superb report. I hope that it will be the basis upon which the Government will see that the DHSS advances. It is on this basis that it must advance or it must reject what the board has said.
Britain's medical profession, together with the great advocacy of Aneurin Bevan, created the health service. If I may say so, they were well aided by his then PPS who is now in this House, my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington. He played a great role. At the time I was engaged on staff side work and I know what a magnificent part my noble friend played in assisting Aneurin Bevan in the creation of the National Health Service. We all know that they had to fight tooth and nail. The NHS Bill was fought clause by clause, line by line, amendment after amendment. At all phases of the parliamentary procedure it was opposed. When it was triumphant it became the envy of the world.
The point I wish your Lordships to note is that we created our NHS only a few years after the greatest war in history. For this nation of ours that in itself was a tremendous, civilised achievement. Britain's entire medical profession is a monument to civilised devotion and duty. It is an example of our capacity for practical and emotional concern for individual life, and that is the most significant quality of a civilised human being.
Perhaps I may be permitted to conclude with these words on behalf of all grades of Britain's nurses, male and female. Our nurses serve medicine and our people in the most sensitive area of human emotion—in the care of the sick and the suffering. They have a noble record and they deserve the support of this House. I hope that my short debate will give us an opportunity to pay a massive compliment to this noble profession for the assistance it gives to medicine and for the comfort it provides for the benefit and good of our nation.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.20 p.m.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, for the opportunity of discussing this important subject. It is customary to declare one's interest when making a speech in this House, and mine in this respect is quite simple. I love nurses. I have worked with them for more than 30 years, and my admiration and respect has if anything increased. In fact, I even married one, and I can recommend that to those who are considering such a step.
My view of nurses is not just a starry-eyed one of angels floating about, for it must be remembered—and it is an important point to bear in mind—that out of uniform a nurse is the product of her generation. Those now entering nursing aged between about 18 and 20, just like other 18 year-olds today, are doing many other things as well. I make this point because it does not help nurses if, apart from a proper respect for their professional activities,
1134
one tries to make them something special, which of course they are not, in all respects.
For example, a nurse like any other girl will look closely to her pay, her accommodation, her terms and conditions of service, the work interest with which she is presented, the type of discipline she has to undergo and the sensitivity with which she is managed and treated. Those are the factors she will consider in evaluating her job satisfaction and her happiness, or otherwise, with her lifestyle.
There has been a significant change over the past 20 years which particularly affects young girls. Perhaps I should point out that, although we often refer to nurses as being young girls, many nurses are male. I have to be careful because yesterday in this Chamber we were picked up about three times for referring to headmasters and not to headmistresses. Today one should make the point that a large minority of nurses are male, and very good nurses they are too.
There has been a change over the past 20 years. Many more opportunities are now presented to young school-leavers, especially young females, than was the case some years ago. It is comparisons of the kind I have just made that will dictate to a large extent who is recruited to what is an arduous profession requiring considerable discipline and commitment.
I shall not say much about pay because it has been very much in the public eye recently. The noble Lord, Lord Molloy, mentioned the report and asked one or two questions. I shall add one, if only to clarify a point. I refer to whether or not the conditions of the pay increase apply to community and district nurses as well as to other nurses. My understanding is that they do, but I should like confirmation from my noble friend. There has been a certain amount of apprehension on this point though I am not absolutely clear why that should have arisen.
I should like to turn to recruitment. It is often said that 30,000 nurses a year leave the National Health Service. That is a true statement, but as a bald statement it means nothing. A large number of those nurses are retiring or are leaving the profession for excellent reasons like getting married, having children and all the things that people do. It was no problem and was not raised very much in the previous 10 or 15 years for the very simple reason that on average we were then training between 25,000 and 30,000 nurses a year. We are not training that number of nurses now. Of the 25,000 nurses taken in for training—at least 1,000 were trained but did not register or did not work in the National Health Service—some 7,000 dropped out, which represents more than one-fifth and nearly a quarter of that total. There is a shortfall, and we must therefore look carefully at the question of recruitment.
Surely the shortages which the noble Lord mentioned are related not solely to the general level of recruitment but to specific areas and to specific training facilities within the profession. For example, five or 10 years ago paediatric intensive care, which the noble Lord mentioned, was hardly very extensive in the country. The one unit that trained these nurses provided more than enough. However, a sudden expansion by the medical profession in this field, a

1135
sudden burgeoning of the number of paediatric intensive care units around the country, has led to a shortage. It is inevitable.
It could be argued that we should not have expanded in that way and instead should have set up the nurse training establishments, then set up the anaesthetic training establishments, then increased the number of paediatric doctors and at last opened the units. Unfortunately, as most noble Lords will know from experience in their own fields, things do not happen in that way. One could say "Thank God they don't", because the result would have been half as good as it actually has been. So despite some of the high decibel complaints, if I may so describe them, that were launched by the noble Lord, some of the complications have been due to the very success of the National Health Service rather than to its failures.
I now turn to two other points relative to recruitment. The first concerns recall schemes. It is estimated that there are about 750,000 trained nurses in this country. Some 300,000 or 400,000 are occupied in the National Health Service and a few thousand are in other fields. It is believed—and I do not think that one can go further than say it is believed—that of the remainder it is possible that 200,000 may be available for return to the profession of nursing.
How do we get them back? In some districts, but in far too few, systems of recall by direct questionnaire and direct approach and short courses and short reintroductions are being operated to attract them back. In such circumstances it is important to remember the psyche of people who have been out of nursing—and especially high-tech nursing—for 10 years. They are nervous of returning to this function. How nice it is to find that the next six people with whom you are conducting a course are equally nervous because they are equally out of touch. It is reassuring from their point of view, and therefore there is a great deal to be said for recall in groups. It appears to have been most successful in returning a number of nurses to the profession.
Another question is completely overlooked. We are short of nurses. Some are going to Australia and to America, and they are doing so for all kinds of reasons. If I were a young girl, which obviously I am not, I should very much like to have the initials SRN after my name. It would take me to New Zealand, Australia, parts of Africa, Asia and America. It is a world-wide passport. They can go anywhere and be given a job for a period of time. What a wonderful way it is to proceed. I am all in favour of that. I understand it and I should not like to stop it.
However, there is a counterflow. In the town of Londonderry, or Derry, or whatever people like to call it nowadays, they have actually cut the intake for nurse training. They have a superfluity of nurses and they cannot even offer full-time jobs to those they do train. My question is: if our nurses are going to Australia, why the devil are their nurses not coming here? They do not seem to want to go to Australia, thank goodness! Secondly, there were 2,000 applicants last year in Derry for 450 places. Where are our recruiters for the remaining 1,550—if my
1136
mathematics is correct—that were turned down? Obviously some of the applicants were unsuitable, but assuming that 1,000 were suitable, they would have made quite a considerable difference to the problem had we trained them in this country and offered them proper facilities.
My next point concerns accommodation and facilities. It is perfectly true—as we all know, and repeating it does not help the situation—that something like 70 per cent. to 80 per cent. of all buildings in the National Health Service are pre-1918. Naturally such buildings do not make the most attractive settings for young girls to live in. We must also remember that the changes in the housing market—flat prices and where you live—have made a great deal of difference as to whether nurses want to live in or out of the hospital. Just recently because of rising costs, especially in the South, nurses have once again returned to wanting to live in.
On the management side we must be adaptable and take account of that situation. We must provide nurses with the incentives and the facilities, just as one would, in my view, if one was running any other business and wished to acquire a short supply of labour: one must raise the price. Of course for national reasons we may not be able to raise the price in terms of the actual wage, but we can raise it in many other ways. For example, there is no reason why tennis courts, swimming pools, squash clubs and so on should not be dragooned—the local ones I mean—into offering nurses free access. That should not be too difficult to arrange. There are not many institutions which would refuse to give, if not free, special rates. There are many endowment funds in nearly every hospital which could pay to make access free for nurses. That concession would help considerably.
We must also take a far more businesslike approach—if I may use that expression—in our attitude to property in the National Health Service. However, I do not wish to pre-empt what I believe will be a debate on a subsequent occasion on the management of estates in the National Health Service. Nevertheless, we are desperately conservative in our approach to this matter and far too stick in the mud in its regard. There are plenty of ways of doing this and plenty of ideas in this connection. It is interesting to note—many noble Lords will no doubt have read about this—the approaches among building societies, the nursing profession and the medical profession to obtain the necessary accommodation. It is most important that this should also be done.
However, there are many other factors apart from accommodation. For example, nurses are most concerned with their working conditions—their safety and occupational health. Twenty-five years ago I used to spend a whole afternoon in the Nurses Health Service, as we called it. The fact that it was called the Nurses Health Service was not to downgrade all the ancillaries who work in the health service—that is, the porters, the scientists and the technicians. It just happened to be called the Nurses Health Service. Today there is no such thing in most places, and in some there is an inadequate or partial occupational health service. Nevertheless it is somewhere, something and some way of showing

1137
that one is taking a special interest in a vital part of the profession.
If tomorrow we sent all the doctors out of the hospital in which I worked it would still be useful. However, if we sent the nurses out, it may as well have to shut its doors the next morning. That is the difference. Nurses form a critically important part of the service which we expect to receive and take for granted. Therefore every conceivable effort should be made to meet their reasonable requirements as regards facilities, safety, health and accommodation.
I turn to another critical issue as regards nurses: their status and their education. At the present time Project 2000 has been put forward. It is a wide scheme which I understand from the DHSS is now under consideration. Therefore I shall not ask my noble friend to make too many comments on it because I am sure that when the time comes he will do so. It is like the curate's egg—good in parts. However, I am worried about the slight disregard, the almost looking down the nose attitude, it has towards enrolled nurses who are a most important part of the nursing profession. Nurses have many anxieties about this. There are many ways in which one can raise status. I hope that we have taken the lead in Sussex by drawing together the regional health authority of the South-East, the University of Sussex and the Brighton Polytechnic to form on a tripartite basis at the university an institute of nurses. By itself of course the project achieves nothing. However, what it can do with a little imagination and some effort is to galvanise people into research into nursing.
There has been remarkably little research into nursing—on the effect of what nurses actually do, on the services they should be providing or on the way in which they should be deployed. All other matters are ancillary to that. The project could also raise the status and level of nurses in terms of the way in which they are trained, the methods of education and the breadth of such education. In other words, it moves some way along the lines of part of Project 2000, which I fully support. However, I am dubious about one matter—because I favour the apprentice system in training—and that is the reduction from about 75 per cent. to something under 50 per cent. of the time that would be spent on training in the wards.
Finally, I turn to management. We must manage, as we do in all other spheres, but in this one especially, with sensitivity. I am afraid to say that all too often at local and sometimes national level the degree of sensitivity is deplorable. The way that the nurses are often treated by patients—and doctors, I regret to say—the abuse and the injuries they sustain, especially in accident centres, is quite unacceptable. There would be no harm in running what I would call a courtesy drive throughout our hospitals and our general practices where nurses work to improve the way in which we treat such an important group of people. That drive should start with the medical profession.
There is now a good chance on the basis of the new report, with the increased pay awards (which, as I said, I have not gone into), with the possibilities as regards education and with improved sensitivity in management, that we can build on this concept and
1138
continue to have a committed, admired, respected and loved profession which will look after us when we most need it.
3.40 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, for raising the debate. I think that all of us from all sides of the House welcome the Government's acceptance of the review body's recommendations, especially the agreement fully to fund the increase in nurses pay. I believe that if that had not happened the NHS would have collapsed. Therefore we are most grateful to the Government for agreeing to those increases.
Nevertheless we should ask ourselves why the nurses demonstrated to such an extent prior to the publication of the review body's recommendations. I do not think that their grievances were solely about pay. Of course they are concerned about their income. They are perfectly normal human beings who want a reasonable standard of living. But I believe that they were equally concerned about their working conditions. However, above all, they were concerned because they care deeply about the National Health Service and they could see so many shortfalls within it. They felt that unless they took a stand now it would be too late.
Reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, to the fact that 30,000 nurses leave the NHS each year and that 6,000 out of 27,000 recruits fail to complete their training. We must also ask, as has been said, why 200,000 or 300,000 qualified nurses do not work while there is a 20 per cent. shortfall in staff in inner London. We must consider those figures. Irrespective of the obvious reasons for which nurses leave, which have been referred to, such as getting married or moving out of the profession for various personal reasons, there are other reasons. We must look at that matter against the background of what is happening to the population of this country.
By 1992 there will be many fewer school leavers. It is estimated that, in order to recruit enough nurses, the NHS would have to recruit 45 per cent. of all qualified young people to staff the NHS. That means young people with five O-levels and two A-levels. It is inconceivable that we shall be able to do that. We must do everything possible to keep nurses in the service and to encourage others to return.
We should consider student nurses. There is a problem. Why do 6,000 students fail to complete their training? It is largely because they are overburdened with responsibilities before they are ready to accept them. After only eight or nine weeks of initial instruction they are asked to accept responsibility on the wards. That is all right so long as there is plenty of supervising, qualified staff on the wards. Due to the shortage of qualified staff in the big conurbations it frequently happens that a student nurse is left in charge of a ward for an hour or two. None of us with only eight or nine weeks' initial training would enjoy that responsibility. It puts an unnecessary strain on young students.
We then have to think about the way in which we look after young student nurses. People who go in for nursing are inevitably caring people. They tend to

1139
become involved with their patients, especially on long-stay wards. Someone will inevitably die on the ward. For the first time the young nurse comes up against death. She feels disturbed by it. At the moment, at the end of her shift she gets on the bus and goes back to wherever she lives. There is no proper counselling service for that young student nurse. If one is working in a stressful profession such as nursing, that is what is needed when one is young, and it must be improved if we are to keep our nursing students. That does not apply only to student nurses. Even adult nurses who acquire an affection for a patient might need counselling when something like that happens.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, that the only way we can solve the problem of nurses having to take on responsibility after only eight or nine weeks' training is to introduce Project 2000 as soon as possible. We know that 30,000 qualified nurses leave the NHS each year. Apart from the natural causes for leaving, in many cases they leave due to the poor conditions in health service premises, as the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, said. It is estimated that about £2 billion is needed to bring all our hospitals up to a top-class standard. Another problem is that most of the medical equipment that nurses have to use is outdated and over-age. Both those factors militate against the feeling that one can give of one's best.
Nurses lack backup such as ward clerks. Nurses and sisters spend too much of their time filling in forms and doing the paperwork. The increased throughput of patients, without an adequate increase in staff, also creates problems. Some people think that the NHS takes an enormous slice of the GNP. Lately enormous efforts have been made to make it more efficient and cost-effective. One of the ways of doing that is by competitive tendering which in 1986, I am told, saved the NHS about £86 million. We all think that that is good because that £86 million will go on patient services, but we must also look at the standards and whether they are being maintained in the hospitals.
If the domestic services are not being fulfilled, there is only one person to do the job—the nurse; but it is not her job. She should not have to do jobs such as washing, cleaning and apologising for meals that are late and because clean sheets have not arrived on the ward. Those are all additional tasks with which the nurses have to cope under present conditions.
When outside contractors are being employed in the hospitals it is necessary that the nurses on the wards are intimately involved in setting the standards for the contractors to fulfil. The nurses are the only people who know how the domestic side fits into the ward-caring side so that they do not interfere with each other. The nurses are the only ones who know the standards that are required in the wards.
Nurses come up againsts all kinds of problems. For instance, if a nurse goes on maternity leave a locum is not employed. The other nurses have to absorb all the extra work. There is a lack of childcare facilities. The working hours are inflexible and do not take account of nurses' domestic responsibilities. There is hardly any job-sharing in hospitals. In many other
1140
walks of life job-sharing, especially for married women, has become the thing. There is no reason why job-sharing should not be used in the health service.
The noble Lord, Lord Trafford, referred to the problems of residential accommodation. That is something with which I have been intimately involved since I have been a governor of UCH. We had two large nurses' homes in the centre of London. They began to empty because their homes were single rooms along a corridor without a carpet and with the bathroom and loo at the end of the corridor. It was not an ideal place to live. Even sisters had no better accommodation if they wanted to live in. As a result, as has been said, nurses moved out into flats. They joined together and rented a flat. Even in those days I suggested that we should turn the nurses' home into a block of flats where two or three nurses would share a unit and run it themselves exactly as if they rented a flat further away.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to intervene. This idea has been accepted by nurses. What put an end to it was that some DHSS or regional management evicted nurses to do just that—to build flats and then let them privately.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, that does not make it right. I am sorry, I want the nurses to have those flats, so we have no argument about that. It would have the additional benefit of the nurses living within walking distance of their place of work.
If I were a young, newly qualified nurse I may want to live in a flat, perhaps sharing it with a couple of friends. What I find frightening is that in order to be able to afford to live somewhere in London I should have to move such a long way out. That is all right, but we must also remember that nurses work very unsocial hours; sometimes they do not leave the hospital until 11 or 12 at night. They have to come in very early in the morning. I wonder whether noble Lords would like their daughters to travel home on the Underground with the chance of being mugged and robbed. Hospitals are not doing enough to arrange transport for the nurses whom they employ. Therefore instead of selling off the nurses' homes for profit I believe that it would be best to turn them into blocks of flats for the nurses to rent. We should then keep many more nurses in the centre of cities.
The nursing profession has become a high powered, very skilled profession. We cannot survive without it. However, despite their increased skills, nurses are still the main caring group in the NHS. Noble Lords may talk to any patients who have been in hospital and ask them what they thought about their surgeon and what was his name. The surgeon can be fantastically brilliant and of course, patients are grateful. But what they remember when they leave hospital is the nurses who looked after them. They are the most important caring group within the NHS. Without creating the conditions within which the nursing profession can find satisfaction in its work, there is no future for the NHS.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, perhaps I may also add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, for giving us the opportunity to debate this important topic. I have a vivid memory of the nursing situation 50 years ago when I was a house physician. For the visit of the consultant in charge, the patients were all in bed with the bedclothes neatly folded and the wards were inspected by sister before the consultant's arrival.
Now things have changed but, most important, the doctors and nurses have realised what a powerful and dangerous weapon bed rest is. It has to be used in small doses, the stay in bed has become minimal. All governments have made full use of the statistical results: turnover has increased, output is greater, and so on. We have listened to this many times in the House.
One of the consequences is the additional pressure, particularly on beds, and the strain on nursing staff. As has been said, instead of having the job satisfaction of seeing another human being recover, nurses have to turn their attention to the next problem. Moreover, the tempo of change is increasing. There is a need for continuing education and additional training if jobs are to be done properly. The Select Committee of the House of Lords, looking at medical research, learned something about this and research in nursing.
What are the consequences of the quick throughput? The patients spend half their time recovering at home and often require specialised nursing attention, particularly in paediatrics. Are such nurses with the specialised training available in the community? The paediatrician's view of this and the Cumberlege Report differ in this regard. Specialised services in the community need to be provided if patients are to leave hospital sooner. As we have found with the return of the mentally handicapped to the community, there may not be a dramatic reduction in costs. In other words, returning patients to the community from the hospital may incur substantial additional costs, particularly in staffing.
We may also find that the family practitioner organisation has to be changed to meet patients' needs, as it will have to be altered to meet the public health need. Perhaps we should be thinking of the development of secondary care centres, apart from hospitals, where this kind of thing could happen at a reasonable cost, if it is not available in small general practices.
Noble Lords will remember the 1970s and the Briggs Report on nursing, the disappearance of the medical officer of health, the reorganisation of local government and, most important, the introduction of consensus management, which has now been abandoned. How did the nurses fare in all this turmoil? The Briggs Report was mainly concerned with training and was very soundly based. But what were the consequences for nurses in hospitals and their job opportunities? In contrast to the situation in the past, the ward sister was no longer in charge of the ward in all its aspects; she was no longer the manager. There was considerable attraction in the new
1142
proposals and in being promoted out of the wards to higher echelons of administration.
To people sitting on committees looking at the health service, this may have seemed very reasonable. But what have been the consequences? In the earlier days to which I referred the sister was the most important person, consulted by staff, patients and relatives alike. Somehow that is no longer so. The discipline and co-ordinated running have somehow become flawed. Many nurses have left the service to take jobs in private medicine and to go elsewhere. One hoped that with the introduction of managers into the health service the sister would once again be recreated and become the manager of the ward. But that does not seem to have happened.
What of the future and the training programme? I feel that the most urgent matter in the whole of this debate is to try to ensure that the ward sister's job becomes more attractive. It should be the ambition of many nurses to become a ward sister, and that would be the job which the nurse looks forward to carrying out for many years. The patients need it and I think that the patients largely want it.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, has said, we must consider carefully the more stressful jobs: theatre staff attending major operations for many hours; premature baby intensive care units; the abortion services. Young people cannot stay in these stressful jobs for long. Perhaps they have been specially trained for them, but should they be given training in community nursing so that they can take their essential skill into the community but keep the larger salary? If so, they would provide an important link between the hospital and the community. That is only one suggestion in this debate.
3.59 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I should like to join in the thanks accorded to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, for initiating this debate. Although we have had in past months a number of debates on the National Health Service in both this House and in another place, the National Health Service is a matter with which Parliament must always involve itself even though, as the noble Lord admitted, this debate has been somewhat pre-empted by the publishing of the findings of the pay review body.
No doubt in due course your Lordships will be able to have a debate on that matter. At the moment the whole matter is under study because there are bound to be regional problems here, as there are obviously certain areas which the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, particularly mentioned where accommodation is very expensive if it is obtainable at all.
The pay review body will, on the figures which I have tried to digest, award an increase of approximately 44 per cent. in nurses' pay, and that is to be welcomed. But I should like to devote a moment or two to the question of accommodation because I believe that this is vital. Many noble Lords will have families working either in a therapeutic capacity in the National Health Service or in some branch of health care.
As I have mentioned to your Lordships before, our younger daughter who is now married with three

