Sitting of 24 May 1988

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  [MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    TOR BAY HARBOUR (OXEN COVE AND COASTAL FOOTPATH, BRIXHAM) BILL
    Considered; to be read the Third time.
Oral Answers to Questions
  DEFENCE

    RAF Dishforth
    Mr. Curry: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give further details of the future military use of RAF Dishforth.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Roger Freeman): Dishforth will become the base of an Army Air Corps helicopter regiment which is being formed to support the newly titled 24th Airmobile Brigade, which has its headquarters at nearby Catterick garrison.
    Mr. Curry: Is my hon. Friend aware that Dishforth is a prime site near the A1, which is developing rapidly and being significantly improved? Does he realise that there are more than 150 houses and other extensive facilities on the site? Does he accept that it is important for the project to go ahead without delay? If it were to fall foul, there are many other uses for the site. Will the military get on with it, or get out?
    Mr. Freeman: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he is seeking. The Army will get on with it, and we plan to have the first squadron of helicopters there by the summer of next year. I confirm that all the empty married quarters, and a good part of the barracks, will be used by the Army Air Corps.

    Cruise Missiles
    Mr. Norman Hogg: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the United States Defence Secretary about sea-launched cruise missiles.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Younger): Mr. Carlucci and I discuss a wide variety of defence and security matters. The details of our discussions are confidential.
    Mr. Hogg: Is it not clear that the Secretary of State has sanctioned the use of Holy Loch for sea-launched cruise
    180
    missiles without the House being consulted? Is it not a fact that the occasional visits of these submarines will become frequent visits? Is that not very different from what the Secretary of State told the Defence Select Committee? Has not a major strategic defence change taken place? This is a serious matter that the House should discuss on a future occasion.
    Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. There has been no change in the practice or status of Holy Loch. The Government would be consulted by the United States' authorities if they wished to base a new class of nuclear weapon in the United Kingdom. United States' SSNs visit Holy Loch occasionally, but no decisions for any change of principle have been taken.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the advantage of bases on the west coast of Scotland is that they offer access to deep water so that submarines can come and go without potential enemies being able to track them down? It would be nonsense not to use them effectively and properly for the NATO deterrent.
    Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend. The many military advantages of the bases on the west coast of Scotland have been recognised by all Governments, both Labour and Conservative, in the past.
    Sir Antony Buck: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a good thing that United States' ships pay frequent visits to our ports? They increase the deterrent capability of NATO, and that should be so.
    Mr. Younger: My hon. and learned Friend is correct. The United States is one of our principal allies in defending western Europe and this country, and visits by its ships are very welcome.

    Dartmoor (Live Firing)
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will take steps to ensure that red flags do not fly on Dartmoor when live firing is not taking place.
    Mr. Freeman: When live firing is not planned, no danger flags are flown. When firing is cancelled, for example due to bad weather, we aim to remove the danger signals as quickly as possible to permit maximum recreational use of the moor. We try to remove them in these circumstances by midday.
    Mr. Steen: I thank my hon. Friend for his interest in this last great wilderness in Britain and for his courtesy and helpfulness to the conservationists, but is he aware that the 8 million people who visit the moor each year are deprived of using 70 per cent. of the high moor because of live firing, 52 weeks a year, Monday to Friday, other than in August? Will he try to persuade the Army to end its somewhat dog-in-the-manger attitude, which results in the flags flying for far longer than is necessary? Will he please do something to have them taken down when they are no longer needed?
    Mr. Freeman: As I have said, the moor is used for Army training and for recreational purposes. If it would be helpful, I should be happy to meet my hon. Friend, together with representatives of interested bodies, to discuss the future of Dartmoor and to listen to their suggestions and representations.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is my hon. Friend aware that those who have spent their lives in Devon, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] No, it is a fact—are aware that the presence of all branches of Her Majesty's forces in Devon is part of Devon's history, livelihood and ethos, which is greatly appreciated by those—other than some, only a few—who have come there recently?
    Mr. Freeman: I agree with my hon. Friend's sentiments. The Army has been using Dartmoor for training for over 100 years.

    BAOR
    Mr. Shersby: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the German Minister of Defence concerning improvements in peacetime support for British forces in Germany.
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Ian Stewart): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has regular discussions with his German counterpart on a wide range of subjects of mutual interest.
    Mr. Shersby: Is my hon. Friend aware that the foreign exchange cost of British forces in Germany is running at an annual rate of £1·2 billion? Does he accept that unless the Federal Republic is prepared to share part of the burden savings must be limited to good housekeeping? As the Government have reserved their position with a view to finding an alternative solution to the former offset arrangements, can my hon. Friend now say what solutions he proposes to solve this difficult problem?
    Mr. Stewart: I know of my hon. Friend's interest in this and, in particular, of the part that he played in the evidence that was taken by the Public Accounts Committee on host nation support a month or two ago. Following that, we have set up, in the logistics division at the Ministry of Defence, a special section to look into all these questions, including the matter of foreign exchange and the other things that my hon. Friend has mentioned.
    Mr. Duffy: Will the Minister confirm that the improvements for which Dr. Wörner will be looking on the part of British forces in Germany, both as Secretary-General elect and as the current German Defence Minister, include sustainability, stockages and spares, shortfalls in standing ground forces, reinforcement and counter-air, certainly not the urgent modernisation of short range nuclear forces, to which the Prime Minister attaches so much importance?
    Mr. Stewart: Dr. Wörner appreciates as well as any Defence Minister in NATO the importance of both nuclear and conventional forces for the defence of the West. It is fortunate that NATO is getting the services of someone who has been such a distinguished Defence Minister in Germany. He certainly appreciates the importance of all those matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I should add that he made a point of choosing British forces in Germany for his last official visit before leaving his office and on that occasion said:
    "The British make a decisive contribution in Germany and without BAOR and RAF Germany the defence of our country would be unthinkable."
    That is a great testimony from the German Defence Minister.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government will implement in full the recommendations of the National Audit Office on ways of reducing the support costs of British forces in Germany? Will the Government review the Brussels treaty commitment, as the United Kingdom plays a major part in the defence of the east Atlantic and Channel areas—that is, in NATO's reinforcement—and Britain's air power can be a vital determinant against armour on the central front?
    Mr. Stewart: The points put forward in the National Audit Office report will be considered carefully by my Department, particularly by the new section that we have established. I have serious doubts about whether reducing the number of dependants would be the right thing to do. It seems to me that having a substantial number of unaccompanied postings to Germany would be against the interests of the armed forces and their families and would, over time, decrease the effectiveness of those forces.
    Mr. Sean Hughes: If the Government are so aware of conventional needs, does the Minister share the view of Sir Martin Farndale, who, in January this year, identified a long list of deficiencies, including tanks, and the need for more and better artillery, helicopters and armoured engineer support as well as other equipment?
    Mr. Stewart: Any good commander-in-chief—General Farndale was certainly that—can identify improvements that he would like made in the equipment and back-up of the forces. All those matters are of concern to this country and our allies in western Europe, and we continually measure what we regard to be the priorities. We shall take all those matters into account.

    NATO Nuclear Planning Group
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what decisions concerning modernisation of nuclear weapons were made at the last North Atlantic Treaty Organisation nuclear planning group meeting.
    Mr. Bradley: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what decisions concerning nuclear-capable aircraft were made at the last North Atlantic Treaty Organisation nuclear planning group meeting.
    Mr. Younger: No specific procurement or deployment decisions were taken, though further guidance was provided on the way ahead and of the need to keep our forces up to date. A copy of the communiqué issued after the Brussels NPG meeting has been placed in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Pike: Why did the right hon. Gentleman choose to announce the replacement for Britain's RAF freefall nuclear bomb on "Panorama" and not to the House? Will he state categorically whether the cost of that replacement—and all other replacements—is fully included in the Defence Estimates to be announced next week? Will he also state whether he believes that this will place in jeopardy the agreements being reached under the INF treaty?
    Mr. Younger: It will certainly have no effect on the agreements reached under the INF treaty, as this refers only to ground-based missiles with a range of 500 to 5,500 km. We have made a general allowance in our forward costings for possible weapons systems to replace the

    183
    freefall bombs. The hon. Gentleman is not as well informed as he usually is if he imagines that I announced anything new on "Panorama". No decision has been made on what would replace the freefall bombs, but the need to decide on a replacement has been referred to many times, most notably on 4 March 1988—the hon. Gentleman will find the reference in column 1288 of Hansard—when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear that we have to find a replacement for these freefall bombs in due course.
    Mr. Bradley: Is not the combination of more nuclear capable aircraft, more air-to-surface missiles and more United States nuclear-capable strike aircraft merely a replacement for the INF weapons cuts? Does NATO not already have superiority in such aircraft? Rather than increasing the number of such weapons, would it not be better to trade them against further Soviet arms cuts?
    Mr. Younger: There has been a great reduction in the number of warheads in our provision for nuclear deterrence. More than 2,000 have been removed unilaterally over the last year or two. That is progress. With regard to the range of weapons systems, we shall in no sense be breaking the spirit or the letter of the INF treaty. We welcome that as a great achievement which our steadfastness and our unity have produced. Nevertheless, we have to maintain a range of possible options to deal with any likely attack. We must keep a range of different options—large, medium-sized and small.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is unqualified support for his policy of modernising the British nuclear deterrent—[Interruption.]—from Conservative Members at any rate, as always? Will he confirm that it is the policy of the Soviet Union to modernise its nuclear defence forces, including its short-range missile systems?
    Mr. Younger: Yes, my hon. Friend is correct. I think that support for this policy has been amply demonstrated in at least three general elections, and that goes very much wider than just support from Conservative Members. The Soviet Union has recognised the common sense of keeping its weapons up to date. It is modernising its missile systems with the more accurate SS21 system. Furthermore, it is planning shortly to launch two types of sea-launched cruise missiles. These are sensible modernisations of systems which, as far as I know, are not in breach of the INF treaty.
    Miss Widdecombe: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the policy of NATO is still to maintain only a minimum deterrence and that this modernisation is within that policy and meets that criterion?
    Mr. Younger: I am glad to confirm what my hon. Friend has said. Our deterrent systems are always at the minimum that they can be, and that goes for the Trident system as well. It all comes back to the basic point. Although there might be arguments for or against having various kinds of weapons, I see no argument for having out-of-date ones.
    Mr. Wallace: Will the Secretary of State clarify what he said on "Panorama" about stand-off nuclear missiles for Tornado aircraft? How much has been allowed for any modernisation in the general costings to which he referred? Will he give an assurance that any sum that might be spent
    184
    will not in any way jeopardise projects such as the European fighter aircraft, the new generation of tanks or the surface fleet being maintained at about 50 vessels?
    Mr. Younger: We expect to maintain all our main defence commitments with the present budgetary arrangements. There is no difficulty about that. No decisions have been taken on the replacement for free fall bombs. We are examining possible options. We have allowed a generalised amount of money in our forward costings for replacement, but we cannot do anything accurately until we know broadly what the cost of the systems will be.
    Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital to update the RAF's nuclear capabilities? The tasks that it has to perform at the moment, and will have to perform in the future, are not the same as those that cruise missiles have performed in the recent past. Further, will he confirm that the USSR already has a nuclear stand-off capability for some of its aircraft?
    Mr. Younger: Yes, I confirm my hon. Friend's last point. I understand that the Soviet Union has nuclear capable short-range air-to-ground missiles on its Backfire bombers. It is taking a precaution which some Opposition Members maintain we should not. My hon. Friend is correct in saying that the general provision of weapon systems, as part of our nuclear deterrence, is the vital part of our defence.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Will the Secretary of State say when the decision was taken to replace the freefall bombs on the Tornado aircraft? Was that decision taken at Montebello in 1983, or later? Secondly, i n view of the answers that he has given, could he also tell the House the generalised sum involved in the defence budget for modernisation, as he calls it?
    Mr. Younger: We are at far too early a stage to be able to put any definite figure on this. That is not surprising. as we do not yet know the price, the quantity or what type of missile would be available.
    As the right hon. Gentleman has asked, it would he helpful if I clarified the position on Montebello. There were three points in the communiqué' issued following the Montebello meeting. First, the Ministers agreed a reduction of 1,400 warheads in NATO's nuclear stockpile in Europe. Incidentally, that has now been completed and has brought NATO's stockpile in Europe to its lowest level for 20 years. Secondly, Ministers agreed on the need for improvements to ensure the responsiveness, effectiveness and survivability of remaining forces. Thirdly, Ministers instructed SACEUR to develop proposals that would implement what Ministers had agreed. Ministers took no decisions on specific weapons systems, but SACEUR came back at the Luxembourg meeting in 1985 with proposals, among which there was the proposal for the deployment of a tactical air-to-surface missile. That is now being pursued as a possibility by the United States, ourselves and France, but no decisions have been taken or are in prospect in the short term.

    Maritime Strategy
    Mr. Stott: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals concerning maritime strategy he will be taking to the Eurogroup meeting of Defence Ministers in Brussels on 25 May.
    Mr. Younger: None, Sir.
    Mr. Stott: I am interested to hear that reply to my question. If the Secretary of State is not considering a maritime strategy, perhaps he could pay some attention to the importance of the British merchant fleet in the development of a maritime strategy. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the merchant fleet figures in his defence White Paper make depressing reading? How many more ships, and how many more British-trained merchant seamen, are we to lose before the Secretary of State acts in the national interest?
    Mr. Younger: We watch trends in the British merchant fleet with considerable concern because we rely on being able to take ships from trade for military purposes from time to time. However, in spite of the steady reductions in recent years, which now appear to have levelled off, the position is that, apart from one or two specialist types, sufficient vessels would be available for any likely defence needs. We watch the matter carefully and would be worried if there were too few for our needs.
    Mr. Holt: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his answer that we do not have a strategy is alarming? Does he admit that unless we know how many ships we have we will not know how many we might need in any eventuality? There is great concern that the Royal Navy is being run down to a level that would be unsustainable in the event of hostilities anywhere in the world.
    Mr. Younger: I should correct the impression that has grown up because of the supplementary question asked by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott). I did not state that we had no maritime strategy. I said that I would not be taking any proposals on such a strategy to the Eurogroup meeting, which is a very different thing. We have a well-known maritime strategy, which is part of the NATO strategy, to which the Royal Navy makes a great contribution.
    Mr. Clay: Returning to the Secretary of State's answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), will the right hon. Gentleman look at the age profile of what is left of the British merchant fleet, because surely he knows that what is left is, on the whole, very old? New ships will have to be built in the 1990s because the remaining ships will not be seaworthy by then. It is simply a question whether the new ships that will be required will be built in other countries or in Britain. In the interests of his own Department, should not the Secretary of State persuade his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry to wake up, pull their fingers out and save British merchant shipbuilding?
    Mr. Younger: My concern is to ensure that at any time sufficient ships could be taken from trade to be used for military purposes. That is still the case today, but we watch the position carefully. We in the Ministry of Defence cannot construct merchant ships. We have to rely on their
    186
    being available. We keep a close check on what is available and, as I have said, at present it is still adequate for our needs.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that West German interest in our maritime fleet is great, particularly in the ability of our submarines and, in due course, Trident to attack Soviet territory, and that that is important, given the INF agreement which otherwise would limit all land-based nuclear action to taking place on German soil? Has he received representations from the West German Government to that effect?
    Mr. Younger: In my discussions with the West German Government they solidly supported the provision of the British nuclear deterrent—the Polaris system as it now is, or the Trident system in the future. It is widely agreed throughout NATO that that is an extremely valuable contribution to NATO, as well as being a safeguard for our own defence. I have noticed recently with interest that Mr. Gorbachev has agreed that the British Trident system should not be included in the START negotiations.
    Mr. O'Neill: The Secretary of State has concentrated on the number of ships. Is he not concerned about the figures in the White Paper relating to the number of cadets in training, which, in the last six years, has fallen from 4,000 to 550? That drop suggests that in the future there will not only be an insufficient number of British or, indeed, European, ships, but, more important, that there will be a dearth of British seamen capable of manning those ships and fulfilling the role that the merchant marine has carried out so valiantly in the past.
    Mr. Younger: Yes, we believe that a possible shortage of British crews is a greater problem than the possible shortage of British ships. We are considering both those matters carefully and examining ways in which we could build up a reserve of crews for that purpose.
    Mr. Hind: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the maritime defence strategy is to keep enemy forces at arm's length and to deny them freedom of operation? Will he also tell us what plans his Department has for ordering further Trident submarines?
    Mr. Younger: Of course, NATO strategy is to ensure that we have the ability to range on international waters and the high seas and to ensure that we can keep them safe for the passage of our shipping and of international shipping generally. There is no doubt that that is a prime factor in NATO strategy.

    SAS
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of the SAS in Europe.
    Mr. Ian Stewart: No, Sir.
    Mr. Dalyell: Under what and on whose authority does the SAS operate?
    Mr. Stewart: It has long been the policy of this Government and their predecessors not to comment on the activities of, or arrangements for, our special forces. To depart from that policy would, in my view, be against the

    187
    interests not only of members of our armed forces but of British citizens who may he exposed to danger at home or abroad.
    Mr. Conway: Does my hon. Friend accept that the SAS has a fine tradition of serving not only this democratically elected Government but their predecessors of a Socialist persuasion, and that its expertise and courage is held in the highest esteem, not only in this House but among the general public who will deny the whingers opposite who sell the SAS short?
    Mr. Stewart: I welcome my hon. Friend's support for the proficiency of our armed forces.
    Mr. Cryer: Surely the Minister accepts some sort of principle of democratic accountability. Does not the absence of such democratic accountability suggest that the SAS could institute a shoot-to-kill policy of its own without any control whatsoever? Is the Minister trying to claim that that is what happened in Gibraltar, or was that planned? All that the House wants to know is who planned it, who made the decision and who gave the orders. Surely we are entitled to know that.
    Mr. Stewart: All military operations and activities in this country or by our armed forces are ultimately under political control. I should emphasise that our soldiers are highly trained to operate within the law and according to strict rules.

    Departmental Insurance
    Mr. Michael McNair-WilsonTo ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he takes to ensure that his Department uses the services of the insurance industry so as to mitigate its annual losses in equipment and facilities.
    Mr. Freeman: The Ministry of Defence does not generally insure against the risk of any loss to property, buildings or equipment. Over the long term, the cost of insurance should exceed average losses. Although the risks are potentially very large and widely distributed, they can never produce losses maturing in any one year so as to have a significant effect on the overall financial position of the Exchequer.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Will my hon. Friend give the House the figures for the loss, particularly by fire damage, to stores and buildings at the Ministry of Defence over the past five years? Can he estimate the likely cost of the fire damage to the central ordnance depot at Donnington, the second fire that it has endured within the past two years? Does he not think that the time has come for some of those risks to be borne by the insurance industry?
    Mr. Freeman: The answer to the first question is, over the past five years, approximately £152 million. The answer to the second question is that it is still too early to provide estimates, but the figure is probably in excess of £100 million. The answer to the third question is no. We have no plans to insure specific losses, but we have plans to extend the principle of insurance where the insurance industry can offer a service, such as settling claims. We do that with third party motor vehicle insurance and civilian employers' liability.
    Mr. Foulkes: What is the position about aircraft such as the Tornado that was recently lost in Germany? Will the Minister reconsider the arrangements, particularly in relation to relatives of the people who were killed.
    Mr. Freeman: We always regret aircraft accidents. The aircraft accident trend is down. Last year was the best year on record for the number of aircraft lost. The service men who lose their lives or who are injured are covered by the armed forces pension scheme. If negligence is involved then, following the repeal of section 10 of the 1947 Act, they can claim against the Ministry of Defence.

    Ex-Government Employees (Outside Appointments)
    Mr. Litherland: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about former civil servants and members of Her Majesty's forces accepting outside appointments with defence contractors.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): The Government have received the House of Commons Defence Committee's report on the acceptance of appointments in commerce and industry by members of the armed forces and officials of the Ministry of Defence. As usual, a Government response will be made to this report in due course.
    Mr. Litherland: Can the Minister explain why the Ministry of Defence hindered the inquiry of the Select Committee on Defence into the increasing number of civil servants and military staff who have taken up cosy, lucrative positions with commercial defence weapon contractors? When will the Government come clean and lift this shroud of secrecy on a matter that is of legitimate public concern?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand when I say that it would not be right for me to anticipate the Government's response to the report, which, of course, we are taking very seriously.
    Mr. Latham: Will my hon. Friend confirm that one of the benefits of Mr. Levene's appointment is that it will try to bring to an end some of the cosy relationships that existed in the past? Is my hon. Friend aware that the next time I get a letter from an admiral on behalf of a defence company it will go straight into the wastepaper basket?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I agree with my hon. Friend that there are many benefits in the more competitive approach of defence procurement that we have introduced. I hope he will accept that, on the face of it, it would not seem very sensible completely to deny to the country and, indeed, to industry and commerce, the benefit of people who have experience of the armed forces.
    Mr. Rogers: Does the Under-Secretary of State accept that the Opposition have grave misgivings about the relationship to major defence contractors not only of service men and ex-civil servants but of ex-Cabinet Ministers such as the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit)? When will the Government draw up a more effective code of conduct so that politicians do not step out of jobs in which they give contracts into companies where they place contracts?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I shall confine my answer to the points arising from the question. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we take very seriously the issues about which he speaks. We try to take the greatest care to avoid approving any appointment that could give rise to a suggestion of a conflict of interests. We shall be replying to the report in due course.

    Weapons Purchasing Policy
    Mr. Stokes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he is taking to maximise weapon purchasing economy through collaborative ventures with North Atlantic Treaty Organisation allies.
    Mr. Sainsbury: In order to derive maximum benefit by co-operation, we play a full role in the relevant multilateral forums—essentially the Conference of International Armament Directors, CNAD, and the Independent European Programme Group, IEPG—and in our various bilateral contacts.
    Mr. Stokes: I am grateful for that answer, but I am not exactly clear about what it means. Has any progress whatever been made in the last five years or so?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that we all get perplexed by these numerous initials by which the MOD confuses things. I am glad to say that there has been substantial progress. We very much recognise that major benefits of increased collaboration accrue not only from the reduced costs to each country of developing complex weapons systems, but from lower unit production costs that result from longer production runs.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister examine carefully the respective economies arising from our purchase of AWACS from Boeing? Will he give some clear information to the House about the nature of this contract and tell us why we have not obtained £80 million-worth of firm orders to offset purchases in excess of £1·5 billion? What economies will accrue to the United Kingdom in relation to that particular collaborative purchase, and when will the Ministry of Defence get off its backside and ensure that British industry gets its fair contractural share of offset purchases?
    Mr. Sainsbury: The purchase of the AWACS from Boeing is not part of a collaborative programme but is simply the purchase of equipment produced overseas. It carries a substantial offset of 130 per cent. of the cost. We have absolute confidence that on this occasion, as previously, Boeing will fulfil its obligations under that agreement.
    Mr. Brazier: I put it to my hon. Friend that deals of the Goalkeeper/Rolls-Royce type, in which effectively the swap of one type of equipment for another takes place, offer the same benefits as collaboration in terms of longer production runs, and so on, but without all the bureaucracy that so besets collaborative ventures—especially smaller ones.
    Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend is right. There are other ways of obtaining the benefits of longer production runs and of enjoying co-operation among NATO allies than through collaboration. Reciprocal purchasing is clearly one of them.

    Arms Levels
    Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his North Atlantic Treaty Organisation counterparts about conventional arms levels.
    Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his North Atlantic Treaty Organisation counterparts about conventional arms levels.
    Mr. Younger: I have regular discussions with my NATO colleagues on conventional arms levels, both in terms of our approach to conventional arms control and the conventional defence improvements exercise.
    Mr. Fatchett: Does the Secretary of State for Defence accept in principle that any reduction in conventional arms should be on the basis of reciprocity. In other words, those weapons in which the West has superiority should be bargained against those weapons in which the Soviets have superiority. Is the Minister prepared to accept that principle?
    Mr. Younger: Not exactly. The objective in conventional arms reductions is to work down the considerable imbalance which exists. We are clear that, for that purpose, asymmetrical reductions will be necessary.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Will the Secretary of State for Defence tell the House whether NATO has now agreed upon its negotiating position in respect of the conventional arms stability talks? Can he say, in particular, whether it has been agreed by both the British Government and NATO that ground-based attack aircraft will be included in those negotiations? If they are not, it will make a mockery of the talks.
    Mr. Younger: In the negotiations we have made it plain that the proposed talks are to be about conventional armed forces, including all conventional forces and equipment based on land, regardless of what other capability they may have. We have explicitly stated that nuclear and chemical weapons, together with naval forces, are excluded. There is no need to single out for inclusion any one type of conventional armament solely because it has the additional capability to deliver nuclear or chemical weapons.
    Mr. Sayeed: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be perfectly possible for the Soviet Union to offer to withdraw Warsaw pact forces, but not the equipment, which would make little actual difference to the Soviets' fighting capability on the central front?
    Mr. Younger: I agree. We believe that the conventional imbalance can be redressed through a set of measures including reductions, limitations, redeployment provisions and related measures, as well as the establishment of equal ceilings. That outcome will require highly asymmetrical reductions by the East and will entail, for example, the elimination from Europe of tens of thousands of Warsaw pact weapons relevant to surprise attack—among them, tanks and artillery pieces.
    Mr. Baldry: Does my right hon. Friend recall that before the last general election the Labour party was exhorting us to strengthen our conventional weapons? Now it seems to be suggesting that we should weaken our

    191
    conventional weapons. The only inference to be drawn from that is that the Labour party is interested, not in the defence of Britain, but in her disarmament?
    Mr. Younger: As my hon. Friend points out, many strange things were said by the Labour party before the last election, and the ones that he has mentioned are certainly among them. I think, however, that even those are not as strange as the doctrine that we should have out-of-date weapons, to which the Labour party seems now to attach itself.