1143
small children, has returned to nursing. When she eventually obtained a place in a creche through the Lambeth Health Authority the prices for the creche shot up. When this kind of thing happens any increase in pay is immediately negatived to a certain extent by the increase in the cost of creche facilities. I am not necessarily saying that the price for creche facilities can never be increased. Devoted people have to look after the small children and they have to be paid. But it is nevertheless a rather frustrating disincentive for a nursing sister, or staff nurse in my daughter's case, to find that almost immediately that she obtains a place in the creche the price goes up.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will bear that in mind because I believe that that is a positive disincentive to older women returning to nursing. It is very often the older women, and indeed men, particularly in long-stay nursing, who are so badly needed.
We can all quote from personal experience about the accommodation facilities of the nurses' homes attached to some of our hospitals. I have been round a certain number of nurses' homes. My younger daughter trained in a very well-known and much respected teaching hospital in the East End of London. I must say that when she was a student nurse about 12 years ago Charles Dickens would have condemned the accommodation that she was living in.
Nevertheless, there was a great esprit de corps. As has been said, nurses do not stay in the nurses' homes. They want to get accommodation outside the nurses' home. They want to entertain their families and friends and that is much easier if they can obtain a flat or some other such accommodation. There is much to be said for the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, with her experience in the health service, as regards the fact that these nurses' homes could in some cases be turned into flatlets. I hope that this is something which the DHSS will look into. There may be administrative problems here but it would help to make these places somewhat more habitable and somewhat more personal. After all, not all nurses working in St. Bartholomew's Hospital may live in Essex or Surrey. Some may come from Northern Ireland and some may come from Northern Australia. As my noble friend Lord Trafford said, there is an almost ongoing exchange in nursing.
When I was a patient two years ago in my local district hospital in Surrey, one of the team of nurses was an Australian girl and two or three came from the Middle East. The only difference possibly is that our own nurses go to Australia and New Zealand and very often stay there, whereas the Australian and New Zealand nurses who nurse here may go back to their own countries. From my own experience gained on a visit to Australia at the end of 1986, when I went round a new general hospital in Canberra, I know that about one in every five members of staff came from this country. They had been out there in some cases for several years. It is true to say that the pay rates and certainly the accommodation in Australia, which is a much less populated country than our own and where there is probably much more land on
1144
which to build nurses' homes and flats and hostels, act as a positive incentive to nurses to stay there.
One of the greatest tragedies, if I may put it that way, of the National Health Service was the ending of the hospital management committees and the house committees. I served for a number of years on a house committee of one of the long-stay mental hospitals in Surrey. At that time there was communication between the nurse, the nursing sister, the physician and the management of the hospital. I am very sceptical of the present situation. The whole thing has become too big but not very beautiful and there is a remoteness about it.
I believe that the status of the nursing sister is vital, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, stressed in his admirable speech. The sister or in former times the matron was an all-important figure. But there is the disturbing situation too of the young student nurse who is left in charge of a ward. This happened to my own younger daughter in a teaching hospital in London. She was left in charge of a ward for about an hour and an old gentleman died of a heart attack. She was very upset. The sister eventually returned and took charge. She said to my daughter, "Look, my dear, that is what it is all about. It is a great tragedy but that is what you are nursing for. Get on with it". And my daughter did. Obviously, hard as it may seem, that is the right approach.
However, student nurses are for all practical conditions not really students. An art student, a language student or any other kind of student would not have to take on those responsibilities. All right, the latter kinds of student are not paid and they pay to learn, whereas student nurses are paid. I also believe that the recommendations of the new review body will result in student nurses being paid reasonably well. But it is asking an awful lot of a girl of 18 or 19—this is particularly true in the long-stay hospitals where there are more serious staffing shortages than in the general hospitals—to take on that responsibility.
Finally, I should like to say a few words about the weighting system. The London weighting system leaves an awful lot to be desired. My noble friend the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the average payment in London is about £968 per year. In Epsom, which is 19 miles away and where the accommodation is possibly even more expensive than in some parts of London, the figure in what I believe is the Mid-Surrey Regional Health Authority is roughly £392. The figure for Leatherhead is barely £200. We all welcome the pay review body. However, unless something is done about accommodation for nurses of all grades—staff nurses, nurses, and nursing assistants—any plan to enhance recruitment will suffer. We have reached desperation point in some areas as regards accommodation.
This has been a very useful debate. Obviously the matters I have mentioned, will be studied by the pay review body and they will be matters for future debates. However, I believe that our debate today has enabled the House to study them. Even in an ideal situation, those problems will never go away.
4.10 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I shall speak only briefly today. Over the weekend, I was out of action and I have not had time to gather my thoughts together. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, for initiating our debate. It gives us a chance to say, "Thank goodness the Government saw sense at last and gave nurses a reasonable pay award".
Nurses have been leaving the National Health Service at an alarming rate. Pay is not the only aspect of life which is important to nurses. I should like to give one or two other examples of conditions of employment. First, when nurse recruitment and morale is low, patients suffer. Nurses are not all angels and we rarely hear much about what patients sometimes have to put up with. When there is a shortage of nurses, it may happen that some nurses who do not possess ability or authority are put in positions of leadership. When leadership is poor and weak, a ward can be turned into chaos. That is disturbing for patients and for junior staff. Such bad practice as nurses talking across patients about their boyfriends and totally ignoring the existence of patients may go unchecked. Good nurses may move to other wards, and again the patient suffers.
Some decisions which are taken by health authorities may seem difficult to understand. At one central London hospital, there was a good obstetrics department. Against the wishes of the obstetricians and the nurses, the department was moved to a grotty hospital further out where the nurses have to walk down a dark and dingy alley way. Nurses are attractive targets for rapists and molesters. It is that sort of unthinking decision which is likely to create low morale.
Another aspect of the problem is the lack of reasonable accommodation in many places. The encouragement to sell off nursing accommodation is very unwise. That has been one of the major problems in the recruitment of nurses at the world-famous hospital at Stoke Mandeville in Aylesbury, which the Minister visited a short time ago. Nurses come from long distances to work at that hospital, especially in the spinal unit which has an interesting post-graduate course. The available nursing accommodation badly needs upgrading. The alternative—a flat in Aylesbury—is very expensive, as Aylesbury is now a dormitory town for London and has high employment.
Over the years, living standards and expectations of nurses have risen. However, accommodation has deteriorated. Many valuable spinal beds have been closed because of a shortage of nurses, and seriously ill patients with infected pressure sores have been treated in general hospitals which do not always manage to cope with complex conditions which can cause sepsis and anaemia. Such sores can take months to heal. If the correct techniques are not used, the sores may break down after surgery. That situation is far from cost-effective to the National Health Service. It is also very demoralising for patients who may have to spend many extra months in hospital.
Many hospitals have been recruiting diligently, especially those in Ireland. It is important that nurses, once recruited, should obtain job satisfaction
1146
and that they should not be overfaced with so many tasks that they leave after a few weeks. When there is a serious shortage of staff on a ward and the list of duties is long, some nurses simply give up and go off sick. At one hospital, a very experienced sister who had worked for many years in the National Health Service left after she was told by an administrator that she could no longer have a kettle to make a cup of coffee. That was the straw that broke the camel's back. Another sister left because the clinic where she worked was so out of date. She went to Canada, not for the extra pay but for better working conditions.
Nothing is more important than our excellent National Health Service. It serves the majority of our population. It tries to keep the hazardous viruses and infections which afflict society under control. No matter how many doctors we have, their work is rendered useless without nurses.
A very important problem which is connected with nurse recruitment is that of the falling birth rate. Our birth rate fell after 1964. In 1976–77, it reached a staggeringly low figure—the lowest since 1940. In the 18 year-old recruitment group, there will be fewer 18 year-olds during the 1990s. There will be a fall of 30 per cent. To illustrate that, I shall give the figures for the 1990s. If for 1985 one takes the number as equalling 100, in 1990 the figure will be 87; in 1991 it will be 81; in 1992 it will be 77; in 1993 it will be 72·5; in 1994 it will be 70; in 1995 it will be 68·5; in 1996 it will be 71.6; in 1997 it will be 77; in 1998 it will be 79; in 1999 it will be 76·3; and in the year 2000 the figure will be 75. The worst years for recruitment of 18 year-olds will be 1994–96.
In 1977 we had the lowest number of births which had been recorded for 50 years. What will make it even more difficult will be an increasing demand. If we are to have an increasing and thriving economy, which we all hope for, there will be more competition for jobs for the small number of 18 year-olds. We must put our house in order so that the National Health Service can recruit and keep entry to the nursing profession open in a very competitive market. With an ageing population and growing demands on the National Health Service, the nursing profession is of paramount importance.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Harvington: My Lords, by courtesy of the remaining three noble Lords who are down to speak in the debate, I should like to take the opportunity offered to address a few words of thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, for the way in which he opened this debate and for the speech he made.
I was particularly thrilled by what he said about the nurses who went to the Crimea with Florence Nightingale. That is because prior to 1970, when I became Chairman of Ways and Means in the Parliament then elected, I was for eight years chairman of the board of management of the hospital of Saint John and Saint Elizabeth. The nursing sisters there are the direct lineal successors to the community which went out to the Crimea with Florence Nightingale to cope with the tremendous task that was so well set out by the noble Lord opposite. Having myself been associated for so long with this hospital, I felt that your Lordships would

1147
not mind if, on behalf of the community at the hospital, I said a few words of heartfelt thanks for the kind way in which the noble Lord spoke of those nurses, considering the community from which they came.
I am also glad to tell your Lordships that the hospital is flourishing and rebuilding. We aim to spend a huge sum of money: how we shall get it we do not quite know, but I expect that we shall get it somehow. I thought that your Lordships would wish to know that the community which provided the nurses who went with Florence Nightingale still exists.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I have to thank my noble friend Lord Molloy for having chosen such a worthy Motion as the basis for this debate and for giving us this opportunity to discuss the conditions of employment of nursing staff in the NHS. As one would expect, my noble friend has spoken with deep feeling and conviction about the National Health Service.
I should like to begin by bringing together the few facts which have been mentioned in the course of the debate. I think that that is a good starting place. About 300,000 nurses and 100,000 student nurses work in the NHS. About 30,000 nurses leave the NHS each year, although I would accept that that in itself may not be significant. Nevertheless, it is a fact. About 13 per cent. of student nurses discontinue their training, which is a high discontinuance rate. About 200,000 qualified nurses are not working in nursing; according to the NHS, about 85,000 of them are thought to be available to return to nursing.
In a sense these facts tempt one to ask the question: nursing shortage—what nursing shortage? It would be a misleading question, because there is a shortage of nurses within the NHS. We have been given the figures this afternoon. It is estimated that nursing vacancies, at least prior to the last pay award, were about 9 per cent., reaching 20 per cent. here in London. The number of school leavers who are entering the profession is falling and we have been told by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, that they will continue to fall for some years to come.
I think therefore that we are entitled to ask: why should there be this nursing shortage? Is there a relationship between the conditions of work and the number of student nurses failing to complete their training, or the number of nurses leaving the NHS or failing to return to nursing? We suspect that the conditions of work provide a clue to the predicament of the nurse, as it was described by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, in a major debate on this subject which took place in your Lordhips' House on 23rd March last. At col. 209 the noble Baroness made this forecast:
"We are building problems for the future which may exceed those of today unless we can encourage and enable those who are willing to consider entering this demanding profession to do so, and if they do so to remain."
When the Minister came to reply to the debate on 23rd March he had, in fairness, to keep an eye on the
1148
clock and, in commenting on the contribution of the noble Baroness, he concentrated on only one of the conditions of employment; namely, nurses' salary. Of course we all agree that that is a very important condition of employment but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, reminded us, it is only one of many conditions.
Since that debate took place the pay award has been announced, and there is really only one question for clarification I should like to ask about that award. If, following the clinical regrading exercise which is part and parcel of the award, the health authorities are left with insufficient funds to meet the additional salary bill as a direct result of regrading, will the Minister confirm that the Government will ensure that new resources will be available to meet those particular additional costs?
The pay award has been well received, but we shall have to wait about 12 months before we shall know whether it has led to a significant reduction in the number of nursing vacancies. However, we think that additional measures are required if a long-term solution is to be found for the country's nursing problems. I would suggest that those measures can be brought under three main headings. First, there is the need for modernisation and flexibility within the nursing profession itself along the radical lines set out in Project 2000, which was produced by the Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting, and presented to Ministers 15 long months ago.
The health authorities submitted their comments before last September and I wonder whether the Minister is in a position to give us even a rough indication as to when we may expect to receive the Government's response to this major and radical initiative by the central council. Project 2000 has widespread support and indeed it has been referred to approvingly by a number of speakers in the debate this afternoon. We want to see it implemented at an early date and we think that the packaging of reform it contains would encourage managers and others in key positions in the NHS up and down the country to accommodate a more forward-looking approach to patient care, where there is still a need for such accommodation. The integration of nursing education with higher and further education would prevent the nursing profession from drifting into a cul-de-sac.
If and when the Government come to accept Project 2000 we would strongly urge that no attempt should be made to reduce expenditure on key areas of the project such as the student nurse contribution to hospital employee staff power.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, before he moves off the subject of Project 2000—which I agree is most interesting—whether he could explain or enlarge upon one aspect of his demands to the Minister. How would he deal with the 50 per cent. reduction in ward staffing from the service point of view, which I believe is critical to the project?
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, when I pleaded with the Government not to attempt a reduction in expenditure in that key area of the project I was

1149
speaking with the authority of the nursing professions themselves. If the Government doubt whether that can be achieved in practice in the short term I invite them to address that question to the nursing professions.
I now come to the second heading, which I call the need for organic developments within the nursing profession. While Project 2000 requires a major political decision, nevertheless there are organic developments which the DHSS could and should encourage. I am advised by the Royal College of Nursing that it would be very beneficial if the department were to encourage two developments in particular.
It would be a small but important step forward if nurses working in the community could have the power to prescribe a limited range of drugs and appliances. That development was discussed in another place in the debate on the Health and Medicines Bill on 13th April. In that debate the Government acknowledged that they were sympathetic to the principle of nurse prescribing and announced that the professional and ethical issues involved were being referred to a joint working party.
Can the Minister tell the House when the department will be in a position to name the chairperson and the members of the working party? Can he also tell the House whether the working party will be encouraged to produce its report by a given date? Will it be given a suggested timetable for its work?
It would also be a significant step forward if the department were to go flat out in support of the concept of the nurse practitioner, or the specialist practitioner as she is named in Project 2000. I understand that it was the Americans who discovered that new and expanding role for the nurse. Although a project was set up in Birmingham about six years ago and thereafter a similar project was set up in Greenwich to test her role in a number of defined areas of work, we in this country have yet to adopt the concept.
Again in the course of the debate on 13th April in another place the Minister expressed his general sympathy with the concept. That is encouraging. It would appear from the Minister of State's speech in another place that the obstacle in the way of such a development is one of definition of the term "specialist practitioner" or "nurse practitioner". May I ask the Minister how long it will take before a draft definition will have evolved in the department? When does it envisage going out to the professions with draft wording?
It seems to me as a layman that a very strong case can be made out in support of both developments. I understand that they would be welcomed by many nurses as being worthwhile objectives enabling them to expand their skills and their role. I am told that the evidence from Birmingham and Greenwich and from certain opinion polls indicates that they would also be welcomed by patients, which is an important consideration. Those developments would greatly assist in providing improved health services in the community. The nurse practitioner in particular could provide surveillance of groups of patients in the community who are at risk—in particular the elderly,
1150
the mentally ill and children. Both developments would help managers to make better use of health service resources.
I hope that the department will not be held back from fully supporting both developments because it may be thought in some quarters that they will endanger the status of some other professionals within the health service.
I come finally and very briefly to the third area, in which management could make life a lot easier for many nurses. Management and doctors could show greater consideration for nursing staff in a number of small and helpful ways which have been instanced in the course of the debate this afternoon. It should be possible for managers to organise the working day so that shifts are more accommodating to working mothers. That is one suggestion. More could be done in some districts to liaise with local bus companies to work out convenient travelling times for nursing staff. We have heard how the managers could embark upon short schemes of study to attract nurses back to the NHS. So there are a number of small but significant initiatives which could be undertaken by management without involving excessive expenditure.
I want to base my closing remarks on an interesting reflection of the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, in the debate on 23rd March. He said that when he joined the National Health Service in 1948 there was a general air of optimism in the medical profession and beyond the medical profession. It is my impression that that optimism carried the NHS forward for over a quarter of a century notwithstanding a shortage of resources and a poor physical environment. There was an awareness that there was something very special about the National Health Service. That awareness led to a sense of loyalty to the team and an overriding sense of duty to the patient. For those reasons there was always a determination to get through in spite of difficulties. But if after 43 years the difficulties appear to be never-ending attitudes among the staff could begin to change.
Nurses constitute one half of the staff employed in the NHS. It is therefore important that their morale should remain high and that their loyalty to the team and their sense of duty to the patient should be sustained. Clearly the conditions of service within the NHS can help to foster or to weaken that sense of loyalty and duty. That is why this debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Molloy is important.
4.40 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, I genuinely congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, on his fortuitous timing in raising the subject of conditions of employment of nursing staff in the National Health Service today. Perhaps I may poach from my noble friend Lord Trafford and say that we all love nurses. Without them the health service as we know it would collapse. If they did not exist, we should have to invent them. My noble friend with his on the ground experience as a doctor would no doubt recognise that more readily than most.

1151
It could hardly be a more topical subject, for only three weeks ago the Government announced their decision to accept the recommendations contained in the fifth report of the review body on the pay of nursing staff, midwives and health visitors lock, stock and barrel. This means that the Government have undertaken to meet the full additional cost—some £566 million—of this pay award from the reserve. It averages 15·3 per cent. with the vast majority of nurses—well over 90 per cent.—getting basic pay rises of between 6·3 per cent. and 33·6 per cent.
This momentous award, as the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, called it, means that nurses will now receive the highest ever levels of real terms pay. I accept straight away the reproof of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that it is only part of ensuring that nurses working in the NHS have the right incentives and conditions of employment to remain in the NHS carrying out the vital work for which they have been trained.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, was the first to try to set parameters for the debate. She talked about what we know of the problems in nurse recruitment and training, and why they do not come for training and disappear from training. The Government share the review body's desire to have data that are as comprehensive and up-to-date as possible. That is why a new data system is currently being introduced in the NHS implementing the recommendations of the Körner Report. As the review body acknowledged in its report, it takes time in an organisation the size of the health service to bring about the changes in the presentation that we all want to see. I know that the House does not approve of the British Rail slogan, but I believe that in this case the Government are getting there.
The numbers of female school-leavers with five O-levels and one A-level—the qualifications needed to enter nursing—will fall by 25 per cent. by 1992–93. It was of no comfort to me to be told by one official recently, "Never mind, Minister, we also have the highest number ever of women of childbearing age". This is a serious point, and I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, said. Taking account of the projected growth in demand for nurses, we need over half this group if current recruitment patterns continue. However, I think that this is an unlikely prospect. The answer must be to do more to tap the large pool of qualified nurses who are not working in the health service and to encourage them to move back to nursing.
There is little wholly reliable information on the vacancy levels in nursing, but we know that these have increased dramatically in the last four to five years. One of the ways of filling the gap is by the use of agency staff or nurse banks. I have said before in the Chamber that this is unsatisfactory, but it is not necessarily expensive. When health authorities are employing nursing agency staff, they must follow departmental guidelines that permit them to pay agencies a maximum of the mean of the appropriate pay scale for the grade plus agency commission and the employer's national insurance contributions. After allowing for directly employed staff's superannuation, annual leave, sick leave and so on
1152
there is little difference between the cost of employing agency nurses and directly employed staff. Directly employed staff are of course able to ensure their continuity of patient care, reduction of management and supervision difficulties and provision of clinical training for nurse learners.
Health authorities are encouraged to examine more flexible working arrangements to respond to recruitment and retention problems. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, mentioned the idea of job sharing, which has been widely mooted in various quarters. That is one approach. Health authorities have been asked to examine a scheme for this and other arrangements that make it easier for trained staff to remain in the health service and to return to work after a break. There remains the problem observed by many patients, especially in hospital, that too many different nurses are caring for them. Nurse management would have to overcome this.
The Government have a basic philosophy on public sector pay, whether in or outside the health service, that salaries should reflect what is needed to recruit and retain staff in an open labour market. To that extent, we agree with the comments of CoHSE and the Royal College of Nursing as reflected by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy. Your Lordships have been seeking to persuade me ever since the election that there are not enough nurses in certain specialities. Noble Lords have not however been quite as happy when in my turn I have told the House that in many cases not as many patients have been treated as might have been, not because of a shortage of money but because of a shortage of nurses. These things do not happen overnight. They take a long time to arise and to cure.
I do not recall that noble Lords opposite made much of the fact that this Government's record on nurses' pay contrasts strongly with the position before 1979. In the five years before 1979, nurses' pay fell by 21 per cent. in real terms. That was a marked deterioration in conditions of employment for nurses. I do not intend to dwell on this, but I contrast it with the Government's proud record on nurses' pay. Since 1979 it has increased by almost 44 per cent. in real terms. Their working week has been reduced from 40 to 37½ hours without loss of pay. This increase would certainly be envied by many other groups in both the private and the public sectors. It recognises the outstanding contribution to the care of patients that has been provided by skilled and dedicated nurses, midwives and health visitors—care for which many people in the country have reason to be grateful. Those qualified nurses and midwives who are working as district nurses, community nurses, psychiatric nurses and health visitors in the community stand to benefit from the awards. I can confirm to my noble friend Lord Trafford that they are not restricted to hospital nurses.
Nurses are in a special position, and rightly so. The vast majority will not take industrial action because they refuse to damage services to patients. They have just reinforced this by a recent vote. The Government recognise this and accordingly themselves established the review body in 1983. Since 1983 five reports have been received. All have been implemented in full. As

1153
a result, during this period nurses' pay has risen by nearly 29 per cent. in real terms.
I have said that nurses are in a special position in relation to industrial action. That is so. It is only right to reflect that a very small minority of nurses took part in industrial action earlier this year. I know that there are those who have attempted to claim that fear of further industrial action by the nurses explained the Government's decision to implement and fund in full this year's review body recommendations. That is a nonsense perpetuated by some of their own curious political ends. For their part, the Government are much more influenced by the dedication of the majority than by the willingness of a tiny minority to damage services and harm patients. Those who wish to explain this year's award in terms of industrial relations would do far better to look at the decision in March by members of the Royal College of Nursing to vote by a majority of four to one to retain its no strike policy.
Improvements in pay are important. But this Government realise that satisfactory conditions of employment entail more than just getting the levels of pay right. I should like to use this opportunity to outline some of the wider changes in conditions of employment for nurses with which this Government are very much concerned.
Over the past 40 years many changes have taken place in the work carried out by nurses, midwives and health visitors. Developments in health and medical technology and an increased emphasis on health promotion have all meant that an increasing range of skills are required. Yet the way in which nurses, midwives and health visitors have been graded has hardly changed at all. A major review of nurse grading has been undertaken by the Nursing and Midwifery Staffs Negotiating Council. Management side and staff side representatives have together agreed a new clinical grading structure comprising nine new grades for staff at ward level.
This is a major opportunity to ensure that individual nurses and midwives receive recognition for the duties and responsibilities called for in each post and the rewards to match. It means that there will be far better opportunities to progress and the incentive is for nurses to remain in clinical practice rather than having to move into management to make progress—a problem which was undoubtedly rearing its ugly head in some hospitals. To digest Project 2000 while this is going on is more than management can cope with.
This new grading structure represents a major improvement for nurses in the health service. It takes full account of the changes which have taken place. It recognises and rewards increasing levels of skill and responsibility. For example, a skilled nurse working on a specialist renal unit and a sister in charge of a ward where students are training will both receive significant pay increases. If they were on the maximum of their scales the staff nurse I have just talked about would receive basic pay of some £10,650 a year and the ward sister £13,925. The new structure will provide better career prospects for all staff who wish to stay in clinical practice. Finally, this new structure should be important in helping to recruit and retain nursing staff in areas in which there have been shortages in the past.
1154
In answer to one of the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, the Government believe that the estimates of the costs of regrading are reasonable and the funds consequently provided are sufficient. The Government therefore do not intend to reopen this question.
All of us here will be aware of the economic growth enjoyed by London and the South-East over recent years. The present thriving labour market does, however, create its own pressures and for some time health authorities in London have reported recruitment and retention difficulties among their nursing staff over and above those found in the rest of the country. This year the review body has accepted the Government's invitation to look at this problem and has recommended London pay supplements for nurses.
In the circumstances I do not feel that the time is right to make adjustments to London weighting beyond the current offer. Noble Lords will recall that the management side of the London weighting consortium has confirmed that on the present basis of confirming London weighting settlements it cannot contemplate a higher increase than that of the 5.5 per cent. offer. I regret that the staff side continues to reject the offer. However, I can confirm that it remains on the table.
The review body awards mean that with the increases in basic pay this year, increases for staff nurses and sisters in inner London will be in the range of £27 to £57 per week. Starting pay for a staff nurse in inner London is now £9,677 and for a sister it is £12,048. In each case this is more than the previous maximum basic pay for the grade.
NHS spending continues to increase in real terms. It has risen by 38 per cent. since 1979. However, the important factor is that this Government's commitment to funding improvements in the health service has been accompanied by an emphasis on increasing efficiency and ensuring value for money.
I note the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson. The facts are that more money is being spent on the health service than ever before and more patients are being cared for. This success owes a great deal to the efforts of nurses and other staff and the Government have recognised their contribution. Not only is the NHS better funded than ever before; it is also better staffed. The number of nursing and midwifery staff employed in the health service continues to increase. At 30th September last year there were some 405,200 whole-time equivalent nursing and midwifery staff employed in England. This is nearly 47,000 more than the figure we inherited.
For some time the Government have been encouraging more flexible recruitment policies. Health authorities are now seeking to attract more mature entrants and more men to what has traditionally been a female profession. This policy has been fully supported by the Royal College of Nursing. Over and above this, opportunities for part-time work and job sharing are growing. Nurses are being encouraged to return after a career break by provision of part-time training and retraining.
We intend to publish leaflets on nursing and other careers in the health service from 23rd May onwards

1155
following a complete revision. This is part of a campaign designed to increase the recruitment of nurses which will be focused in particular on London and the South-East.
Several noble Lords have mentioned accommodation. The suggestion was made that nurses are being made homeless due to the Government's policy of selling and reorganising National Health Service residential accommodation. I should be horrified to learn that this was borne out in practice. My right honourable friend the previous Secretary of State gave an undertaking that no one will be made homeless in such circumstances and we continue to stand by that undertaking. Of course residential accommodation for nurses is primarily a matter for individual health authorities. I have been around the country recently; I have been especially looking at the special health authorities in London.
I have discovered that hospital management includes a great chunk of housing management and accommodation for nurses. We believe that in the main it is better for health service staff to obtain their own accommodation in the normal way. However, we recognise that in certain areas such as greater London high cost can make this especially difficult. That is why we have welcomed the Nationwide Anglia Building Society scheme to provide low cost 100 per cent. mortgages to help nurses and other staff working in greater London to buy their own homes. In December of last year my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced a comprehensive housing policy for staff. This will be especially important in areas such as London and the South-East. I believe that it will help those who wish to purchase their own homes but who, because of the high cost of housing, are unable to do so.
I take the point made to me by so many nurses that once they are into the 25 years and older age group they no longer wish to live in nursing hostels and other rented accommodation. They want their own home. I can report to the House that a number of properties are now being purchased with the aid of a partnership mortgage, and with a few, legal documentation is nearing completion. It is expected that the first purchase will be completed at the beginning of June.
Ministers welcome this as an excellent example of how collaboration with the private sector can benefit the National Health Service. In recent days we have heard of other suggested forms of co-operation between the public and private sectors for the benefit of those who work in the health service; and we welcome them all. The Government expect the scheme to continue to be successful.
But what about elsewhere? Worthing Health Authority and the Gateway Building Society have developed a preferential mortgage aimed at exactly the same thing, at recruiting and retaining staff. Under the terms of the scheme, employees may borrow up to three and a half times their income plus one and three-quarter times their partner's income. Normal interest rates apply, however.
There is another related provision. The Nationwide Anglia scheme will be assisted by a proposal put by the general Whitley Council
1156
management side as part of the review of the removal expenses agreement. This will give health authorities discretion to make an interest-free advance of salary to help staff wanting to move to their own accommodation, whether owner-occupied or rented, with legal and other costs, even where there is no change of employer. This facility will not be restricted to London or to any particular staff group. The advance will be repayable over 10 years, though there will be provision for employees to opt to defer repayment for up to two years from the date the advance is made.
This will help staff in London particularly, but elsewhere as well, to take advantage of the various building society schemes and make it easier for staff throughout the country to obtain homes of their own to rent or buy.
Lastly, I accept the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, on the increasing range of responsibilities that nurses carry; for example, counselling and the management of other staff groups and contractors. It is precisely because the role of nurses is changing, and their duties have in some areas expanded over the years, that the new grading structure is now being introduced. Clearly we shall have to ensure that this recognises and rewards the responsibilities that individual nurses now undertake and it must be designed to be capable of responding to developments in the future.
To sum up, nurses now enjoy record levels of real terms income—higher than the levels set by previous landmarks in nurses' pay: the Halsbury Report in 1974 and the Clegg Report in 1979. And there are more of them than ever before—nearly 47,000 more than in 1979. The Government have established the independent review body to get the levels of pay right and have agreed with the staff side the biggest restructuring in nurses' grading in the 40 years since the National Health Service began. This will ensure that there are better career prospects than ever before for nurses who want to remain in clinical practice.
But there are other moves afoot. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, to whom I am extremely grateful for giving me warning, commented on the White Paper Promoting Better Health, in which we said that we welcomed the interest shown in the idea of nurse practitioners; but we still have a number of problems to sort out, not least the definition of a nurse practitioner. He also commented on nurse prescribing, which I am not sure fits into this debate. If I may, I shall write to him on that subject.
I believe that the record I have outlined today is one to be proud of and a demonstration of the Government's commitment not just to nurses but to the National Health Service and the patients it serves.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the measures he has announced which are designed to enhance the recruitment of nurses to the National Health Service. I also thank those who spoke with such knowledge and understanding. I also thank those who listened. The debate has been an honourable and deserved acknowledgement of the work and value of Britain's nurses within our National Health Service. I remind the House that the review explains that the next review is already urgent.

1157
Many Members of your Lordships' House have great knowledge of the NHS, of medicine and particular aspects, and nearly all have indicated something which needs to be done but which is not mentioned by the review board. That will make the next review even more expensive. The review board has said that we must face up to the fact that to carry on the good work the next review will need more money and the NHS will need ever more money.
In conclusion, all I hope is that we in this country will never again fall into the myopic error of knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Telemessages Service
5.4 p.m.
Lord Ferrier Lord Ferrier rose to call attention to the situation whereby telemessages, which can be sent by those who have a telephone number, cannot be sent by those who are not so privileged; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will have seen this Motion for many moons because I first put it on the Order Paper in July last year. In case some noble Lords do not know about Telemessages, they are messages which can be sent by telephone through British Telecom where they are converted into a note or a message delivered to the addressee by the Post Office by the first post on the next working day. This is a convenient method of communication, but the cost is beyond the pocket of most ordinary people. The cost is £4 for 50 words. Is 50 words a reasonable number of words for a message of this kind?
As I have mentioned, this Motion has been on the Order Paper since July and has come up through seven ballots. I had begun to fear that I might drop off the perch before it ever came to the House. I am delighted that it has now appeared, although I am suffering from the malaise which I think the doctors describe as "There-is-a-lot-of-it-about". I am not being flippant, but I am criticial of a system whereby a Life Peer of 30 year's standing—I see I have written in the margin "an ancient and aboriginal Life Peer"—has to wait for 10 months to have a Motion debated which he believes to be important. The fact is that it is "just the luck of the draw," but it has its disadvantages and they are manifest.
However, whereas my Motion was of some importance at the beginning of last year, as time has gone past circumstances have changed and more information has come my way quite recently. I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, will be following me. He has more information than I have. It is not that the issue I have in mind is no longer important, but in the interim a good deal of water has flowed under the bridge and the question proposed then, after a series of Starred Questions and Answers, has been further examined by the authorities concerned.
I must confess to the House that I have been greatly aided by Professor Carsberg, who is the
1158
Director General of Oftel. Only this last Sunday I received a letter from him, some of which I feel is important. He said:
"I have been in touch with British Telecom, as I said I would, to find out where it has got in its discussions with the Post Office about Telemessages".
I am amazed to note that in the Post Office's Inland Compendium, which consists of 15 pages and lists the wonderful range of services, there is no mention of Telemessages. I have always wondered whether it wished to conceal from itself and others that it is an essential element in the delivery of a Telemessage because it is delivered by the postman in the morning.
Your Lordships may remember the roar of laughter that went up in this House when I read a letter from the Post Office stating, "This is no affair of ours; write to British Telecom". When I wrote to British Telecom I received a reply stating, "This is no affair of ours; write to the Post Office". The problem has been, who pays? In that respect we are touching on a social and political problem. Who will pay for an essential service to the people? It is difficult to know how to charge but it is a social service.
During the weekend I looked through some papers. To my surprise, I found my mother's notebook written at the time of my birth. Out fell a telegram, and this is the form dated 1900. That will prove to your Lordships how aged I am. It was then sixpence for 12 words, every additional word costing a halfpenny. That has confirmed my belief about Telemessages, because in a letter I suggested that the cost should be £1 for 20 words and 10p for every additional word.
I have been asked, "Why do you worry about it? Why don't you use a telephone kiosk?". They are largely vandalised, though that situation is improving. However, the cost of £4 is probably best made up of four golden coins. The kiosks contain a slot which will take pound coins but one of the difficulties is that the golden coin is not in use in Scotland; there we have pound notes. If three or four people send a Telemessage at £4 for 50 words—which is unlikely—they will fill the telephone kiosk cashbox to overflowing.
As a result, I believe that there should be a complete reappraisal of the approach to the simple social messages, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, in an exchange in your Lordships' House. Fifty words will be difficult to find when all one wants to say is, "Auntie died today. Funeral Wednesday"; or, "Many happy returns"; or, "Congratulations". I believe that they are the social messages which Granny up the Glen wants to be able to send, but she does not have a telephone and does not know how to do so.
It has been suggested that one should use Datapost, and I have any amount of glossy literature here. There is also a service called Royal Mail Special Delivery. In that case, one must write a letter, address the envelope, stamp it with the requisite postage and add £1·50. I decided to send a letter so I went to my local post office and said, "I want to send a letter by Datapost or Royal Mail Special Delivery". I was told that they were sorry but that I would have to go to a head office; so granny would have to go five miles to the neighbouring town. Such difficulties are hard to

1159
appreciate when one has been used to having a telephone at one's elbow. A large number of people dearly wish to communicate with their families and friends but have been wondering how to do so.
The authorities concerned are the Post Office and British Telecom. Professor Carsberg has written to me stating:
"I have been in touch with British Telecom, as I said I would. …. It tells me that its discussions have not yet reached a conclusion though it had promised previously to let me know the outcome as soon as possible and it will certainly do that. I know that BT has entered its discussions with the Post Office in a positive spirit".
That is good news because I have always considered that, whereas British Telecom has been ready to cooperate, the Post Office simply cannot be bothered.
Professor Carsberg continues:
"I know that BT has entered its discussions with the Post Office in a positive spirit—and you may remember that similar discussions recently led to a satisfactory agreement for the inclusion of post codes in telephone directories. I am continuing to consider very carefully all the representations that are made with regard to Telemessages. However, at present, I doubt whether there is any basis for intervening to attempt to impose a formal requirement on BT to provide Telemessages through the Post Office".
I believe that this debate may be of use if my expression and that of other noble Lords makes clear the fact that there is a demand for this kind of service to the ordinary people.
Professor Carsberg states:
"I am giving further thought to the questions you have raised about the pricing of Telemessages".
The price of £4 is out of the question for short, social messages. He continues:
"I am willing to consider conducting a more formal investigation of BT's pricing of Telemessages to satisfy myself that the price is reasonable overall and that the service is not being run inefficiently".
In other words, since I put down this Motion ten months ago a great deal of water has flowed under the bridge. Some of it bubbled through only on Sunday when I received the letter from Professor Carsberg.
A solution may be in sight. I have many glossy publications from one pundit or another trying to analyse how a profitable system of Telemessages can be devised. I find it such compulsive reading that I described it to myself as a "Boffin's bean feast". There is page after page, trying to discover how the service can be arranged to justify itself in terms of money.
We come back to the social problem. What about it? Must we or must we not limit the social services rendered by the postal services? It is necessary to establish at what point the public are to be served, irrespective of whether or not the operation is profitable. For that reason, in some of my correspondence I suggested that an equivalent charge to a telegram of 1900, which I showed to your Lordships, should be made in terms of today's currency. I suggested that we should pay £1 for 20 words and 10p for each additional word. The minimum charge for a Telemessage is £4. However, it is only available to those with a telephone. There needs to be a reversal of policy. My papers show that there is a demand for the Telemessage service, which is mainly commercial, but my concern is for the ordinary man or woman in the street.
In a debate some years ago on the cost of telephones to be established at long distances I coined a phrase, "Granny up the Glen". In a curious way I found that that stuck and I now substitute the phrase, "Granny up the high rise". How can she send a social message unless she has a telephone or some means of contacting a post office? I believe that the post offices should revert to the situation in which we were when telegrams existed. One could go into the post office, put down a bob and send a telegram. That is all very well. However, I have tried to think of what is needed. What happens if somebody has missed a train? In the old days one could go to the post office and send a telegram. If one was a yachtsman who had put into port because of the weather or breakage or something, one could send a telegram to say where one was and where one expected to be by going to the local post office. I believe that one should be able to do something of that nature. There are many different instances of that kind. It is not only people missing trains and yachtsmen and the like. There are car accidents and other occasions when people who do not have access to a telephone can use the service.
It seems to me that what is needed is some sort of ombudsman who will knock the heads of the Post Office and British Telecom together. I believe that Professor Carsberg looks like the right man to do that. He is extremely efficient and I urge him and the Government generally to consider these matters.
I talked of Scotland and gold coins and the question of the Post Office in Scotland. It has come to my attention that there has been some discussion about making an additional charge applicable to letters being delivered to distant destinations. I hope that my information is wrong and that that day will never come. British postal services go all over the British Isles and I believe at present there is a surcharge only in respect of the Channel Islands.
There are many schemes for Telemessages which are very convenient. I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply can give some assurances about the postal service in Scotland, not only in regard to Telemessages but generally, because there is a good deal of dissatisfaction in Scotland with the service, though it is greatly improving. The service of sending passengers by postal vans is very welcome. I look forward to hearing any other views which may be expressed on this subject. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for moving his Motion and, indeed, for the tenacity which he has shown in pursuing this particular point over a period of two years. I am happy to speak in support of the Motion of the noble Lord. I am also happy on a personal basis because the noble Lord was a friend of my wife's father in Bombay a long time ago when my wife's father was ADC to the governor of the central provinces and the noble Lord was in Bombay. I hope that the fact that my wife's father was given the nickname of Buz has not imprinted itself on the noble Lord's mind to the point where he is obsessed by telephones and other related subjects.