    Merchant Shipping (Wartime Use)
    Mr. Doran: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last reviewed arrangements for the use of merchant shipping in time of war.
    Mr. Ian Stewart: Arrangements for the use of merchant shipping in time of war are kept under regular review.
    Mr. Doran: Has not the Government's wilful neglect of their merchant shipping fleet and merchant seamen severely reduced the country's capacity to defend itself'?
    Mr. Stewart: No, Sir. We judge that there are sufficient British and British-dependent territory ships for the needs of the British forces. In the Merchant Shipping Bill we have included powers to assist with the training of merchant seamen, and, as the hon. Gentleman will know, provision for a Merchant Navy reserve.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Sims: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 May.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty The Queen.
    Mr. Sims: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the degree of support in the country for the sentiments that she expressed in her speech to the Church of Scotland? Would she care to take this opportunity to reassert that one of the principles of the Christian ethic is personal and individual responsibility, and that some of the other principles, such as care, compassion and tolerance, can be, and are, shared by people of all political parties—including the party to which she and I are proud to belong?
    The Prime Minister: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words. It was, of course, an expression of personal beliefs and views—[Interruption.] On that occasion I agreed with what my hon. Friend said. As I pointed out at the time, there may be others who disagree, but it is a mark of Christian manners and courtesy to do so in a very mannerly way.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister now unfreeze child benefit and restore the 70p cuts that she has made in the past two years?
    The Prime Minister: Child benefit is reviewed each year. This year we chose to give a great deal more to children in families who had low earnings, so that we helped those who needed it most.
    Mr. Kinnock: It did not make up for the child benefit cuts. When I heard the Prime Minister on Saturday saying that she considered that children were "a precious trust", I wondered whether she meant it in practice. Now I know that she does not. "By their fruits ye shall know them."
    The Prime Minister: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of reading the speech. I do not believe—and it is a personal view—that one discharges all one's duties by casting them off on to the state.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister has cut child benefit. She has stopped free school meals. She has ended single payments. Can she tell us which passage of the Bible inspired her to do all that? Could it have been Matthew 27:24,
    "Pilate … took water, and washed his hands"
    The Prime Minister: I believe that the right hon. Gentleman debases everything—[Interruption.]—that he and I both probably believe in if we try to exchange quotations across the Chamber. I made it perfectly clear in that speech that we simply cannot delegate the exercise of mercy and generosity to others, and that therefore there is a very important place both for help through the state—which we operate—and personal help and personal responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman asked me personally. Perhaps he will kindly look at the amount which I have voluntarily forgone from my salary over the past nine years.[Interruption.]
    Mr. Key: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the international lead that she has given in arranging for the historic meeting between British and Soviet scientists at the chemical defence establishment at Porton Down in my constituency? Will she join me in praising the work of the scientific and industrial civil servants, without whose dedication and loyalty our role in those talks would not be so important?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I will gladly do that. As my hon. Friend is aware, there were visits from this country and from our allies to the Soviet Union with regard to chemical weapons. We have no chemical weapons in this country. We gave them up a very long time ago, and this is a return visit under the agreement that we have to inspect each other's premises.
    Dr. Owen: In view of the importance of a revising second Chamber for this Parliament, does the Prime Minister accept that it is now time to look at the proposals of Lord Home in 1978 for an elected and nominated second Chamber? The reform of the other place is now right. If we are to have a sensible revisory process, it requires a change in the voting membership of the other place.
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, the community charge Bill for Scotland went through their Lordships' House completely, and was revised in their Lordships' House, before the election. We put in our manifesto plans that went into far greater detail because a similar Bill had already been through their

    193
    Lordships' House. I believe that there is no such difficulty as the right hon. Gentleman suggests. I believe that yesterday we won on the argument—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It takes up a great deal of time to have so much noise.
    The Prime Minister: During the debate 75 Cross Benchers were present and voting; 43 Cross Benchers supported the Government and 32 voted with the Labour Opposition.
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the SAS regiment based in Herefordshire has served this country with quiet distinction, not least for the past 13 years, during which it has been deployed in Northern Ireland? Does she agree that that success has been due largely to the anonymity with which it has worked? Does she not agree, therefore, that it is highly irresponsible for hon. Members to seek to name names, not least because of the jeopardy in which soldiers' families would be placed?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I join my hon. Friend in paying warm tribute to the work of the SAS. I agree with him that for it to continue to protect our security it must not be discussed in detail in this House or anywhere else.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Clarke: Has the Prime Minister had time to glimpse at "Just Sharing", one of the books that was presented to her by the Church of Scotland on Saturday? Does she agree with its conclusion that the reality of one and a half million men, women and children who live on the borders of poverty represents a sick society in Scotland? In view of the charity which the Church demonstrated by listening to the right hon. Lady's speech, will she respond by showing some humility and offering a real challenge to poverty, if only because pious words do not always represent Christian values, but positive policies and a caring approach in a meaningful sense often do?
    The Prime Minister: I was glad to receive the pamphlet "Just Sharing". It gives me an opportunity to point out that because of the Government's policies there is far more available for sharing among those who need it.
    Mr. David Evans: In condemning the violence at Wembley at last Saturday's match between England and Scotland, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time the Football League and the Football Association stopped pussyfooting on the members only issue and copied the scheme at Luton where, during two full seasons and 80 matches, there was not one single arrest inside or outside the ground?
    The Prime Minister: Once again we had violence and hooliganism, which disfigures football and will make it much more difficult to get back to playing in Europe. I agree with my hon. Friend that the scheme he introduced to Luton, which was members only and no away spectators, is excellent and has brought families back to football, to their great joy. I wish that more would follow his excellent example.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Prime Minister recall that in her speech to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland at the weekend she attempted to reconcile the creed of greed with morality? In that speech she also pointed out that "each one counts." Can she confirm that yesterday that was the moral imperative uppermost in her mind when she whipped in hundreds of backwoodsmen in the House of Lords to get her over her troubles on the poll tax?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with him about the premise which underlines his question. [Interruption.] I do not believe that people, such as nurses and doctors, are exercising the creed of greed when they ask for more.
    Mr. Lawrence: Does not the standing ovation which the Royal College of Nursing gave to our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services show that the angels believe the NHS is safe in her hands?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Again, because of the policies carried out by this Government, there is more money to distribute for social services and far more money to distribute to the Health Service. The reception that my right hon. Friend had yesterday was well deserved.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Roberts: Since 1979, during the nine years that the Prime Minister has been in power, homelessness has doubled in Britain. Can she tell us why?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman reads the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment he will find an explanation. First, the population of working age is about 1⅓ million more than it was 10 years ago. Secondly, unfortunately, as my right hon. Friend set out in his speech, the number of broken marriages and single parents greatly increases the need for housing. Therefore, more houses are having to be provided for approximately the same number of people.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people in Scotland are delighted to see her coming to the Church of Scotland General Assembly because it is a pleasant change to have a leader who is a practising Christian, who believes in what she is doing and who clearly demonstrates this every day of the week, not least by the courage with which she carries out her duties?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Opposition would not have attacked what I said so vigorously if it had not been as well received as it was.
    Mr. Steel: Does the Prime Minister remember that when I asked her last month about the Church of Scotland report on poverty in Scotland, showing that 31 per cent. of the population were living at or near the margins of poverty, she said she had not seen the report? Does she recognise that that was the report handed to her by the Moderator at the end of her interesting speech, and does she now accept that the Government have a direct and unavoidable duty to do something about it?
    The Prime Minister: As I have indicated many times in the past few minutes, because of the policies of this Government there is more money available to share, there are more houses, there is a better Health Service and there are better salaries; in fact, life is better off all round, precisely because of our policies.
    Mr. Allason: Given the conviction yesterday of Mr. Martin Chilvers, will my right hon. Friend tell the House when the recommendations of the Security Commission
    196
    report—published three years ago—to introduce polygraph testing into GCHQ and other establishments will be implemented?
    The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend indicated in a reply, which I think was given some time during April, and as my hon. Friend is aware, we have asked for a scientific assessment of the phase 1 experiment on the polygraph. However, there are different views from the scientific body as to how useful that is. When the report has come in, we shall assess it and make an announcement to the House.

Seafreight Freeway (Fire)
3.30 pm
Mr. Jonathan Aitken (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the fire and subsequent air-sea rescue operation involving the Channel ferry Seafreight Freeway.
The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): At 9.45 pm last night, the Sealink ferry Seafreight Freeway, en route Dover-Zeebrugge, reported a serious fire on board, and indicated that it might be necessary to abandon ship. There were 75 persons on board: 41 passengers plus 34 crew.
An RAF Wessex helicopter based at Manston was immediately scrambled to the scene to airlift one badly burned engineer to Canterbury hospital. Dover, Ramsgate and Calais lifeboats were launched. Two Sea King helicopters from RAF Coltishall proceeded to Manston, and the coastguard helicopter from Lee-on-Solent was also dispatched. At the same time, a fire-fighting tug, Dexteros, sailed from Dover and a second tug, Deft, stood by at Dover to take on a team from Kent fire brigade. Calais lifeboat and a French tug, Astral Fish, also sailed for the scene.
By 11.30 pm the vessel was anchored 28 miles east of Ramsgate, and reported the fire contained but not out. The tug Deft left Dover with a fire-fighting team and equipment at this time. Just after midnight seven Kent fire officers were winched on board by one of the Sea King helicopters. A further eight fire officers were standing by the ship in the coastguard helicopter. By this time the fire was becoming under control, and shortly afterwards the master reported that the fire was out, and the coastguard helicopter, having winched extra fire fighters on board, returned to Manston. One person was still missing. His body was subsequently recovered from the engine room, and returned to Dover by the Dover lifeboat. I very much regret this sad loss of life and injury and I am sure the whole House will join me in extending its sympathy to the relatives and friends concerned.
The tug Astral Fish is currently towing the Seafreight Freeway to Dunkirk with passengers and crew, plus 13 fire officers on board.
Police and fire liaison officers were in attendance throughout, at the Dover coastguard rescue co-ordination centre, whence the rescue operation was organised. The contingency plans for such major operations appear to have worked well. I congratulate all those involved in carrying out the operation swiftly and professionally.
Two principal surveyors from the Department of Transport have been appointed on behalf of the Bermudan authorities to investigate the accident and have already started work. It would not be sensible at this time to make any further comment until all the facts have been established.
Mr. Aitken: I join my hon. Friend in his expression of sympathy to the bereaved and injured and in his appreciation of the skill and courage of the air-sea rescue services. May I particularly commend the medical rescue work of my constituent, Dr. John Beale, a Ramsgate general practitioner, who was winched on to the blazing ship through heavy smoke from the first RAF Wessex
198
helicopter on the scene? I also commend the exemplary fire-fighting by the well-trained crew members on the Seafreight Freeway, which probably saved many lives.
At a time when safety on cross-Channel ferries is a matter of public concern, could the inquiry report as speedily as possible? May I express the hope that its findings will soon confirm the view of many of those on the scene last night that the fire was a one-off accident that is unlikely to reveal any inherent weaknesses in the overall standards of safety on such vessels?
Mr. Mitchell: I join my hon. Friend in commending the bravery and care for the injured of Dr. John Beale, who joined the vessel from a helicopter while it was still at sea and on fire. As for the report, we should wait and see exactly what it says. In the first instance, the publication of the report is a matter for the Bermudan authorities. However, if any lessons emerge, I shall ensure that a report is made available.
Mr. David Young: Is it not time that we asked the inquiry to consider that there should be a statutory obligation on transport companies such as ferry companies to pay money in respect of people who are killed or disabled while being transported, irrespective of whether there is a direct responsibility for blame? The families of people who die in such circumstances face severe problems. Is it not time, particularly after the two disasters one after the other, that there was a statutory obligation for responsibility for payments to be made to the relatives of the deceased?
Mr. Mitchell: That is somewhat outside the original question, but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and set out the position for him.
Mr. Robert Adley: Is my hon. Friend not slightly concerned that since Mr. Sherwood acquired Sealink from British Rail we have, shall I say, no more than coincidentally, had an increasing number of such incidents that cause some of us to remember the debate we had a few weeks ago on safety at sea? Will my hon. Friend look into the whole question of the operations of Sealink in the light of the legislation on safety at sea currently passing through Parliament? Would he not be doing us all a service if he did everything he could to ensure that the Channel tunnel was built as fast as possible?
Mr. Mitchell: Any fire must be considered to be a serious matter and I join other hon. Members in expressing regret over the loss of life and injury in this case. Any lessons that emerge will be taken fully into account when we decide what follow-up action is appropriate. International regulations for the protection of ships and those on board from the effects of fire are detailed and comprehensive. Nevertheless, I can assure the House that if this unfortunate accident produces any lessons, we shall not hesitate to act on them. I remind my hon. Friend that the merchant shipping regulations have recently been introduced in a number of areas.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is it not significant that only a few years after privatisation a Tory Member should complain in the House about the fact that Sealink has a query against it on safety matters? Would it not have been more unfortunate if one of the P and O ferries were placed in the same predicament as the ferry last night because the numbers of staff available would have been much reduced?

199
Is it not also worth noting that at this time P and O is allowed to use the commando base at Deal free of charge to train some of its personnel because of the battle that it is having with the National Union of Seamen? If he is going to hold an inquiry—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going very wide of the subject.
Mr. Mitchell: I regret that the hon. Gentleman should make a rather squalid attempt to introduce politics into a matter to which they are not relevant in any way. As for his remarks about the safety aspect, I have said that the matter is under investigation.
Sir David Price: Is it not clear that among the many people who deserve the congratulations of the House is the master of the ferry, who behaved in an exemplary manner, and that, in answer to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and everyone else, in no way can the responsibility of a master for the safety of his ship be handed over to anyone else? All the evidence is that on this occasion the master behaved admirably.
Mr. Mitchell: I have no reason to disagree with my hon. Friend.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the Minister tell us, in view of the praise that has been given to the crew of the Sealink vessel for its efficiency, what difference in conditions, manning and terms of employment there would have been if that ship had been a P and O vessel? Will he look at that as part of the inquiry?
Mr. Mitchell: I do not think that it would be right for me to speculate on that matter. The level of manning will be a matter covered by the investigation, and if any irregularity is revealed consideration will be given to whether there should be a prosecution.
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): It is no surprise to Kent Members that the Kent fire brigade should be singled out for praise for being efficient. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a further dramatic example of the way in which the rapidly growing cross-Channel traffic puts strains on the Kent fire brigade, and will he give the assurance that as the tunnel comes on line the additional responsibilities that will be carried by the Kent fire brigade will be taken fully into account?
Mr. Mitchell: Yes, certainly; and I should add, of course, that in this case the whole operation was co-ordinated by the coastguards, who also deserve the congratulations and appreciation of the House.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: Does the Minister agree that nobody will take the Government seriously while they continue to ignore the need for
200
statutory manning of vessels, as happened in the past under the Board of Trade, and that, until there is statutory manning, and while it is left to market forces, incidents of this kind will happen again and the Government will wring their hands again and weep tears as they have in the past? Does he not think that the inquiry should compel the Government to take action along those lines?
Mr. Mitchell: The question whether there is adequate manning and whether any offence has been committed will, of course, be covered by the inquiry.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will my hon. Friend confirm that much of the success in the saving of lives in last night's accident was attributable to the good training of the Sealink seamen? Will he also confirm that this is the first fire on a Sealink ferry since Sealink was privatised, compared with three fires on Sealink ferries in 1980, 1981 and 1983, all in the engine room? Is this not quite a change and an improvement in safety standards since privatisation?
Mr. Mitchell: The matters of adequacy of training and any record in this matter are for the investigation rather than for me today.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: The whole House will join the Minister in sending condolences to the bereaved and the injured. I should like to place on record my tribute to the many people involved in the rescue operation, which was highly successful. Certainly the skills of the crew members in the engine room were critical in keeping down the loss of life and injury.
Will the Minister—I should be grateful if he would pay careful attention to this—confirm that, had the fire taken place on a P and O vessel, rather than the five engineering officers and four ratings who were available, there would have been only three officers and three ratings? Will the Minister take into account the comment that has been made to me in the last two hours by an experienced officer who has regularly sailed on such vessels that, had this fire taken place on a P and O vessel, what was a human tragedy would have turned into a major disaster?
Will the Minister make sure that that point is taken firmly on board by the inquiry and that the inquiry will report in this country as well as in Bermuda, and as quickly as possible, so that we may ensure that the level of crewing of these vessels will not lead to loss of life in the future?
Mr. Mitchell: I join with the hon. Gentleman in his tribute to the crew, who clearly played a brave and distinguished part in ensuring that the fire was brought under control as quickly as possible.
The crew numbers of all the P and O ships involved in Channel ferry services have been checked and fully comply with the regulations. The hon. Gentleman need not draw any false implications from that.

Business of the House
3.45 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement. The business for the remainder of the week will now be as follows:
WEDNESDAY 25 MAY—Motion for the spring Adjournment.
Timetable motion on the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, followed by completion of remaining stages of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill.
THURSDAY 26 MAY—Motion to take note of the White Paper on developments in the European Community July-December 1987 (Cm 336).
Motion on the Lord Chancellor's salary order.
FRIDAY 27 MAY—Adjournment motions.
Mr. Frank Dobson: What we have just heard must be the most extraordinary business statement of the decade. The Government, with a majority of 100, are proposing to guillotine their own Members rather than the Opposition. We are used to Tory politicians shooting themselves in the foot, but the Tory Front Bench is now proposing to shoot Tory Back Benchers in the back—which is a novel use of the guillotine.
The guillotine is directed not at the Opposition, who broadly support the objects of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, but at Tory Back Benchers, who do not. The Labour party will oppose the guillotine, not because it is opposed to effective gun laws but because we are in favour of fair and effective gun laws.
The Bill was ill thought out and badly drafted from the start. It has since been heavily amended by the Government. The last straw was the sudden extension of the Bill to cover Northern Ireland. Whatever views hon. Members may have about Northern Ireland, few could fail to recognise that the use of firearms is a bigger problem in Northern Ireland than it is in England, Scotland and Wales. This slipshod Bill is to be extended to Northern Ireland as an afterthought. We believe that that is no way to treat the House, and we certainly do not believe that it is the way to treat the terrible problems of Northern Ireland.
Mr. Wakeham: I hope that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) will do better tomorrow, should he catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, than he has done today, and will address himself to the fact that when the Bill was introduced the Opposition wanted it to be implemented speedily. I regret the necessity to introduce the timetable motion. The Bill has been scrutinised carefully in Standing Committee, and I have no doubt that the right course is to allow the House to reach a decision on it in an orderly manner and at a reasonable time of day.
Mr. Jerry Wiggin: How often has it been the practice to guillotine a Bill halfway through its Report stage? Will my right hon. Friend explain why, with many hours available to debate the Bill last night, he
202
drew stumps at 2.20 am? Could it be that the supporters of the Government were as irritated by the Government's activities as I am?
Mr. Wakeham: It is rare that a guillotine motion is introduced on Report, and I regret that it is necessary. As I said to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, it is right for the House to reach a decision in an orderly manner and at a reasonable time of day, and that is why we adjourned the debate when we did.
Mr. James Molyneaux: Does the Leader of the House agree that a great deal of time would have been saved yesterday if the Bill had been applied to Northern Ireland from the beginning instead of in the most unorthodox fashion after the Committee had finished its deliberations? Is there not a lesson there for the future? Does the right hon. Gentleman further agree that, if the timetable motion is approved by the House tomorrow, it is inevitable that many of the issues raised in this ill-thought-out Bill will never be debated, never mind voted upon? Will he assure the House that he will prevail upon his Home Office colleagues to show a little more sympathy for and understanding of the issues that lie behind the new clauses and amendments that may not be reached?
Mrs. Wakeham: I shall table the motion later today, but there will be a total of five hours for the guillotine motion and the remaining clauses. That is an adequate amount of time and I am sure that Ministers will be as helpful as they can in reply to any constructive points that are made.
Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): Will my right hon. Friend give weight to the arguments from both sides of the House in proportion to the number of hon. Members who were here last night? Does he recall that last night, late at night, more than 200 hon. Members supported my right hon. Friend and the Government while 10 were raising protests? Will he bear that in mind when listening to the empty words from Opposition Members—and, indeed, from my hon. Friends sitting behind me?
Mr. Wakeham: I am in favour of an orderly debate at the proper time of day, and that is what I am seeking to achieve. The points that my hon. Friend correctly makes are an added incentive to believe that we are doing the right thing.
Mr. James Wallace: Will the Leader of the House accept from me, as one who was here at 20 past 2 this morning, that it must be of considerable concern to those who believe in true democracy that whenever the Government run into opposition, particularly on their own side, they either wake up their dormant majority in the other place or use their majority in this place to stifle debate? How rare an event is it for a timetable motion to be brought in part way through a Report stage? Does the Leader of the House propose to introduce a timetable motion on any other legislation that has completed its Committee stage without such a motion?
Mr. Wakeham: I have no desire to bring in any timetable motions. If reasonable timetabling can be done voluntarily, so much the better. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. If the Government are defeated on an amendment in the other place, Opposition Members call it a triumph for democracy; if the Government succeed, they call it an abuse of power.
Mr. Jerry Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, apart from the rank hypocrisy of the Opposition parties, many Conservative Members find it mildly farcical that here we have a Government with a majority of over 100 and a Bill which was given its Second Reading without a vote, and yet the business managers seem to be held to ransom by 10 hon. Members, mostly on the Conservative Benches? Those of us who wish to see our wives and children from time to time are rather annoyed.
Mr. Wakeham: I hear what my hon. Friend says and I have no doubt that he will support us in the Lobby tomorrow.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Do we detect here a further erosion in Back-Benchers' rights because there is now less time for the motion for the spring Adjournment? In order to save time, will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement on the article in The Guardian last Friday when the Prime Minister's principal private secretary—
Mr. Speaker: Order. With any luck, the hon. Gentleman may be able to raise that in the debate on the Adjournment motion.
Mr. Dalyell rose—
Mr. Speaker: No, I do not want to hear it now. I have given the hon. Gentleman a very good tip.
Mr. Michael Colvin: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the anxiety on the Conservative Benches that the Government are changing the business of the House at very short notice, which is extremely inconvenient for many hon. Members, simply to get themselves out of the mess into which they have got themselves? Mr. Speaker, my question may relate to you as much as to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, because it concerns the selection and grouping of the amendments that we shall consider if the guillotine motion is carried. Will my right hon. Friend do his best to ensure that the three key issues of the consultative committee, self-loading rifles and the integral magazine of five to eight rounds and compensation are grouped in such a way as to give the House an opportunity to vote on them, because they go to the heart of the Bill?
Mr. Wakeham: I shall be tabling the guillotine motion later today and the Business Committee, if set up, will determine the way in which the debates take place. We shall do our best to meet the wishes of the House.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we have a very busy day ahead of us. I shall call the three hon. Gentlemen who have been rising, but their remarks must be related to the business for tomorrow.
Mr. Max Madden: In between his attempts to deal with his problems on the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to talk to the Secretary of State for Social Services—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Not today; perhaps tomorrow.
Mr. Tony Banks: Much though we may disagree with the views of the hon. Member for Weston-super--Mare (Mr. Wiggin), many Back Benchers will admire the resolute campaign that he is mounting in pursuit of his interests. We hope that nothing nasty will happen to him because of that.
Mr. Michael Foot: Speak for yourself.
Mr. Banks: I am sure that I speak for all hon. Members on both sides of the House when I say that I hope that the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare will not be discovered floating upside down in a local canal. Nevertheless, will the Leader of the House tell us when we will be able to debate the question of short speeches because that is a very important matter, and it might help him?
Mr. Wakeham: Far from anything nasty happening to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), something very pleasant has happened to him. I have taken the speeches that he might have made if he had caught your eye, Mr. Speaker, from the middle of the night, when many people would not have heard them, and I have put them on in prime time instead. I do not see how he has the slightest ground for complaint.
I recognise that there is a need for a debate on the subject of short speeches, but I am afraid that it is not possible to take the matter correctly very late at night. There is limited time before Whitsun, but I hope to deal with the matter as soon as I can after Whitsun.
Mr. Greville Janner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Home Secretary has announced that he is not prepared to provide any extra policemen for the county of Leicestershire—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Janner: But—
Mr. Speaker: No. That has nothing to do with the change of business.
Mr. Janner: Surely—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not argue with the Chair. This is a business statement dealing with the change in tomorrow's business.

Scottish Bus Group
3.57 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the future of the Scottish Bus Group.
I told the House on 27 January that I had decided to seek powers at an early opportunity to privatise the Scottish Bus Group. I said that I was considering whether the group should be privatised as a single company or as several companies. In order to reach a decision on this matter, I appointed the Scottish merchant bank, Quayle Munro, to advise me. In the light of that advice, I have decided that the Scottish Bus Group should be privatised in about 10 units.
In reaching this decision, I have considered carefully the views of the board of the Scottish Transport Group and of its financial advisers. I have also met the chairman and the vice-chairman of the group. The board of the Scottish Transport Group is in favour of privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group, but as a single unit. However, I consider that, with 3,000 buses and providing more than half the local bus mileage in Scotland, the bus group would be too dominant to allow for fair competition with other bus companies. I have decided that my objective of introducing greater competition into the Scottish bus market would be better achieved by privatising the bus group by the method that I have suggested.
There are other important reasons for deciding to privatise the group in a number of companies. Locally based companies will be more sensitive to local needs. Management will be freer to respond to local demand on the basis of local knowledge. I am sure that employees will find it easier to identify with smaller locally based companies. An important objective of privatisation will be to give a substantial boost to enterprise in Scotland by the creation of new Scottish-based private sector companies. I hope that part of this process will be an increase in Scottish employee participation. The work force has already made it clear that it is keen to take a stake in its industry.
The detailed pattern of privatisation will be worked out in consultation with the board of the Scottish Transport Group when the companies are being prepared for sale. However, privatisation will be, broadly speaking, on the basis of the present subsidiaries, probably with a combination of pairs of subsidiaries north and south of Glasgow and adjacent to Edinburgh to provide for even competition with the public transport companies—that is, the former municipal operations.
We have already seen the benefits of competition following deregulation. There are new and innovative services. Operators have adapted to demand. Further competition will benefit the customer. What I propose will strike a balance between increased competition and stability of services. The privatised companies will be substantial bus operators with the capacity to thrive in the deregulated environment alongside the growing independent operators. They will be a valuable addition to the private sector in Scotland.
Mr. Donald Dewar: Few people would agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the benefits of deregulation. It has brought wasteful competition in already congested areas,
206
where provision was always adequate; poorer service in many outlying areas; and fares that have risen substantially faster than the rate of inflation. There is in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement a remarkable lack of detail, although many people will be disappointed by the decision that there should be fragmentation rather than the selling of the entire Scottish Bus Group.
I shall ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman a number of specific questions. He says that there will be about 10 units. Will they all be operating bus routes? I ask that because there is no mention of SMT Insurance, Sanderson Travel or, indeed, the Scottish Bus Group Engineering business, which is of importance. I would like the right hon. and learned Gentleman to be more specific as to what will happen to them and whether the 10 units will be operational in the way I have described.
Secondly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman puts great stress on new Scottish-based private sector companies. Will he tell the House how he intends to ensure that, when this happens, there will be Scottish ownership or Scottish control? All the evidence of the English experience shows that there will be bids from south of the border and, indeed, perhaps from abroad. What protection will be offered during the break-up and during the subsequent period? As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will remember, in England there were about 70 companies at the time of deregulation. There are now 11 dominant companies, many of which have been put together by consortia, which have recreated operations that the Government deliberately split up at the time of deregulation. What will be in the Bill to prevent that happening in Scotland?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman puts particular emphasis on scale. For example, would Stagecoach, which already has about 900 buses in operation and is made up of four English companies, and widespread of Scottish operations, be able to buy one, two or more of these new fragmented parts of the Scottish Bus Group? If Front Source, perhaps in a joint venture with Icarus or some other big international group, bought the Scottish Bus Group Engineering business, what would be the result in terms of competition?
Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman could say a word or two about the key to the scheme. The key is the criterion on which bids will be assessed. Will it simply be the price offered, or will competition, service cover for the travelling public, safety standards and employee participation be taken into account?
What effect will there be on the four former municipal undertakings? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman rule out—as I hope he does—any further restructuring of those?
Finally, there is a startling silence on the fate of Caledonian MacBrayne. Is it to be sold? Is it going out to management tender, as rumour has suggested? After all, it is a vital lifeline to the islands. It inevitably needs and deserves substantial public support. It seems to me, and I am sure to my hon. Friends, to be an unhappy and inappropriate candidate for privatisation and the so-called discipline of the profit motive. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us his intentions for Caledonian MacBrayne?
We shall look critically at the legislation. Perhaps the Secretary of State will confirm that there will be legislation before the sale of this major public undertaking, with a