1161
On a serious note, the noble Lord has raised a number of extremely important issues. There is the question of life and death messages in rural and deprived urban areas as well as ordinary social messages from the same sources. There is the question of the duties of the Post Office which, after all, is a government-owned institution; duties in relation to their social obligations and obligations to those who live in areas where postal facilities are sometimes difficult to come by. There is the question of the cost of telemessages to which the noble Lord referred. Finally, there is the question of the efficiency of the telemessage service in replacing the old telegram system that we used to know.
I should like to comment on those four areas and then widen the debate to consider what can be done to ensure that communications in rural areas are not left behind as technology advances, as it surely will. I believe that that follows the thrust of what the noble Lord said.
Perhaps I may turn to the issue of life and death messages in rural areas and those areas of social deprivation. If my figures are right, I believe that some 84 per cent. of the population—and I apologise to noble Lords if any of my figures are wrong because much of the information is anecdotal—are on the telephone. That implies that some 16 per cent. are not on the telephone. It is that 16 per cent. with which the noble Lord has rightly decided to deal. I speak from my own experience in mid-Wales: there are substantial problems due to the inability of people living in rural areas to reach a point where they can send life and death messages such as, to quote the noble Lord's phrase, "Auntie has died. Funeral on Wednesday". It is a problem with which I believe the new British Telecom—I say "new" in its private capacity—is not prepared to deal other than on a commercial basis. I can understand exactly why it prefers to do so only on a commercial basis—it is because that is its job.
As I have mentioned, there is the second problem of the duties of the Post Office. There has been a great deal of discussion about the closing of sub-post offices in rural areas. We have felt this very much in mid-Wales. A number of sub-post offices have been closed, which has meant that people who wish to avail themselves of what we regard as a normal facility offered by her Majesty's Government—the Royal Mail—are having great difficulty in so doing.
The third problem raised by the noble Lord is the cost of telemessages. I have no evidence concerning telegrams in the year 1900, but I certainly agree that, at least at the outset, the cost of telemessages is high. It is particularly high if, as the noble Lord said, one has to send a message from a telephone box. One has to go along with a mass of coins not knowing how much one is to be asked to pay.
The last question raised by the noble Lord related to the efficiency of the telemessage service. My informal evidence—I stress that it is informal and there may be other evidence—is that the use of telemessages is very small and that it does not measure up to the use that was made of telegrams. Because it is relatively small and probably confined to a small section of the population, the cost has gone up. Obviously British Telecom is a commercial
1162
venture and will charge the marginal cost for a telemessage as it will charge the marginal cost for any other service.
In looking at the four problems raised by the noble Lord in his Motion, I certainly agree that it is for the Government, and through them the Post Office, to correct the situation that he described. After all, the Government still have powers to direct the Post Office and until it is privatised and becomes a private company, or until in some way the telemessage system is made independent of government, the Secretary of State still has power to make directions to the Post Office. I believe that that should be done and that the Post Office should be directed by the Government to negotiate with British Telecom.
Having said that, I wish to take two or three minutes to widen the debate to include the general issue of communications in rural areas. Again, I base what I have to say on my experience on the Welsh Borders where I live. Those of us who live in hilly areas will know—taking a very simple and straightforward example—of the difficulty of television reception. That has caused, and is causing, a great number of technological problems and has been overcome only by a great deal of expenditure at the margin: that is to say, the BBC and the independent companies have had to spend a great deal more money servicing homes in mid-Wales than they have in servicing homes in, say, London.
Technology moves on and there will be other services which those in urban areas are going to enjoy but which those living in rural areas may well not enjoy unless special efforts are made. It is no secret that cable television is not available in rural areas. I must declare an interest here because I speak as a director of a company owning a company which is involved in cable television. I can see no real economic justification for a cable network in a rural area such as Radnorshire, where I live. After all, my nearest neighbour lives three-quarters of a mile away and it would be very difficult to have a cable which served both his house and mine on an economic basis without being charged an enormous amount for the service.
As regards hooking up to the telephone network in the future, there are still many people in rural areas—I suspect what is true for Wales is also true of Scotland—who do not enjoy the benefit of a telephone. This is anecdotal evidence and I place no particular reliance on this figure, but I am told that for a hookup to the BT main network the charge in the Welsh Borders today is £1,000 per pole. That is to say, when someone wants a telephone installed who has not been on the telephone before, British Telecom will measure the distance between the nearest pole and the house—every pole has to be a certain distance apart—and for each pole installed there will be a charge of £1,000. That figure may be an exaggeration—I know not. I simply say that I have heard that that is the charge which has been made.
The cellular network is not available in mid-Wales and I am sure that it is not available in many areas of Scotland. It may well be unavailable in many areas of the North of England. All this means that the technological advances of communication which are so important in rural areas will fail. They will become

1163
simple urban advances rather than servicing the people who really need to have the service.
Perhaps I may give an example. In rural areas the isolation of old people and farmers is a very serious problem. If we could construct a system whereby, for instance, an inter-active television system made sure that a farmer, isolated during bad weather, could get in touch with the various services that he required, that would be of enormous benefit to people living in rural areas. Undoubtedly it would meet the problem that we have where in bad weather it takes a very long time for rural communities to be brought back into the main stream of economic and social activity.
That problem is linked to the question of access to the health services, hospitals and education; which brings me back to the main point raised by the noble Lord—namely, the social role of utilities in the rural areas of Scotland, Wales, the South-West and some areas of the North. We used to have a tradition of neighbourly help and I believe we still do have such a tradition. Nevertheless, as developments move forward, as technology advances and we move into the satellite and cable-broadcasting systems and the cellular network, I believe that extra efforts have to be made to ensure that rural areas are not by-passed by these developments.
The noble Lord has quite rightly concentrated upon the matter of telemessages. I have tried to widen the debate to cover the question of communication within rural areas. I have mentioned a number of examples from mid-Wales from my own personal experience. However, I am sure that what happens in mid-Wales in the rural areas is, in a sense, a microcosm of what happens in rural areas throughout the country. I shall be very grateful if the Secretary of State, in replying to the noble Lord, could spend a little time concentrating upon the points that I have raised.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships for intervening when my name is not on the list. I shall not take more than a few minutes. I cannot claim any connection with the British Raj but the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and I have discussed this matter on many occasions since the days when I had the privilege of serving as Postmaster General in the 1960s. In those days telecommunications and the postal service were under the same organisation and they were run a great deal more efficiently than now when they are separated and one of them privatised.
Let me tell your Lordships about my experience with inland telegrams. From the day I entered St. Martin's-le-Grand, the headquarters of the Post Office, I was under constant pressure from the Post Office board to abolish inland telegrams. It hated the telegram service. It pressurised me the whole time to agree to its abolition, which I never did. The Post Office kept putting up the cost—outrageously I thought—hoping that demand would wither away because of the very high cost. However, under another government, the board succeeded. It was agreed that the inland telegram service should be replaced by telemessages.
1164
As the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, said, there are two problems. First, people who do not have a telephone cannot send a telemessage unless they go out and find a telephone box, which is not all that easy. That is so not only in the rural areas; everyone is affected. The second problem is the outrageous cost—a minimum of £4. Those who have to send telemessages are on the whole poor. They do not have telephones. So it is the poorest section of the community that has to pay his minimum charge of £4 for a telemessage. It seems to me that British Telecom is doing exactly as the Post Office board did to me when I was Postmaster General. It is putting up the cost all the time, hoping that the thing will go away.
I have always suspected these costs. On a number of occasions I asked for costings of the inland telegram service. I suspected the costings I was given because they included many items that were covered elsewhere. I do not believe that the inland telegram service lost nearly as much money as the Post Office said it did. Nor do I believe that telemessages are losing as much money as British Telecom says they are losing. When the Bill to separate the two services and to make two corporations instead of one was passing through the House, and when British Telecom was being privatised, we received countless assurances from the Government Front Bench that British Telecom and the Post Office would retain the public service aspect of their service. We were given that assurance over and over again.
Those utilities must recognise that although they are businesses—they are important and very large businesses—they are also rendering a public service, they are not, and never will be, like ordinary private enterprise firms. They have a much more important public service aspect to them.
The Post Office has to deliver letters to remote villages in the Borders and in the north of Scotland. A letter may have on it a 13p stamp, but it may cost 75p or £1·75 to deliver. However, the Post Office delivers it because it provides a public service. It has to recognise that it is rendering a public service as well as making a profit. There will always be life and death occasions when people, especially poor people, want to send a message from one end of the country to a relative living in a distant town. Life and death messages are with us and will always be with us. We all have to die some day. Everyone dies and everyone has to be born. These messages will always be necessary. As I have said before, it is the poorest people with no telephone who have difficulty in sending them.
I do not know what the answer is; but it is the Government's duty as the custodian of the public interest to see that there is a service by which poor people—not only people who have telephones—can send life and death messages at a cost very much lower than the present minimum of £4.
5.45 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ferrier for bringing this matter before the House. I am conscious as I stand here that I have the serried ranks of Scotland behind me and of

1165
Wales in front of me. I have only the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, for company in defence of we Englishmen.
I should like to assure the House that on the question of services to rural areas the position is not quite as bad as it may appear. Condition 2 of the licence under which British Telecom provides telecommunications services specifically covers services to rural areas—both voice telephony and other telecommunications services. British Telecom must provide services to every person who requests the provision of these services. The only exception is where the Director-General of Telecommunications is satisfied that any reasonable demand is best met by other means.
There is a clear obligation on British Telecom to provide a telephone to those who want one. The director-general, as one of his specific duties, has to exercise his functions in a way best calculated to secure services in rural areas. There is a clear obligation on the director-general to do that and an obligation on British Telecom to provide those services unless the director-general is satisfied that there is another way of dealing with the matter. The same protection is built into licences relating to public callboxes, directory inquiry services and maritime services.
Noble Lords considered the licence, which was debated at great length at the time, to be sufficient, and I have great confidence that Professor Carsberg will continue to bear in mind the interests of rural areas. The Government have stated on many occasions their commitment to the maintenance of a post office network adequate to enable the Post Office to fulfil its statutory duty to provide services, having regard to efficiency and economy and the social needs of the United Kingdom. We bear those matters in mind, and that is why the Royal Mail is described as something different and special. I hope that it will long continue to be so.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, said that I should issue a direction to the Post Office. The role of the Government is confined to broad matters of policy and settling the financial framework of the Post Office. It is for the Post Office board to manage the business from day to day. The relationship between the Post Office and British Telecom is very much a matter for the Post Office.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the Secretary of State implying that he has no power to issue such a direction to the Post Office, or is it that he just does not want to?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, without looking to see whether there is a power—perhaps many powers are left over from a former age—it is the policy of this Government not to interfere. But I may not have the power. That is a matter I shall have to check. I suspect it is a residue from prehistoric times.
I should like to congratulate my noble friend on the persistence he has shown in pursuing this matter over a considerable time. Even more, I am filled with admiration. He referred to the fact that he received a letter from Professor Carsberg on a Sunday. I do not
1166
know whether that is peculiar to Scotland but it is certainly not possible for those of us who live in England.
As the noble Lord has indicated, telemessage is a service operated by British Telecom. It was introduced in 1981 and took over in 1982 from the inland telegram service, which was becoming increasingly loss-making and less popular. The noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, referred to the history of the matter, and I hope to come back to that in a moment. The telemessage service provides a means for people to send urgent messages and social congratulatory messages in a most convenient way by telephone.
For noble Lords who need reminding, one can contact the telemessage service from one's own telephone, from a public callbox, by telex or, in today's world, by fax. If you live in London, Birmingham or Glasgow you dial 190 and in other parts of the country you just dial 100 and ask the operator for the connection. Such calls are free, but once connected to the telemessage operator, of course, the charges commence. The message is read back by British Telecom to avoid errors and then sent electronically to one of 28 Royal Mail sorting offices nationwide where it is printed and delivered in time for the next working day.
I hate to correct the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and indeed other noble Lords, but I fear that the minimum charge is £5, plus VAT, for 50 words and not £4 as suggested. For every further 50 words there is another charge.
The Post Office offers two types of service for those people wanting messages delivered the following day. There is of course first class mail by which 90 per cent. of all items are delivered next day. There is also the Royal Mail Special Delivery which guarantees delivery the next day or your money back. That service is available all over the country from all sub-post offices; the charge is £1.50. Datapost is available at some 3,000 post offices in the land. That service, mainly for commercial matters, costs £13 per item for guaranteed next-day delivery. I would not have thought that such a service is suitable for congratulatory messages.
Before I move on to discuss the main subject of the debate, it may be helpful if I set out the framework within which British Telecom operates. When BT was privatised, the Government made clear that they did not intend to intervene in the commercial decisions of the company. Indeed, I have already referred to the licence which is granted and how that protects the rural areas. I have also referred to the role of Professor Bryan Carsberg, the Director-General of Telecommunications. He has specific duties set out for him which include looking after the interests of the consumer and the assurance of telecommunications services to all those who reasonably demand them. For example, there are specific requirements relating to 999 services and directory enquiries which are the minimum framework. However, the introduction of other services is a matter for British Telecom's judgment.
Given that framework, it will be principally for British Telecom and the Director-General of Oftel to consider the points made by my noble friend about telemessage. Indeed, we know that he is considering

1167
such matters at the moment and we look forward to hearing Professor Carsberg's conclusions.
My noble friend focused especially on whether the telemessage service should be made available at post offices. As I have already said, the Post Office already offers some services which guarantee delivery the next day. Once an individual has gone to a post office, other services are generally available there and possibly at a lower price. Therefore it is not clear that the availability of telemessage at post offices would bring any substantial benefits. After all, the main selling point of telemessage is the convenience for the telephone user. And, of course, the telephone user includes users of public call boxes.
I am sure all noble Lords will join with me in congratulating the chairman and the management of British Telecom on the recent figures regarding call boxes which show that more than 90 per cent. of them are in working order. I hope that that situation will long continue.
My noble friend asked about people who do not have telephones. I must tell the House that 81 per cent. of the population had telephones in 1986—a figure that may well have increased by now—and that the penetration rate of telephones has risen year after year. In addition there are some 80,000 public call boxes nationwide. Further, I hope that we will see some good quality service figures announced later this week. One of the reasons for the decline of the inland telegram was the increase in pentetration of the telephone. I can sympathise with my noble friend; I too retain a certain nostalgia for that service. I can understand that many people regret its passing. Nevertheless, when the service was discontinued in 1982 the telegram service as a whole was losing some £50 million a year of which £20 million was on the inland side. Indeed, the demand for telegrams fell by some 30 per cent. in the three years before closure.
An interesting factor is that on average each and every member of the population sent one telegram every 16 years. That is how the figures worked out. As I stand here now I am trying to recall the last time I sent a telegram. I suspect that I exceeded that particular average. Even six years ago, when telephone penetration was 76 per cent. of households, less than 10 per cent. of telegrams were handed over the post office counter. In other words, even at that time, 90 per cent. of the telegrams sent actually started their journey by telephone. Therefore, as the percentage of households without telephones declines, there is less need for the service.
There remains the important issue of urgent life and death messages. My noble friend and indeed the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Glenamara, referred to the need for a service to send urgent messages on the same day. That requirement raises different issues from the social messages. The sending of a telemessage for next-day delivery is most suitable for a social message, but I do appreciate that there is a real need, occasionally, for life and death messages. I do not wish to be unsympathetic to that problem. Of course the simplest answer lies in the telephone itself with its instantaneous communication. That applies to over eight out of 10 households.
1168
Many people without a telephone do nevertheless have access to one through neighbours and friends, or at their place of work, in the event of an emergency. Indeed, many local authorities give grants to people to have telephones installed in cases of real need. Should there be a real emergency of this nature the police, certainly in the metropolitan area, will deliver a message. I believe that such measures taken together go a long way towards ensuring that urgent messages get through. However, I am glad to say that the Post Office and British Telecom are considering the problem, to see whether there is any other solution.
Finally, I turn to the cost of the service and the big question as to whether British Telecom could provide a lower minimum number of words at a cheaper price. I have no doubt that the company will carefully note what has been said today. However, it is possible that a large part of British Telecom's cost for such a service will be fixed and remain the same regardless of the length of the message. That being so, it could mean that a price reduction would be uneconomic and indeed could well jeopardise the viability of the service that my noble friend is so keen to see extended. However, that is a matter for Professor Carsberg. He will have to consider whether the price is reasonable; whether the service is being run inefficiently; and, ultimately, if or when it should be extended.
However, we must be very careful before we seek to require the provision of this service at a loss which could mean higher charges for consumers elsewhere, involving people who might not wish to have the service. Clearly it is a matter for the Director-General of Oftel; it is one which British Telecom is considering and one that the Post Office is also considering. I hope that in due course all Members of your Lordships' House will hear the result of such considerations, and I hope that everyone will be satisfied with the decision reached.
6 p.m.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, there are only one or two words that I should like to say in conclusion. First, I wish to thank all those noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, especially the noble Lord, Lord Young. The explanation behind my receiving a letter on Sunday was that I returned from London on Friday and by Saturday I was horizontal as a result of—well, you know what! Therefore it was only when I was able to stagger to my desk on Sunday that I noticed Professor Carsberg's letter.
I could have made many more important points but there is not enough time. It must be remembered that high-rise flats have replaced the loneliness of the glen. We have not discussed the fact that if we could give the district post offices more work, that might be economical by increasing employment. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, mentioned the cost of £1,000 per pole. I am told that the technicians will overcome that problem by substituting some form of radio contact for a telephone line. I thank your Lordships for assisting me in this debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Illness in the House
6.1 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a Statement on the illness which many of your Lordships and the staff of your Lordships' House, primarily in the Refreshment Department, have recently experienced.
Since yesterday, when the seriousness of the situation was recognised, a team, led by the Medical Officer for Environmental Health for the City of Westminster, assisted by the Communicable Diseases Surveillance Centre, has been conducting thorough investigations.
It would seem likely that the infection has been caused by a salmonella, one of the commonest causes of food poisoning. Symptoms commonly occur within two to three days but may occur up to one week following ingestion. In the circumstances, having considered all aspects of the problem, the investigating team has recommended that, provided certain measures are taken, there is no reason why a limited service should not continue to be provided by the Refreshment Department. Perhaps I should add here that the kitchens were found to be in first-class order. The team will continue to monitor events closely.
The only precautions that are recommended are that normal hygiene measures, such as the washing of hands, be scrupulously observed and that if anyone should become ill they contact their doctor.
If further advice is required, it may be obtained from a representative of the medical team on 01–798 1232. A 24-hour service will be maintained.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, perhaps I may thank the noble Lord the Chief Whip for making that Statement so promptly this afternoon. It is good to hear that our kitchens were found to be in first-class order. I am sure that that will give a measure of assurance to Peers. There was speculation in some elements of the tabloid press that Legionnaires' disease was involved. I wonder whether the noble Lord will confirm categorically that that is not so.
Lord Denham: My Lords, yes, I can tell the House categorically that that is not the case.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord the Chief Whip for making the Statement to the House. Clearly there has been considerable distress felt by members of the staff and Members of your Lordships' House, especially among the team of people working on the Education Reform Bill. We hope that they will be able to be in their places tomorrow to carry on that marathon. This is not a joking matter of course, but as this is one of the commonest causes of food poisoning, it is an inappropriate thing to happen in your Lordships' House. It might have been more suitable at the other end of the building! I should like to ask the noble Lord one question. What is meant by a limited service in the Refreshment Department? Again, I make no comment on the previous service!
1170
We are grateful for the information and especially for the knowledge that people who are in distress can contact the medical team. I know that a number of noble Lords who are in hospital or fairly seriously ill at home will probably make use of that number. I also hope that members of the Refreshment Department staff are not too seriously afflicted, are shortly returned to health and are soon back in action. I thank the noble Lord for making the Statement.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. I must apologise for preempting his question to begin with. The service is limited because of the shortage of staff. I must emphasise that the staff who are ill will not be allowed back until they have been cleared completely by the investigating team. Thorough cleansing of the kitchens will take place tonight before food is prepared tomorrow. There will be a daily review of control measures by the investigating team.
Lord Renton: My Lords, as one of your Lordships who has been one of the sufferers, may I too say how much I appreciate the Statement made by my noble friend. It is both timely and reassuring. We are grateful to him. Does it follow from his Statement that there is no cause for alarm? Does it also follow that none of the sufferers is likely to be a carrier of this unpleasant complaint?
Lord Denham: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. I sympathise with him as one of the sufferers. That being so, perhaps I may congratulate him on the remarkably healthy appearance he shows today. There is no cause for alarm. One can be a carrier. It is rare, but I must repeat that the precautions to be taken are the normal precautions of cleanliness; that is, washing, especially before meals.
Lord Morris: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that my understanding is that there are over 200 different strains of salmonella? Has this strain been identified? If it is a new strain could it possibly be salmonella nobilissima!
Lord Denham: My Lords, I was not aware of my noble friend's knowledge of salmonella. I am afraid that I cannot give him the exact classification of the strain. Although some strains of salmonella are more dangerous than others, ours seems to be a reasonable one.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, will my noble friend set our minds at rest on one other point? Is there any connection between the most unusually short lists of speakers in the debate today and the sudden onset of this illness?
Lord Denham: My Lords, I think that that is accidental although it possibly arises from the same event. I am told that the exact strain of salmonella is now in the process of being identified.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, will the noble Lord give us an idea of how many members of staff of the Refreshment Department and how many Peers have been afflicted by this illness?
Lord Denham: My Lords, I think that it is about 40 Peers and members of staff.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, as one of the Members of your Lordships' House who is not infrequently called upon to give medical advice to noble Lords, perhaps I may take the liberty of asking the noble Lord the Chief Whip one question. Whenever there are rumours of an epidemic, it is remarkable how soon certain people begin to feel that they are suffering from the condition. It is interesting to note that last night, when the debate went on a long time, a number of noble Lords felt unwell and believed it necessary to go home. I emphasise that not many of those noble Lords have been suffering from the condition. It is clear from the Statement that we have not yet identified the point in the food chain at which this infection has been introduced. It can be at any stage. It may well be outside the House and connected with the supply of some food or liquid. I am sure that the professional people who are studying this matter will sooner or later identify the source of this infection. When we have that knowledge, it would be helpful if the noble Lord would give it to the House.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I shall certainly give that information to the House. The team monitoring what is happening will continue to do so. I think one must also make clear that people have symptoms of upset stomachs at any time in the year. If anybody has that, it may not necessarily be connected with the outbreak.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord two questions. The first has already been asked but not answered. What is meant by a "limited service"? Secondly, as the noble Lord will know, salmonella poisoning often arises from frozen food which has not been properly defrosted. Can the noble Lord say whether any such food is used?
Lord Ampthill: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord the Chief Whip would allow me to intervene since I may be in a better position to answer the question about the limited service. As I am responsible for the Refreshment Department, perhaps I may take the opportunity to express my very great regret that this event has occurred. The origins are by no means certain yet; it will take many days of research before the cause of the outbreak is established.
The reason for the restricted service, as the Chief Whip has told the House, is that 21 out of a total of 54 staff are away ill. Again, as the Chief Whip has told the House, they will not be allowed to return to work until all the tests upon them are positive as far as their health is concerned and negative as far as the ailment is concerned. The way in which we shall restrict the service is the simple one of introducing a smaller menu than normal. We may have to restrict the numbers of functions but I am hoping that that can be avoided. I hope that those comments answer the noble Lord's question.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that explanation. We
1172
appreciate that he is doing everything he possibly can to deal with the matter. I also asked about frozen foods. Very often salmonella poisoning arises from frozen food which has been improperly defrosted. Can the noble Lord say whether frozen food is used at all in the House of Lords?
Lord Ampthill: My Lords, one of the advantages of a shortage of space is that we have very little storage room for frozen or chilled food. Most food consumed is fresh, but there is a fair amount of frozen food because we never know the numbers for which we shall have to cater.
The deepfreeze room was re-equipped last summer. The inspections which have already been taking place during the last 24 hours have indicated that the conditions in the kitchen are splendid. Those inspecting the premises are enormously impressed with the high standards of hygiene and the routines which are followed. They were astonished to realise that we use separate boards on which to chop each different food and that the boards are colour-coded to make certain that there is no mixing.
As many noble Lords may have heard, it has been my permanent dread that this event should occur in the House. We take a great many precautions. I repeat what I said at the beginning, that I very much regret that this has happened.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell us whether it is perfectly safe to use the bars in the House?
Lord Denham: My Lords, I think that we may be getting a little out of order. The rules of order in the House were not designed to cope with an emergency such as this. However I am told that it is perfectly safe to use the bar and sometimes even advisable!

Consumer Arbitration Agreements Bill
6.12 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
It is inevitable that from time to time disputes arise between members of the public and those who provide services to them by way of business. This Bill concerns arbitration between consumers and traders. When there is a dispute these days most consumers can seek justice through the small claims procedure in the county court in England and Wales and, in a somewhat modified form, in Northern Ireland. In Scotland a similar scheme starts later this year.
It is because the existing small claims procedures have worked so well that there has arisen the need to protect consumers from having their right to go to the small claims court, as many people have come to call it, taken away by the small print in the contract forms. The Bill which I put before your Lordships this evening is to protect consumers from such clauses, giving them the right to go to court if they so wish.
When this Bill was introduced by my honourable friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth it

1173
provided that this right to go to court rather than to arbitration should be absolute for consumers, irrespective of the amount in dispute. There were some differences of opinion and eventually the Department of Trade and Industry referred the matter to the Departmental Advisory Committee on Arbitration. That committee, under Lord Justice Mustill, conducted a very swift investigation into the merits of the Bill and made a report to the department within a matter of weeks.
I think it would be right for me to pay tribute to Lord Justice Mustill and his colleagues for the work that they did, particularly on the questions put to them, and for their courtesy and helpfulness generally in listening to what was said to them in support of the principle of the Bill, notably by the Consumers' Association.
Where the dispute between a consumer and a trader involves less than £500, the Bill provides that consumers should have the absolute right to have the matter resolved through the court procedure. In England and Wales that means through the small claims procedure, which automatically applies to county court cases which are below £500. I think it would be right if I remind your Lordships of the great success of the small claims procedure. Some more versed in its activities have described it as an ornament to the legal system.
As the passage of the Bill in another place has received all-party support, it may be necessary for me to mention quite briefly the principal clauses. Clause 1 is the main operative provision in the Bill. It provides that an arbitration clause in a contract with a consumer cannot be enforced against him except in any one of three specified cases. The three cases are: first, where the consumer agrees in writing to submit to arbitration once a dispute has arisen; secondly, where the consumer has submitted to arbitration—in other words where he has gone along with it and not objected to arbitration which has been initiated; and, thirdly, where the court decides, in a case where the dispute involves a sum between £500 and £5,000, that arbitration would involve no detriment to the consumer.
Clause 2 excludes from the operation of the Bill two kinds of case where arbitration clauses involving consumers may exist. They are, first, cases which operate wholly outside the United Kingdom; and, secondly, cases arising from types of business which were excluded from the operation of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. These include such matters as insurance contracts, contracts relating to houses and other real property and contracts relating to companies and shares. Perhaps I may add here that on the whole the scope of this Bill before your Lordships this evening has followed that of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.
Clause 3 defines "consumer" for the purposes of this Bill and Clause 4 spells out the detail of Clause 1(1)(c) which enables a court, in cases within the band of £500 to £5,000, to order that a dispute should go to arbitration and not to court.
Clause 5 provides the machinery for amending the levels of the application of the main provisions of the Bill and Clauses 6, 7 and 8 relate particularly to Scottish matters and make provision under Scottish
1174
law for substantially the same purposes. Clause 9 is self-explanatory.
The Bill has Government support and I sincerely hope that it will have the support of your Lordships. I commend the Bill to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
6.20 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, it is with some very real regret that I rise to support this Bill. My regret stems from the fact that as I see it it really should have been quite unnecessary. Disputes between citizens in any complex society are quite inevitable. In some ways an index of the advanced nature of that society is the extent to which it provides adequate systems for disputes settlement. By adequate I mean efficient and cheap.
In this country we have a mixed economy and it is not inappropriate that we have therefore tackled this problem of disputes settlement by a mixed economic approach. There is the private sector, the arbitration sector, and the public sector or nationalised industry to which I belong, the courts. That public sector co-operates with the private sector. There is no competition at all between the two branches. We do provide a slightly different service—one is more appropriate to some cases and the other to others. But going back to the private sector—the arbitration sector—the commodity trades based on the City of London have for years taken the line that if one is engaged in such a trade, one owes it to the trade to act as an arbitrator and to do so virtually free of charge.
In the retail trade the same result has been achieved by and large by a somewhat different route. There the trade associations have set up arbitration schemes. The claimant pays a small fee to register his claim and then submit it to arbitration. That is usually less than the fee payable under the courts' small claims fee. If he represents himself as he should do in small claims cases and loses, all that he will lose will be the small registration fee of perhaps £15 or thereabouts. If he wins, he gets the fee back and all that the other side, the losing party, has hazarded is the requirement that he compensates the claimant in the amount which he paid by way of a registration fee.
One may ask where the balance of the cost comes from. The answer is that it comes from the trade associations. It is regarded as being a legitimate expense to be borne by the trade as a whole. The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (of which I was at one time president) runs some 40 such schemes. Most large retail companies I imagine spend considerable sums on consumer relations and consumer complaints departments. It would perhaps be idle to assume that that is entirely a philanthropic exercise; on the contrary, it is an example of enlightened self-interest.
I cannot for the life of me understand why having gone that far it should not be the universal practice to go just a little bit further and provide a system of low cost arbitration to resolve the few disputes which are not resolved by the ordinary process of investigation and negotiation between the customer and the retail trader. Of course that is very widely done and very

1175
successfully done. One might mention the insurance industry which does that on a large scale although part of that industry prefers the ombudsman approach.
The banking industry has someone called an ombudsman although he is probably an arbitrator. However, I shall not go into the technicalities of which function he fulfils. But at all events it is the same approach. It is the approach of investigating the customer's complaint as far as is possible; but when the crunch comes it is a matter of providing a low cost or a no cost system for a third party decision as to where the rights and wrongs lie.
I personally find it a very great pity that the furniture removal industry which seems to have been largely the cause of this Bill, and to a lesser extent the building industry, should have declined so far to follow suit. If they cannot be persuaded to do so, I would agree that this Bill is necessary in order to remove the evil of customers and consumers being priced out of justice—because that is what it amounts to. In another place figures were mentioned of a legally-qualified arbitrator being paid £200 to adjudicate in such disputes. Nobody who has a claim of under four figures or more could contemplate going to arbitration where he risked an order that he pay not only the arbitrator's fee which would be excessive in itself in relation to the claim but also possibly the legal costs of the other side. It is for that reason and in that way that people are being priced out of justice.
Of course it may be said—and I hope I am not straying too far from the Bill in this regard—that the mischief to which the Bill is directed is part of a larger problem which stems from the high cost of lawyers. I accept that the members of the legal profession are expensive, but they have had a long and costly training and many of them have high overhead expenses. They are worthy of their hire. But having said that, there is no reason in common sense why one should employ highly qualified people to do a job when it is just not cost effective to do so.
What we must do is to provide an alternative. Thinking about that, I realised that it is very odd that in this country criminal justice, or 98 per cent. of criminal justice cases, depend entirely upon the voluntary unpaid services of justices of the peace. They resolve disputes between the state and the citizen. They do not have legal training although they very quickly acquire a great deal of legal knowledge in the limited sphere in which they are operating. Without their services, the administration of justice in the criminal field would grind to an immediate halt.
Is there not a case for looking to see whether we could not have civil justices of the peace who unpaid would take on the very important duty of resolving small disputes between consumers and others and indeed between citizen and citizen? However, I stray from the Bill. I wish to raise two points about the Bill. The first concerns Clause 1(1)(b). I had thought from reading the debate in another place that the purpose of Clause 1(1)(b) was that where a consumer positively put forward his claim and said to the trade arbitral tribunal, "I have a claim, I wish to
1176
arbitrate it and put it forward" that in those circumstances the consumer should be bound by the arbitration clause but that is certainly not the way in which this particular clause would be interpreted.
There is a very real difference, as a matter of technicality, between submitting to arbitration and submitting a claim to arbitration. I fear greatly that with the Bill as drafted the customer who is faced with a claim by a furniture remover, for instance, for the fees or the balance of fees for removal which has been put to arbitration by the contractor, will write in, when he is told about the claim, and say, "I do not owe it because …". The moment he says that, I believe that the courts will be in a position in which they must say that he has submitted to arbitration when in fact there was probably nothing that was further from his mind. I hope that those who are in charge of the Bill will look at the wording and make certain that that is what they intend.
The other point that troubles me concerns Clause 4. Under Clause 4, it will be open to the contractor (as will probably be the case) to apply to the High Court or the county court for an order disapplying Section 1; in other words, an order that the consumer is bound by Section 1. There is nothing in the Bill about costs. The costs of the application may be considerable. It might be worthwhile for a trade association to turn up, represented by leading and junior council instructed by solicitors. The trade association would not be so concerned with that particular case as with getting a ruling that arbitration is in the interests of the contractor. What is the customer to do when he is suddenly faced with an application such as that? If I were the customer and faced with an application by a contractor, backed by his trade association, to disapply Section 1, I would run a mile rather than risk getting involved in an argument and perhaps losing it and having an almost unlimited order for costs made against me.
Those are detailed points which will be more suitably discussed on another occasion. However, I wish to put down a marker on those potential problems; and, the evil existing, I welcome the Bill as a solution.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I should like to add a few words in support of the Bill which has been so admirably and clearly introduced by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth. My honourable friend Mr. James Pawsey was fortunate in attaining a high place in the annual ballot for Private Members' Bills in another place. That is a happy situation. I once had similar good fortune when I was in another place. My honourable friend has therefore won time for discussion of the Bill in the other place, and it comes to us in its present form with the blessing of the Government. It is also strongly supported by the Consumers' Association.
The purpose of the Bill is not opposition to arbitration. Arbitration is relevant and helpful as a recourse in many situations. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, has just described such situations; there are few noble Lords who are more qualified to speak on that subject. The Bill ensures

1177
that customers will have the option of going to court when there is a dispute about damages, claims or services. With the small claims procedure operating satisfactorily and a similar scheme about to start in Scotland, it will usually be cheaper and more convenient for members of the public to choose the courts rather than arbitration. The option should be kept open for them. Access to the courts for all is a basic right in this country and it should not be lightly given up or removed.
I am fortified in that belief by the views expressed by the Director-General of the Office of Fair Trading, Sir Gordon Borrie, who wrote to Mr. Pawsey to the effect that the arbitration schemes operating under the codes of practice which he had endorsed were intended to be an available option and not a replacement for other forms of redress, including access to the courts. I hope that, with any amendments which may be necessary for clarity which may be suggested by the noble and learned Lord, the Bill will be accepted in principle by your Lordships' House.
6.38 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, perhaps I may also thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for his clear presentation of the Bill and say that I, in common with previous speakers, believe that it is a useful and helpful piece of legislation. We on these Benches may be even more pleased to welcome it than anyone else. The only slightly sour note that I might adopt would be to point out that the measure was due to come before the House 11 years ago. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, implied, the provisions of the Bill fill the gap which was left when the Unfair Contract Terms Act was introduced by a Labour Government in 1977. That Act in large measure safeguarded consumers from the mischief of small print and the result has been that, for the past 11 years, consumers cannot be unfairly deprived of the basic legal rights which Parliament intended them to have.
The only flaw in the Act was that it did not extend to compulsory arbitration clauses. When your Lordships' House sought to put that right, the government of the day, being in rather a delicate position with a very small majority, had too much on their hands to overturn the Conservative opposition in another place when the amendment proposed by your Lordships' House returned there. In my view, the Bill completes the work of those days.
The Consumers' Association has sent us examples of specific cases where a customer wished to claim compensation from a trader after he had signed a compulsory arbitration clause. Such examples make us realise how much the provisions of the Bill will help. A dissatisfied customer, who may be elderly and unused to small print (and how many of us have been caught by the small print on the back of a contract?), may discover too late that he is tied to arbitration as the only means to settling the dispute. On the other hand, he may be faced with the fact that his claim is less than the £200 a day cost of arbitration and therefore be forced to settle for whatever the trader offers him, which would probably be a smaller amount. The Bill gives the consumer the invaluable option of taking his claim through the small claims
1178
procedure in court, which will certainly bring him greater justice.
That leads me to a point which I should like to put to the Minister. It concerns the limit of £500 at which the small claims jurisdiction stands at present. That has stood at the same level since 1981. When it was first introduced in 1973, the level was £75. After a year or so, as the scheme took hold and became a considerable success, the level was raised to £100 and it was later raised to £200. Now that it has stood at the present level of £500 for seven years, perhaps the time is right for it to be raised again.
The Lord Chancellor's Department issued a consultation paper in September 1986 floating the idea of raising the limit to perhaps £1,000. That idea has been on the table for over a year. Perhaps it is appropriate to ask whether anything is to be done and, if so, when. Unlike other possible reforms which have emerged from the civil justice review, this reform is not controversial. No one has spoken against the proposal to raise the small claims limit. If the Government decide to do that, the level of application of the provision in the Bill would be automatically self-adjusting.
This Bill gives consumers the absolute right to go to court to defy the compulsory arbitration clause in cases where the dispute falls within the limits of the county court's small claims jurisdiction. Surely a speedy and efficient way of extending the application of the provisions of this Bill to the area which ought really to be covered would be for the Lord Chancellor to raise the limit for the small claims jurisdiction to £1,000 as soon as possible. I may say that this proposition is strongly supported by the Consumers' Association.
Secondly, may I address one other point to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas? This concerns the codes of conduct. As I am sure your Lordships will know, the Office of Fair Trading has for several years promoted the system of codes of conduct to raise trading standards and to protect consumers. These codes have been drawn up on a different basis for various trades by trade associations, but they mostly have in common a system of arbitration for the resolution of disputes between customers and traders which cannot be settled in any other way. The Office of Fair Trading would not approve a code which did not make provision for this kind of arbitration as a final stage.
If the Bill became law and extensive use were to be made of its provision to go to the courts instead of using arbitration procedures, what effect does the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, think that would have on existing codes of conduct, as well as on the establishment of new ones?
These codes contain much which at earlier stages in their procedures are helpful to consumers as well as raising trading standards generally. On balance, it will disadvantage consumers if the codes fall into disuse and eventually cease to exist. Consumers will then need to rely on general legal provisions, and while these are a useful long stop they do not easily accommodate all disputes in every trade as effectively as codes of conduct. Also, the absence of a code may mean deteriorating trading standards as traders cease to be specifically regulated by their trade