207
turnover of over £180 million and 11,000 employees. When can we expect the Bill to come to the House? What is his estimate of the windfall profit to the Treasury of this asset-stripping exercise?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) began with some uncomplimentary comments about the effects of deregulation. His comments added up to assertions without any evidence. I shall now supply him with some of the evidence. Since deregulation was introduced, although subsidies for buses have been reduced from £27 million to £15 million to the benefit of the taxpayer and ratepayer, up to May 1987 the actual vehicle mileage in Scotland had already increased by 4 per cent. In Scotland, there are 16 new operators providing services and the number of vehicle miles provided by independent operators has increased by 7 per cent. On those routes now subject to competition, there have been significant fare reductions and the overall effect has been highly beneficial to the travelling bus public.
Further, the hon. Gentleman asks whether the 10 units referred to included the engineering, insurance and other minor interests of the Scottish Bus Group. They do not. Those will be privatised, but will be in addition to the operational units that I primarily referred to.
On the question of ownership and control of the bus group after privatisation, I have said that we hope that management and employees of the group will—as evidence already suggests that they will—have a great interest in acquiring ownership of a significant number of those companies. If Opposition Members say that that is a pious hope, I ask them to look at what happened south of the border. Seventy-two companies were privatised out of the NBC, 38 were the result of a management or a management employee buy-out. That is something which will also be a feature in Scotland, and I am sure will be welcomed by Opposition Members. It is something that the employees of the Scottish Bus Group welcome and something on which they should be congratulated.
The hon. Member for Garscadden asked me about the municipal PTCs and the implications for them of the privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the somewhat anomalous position that they find themselves in as a result of privatisation. It is important that we consider the future of the PTCs, but I have no statement to make at present. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that matter, because there must be implications for them arising out of the privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group.
On the question of Cal Mac, I repeat the assurance that I gave previously. I am conscious of the lifeline to island services that Cal Mac represents. We are not yet in a position to say what the future will hold for Cal Mac. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, whatever structure is finally recommended to the House, it will be one that will guarantee the present quality of service that the islanders rightly enjoy.
Mr. Speaker: May I remind the House that we have a busy day ahead of us with Lords amendments? I ask the hon. Members who are rising, or will be called, to put single questions and not to repeat questions that have been asked.
Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: Since my right hon. and learned Friend is seeking to create a number of companies, and thereby creating local
208
opportunity, will he say whether help and assistance will be available to local management and work forces where there is interest in buying out those local undertakings? I understand that that was the case in England and Wales. Will my right hon. and learned Friend be more forthcoming in relation to the future of the local authority bus undertakings? In Lothian and Strathclyde, because of their size, those undertakings could pose a considerable threat to some of the companies that my right hon. and learned Friend is seeking to create. This point needs clarification.
Mr. Rifkind: With regard to the first question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), assistance was given in the form of help with advice and consultancy to management and employees in existing NBC activities, which in some cases enabled them to put forward successful bids for management or management employee buy-outs. We would wish to give at least comparable assistance to local management and work forces in Scotland.
My right hon. Friend is correct to say that the PTCs, particularly in Strathclyde and Lothian, are a substantial size. That is one of the considerations that led me to suggest that it might be appropriate for some combination of the existing subsidiaries of the SBG to be achieved so as to ensure effective competition between them and the PTCs in those localities.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: In accepting that this privatisation is to take place, I say that there is some logic in the way that the Secretary of State is proposing to carry it out. However, first, I have a question about rural subsidies. Some of the units that he has said he will create will find it difficult to survive in a commercial free market.
Secondly, what protection will be given to the companies to ensure that predatory bids do not come from firth of Scotland?
Mr. Rifkind: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his general welcome of the structure that I am recommending to the House. Rural bus services will be in the same position as at present. Regional councils will be free, as at present, to provide a subsidy for any rural bus service in which interest was not expressed by the private sector. That is the present position and it will continue to be the case after the privatisation of the bus group.
Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many of us are delighted that there will be a monopoly privatisation? Will he confirm that Stagecoach, which is based in my constituency, which has done so well for the private sector and buses and which has brought down prices on so many routes, will have an opportunity to participate in the privatisation programme?
Mr. Rifkind: I confirm that Stagecoach has played an active part and was successful in acquiring a number of companies of the privatised NBC. Like other companies, Stagecoach will be free to make known its interests in possible subsidiaries of the Scottish Bus Group. Obviously we shall have to wait to see the extent to which that company is successful in achieving control of any individual company. I have stated that, as a general

209
preference, we wish to encourage management and management-employee buy-outs but, as with NBC, there is likely to be a varied outcome in Scotland.
Mr. David Lambie: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that most people in Scotland will be disappointed that he has replaced his right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) who, while he was Secretary of State for Scotland, managed to protect the public sector Scottish Bus Group against attacks on it by the English Tory Government when they were privatising the public sector in Scotland?
In spite of the assurances that the Secretary of State has given that he does not yet have any plans to announce to the House about the future of Cal Mac, will he assure us that if Cal Mac is privatised it will not be privatised in the way in which he is privatising the Scottish Bus Group and be divided into 10 or so independent sectors, but that he will privatise it as a group because it depends on cross-subsidisation to make it efficient?
Mr. Rifkind: I repudiate the hon. Gentleman's initial remarks. He will be aware that the principle of privatisation has been welcomed by the Scottish Bus Group and by the Scottish Consumer Council and other organisations in Scotland.
On the hon. Gentleman's latter remarks, I accept that any future structure recommended for Cal Mac must take account of the fact that some substantial public subsidy element must remain because most, although by no means all, of the routes serviced by Cal Mac could not operate without a significant degree of public support.
Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): Does my right hon. and learned Friend believe that the users, managers and employees of the Scottish Bus Group will respond with interest to the challenge before them, or does he think that they will be negative in their response and follow the monopolistic, conservative and traditional route that is followed by the Opposition in trying always to defend the inefficient status quo? Is my right hon. and learned Friend an optimist or a pessimist in that regard?
Mr. Rifkind: The evidence so far suggests a great degree of interest by the employees of the Scottish Bus Group in enjoying the opportunity to acquire either shares in or the ownership of their individual companies. I recollect, for example, that bus drivers at the Bannockburn depot dissociated themselves from statements that were alleged to have been made on behalf of the employees and said that they looked forward to acquiring a stake in the ownership of the industry in which they worked.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Given that there will be an extensive period of negotiation following the Secretary of State's statement today, will he assure us that there will be full discussions with local authorities, especially with Grampian regional council and Highland regional council because of their understanding of the needs of rural communities? Given that the statement referred specifically to Edinburgh and Glasgow, will the Secretary of State assure us that the twin northern capitals of Inverness and Aberdeen will be involved in all discussions?
Mr. Rifkind: I shall be happy to hear any views that those local authorities may wish to put to us. However,
210
most of the detailed discussion will be with the Scottish Bus Group about the details of individual subsidiaries and the form that the privatisation might take. I hope that the hon. Lady will agree that the decision to split the Scottish Bus Group into smaller units will ensure that the units serving, for example, the north-east of Scotland are likely to be more responsive to the needs of the north-east of Scotland than a single Scottish Bus Group with its headquarters elsewhere.
Mr. Roger King: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on bringing the benefits of privatisation, which have been experienced in England, to the people of Scotland in terms of improved services for the passenger and more work for those who supply vehicles to the industry. Will he tell the House the time scale within which he will operate and say by what date the whole transaction will have been completed?
Mr. Rifkind: It is difficult to give an exact date, but we certainly anticipate the possibility of introducing legislation at an early moment. Thereafter there should be no major bar to an early disposal of the individual companies.
Mr. Alistair Darling: Is it not the case that the Secretary of State is offering no guarantees whatsoever that those small companies will not be snapped up by predators from outside Scotland or even by companies such as Stagecoach, which does not enjoy a good safety record? Is it not also the case that as no such guarantees are being offered regional councils might be well advised to think twice before continuing the subsidies that they currently give bus group companies if those companies are to be based outside Scotland?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman should make up his mind. In recent months regional councils have been attacking the Scottish Bus Group for what they claim to be unfair competition against them and Strathclyde region was critical of the Scottish Bus Group in Glasgow following deregulation. However, the hon. Gentleman is now claiming that they will be upset because we are ensuring that there will not be any unfair dominance by any one unit in the aftermath of the privatisation. The hon. Gentleman is a difficult customer to satisfy, irrespective of the policy that is put forward.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the action that he has taken. Will he take this opportunity to assure the people of Scotland that the experience of England has been that, where there is competition on routes, it is possible to run subsidised routes to meet social needs and that the overall provision has resulted in more and better bus services south of the border?
Mr. Rifkind: That is the experience not only of England, but of Scotland. It has been a substantial time since deregulation was introduced and, as I commented earlier, there is solid evidence in terms of the route mileage provided by the bus services and in the implications for fares that deregulation has been an almost uninterrupted benefit to the Scottish public.
Mr. David Marshall: The statement is deeply disappointing and worrying to bus passengers and bus workers in Scotland. What guarantee can the Secretary of State give to protect the wages and

211
conditions of employees in the bus industry? Why did he choose to refuse to accept the advice of the management of the Scottish Bus Group?
Mr. Rifkind: There is not the slightest evidence to suggest that the interests of employees are better served by publicly owned bus companies than by independent operators. There has been substantial growth among independent operators, thus providing better opportunities for their employees.
As to the reasons why we did not accept the advice of the Scottish Bus Group, the hon. Gentleman should acknowledge the fact that it is in the interests of the employees and the bus industry as a whole that there should not be a single dominant company with over half the bus route mileage in Scotland because that would be very much against the interests of the employees.
Mr. Calum Macdonald: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that his failure yet again to say anything definite about the future of Caledonian MacBrayne will be greeted with dismay throughout the islands as will his failure to respond to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) about keeping Caledonian MacBrayne as a single entity? Will he respond to information that I have received to the effect that if Caledonian MacBrayne were privatised it would not have access to the substantial amounts of EEC money to which it has access at the moment and that, therefore, the privatisation of Caledonian MacBrayne would be not only socially irresponsible but financially foolish?
Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman was wishing to be entirely objective, he might have prefaced his remarks by recognising that this Government have given more additional support to Cal Mac during the past 10 years than at any previous time in the history of ferry services to his constituency. Therefore, the interests of the Government in the well-being of island services to the Western Isles can hardly be doubted. It is precisely because we wish to be sure that the quality of services to the Western Isles and to other island communities will be properly safeguarded by the structure that we eventually recommend to the House that it is taking longer than the hon. Gentleman might like for us to reach a conclusion. The hon. Gentleman should see that as a source of reassurance, not concern.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Would the Secretary of State care to be a little more forthcoming with the House about his economic and social strategy? Although it may be appropriate to divide the Scottish Bus Group into 10 sub-companies so that it may be digested by the financial markets, should we not consider Scotland as a whole, in economic and social terms, as a market for bus operations and to argue the case, in terms of safety, employee interests and customer satisfaction, in the face of private enterprise and various public authorities, for one integrated Scottish Bus Group, so as to have a countervailing power to preserve acceptable, publicly endorsed standards? Is not the Secretary of State running away from that in his statement?
Mr. Rifkind: There was no problem about whether the Scottish financial community could absorb a single privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group. After all, the Scottish Bus Group, even as a single unit, has some 3,000
212
buses and it would not have been beyond the wit of the financial community to absorb that as a single unit. I can therefore assure the hon. Gentleman that such a consideration did not lead to the recommendation that we are making to the House.
We were anxious to ensure a structure that was fair to bus operators throughout Scotland. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the creation of a single private sector bus company with over 40 per cent. of all the buses in Scotland and over 50 per cent. of the route mileage would have been grossly unfair to all the other operators, both in his constituency and elsewhere in Scotland.
Mr. John McAllion: The Secretary of State has argued in favour of privatisation as a means of devolving real power and control back to Scotland. Does he not realise that, in disposing of the Scottish Bus Group on a fragmented basis, he is opening up the way for cash-rich predators from outwith Scotland to pick off the individual Scottish Bus Group companies one by one and that, far from devolving control back to Scotland, he is really facilitating that control being passed out of Scotland and into England?
Mr. Rifkind: On the contrary, if I were to recommend the privatisation of a Scottish bus company, and that company was then taken over by an outside owner, ownership would automatically go elsewhere. The fact that there will be a number of companies makes that ultimate outcome that much less likely and, if each of those individual companies is healthy and viable, there is no reason why they should not continue to have deep roots in Scotland. I have suggested, for example, that employee and management buy-outs are likely to occur in Scotland, as they have south of the border. That is also a way of ensuring a continuing control within Scotland and, therefore, should be welcome to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Richard Holt: May I—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a United Kingdom Parliament.
Mr. Holt: May I remind my right hon. and learned Friend—perhaps this is one reason why Opposition Members are seeking to shout me down—of the experience in Cleveland since privatisation? The rate has been reduced by the best figure that we are able to obtain from £4 million to £1 million. That is the sum with which the ratepayers have had to subsidise the bus services. With privatisation, we now have a saving and better services for the people of Cleveland.
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend need not worry about the reactions that his intervention has caused among Opposition Members. We have all noticed a multiplicity of Scottish Labour Members taking part in English debates on the community charge legislation and, therefore, my hon. Friend should feel quite confident.
Dr. John Reid: Does the Secretary of State realise that the irate comments by Opposition Members were due to the fact that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) was commenting on and questioning a statement to which he did not have the courtesy to listen? As I sat through that statement, perhaps the Secretary of State will answer my question and that

213
asked earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) which he pointedly refused to answer. What guarantees will he give to the present employees of the Scottish Bus Group regarding their future conditions, wages and pensions? Is it not the case that he can and will give no such guarantees?
Mr. Rifkind: There are no guarantees that one can give to employees under the present nationalised Scottish Bus Group that one cannot give to them about the future. However, Opposition Members know perfectly well that, in every previous privatisation of any industry, the pensions of all employees have been properly protected. In each case, the Opposition have sought to scaremonger and claim that the pension rights of employees would be damaged as a result of privatisation. In every case, they have been found to be wrong in the aftermath, and the same will apply in this case.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: The Secretary of State referred to the Government's record in terms of subsidies given to Caledonian MacBrayne. In future, what assurance will there be that its successor, a privatised company, will continue to receive financial assistance from the state to meet the cost of new vessels? Is it not the case that the company will require several new vessels within the next 10 years?
Mr. Rifkind: Today's statement is not about Caledonian MacBrayne, but I have already stated, and repeated today, that the continuing requirement for Government funding for at least part of the activities of Caledonian MacBrayne has already been entirely accepted. In many cases, those ferry services to the island communities simply could not continue without significant Government funding. As we have recognised from the start, those services are a lifeline to the island communities, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that whatever structure we eventually recommend will take into account that important consideration.
Mr. George Foulkes: As a Member representing a rural constituency, may I give the Secretary of State the evidence, which he obviously does not have, that deregulation is cutting services? Sunday services in my constituency have gone, as have late night services, and some services have gone completely from such places as Dailly, Dalmellington, New Cumnock and Rankinson. That is happening all over rural Scotland. How does he expect Strathclyde regional council to continue to subsidise and, indeed, to increase its subsidy for those vital rural lifelines when he is clawing back £80 million or more from its expenditure in the current year? How can it continue to subsidise those routes when this new piece of highway robbery goes through?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that, if individual routes in his constituency have ceased to operate, that was because Strathclyde regional council declined to provide the subsidy required. That is a matter within the power of regional councils. Regional councils have found that, as a result of deregulation, vehicle mileage in Scotland has increased by 4 per cent. and the subsidies that they have decided to give to bus services in Scotland have gone down from £27 million to £15 million.
214
The hon. Gentleman might not like that, but, if he has any complaints about individual routes, he should address them to his local regional council.
Mr. Tom Clarke: The Secretary of State said earlier that he was looking for evidence. Perhaps I could invite him to my constituency when I should be delighted to meet him. I could take him to the splendid Alexander resource centre which is used by elderly and disabled people who have already experienced great difficulties as a result of deregulation. Their difficulties have not been eased because the Manpower Services Commission is withdrawing its funding from the dial-a-bus scheme. Before the Secretary of State made his statement, did he consult any organisations for disabled or elderly people, apart from the organisation that he appointed? Did he speak to anyone who genuinely represents consumers?
Mr. Rifkind: I look forward to meeting the hon. Gentleman whenever I visit his constituency.
Obviously my statement today was primarily concerned with the structure of the privatised industry and whether it would consist of only one company or several companies. The hon. Gentleman asked whether we had had the benefit of the views of anyone representing consumers. We did, because we had the benefit of the published views of the Scottish Consumer Council. In its submission, the council said:
"A decision to sell the SBG as a single unit would send all the wrong messages and would reverse what growing confidence there is among the smaller independent operators. A privatised monopoly of this scale could seriously undermine competition in the Scottish bus industry."
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that we are following the advice of the Scottish Consumer Council.
Mr. John Home Robertson: We all know who appoints the Scottish Consumer Council.
This proposal to decimate the Scottish Bus Group has nothing to do with the interests of passengers or employees. It is another case of public asset-stripping. Is the Secretary of State aware that we reject his selective assertions about the benefits of deregulation? Will he take notice of the Scottish majority's opposition to the thinly veiled threat that he made about the future of municipal passenger transport companies? Can he offer any credible guarantee that the privatised companies will remain under recognisable local control? For instance, will there be any safeguards in the criteria for the sale of these undertakings, or is this just another charter for predators to cream off lucrative business while public authorities are left to protect essential but unprofitable routes by subsidy? Will the Secretary of State reply to my hon. Friend's question about the timing of legislation in connection with this announcement?
Mr. Rifkind: The timing of legislation is not primarily for me. I can certainly tell the House that we expect early legislation about the proposals that I have announced today. The hon. Gentleman seeks to discredit the views of the Scottish Consumer Council on the ground that it is appointed by the Government and at the same time the Opposition seek to draw support from the views of the Scottish Bus Group, the board of which is appointed by the Government. Both organisations fearlessly put forward their views, which were based on their own

215
convictions. The Scottish Consumer Council, which has not been hesitant about criticising the Government in other areas, has said that it unreservedly supports what the Government are seeking to do over the Scottish Bus Group.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the future control of individual companies in the bus group. Of course at this stage I cannot predict the degree of interest that there will be among the employees and the Scottish people about acquiring these companies. However, I do say—and the hon. Gentleman should welcome this—that on the precedents that we have available there is likely to be substantial management and employee interests. That will certainly be one way of ensuring that the individual companies retain their decision-making in Scotland.
Perhaps Scottish companies such as Stagecoach will also express considerable interest. Perhaps companies south of the border will also do so. This is a United Kingdom economy and, just as Scottish companies occasionally acquire companies south of the border, the reverse may also apply. We have said quite clearly that one of the purposes of privatisation is to provide an opportunity for the employees and the management of the Scottish companies to acquire the ownership of the companies in which they work. Whether they respond to that opportunity is clearly a matter for them. I hope that they will.
Mr. Home Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, arising out of the statement. You will have noticed that there was some protest when you called the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland a question. You quite rightly asserted his right to ask questions of any Minister. Is it not a normal courtesy for an hon. Member to listen to a statement before putting a question about it?
Mr. Speaker: That is correct and I was in error. I am afraid that I had not noticed that.

Scottish Bus Group

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Ordered,
  That the Companies (Fees) Regulations 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Vaccine Damage (Compensation Arrangements)
4.35 pm
Dr. John Reid: I beg to move,
That leave he given to bring in a Bill to amend the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 in order to facilitate arrangements for the assessment of compensation of victims of vaccine damage.
I want to draw to the attention of the House the injustices caused by the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 which was introduced to compensate that minority of tragic victims who are adversely affected by vaccinations. It has manifestly failed to achieve that.
I also seek the support of the House for two amendments to the Act, which will, I hope, alleviate the suffering of many people, including some of my constituents. The Vaccine Damage Payments Act and the system of compensation were introduced on 9 May 1978 by the then Secretary of State for Social Services, now Lord Ennals. The aim of the Act was to compensate those who had suffered damage directly caused by one of the vaccines listed in the Act. The thinking behind the scheme was that vaccine damage was a special case since vaccination was carried out as a matter of public policy. However, the Act specified that a victim would have to be at least 80 per cent. damaged according to the scale used for assessing industrial injuries disablement.
As the Secretary of State said on 9 May 1978, this marked the recognition by both sides of the House of what a terrible personal tragedy vaccine damage is for the families involved. It was right, when all the legal principles had been studied, that the Government should accept some responsibility for helping these victims. These words must have filled the families involved, including a family in my constituency, with some relief in 1978. In many cases, the reality of 1988, 10 years later, is shattered hopes and inadequate assistance.
The signs were there in the prophetic remarks 10 years ago by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) who said that the £10,000 offered by the Government was a drop in the ocean
"in respect of children who arc irretrievably damaged for life? … Will my right hon. Friend consider introducing a viable scheme for all vaccine-damaged children?".—[Official Report, 9 May 1978; Vol. 949, c. 977.]
Today, even though the Social Security Act 1985 has arbitrarily increased that lump sum to £20,000 in recognition of the general inadequacy, my right hon. Friend's demand is one that I repeat in the House today.
This is not, and should not be, a party issue. Since the introduction of the scheme, the Government, like their Labour predecessors, have refused to implement the recommendations of the Pearson Royal Commission, which I and many hon. Members feel would have been most welcome. I do not have time to discuss the many legal implications of the Pearson commission's report or the legal reasoning behind the scheme that it proposed. However, it is time to recognise that not only is the compensation of £10,000, which has been increased to £20,000, totally inadequate but that the standard of proof required is too high. In addition, to award payments only to those who are more than 80 per cent. damaged is arbitrary, unnecessary and grossly unjust.

217
I seek leave to introduce the Bill and commend to the House two recommendations about the Vaccine Damage Payments Act and the amendment thereof. First, I urge the House to recognise the inadequacy of the payment of £20,000 currently being offered under the Social Security Act 1985. I base my criticism on first-hand knowledge of the suffering of the family of one of my constituents. Mr. and Mrs. Whyte of Bell's Hill, Lanarkshire, have endured that suffering of a loved one, Mrs. Whyte, since as far back as 1960.
The award of £10,000 made for the loss of earnings of a professionally qualified woman and the consequent home conversions and essential provisions that are necessary for a disabled person meant that the small sum that the family was granted under the provisions of the 1978 Act justified the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South. He spoke about three years' average earnings in respect of children who are irretrievably damaged for life simply being too little. Such compensation was certainly too little for my constituent.
My constituent brought this to my attention with no hope whatever of retrospective payment, but merely so that those who suffer in future may not have to undergo the financial deprivation that she has had to suffer. To put the present £10,000 in perspective, I must explain that in 1978 it was accepted by the whole House that an independent actuary would have estimated compensation based on principles of strict liability for child damage to this extent to be not £10,000 but £115,000. If that figure were inflation-proofed, it would now be £250,000.
I realise the limitations of the Bill and simply ask the House to approve an increase in compensation from £20,000 to £50,000 when the proven damage as a result of vaccination is 80 per cent., with provision for review of that figure should further evidence of disability come to light. This is not too much to ask, as the financial burden on the Government would be small because of the relatively small number of claimants. Up to 8 November 1985, 812 applications for compensation had been granted. It is certainly not too much to ask, given that the Secretary of State for Social Services himself admitted at the time the "small sum" and "interim nature" of the awards.
I turn to the 80 per cent. rule. It is unjust and beside any logic, apart from the logic of saving money, to exclude all claimants who are less than 80 per cent. damaged. That rule leaves countless worthy claimants in a void, having to endure a lifetime of suffering because of an arbitrary and in some ways thoughtless ruling. Of the 2,321 claims disallowed up until November 1985, 692 were disallowed because the degree of directly caused disability was less than 80 per cent. Victims are faced with the bizarre situation that if they suffer 75 per cent. physical or mental damage caused by vaccination they can make no claim.
To deny a suffering victim any compensation on the ground that he or she is "only" 75 per cent. vaccine damaged is unacceptable and unjust. If there need be any illustration of that point it is the case of a small girl named Breege Cannon in the constituency of my hon. Friend the
218
Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), who sponsors and supports this Bill. She is paralysed for life as a result of a polio vaccination. The DHSS will not present her with a penny as she stands close to, but, tragically, on the wrong side of, the 80 per cent. rule.
I ask the Government to provide compensation commensurate with the extent of the vaccine damage sustained. That would mean that anyone who was 80 per cent. or more damaged would receive the full sum of £50,000 but those suffering less than 80 per cent. physical or mental disability would receive a proportionate amount. For example, those who are 50 per cent. damaged would receive £25,000, and so on. I am not satisfied that such a scheme would alleviate suffering completely but it would be a move towards a more just system, with scope for increasing provision in the future.
When a Committee of the whole House met on 15 February 1979 my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, who has fought tirelessly on this issue, moved an amendment providing for a reduced level of payment where the degree of disablement was less than 80 per cent. but more than 20 per cent. He was refused on the now familiar grounds that such a provision would be "costly" and would cause "delay". It was also suggested at that time that the scheme was only an interim measure until something better came along. That was 10 years ago, but nothing better has come along. The cost would be wholly insignificant in terms of the numbers involved and in terms of the acute suffering it would alleviate. Victims and their families have been prepared to wait if it meant justice, as opposed to getting nothing.
Every Member of the House would fully support as a matter of public policy the widest possible encouragement of the protection of the present generation and future generations by vaccination. In a world in which scientific advance can often lead to a threat to life, vaccination has proved to be one of our most powerful weapons against crippling and killer diseases. However, it is a sad but verifiable fact that in that pursuit of the greater good a minority are afflicted. No financial gain can ever provide sufficient recompense for the mental or physical damage that they may sustain. But for their sake, as well as for the common good, we are all duty bound to ensure that those people are comforted and compensated as adequately as possible. In the absence of a full and wide-ranging scheme providing compensation for the vaccine damage, I ask the House to support the Bill and the provisions it contains.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. John Reid, Mr. Sam Galbraith, Mr. John Maxton, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. Harry Barnes, Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie, Mr. John Hughes, Mr. Doug Henderson, Mr. Roger Stott, Mr. Rhodri Morgan and Mr. John McFall.

Vaccine Damage (Compensation Arrangements)
  VACCINE DAMAGE (COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS)
  Dr. John Reid accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 in order to facilitate arrangements for the assessment of compensation for victims of vaccine damage: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 8 July and to be printed. [Bill 170.]
Orders of the Day

  Employment Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  4.45 pm
  Mr. Gavin Strang: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before we begin our debate I wish to refer to Lords amendment No. 52. You will recall that the Green Paper, and in our earlier deliberations Ministers, sought to justify clause 12 partly on the grounds that a loophole in the previous legislation had been demonstrated by the decision of the president of the National Union of Mineworkers to have his vote removed from him, as it were, by his executive. He subsequently secured re-election to the office of president by his membership. It was clearly in response to that—and this was almost admitted in another place—that the Government tabled amendment No. 52, which is aimed specifically at encompassing the position of the NUM president and certain other individual trade union leaders.
  When the Government were challenged on the matter in another place, and when the Minister was asked whether amendment No. 52 had been drawn up to catch a particular class of trade union leaders in relation to their ages, Lord Trefgarne replied that that was so. He said in response to my noble Friend Lord Murray, a former general secretary of the TUC:
  "Off the cuff I cannot think of any reason why we should not."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 March 1988; Vol. 494, c. 613.]
  If that is not evidence of hybridity, I do not know what is.
  It is demeaning for this Chamber and for the legislative process that an amendment should be tabled, not to achieve greater accountability, but which is specifically aimed at catching particular Left-wing trade union leaders. If that is not hybridity, it is certainly an abuse of the legislative process.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) for giving notice of his intention to raise this matter. It has been carefully considered and Mr. Speaker is satisfied that the Lords amendment is so framed as to cover a class of persons, and not any individual within the class as defined. Therefore, there is no prima facie hybridity to which the Chair should draw the attention of the House.