1179
associations. I should be very grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would give his views on that point.
Finally, perhaps I may say that this Bill certainly has a great deal of support: the support of the Institute of Trading Standards Administration, the Office of Fair Trading and the Department of Trade and Industry. As the noble Lord said, the Consumers' Association has had a great deal to do with presenting it. The only voice of dissent that I have noticed has come from the British Association of Removers. Again, I should be very grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would comment on the fact that it believes that a satisfactory self-regulatory code could be introduced for removal claims handling and that the association could sponsor a small claims arbitration service in conjunction with the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, was thinking rather along those lines. The British Association of Removers adds that it hopes realistic proposals will be ready by the autumn. Again, I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would comment on the suggestion made by the association to clear up this problem.
In conclusion, I believe the Bill is an important advance in respect of consumer rights and completes the work begun 10 years ago with the Unfair Contract Terms Act. We on these Benches certainly give it our full support.
6.44 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, may I first congratulate my noble friend Lord Lucas on the lucid way in which he has introduced the Bill. Let me say at the outset that the Government do not oppose the Bill and indeed have provided drafting assistance. Your Lordships may have noticed from the precise language of the Bill that the hands of the parliamentary draftsman and his Scottish colleague have been at work. There is of course a coherent policy underlying the Bill as it is now drafted and I should like to explain to your Lordships how it has come about.
Towards the end of last year the issues raised by the Bill were referred to the Department of Trade and Industry's Advisory Committee on Arbitration Law. This committee is chaired by Lord Justice Mustill, and includes representatives from Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Committee took oral evidence from the promoters of the Bill as well as from the Office of Fair Trading, the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, the British Association of Removers and the Federation of Master Builders. A copy of the committee's report is available in the Library.
The committee concluded that the Bill did address a problem, albeit not a great one—the problem being essentially one of cost and its deterrent effect. My noble friend Lord Lucas has explained what the problem is and I do not think I need to spell it out again in detail. Suffice it to say that the Government recognise two situations where arbitration clauses can discourage consumers with a genuine grievance from pursuing their claims. The first concerns cases involving small sums of up to £500, which would
1180
automatically be heard under the small claims procedure in the county court. The maximum cost of preceedings under the small claims procedure is £43, while the cost of arbitration depends on the scheme specified in the contract. There are low-cost arbitration schemes, but others can cost the loser between £200 and £300. Clearly a consumer with a disputed claim for, say, £250 is going to think twice before risking the same amount again at an arbitration hearing. He is much less likely to be deterred by the cost of proceedings in the small claims court.
The second situation where an arbitration clause can work to the disadvantage of a consumer is in cases above the small claims limit, where the consumer would be eligible for legal aid in court proceedings. Legal aid, of course, is not available for arbitration. The proponents of the Bill argue that the consumer should always be entitled to pursue a dispute in court and that this right should never be taken away from him by the small print in the contract. Access to justice, they argue, should be the overriding principle.
I certainly see the force of this argument. However, there are other important principles at stake. One is that the parties to a contract, while being free to agree the terms of the contract, should be bound by those terms once they have been agreed. There must be very good grounds for allowing one of the parties unilaterally to say, "I know I signed the contract but I don't like this or that particular term, so let's ignore it."
The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1979 erodes the principle of sanctity of contract to some extent by making void or voidable the type of clause under which one of the parties seeks to exclude his liability for negligence or breach of contract. However, any further erosions of the principle must be firmly justified.
Another important aspect is the impact of this Bill on arbitration law. It is a principle of arbitration law that when parties agree to resolve future differences by arbitration that agreement should be binding. Section 4 of the Arbitration Act 1950 gives the court discretion to allow court proceedings to continue, notwithstanding an arbitration clause, but the grounds for exercising the discretion are very restrictively applied. The Government have no quarrel with arbitration as a means of resolving disputes. We regard it as an excellent alternative to the courts and it has the very great merit in our eyes that it relieves the burden on the court system.
The Department of Trade and Industry's advisory committee drew attention to these arguments and recommended that, if the Bill was to be enacted, its scope should be narrowed so that it addressed the identified problem but minimised interference with freedom of contract and with arbitration law. It suggested some ways in which this might be done. The Government subsequently discussed them with the promoters of the Bill and the result is the present draft.
I do not want to detain your Lordships with a detailed commentary on the Bill's provisions, but I should like to make just one point. The Bill refers throughout to jurisdictional limits rather than to

1181
specific monetary amounts. Thus, Clause 1 limits the scope of the Bill to proceedings within the jurisdiction of a county court. Clause 4 qualifies Clause 1 by enabling a court to enforce an arbitration clause in the case of disputes falling within the jurisdiction of a county court, provided that arbitration would not be detrimental to the interests of the consumer, and provided that the dispute is above the small claims limit. The latter part of the Bill applies similar but not identical provisions to Scotland.
The technique of referring to jurisdictional limits has the obvious advantage that if new limits come into force they will apply automatically to this Bill and there will be no need for secondary legislation to bring it up to date. As a precaution, however, the Bill gives the Secretary of State the power, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor or Lord Advocate as appropriate, to specify higher limits by order. The Government hope that it will be possible to avoid specifying particular monetary limits by order, but if in the light of experience it becomes clear that different limits would be preferable, in Scotland or elsewhere, the order-making power exists.
I turn now to two points raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, who referred to Clause 1(1)(b). It is not the intention that the consumer should be regarded as having submitted to arbitration unless he has evinced a clear intention to accept the arbitration process. However, we shall look at the point again and take it up with the sponsors of the Bill if it appears that his point is a valid one.
Turning to the noble and learned Lord's second point concerning Clause 4(1), our advice has been that the costs of an application are unlikely to be substantial. However, again we shall look at the point afresh and if necessary take up the point with the sponsors of the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, asked about the likely limits of small claims. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has recently received the report, The Civil Justice Review. The report is being printed and will be laid before Parliament as soon as possible, probably early in June. It would be improper for me to anticipate what is contained in the report. No doubt as soon as the report is published it will be brought to the notice of the noble Baroness. I hope that it will be possible to look at the point further at that stage.
In conclusion, the Government have worked closely with the promoters of the Bill and as a result it has been substantially amended in another place. The Government's attentions have not been designed to draw the teeth from the Bill. In a positive spirit the Government have sought to ensure that the Bill continues to tackle the identified problem but at the same time avoids unnecessary interference with arbitration and with contractual freedom. The result, I believe, is a sensible measure and its progress towards the statute book is not opposed by the Government.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate tonight. Perhaps I may comment on one
1182
or two of the questions which have been asked in the order in which they were raised.
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, for his support, reluctant though it is. Had it not been for the outstanding omission of the voluntary option from contracts, the Bill may never have been necessary. Since the option has not proved to be all-embracing we who sponsor the Bill have felt it necessary to go this route. I had intended to explain to the noble and learned Lord that I do not have legal qualifications and would have wished to take his two points away to seek further advice. However, my noble friend the Minister has said that he will be talking with the sponsors and I hope therefore that we can communicate with the noble and learned Lord very quickly about that point.
It is important, and I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, that he should have been here tonight. We recognise the great value of his work earlier in the 1980s as president of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. It is one of the great values of your Lordships' House that we have the benefit of noble Lords' experience covering such a wide field.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy gave general support. I am grateful to him for having spelt out our intentions, which are to provide an option for the disaffected to choose and not have any particular scheme forced upon them.
That point takes me to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. She asked me to comment on the BAR scheme. The British Association of Removers has come along rather late in the day and suggested setting up a low-cost arbitration scheme as an alternative to that which we propose in the Bill. We hope that BAR adopts such a scheme, but the basis of its scheme remains—as at present written into its members' contracts—that arbitration is compulsory. That is our objection to it.
The noble Baroness also asked me to comment on the effect of the Bill on existing codes of conduct. I draw her attention to the report of the departmental Advisory Committee on Arbitration, which my noble friend the Minister has said is available in the Library. The report states that:
"It is the practice of the Director-General [of Fair Trading] not to endorse any codes of practice which include an arbitration clause which does not give the consumer the option for going to Court. In a letter to the Committee, the Director-General [Sir Gordon Borrie] stated that 'the Bill, if enacted, would go some considerable way towards assisting my policy goal'".
Therefore one can see that the passing of the Bill, if your Lordships so agree, will do nothing other than support the director-general in his efforts to encourage codes of conduct which embrace that alternative.
I turn now to the remark of my noble friend the Minister. I should like to thank him for the support which we have received from the department and, further, for offering additional support. He raised the question of legal aid not being available for arbitration cases. I see the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, sitting in his place this evening; it was of course he who raised the question quite recently in the discussions on the Legal Aid Bill in February. I do not propose to re-open that subject because the noble

1183
Lord, Lord Mishcon, and your Lordships received an answer then and the Minister is unlikely to go further. I thank noble Lords for their support.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Belfast: Employment Situation
6.58 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take to remedy unemployment in West and North Belfast.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in my original Question I referred only to West Belfast but after a recent visit to the city I felt it was essential to add North Belfast where unemployment is equally serious. I shall be speaking mainly about Catholic areas where unemployment is more severe. However, I realise that unemployment, for example, in the staunchly Protestant area of Lower Shankill is also causing great alarm. I do not want anyone to feel that their remarks must be confined to Catholic areas.
There is no danger, I think, of the debate turning into a sectarian encounter. The Minister, of course, is a good Catholic and his chief, the Secretary of State, so far as I know, is an excellent Protestant. When I come to think of it, I have been both, but I shall not go into the question of which came first and which lasted longer. I shall approach the matter in a thoroughly non-sectarian spirit. I shall not comment on the religious affiliations of other speakers, save to say that the noble Lord, Lord Blease, always seems to me the ideal ecumenical man. If people like him were elected, there would be no problems. I am delighted that both he and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, are to take part in the debate. Noble Lords will be aware, like everyone outside, that unemployment in the North of Ireland has been distressingly high—I should say shockingly high—for many years. I say "shockingly" because Northern Ireland is officially part of the United Kingdom. There is the same responsibility on Her Majesty's Government for employment and unemployment as applies on the mainland.
Tonight I shall not concern myself with the main political issues. For 50 years at least I have believed and proclaimed that a united Ireland is the only true solution of all the problems. I shall not argue that tonight. I am accepting the present situation under which, as I said just now, Northern Ireland is as much part of the United Kingdom as Yorkshire or Sussex.
I wonder whether noble Lords are aware just how bad the unemployment situation in Northern Ireland is, more particularly in the areas I have selected for tonight's discussion. I do not intend to swamp the House with statistics. I learnt on the spot recently that in considerable parts of North and West Belfast the unemployment among young people is over 80 per cent.
As a general summary of the position, I quote from a homily given by Bishop Daly on Sunday 24th April this year. I am under the impression that the Minister has received a copy of it. Bishop Daly was pointing
1184
out that West Belfast has some of the highest unemployment figures anywhere in Western Europe. He said:
"Unofficial but reliable local surveys in a number of West Belfast parishes indicate unemployment rates of upwards of 60 per cent. and in one or two cases as high as 80 per cent. of the working population. These figures are to be compared with an unemployment rate of 16·9 per cent. in Greater Belfast, 17·1 per cent. in Northern Ireland as a whole, and 12·5 per cent. for the United Kingdom. Of the 13,000 to 15,000 unemployed in Catholic West Belfast, more than half have been unemployed for more than a year. West Belfast is fast becoming a great pool of deskilled labour. Unemployment is becoming self-perpetuating. The young unemployed are caught in an unemployment trap.
Lack of previous skilled work experience is itself becoming a disqualification for people when they apply for industrial jobs".
So spoke the bishop. I do not think that anyone would challenge what he said.
What would Members of the House say to a young man to whom I was talking when I was there recently? He had held down a good job in the De Lorean factory which came to grief some years ago but which was a very promising venture. Mr. De Lorean exhibited personal weaknesses which proved disastrous. We need not discuss his morals now. While the factory flourished, the employment was roughly 50/50 between Protestants and Catholics. The young man to whom I spoke looked back on it all as a golden age.
For the last six years this young man has been unemployed. To repeat my question: what would Members of the House tell him that he ought to do? I asked him whether there was any chance of a Catholic getting work in Short's. He gave a sardonic smile. Is it known that Short's has made some attempt to employ a few Catholics, but a typical young Catholic would expect to have a very bad time if he ventured there. It is suggested that this young man, his wife and three children, and thousands like them, should seek their fortunes outside Northern Ireland—that they should, to use the phrase, get on their bikes? That was the attitude of British governments 140 years ago during the Irish famine. As a result, one million emigrated and one million died of starvation directly or indirectly, but I do not suggest for one moment that the present Government would adopt that attitude today. We are bound to ask, therefore, what is the attitude of all people of goodwill towards the kind of problem that I raise.
We must acknowledge the failure of all governments in this country—I have served in two since the war—to provide the conditions in which such a young man could hope to obtain employment in West or North Belfast. There is a generation growing up who have never worked; many of their fathers have never worked; and some of their grandfathers have never worked. Do we, or do we not, in Britain accept responsibility for that situation? We cannot morally evade it. Do we look it in the face and accept that responsibility in the same way that we would accept responsibility for it on the mainland?
I must be careful here—very careful—not to seem to justify or excuse horrible things that have been done in West and North Belfast and in other parts of Northern Ireland. To be fair, however, we must pay some attention to the background. Even if there were full employment, these are areas—the same is true of

1185
all the Catholic areas of Northern Ireland—where British occupation is bitterly resented. The most high-minded people and the most low-minded, the most gentle and the most violent, share that attitude in the Catholic areas, just as wholeheartedly, shall I say, as the inhabitants of the West Bank.
The vast majority of the population in question would of course be opposed to violence, especially when it takes the form of killing or hurting civilians. But there is an underlying sympathy with protest. And there is an understanding of why these young men grow violent. That, in this country, is very difficult to understand. The responsible leaders of the Catholic community, understanding men like John Hume, the Catholic Church leaders and the parish priests, detest violence as much as anyone detests it here—rather more so, I should think, because they know of the corrupting effect on their community. However, if one thinks of the 80 per cent. of young unemployed men who, even if employed, would in any case be opposed to British rule, can one be surprised at what we in this country and their responsible leaders in their country rightly denounce as horrible attrocities?
I was much struck in my recent visit by an underlying confidence by responsible people—I would not say among the general public—in the Secretary of State, Mr. King. It is a long time since I have heard such kindly things said about a British Minister involved in Northern Ireland. There is a feeling—I repeat that I am talking of well-informed Catholics; the mood of the general public is certainly different—that Mr. King really means to do something effective to improve the employment situation.
Whether that is so or not—I certainly wish to believe that it is—he has set himself an ambitious target. I quote from a document signed by him and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State entitled Religious Equality of Opportunity in Employment. The document concludes in this way:
"But these problems"—
the problems of providing equality of opportunity in employment between Protestants and Catholics—
"cannot be solved in an economic vacuum. The lack of adequate job opportunities is a fundamental obstacle to achieving real equality of opportunity".
I should like to underline the next sentence in the document issued by the Minister and the Secretary of State:
"These reforms must therefore be complemented by more investment and job creation. These are essential if unacceptable employment differentials between Catholics and Protestants are to be reduced as quickly as possible. The Government hopes that all who are genuinely interested in employment equality will support the drive to promote more investment and jobs in Northern Ireland".
Perhaps I may venture to repeat that:
"The Government hopes that all who are genuinely interested in employment equality will support the drive to promote more investment and jobs in Northern Ireland",
I take it for granted that that is their own strong purpose.
There is much cynicism in Catholic Belfast about a document of this kind. It is pointed out that legislation promoting religious equality of opportunity was first passed in 1976. Yet I was told
1186
in Belfast by those to whom I spoke that the situation in respect of discrimination is worse in 1988 rather than better. The Minister may wish to correct that. I can only state what I was told on the spot. It is an accepted fact which I do not think the Minister will question that unemployment in Northern Ireland is two and a half times as bad among Catholics as among Protestants. I decline to be cynical. I side with those who are anxious to believe that a new and more strenuous effort is about to be made by the present Secretary of State and his colleagues than was made by any of his predecessors.
However, to return to the document issued by the Secretary of State and the Minister sitting opposite, what is the Secretary of State proposing to do that has not already been attempted with little result? Let us assume that religious discrimination is tackled with an altogether new vigour. What is to be done to implement the programme of more investment and job creation indicated in the last paragraph? The SDLP has produced an interesting programme. So have the people involved with the Belfast Centre for the Unemployed with whom I had very instructive talks.
There is no time tonight to do these proposals justice. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Blease, will deal with some of these matters more fully. I must indicate the essence of what seems to me the necessary approach. I have given due notice to the Secretary of State and the Minister seated opposite, both of whom labour strenuously, as we know, in the cause of Northern Ireland. Given the immobility of labour in Belfast, if any genuine religious equality of opportunity is to be achieved the Minister must use all his powers to secure investment where the need is greatest; that is to say, in the Catholic areas.
I shall quote again, I am afraid at some length, from Bishop Daly. He seems to be an authority who is accepted in this country and in Northern Ireland without challenge. He said:
"Huge sums of public money are paid out annually to Shorts in government grants and subsidies. Government surely has a responsibility to ensure that the benefits of such public funds are spread as equitably as possible across the two communities".
The bishop continued;
"Similar comment must be made about Harland and Wolff. I hope that the yard may succeed in winning the coveted new contract. But I hope that any new contract granted to the yard will be made conditional on the fair sharing of new employment across the community divide, and this should be subject to regular monitoring. The massive subsidies paid to industry nowadays create a compelling obligation on all employers, whether in the private sector or in the public, to achieve fair employment. They make still more urgent the need for new and effective fair employment legislation, with regular public monitoring and with effectual sanctions for non-compliance".
I must add one word here—we may hear more from others—about the international fund in which Britain, the United States and Canada participate. There is a widespread feeling that the international fund could be used more effectively than at present to encourage private sector investment in the most deprived areas to top up government funding in any West Belfast redevelopment plan. There seems to be general agreement that this new public investment in Catholic areas must be directed in the first instance to major improvements in the infrastructure without which it is impossible to build an economic future. The method of infrastructural development has