  Employment Bill
    Clause 1

      RIGHT TO A BALLOT BEFORE INDUSTRIAL ACTION
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 9, leave out from "endorsed" to end of line 15 and insert
      "any industrial action in which members of the union (including that member) are likely to be, or have been, induced by the union to take part or to continue to take part".
      The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following Lords amendments: No. 2 and amendments (a) and (b) thereto: No. 3 and amendments
      220
      (a) and (b) thereto; No. 4; No. 5 and amendment (a) thereto; Nos. 6 and 7; No. 8 and amendment (b) thereto; Nos. 23, 27 and 54.
      Mr. Fowler: The purpose of clause 1 is very simple. It is designed to safeguard the position of trade union members whose union refuses to consult them before calling on them to take industrial action. The 1984 Act made proper secret ballots of those involved a condition of a union's immunity against actions in tort. This enabled employers to restrain most official industrial action called without a ballot. We believe that union members should similarly have a right to restrain their union if they are subject to inducement to take action. That is what the clause is all about.
      The clause was thoroughly considered in Committee, when much of the discussion focused on the precise forms of industrial action to be covered by the balloting requirement. We thought it important that the same ballot should be capable of satisfying clause 1 of the Bill and the 1984 Act. Therefore, clause 1 was initially based on the terms describing the torts that underpin the 1984 Act. The right that it gave to members applied where they were induced to break their contract of employment or interfere with their performance of it.
      In Committee it was argued that there could be difficulties in applying those terms to some circumstances of working life. We would not want individual trade union members to be in difficulty over, or uncertain about, the scope of their rights. On consideration, therefore, we concluded that the new right should apply to any industrial action. "Industrial action" is a term that unions and their members recognise and use to describe some of their activities. It is the term used in one of the statutory questions that the 1984 Act requires a union to put to its members in a pre-strike ballot. A member who had no idea whether he was being asked to interfere with the performance of his contract could not, in my view, possibly fail to recognise a call to industrial action.
      There can be little doubt in practice about the scope of clause 1 on this new basis, and I believe that the House should welcome the improvement in clarity. Nor does it represent a massive extension of the balloting requirement. We can debate how much industrial action lies beyond the kind of interference with contracts that may be lawfully induced, but that is the measure of the extension.
      Even if the extension of the balloting requirement were larger, that would, I think, be justified by the position of the union member. An individual who takes part in any form of industrial action and is dismissed by his employer may be unable to claim unfair dismissal. That applies whether or not he has broken his contract of employment. The question is whether he should have the right to be properly consulted before running that risk, and we believe that he should.
      Our amendments introduced in the Lords make for increased clarity and certainty, and also put the union member's rights to be consulted on the same basis as the risks that he runs in respect of dismissal. They do that by applying clause 1 to any official industrial action, rather than just to action that would involve breach of or interference with contracts.
      It naturally follows that some adjustment is required to the statutory questions. Under the 1984 Act and clause 1 as originally drafted, the member voting in a pre-strike ballot is required to say whether he is prepared to take part

      221
      in a strike, or in industrial action, involving him in a breach of his contract of employment. It is clearly inappropriate when ballots are to be held for any form of industrial action. If clause 1 no longer refers to breach or interference, unions cannot properly be required to ask questions framed in those terms.
      On the other hand, it is right that members should have a clear sense of the seriousness of the matter on which they are voting. That is why our amendments remove from the question the reference to breach of contract, but require the ballot paper to carry a statement in standard form that "If you take part in a strike or other industrial action you may he in breach of your contract of employment".
      A number of Opposition amendments have been tabled and we shall listen carefully to what is said by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang). Some of the amendments, in particular those to Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3, would undermine the effectiveness of the clause and are undesirable for that reason. Some also have technical deficiencies.
      There may be a genuine misunderstanding about the amendment to Lords amendment No. 8. I mentioned earlier the importance that we attach to the principle that a single ballot should be able to satisfy both clause 1 of the Bill and the 1984 Act. Some have assumed—and I understand the difficulty—that any extension of the liability in clause 1 must necessarily carry with it an equivalent extension of liability under the 1984 Act, and thus an equivalent extension of the rights of employers. That is not the case, and if it is the concern underlying the proposals to modify Lords amendment No. 8, I hope that I can satisfy the hon. Gentleman on that at least.
      The Lords amendments represent a coherent package of improvements. They cannot be treated selectively, and any modification is liable to dislocate the interlocking provisions to which they apply. I believe that they will produce a clearer and simpler set of requirements that will effectively protect the right of union members in this important area, which is the purpose of clause 1.
      Mr. Strang: The Secretary of State has rightly pointed out the importance of the clause and of the amendments that the Government moved in the other place. I believe that the amendments are of considerable importance. First, they change substantially the requirements of clause 1, and to that extent place more demands on trade unions. I would go so far as to suggest that, in one instance at least, the court may be required to make wholly unreasonable orders against the trade unions as a consequence of the amendments.
      Secondly—this was to some extent implied by the right hon. Gentleman's latter remarks—the amendments make the clause less intelligible. It would be undesirable, when enacting legislation on such an important issue, to create circumstances in which, when a case went to court, neither the employer, the trade union nor anyone else could be confident of the likely outcome. The Bill's provisions are convoluted and complicated, to put it mildly.
      As the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged, the importance of Lords amendment No. 1 is that it extends the definition of industrial action. Every imaginable type of industrial action, no matter how minor, will now be covered by clause 1. Anyone who is in any doubt about the
      222
      effect of the Government's approach to trade unions has only to look at some of the consequences that have already arisen in the courts.
      For many Opposition Members it is a matter of shame that the National Union of Seamen, for example, in legitimately advancing the interests of its members, should find itself pilloried and its funds sequestered by the court. This would not happen to any other trade union in Europe taking similar action in defence of its members' interests. That is why all these changes, and the further change to extend the scope of the Bill and thus reduce the opportunity for legal trade unionism, are against the interests of not only working people but the democratic tradition of this country.
      As the right hon. Gentleman has reminded us, the purpose of clause 1 is to give an individual trade union member the right to go to court and insist on a ballot in advance of any industrial action. That extends, in a sense, the provisions of the 1984 Act whereby an employer, a customer, a supplier or some other individual or company affected by the action could go to court. The importance of that is that in practice we have found under the 1984 Act that when employers have gone to court to enforce a ballot—or for any other purpose—it has invariably meant that the trade union official is on the spot. I am talking not about a highly publicised national dispute, but about the hundreds of disputes that take place all the time but are never reported in the newspapers.
      The trade union official is on the scene as soon as the employer goes to court. In a high proportion of cases the matter then becomes the subject of negotiation. The dispute is often resolved. In some instances there may be a decision to hold a ballot. Consequently, the employer no longer has an interest in pursuing the court case and therefore it is withdrawn. We do not know how frequently the measure will be invoked and how many cases will arise, because a dissident trade unionist—to whom the measure is addressed—does not have the same interest in the company. If the action is withdrawn, he does not have the same vested interest as the employer in maintaining production, or a similar concern to that of the employer about the economic consequences of industrial action.
      We could be opening a Pandora's box. A considerable number of employers may find that individual trade unionists take their trade unions to court on the basis of clause 1, thus causing considerable problems which both the trade union and the employer would prefer to do without.
      5 pm
      The Secretary of State acknowledged that Lords amendment No. 1 extends the definition of industrial action. I shall not repeat what was said in Committee, but we thought that the initial extension from the Green Paper was unfair. The Green Paper was quite clear. When they consulted trade unions, employers and others, the Government asked:
      "Whether it is right in principle that trade unionists should invariably and automatically have a duty to their members not to authorise or endorse industrial action involving breaches of contracts of employment without first conducting a secret ballot of those due to take part in the action and obtaining a majority agreement to authorisation or endorsement."
      The important words are:
      "industrial action involving breaches of contracts of employment."

      223
      The Bill went beyond that and referred to interference with the implementation, the operation and the performance of a contract of employment. We were very critical of that in Committee. We now find that the Government have decided to go even further and include the slightest action—perhaps even a think strike. Some discussion was introduced in the other place by Lord Wedderburn on the so-called think strike, which years ago one would have described as a very moderate form of work to rule. I believe that confusion will arise in the minds of trade unionists and others over whether even the most trivial action could constitute industrial action and therefore could be the subject of litigation.
      Mr. David Winnick: Short of actually banning strikes—which is what the Government have done at GCHQ—does my hon. Friend agree that the Government are now making it as difficult as possible in law for unions to take strike action and other forms of industrial action when they consider it legitimate? Is it not ironic that at the very time when perhaps there is a chance that trade unions will have legitimate rights in eastern Europe the Tory Government are doing their utmost to undermine and erode the rights that have been built up over centuries in this country?
      Mr. Strang: I agree that the Government have gone too far. That is the view, not only of Opposition Members, but of many enlightened heads of industry and others in response to the new provisions encompassed in the Bill. I believe that the British tradition encompasses basic human rights and the rights for legitimate, legal trade unionism.
      Not only have the Government extended the definition of industrial action, but Lords amendment No. 2 specifies that when an individual trade unionist takes the union to court because there has not been a ballot, perhaps because of some very minor form of industrial action for work to rule, the court will have no alternative but to instruct the trade union not only to withdraw the endorsement or the inducement to take such action, but to act as the policeman of the employer. That is a monstrous requirement.
      The amendment uses the word "conduct". It requires the union
      "to take steps … for ensuring that there is no, or no further, inducement of members of the union to take part or to continue to take part in that action and that no such member engages in any conduct after the making of the order by virtue of having been induced before the making of the order".
      That is an enormously draconian requirement.
      It will not be sufficient for a shop steward or trade union official to say to union members, "We have been instructed by the court that we must have a ballot; therefore, we are instructing you to withdraw from any action until we have had that ballot." He will be required to ensure that conduct complies with that. That is asking the trade union shop steward to act as a police person on behalf of the employer. It is ironic that in a Bill that makes it illegal for trade unions, even in the most modest and moderate way, to discipline trade unionists who refuse to strike after a properly organised ballot and a democratic decision the Government are requiring trade unions to discipline their members for taking the most modest form of industrial action.
      Nothing better illustrates the lack of even-handedness, to put it mildly, in the Government's approach to industrial relations than the fact that, having denied trade
      224
      unions the right to discipline members who refuse to strike after a proper majority decision, they have the effrontery to require them to discipline members who may be taking some modest form of industrial action or working to rule.
      It is not surprising that we are disturbed about the Government's approach in the Bill and, in particular, in the Lords amendments to it. Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are enormously important, as I have already made clear. Lords amendment No. 3 is also important. We have tabled amendments which seek to reduce the onerous nature of the new requirements posed in the House of Lords and to modify Lords amendment No. 3.
      The Employment Act 1982 provides five categories of authorisation of what constitutes endorsement of industrial action by trade unions. It lists: the principal executive committees, any person empowered under the rules to authorise or endorse acts of the kind in question, the president or general secretary, any employed official, or any committee of the union to which the employed official regularly reports. We seek to make clear what constitutes a proper authorisation or endorsement of industrial action in that context.
      Lords amendment No. 5 applies when industrial action consists of a strike, lesser action or both. It lays down that a union must hold a ballot on strike action if there is an intention to have a strike or some lesser form of industrial action, such as a work to rule. The union must have a separate ballot for that action.
      When it comes to seeking authority for either a strike or some lesser form of industrial action, the amendment requires the union to ballot on the basis of the action that it thinks is most likely. Clearly that is an attempt to make selective action more difficult Certainly that seems to be the Government's motive. Under our amendment, where both strike and lesser action are being considered, only one vote, on strike action, which would cover lesser action, would be necessary.
      The Secretary of State referred to our amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 8, and I am grateful for his remarks. The point to which he referred caused confusion outside the House and in the other place. Without taking up the time of the House, I simply point out that Lords amendment No. 8 seeks to extend the definition of industrial action, which definition we believe is wholly unreasonable. The Government have sought to justify that on the ground that an individual may be dismissed for action less than strike action—as evidenced in the Faust case, which was referred to repeatedly in the other place. That is not a justification for making this amendment so broad—far from it. To use the word loosely will introduce confusion into minor forms of work to rule or industrial action.
      Having made this great case to show why it is unsatisfactory to define industrial action as action that constitutes a breach of an individual's contract of employment—indeed, that it goes beyond the intentions outlined in the Green Paper and in the initial Bill—and having said that we cannot rely on either definition of "industrial action"—either a breach of a contract of employment or interference with the performance of one's contract—it is ironic that Lords amendment No. 54 lays down a requirement that when a ballot is carried out preceding industrial action the ballot paper must state:
      "If you take part in a strike or other industrial action, you may be in breach of your contract of employment."

      225
      Having explained why a breach of contract of employment is an inadequate definition of "industrial action", and having gone on at great length, particularly in Committee, to justify this further extension of the meaning of "industrial action", it is ironic that the Government should nevertheless make it a statutory requirement that the ballot paper must state that one may be in breach of one's contract of employment.
      There are other amendments relating to the new definition of "industrial action". A strike is now defined as a "concerted stoppage of work". I should be interested to know whether this is the first time that a strike has been defined in this way. It seems a bald definition of a strike. The phrase "industrial action" is used in the definition of "industrial action" as it is defined in Lords amendment No. 8. It means:
      "any strike or other industrial action by persons employed under contracts of employment."
      The definition seems to be tautologous.
      Not only do the clause and the amendments constitute a further unfair movement against trade unions, but, to some extent, they encourage anarchy by encouraging dissident trade unionists to take their trade union to court. That is the great theme of the Bill and we shall come to it repeatedly this evening. Through the commissioner for the rights of trade union members, and all the other inducements that the Government are providing, dissident trade unionists are being encouraged to take action against their union to disrupt trade unions' bona fide activities.
      The idea that trade union members do not have a full opportunity within these democratic organisations to argue their case and, if necessary, to protect themselves by going to court has never been argued persuasively throughout our proceedings, yet we are following this road. It is one which not only the trade unions, but some employers, will come to regret and, indeed, some have already made it clear that they do.
      The complexity of these provisions means that there will probably be a great deal more litigation. It will be costly, will waste time and will certainly do nothing to promote better industrial relations.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. David Evennett: As one who served on the Committee of this Bill and as a former trade union member, I should like to make a couple of comments.
      The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) is wrong in his interpretation of the Lords amendments. He has forgotten the basic principle on which the Bill was presented, not only in the general election manifesto, on which we fought and won the election, but in our debates on the Floor and in Committee. The Bill seeks to extend democracy within trade unions and its aim is clear and simple. Nobody on the Government Benches is saying that there is no democracy within trade unions. Some are extremely democratic and we commend the principles and procedures that they use in their affairs. But in many areas democracy is lacking, or needs to be extended. The Bill was introduced to extend democracy so that trade union members have more say in the running of their union.
      I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments. He accepted the Lords amendments because they improve clause 1 and clarify the intentions behind it. I am no lawyer
      226
      and we have sat for many hours in Committee listening to legal interpretations, but when we are told that the original intention is not as clear-cut as it should be obviously we must go further and include amendments which will introduce clarity.
      We want secret ballots, and we want members to have more opportunity to participate in their trade union. We want the legal side to be tight on union affairs. We do not want a legal nightmare, but we want ordinary trade union members to know what the union has to do, what their rights are and how they can exercise those rights. These amendments seek to tighten and clarify the original intention behind the clause. This is not a matter of principle, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East has sought to depict. We discussed the principles behind the Bill at great length in Committee. This afternoon the important and overriding consideration is to ensure that the original intention behind the clause is carried through. For that reason, the Lords amendments should be supported.
      Mr. Michael Foot: When this Bill left the House of Commons all of us on the Opposition side of the House thought it one of the most wretched and squalid measures that had ever been passed through the House. It was a Bill actuated by malice which had failed to state in legal form even the purposes that the Government had in mind. There was everything to be said against it. For all those, and a variety of other reasons, which were stated during the passage of the Bill, none of us could have believed that it would come back from the other place even worse than when it was sent there. But that is the conclusion we must reach when examining the Bill now.
      What is especially scandalous, or especially illustrative, to use the mildest possible word, is that a debate on this subject should be taking place today, following the antics of the House of Lords yesterday. The contrast is one that I feel sure people in this country will note. I certainly think that we should note that contrast when we are asked by the Government to support this measure.
      The Bill has been in the House of Lords for weeks and months and noble Lords have had lengthy discussions about it. Right from the beginning, when the Bill was sent there, the Government introduced some of these new clauses, as they say, to clarify the situation. However, they are making it even more difficult for the unions to operate, as I shall illustrate.
      The House of Lords has been working away over the past three or four months to make the Bill even more difficult for the unions, even more vicious than it was when it left the House of Commons. Yet yesterday in the other place there was a great demonstration. We were told that there would be no interference whatsoever with the poll tax measure that was sent up there in another Bill. Lord Hailsham, in one of those extraordinary exhibitions that we used to see in this House, told the other place yesterday that if a single finger was laid upon this precious poll tax Bill the very foundations of parliamentary democracy would be undermined. If anybody thinks that I am exaggerating, I advise him to read what Lord Hailsham had to say.
      I have always looked upon the noble Lord as the most charming schizophrenic in British public life. At one moment he can be charm itself. The next moment he is using, as he was in the House of Lords yesterday, all the

      227
      most contrived and labyrinthine legal arguments to sustain the most absurd and dangerous position of the Conservative party.
      This same Lord Hailsham used to tell us that there was an elective dictatorship when a much more liberal regime was being operated than anything that he was prepared to stomach for many years on end when he was Lord Chancellor. Yesterday, the day before this Bill was due to come hack to the House of Commons for us to examine in detail, he was telling the House of Lords that it would be absolutely scandalous for a single alteration to be made in the poll tax arrangements. Of course, most other peers who applied their minds to the problem were easily able to refute his argument, but that was no good in the end. I dare say—this is a harsh thing to say about noble Lords, but we are entitled to say it none the less—there may even have been a few who were persuaded by the ex-Lord Chancellor's argument that they were not entitled to make a particle of a change in the poll tax measure.
      Now look at this measure. It is such a contrast. The same House of Lords, which is not entitled to change the poll tax measure in any degree whatsoever, has looked at this measure in detail. It saw how it could tighten the screws to make it more difficult for trades unions to operate. In my opinion, the conjunction of these two events—the passage of a measure like this and the rejection of any attempt to alter the poll tax Bill, with all its unpopularity up and down the country, which is shown by every kind of evidence—will be very dangerous for the Government. Nobody will worry very much about that, but it will be dangerous for the kind of constitution that hon. Gentlemen seek to protect.
      For the House of Lords to behave in this way—spending months grinding away to get through a measure that could inflict such damage on the trade union movement, yet in a single afternoon saying that it will not interfere with poll tax, mobilising the backwoodsmen who have not been near the place for months and will not be seen there for months until there is an equal crisis—is very damaging for its future. The House has shown by this combination of events that it is quite unfit to play any part in a democratic constitution. I hope that that combination of actions will reinforce our determination to remove the old contraption at the other end of the passage. We need the space. At any rate, we might even get some decent office buildings for my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). I have always had my eye on that office building over there. I hope to live to see the day when we take it over and turn it to proper uses, to serve democracy in this country.
      I am serious about my main proposition. The people of this country will not be able to understand how those who have not been elected democratically can be mobilised to say that the poll tax measure will go through unchanged, yet can send hack this series of vicious measures, which will be forced through if the Government use their majority here.
      Mr. Edward Leigh: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Has he not reduced what Lord Hailsham said? Were not Lord Hailsham and Lord Whitelaw both making the same point, that the House of Lords has built up its reputation in recent years by revising legislation? The amendment to
      228
      the community charge measure yesterday went to the heart of the matter. With regard to this Bill, the House of Lords has simply revised it.
      Mr. Foot: I shall come to the revisions in a moment. Of course these changes are revisions, but many members of the House of Lords were arguing yesterday that the proposal for the poll tax was a revision. So confident were the Government, which the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) occasionally supports, that their argument was overwhelming that they mobilised all these peers, who have not listened to an argument for 12 months or more. So confident were the Government that they would win that vote that I do not think we should take the hon. Gentleman's remarks too seriously.
      I notice that the Secretary of State has left the Chamber. He should stay here to listen, but I dare say that is an example of the new manners in the Department of Employment. The right hon. Gentleman might have another appointment, but he is responsible for these Lords amendments. I am not holding that against the Minister who might reply to the debate.
      The Secretary of State claimed, in his opening remarks, that the Bill has been made much clearer. However, he has not answered any of the questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang). Let him take note of what was said when the new clauses were produced in the House of Lords. There are peers who know the detail of the matter. Probably the two greatest experts on the subject in the country, as I am sure those in the House of Lords will testify, are Lord Wedderburn of Charlton and Lord McCarthy. They have subjected the Bill and these proposals to detailed examination. It is no good some "junior" Patronage Secretary on the other side of the House sniggering away as if it does not matter what is said by Lord Wedderburn and others on these matters. When I read out to the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown) what the noble Lords have said, perhaps he will take the matter a little more seriously.
      Mr. Winnick: My right hon. Friend has referred to the "junior" Patronage Secretary. That Whip has made it perfectly clear that he would rather close his factories than allow trades unions to operate there.
      Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman is trying to see that the same sort of trade unionism that he operates in his factory also operates up and down the country.
      5.30 pm
      Let us see what was said about the clarity of the new proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East has already explained the general context in which they were put, but let us look at what Lord Wedderburn said. I shall not read the whole speech, but he put a series of questions to the Minister about what other judges might say about the obscure clauses. Those clauses were already obscure but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East said, they are more obscure now than they were in the first place. That is not only his opinion but the opinion of Lord Wedderburn and others. Lord Wedderburn said:
      "There is a similar situation with other forms. As the noble Lord Lord Donaldson said in one of his judgments many years ago, the forms of industrial action, like real life, are infinite or are only bounded by human ingenuity, which is almost the same thing. Is the High Court to be asked to make

      229
      orders to abstain from all the types and varieties of conduct which may have been likely to be ineffectively induced by the statements made?"
      The answer we heard from the Secretary of State today at the beginning of his remarks is that it is.
      Lord Wedderburn went on to say:
      "That is a first shot at understanding what the clauses mean. However, we know they mean one thing. A court is to tell a union to do something to its members. That is another example of what Lord Devlin called, in his well-known inquiry into the port industry in 1965, asking trade union leaders to be policemen. He said then that trade union leaders cannot be asked to be policemen and they cannot be called in by employers to enforce the law. The mechanism which is now being set up makes that mistake all over again. Perhaps one might say that at the very best that will produce unofficial actions and a rash of actions for which one has no officials to bring in for negotiations and to conclude an agreement."
      That is how the proposals will work in practice.
      Lord Wedderburn went on:
      "The fragile Meccano set which was put together in the first Bill that we saw in the debate on Second Reading"—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he will know that it is contrary to our practice to quote directly from debates in the other place except when quoting a Minister. If the right hon. Gentleman is quoting indirectly and reflecting the views of a Member of the other place, that might be admissible.
      Mr. Foot: I am grateful for your assistance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have quoted somewhat extensively and I apologise for that. However, I did not wish to miss anything and I am sure that the House would not wish me to do so. I shall paraphrase now because that is a good rule. We have that rule in order to protect the House from boring reiteration. I do not think that anybody would accuse me of boring reiteration in having brought to the attention of the House what was said by Lord Wedderburn. He was saying that the fragile Meccano set—the original Bill introduced in the House of Lords—had fallen apart and he said that the Government were attempting to
      "stick on some Lego that makes no contact with the machinery or in many ways with real life. I know that we shall not agree on that conclusion but I ask the Minister to answer some of the specific questions that I have raised".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 March 1988; Vol. 494, c. 435–36.]
      Of course, none of those specific questions was answered.
      The complications for trade union action were to be made even greater, and other provisions were to be piled on top of all the other iniquitous parts of the Bill. The Bill sets up a special commissioner to encourage people to take action against their trade unions. On top of the other provisions designed to make it more difficult for a trade union to take effective collective action is to be piled a special incitement for members to take legal action against their own unions if they think they have a chance of winning. Of course, they have the encouragement of the commissioner to enable them to go ahead with that process.
      If the Bill is workable in that way, it will make collective legal action by trade unions much more difficult. It will mean that many more trade unions will not know whether they are acting within the law. I do not know whether the Government believe that it is sensible to pass legislation that has that effect. A number of trade unionists up and
      230
      down the country—I understand their feelings—will say that the Government have acted in an outrageous, scandalous and prejudiced way when dealing with their affairs and they will be happy to take illegal action. There are large numbers of people in the trade union movement who might be persuaded to move in that direction. They can recall that under old and oppressive trade union legislation before Disraeli introduced his measures for trade unions or before the Trade Disputes Act 1906 trade unionists, including the Tolpuddle Martyrs, said, "We have to take action even though it is illegal."
      The purpose of the trade union reforms that were carried through was to ensure that the trade union movement would be able to operate effectively and use its collective power within the law. Anyone who wants to see the law sustained and respected in this country should be careful not to introduce legislation that will make it infinitely more difficult for elected trade union leaders, elected under the complicated procedures that the Government are instituting, to act. We shall be dealing with that part of this prejudiced legislation in a moment.
      A Government with any sense, remembering the history of the trade unions in Britain, should be seeking by their legislation to make absolutely clear what is legal and what is not. They should be seeking to make clear what a trade union can or cannot do and to make it clear that trade unions must have the right to take effective collective action sometimes. If that right is denied, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East said, we shall soon reach the position where every trade union in the land is under some form of GCHQ ban. That is what some members of the Government would like.
      The trade unions of Britain will not be prepared to take that. Before 1906, or the wisdom of Disraeli, people were forced to take illegal action. That is what will happen if the Government go ahead with this sort of measure. Even at this late date, I plead with them to take away this measure. Of course, they will not because they are determined to force through measures that will be deeply injurious to the trade union movement. They believe that the trade union movement is down and they intend to kick it. That is what happened after the general strike of 1926–27. The Government said, "We will use our present position to take away, by powers in the House of Commons, rights that trade unions have had for decades." That has been carried to an even greater extreme by the Government than anyone could have imagined. Of course, there will be a deep and bitter response throughout the country. The day will come when all these measures will be wiped away. I only hope that it happens without any of the stress and struggle that people have had to endure in the past.
      If there is trouble, the responsibility will rest upon the Ministers who, not content with the wretched measures of the first two or three years of this Government, have said that they will twist the screw even tighter. Even at this last moment they have come back with a Bill that is worse than that introduced in the House of Commons two or three months ago. It is a shame to see the House demeaning itself in the same way as the House of Lords did yesterday. I hope that the entire country will notice the contrast to which I have drawn attention.
      Mr. Ron Leighton: When the Secretary of State introduced the amended clause he made it sound as if it were modest and innocuous. He is not here to listen to the debate, but he seemed to be saying that all

      231
      it was doing was to give to individual trade union members what employers already have. If that were so, there would at least be some logic in it and perhaps there would not be a need for too much discussion.
      That is not what we have before us. We have before us a major change in the clause. The clause has been completely redrawn in a most unreasonable way and we have had no explanation why that has been done. Presumably the clause was all right when the Bill was before this House and in all the hours in Committee. Something must have happened to change the Government's mind. I should like an explanation of what has changed and why the Government are looking at this matter differently.
      As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) said, this change was made in the Lords. But it was not made, as far as I know, by what might be called rank and file Lords—if there are such things. It was made by the Government in the Lords. They used the Lords as a convenience. So we cannot blame the change on the Lords. We must ask the Government to explain why they have redrawn the clause.
      The original clause provided:
      "A member of a trade union who claims that the union has, without the support of a ballot, authorised or endorsed … any … strike or other industrial action—

      (a) to break their contracts of employment; or

      (b) to interfere with the performance of their contracts of employment,

      may apply to the court for an order under this section."
      That has been completely changed to
      "any industrial action in which members of the union (including that member) are likely to be, or have been, induced by the union to take part".
      What does "likely" mean? This is a new word that the Government have introduced. It is not a word that adds clarity; it seems to add a lot of confusion. Presumably it will be for the courts and the lawyers to decide. I should like an explanation of what the word "likely" means.
      The Government propose to insert
      "that a trade union has, without the support of a ballot, authorised or endorsed any industrial action".
      I do not know what that means. There are all kinds of industrial action—for example, action declining to do voluntary overtime, working to rule, working without enthusiasm. [Interruption.] Somebody refers to a "think strike". When I first looked at this clause I thought that perhaps the officials in the Department had been on a think strike and had not advised the Ministers properly. There may be a withdrawal of good will. People can stop doing work over and above the normal work that they are paid to do.
      Mr. Graham Allen: There may be a slight difference of interpretation now that the Government have made their decision even clearer, but even in Committee it was apparent that this was the Government's intention. Nobody should be under the misapprehension that the Government have slipped into this approach. I do not know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if it is in order to quote from the report of the Committee proceedings at this stage, but I asked the Minister—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be in order in a speech, but I hope the hon. Gentleman realises that he is making an intervention, which should, by its nature, be brief.
      Mr. Allen: I shall be very brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I asked the Minister for Employment:
      "Where overtime working is part of normal duties although not a contracted part, and it then ceases through industrial action, would that be caught by the Bill's extenion of the provisions over and above the 1984 Act?"
      He replied:
      "Yes, I believe that it is."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 12 November 1987; c. 7.]
      That intervention occurred within three quarters of an hour of the Bill's going to Committee. The Government have intended this right from the word go.
      Mr. Leighton: It is quite clear that there has been a major change in the clause; it has been completely redrawn. We had no explanation from the Secretary of State when he introduced it, because there is not a respectable or decent explanation why they have made this really major change. This is an entirely new Bill as a result of the changes in this clause.
      5.45 pm
      In amendment No. 8 there is a definition of a strike:
      " 'strike' means any concerted stoppage of work."
      That is fairly clear. But when we try to find out what "any industrial action" means, it says:
      " 'industrial action' means any strike or other industrial action by persons employed under contracts of employment".
      It does not mention breaching a contract of employment or interfering with the performance of a contract. So we do not know what is meant by "industrial action". The wording in this clause is a sort of catch-all that takes in everything. It seems to me that it would take in anything that an employer did not like.
      I wonder whether that had anything to do with the experience of the teachers' strike. Collective bargaining has been taken away completely from the teaching profession. But let us consider a teacher who, after school hours, in his own time, organises sport. Let us suppose that that teacher is so upset by the Government that he decides that he has had enough and will not organise the cricket and football matches after hours. Is that the sort of action that the Government are trying to catch by referring to "any industrial action"?
      If members of a union do what they are legally entitled to do—that is the point—why should this House impose certain procedures on them? Surely to attempt to do that is to go over the top, to go too far and act in a ridiculous way. If members of a union cannot join together to do things that are lawful, we are getting very close to being an authoritarian state where trade unionists will not have rights, will not be free and will certainly not know what their rights are, and we shall run into all sorts of uncertainties. This clause, as redrafted, introduces a very wide range of liability; indeed, unlimited liability. Its effect will be to harass ordinary trade unionists and frighten them away from meetings and from getting involved in trade union activity.
      When strikes take place—they take place fairly infrequently; the idea that people spend most of their time on strike is nonsense—normally the situation will have deteriorated before hand. It could well be that members start to fret at what they see as oppressive management and their good will towards the management begins to diminish and they progressively withdraw good will. Are we to say that in all such cases there has to be a ballot?

      233
      That is absurd. How do we get to the point at which we cross the line between an ordinary withdrawal of good will and a situation in which a ballot has to be called?
      As I understand the clause, if individuals take industrial action, that is all right. Even if shop stewards induce the industrial action, they cannot be proceeded against. I should like an explanation of that. I also understand that it is lawful to do these things if the members do not seek the support of a union official. I should like an explanation of that. It is certainly an incitement to unofficial action; it is all right provided it is unofficial.
      The Government might be under the illusion that the trade union officials are the militants who induce industrial action. That is completely untrue. When I was working in industry for my union, the only body that could authorise industrial action was the executive council. Quite often when members wanted to take industrial action they would ask for permission, but the executive would turn them down. The idea that union officials seek to stir up strife and industrial action is the opposite of the truth. Without realising it, the Government are inciting unofficial action. If a union official wanted to cause strife, instead of calling the action himself he would privately talk to the shop stewards and get them to do it.
      What does "likely" to induce mean? Let us suppose that teachers at one school decided to ban taking part in football and that teachers at another decided that they did not want to take part in dinner duties and that the union journal reported those events so that all the other teachers could read what their colleagues were doing. Would that constitute an inducement? At the end of the day, I suppose that it would be left to the courts to decide. The courts are empowered to make an order, but what sort of order can they make? If in a workshop members have withdrawn good will, is it possible for a court to order them to reinstate the good will?
      The Bill seeks to prevent unions from acting as unions. The ethos of the Bill is against any idea of collective action. The Government have gone over the top. There was a time when we said that Governments were not for the employer or employee but were neutral. Their purpose was to hold the ring. The Government have gone completely overboard on one side, in favour not only of the employer but particularly of the rogue employer. They are against not only so-called irresponsible trade unionists but all trade unionists.
      There was a time when the Conservative party said that it was not opposed to trade unionism. There was an organisation called Conservative Trade Unionists, and the Minister of State, Home Office was a leading official of it. I do not know whether he still is, whether it exists or whether the Conservative party believes in the legitimacy of collective action and British workers combining to look after their interests, but if they do they are undermining that belief by the Bill, which goes too far and will not endure. Legislation will not endure on such a prejudicial basis as this.
      Mr. David Clelland: It appears that our arguments are falling on not only deaf ears but absent ones. The Secretary of State has decided to leave the Chamber, which does not leave much room for optimism
      234
      that our arguments will be listened to. I urge the Minister to listen carefully to the arguments and, even at this late stage, to reject the amendment.
      If the amendment is passed it will cause serious problems not only for trade unions—which presumably is the intention—but for individuals, employers and the courts. The amendment is not a minor revision, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), but a fundamental alteration to the original clause that was agreed by the House.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) mentioned the inconsistencies of the House of Lords. It seems that legislation in this country depends to a significant extent on who turns up in the House of Lords on any given day. The casual passer-by yesterday could not help but notice the proliferation of Rolls-Royces and chauffeur-driven limousines outside the House of Lords as their Lordships voted themselves a reduction in their rates.
      I notice that their Lordships have not chosen to make much comment about the proposal in the Bill that those utilising the facilities of clause 1 will be able to obtain legal aid by reference to the commissioner for the rights of trade union members. Hon. Members will recall that recently we considered the Legal Aid Bill, which originated in the other place. It proposes cuts of £10 million a year in legal aid so that the poorest fighting genuine cases will not be able to receive assistance, whereas people who wish to attack trade unionists will be able to rely on the support of the commissioner. Such is the nature of the attacks on free trade unionism in this country.
      The amendments say that a member may apply to a court to have "any industrial action" stopped or prevented pending a ballot. If a union issues notice of a strike, an overtime ban or a work to rule, a member could exercise the clause as amended by their Lordships. A court of law, therefore, could tell members not to work to rules laid down by their employers. Yet the position in industry today—which seems to have escaped the notice of their Lordships—is that if an employee suffers an injury at work, all an employer has to do to avoid paying compensation is to show that the worker was not working to the rules. One court could say that working to rule is industrial action and should be discontinued, while another could say that a worker contributed to an accident by not working to the same rules. Are their Lordships and the Secretary of State suggesting that that should be possible under British law?
      It is not only working to rule that might be caught by the amended clause. The amendment raises two fundamental questions. First, what is "any industrial action"? During the debate in the other place, Lord Trefgarne described any industrial action as that which is
      "designed to cause damage to the employer."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 March 1988; Vol. 494, c. 465.]
      Lord Campbell of Alloway concluded that picketing was industrial action. That means, therefore, according to the noble Lord Campbell of Alloway, that if a trade union holds a legitimate ballot and has a strike, it must have a further ballot to picket the factory. How ridiculous can we get?
      I hope that the Minister will comment on my second question. If a trade union, shop steward or a safety representative were to say to a worker, "Do not work under these conditions or use that machine or piece of equipment because it is unsafe", is that shop steward or safety representative the union in that instance, and is the

      235
      refusal to work in unsafe circumstances industrial action? It would appear from what their Lordships have said that that could be so.
      Often there are disagreements between workers and their supervisors about what is safe. Sometimes that leads to a decision being made by a worker or group of workers not to carry out certain tasks or to work in a particular way. Indeed, workers are encouraged by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 so to do. If they work in dangerous conditions, they are contributing to an accident if one happens.
      Disputes on the shop floor often lead to discussion, negotiation and an eventual settlement, making for safer working conditions to the advantage of the employer and employee. There are people who will work in any conditions regardless of the risk—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sellafield."] Under the clause, if one of the group disagrees with the shop steward or safety representative a court could decide that the unsafe working practices should continue. The court would not be in a position to decide about the safety or otherwise of the working conditions. It could reach a decision only about the action being taken.
      What happens if an accident occurs in those circumstances? What right will a victim have to compensation if the employer can argue that a court of law authorised the working conditions? That is surely a possibility if the amendment is passed. The court is given no discretion and must assume on every occasion that the action must be discontinued or prevented—that is, if it agrees with the complainant that the trade union has induced the action. That could lead to the court contributing to unsafe working practices and any subsequent accident. That is one good reason why the amendment should be rejected.
      However, if the Minister tells us that a shop steward is not the union for the purposes of clause 1, the whole thing becomes nonsense. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) has pointed out, unofficial action will escalate and the unions and the courts will not be able to do anything about it. The Minister will have to tell the House how that can possibly improve industrial relations in Britain.
      There is little difference between the British Government and the totalitarian Government in Poland in their attitudes to trade unions. Their methods may be different, but their objectives are the same—to screw down the trade unions to prevent them from properly representing their members, to prevent them from improving their members' conditions and wages, and, most important of all, to prevent them from criticising or frustrating the Government's actions. In that respect, the Polish Government and the British Government have a lot in common.
      6 pm
      Mr. Winnick: The Bill is motivated by the deepest malice and prejudice against the trade union movement. To some extent, the Government's attitude was illustrated in January 1984 when, for the first time, British citizens were denied the right to belong to a trade union, and that was at GCHQ. We believe, and shall continue to believe, that that is a denial of a basic freedom in a political
      236
      democracy, and we have made it clear that under a Labour Government that right will be restored to the employees of GCHQ.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) is right. The Government cannot ban strikes in general, although undoubtedly some Conservative Members would like to take that step. The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown), to whom I have already referred, has not denied that he would rather see his factory close down than allow trade unions in, as has been published in our local press. It may be argued that that is a point of view of one Conservative Member for Parliament and does not reflect the Government's attitude, but I maintain that many Conservative Members have precisely the same attitude. Their hatred—the word "hatred" is not an exaggeration—is so deep, so bitter, so much are they against the trade union movement, that they are willing to pass any legislation, however disturbing or offensive to the spirit of a political democracy.
      The irony, memberconstituency I pointed out when I intervened, is simply that at this moment, when there is hope that trade unions in Eastern Europe will be able to be independent, that what happened in Poland can be reversed and that in Hungary reforms will give working people the right to strike without being punished or penalised, the Government are undermining rights that have been built up over the years in Britain, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) pointed out.
      I make no secret of the fact that I believe that the night to strike is fundamental to living in a free country. I do not believe for one moment—I speak as someone who has been an active member of a trade union for over 30 years—that people take strike action lightly. The amendment refers to "any industrial action". What is meant by that? Over 30 years ago, when I was a staff representative in my union, we decided to ban overtime. That action was not taken lightly. There was a dispute with the management over pay and we decided to take that action. It lasted less than a week and we got what we wanted. But under amendment No. 1, such action will not be allowed without a secret ballot.
      Mr. Nicholas Bennett: What is wrong with that?
      Mr. Winnick: All the procedures will have to he gone through, whether on overtime or anything else, which is quite outside strike action.
      The Government are trying to make it as difficult as possible for working people, not just trade unions. to protect and improve their standards, in many cases against hostile management. They are trying to take away their rights or restrict them as much as possible. That is why clause 1 is even more offensive than other parts of the Bill.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) said, trade unions are supposed to police their members when industrial action is taken. No doubt that will result in a number of court cases.
      I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent. I never had the slightest illusion that the Lords would amend the poll tax. I am not one of those who think that there is some sort of inbuilt liberal majority in the other place. The opposite is the case. Therefore, it does not surprise me in the least that when the Government wanted to make the Bill even more hostile and offensive towards trade unions they had no difficulty

      237
      in the other place. The majority of people who turn up in the other place would be willing to take any action against trade unions. They would be willing to ban them if the Government invited them to do so.
      It is not much use today suggesting that Conservative Members should recognise the harm that will be done by amendment No. 1. I have no illusions that there will be any Conservative rebels. They will all be willing to troop into the Lobby in a few moments to vote for the amendment. In the main, we have a Tory intake in this Parliament, as in the previous one, which is completely hostile to trade unions.
      It is interesting to note that on the poll tax and other measures there were at least one or two Conservative Members who expressed reservations on or opposition to what the Government were doing, but there has not been one voice of dissent from the Tory Benches on this matter. The explanation is that the House is dominated by a Tory majority which is malicious and hostile to the trade union movement. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent said, when there is a change of Government all this rubbish will go. There will be fresh legislation, much as the 1945 Parliament did away with the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act 1927.
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: While my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) was speaking, a Tory Member asked what was wrong with a secret ballot. The truth is that in this place we do not have them. We have a system whereby we have a sort of field with a No Lobby at one side and an Aye Lobby at the other.
      Mr. Graham Allen: A car park.
      Mr. Skinner: Yes, it could be a car park. We have shop stewards on the entrance. Because many Members of Parliament are now taking industrial action and are not here, the shop stewards, otherwise called the Whips, stand on the gates outside and say, "Never mind whether this is a secret ballot. Get in here. This is our Lobby." Yet when it comes to trade unionists it is a different ball game altogether.
      Mr. Nicholas Bennett rose—
      Mr. Skinner: Yes, it was the hon. Gentleman who made that comment. What does he want to say?
      Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman is mixing up his analogies. The majority of trade union members are like the electors. They are entitled to a secret ballot so that they are not intimidated in the way that they vote. We are elected Members, accountable to the electorate. We are like the shop stewards. How we vote should be clear to the public who elected us.
      Mr. Skinner: Every day hon. Members get their names in Hansard if they turn up for work, just as those Members of the other place did yesterday. It is despicable to be talking about trade unions being hamstrung after yesterday's appalling spectacle when Members of the other place were driven here by chauffeurs, who waited in their cars outside. I stood watching them. Some of them did not stop the engine while their owners went in to vote. They nodded to the bobby, picked up their £100 a day tax-free, and voted in accordance with the shop stewards'
      238
      instructions—not in a secret ballot—to carry the poll tax Bill which, I am informed, will result in one of the Lords gaining £1,400. That is not a bad round journey from Northumberland.
      Today, it is a different ball game. We are talking not about Members of the House of Lords—the place that should be closed down—but about the real wealth-creators in Britain. It is another spectacle this time. Members of the House of Lords have instructed us to tighten up the laws against workers in trade unions. That is why we oppose the Bill.
      I know one of the reasons why those laws are likely to be tightened up. The Government are now talking about overheating in the economy. They are talking about wage increases of 8·5 per cent.—never mind the fact that Cabinet Ministers get 20 per cent. or 30 per cent. The Government are concerned about wages having increased by about 8 to 9 per cent. in the last financial year. The Secretary of State was rabbiting on about it the other day, although he has not yet got the guts to say what he wants to say, which is that he wants to introduce a wages policy. Without any question whatever, the Government—[HON. MEMBERS:"The hon. Gentleman supports that."] Supports what? [HON. MEMBERS: "A wages policy."] You must be joking. You were not here, were you? You must be wet behind the ears if you do not know—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not mean to say such things about me.
      Mr. Skinner: As a matter of fact, I do, because you were a Minister in that Government, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and you voted for 10 per cent. and I voted against it. That is the truth of the matter and it is as well that these whippersnappers should know it.
      The union laws are being tightened up in readiness for the wages policy. The Government will shade it in a different manner but one thing is certain: the Government are worried about the consequences of increases in the wages of ordinary workers. It is no accident that the Bill was tightened up in the Lords. It is no accident that the Government have accepted that tightening up. They know what will happen during the next two years. They know that a balance of payments deficit is looming larger than at any time in Britain's history. North sea oil receipts are gradually reducing—not dramatically but reducing nevertheless. The Government need to tighten up on workers and the Bill is part and parcel of that process.
      Today in the courts there has been another despicable incident arising out of the Government's employment legislation. The judge refused to lift the sequestration of the National Union of Seamen's assets on the ground that he wants the mass picket at Dover removed. We are talking not about secondary picketing but about primary picketing. The judge, supported by the establishment and the Secretary of State, says that the picket must be reduced to six even though, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) knows only too well, that is not the law of the land but only a code of practice. That shows how far we have travelled. The Government are hammering workers day in and day out. That is why it is important that all Opposition Members should remember when we march through the Lobby—not in a secret ballot—we are doing it not just for today but in the knowledge

      239
      that when we get a Labour Government we shall repeal all these obnoxious Tory laws which have hammered trade unions for the past eight and a half years.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Spencer Batiste: I wish to put right one or two of the Opposition's misconceptions—[Interruption.] I have been in the Chamber for some time. Hon. Members have referred to the future of Conservative Trade Unionists, its reaction to the Bill and its role. As its vice-president, I should like to put it clearly on record that CTU welcomes the Bill very strongly as a package. It does so because of the interesting contrast patent in the debate. Labour Members argue for a return to the industrial relations climate of the 1970s. Labour Members' interpretation of trade unionism is that union bosses can impose their will on the membership whether the members want it or not. Conservative Members, on the other hand, look forward to a future of industrial relations and trade unionism in which trade unions respond to their members' wishes.
      Every time we make a proposal that enhances the role and power of individual members of the unions we hear from the Opposition the same whingeing appeals on behalf of trade union leaders that that proposal runs against trade unionism. It does not. If trade unionism is to have a place in a successful industrial economy, as Conservative Members believe it must, it must adapt itself to the changing economic circumstances of the world and the fact that most ordinary members do not want to go on strike and disrupt their earning prospects but want to contribute to generating wealth in their companies in which they can share. That is why so many millions of trade unionists vote Conservative.
      Mr. Leighton: It is pleasant to know that we have a stalwart trade unionist from the CTU gracing our proceedings. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain whether the CTU wholeheartedly supports clause 3.
      Mr. Batiste: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Second Reading debate, in which I was asked precisely that question. I answered it then, as the hon. Gentleman would discover if he studied Hansard. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer".] I have given the hon. Gentleman—
      Hon. Members: Answer.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not on clause 3; we are on Lords amendment No. 1.
      Mr. Leighton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I fear that the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) may be misleading the House. He has told us that an organisation, the Conservative Trade Unionists, fully supports the Bill—not the clause, the Bill. As I understand it from my diligent readings of Hansard, he explained that, like virtually everybody else in the country, the CTU opposes clause 3.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I knew that I would get into trouble for letting the debate run wider than I ought to have done.
      Mr. Batiste: I shall not get drawn into discussing another clause, Mr. Deputy Speaker, except to say that CTU made its views perfectly clear and I dealt with them
      240
      on Second Reading. If the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) is genuinely interested, he can read Hansard and see the answer.
      Whenever Conservative Members make a legitimate point about the rights of union members we get attacked with irrelevancies and noise from the Opposition, just as trade union members get attacked by Left-wing militants who want to silence the voice of the individual. The Bill supports the voice of the individual. It gives teeth to powers that will enable the individual to have his voice heard and that is why we support it.
      Mr. Andrew Welsh: The comments of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) were a foretaste of the rightful indignation that will be felt by trade union members the length and breadth of the country when they find out exactly what the Bill is doing to the trade union movement.
      The Government have moved a long way from the more sound principles that they originally appeared to be advancing in the Bill the idea of accepting industrial ballots as the correct and proper way to conduct industrial affairs and the idea of a union clearly seen to have its members' support before it acts on the basis of that support. We have come a long way from that in every one of the Lords amendments. The Government have simply stifled trade union rights until one wonders how many of them still exist. They have given the courts a stranglehold on the trade unions. The original ideas centred around the concept of contracts of employment.
      The Bill as drafted referred to an act to break a contract of employment or to interfere with the operation of a contract of employment. In the amendment the form of words is more vague, referring to "any industrial action". The amendment represents a clear shift from the focus on contracts of employment and mutually agreed obligations between employee and employer to the more open-ended concept of "any industrial action". Surely we can expect the Minister to define exactly what he means by "any industrial action". Is there a Civil Service list which specifies such actions? If so, we should be allowed to see it and know what the Minister has in mind.
      The concept of an action, such as the breach of an agreed contract, has moved towards an assumption about possible future actions brought by trade unions. It all revolves around the word "likely". We have reached the stage where trade unions are judged, not by what they do, but by what they are likely to do. In other words, it is guilt by assumption before any action takes place. Surely that cannot be just.
      The more I hear of the Bill, the more I am left with the simple conclusion that it is designed purely and simply to destroy the ability of the trade unions to operate. It is a deliberate hobbling of the trade union movement and a deliberate destruction of the trade unions' ability to act. It is definitely a Bill too far. What was said by the hon. Member for Bolsover will be repeated by trade unions throughout the country, as they are rightly indignant about what the Government are doing to the important trade union movement.
      The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Cope): The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) and other hon. Members have emphasised the need, which we agree with, for clarity about this legislation and, for that matter, other legislation, as far as we can

      241
      manage it. Further, the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) seemed to think that something sinister had happened between Committee stage and now to cause us to change the drafting of the Bill. However, it was the Committee stage which started us on the course of action which has led to these several amendments being before us.
      In Committee we had long discussions about the rather complex original drafting of the Bill, especially because of the necessity, as there was then in the Bill, for a union member to establish whether a breach of contract, or interference with a contract, was likely to be involved when deciding whether he could use the power which clause I gives him to insist on a ballot. As a result of the discussions in Committee about the definitions of interfering with the breach of contract, which all those hon. Members on the Committee will recall, we went back to the lawyers. I am glad to say that we induced them—if that is the word—to come up with simpler drafting to achieve what is required.
      As the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) pointed out, I made it clear in Committee that we think that there should be ballots before all industrial action. If that is included in the Bill, as we think it should be, trade unions and their members can be sure that a member can insist on such a ballot where the union is inducing or seeking to induce industrial action.
      Mr. Allen: Is the extension, not the one that the Minister referred to earlier, but the interference with the performance of contract, which was the criterion established in Committee? It is surely that that has now been extended by the Lords amendment, although, as I said, the intention behind the clause was always present.
      Mr. Cope: It was interference with the performance of the contract of employment by the individual member that caused a lot of discussion at Committee. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North was part of this discussion, as were other hon. Members. We understood—and those who have read Hansard will understand—the complications involved in that clause. That is the underlying reason for this amendment before us.
      We discovered in Committee that in certain cases of industrial action the Bill, as originally drafted, did not require a ballot. I make it clear that we think that there should be a ballot before there is official industrial action by the union. The Bill now provides for that. We think—and Opposition Members argued this at the time—that union members and officials, and others who have to work the legislation, should be able to understand what is going on. The concept of industrial action is well understood. The concept of interference with the performance of a contract of employment is much more difficult for a layman like me to understand, let alone other people who have to work it day by day.
      The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) seemed to think that it had something to do with whether the industrial action was minor or major. That, of course, is not the definition. There were many minor items of industrial action which could easily be covered—indeed were covered—by the Bill as originally drafted. It is not a question of extending the Bill to cover minor ones. It is a minor extension. Many cases of industrial action that are
      242
      covered by the Lords amendment, but were not covered by the Bill as drafted, are likely to he minor. However, many other minor cases of industrial action were covered before.
      Mr. Charles Kennedy: I have listened with great care to the Minister, as I have to the debate, but I have the greatest difficulty in understanding what he is now talking about. Will he clarify the position about the phrase "any industrial action"? How wide does it go? Further, to what extent does he concede that at the end of the day the definition will probably have to be decided in the courts?
      Mr. Cope: Anything we write into legislation in the House is likely to end up in the courts. They are the ultimate arbiters of legislation, and that is how it should be. We try our best to legislate as clearly as we can and nothing goes more to the heart of doing so than these amendments, and that is why we want to introduce them.
      "Industrial action" is an extremely well understood term. I do not see that there is any difficulty in understanding what industrial action is. It is defined in the Bill and in the amendments as concerted action induced by unions. After all, it is the union which has to be involved for this clause to bite against an employer and to interrupt his business.
      Mr. Leighton: The Minister will correct me, but I think the word "concerted" is used to define a strike, not "any industrial action". We are asking about "any industrial action"; the word "concerted" does not come into it.
      Mr. Cope: Industrial action, to be covered by this clause, must be industrial action involving the union. I agree that unions are not always concerted, but a certain amount of co-operation is involved.
      I was also asked whether the courts would order that unions should police the conduct of members generally. That is not so. The court can require a union to ensure that earlier, unlawful inducement which the union may have undertaken ceases to have any influence on members' conduct. For example, it may not be enough formally to withdraw a call for industrial action or a strike which the union had previously put out. It has to go to some trouble to ensure that its inducement ceases. That is what the court may order it to do.
      Mr. Henry McLeish: I think we are being told that this is just a tidying up of clause 1 of the Bill that we discussed in Committee. Will the Minister comment on the fact that this is a massive extension of the powers in clause 1 relating to ballots for industrial action, because previously we were talking about breaking contracts of employment or interfering in performance? In this context, would a work to rule lead the trade union into the courts?
      Mr. Cope: Yes, it could do so. By the way, it could do so under the Bill as drafted, let alone with the addition of the Lords amendments. The Lords amendments make it clearer that it could do so.
      Mr. Clelland rose —
      Mr. Bob Cryer rose —
      Mr. Cope: Although I must make some progress, I give way to the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland).
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Clelland: I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying my point about work to rule. He has confirmed that a work to rule would be industrial action. Is he therefore saying that in British law a court will now be able to order workers not to work to the rules which the employer has laid down?
      Mr. Cope: It is not about ordering people to work. It is about whether there is a ballot or not. No union will have any problem with the legislation or this clause if it is prepared to organise a ballot of the workers it wants to take industrial action. We all know what we mean by industrial action and what it includes. Any union can hold a ballot if it wants to take industrial action. That is all that it has to do to avoid going to court under the clause.
      Mr. Cryer rose —
      Mr. Cope: I give way for the last time.
      Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister explain how it is possible for a union to be taken to court for a work to rule if the rules are those incorporated in the contract of employment between the employer and employee? Surely a work to rule cannot result in that because the action would be carrying out the terms of the contract of employment.
      Mr. Cope: In the first place, it depends on what the union has said and on what the union has done, as I made clear earlier. However, I should also make it clear that the Bill requires a ballot in all cases of industrial action or, at least, it permits a member of a union to require a ballot in all cases of industrial action. An employer or, for that matter, anyone else can claim damages only if the contract is broken or interfered with. That is a provision of the Bill.
      In response to the point raised by the hon. Member for Newham, North-East, I am aware that many trade union officials do not go around inducing strikes all the time. Sometimes they do, but sometimes they are a calming influence. I fully recognise that. However, I reassure the hon. Gentleman, as my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) has already done, that the Conservative trade union movement not only still exists, but flourishes.
      The debate was marked, to our pleasure, by an entertaining speech by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). He was as entertaining as usual, and, for that matter, as irrelevant as usual. He said—
      Mr. Skinner: What is "work to rule"?
      Mr. Cope: Well, what he said was irrelevant to the discussion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] The hon. Gentleman said that he thought that the Lords were giving instructions to us in some form. He need not worry about that. This House makes its own decisions and I believe that it should now make its decision on these Lords amendments.
      Mr. Strang: The Minister has brought to mind some of his performances in Committee, when it was clear that he was embarrassed by the provisions of the Bill that he was being asked to defend. We have had a demonstration of a withdrawal of good will in the Minister's performance on these amendments. It is hard to believe that he is making the Government's case. I do not want to be offensive, but it is hard to believe that he ever sat through the Committee proceedings, never mind read the Hansard report of the Lords proceedings.
      244
      The new definition seeks to extend the provisions to cover forms of industrial action which might not have been covered as the Bill was previously drafted. It is not good enough for the Minister to say, as he did earlier:
      "It is not a question of extending the Bill to cover minor ones."
      —that is, minor types of action.
      "It is a minor extension".
      We argued at length in Committee that the phrase
      "interfere with the performance of their contracts of employment"
      encompassed almost any form of industrial action, whether a withdrawal of voluntary overtime, a work to rule or a withdrawal of goodwill. The proceedings in the House of Lords make it clear that the Government's motive for introducing the new definition is to go even further and make certain, beyond all doubt, that the most modest action, or the most modest withdrawal of goodwill in the performance of a worker's job, would be covered by the legislation. Therefore, the amendment represents a major extension and is, for the reasons that I argued earlier, wholly unjustified.
      I do not wish to take up the time of the House for much longer, because we have had a good debate, but the second point to which I must refer is that of policing. I did not use the word "policing" in a general sense, but in relation to Lords amendment No. 2, which is utterly draconian. If a dissident trade unionist has successfully taken the union to court because the shop steward and a few others have decided that they will no longer carry out some voluntary overtime, Lords amendment No. 2 states:
      "the court shall make such order"—
      shall not may—
      "as it considers appropriate for requiring the union to take step … for ensuring … that there is no … further … inducement of members of the union".
      That was the original intention of the Bill, but the amendment states:
      "the court shall make such order as it considers appropriate for requiring the union to take steps … for ensuring … that no such member engages in any conduct after the making of the order by virtue of having been induced before the making of the order".
      That is a reference to a member's conduct and, as I sought to argue earlier, it is an outrageous imposition. It is preposterous that clause 3 states that a trade union will be debarred from undertaking the most elementary and minor disciplining of its members who fail to comply with a strike called after a proper ballot under the terms of the Government's legislation. The shop steward or official will not just say, "We have withdrawn the instruction that there will be an overtime ban, a work to rule, a withdrawal of good will or, in extreme cases, a strike." That official will be required by the court to grab hold of the member, or interfere with his conduct, and say to him, "It is time that you started to work harder for the employer." That is what it means. Presumably the official will also be required to discipline the member if he does not comply with that. That is why it is such an outrageous imposition—
      Mr. Allen: My hon. Friend may also wish to point out that this is further compounded by the fact that an employer may take action to ensure that the order is fulfilled, as may an individual member who can be supported by the new commissar for trade union rights. That is in addition to the new clause from the Lords.
      Mr. Strang: As my hon. Friend knows, we must recognise the earlier legislation which enables the

      245
      employer to require a ballot. In that situation, the definition of industrial action is different from the definition here, which goes wider than the trade union dissident and industrial action.
      It is for those reasons, and for the other reasons that have been advanced by my hon. Friends, that we shall vote against Lords amendment No. 1, and for our amendment to Lords amendment No. 2, which would have the effect of removing the draconian form of words to which I have referred.
      Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 253, Noes 193.