1187
already been attempted by the Flax Trust—about which I shall speak in a moment. It provides an encouraging model.
I should hope that by this time the Minister is aware and will agree that existing legislation on fair employment cannot deliver the fairness in employment which is required and which he himself desires. I beg the Secretary of State to embark forthwith on an alternative strategy of deliberate investment in Catholic areas. I am urging with all my strength that more state intervention is required. I cannot see that this conflicts with the policy of the present Government. When there were troubles in Toxteth, for instance, the Government bestirred themselves in no uncertain fashion. On the Labour Benches at least, we are not likely to agree that the government intervention in inner cities has been adequate. But at least the Government have shown themselves conscious of an obligation though they have not yet discharged it.
I should like to assure the House that the people of Belfast—I am here talking not only of the Catholics but also of the Protestants—are working strenously to help themselves. There are many possible examples. I take one from my own experience. I refer to the work being done by the Flax Trust in North Belfast on what is called a cross-community basis. The Minister has the details of this so perhaps I may read them rather quickly. He will be able to take them in all the better.
In the Brookfield Mill the trust has now developed a business centre, business incubation systems, workshops, a consulting service, a building company, a marketing service and a performing arts centre. The development centre now being built will incorporate a health centre, a shopping complex and workshops. In addition, a housing association has been established and a community aid project is in operation employing some 135 people. Some 10 years ago, 14 people were employed in the Brookfield Mill. Now approximately 500 people are gainfully employed. The philosophy of the trust is simple: reconciliation through economic and social development is of crucial significance.
In the end it all comes down to this. I believe wholeheartedly in the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I give Mrs. Thatcher the fullest credit for it, though it takes two to make an agreement. It was not her work alone. But the House must realise that Catholic opinion in Belfast is turning steadily against it. I need not spell out the implications and the possibilities involved. The question is asked and given a negative answer in a Catholic area: "What good has it done to us?" If we believe in the agreement, as I do, I would say that there is a remarkable if fleeting opportunity to give effect to it not only in words but in deeds.
I repeat what I said earlier. The Secretary of State is much trusted, and so is the Minister opposite, among the most discerning men and women in Catholic Belfast. I am anxious to believe that they will prove worthy of that trust.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Longford, on his excellent sense of timing for a debate on West and North Belfast. The
1188
communiqué from the most recent Anglo-Irish conference spoke of improving relations between the security forces and the community—nowhere is that more needed than in West Belfast. It touched on social and economic issues (both are acute in West Belfast) and it promised a White Paper on fair employment.
If all discrimination in recruitment could be eliminated this might help some of the worst black spots in unemployment, of which West Belfast has many. The communiqué concluded:
"Work is well advanced on ways to address the serious economic and social problems of West Belfast".
What does that sentence really mean? Will there be a comprehensive social and economic plan for West Belfast in addition to the Belfast urban area plan dealing, as it does, with land use and urban planning? Will there be an ecumenical and multi-disciplinary and possibly internationally-recruited planning group bringing together Northern Ireland government departments, Belfast City, private commerce and finance? Will the group be able to call on the resources of the universities together with the churches and voluntary bodies? I suggest that nothing less is needed. A few unco-ordinated Belfast action teams within the Department of the Environment are not enough. I urge that all the relevant lessons that can be learned from the successes of the Glasgow Eastern Areas Renewal, known I believe as GEAR, should be drawn out and applied to the greatest possible extent in Belfast. Here I should mention specifically the minutes of evidence of 15th February 1983 taken by the Environment Committee of another place, pages 284–289.
Following the recent Anglo-Irish Conference, Mr. Burke, the Minister for Energy and Communications in the Irish Republic, said of West Belfast,
"these deprived communities are in a state of demoralization and it makes it easy for the IRA to operate there".
There is truth in this and one thinks, for example, of Ballymurphy or Divis flats with a side glance at the decayed and partly bull-dozed areas of inner Dublin where provisional Sinn Fein was recently campaigning against drug pushers.
The other important precursor of this debate was the address given by the Bishop of Down and Connor in Twinbrook on 24th April, as the noble Earl has already mentioned. The bishop correctly pointed out that many of the problems of West Belfast are to be found in North Belfast. He emphasised that they affect the Protestant communities just as much as the Catholic ones. Shankill, part of Ardoyne, Ballysillan, Ballygormartin, Highfields, Woodvale and Suffolk as well as Ainsworth and Glencairn are clearly Protestant and inescapably parts of West Belfast. In them, as in the Catholic areas, one may meet young unemployed people whose parents have suffered long, possibly life-long periods of unemployment—another point to which the noble Earl correctly drew our attention.
The bishop was right to emphasise that social and economic development is even more important than security policy. Very properly he underlined the necessity for courtesy and sensitivity, so much commended in the now published Royal Ulster Constabulary Code of Professional Ethics.

1189
These are the only methods likely to win the hearts and minds of the people. He was right to indicate the need for Ministers and civil servants to have understanding and empathy for West Belfast. This part of the city, cut off between the motorway and the mountain, is all too often avoided by travellers and potential visitors, who are deterred by its reputation for violence. However, I can bear witness to the kindness and friendliness of West Belfast people. Will the Government consider locating in West Belfast at least one major government office? To do so would be an act of social justice, given that the public sector is far and away the largest single employer and that much of its workforce is now located in such places as Bangor and Lisburn.
There is more that Her Majesty's Government can do administratively in both Catholic and Protestant areas. In the Housing Executive, for example, the process of decentralisation should be taken much further. If we look at the Shankill Road and Ballysillan, which would not consider themselves as a single community, we find that there is only one local office. What is needed are local offices with which the local community can fully identify. It is not enough to decentralise a few office functions. What is desirable is to delegate full responsibility and the accompanying budgets to local managers for those things that directly affect the quality of life of local residents. Mistakes may well then be made, but the correct lessons will be learned from them— something that does not always happen when all real power is kept within the central office.
While on the theme of housing, I come back to Divis and Unity flats, on which I have already spoken in your Lordships' House. They were the most disastrous blocks ever built in Belfast. Whatever could go wrong, did go wrong. Mercifully the decision has already been taken to demolish. The question now is over what time scale? The Housing Executive maintains that seven to 10 years is the best it can achieve. Will the Government please stand over the Housing Executive with a rod of iron to ensure that even the lower forecast is bettered? These flats are totally unfit now, so every conceivable way of decanting their tenants must be used. The alternative is to accept unnecessary deaths and disease and the anti-social behaviour and violence that these are only too likely to engender.
I have commented, probably at too great length, on the bishop's address. What I urge on Her Majesty's Government is that it would be fatal to act in West Belfast just because the Irish Government have raised the issue. They should not move just to satisfy the local Catholics. Their motives should not be the conciliation of the SDLP, important as that may be. Something far more important is involved. Unmet human needs exist in West and North Belfast affecting both types of local community. That alone must be the spur to the action.
The human needs of the people, and above all their need for meaningful work and the dignity that flows from that, are the essentials. Nevertheless, we must ask this question: supposing that new employment for 5,000 people were to materialise in West Belfast next year, could those vacancies actually be filled from within the area? The answer might easily be no,
1190
because of the de-skilling of the workforce and the loss of the habit of working, to which I and the noble Earl referred earlier.
What then must be done, my Lords? Institutions and organisations which will motivate people and give them hope need to be developed and initiated. The Flax Trust and Conway Mill, both in West Belfast, are examples of what is needed. ACE schemes may help in a minor way, but they are not the sole answer. It has long been recognised that a fourth adult education college is needed, located within West Belfast. When will the Government make a decision about that? It ought to be in existence now; so the matter is urgent. It needs to draw on the resources and the excellent pioneering work of Ulster People's College, of which both I and the noble Lord, Lord Blease are members. The recent offer of St. Thomas' School in Whiterock Road for adult use is generous and welcome. However, its main problem is the difficulty of access by Protestant users. Therefore the fourth college must be sited on neutral ground.
Already West Belfast contains centres of excellence, some of which are internationally well-known. They include the Royal Victoria Hospital, the Marter Hospital, Belfast City Farm, St. Louise's College, the Cornerstone Community and, smaller still, the Franciscan Community of the Church of Ireland. In their different ways those institutions could be generators of new real jobs. Will the Government please reassess them in that light? Such a reassessment would be only a small part of a much wider, integrated plan for redeveloping and regenerating West Belfast. Ten years, with continuity after that, is the absolute minimum to be considered. Will the Government ensure that the integrated plan and the social and economic planning team include a permanent listening process? It is in that kind of way that the energies and inspirations of those directly affected will be harnessed. The Government certainly have a part to play and so has the private sector. However, I suggest that neither can replace the hopes and ideals of the local people.
7.33 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that for many reasons this is an extremely important and timely debate. Whatever may be the concern at Westminster, the Question has generated much interest in Northern Ireland. I wish to express thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for giving us the opportunity to focus attention on the tragic human issue of unemployment in West and North Belfast. I very much appreciate the thorough, understanding and caring way in which in his speech he dealt with the sad social problems and the highly sensitive and difficult religious and political factors arising in both those areas of Belfast.
Increasingly West Belfast has become the subject of much official social and economic research. There has also been wide coverage by the media and by private academic-type analysis. There are many reasons for the special public interest and attention there, some helpful and some negative; but whatever they are there is no doubt that in both West and North Belfast there are many marked signs of

1191
economic deprivation and increasing degrees of poverty. There are also inequalities of opportunity for individual and family well-being and also for community peace and prosperity.
While I concur with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, that the object of the debate is to focus attention on the needs for West and North Belfast—and in no way do I wish to detract from that—it must be said that chronic unemployment is endemic throughout Northern Ireland. The religious, political and sectarian issues are prevalent in other regions of the Province and they have serious implications for industrial investment, employment and peaceful community development.
Together with my trade union colleagues and others in Northern Ireland, I must firmly declare that sectarianism in whatever form is unquestionably one of the main obstacles to progress in the Province. Sectarianism is a poison which destroys the essential relationship of citizen with fellow citizens and of workmate with fellow workmates. That is why the recent Irish Congress of Trade Unions' anti-sectarian campaign, with the motto "Hands off my mate", deserves every support by the Northern Ireland people. Equality of opportunity and the principles of social justice must prevail if a better life for all is to be obtained. The words "for all" mean just that, as already stated by the noble Earl, be they Catholic, Protestant, dissenter or others.
In that connection, and with relevance to the main purpose of our debate, surely we all must welcome the statements issued on Monday last by the Northern Ireland Office and the Fair Employment Agency about new active measures to deal with job discrimination. In the search for a remedy to cope with the multi-factor problems of unemployment throughout Northern Ireland there is every good reason to support and work for a new deal for West and North Belfast. Indeed, it may even be a way forward for the rest of the Province.
I have been closely acquainted and associated with North and West Belfast since the early 1940s. On two occasions I was an unsuccessful Labour candidate for the Stormont Parliamentary Division. In the 1960s part of my work as a trade union official placed me in direct contact with a series of closures of textile mills, linen factories and engineering works in West and North Belfast. That was a period when thousands of Catholic and Protestant workers joined hands in their common interest for work, and in protest marches on the Shankill and Falls Roads against the rising dole queues. During the 1970s I was aware of the number of government-sponsored and public-financed ventures in the area such as Strathern Audio and the De Lorean car factory. As the noble Earl has mentioned, when the public-funded projects failed, not because of any workplace problems, the bright hopes of many young workers were dimmed.
In the West and North Belfast areas various measures are undertaken by local voluntary groups and statutory bodies to promote and develop industrial and commercial enterprises. Those local initiatives have functioned mainly through the YTP and ACE schemes in job creation and training programmes and in job placement facilities. In
1192
addition, there is the West Belfast Economic Committee and the Shankill Community Council. There are also a number of enterprise agencies including the Action Resource Centre, the Brookfield Business Centre and the Glenard Youth and Community Workshop.
Many of those groups and organisations continue to provide productive operational activities on the ground under very difficult conditions. They give vital leadership and management skills and stimulate interest and hope. One of the most penetrating accounts of the current problems of North and West Belfast was the homily delivered by Bishop Capel Daly on Sunday, 24th April, already mentioned by the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. The Belfast Telegraph editorial of 25th April 1988 stated:
"Bishop Cahal Daly's lengthy homily on economic deprivation was commendable as a detailed definition of the problems facing West Belfast. The area has become identified as one of the principal theatres of IRA violence, and the deterioration of the quality of life there has been a deliberate part of the terrorists' revolutionary strategy. But the Bishop also correctly pointed out that there were no grounds for a perception that the people of West Belfast were collectively responsible for IRA violence. They are among the chief sufferers as a result of the prolonged and misguided guerilla war which has been inflicted on them as much as on the rest of the province.
There can be no doubt that social conditions resulting from high levels of unemployment make a breeding ground for revolution. Intimidation, or worse, is typical of the IRA's approach to people trying to earn a living. The Bishop has correctly identified the desperate need to break out of this futile spiral.".
The question we are considering is:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take to remedy unemployment in West and North Belfast".
In this connection, I consider it important to mention a debate in this House on 30th June 1986 when the Social Need (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 was approved. I raised matters in that debate and on 25th July the Minister wrote to me. I quote the relevant extract from his letter:
"You also enquired about the staffing and financial resources available to operate the provisions of the Order. Current resources only permit the operation of the Urban Development Grant and Environmental Improvement Schemes in Belfast and Londonderry. It is likely that resources will continue to be concentrated in these two areas in the immediate future. However, should additional resources, both staffing and financial, become available in the future, it would be the Department's intention to extend activity under the Order to certain other selected areas".
Subsequently, I had a meeting with officials of the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland, and on 2nd June 1987 I was given a departmental factsheet headed: "Inner City Initiative: Belfast Action Teams".
That factsheet stated:
"The Environment Minister, Mr. Richard Needham, announced on 17th February 1987 new initiatives to improve the quality of life in the inner city area of Belfast.
Included in the £28 million financial package was the setting up of Action Teams in two pilot areas to identify the major needs in each area and co-ordinate ways of tackling them, in co-operation with other public agencies and the local community.
The two areas selected, Lower Falls/Lower Shankill and New Lodge/Duncairn will be followed by two further areas in each of the years 1988/89 and 1989/90. The initiative in each area is designed to last three years and the existing sums of Government money spent in the areas is to be supplemented by £1.5 million additional money allocated to each Action Team.
Objectives of the Action Teams are: to bring about an improvement in the quality of life and an enhancement of the opportunities and prospects of people living in inner city areas suffering from particularly severe problems. More specifically the initiative will aim

1193
to improve the effectiveness with which Government expenditure in the targeted areas is used to benefit those living in these areas by: providing employment for local people; improving the employability of local people, including those about to enter the labour market; encouraging and facilitating enterprise by local people; better coordination and delivery of Government programmes in these areas; supporting initiatives which improve the environment and the provision of services and facilities; trying out new approaches to meet the needs of those areas".
I must say that I was indeed impressed by this policy statement and by the declared objectives, but I was then and am still confused about the financial arrangements: a package of £28 million and £1.5 million additional money allocated to each action team. On the ground I have not seen any steps that this money is being expended in the manner presented to me. However, perhaps we may have an explanation from the Minister as to how the finance has been allocated and when, especially in the light of his earlier letter to me.
While I am disappointed with the narrow scope of the measures, I am pleased and encouraged with the enthusiastic approaches of the two action teams. From my general observations and inquiries, the personnel of those two action teams are working with a great sense of vision, earnestness and commitment in their daily contact with neighbourhood voluntary groups.
The two action team leaders have proved to be lively and effective in their work with the Belfast Centre for the Unemployed. A week ago, on Monday, 2nd May, at the Belfast Centre for the Unemployed, over 100 representatives of statutory and voluntary organisations, together with management and trade union personnel and Belfast Action Team members, met to launch a new voluntary organisation named the Community Economic Development Initiative—CEDI. I quote from the handout leaflet:
"The four local voluntary agencies who jointly make up CEDI have been active in this field since 1983".
They consist of the Centre for Neighbourhood Development, the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action, the Belfast Centre for the Unemployed and the Northern Ireland Co-operative Development Agency. The purpose of the project is:
"To provide a framework to enable the development of community-based economic initiatives; to employ field workers to assist selected deprived communities in exploring local economic development strategies; to offer support to the field workers and the pilot communities in their attempt to realise local self-help job creation programmes; to institute bridges of communication between communities and the other agencies at work in the field".
The CEDI and all associated with it will be anxious to have the full support of the Government, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond effectively in that connection.
Relevant to the question of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, perhaps I may ask the Minister to reply to the following questions. When will the report be available of the Northern Ireland Office Working Group which has the following terms of reference:
"On ways to address the serious economic and social problems of West Belfast and other disadvantaged areas"?
Will the report be published? What arrangements are there likely to be for suitable consultations at local and representative levels? What is the present number of personnel employed directly on the Social Need
1194
(Northern Ireland) 1986 legislative provisions? How many Belfast action team offices have been opened and where are they sited? What is the total number of staff directly employed in the local Belfast action team offices? Have the Government considered the feasibility of opening suitable jobcentre offices in the Lower Falls, Shankill Road and Duncairn areas? If not, why not?
Have the Government any immediate plans for the opening or sponsoring of child services for the under-fives such as playgroup facilities, pre-school centres and child-minding arrangements in West and North Belfast? The final question in a list which I have already supplied to the Minister is: have the Government any immediate plans to initiate or sponsor in West and North Belfast suitable training courses for voluntary and for part-time community development and social worker personnel?
I conclude my remarks with two short extracts from Bishop Daly's statement:
"It is time for a new deal in West Belfast. From being a problem and an embarrassment, it must be seen now as a challenge and an opportunity. A concerted redevelopment plan for West Belfast will do far more for the ending of violence than any security policy, important though this be. Government must lead the way in demonstrating that there is a peaceful way to justice and that it works.
Government can count on great public welcome and full community support for any comprehensive plans which they bring forward for the redevelopment of West Belfast".
Perhaps I may add North Belfast to that. I continue the quotation:
"The community will play its part in working to make their area a source of pride to its residents and to visitors, and to create in it an environment worthy of its great people".
Surely this vision of hope and this challenge of change for productive job creation is deserving of support and of the efforts, within the principles of parliamentary democracy, to translate this vision into a reality. I shall listen with interest to what the Minister has to say.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, the citizens of West and North Belfast will be immensely grateful to my noble friend Lord Longford for having shone a glaring spotlight on the conditions in that area. My noble friend's Question to the Government is necessary and appropriate. My noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs has authorised me to say how sorry she is that she is unable to stay for the debate and to join with my noble friend and others in pressing the Government for a satisfactory response.
My noble friend Lord Longford has spoken with conviction. He was clearly deeply moved during his recent visit to Belfast by the evidence of his own eyes and ears, and by the sardonic smile of the young Catholic whom he met and who had been unemployed for the past six years. Of course, all over Northern Ireland unemployment casts its long shadows. Northern Ireland as a whole is a disadvantaged part of the United Kingdom, and I believe this was touched upon by my noble friend Lord Blease.
I am advised by those who are well informed that the problems of West and North Belfast are on a par with major problems to be found in those cities of Western Europe where inner city problems are at