      Division No. 323]

      [6.38 pm

      AYES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Alexander, Richard

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Colvin, Michael

      Allason, Rupert

      Conway, Derek

      Amess, David

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Amos, Alan

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Cope, John

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Couchman, James

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Cran, James

      Ashby, David

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Curry, David

      Atkins, Robert

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

      Atkinson, David

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Day, Stephen

      Baldry, Tony

      Dicks, Terry

      Batiste, Spencer

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Bellingham, Henry

      Dover, Den

      Bendall, Vivian

      Durant, Tony

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Benyon, W.

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Evennett, David

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Fallon, Michael

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Farr, Sir John

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Favell, Tony

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Boswell, Tim

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Bottomley, Peter

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Forman, Nigel

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Forth, Eric

      Bowis, John

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Franks, Cecil

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Freeman, Roger

      Brazier, Julian

      French, Douglas

      Bright, Graham

      Fry, Peter

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Gale, Roger

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

      Gardiner, George

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Burns, Simon

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Butcher, John

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Butler, Chris

      Gow, Ian

      Butterfill, John

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Gregory, Conal

      Cash, William

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Grist, Ian

      Chapman, Sydney

      Ground, Patrick

      Chope, Christopher

      Grylls, Michael

      Churchill, Mr

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      246

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Portillo, Michael

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hannam, John

      Price, Sir David

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

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Harris, David

      Redwood, John

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Ronton, Tim

      Hayes, Jerry

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Riddick, Graham

      Hayward, Robert

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Hill, James

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Hind, Kenneth

      Rost, Peter

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Holt, Richard

      Sayeed, Jonathan

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

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Sims, Roger

      Irvine, Michael

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Jack, Michael

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Jackson, Robert

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Janman, Tim

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Speed, Keith

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Speller, Tony

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Squire, Robin

      Key, Robert

      Steen, Anthony

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Stern, Michael

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Summerson, Hugo

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Lightbown, David

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Lilley, Peter

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      McCrindle, Robert

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Maclean, David

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Thorne, Neil

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Mans, Keith

      Tracey, Richard

      Maples, John

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Walden, George

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Mills, Iain

      Ward, John

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Watts, John

      Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

      Wheeler, John

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Whitney, Ray

      Moss, Malcolm

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Neale, Gerrard

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Nelson, Anthony

      Wilkinson, John

      Neubert, Michael

      Wilshire, David

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Wood, Timothy

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Woodcock, Mike

      Page, Richard

      Yeo, Tim

      Paice, James

      Patten, Chris (Bath)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Pawsey, James

      Mr. Richard Ryder and

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Allen, Graham

      Barron, Kevin

      Anderson, Donald

      Battle, John

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Beckett, Margaret

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Beith, A. J.

      Ashton, Joe

      Bell, Stuart

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      247

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Illsley, Eric

      Blair, Tony

      Ingram, Adam

      Blunkett, David

      Janner, Greville

      Boateng, Paul

      John, Brynmor

      Bradley, Keith

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Kennedy, Charles

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Buchan, Norman

      Lambie, David

      Buckley, George J.

      Leighton, Ron

      Caborn, Richard

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Lewis, Terry

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Litherland, Robert

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Canavan, Dennis

      Loyden, Eddie

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      McAllion, John

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Clay, Bob

      McCartney, Ian

      Clelland, David

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Coleman, Donald

      McFall, John

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      McLeish, Henry

      Corbett, Robin

      McNamara, Kevin

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      McTaggart, Bob

      Cousins, Jim

      McWilliam, John

      Cox, Tom

      Madden, Max

      Cryer, Bob

      Marek, Dr John

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Darling, Alistair

      Martlew, Eric

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Maxton, John

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Meale, Alan

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

      Michael, Alun

      Dewar, Donald

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Dixon, Don

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Dobson, Frank

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Doran, Frank

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Morley, Elliott

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Eadie, Alexander

      Mullin, Chris

      Eastham, Ken

      Murphy, Paul

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Nellist, Dave

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      O'Brien, William

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

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Fisher, Mark

      Patchett, Terry

      Flannery, Martin

      Pike, Peter L.

      Flynn, Paul

      Prescott, John

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Foster, Derek

      Radice, Giles

      Foulkes, George

      Redmond, Martin

      Fraser, John

      Reid, Dr John

      Galbraith, Sam

      Richardson, Jo

      Galloway, George

      Robertson, George

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      George, Bruce

      Rogers, Allan

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Rooker, Jeff

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Rowlands, Ted

      Gould, Bryan

      Ruddock, Joan

      Graham, Thomas

      Salmond, Alex

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Short, Clare

      Grocott, Bruce

      Skinner, Dennis

      Haynes, Frank

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

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

      Henderson, Doug

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

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Snape, Peter

      Home Robertson, John

      Soley, Clive

      Hood, Jimmy

      Spearing, Nigel

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Howells, Geraint

      Stott, Roger

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Strang, Gavin

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      248

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Turner, Dennis

      Wilson, Brian

      Wall, Pat

      Winnick, David

      Wallace, James

      Worthington, Tony

      Walley, Joan

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Mr. Allen Adams and

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Mr. Ray Powell.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 2, line 1, leave out from "satisfied" to end of line 13 and insert—

      "(a) that a trade union has, without the support of a ballot, authorised or endorsed any industrial action;

      (b) that (whether or not the action has already commenced) members of the union are likely to be, or have been, induced by the union to take part or to continue to take part in that action; and

      (c) that the members of the union who arc likely to be, or have been, so induced include the applicant,
      the court shall make such order as it considers appropriate for requiring the union to take steps (including the withdrawal of any relevant authorisation or endorsement) for ensuring that there is no, or no further, inducement of members of the union to take part or to continue to take part in that action and that no such member engages in any conduct after the making of the order by virtue of having been induced before the making of the order or to take part or to continue to take part in the action."

      Read a Second time.
      Amendment (a) proposed to the Lords amendment, in line 9, leave out from 'order' to end of amendment and insert
      'as is reasonably practicable in the circumstances for requiring the Union to ensure that no member engages in any conduct which constitutes a breach of their contract of employment by virtue of having been induced before the making of the order to take part or continue to take part in the action'.—[Mr. Strung.]
      Question put, That the amendment he made to the Lords amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 184, Noes 262.

      Division No. 324]

      [6.52 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Allen, Graham

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Anderson, Donald

      Clay, Bob

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Clelland, David

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Coleman, Donald

      Ashton, Joe

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Corbett, Robin

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Barron, Kevin

      Cousins, Jim

      Battle, John

      Cox, Tom

      Beckett, Margaret

      Cryer, Bob

      Bell, Stuart

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Darling, Alistair

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Blair, Tony

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Blunkett, David

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

      Boateng, Paul

      Dewar, Donald

      Bradley, Keith

      Dixon, Don

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Dobson, Frank

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Doran, Frank

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Buchan, Norman

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Buckley, George J.

      Eadie, Alexander

      Caborn, Richard

      Eastham, Ken

      Callaghan, Jim

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Canavan, Dennis

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

      249

      Fisher, Mark

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Flannery, Martin

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Flynn, Paul

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Foster, Derek

      Morley, Elliott

      Foulkes, George

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Fraser, John

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Galbraith, Sam

      Mullin, Chris

      Galloway, George

      Murphy, Paul

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Nellist, Dave

      George, Bruce

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      O'Brien, William

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      O'Neill, Martin

      Gordon, Mildred

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Gould, Bryan

      Patchett, Terry

      Graham, Thomas

      Pike, Peter L.

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Prescott, John

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Radice, Giles

      Grocott, Bruce

      Redmond, Martin

      Hardy, Peter

      Reid, Dr John

      Haynes, Frank

      Richardson, Jo

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Robertson, George

      Henderson, Doug

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Rogers, Allan

      Home Robertson, John

      Rooker, Jeff

      Hood, Jimmy

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Salmond, Alex

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Illsley, Eric

      Short, Clare

      Ingram, Adam

      Skinner, Dennis

      Janner, Greville

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      John, Brynmor

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

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

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

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Snape, Peter

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Soley, Clive

      Lambie, David

      Spearing, Nigel

      Leighton, Ron

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Stott, Roger

      Lewis, Terry

      Strang, Gavin

      Litherland, Robert

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Turner, Dennis

      McAllion, John

      Wall, Pat

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Walley, Joan

      McCartney, Ian

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Wareing, Robert N.

      McFall, John

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      McLeish, Henry

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Wigley, Dafydd

      McTaggart, Bob

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      McWilliam, John

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Madden, Max

      Wilson, Brian

      Marek, Dr John

      Winnick, David

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Worthington, Tony

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Martlew, Eric

      Maxton, John

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Meale, Alan

      Mr. Allen Adams and

      Michael, Alun

      Mr. Ray Powell.

      NOES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Baldry, Tony

      Alexander, Richard

      Batiste, Spencer

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Beith, A. J.

      Allason, Rupert

      Bellingham, Henry

      Amess, David

      Bendall, Vivian

      Amos, Alan

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Ashby, David

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Atkins, Robert

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Atkinson, David

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Boswell, Tim

      250

      Bottomley, Peter

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Gregory, Conal

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Grist, Ian

      Bowis, John

      Ground, Patrick

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Grylls, Michael

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Brazier, Julian

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Bright, Graham

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Hannam, John

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

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

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Harris, David

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Hayes, Jerry

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Burns, Simon

      Hayward, Robert

      Butcher, John

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Butler, Chris

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Butterfill, John

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Hill, James

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Holt, Richard

      Carttiss, Michael

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

      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

      Howells, Geraint

      Churchill, Mr

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Irvine, Michael

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Jack, Michael

      Colvin, Michael

      Jackson, Robert

      Conway, Derek

      Janman, Tim

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Cope, John

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Couchman, James

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Cran, James

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Kennedy, Charles

      Curry, David

      Key, Robert

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

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Day, Stephen

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Dicks, Terry

      Latham, Michael

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Dover, Den

      Lilley, Peter

      Durant, Tony

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Emery, Sir Peter

      McCrindle, Robert

      Evennett, David

      Maclean, David

      Fallon, Michael

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Farr, Sir John

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Favell, Tony

      Mans, Keith

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Maples, John

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Forman, Nigel

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Miller, Hal

      Forth, Eric

      Mills, Iain

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Franks, Cecil

      Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

      Freeman, Roger

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      French, Douglas

      Moss, Malcolm

      Fry, Peter

      Neale, Gerrard

      Gale, Roger

      Nelson, Anthony

      Gardiner, George

      Neubert, Michael

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Gow, Ian

      Page, Richard

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Paice, James

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Patten, Chris (Bath)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Pawsey, James

      251

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Summerson, Hugo

      Portillo, Michael

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Price, Sir David

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Redwood, John

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Renton, Tim

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Riddick, Graham

      Thorne, Neil

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Thurnham, Peter

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Tracey, Richard

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Rost, Peter

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Walden, George

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Wallace, James

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Ward, John

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Watts, John

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Wheeler, John

      Sims, Roger

      Whitney, Ray

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Wilkinson, John

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Wilshire, David

      Speed, Keith

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Speller, Tony

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Wood, Timothy

      Squire, Robin

      Woodcock, Mike

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Yeo, Tim

      Steen, Anthony

      Stern, Michael

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Mr. David Lightbown and

      Stokes, John

      Mr. Richard Ryder.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment Nos. 3 to 8 agreed to.

    Clause 5

      FURTHER REMEDIES FOR INFRINGEMENT OF RIGHT UNDER SECTION 3
      Lords amendment: No. 9, in page 8, line 13, at end insert—
      "(3A) Where the Employment Appeal Tribunal or any industrial tribunal is satisfied, on an application under this section, that it would (but for this subsection) be required by virtue of subsection (2) above to dismiss the application, it may, instead of dismissing it, transfer the application to an industrial tribunal or, as the case may be, to the Employment Appeal Tribunal; and an application transferred under this subsection shall be proceeded with as if it had been made in accordance with that subsection at the time when it was originally made."
      7 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 37 and 38.
      Mr. Nicholls: This is a tidying-up amendment concerning the method of applying for compensation in respect of unjustifiable discipline. Briefly, it ensures that if an individual makes his application for compensation to the employment appeal tribunal and it decides that the appeal should have been made to an industrial tribunal
      252
      because the union has revoked the disciplinary finding and reversed any penalty, the appeal tribunal will have the power to remit that application to an industrial tribunal. Similarly, an industrial tribunal will be empowered to remit applications incorrectly made to it to the EAT.
      Without that amendment the appeal tribunal could only reject the application, leaving the individual to make a new application to an industrial tribunal. This would be unnecessarily bureaucratic and could mean that the individual would lose his right to apply for compensation if the mistake was not pointed out before the time allowed for making a compensation claim had expired. I appreciate that Opposition Members are fundamentally opposed to such a concept in any event. However, the House has a duty to ensure that the remedies provided work properly. Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 are purely technical.
      Mr. Strang: Suffice it to say that these are primarily technical amendments. While we are unhappy about the whole tenor of the Bill, we shall not detain the House any longer.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 7

      RIGHT TO REQUIRE EMPLOYER TO STOP DEDUCTIONS OF UNION SUBSCRIPTIONS
      Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 11, line 27, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—
      "(3) Notwithstanding anything in any contract between the employee and the employer, or in any agreement or consent signified by the employee, a deduction made in contravention of this section shall in all cases be treated for the purposes of Part I of the Wages Act 1986 as a deduction in contravention of section 1(1) of that Act."
      Mr. Cope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 33 and 56 to 60.
      Mr. Cope: Clause 7 deals with the case of an employee certifying to his employer that he has left his union arid that the union is aware of his resignation. The employer must then stop deducting union subscriptions from the employee's remuneration.
      In Committee, the Opposition withdrew an amendment after we gave a certain undertaking. Lords amendment No. 10 fulfils that undertaking and achieves what was asked of us by the Opposition in Committee. It ensures that if an employer, having been given notice, continues to make deductions from an employee's wages the employee may go to an industrial tribunal for a declaration and a refund of the deductions incorrectly made, instead of having to apply to a county court, as was provided for in the Bill as originally drafted.
      The remaining amendments cover the same point. I recommend the amendments to the House.
      Mr. Strang: These are minor and technical amendments, and we do not propose to detain the House on them.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 12

      EXTENSION TO NON-VOTING POSITIONS OF DUTY TO HOLD ELECTIONS
      Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 14, line 24, after "body" insert
      "and subject to subsection (6C) below"
      Mr. Nicholls: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Lords amendments: No. 13 and amendment (a) thereto, and No. 53.
      Mr. Nicholls: The amendments fulfil a commitment that I gave in Committee. I am happy to say that they were welcomed by the Opposition spokesman in another place, Lord McCarthy. They reflect consideration of the principle behind an Opposition amendment to exempt from the election requirement general secretaries and presidents if their position is occupied under the rules of the union by a different person annually and that person is not a voting member of the committee.
      The essence of the amendment is that individuals holding the office of general secretary or president in an honorary capacity under the Buggins principle should not have to be elected. The majority of individuals likely to benefit from this exemption will be lay members of a union appointed or elected, perhaps by a union's conference, to serve as president.
      In Committee, the Opposition described it as a moderate amendment, but it marks a significant departure from the Government's expressed intention that all presidents and general secretaries should be elected. It is made on the basis that the positions involved are normally honorary and do not carry the power and authority usually associated with such offices.
      As to the Opposition amendment, the Government accept that individuals should not have to be elected if they hold the position of general secretary or president where it is honorary and occupied under the rules of the union by a different person annually who is not a voting member of the committee. I hope that I shall not embarrass the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) by reminding him of his expression of gratitude in Committee, because from my reading of the Opposition amendment it seems that he now wants to go further. The Opposition amendment would subvert the concession made by the Government in another place. If made, some general secretaries and presidents will be able to hold office indefinitely, without a requirement that they should face an election. We should then be back to the issue of whether unions should be allowed to continue appointing their general secretaries.
      Mr. Strang: As the Under-Secretary of State has indicated, the Government amendments were made in another place in response to Opposition amendments concerning the position of honorary general secretaries and presidents. A person is exempted from the election requirement if he is not a voting member of the principal executive comittee, if he is not an employee of the union, if his term of office does not extend beyond 13 months, and if he has held no position in the preceding 12 months.
      The Minister has referred to our amendment, which we see as minor. It would remove the requirement that the
      254
      honorary position can be held for only 13 months. We are talking about honorary positions. I do not think it fair to treat this as a wrecking amendment or one that would extend unreasonably the concession that has been made. It is not by any means one of the more important parts of the Bill. Nevertheless, while we welcome the small concession, we feel that there is no need to maintain the stipulation of 13 months as the maximum period for which an honorary president or general secretary can hold office.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 12, in page 14, line 33, leave out
      "incidental to the carrying out by the committee of"
      and insert
      "taken into account by the committee in carrying out"
      Mr. Nicholls: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Clause 12 is intended to ensure that union leaders are representative of the membership. It therefore extends the election requirements of the Trade Union Act 1984 to all members of the principal executive committee, general secretaries and presidents, and to those who act as though they were members of the PEC, and ensures that they are better able to represent the views of the membership. The clause also closes a loophole in the 1984 Act by means of which certain trade union leaders have been able to give up their vote on the PEC to evade the election requirements. The clause is therefore drafted tightly to reduce to a minimum any opportunity for evasion, and it is important to avoid producing any new loopholes.
      Clause 12(1) adds new subsections (6A) and (6B) to section 1 of the 1984 Act. As drafted, new subsection (6A)(b) extends the electoral requirements to those who under the rules or practice of a union are entitled to attend and speak at some or all of the meetings of the PEC. To avoid any unnecessary extension of the election requirements, however, it is disapplied where the purpose for which the individual attends is to provide the PEC with factual information or technical or professional advice with respect to matters incidental to the PEC's carrying out of its functions.
      Members of the Standing Committee will remember the concern expressed there about the use of the word "incidental". That concern was reflected in debates in another place, and the Government accordingly undertook to see whether the meaning of that part of the subsection could be made clearer. The Government regard it as important that individuals should not be able to play a full part in the activities of the PEC and yet be exempted from the requirement to be elected. We have therefore been conscious of the need to maintain the original distinction between an individual who offers only supporting advice and does not therefore need to be elected, and one whose contribution goes further, involving participation in the decision-making process.
      We believe that that distinction has been maintained by the amendment, which replaced the phrase containing the word "incidental" with one that is more readily comprehensible. We think that the drafting has been improved in another place, and that the amendment will bring clarity where unions have previously claimed that there was uncertainty about our intentions.
      Mr. Strang: The Minister has rightly reminded us of the discussions in Committee on this point. As he has said, it is a very minor change, and I agree that it clarifies the position slightly. We are still unhappy about the general

      255
      thrust of the clause, but in so far as it makes the position slightly clearer and is helpful, albeit in a small way—in that some individuals who may have been caught by the earlier wording should not be caught by this wording—we will not oppose the amendment.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 13 agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 14, in page 14, line 47, at end insert—
      "(1A) Without prejudice to section 7(4) to (8) of the 1984 Act (Part I not to apply to a trade union for a year after its formation), where—

      (a) by virtue of any election (including one held before the coming into force of this subsection) a person is a member of a trade union's principal executive committee at a time after the coming into force of this subsection when that trade union amalgamates with, or transfers its engagements to, another union under the Trade Union (Amalgamation, etc.) Act 1964;

      (b) under the instrument of amalgamation or transfer, that person becomes a member of the principal executive committee of the trade union formed by the amalgamation or, as the case may be, of the union to which the engagements are transferred (whether by taking up the same position as he held in the amalgamating or transferring union or by taking up any other position); and

      (c) under Part I of the 1984 Act or the following provisions of this section that person would have been entitled, at the time of the amalgamation or transfer, to continue for any period, without being re-elected, to be a member of the principal executive committee mentioned in paragraph (a) above or, as the case may be, to hold the position by virtue of which he was such a member,

      Part I of that Act shall not apply in relation to that person to the union formed by the amalgamation or, as the case may be, to the union to which the engagements are transferred until the end of the period mentioned in paragraph (c) above."
      Mr. Cope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 15 to 17.
      Mr. Cope: The origins of the amendment lie in points raised with us by several unions which are contemplating merger. Initially, it was the General and Municipal Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union and the Association of Professional, Executive, Clerical and Computer Staffs. The question is what happens to their officials in relation to elections when the merger takes place.
      In Committee in the other place, Lord Basnett moved an amendment on the same point. We were asked that where a merger took place the law should permit the elected members of a union's principal executive committee to hold office on the executive of the new merged union for the balance of the full term of five years from the date of their election to the principal executive committee of their original union.
      We believe that the law should not stand in the way of unions merging if that is what the members of the individual unions wish. Therefore, our colleagues in another place introduced this group of amendments to give effect to the proposal put to us.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Strang: As the Minister has said, this issue was debated substantially in another place. While it is possible
      256
      to discuss at some length whether the amendments might have gone even further, they nevertheless address themselves to the point, and we welcome them as modest improvements to the operation of the provisions for the election of trade union officials.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 15 to 17 agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 18, after clause 12, insert the following new clause—

      EXTENSION TO NON-VOTING POSITIONS OF DUTY TO HOLD ELECTIONS

        Election addresses
        ".—(1) The requirements which are to be satisfied for the purposes of Part I of the 1984 Act (elections for certain positions) shall, in relation to any election held after the coming into force of this section, include the requirements of subsection (2) below.
        (2) The trade union in question must—

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

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

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

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

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

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

        (ii) the modifications which are necessarily incidental to that method,
        is provided to any candidate without being provided equally to all the others; and

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

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

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

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

        (4) A time determined for the purposes of subsection (2) above as the time by which election addresses for an election must be submitted to the union shall be no earlier than the latest time at which a person may become a candidate in that election.
        (5) No person other than the candidate himself shall be subject to any civil or criminal liability in respect of any publication of a candidate's election address, or of any copy of such an address, which is required to be made for the purposes of this section.
        (6) In this section 'post' and 'proper address' have the same meanings as in Part I of the 1984 Act."
        Mr. Cope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take amendment (a) to the Lords amendment; and Lords amendments Nos. 21, 41, 44 to 48, 50 and 51.
        Mr. Cope: These are significant amendments which have been discussed in Committee as well as in another place. Those who have followed our debates will know that they enact proposals originally made in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), whom I am glad to see with us this evening. There was and is considerable support for the measure both before and after my hon. Friend introduced his amendment.
        The purpose is to provide for a candidate in a union election to have an election address sent round by the union explaining his stance so that the individual union members can make up their minds, on the basis of information, whom to vote for in the various elections. There was considerable support for early-day motion 270. There was also support in another place for amendments put down by Liberal and Cross-Bench Members. Even the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), while not supporting what we proposed, at least agreed that in principle it was highly desirable that any person voting in an election should have some knowledge of the candidates for whom he was voting.
        The essence of the proposal is to give candidates the right to prepare, and have sent with the voting paper, an election address. The unions are left free to determine many of the issues, but some minimum requirements are laid down. The union, for example, cannot edit the election addresses unless the candidate expressly gives permission. Nor can it impose a requirement that they be less than 100 words. Many unions already distribute election addresses, and many permit a higher number of words. It does not mean that the candidate is obliged to use all the 100 words, but that is the minimum that the union is allowed to permit him. Another important aspect is that the candidates must be treated equally by the unions in the rules that they make for them. I am sure that everyone would agree with that.
        The issue of liability if a candidate's election address contains inaccurate or libellous statements is important. We are anxious to make it clear that the content of the address is the responsibility of the candidate and not that of the union that distributes it, or those who print it on the union's behalf. The candidate must be responsible at law for what he says, and the clause provides for that and gives protection to the union against actions that might otherwise arise from statements in the address that might prove to be libellous or give rise to a court action.
        The rules that we have provided for those election addresses to be prepared and sent out will be fair to the candidates and will assist union members in deciding which way to vote. I confirm that unions will be able to apply for a refund of the cost of election addresses sent out with the ballot papers under the existing trade union ballot funding scheme.
        I commend the amendment to the House.
        Mr. Strang: The Minister referred to our discussion in Committee. He will appreciate that, although we consider many things to be desirable about the activities of trade unions, we respect the right of trade unions to have their own rules. The point was made quite effectively in the
        258
        other place that, by stipulating these matters in legislation and laying down provisions by law, sometimes in contradiction of the trade union rule book, one would encourage trade union members to have less respect for their own trade union rule books.
        We consider that the democratic history and evolution of individual trade unions is such that they have developed rules that satisfy the particular circumstances of the members of that union, depending on the industry in which they are involved. Therefore, it is quite wrong for the Government to make impositions or to turn practices into law. I consider that it would have been better to put some of the detailed points into a code of practice.
        As the Minister has explained, Lords amendment No. 18 relates specifically to the election address. I am grateful to him for saying that the cost of election addresses can be claimed by unions if it is their policy to seek Government funding for such activities. The majority of trade unions issue election addresses, some of them longer than 150 words, but the amendment does not seem to constitute any problem in that respect.
        I shall make one point about liability for the content of election addresses. I was pleased that the Minister explained that the intention was that the individual candidate would be liable for any libel in the election address. It seemed to us that it was wrong that the author of a libel might be immune in law from prosecution. Our amendment deletes the stipulation in the Bill that only the candidate is liable to any civil or criminal action due to the content of the election address. We certainly do not want the trade union to be liable. However, if some slander were incorporated in an election address, the author or originator of that slander should not go free.
        We certainly shall not make a meal of this, and we shall not divide the House. We do not regard the amendment as important, and we shall not oppose the Lords amendment. I simply make the point that it is not really appropriate for the Government to prescribe this by statute.
        Mr. Graham Riddick: I support the amendment and I thank the Minister for honouring his commitment. He gave a fairly clear commitment in Committee that he would examine the principle of giving trade union members a greater degree of information about what each candidate in union elections was representing. I am most grateful to him for having moved such an amendment in the other place.
        The new clause is probably an improvement on the new clause that I tabled in Committee. I recall that my hon. Friend raised many of the problems relating to libel, so I am pleased that those problems have been overcome with three and a half lines in subsection (5) of the new clause. I am pleased that we have been able to overcome the practical problems.
        The clause clearly outlines trade unions' responsibilities. Like the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), I welcome the fact that unions will not have to bear any of the cost of the improvements to the process of electing their officials. If, as it is so often said, the Conservative party wanted to bash trade unions, the easiest thing would have been to make them liable for the costs and make them pick up the bill. We do not want to do that. We want to improve the electoral process. We have done that and we have ensured that it will not cost the unions a penny.