1195
their worst. International economic events, changing world trade patterns and technological changes, together with political instability and the catalogue of violence and atrocities in support of political ends, have produced severe effects for most people in the Province. It is significant that it is now being claimed that West Belfast and the adjacent areas of North Belfast are also suffering from another mischief; namely, public neglect of their problems. That is the charge that many Catholics are now levelling at the Northern Ireland Office.
I regret having to inform the House that notwithstanding the excellent co-operation of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell—I hasten to add that his help and that of his private office are always forthcoming—I was unable to obtain from the Northern Ireland Office a single fact about the inner city areas of West and North Belfast or any information to help me to prepare for this debate. In fairness to the Northern Ireland Office I hasten to add that this zero response on the part of the department is also exceptional in my experience. I am content to record that fact.
However, I received help from a certain source. I received a copy of the recently published social and economic profile of the households in the Lower Shankill prepared for one of the two Belfast action teams. I received that document from Mr. Mackin, the co-ordinator of the Belfast centre for the unemployed. My noble friend Lord Blease has referred to that. The profile sets out a depressing list of the features of the households of the area: very high unemployment, long-term unemployment, very high dependency on supplementary benefits, a low level of earnings, a decaying social environment and environmental conditions and the movement of young people away from the area.
The economic and social profile presents an objective and clinical picture. It has been left to others to spell out that distressingly high unemployment over a long period of time combined with depressing environmental and social conditions are deep and basic causes of grievance which can lead any community, let alone a minority one, to nourish the conviction that it is an aggrieved community, an inferior community—a ghetto. Many who are familiar with the facts of West Belfast will say that we can hardly be surprised if, in West Belfast, many citizens are voting for Sinn Fein candidates.
My noble friend Lord Longford, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and my noble friend Lord Blease, warmly endorsed the powerful words of Bishop Daly of Down and Connor, delivered in a church in West Belfast on Sunday 24th April—the Good Shepherd's Sunday in the Catholic calendar. Bishop Daly is one of the most able and articulate critics of the depressing conditions in his parishes in West and North Belfast. Bishop Daly is also a courageous critic of the activities of the IRA. Therefore, his evidence should be acceptable. I have also read and reread the bishop's well-researched homily. Unless the department can seriously flaw its main findings
1196
therein lies the case that the Government have neglected the problems of these inner city areas of Belfast.
Bishop Daly went on to call for the urgent implementation of a development plan and for the commitment of large public funds in support. That does not detract one bit from the need for voluntary bodies and enlightened companies also to make their contributions. It will be recalled that the SDLP put a figure on the amount of funds required. It called for an investment of £50 million.
Against this sombre background, I wish to raise a few specific concerns of which I have given notice to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. First, is it correct, as reported in Belfast to my noble friend Lord Longford, that discrimination against Catholics in terms of jobs in West Belfast is worse now than it was 12 years ago? Is that true? Do the Government or any other body in Northern Ireland keep up-to-date and reliable statistics on the extent of discrimination on religious grounds in jobs?
Even if the Minister is able to provide a reassuring reply, it is worrying that my noble friend should have been told by a responsible source in West Belfast that the gap is getting wider rather than closing. That suggests it is not apparent to those near to the urgency of the problems that the position is improving, notwithstanding all the calls and the sermons of the past 12 years.
Secondly, is the department able to produce firm evidence clearly to rebut the claim that the industrial development board has "written off West Belfast"? Will the department look carefully into this allegation? Thirdly, do the two Belfast action teams referred to in some detail by my noble friend Lord Blease have the necessary resources to enable them to produce proposals within the next two years to remedy the economic, social and environmental ills of West and North Belfast?
Is the work of the two action teams being effectively co-ordinated? Does one know what the other is doing? Is there a case for a third action team to help with the work? While we wait for the action teams to produce their reports, does the department intend to take any major initiative to make West and North Belfast a better and safer place to live in?
Fourthly, will the Minister confirm that at the inter-governmental conference the Irish Government raised with Her Majesty's Government the need to tackle the special problems of West Belfast? Can the Minister say what proposals, if any, have been on the agenda touching the conditions in North and West Belfast? Is there any truth in what we read in one newspaper that Her Majesty's Government are reluctant to submit an application to the European Community for special assistance for the rehabilitation of West Belfast? If that is true, what are the reasons for their reluctance to approach the EC? Or are these matters still confidential?
It remains for me once again to thank my noble friend Lord Longford for focusing attention on the conditions in West and North Belfast. As has been said, those conditions present grave difficulties, but they also present an opportunity and a challenge for the Government.
8.2 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell): My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for asking this Unstarred Question this evening and for telling us what he learnt in his tour. It started as a tour of West Belfast and, as he so eloquently put it, ended up in North Belfast. It is clear that he met a large cross-section of the inhabitants of the city of Belfast.
At the outset the noble Earl described my right honourable friend as being a religious man. He also said that I am a good Catholic. I hope that he has the number of his eminence the cardinal. I am grateful for his kindness but I remind him, as I remind every noble Lord and indeed my right honourable friend, that in matters of religion humility is all. The noble Earl referred to the homily—as we are enjoined to call it now; one can call it a sermon—by Bishop Cahal Daly. The bishop was good enough to send me a copy of his homily. I hope that the noble Earl's good wishes will assist me in my usual close scrutiny of and attention to the homilies at Mass each Sunday as I shall have to resolve firmly to pay particularly close attention if the homilies are as good as that of Bishop Daly.
The Government are keen to see an improvement in economic activity in North and West Belfast as well as an increased number of employment opportunities. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is currently considering what additional steps he might take to encourage and promote enterprising business in these areas of multiple deprivation. The noble Earl concentrated his attention on the needs of Catholic areas and urged us to consider a strategy of deliberate investment in them. He rightly pointed out that there are also Protestant areas of unemployment. I wish to state categorically that the Government are concerned about the acute social and economic problems of all areas of special need in Northern Ireland.
I wish to assure the noble Earl and all noble Lords who have spoken that the Government are concerned about the level of unemployment in Northern Ireland. As evidence of this concern, the noble Earl will be aware that the levels of industrial assistance available in Northern Ireland are higher than those in any region of Great Britain. I come from Scotland. Very often I have to defend these provisions in Scotland where there are many of the factors of multiple deprivation mentioned by the noble Earl and seen by him in his tour of North and West Belfast.
The level of industrial assistance available in Northern Ireland is a firm measure of the Government's commitment to the extreme problems of the Province. The Government do not forget that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. The noble Earl mentioned what had been said to him about British occupation of Northern Ireland. I accept that this would have been said to him in West Belfast, but in the climate of what the Government seek to do for everybody in North and West Belfast and in Northern Ireland as a whole this was an unfortunate word to use in the debate tonight. I am
1198
sure that the noble Earl and all those who mentioned this to him meant no ill.
The Government have already invested heavily, particularly in areas such as West Belfast, and will continue to do so, but success will not be achieved by the efforts of government alone, The private and the voluntary sectors have a major role to play. In the past year the public agencies—the Industrial Development Board and the Local Enterprise Development Unit—have between them promoted more than 9,300 new jobs in Northern Ireland. Given all the factors raised by noble Lords tonight, this is a major achievement of which all of us can be proud. However, more private investment is essential. Northern Ireland has continued to lag behind Great Britain in the development of the services sector and jobs in that area as well as in the general economic recovery. There are hopeful signs.
I noted that Bishop Cahal Daly mentioned the term "seasonally adjusted unemployment". It is not one that I hear in homilies when I go to Mass. Clearly this was a special homily on Good Shepherd Sunday. Seasonally adjusted unemployment has fallen consistently since last summer and now stands at 17·1 per cent. overall. There has also been a small rise in the numbers in the Province in work. As the noble Earl was generous enough to recognise, considerable government support has been made available for the major and long-established shipbuilding and aircraft industries in Northern Ireland. Such support has not been unique to Northern Ireland. Many shipyards have closed or have suffered substantial contraction. This has happened even after massive sums had been spent to support the industry during the recession. Employment at Harland and Wolff has fallen dramatically over the past 20 years. As I speak tonight there are fewer than 4,000 jobs in that yard.
Noble Lords may remember that last week, on a Starred Question by my noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne, the Government stated that they have not yet received any costings for the proposed liner, whatever its name is—the ultimate dream—proposed by Mr. Ravi Tikkoo. It is still far too early to speculate whether that liner will be built at Harland and Wolff. However, I wish to make one point, especially in regard to this evening's debate. Harland and Wolff, that esteemed firm of shipbuilders in Belfast, is subject to the same fair employment legislation as any other company in Northern Ireland. I shall have something more to say on that subject later on.
Historically the workforce at Harland's has been predominantly Protestant, and while the company has an affirmative action programme it is difficult for the company to create a more balanced workforce as the numbers of jobs decline and there is virtually no recruitment. However, progress can be made, particularly when a company is recruiting and especially for a new factory. Short's has now built up a small workforce at its Dunmurry facility in West Belfast which produces furnishings for its aircraft and takes on some sub-contract work. Of the people so far employed there, 57 per cent. are Catholics. That figure spells out the definite commitment of Short's in that area in West Belfast. It clearly

1199
demonstrates a determination to achieve progress. After all, progress is what we are looking for as regards fair employment and recruitment practices.
Last year the Government launched a Pathfinder programme aimed at identifying the strengths and weaknesses in the economy of Northern Ireland. That programme has already achieved some practical results, not least of which is the increased level of debate about the need for a greater degree of enterprise at local level.
If any one of us imagines what we feel when we mention West Belfast, we must also see the image of West Belfast as presented to the wide world and to potential investors. No amount of government support will improve the quality of life in an area which suffers from vandalism, attacks on business, lawlessness and the scourge of terrorism, be it in Belfast, anywhere else in Northern Ireland, or in Great Britain.
It is the feeling of noble Lords that the biggest single boost to the regeneration of economic activity in North and West Belfast would come from a renunciation and a reduction of violence. The image of West Belfast is tarnished by violence, which we see—and I am sure potential investors see—as a major obstacle which inhibits business confidence and blights the future of young men, such as those who spoke to the noble Earl with feeling and passion. Indeed, many people from different industries all over Northern Ireland have spoken to me in like manner. Business confidence is a fragile plant but it is blooming, thankfully, bit by bit in Northern Ireland.
The noble Earl made some kind remarks about myself, for which I am most grateful, as well as about my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. However, he referred to a feeling that had been mentioned to him in West Belfast. The suggestion was that my right honourable friend is being restrained in some small, polite and perhaps not entirely obvious way in his efforts to improve employment prospects in West Belfast by sundry officials in the Northern Ireland Office.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord?
Lord Lyell: Yes, but briefly.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the noble Lord has misquoted me. I did not say that.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am sorry. Perhaps I was not paying my customary close attention to the noble Earl's speech. However, I think he expressed that point. He mentioned something of that nature.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I did not.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am sure the noble Earl will accept from me that the Government are taking, and have taken, significant measures to tackle
1200
unemployment. I have already mentioned the Pathfinder process. Out of that thinking an exports company has been established to help smaller Northern Ireland engineering companies to export to South-East Asia. In addition, the Government have launched a major initiative to improve the quality of goods produced by local companies.
The noble Earl also mentioned the international fund for Ireland. He referred to the comments he had received to the effect that it could be used more effectively to encourage private sector investment in the most deprived areas. I am sure he is aware that the fund is under the direction of an independent board which is fully conscious of the needs of the areas of greatest deprivation and has already supported a number of projects in North and West Belfast. For example, the recently published progress report on the fund lists support totalling £750,000 for four enterprise centres in North and West Belfast.
Worth while as all those initiatives are—we are most grateful for that expenditure—it would be unrealistic to think that the fund alone could have a major influence on the problems of West Belfast. Therefore, we return to the remarks of the noble Earl, who suggested that more state intervention is required. However, I am sure he is aware of the substantial sums of public money which are already spent to support industry and, above all, to reduce unemployment in the Province. For instance, in the last financial year we allocated over £200 million for that purpose. The figure included substantial sums for Harland and Wolff as well as supporting the promotion of jobs by the Industrial Development Board and the Local Enterprise Development Unit. In addition, further significant sums were spent on the community programme as well as on training measures.
I have detailed the sums of money that have been spent and many of the initiatives that we have undertaken. However, the Government must look to the future. We are fully committed to the elimination of discrimination on religious or political grounds in Northern Ireland and to ensuring equality of opportunity in employment for all. To that end the Government announced new proposals for fair employment legislation on 2nd March this year which will strengthen fair employment law, adminstration and practice. Within a new institutional framework employers will be required to adopt good employment practice, including monitoring of the religious composition of their workforces and affirmative action measures where necessary. This will be backed up by stronger criminal and civil enforcement powers and the use of government economic muscle.
The Government plan to publish a White Paper setting out those proposals later this month, with a view to the introduction of legislation at the earliest opportunity.
The noble Earl also referred to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, upon which he recieved many comments in West Belfast. I assure him and your Lordships that we remain wholeheartedly committed to the agreement. We believe it is a meaningful and novel attempt to tackle some of the central difficulties that afflict us in Northern Ireland, not least in West

1201
Belfast. Since the signing of the agreement many steps have been taken by the Government—often with the advantage of the views of the Irish Government, received under the agreement—which I believe have been most welcome to nationalist opinion generally in Northern Ireland and, I hope, in West Belfast.
The noble Earl and your Lordships will no doubt be aware that the agreement is certainly no panacea. It cannot bring economic and social advance overnight. However, I believe that our deliberations on the problems of North and West Belfast have benefited from thinking contributed by the Government of the Republic of Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, in one of his traditionally thoughtful speeches, asked me many questions. I hope that I shall be able to answer at least some of them to his satisfaction. However, I assure him and all noble Lords that anything I have missed will be picked up and I shall reply in writing, I hope in a concise manner.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked whether there was a comprehensive social and economic plan for West Belfast in addition to the Belfast plan. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is currently considering what additional steps he might take to encourage enterprise in all areas of multiple deprivation such as West and North Belfast. I cannot give the noble Lord any detailed proposals this evening. He also referred to the attractive acronym GEAR, the Glasgow Eastern Areas Renewal plan. In all our considerations of possible further action in Belfast we will take careful note of all relevant and worthwhile experience in Great Britain, especially in Glasgow, and anywhere else from which we can learn lessons.
The noble Lord asked about the possibility of locating at least one major government office in West Belfast. We note his imaginative and progressive suggestion. Such enterprise will be in the minds of my right honourable friend and my honourable friends. I cannot indicate any progress to the noble Lord this evening. He returned to the problem of the Divis flats. That is a matter for the Housing Executive. We are aware of the problems of the Divis flats. One of the major problems is finding suitable sites to rehouse all the present residents of the flats. I can assure the noble Lord that his efforts and the efforts and thoughts of all noble Lords are taken to heart and that the Government are in continual contact with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Blease, did not blanch when the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to the rod of iron. I hope that the Government will not find it necessary to use that. The noble Lord, Lord Blease, might have cause to worry a little if we adopted such methods.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to the problem of trying to satisfy all the different requests from the Government of the Republic of Ireland, the Catholics and the SDLP. The Government will listen to and take advice from everywhere. However, the Government must make their own decisions on any action they may wish to take in any deprived area.
The noble Lord asked two further questions about a fourth adult education college. I shall write to him with any news that I can elicit on that subject. I am
1202
afraid that I have no news tonight. He also asked me to consider the budget for the Royal Victoria Hospital and what it might do for job creation in West Belfast. Any project carried out by the Royal Victoria Hospital will be valuable. We shall be looking for assistance from the public and the private sector, including the voluntary sector. That was the philosophy I mentioned at the outset. We will examine all opportunities to raise employment in areas such as that around the Royal Victoria Hospital.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, made a thoughtful speech. We are grateful for his expert advice and his sharp questions. I hope that I shall be able to give him some answers. If I cannot provide all the details, he knows that he will receive a concise letter from me. I shall do my best to satisfy him. He asked a double-barrelled question about ways of addressing the serious economic and social problems of West Belfast and other disadvantaged areas and whether there would be a report that would be published.
I have told your Lordships that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is already urgently considering what further measures might be taken to promote economic activity in addition to the many existing schemes. My right honourable friend's consideration follows the detailed analysis of the problems made by officials. As the noble Lord will know, the Government do not make a practice of publishing internal working documents. That has been the practice of all governments. However, if I can let him have any details I shall do so.
The noble Lord asked about serious consultation in this area with local representatives. All the agencies working in all the disadvantaged areas of Belfast are continually involved in detailed consultations with local community leaders in seeking to improve economic, social and physical conditions. They include officials from the LEDU and the Belfast action teams, about whom I shall have a little more to say to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and naturally from the Eastern Health and Social Services Board, the Housing Executive and the Belfast Education and Library Board. The noble Lord asked a simple question about the number of people directly employed in implementing the 1986 social needs of capital legislation. I understand that 46 people are directly employed on that at the moment.
The noble Lords, Lord Blease and Lord Prys-Davies, asked about the Belfast action team offices. Your Lordships will be interested to know that there are four. There are two in Ormeau Avenue; one in Great Victoria Street; and one in York Street. They cover disadvantaged areas of the city.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, mentioned child services including play group facilities for the under-fives. The Department of Education has approved in principle several development proposals for additional nursery places in West and North Belfast. The provision of such places is under review. If I have any news I will write to the noble Lord. He asked a further question about jobcentre offices in the Lower Falls, Shankill and the Duncairn areas. We continually review the need for further jobcentres. He will understand that we also have to consider the

1203
resources available. His comments have been noted and I shall draw them to the attention of my honourable friend with responsibility for that area.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, mentioned a number of points, one of which was about discrimination. It was a forthright start to his comments. The annual report of the Fair Employment Agency demonstrates that discrimination in employment continues to be experienced by both sectors of the community in Northern Ireland. Noble Lords will agree that discrimination is not easily amenable to quantification. The FEA's report provides a useful basis from which to start. In recognition of that continuing problem, the Government intend to introduce legislation designed to eliminate discrimination as far as possible and to promote greater equality of employment opportunity.
Following Bishop Daly's homily, the noble Lord wondered whether the IDB had adopted a little less than its usual generosity towards West Belfast. He went so far as to say that the area had been written off. We do not agree with that. West Belfast attracts the highest financial incentives in Northern Ireland. In my opening remarks I said that in Northern Ireland we give the highest rates of investment incentives and assistance. West Belfast has the highest rates in Northern Ireland. The IDB maintains close contact with its 20 client companies in West and North Belfast; 18 out of those 20 have had IDB-backed major investment in the past seven years.
We are making a major effort to ensure that the companies in the area make maximum use of the marketing schemes of the IDB as well as the research and development schemes. The IDB remains committed to ensuring that its client companies in West Belfast continue to secure the maximum support necessary to obtain long-term viable employment opportunities in the area.
As regards the thoughts of the noble Lord on West Belfast and the IDB, a programme for the future is currently under way to persuade those companies which have not yet undertaken marketing or research and development programmes in conjunction with the IDB to consider doing so.
1204
I hope those points will assure the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and all noble Lords who have spoken, that in no way is the IDB negligent in its duty towards West Belfast. The noble Lord also asked about what I have down at BATs. I think this is the Belfast action teams and their resources. There are four teams with £½ million each for three years. The work of these teams is constantly under review. The department, in its present initiative, sees the teams very much as combating all the problems of the area, not just in industry and deprivation.
The latest communiqué, the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference joint statement of 5th May this year, made it quite clear that the Government of the Republic had raised the need to tackle the social and economic problems of West Belfast with the Government. That was taken into account and I hope the noble Lord will be able to see that in the joint statement.
The noble Lord had one more query about the possible reluctance of the Government to submit an application to the European Community for special help for West Belfast. Following the agreement at the European Council meeting in February this year about the future financing of the Community, there have been detailed discussions between all the member states and the Commission about the revised structural funds. This has led to Northern Ireland being given the highest priority status. Consideration is now being given to securing the most appropriate help from the Community for Belfast as well as for Northern Ireland. All these deliberations include recent discussions with Commission officials within the past week.
I think that possibly I have detained your Lordships for too long. I hope I have not repeated too many of the points, but this has been a very rewarding debate. If I have missed any of the major matters which have been raised by noble Lords, then I shall be writing to them. We are all particularly grateful that tonight we have obtained time for a very helpful debate on the problems of North and West Belfast. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before nine o'clock.

  ACOST MEETING
  ACOST MEETING
  ISRAEL-US MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
  ISRAEL-US MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
  GERMAN SUBMARINE: ALLEGED INCIDENT
  GERMAN SUBMARINE: ALLEGED INCIDENT
  NATIONAL RIVERS AUTHORITY: PROPOSED SCHEMES
  NATIONAL RIVERS AUTHORITY: PROPOSED SCHEMES
  WATER AND SEWERAGE LAW: REVISED PROPOSALS
  WATER AND SEWERAGE LAW: REVISED PROPOSALS
  ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON: FINANCIAL SUPPORT
  ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON: FINANCIAL SUPPORT
  PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY: STUDY TEAMS
  PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY: STUDY TEAMS
  FINANCIAL AND COMPANY INVESTIGATIONS: POWERS
  FINANCIAL AND COMPANY INVESTIGATIONS: POWERS
  SPECIALISED SATELLITE SERVICES
  SPECIALISED SATELLITE SERVICES
  IMMUNISATION
  IMMUNISATION
  DISABLED PEOPLE: INCOME SUPPORT
  DISABLED PEOPLE: INCOME SUPPORT
  FOOD MANUFACTURERS' FEDERATION REPORT
  FOOD MANUFACTURERS' FEDERATION REPORT
  WEST BELFAST EMPLOYMENT PROSPECTS
  WEST BELFAST EMPLOYMENT PROSPECTS