        259
        I shall briefly examine the attitude of the Opposition, as I did in Committee. We understand that they believe that trade unions should be left to run their own affairs. That is understandable, but the Conservative party does not agree with that view. As we all know, trade union officials have to be elected by the membership. It was interesting that in Committee the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East welcomed the principle of the amendment that trade union members should have more information. I found it sad and a little revealing that other members of the Committee, including the hon. Members for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) and for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes)—who had a bit of fun at the end of that day in Committee—were much more hostile to the idea of giving trade union members more information about candidates.
        I welcome the fact that, today, the Opposition spokesman has given the amendment a grudging welcome. I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for having taken this point on board. Ultimately, we are ensuring that trade union members are given the maximum possible information so that they can make the best and most informed choice in the election of their principal officers. I congratulate the Government on bringing forward the amendment in the other place.
        Mr. Clelland: I had not intended to speak in the debate, but the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) has provoked me into doing so. I, too, believe that trade union members ought to have the maximum information about the people whom they are to elect. That is quite right and no one would argue with it. However, we continue to argue that free and independent organisations should be able to make such decisions for themselves, which should not necessarily have to be written down in statute. Indeed, numerous organisations throughout the country hold elections for officials, but only trade unions have been singled out for such treatment.
        I remind the hon. Gentleman that those who might be considered to be more significant representatives of the public do not have that obligation. Members of Parliament are not obliged to put out election propaganda or information. They are not even obliged to tell the electorate which political party, if any, they represent.
        Mr. Riddick: I understand that no candidate is obliged to send out information. The amendment simply gives candidates the opportunity to do so by compelling trade unions to give candidates that opportunity if the candidate so wishes. There is no compulsion on the candidate.
        Mr. Clelland: There is no opportunity for candidates for local government or Members of Parliament standing for re-election to have their election addresses paid for by the state, as may be the case under the amendment, or indeed to oblige any other organisation to pay for election propaganda. That is just another demonstration of the special treatment that the Government mete out only to trade unions.
        Mr. Richard Holt: I seek clarification of two matters.
        In the furniture industry it has been traditional for many years for candidates for elected office to have all their details submitted by the union journal, so this will come as no surprise to that industry. When a series of posts become available there may be only two candidates for one, but 10 for the other—for example, for a more
        260
        lucrative regional officer's job. Are all 12 to have the same size of photograph, for example, or will the union be a limited newspaper and determine which is the more important and give it space accordingly?
        7.30 pm
        I fear that the 100-word stipulation may mean that after a person has been elected to office he will find himself disbarred because he has written 102 words in his election address. It is silly for any Government to insert a figure for that, especially when dealing with industrial relations. Perhaps it is too late, but I warn my hon. Friend that this will lead to unnecessary court action.
        It is all very well to say that there is indemnification for everyone except the person who may have written the election address. In the fullness of time, when others have the responsibilities of those who have them today, I wonder whether that law will still be on the statute book and the courts will interpret it as it is intended to be interpreted now. We all know that courts reinterpret laws over the years. Is there to be indemnification for the publishers and printers of any literature henceforth and for all time? If so, we shall be bringing a new concept into the law of libel which may have deeper ramifications than the Employment Bill.
        Mr. Allen: One hundred and one words in a manifesto would be permissible, but not 99, because the minimum is 100, so the position is even more ridiculous than the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman is describing. I imagine that that is just one of a few problems in this ill thought out, late addition to the Bill.
        Mr. Holt: I have spent 25 years in industrial relations trying to work out what politicians intended. Most of them were long gone and I could not ask them. I could get only the latest interpretation of the courts, and they change their interpretations. The benchmark cases under the Industrial Relations Acts since 1963 go in leaps and bounds, which is why I am asking whether the Government are right to insert in the legislation a specific as obvious as 100 words and that people can be completely immune from a libel action, except the person who writes the libel.
        Mr. Cope: I am grateful to those who have contributed to the debate. Most of them have supported to a greater or lesser degree some element of what we are trying to do.
        Under common law, if two people write and publish a libel, both are legally liable. I am not speaking specifically about election addresses, but about the general case at common law. A candidate in some elections may have assistance in writing his election address. The act of giving candidates in these elections the right to prepare an election address and have it published alters the common law position to the extent that the unions, although liable under common law for publishing such an address, might have a defence in that they had done so to comply with a statutory requirement. There was a doubt and, because of that, we thought it right to make the legal liability clear. It is, after all, a privilege to have the opportunity to make an election address, and that privilege is given to the candidate alone in the specific circumstances of the election in which he is taking part. Therefore, it should he the candidate's responsibility alone to ensure that the address does not contain any libel, even if he takes advice in the course of preparing it.

        261
        As my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) pointed out, a candidate is not obliged to publish an election address, but the union is obliged to publish a particular number of words. He may decide to put out a short election address in the hope that more people will read it than if he covers pages with information. On the other hand, he may think that he needs to explain his views at greater length.
        The union has an obligation to say that if there is to be a minimum number of words it must be 100. At present some unions permit 500 words, but they can put a top limit on it and say, "We are not prepared to duplicate reams. We cannot have a candidate sending out his life story." It would be wrong to oblige unions to do that, but at the same time they must be obliged to send out the address, hence the figure of 100.
        Mr. Clelland: If it is right in principle that trade unions should give candidates the opportunity and the resources to send out an election address, albeit within the limitations of the Bill, why does the same principle not apply to local government and, indeed, to parliamentary candidates? Should the principle not apply equally? It may even be argued that it is more important in local government and parliamentary elections.
        Mr. Cope: In parliamentary elections candidates have a free go at the post, but this is not necessarily relevant to what we are discussing. I think that the hon. Gentleman belongs to the Amalgamated Engineering Union, which permits candidates to send round an address of up to 500 words, so it is ahead of the Government in this. It is not alone in that, and I should not want to single it out, because many others also send round election addresses and have various figures stipulated in their rules. The limit of 100 is modest.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) asked about indemnification and whether it would last for all time.
        Mr. Holt: The legislation states that ballot papers must be sent out with the election addresses. Many unions keep the ballot paper so that it is certified by the certification officer in exactly the same way as in local government or national Government elections. It does not get lost and there is no argument about duplication. Is my hon. Friend seriously saying that the only acceptable way of doing this is by sending a ballot paper through the post?
        Mr. Cope: Yes, our intention is that an election address should go out with the ballot paper.
        My hon. Friend also spoke about indemnification for all time. The House cannot pass and has no means of passing legislation that will last for longer than Parliament chooses, as these are Lords amendments. A future Parliament can pass a statute to change the law of libel. Provided that the Bill becomes an Act in the form that we are suggesting and remains on the statute book, the liability will last. I hope that it will last for ever. I see no end to this protection against libel that is provided for a union and those who print and distribute election addresses.
        Although the Bill is written in this way, it is open to a future Government to propose a change, and there is
        262
        nothing that I or any hon. Member could do about that. The intention is that indemnification should last for as long as the requirement to distribute the ballot papers.
        Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 14

      INDEPENDENT SCRUTINY OF CERTAIN BALLOTS AND ELECTIONS
      Lords amendment: No. 19, in page 17, line 3, leave out from "person" to "are" in line 4 and insert
      "who supervises the production and distribution, for the purposes of the ballot or election, of all the voting papers and the person to whom those voting papers".
      Mr. Cope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The amendment concerns scrutineers who are provided for in the Bill to supervise elections. The amendment represents a small tightening of the scrutiny provisions that we asked for in another place, which were agreed by Conservative peers; hence the amendment comes before us for consideration.
      It should be apparent on the face of the Bill, if the Lords amendment is accepted, that the scrutineer is required to supervise production of voting papers and their dispatch. We were asked to go a little further than that and to insist that the scrutineer produced and dispatched the voting papers, but we thought it best to insert this provision. Unions will, therefore, be free to opt for the scrutineer to print and dispatch voting papers if they wish. If they choose instead to print and dispatch the papers themselves or ask someone else to do it, they will do so knowing that the scrutineer is required to supervise production and dispatch of voting papers and to report thereon to members of the union. The purpose is obviously to ensure that ballot papers sent out have not been tampered with, or that some arrangement has been made to affect the result of the ballot. I commend the amendment to the House.
      Mr. Strang: There is much that some Opposition Members wish to say on these matters but because there are other important matters we shall not detain the House. It is unnecessary to stipulate these provisions in statute but I accept that where a scrutineer supervises or takes responsibility for ballot papers when those are returned, it is logical that he should supervise their production and distribution.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 19 agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 20, in page 18, line 16, at end insert—
      "(8) Section 6A of the 1913 Act (application of sections 3 to 6 of that Act to employers' associations) shall apply to the provisions of this section, in so far as they relate to the requirements mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above, as it applies to sections 3 to 6 of, and the Schedule to that Act.".
      Mr. Nicholls: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take Lords amendments Nos. 22, 35, 36 and 55.
      Mr. Nicholls: These technical amendments are necessary for consistency with earlier legislation. The provision which presently governs political fund ballots contained in the Trade Union Acts of 1913 and 1984

      263
      applies to unincorporated employers' associations, as they apply to trades unions. These amendments ensure that clauses 14 and 15 of the Bill will apply similarly.
      Amendment No. 55 to schedule 3 corrects an oversight in the drafting of the 1984 Act, which leaves trades unions and unincorporated employers' associations in a different position in one respect. The amendments will have no practical effect at present, as we know of no employers' association that currently maintains a political fund, or indeed has any intention to set one up.
      Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 are technical, and are necessary to ensure that all legislative provisions in relation to political funds are consistent in their application to Northern Ireland. Their effect will be that the provisions of the Bill relating to political funds will extend to Northern Ireland, but will not apply, like present legislation, to any trades union or unincorporated employers' association that has its head office, or main office, in Northern Ireland.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Allen: It would be remiss of me to let the clause go without putting on record the congratulations of the Opposition, and we hope also of Conservative Members, to the Institute of Professional Civil Servants on setting up its political fund a few weeks ago.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 21 to 23 agreed to.

    Clause 16

      BALLOTS ON INDUSTRIAL ACTION AFFECTING DIFFERENT PLACES OF WORK
      Lords amendment: No 24, in page 19, line 39, leave out "some or all" and insert "one or more".
      Mr. Nicholls: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take Lords amendments Nos. 25 and 26.
      Mr. Nicholls: This amendment was tabled by noble Lords from the Opposition Benches. It was readily accepted by the Government. The objective of the clause is to ensure that separate place-of-work ballots are held, except in circumstances where all the members whose votes are to be aggregated across different places of work share one or more common distinguishing characteristic.
      When the clause left this House, the exception was limited to circumstances where a group sharing such a factor or factors consisted of at least three people. However, there is no justification for excluding the circumstances where a group consists of only two members. The amendment addresses this point.
      Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 were tabled by Opposition peers and were accepted by the Government, albeit with one minor drafting change. In practice the only change in the clause as it stood before these amendments were devised is to allow a ballot to be aggregated across two or more employers if there is a common and appropriate factor that applies to only one voter, and to non-voters at one employer but is shared with no voters at a second employer.
      When the Government tabled amendments to the clause at the Commons Report stage it was with the intention of enabling aggregation of ballot votes across
      264
      different places of work, to cover the situation of various types of bargaining groups. It is possible to envisage a bargaining group in the case that I have just described. The Government therefore accepted a change in the clause that allowed an exception in such a case to the requirement for separate place-of-work ballots. I therefore hope that the amendment commends itself to the Opposition and to the House.
      Mr. Strang: We made clear on Report and in Committee that we regard this clause as a complex imposition that employers will have great difficulty in understanding. It will certainly not add to good industrial relations in this country. But, as the Minister says, these are minor amendments and we do not wish to detain the House on them.
      Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I should be grateful if my hon. Friend could help me with one point. In the case of the National Union of Seamen, as my hon. Friend will be aware, ballots could take place on ships overseas. It is possible that the results of those ballots will not get back to the NUS in time. The consequence of that is that those working in home waters on ferries are in a particularly advantageous position and the NUS could follow their wishes rather than those working in deep sea waters or abroad. Will the clause deal adequately with the replacement ballot, and the time in which it will be conducted?
      Mr. Nicholls: This part of the Bill will not be dealing with the time in which a ballot takes place. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) has said, this is by no means an easy read. Having said that, I hope that those who have studied it in Committee, and other interests elsewhere, agree that, although the clause is difficult to read, it is at least better than it was. I recollect that in Committee there was some debate about whether, for the purposes of the definition of a place of work, which is relevant to the construction of the clause, a ship could be considered as premises. I recall that I or my hon. Friend the Minister of State, pointed out that a ship was not to be taken as a place of work in those circumstances.
      If my hon. Friend has in mind the possibility of timing and matters of that sort, they would not strictly fall to be considered under this clause.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 25 to 27 agreed to.

    Clause 20

      PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTAL TO SECTION 19
      Lords amendment: No. 28, in page 23, line 5, at end insert—
      "(1A) Where the Commissioner provides assistance under section 19 above in relation to any proceedings, it shall be his duty to do so on such terms, or to make such other arrangements, as will secure that any person against whom those proceedings have been or are commenced is informed that assistance has been or is being provided by the Commissioner in relation to the proceedings."
      Mr. Nicholls: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider sub-amendment (a), and Lords amendments Nos. 29 and 30. I understand that the Opposition may wish to

      265
      divide on sub-amendment (a), so I shall call the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) to speak to that amendment.
      Mr. Strang: I have to make it clear that Lords amendment No. 28 was moved in the House of Lords by the Government in response to an undertaking that the Minister gave in Committee. That undertaking related to the circumstances where the commissioner for trade union members had given, or was about to give, assistance to a trade union member. We argued, convincingly I think, that it was only reasonable that a trade union should know whether a trade unionist taking the union to court was being supported in that way. Obviously, that would be a substantial consideration in terms of the advice and funding that the trade unionist would receive from the commissioner.
      In such circumstances the trade union might decide to adopt a different tack and perhaps be more conciliatory. Alternatively, the effect may be the opposite. Nevertheless, the principle is valid and the Government accepted the principle. It is fair to say that the Minister acknowledged that the argument was valid in relation to legal aid and that it was hard to see why, if someone was advised that a person was in receipt of legal aid in proceedings to which he was a party, a trade union should not be advised that a trade unionist was receiving assistance in a case to which the trade union was a party.
      What is wholly unsatisfactory about the Lords amendment is that it enables the commissioner to advise a trade union after the proceedings have been commenced. We do not believe that that does justice to the undertaking that the Government gave us. I am not suggesting that this is a deliberate failure to implement the undertaking. However, the whole point of the undertaking was that the trade union would be given notice in advance of the proceedings getting under way.
      Instead of the words
      "against whom those proceedings have been or are commenced"
      the amendment should read
      "against whom those proceedings are to be commenced"
      We obtained very few concessions from the Government in Committee and the one or two concessions that have been achieved, either in response to promises in Committee or as a result of changes in the other place, have been minor. It is rather unfortunate, to put it mildly, that they have failed to do justice to the undertaking they gave in this context in Committee.
      Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) may be doing himself less than justice by saying that he did not receive many concessions from us. I remember that he and his hon. Friends made several points very well and we did agree to make concessions. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that when he put this point to me in Committee he was pushing at an open door. I hope that he will not think that I am sliding away from the point and, if he does, I will slide straight back in a moment. However, there are obvious parallels between the commissioner's assistance and that provided by the legal aid fund. Of course, there are obvious dissimilarities as well because, as with all analogies, they are not exact. As I have said, the hon. Gentleman was pushing against an open door and, perhaps because the analogies are not
      266
      exact, I was not able to come up with something there and then to what may seem a fairly straightforward point. That is indicative of the fact that perhaps it was not quite as easy as we would have liked.
      The amendment places a duty on the commissioner, where he provides assistance in relation to proceedings, to do so on terms or make other arrangements that will ensure that any person against whom those proceedings have been or are commenced is informed of that assistance. However, if one were to say that the notification should take place at the moment proceedings were instituted, that would raise all sorts of difficulties, such as what would happen if that moment was missed. What would the consequences of that be?
      In our amendment we have tried to ensure that if a trade union is up against a person with the commissioner's assistance, it should know about that. That obligation will be imposed by the commissioner on the assisted person to make absolutely certain that notification is given.
      I understand the terms in which the hon. Gentleman tabled the Opposition's amendment (a). However, the Lords amendment makes it clear that the duty to inform will apply when the assisted person becomes party to the proceedings or when the commissioner's assistance is granted if a person is already a party to the proceedings at that time. That is an important point. It is up to the commissioner to specify any details about the timing of the notification in the terms on which his assistance is granted or to determine the timing in the arrangements he makes. In practice, it can be expected that parties against whom proceedings are taken will be informed of the commissioner's assistance when the proceedings are instituted. As I have said, that would not be possible if they began before he gave his assistance.
      The Opposition's amendment would mean that notification would have to be given before proceedings began. It fails to deal with the case where proceedings start before any assistance is given. For that reason, the amendment is undesirable.
      I do not want to go over the ground that was covered in Committee. However, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East will recall that when it was put to me and to my hon. Friend the Minister that notification of the commissioner's assistance should be given as soon as that assistance was available, we resisted that.
      We believe that the Lords amendment ensures that if a trade union finds that action is being taken against it by John Smith and that John Smith has the full weight of the commissioner by his side, the union should know about that. Although that may not have been achieved in the way that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East would have liked, his justified and evident concerns are met by the amendment.
      Mr. Strang: We are not satisfied with that. The amendment is a step in the right direction but, leaving aside the detailed wording of our amendment, we intend to force a vote. We shall do so if only to demonstrate our view that the commissioner should bend over backwards to ensure that the trade union is advised as early as possible that he is providing assistance to one of the union's members.
      Mr. Clelland: It seems entirely unreasonable that, when a trade union is to have proceedings instituted against it, it should be informed in retrospect that the commissioner

      267
      is to assist those taking the proceedings. We object in principle to the commissioner. I pointed out in Committee, and I have mentioned again today, that the installation of a commissioner of this sort is contrary to the Government's attitude towards the legal aid system where considerable savings—about £10 million a year—are being made. I can think of a number of people living in my constituency who have been rejected when applying for legal aid for legitimate cases purely on the ground that the compensation that would result from a successful case would not be sufficient. Yet here we have circumstances in which a union member can take what might be considered to be a frivolous action against a trade union and may be supported through a sort of legal aid system by a commissioner. Also, the proceedings can begin before the trade union is informed that that is to be the case.
      By the production of the Bill, the Government have already displayed their antipathy towards trade unions. Surely the legal system that is to apply to the Bill should be fair to both sides. The Government lean over backwards to assist anyone who wants to frustrate a trade union in its activities or its organisation or to take a trade union to court. Such a person will be given financial assistance and all sorts of legal advice. At the same time, the trade union is to be disadvantaged, not only in this clause but in other clauses of the Bill, by not being told until after the commencement of proceedings that the commissioner is to support the person taking the union to court.
      8 pm
      If the Government want to continue this charade that they are being fair to both sides—we keep hearing from the Minister that the Government are only trying to be fair to trade unions—they ought to accept our amendment. After all, trade unions are not bodies that stand aloof from their members. The trade union consists of its members and they will be disadvantaged for the advantage of a single rebellious member who, for his own reasons, might want to engage his trade union in court proceedings.
      We feel that the Minister has not gone far enough to explain why trade unions are to be disadvantaged in this way and that the Government ought to give more consideration to our very reasonable amendment.
      Mr. McLeish: I endorse the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland). It was widely felt in Committee that many of the suggestions and provisions in the Bill were in some respects quite incredible, in the proper sense of that word. We find it quite alarming that the Government should have suggested that they are tidying up certain provisions when we are faced with amendments that seek to further the attack on trade unions and put them at a disadvantage in the workplace in relation to any action that might be taken in which the commissioner is involved.
      It may seem strange that the House may divide on this amendment, but, while the words are only three in number, it provides a significant insight into how the Government view the question of trade union reform. Essentially, we are seeking to ensure that there is an element of natural justice. There can be few situations in which a person—in this case a trade union—can have an action taken against him but not be informed of it until the action is started. My hon. Friend made the analogy with
      268
      the legal aid system. It certainly seems inappropriate, even in such an odious Bill as this, to turn the issue of natural justice on its head.
      Why on earth cannot the Government accept the reasonable, common-sense view that a person has a right to be informed before an action is started against him? This is the essential point about which we are concerned, and it seems right that we should divide on such an important issue.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge referred to the question of the commissioner and the clauses in the Bill that deal with his activities. We were opposed to these provisions in Committee and we remain concerned about them. That concern turned to anger when we absorbed the content of the Lords amendment, and we had to respond by putting forward our own change of words.
      The discussion this evening has highlighted the continuing smokescreen that the Government seek to put up. The Government would like to convey to the nation that these are moderate, sensible reforms which bring trade unions to book in the interests of their members. There could be a debate nationally on that issue. Where there can be no debate, and where Parliament could be brought into disrepute, is when we are discussing issues in the Bill in terms of Lords amendments and our amendments in which the very nature of the right to know and of natural justice is being threatened by a Government who constantly wax eloquent about the rights of individuals and, in this case, the right of a person acting on behalf of the trade union.
      I believe that we are right to divide on our amendment. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) in this commitment. It is wholly ridiculous that a Bill can come back from the Lords in a much worse state than it was in when it went to the Upper House. I shall support the amendment.
      Mr. Allen: This item within this clause is a particularly obnoxious piece of legislation, and the way that it has been brought from the Lords has made it even worse. Many of my hon. Friends were very concerned in Committee about the way that this came into being, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) made some extremely forceful interventions on this point. We are very sad that the Lords have not done the job that the Upper House is there to do—improve the legislation rather than send it back to this House in an even worse condition.
      One of the major problems that we highlighted in this area of concern related to the certification officer, who has performed his duties admirably over a number of years. I say that having had some dealings with him. In creating a trade union commissar in complete opposition to that certification officer, we may find that neither function is performed adequately or properly. The great attribute of the certification officer was that, despite the ups and downs that there are always in negotiations and discussions between trade unions and semi-state authorities such as the certification officer, he had won some respect for a certain degree of neutrality. Now we are seeing as a result of this amendment a trade union commissar to assist individual trade union members to take action against their own unions, and one whose neutrality, I suspect, will not be beyond doubt. It is an unfortunate thing to say, but I believe that it needs to be put on record. I do not believe that the majority of trade unionists will receive the news of a trade union commissar with anything other than great

      269
      shame and suspicion. The trade union commissar will be seen as part of the whole package of legislative reforms drafted by this Government.
      Mr. Holt: The hon. Gentleman referred to the commissioner as if he were a single individual. I draw his attention to the schedule, which says that we are talking about a commissioner in posts and that there are to be six commissioners, apart from 75 posts for certification officers. So we are not talking about one man and his views; we are talking about an army of bureaucrats.
      Mr. Allen: I am very grateful for that intervention; it is most helpful. It is in the same way that many of us look at the certification office. There is the certification office, but there are a number of individuals working there and only rarely does the senior person get involved. The trade union commissar will operate on the same basis and, referring further to that schedule, the amount that will be expended on this office will be £1·5 million in the first year. In each of the following two years, it will be £1·7 million. The problem is that there will be pressure on the office, in these times of tight public expenditure, to justify its existence. It will have to keep coming forward with new cases, inciting and inspiring individual trade unionists to take up cases, even when they may not be cast iron cases. They may be cases that the court, in the first instance, or the certification officer will refuse to entertain. Under the new agency system in the Civil Service, a person may feel that there must be payment by results, otherwise the £1·7 million may be cut off.
      Mr. Winnick: As to whether there is to be one or half a dozen trade union commissars, does my hon. Friend agree that it would be a good idea if one of the people appointed were to be Mr. Eric Chalker, who for some time has been campaigning for democracy in the Tory party? If he were appointed, he would see that trade unions are 100 times more democratic than the Tory party.
      Mr. Allen: Mr. Chalker would probably be one of the first people under the hammer of the commissar.
      As we often said in Committee, the trade union movement needs no lectures from the Conservative party, which denied the vote to working people. The majority of people in this country did not have the vote until 60 or 70 years ago, mainly because of the Conservative party's inability to extend the franchise. At that time, the Labour party was creating the democratic trade union movement—well in advance of the extension of the franchise that was grudgingly given to people to elect Governments.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) will be aware that a book has been opened on who will be the first trade union commissar. The running was between David Hart, the Secretary of State for Social Services, who was going through a particularly bad time some time ago, Frank Chapple, who was quoted at fairly long odds, and, coming up on the rails, Sir Ian MacGregor.
      Mr. Winnick: What about the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan)?
      Mr. Allen: I understand from the agitation that is being transmitted that perhaps enough has been said about this matter.
      Mr. Nicholls: After such a fascinating debate, it would be churlish of me not to reply.
      I do not think that I can do anything to assure the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) about our intentions. For reasons that I have never been able to work out, he seems to suspect the worst of us. Bearing in mind the similarity of our constituencies' names, I hope that one day he will agree to pair with me.
      In one sense, I should like to take the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) with me. It is one thing to be criticised for not making concessions, but, having made one, to be criticised for doing so seems harsh, even in a harsh profession. The hon. Gentleman said that his objection to the Lords amendment was based on the fact that if one is about to be sued one should know who is standing behind it. In asking for that he is asking for more than the legal aid system provides. It is possible for a person to be legally aided for months before he institutes proceedings. His solicitor is under no obligation to file a notice of issue of civil aid certificate until proceedings are instituted. We impose an obligation on the commissioner to ensure that the trade union knows who it is up against. The hon. Gentleman is being too suspicious in thinking that there is something doubtful about the fact that we cannot frame this legislation in precisely the same terms as the parallel system.
      Mr. McLeish: Why can it not be before rather than after?
      Mr. Nicholls: For the reasons that were canvassed in Committee. A person may go to the commissioner with a grievance that could be cleared in an initial interview. The commissioner may be able to make inquiries, do a little leg work and say to the member, "This is not worth while." It would not be useful if the moment the person went through a door the commissioner said, " Nice to see you; let me assist you. I shall just phone the union and say what I am up to."
      My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) foresees a commissioner, son of commissioner and commissioners being spawned. If he reads the Bill he will see that the commissioner will have a staff, which is all that this provision relates to. The idea at present is that there should be one commissioner, who should have a staff.
      Mr. Holt: I recommend that my hon. Friend looks at the debates that preceded the introduction of industrial tribunals. He will see that the tribunals were intended to be swift, non-bureaucratic and non-legalistic. It was intended that they would be based on the common sense of those who worked in the industry. What has happened in reality is that if one is fired from one's job one is lucky to get before an industrial tribunal in under 15 months. If one does not take a barrister, one will lose.
      Mr. Nicholls: One could possibly take a good solicitor, but I do not want to be accused of touting.
      In any judicial system there is always a possibility that it will not work as fast as one would like. My hon. Friend is concerned about the initial intention that tribunals should be as simple as possible, which is a laudable aim. Perhaps his experience in this regard is greater than mine, but industrial tribunals provide a more streamlined and simple service than the courts. However, it is not the sort

      271
      of process that might take place under a palm tree somewhere. I assure my hon. Friend that there will be only one commissioner.
      I hope that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) will not think it unkind if I say that I have heard his speech many times before, and will probably hear it again. He made the wild allegation that, even before a public official is appointed, he is satisfied that that public official will not act in a way that preserves his neutrality. There will be a number of sectors in which the commissioner will be entitled to intervene. He will not be under an obligation to do so, but he will be entitled to intervene. If the commissioner's track record were that he was taking every crackpot, hare-brained case to court, the hon. Gentleman would have had the best of the argument. Having listened to his speech many times—I do not commend a reading of the hon. Gentleman's speeches to anybody—I cannot accept that he is on to a winner. He based his argument on saying that a public official yet to be appointed will act in a partial way.
      Amendment (a) proposed to the Lords amendment, in line 5, leave out 'have been or are' and insert 'are to be'.—[Mr. Strang.]
      Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made—
      The House divided: Ayes 179, Noes 220.

      Division No. 325]

      [8.18 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

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

      Allen, Graham

      Dixon, Don

      Anderson, Donald

      Doran, Frank

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Ashton, Joe

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Barnes, Harry [Derbyshire NE)

      Eadie, Alexander

      Barron, Kevin

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Battle, John

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Beckett, Margaret

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

      Beith, A. J.

      Fisher, Mark

      Bell, Stuart

      Flannery, Martin

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Flynn, Paul

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Foster, Derek

      Blair, Tony

      Foulkes, George

      Blunkett, David

      Fraser, John

      Boateng, Paul

      Galbraith, Sam

      Bradley, Keith

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      George, Bruce

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Gould, Bryan

      Buchan, Norman

      Graham, Thomas

      Buckley, George J.

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Caborn, Richard

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Hardy, Peter

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Haynes, Frank

      Canavan, Dennis

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Henderson, Doug

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Clay, Bob

      Holland, Stuart

      Clelland, David

      Home Robertson, John

      Coleman, Donald

      Hood, Jimmy

      Corbett, Robin

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Cousins, Jim

      Howells, Geraint

      Cox, Tom

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Cryer, Bob

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Darling, Alistair

      Illsley, Eric

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Ingram, Adam

      272

      Janner, Greville

      Prescott, John

      John, Brynmor

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Radice, Giles

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Redmond, Martin

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Reid, Dr John

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Richardson, Jo

      Lambie, David

      Robertson, George

      Lamond, James

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Leighton, Ron

      Rogers, Allan

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Lewis, Terry

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Litherland, Robert

      Rowlands, Ted

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Salmond, Alex

      Loyden, Eddie

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McAllion, John

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Short, Clare

      McCartney, Ian

      Skinner, Dennis

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      McFall, John

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

      McLeish, Henry

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

      McNamara, Kevin

      Snape, Peter

      McTaggart, Bob

      Soley, Clive

      McWilliam, John

      Spearing, Nigel

      Madden, Max

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Marek, Dr John

      Stott, Roger

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Strang, Gavin

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Martlew, Eric

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Maxton, John

      Turner, Dennis

      Meale, Alan

      Wall, Pat

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Wallace, James

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Walley, Joan

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Morley, Elliott

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Mullin, Chris

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Murphy, Paul

      Wilson, Brian

      Nellist, Dave

      Winnick, David

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Worthington, Tony

      O'Brien, William

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Patchett, Terry

      Mr. Frank Cook and

      Pike, Peter L.

      Mr. Ken Eastham.

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

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

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Allason, Rupert

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Amess, David

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Amos, Alan

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Arbuthnot, James

      Burns, Simon

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Butcher, John

      Ashby, David

      Butler, Chris

      Atkins, Robert

      Butterfill, John

      Atkinson, David

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Carrington, Matthew

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Cash, William

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Chope, Christopher

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Conway, Derek

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Boswell, Tim

      Cope, John

      Bottomley, Peter

      Couchman, James

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Cran, James

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Bowis, John

      Curry, David

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

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

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Day, Stephen

      Brazier, Julian

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Bright, Graham

      Dicks, Terry

      273

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Moss, Malcolm

      Dover, Den

      Mudd, David

      Durant, Tony

      Neale, Gerrard

      Dykes, Hugh

      Nelson, Anthony

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Neubert, Michael

      Evennett, David

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Fallon, Michael

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Favell, Tony

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Page, Richard

      Forman, Nigel

      Paice, James

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Patten, Chris (Bath)

      Forth, Eric

      Pawsey, James

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Portillo, Michael

      Franks, Cecil

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Freeman, Roger

      Price, Sir David

      French, Douglas

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Fry, Peter

      Rathbone, Tim

      Gale, Roger

      Redwood, John

      Gardiner, George

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Riddick, Graham

      Gow, Ian

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Rost, Peter

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Grist, Ian

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Ground, Patrick

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Hannam, John

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

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

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Harris, David

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Sims, Roger

      Hayes, Jerry

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Speed, Keith

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Speller, Tony

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Hill, James

      Steen, Anthony

      Hind, Kenneth

      Stern, Michael

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Stevens, Lewis

      Holt, Richard

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

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

      Stokes, John

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Summerson, Hugo

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Irvine, Michael

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Jack, Michael

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Janman, Tim

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Thorne, Neil

      Key, Robert

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Kilfedder, James

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Latham, Michael

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Walden, George

      Lightbown, David

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Lilley, Peter

      Ward, John

      McCrindle, Robert

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Watts, John

      Maclean, David

      Wheeler, John

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Whitney, Ray

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Mans, Keith

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Maples, John

      Wilkinson, John

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Wilshire, David

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Mills, Iain

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Wolfson, Mark

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Wood, Timothy

      274

      Woodcock, Mike

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Mr. Peter Lloyd and

      Mr. Richard Ryder.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 29 and 30 agreed to, some with special entry.

    Clause 21

      PROCEDURE BEFORE THE CERTIFICATION OFFICER
      Lords amendment: No. 31, in page 23, line 33, at end insert
      "; and, without prejudice to the generality of the power conferred by this subsection, the provision made by the Certification Officer in exercise of that power shall include such provision as he considers appropriate for restricting the circumstances in which the identity of an individual who has made, or is proposing to make, any such application or complaint is disclosed to any person."
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Nicholls: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The amendment allows the certification officer, in regulating his procedure, to include such provisions as he considers appropriate for restricting the circumstances in which the identity of any union member who approaches him is disclosed to any person. It thus permits the certification officer to continue to fulfil his functions with a workable and self-regulated method of restricting the circumstances in which the complainant's or applicant's identity is disclosed.
      Union members should certainly not be put off from making complaints about a breach of statutory duty by the union and taking them up with the certification officer because they fear the consequences to themselves of doing so. The amendment assures an applicant that a certification officer can, where appropriate, take steps to prevent his identity being revealed, so far as this is consistent with the proper pursuit of the complaint. Clause 3 may also be expected to help, because it provides that union discipline imposed because of assertions by a union member in taking a complaint to the certification officer about his union would be unjustified discipline. The amendment reaffirms the Government's commitment to a union member's right to pursue effectively complaints about his union denying his statutory right, and I commend it to the House.
      Mr. Strang: We see no justification for the amendment. The certification officer is a public appointment, and if people raise matters with him, or if he acts on their behalf, I see no reason why that should be kept secret. I do not believe that there is any evidence that trade union members have been, or are likely to be, deterred from taking up matters with the certification officer on the ground that it may be to their disadvantage if the matter becomes publicly known within the union.
      We do not propose to make a major issue of this amendment, because other important matters remain to be discussed. Nevertheless, we believe that it is uncalled for, and nothing that the Minister has said this evening has convinced us that it is necessary.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 24

      FUNCTIONS OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND OF THE COMMISSION
      Lords amendment: No. 32, in page 24, line 45, leave out from "opportunities" to end of line 46 and insert
      "for employment and training that are available to women and girls or to disabled persons;"
      Mr. Fowler: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The Government have reconsidered whether the Bill should explicitly mention disabled people. The Bill already contains specific provision for disabled people, through the requirement to help people train for employment suitable for their ages and capacities. The amendment emphasises that duty and I believe that it will be an encouragement to disabled people.
      All the major programmes of the Manpower Services Commission make special provision for the disabled. The entry rules for the youth training scheme are slightly relaxed for disabled people so that they can enter up to the age of 21, as opposed to 17 for the able-bodied, and if they need more time at school, similar help is given. The disabled may also be given extra assessment and up to six months extra on YTS. We provide permanent additional funding for YTS for managing agents to take on disabled young people who need extra training. Furthermore, under employment training, the new adult training programme, the normal entry rules will also be relaxed for disabled people so that any disabled person can enter the scheme, whereas the able-bodied will normally have to be unemployed for six months. There will be special financial assistance for training disabled people, just as there is with YTS.
      I hope that I have said enough to establish that we believe that this is an important amendment which underlines our commitment to disabled people.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Bothroyd): I should inform the House that the amendment involves privilege.
      Ms. Clare Short: The amendment concedes a point that we pressed in Committee, and to that extent it is welcome. It modifies the powers that the Secretary of State has taken to himself—powers that used to belong to the Manpower Services Commission—to make arrangements for training. Under those powers the MSC could, and the Secretary of State can, make special arrangements for encouraging increases in the opportunities available for women and girls for employment and training.
      In Committee we argued strongly that, although women and girls have special needs as they are disadvantaged in the labour market and in their access to training, people with disabilities and people from the ethnic minorities have similar needs. We tabled amendments to include in the provision those with disabilities and the ethnic minorities. Pressure was repeatedly resisted. It seems that when the Bill reached the other place the Government were persuaded that there was a need to make special provision for people with disabilities. Perhaps they were shamed into it. However, that makes it all the more outrageous that the Government have made no such concession in respect of the ethnic minorities.
      276
      We all know that ethnic minorities suffer from discrimination in the job market. Various studies published by the Minister's Department show that young people with equal qualifications have to apply much more often for jobs if they are black and are much more likely to be unemployed. Furthermore, because of the nature of the migration of a large part of Britain's black population, the working population is disproportionately unskilled and in need of access to training. It is conspicuous that the Government have conceded the need to make special provision for people with disabilities, but are unwilling to concede the point on ethnic minorities. It seems to me that their prejudices are showing clearly.
      The Minister touched on the special provision in the youth training scheme and to be made in the adult training scheme. Will he clarify the special arrangements to he made for women, girls and the disabled under this scheme? We are all aware that the Secretary of State recently wrote to the TUC, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities to make all sorts of new arrangements for the scheme that he plans to launch in September under the Bill. It is notable that there has been no announcement to the House and that we have not had a chance to comment on those changes. We know from the right hon. Gentleman's letter that he has provided for disabled people to go on his new scheme without having been registered as unemployed for six months.
      The right hon. Gentleman will know, and I certainly know—I have written to Ministers in his Department about it—that many of the existing schemes that provide for disabled people have additional provisions. They are allowed to have more staff than the average scheme, because often the needs of people with more severe disabilities call for a larger number of staff. I should like to know whether there will be additional resources, exactly what they will be, and whether disabled people on the schemes will be allowed to stay on for longer than others might be.
      What special arrangements has the Secretary of State in mind for women and girls? The community programme, which is to be brought to an end in September, contained special provisions which meant that women and girls were under-privileged. The Government deliberately brought in a rule that said that only those who were in receipt of benefit could have access to places on the scheme. Overnight, that massively reduced the number of women who were eligible to go on the scheme, although in the past they had only to show that they had previously been employed and had become long-term unemployed. However, that no longer mattered. It was only if they were in receipt of benefits that they were entitled to go on the community programme. That had nothing to do with the special needs of women and girls for access to temporary employment or training. It was because the Government were determined to use the scheme to reduce the unemployment figures and could not bear it if some women managed to get on the schemes and were no longer represented in the unemployment figures. The unemployment figures now are simply a count of those who are entitled to benefit, and are no longer a count of people who are available for employment.
      Under the new scheme, which is based on a benefit plus regime, my understanding is that a small number of women will be allowed to take places on the scheme. However, as they are not in receipt of benefit, they will

      277
      receive only £10 a week for a full week's work. That is the kind of special arrangement to meet the special needs of women and girls that the Secretary of State is proposing to make under these powers and his scheme.
      Even worse, and even more misleading, the Secretary of State has trumpeted the provision in his new scheme that there is to be an allowance of up to £50 a week for single women who have child caring needs, so that they can go on the scheme. However, when we look at the details of what the Secretary of State is offering, we realise that this is a complete and absolute con. I am sorry to say that, because there is a massive need for women who are responsible for child care to be able to gain access to training. The Secretary of State is misleading the population in suggesting that he is making such arrangements.
      The women who will be eligible for this child care allowance under his scheme will be those who have signed on for at least six months as being available for work. However, under the new availability for work test, those who claim to be available for work have to show, if they care for dependants—children, elderly or disabled relatives—that they can make themselves available within 24 hours to take up work. A single parent who has responsibility for child care and is in need of the £50 a week allowance provided by the training scheme to provide for child care cannot possibly prove that she is available for work and can make alternative arrangements for her children within 24 hours. Therefore, any woman who seeks to take advantage of this great privilege that the Secretary of State keeps telling us about is likely to be found to be unavailable for work, and by seeking to sign on in order to make herself eligible is in danger of becoming ineligible for benefit.
      8.45 pm
      The Secretary of State has told the TUC, the AMA and the NCVO—but not the House of Commons—in a letter that he wrote yesterday that another major concession that he intends to make to women is that those who have not been signed on as available for work because they have responsibilities for child care will be able to take advantage of the £50 a week child care allowance if their children are all at school and of school age. Is this a major concession? The major need for child care support is for parents with children under five—but they are not to qualify. The Secretary of State has presumably made a judgment that women with children under five should not seek to participate in his training scheme. Therefore, only those who have children at school will be able to apply for the special allowance.
      The arrangements that the Secretary of State is making under this provision of the Bill are a cosmetic pretence to assist women to take up places on his inadequate training schemes, but in practice they will not benefit them at all. In fact, the overall arrangements, and the arrangements for the payment of money, mean that women will receive small amounts of money. They will receive no more than £10 a week for participating in this scheme and working for a full working week if they live with someone who is receiving the benefit.
      As we have the Secretary of State here, and as this is our last chance to deal with the Bill, I ask him to clarify the Goverment's undertaking that the programme for these disadvantaged groups will be entirely voluntary. It is an
      278
      important undertaking that the Secretary of State has given to the TUC. He says that he has made it clear in the House that he does not intend to designate the employment training scheme for the purposes of section 20 of the Social Security Act 1975. Hon. Members will know that the Bill provides, in clause 26, that the Secretary of State can, whenever he so chooses, designate any scheme that he provides under its powers. Anyone who refuses a place, refuses to apply for a place or leaves early will be subject to benefit loss or benefit penalty for a period of six months. Once that is done, the scheme will in effect be compulsory.
      The Secretary of State is telling the TUC and the world that the scheme will not be compulsory. In Committee we asked for an undertaking that the Government would never designate the new adult training scheme as compulsory under clause 26. The Secretary of State would not give that undertaking. All he would say—he said it repeatedly—was, "I have no plans to designate the scheme." We pointed out to him that the fact that he has no plans at present to do so does not mean that he might not make some plans in a week's time, a month's time or at an even later stage. We asked the Secretary of State specifically and repeatedly for that undertaking.
      The final request that we put to the Secretary of State was for an undertaking that the Government would not designate the scheme under clause 26 in the lifetime of this Parliament. For the sake of clarification, I ask the Secretary of State to give us the undertaking that neither he nor any other representative of the Government who may hold his office will designate this new scheme under clause 26 in the lifetime of this Parliament. We shall then he sure that the Government are not playing games with words in the undertaking that the Secretary of State has given the TUC. I hope that he will agree to do that. If he does not, I think that we will be entitled to draw the conclusion that he is playing games with everyone in giving undertakings that the scheme will be voluntary, but giving the undertakings in carefully framed words in order to keep open the possibility of making it compulsory in the future, should he wish to do so. The Secretary of State would then tell us that he did not earlier have plans, but he has made the plans more recently.
      We welcome the minor concession that is contained in this Lords amendment. It shows that the Secretary of State, under pressure from us and from the other place, has taken the power to make special provision for women and girls. We believe that his refusal to include ethnic minorities is a straight representation of the Government's prejudice when it comes to equal rights for ethnic minorities. This is deeply regrettable and it should be agreed by both sides of the House that everyone in our society deserves the chance of equal access to employment and training. The failure of the Government to take powers to make special provision for ethnic minorities is deplorable and sad.
      What we know of the Government's actions under their power to make special provision for the needs of women and girls in employment and training—I refer to the arrangements that they made for the new wretched adult training scheme which is supposed to take effect in September—do not give us any confidence of any genuine commitment to advance the ability of women and girls to have access to training and to the employment market.
      Mr. McLeish: I welcome the limited concession of Lords amendment No. 32. However, it is a pity that when the wider amendment was moved in Committee the Government comprehensively rejected the inclusion of a reference to substantial minorities and special groups.
      I should like to refer to the disability aspect of the amendment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) said, we deplore the exclusion of other special groups from the legislation, because it seems to us that much could be done to meet the employment and training needs of the community. Special efforts must be made for the disadvantaged and for groups which find it difficult to have equal access to the opportunities that most of the community both take for granted and have access to.
      It is important to refer to clause 24 of the original Bill, which refers to encouraging the provision of increased employment and training opportunities for women, girls and disabled people. We would have been happier if it had referred not only to increases in opportunities but to improvements in those opportunities. If we have one clear worry about the Government's new training programme, the Bill and the amendment, it is about the lack of concern for equality. I am sure that when the Secretary of State replies he will deny that allegation.
      I should like to relate the issue of equality to disabled people and to their lack of opportunities in the United Kingdom. A recent report by the National Audit Office was submitted to the Public Accounts Committee and then published. It was a fairly damning indictment of what the Manpower Services Commission is failing to do for the training and employment of disabled people. It highlighted the fact that the 3 per cent. quota scheme was being largely ignored by many employers and that the scheme could not be monitored effectively. The MSC and the Department of Employment conceded that it was a system which was in place and had remained there for a number of years, but which was largely ineffective in producing the right opportunities in the right place, at the right time, for many of the disabled in our community. The report also stated that in many respects there seemed to be a lack of commitment to and concern for such a vulnerable group. That was reinforced by the Cinderella approach taken to disabled people by the Department of Employment and the MSC.
      The report also highlighted the fact that in 1988 we still have a system of sheltered workshops, some of which have not improved since the early war days. We are not, in any way, promoting the integration of disabled people on the scale that we should be. Through Remploy and sheltered workshops much fine work is being done, but it does not match the needs of the community or the needs of a dynamic and modern employment service in the latter part of the 20th century.
      The National Audit Office report clearly confirmed that as a nation we are not doing enough for disabled people and that they are getting a raw deal, with little prospect of significant improvements at this stage. That reinforces the Lords judgment that they should include a special reference to disabled people in the amendment. While we criticise the Government for being grudging, our real desire is that they should take on board the Lords amendment—not only the wording of the legislation, but the spirit that is required to tackle what I believe to he urgent problems.
      280
      If we are looking for guidance, the same report highlighted the work of the sheltered placement scheme. This is a system by which the Government, local authorities and private sector sponsors provide employment opportunities for disabled people. The advantages of the programme are that it is well thought through, well funded and provides opportunities in industry and the public services that are far removed from the idea of shutting people away from the community by placing them in workshops where they cannot find the social harmonisation or integration that should underpin the system.
      If the Government wish to take on board the spirit of the amendment and to develop it further, they should consider the sheltered placement scheme and combine two things in one programme. First, there should he proper employment opportunities—not make-believe or made-up jobs, but real jobs in the community. Secondly, they should provide training for disabled people and give them the security of a full-time post. The lives not only of able-bodied people but of people with disabilities would be much improved if they were in employment and had received training, rather than receiving training with little prospect of a proper job at the end of it, which is what many people on the community programme or the YTS suffer.
      Disabled people are a special group and require special discrimination in their favour. They require many additional resources, which are not being made available at present. The figures for sheltered placements are encouraging and increasing, but they should be measured against the many registered disabled people at jobcentres and against the disabled people who are registered at jobcentres—that is a fine distinction. Many disabled people have little prospect of improving their position in society.
      If the amendment is taken seriously, we can go forward. It would be a measure of the Government's commitment if, when replying to the debate, the Secretary of State gave some encouragement and assurances that that development will be tackled swiftly, building on the work of the report by the National Audit Office and on the work of the PAC.
      It would be remiss of me not to mention another factor that affects disabled people. While the Government can say that unemployment is coming down—the facts speak for themselves and the numbers of people who are claimants are certainly being reduced, although we could have another debate about how that has been achieved—finding a job is especially difficult for disabled people at a time of mass unemployment. We should remember that 2·5 million people are still unemployed. It is difficult for disabled people to find work in a dynamic job market, but when 2.5 million people are unemployed, and when unemployment is reinforced geographically throughout the nation, their plight is worsened. I should like to think that the pressing problem of unemployment, which means that disabled people are crushed at the bottom of the pile, will be taken seriously and linked to positive aspects of Government policy on sheltered placements.
      Disadvantage and disability are high on our political agenda. I should like to think that after a grudging acceptance in the Lords of the inclusion of disability we can at least say that that is included. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood rightly said, other special groups have been excluded, so this is a step forward. However, it

      281
      is a step forward only if the Secretary of State and his Department respond positively. I am not talking only in terms of resources, because a positive response requires a top to bottom shift in the attitude of the MSC and the Department of Employment. Disability is too serious to continue to be ignored in the way in which successive Governments have ignored it. I look to the Secretary of State to say "Yes, we accept the inclusion, but, more important, we want to go forward to provide a change of attitude and resources."
      Mr. Leighton: I add my welcome to this limited concession, which, as I understand it, means that disabled people can receive training without having been in receipt of unemployment benefit for the previous six months. This is a first-class idea, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) said, there is another group of people who are not physically disabled but have a disability in the labour market because they are single parents with young children. It is difficult for them to enter the labour market.
      9 pm
      In the new training scheme there is the interesting and welcome idea of a child care allowance. We must all consider more seriously the question of child care. My hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood said that there had been some movement on that issue, but, as I understand it, certainly in the pilot project areas, that allowance was available only to people who had been in receipt of unemployment benefit for the previous six months and, as a result of that, only about a dozen applications had been made in all the pilot project areas. The idea had, therefore, been a complete flop, as there had been no take-up. That was because people in those circumstances did not have an employment record, and had not been in receipt of unemployment benefit. They had not been able to qualify and were therefore in a Catch 22 situation. I should like to see that position altered, so that any single parent—they are primarily young women—would be in the same position as people with other disabilities and would qualify without having an employment record.
      Ideally, we should work towards a consensus in the House on training. Every other country that I visit has a consensus. It is not seen as a matter of great controversy. It has been a matter of controversy in this country because the training and other special employment projects have been tailored to have a "register effect", to take people off the unemployment register and, effectively, to massage the unemployment figures. In other countries it is just as important to take people out of the welfare figures as it is to take them out of the unemployment figures, but in this country the unemployment figures are considered more politically sensitive. I hope, therefore, that we can make a change to the £50 allowance for single mothers, and I shall be pleased to hear the Secretary of State's comments on that.
      I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood when she referred to the assurances that the scheme would be voluntary, as there are fears about that. I expect that the Secretary of State will say that the scheme is voluntary and that he does not intend to alter that. It must be voluntary at present, if only because there are insufficient places to offer everyone in the client group—as
      282
      there is, for example, in YTS. People fear that the new programme will not be a raving success and that the target figure of 600,000 will not be hit, and that if the scheme flops, as JTS did, compulsion will be exerted to bring people into the scheme. I am certain that the Secretary of State will say that those are base fears that should not be entertained, so I do not understand why he cannot say, certainly for the lifetime of this Parliament, that the scheme will be voluntary and that there is no question of it being designated under clause 26.
      One attraction of that to the Minister is that it would not cost him any money. Some of the other suggestions that I should like to make would cost him money, but this would not cost a penny and, in many ways, would help to clear the air. Another way of making the new training scheme slightly more attractive, which again would not cost him any money, would be, if he could so arrange it, as with YTS or the community programme, for the allowance to be topped up by local authorities or employers. Many employers are not anxious to have industrial conscripts drafted into their plants and are willing to give a top up. However, as I understand it, anything over £5 is at present clawed back by the Department of Health and Social Security. That must be perverse. I cannot understand the advantage to the Government of that arrangement.
      If we are to move to a benefit-plus arrangement rather than have some sort of rate for the job, which in itself is controversial enough, we should look at the amount of the premium. At the moment it is £10. The first £5 would go for travel, and that leaves just £5. The cost of being at work is more than staying at home so there is not much plus at all above the benefit. The Government should double the amount of the plus above benefit. I understand that that would cost £180 million, but that is not a very large sum of money and I do not see why we should spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar.
      It might be some consolation to the Secretary of State to know that last year the class 5 vote was underspent by £178 million. That means that he already has the money for one year. In the following year it might be an extra charge to the Treasury. However, if it is difficult to fill the 600,000 places, there could be slightly fewer people on the scheme and the cost to the Treasury would be reduced and he could pay for the increase out of those savings. These helpful suggestions might make the programme slightly more attractive.
      The country badly needs high quality training. There should be consensus in the House on that and it should not be seen just in terms of its effect on the register. We should see that it is well funded. The scheme is under-funded and to put into it an extra 200,000 people without at the same time putting in extra money causes problems for everybody. If the matters that I have mentioned were looked at and implemented, they might make the scheme more attractive. A firm statement that the scheme was voluntary would not cost the Secretary of State anything and would be very acceptable.
      I should like the Secretary of State to respond to the question of the £50 allowance for the single parent. The allowance should not just be aimed at getting people off the unemployment register. It should be a good thing in itself, because it is a good idea to look at child care and to enable young women, as single parents mainly are, to cease being welfare recipients and to become taxpayers earning their own living in the labour market.
      Mr. Fowler: The amendment is very narrow but it has led to a fairly wide debate. I shall try to respond to the points that hon. Members have made.
      I entirely agree with the central point made by the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) that we should seek to try to find as much agreement as we can between all the parties about training for the unemployed. That is entirely in line with everything that the Government have sought in employment training. Irrespective of that, it is a sensible aim for all parties in the House.
      The proposals about employment training from the Manpower Services Commission were unanimous. The hon. Gentleman will know from his expertise in this area that the Manpower Services Commission is made up of nine commissioners. Three are from the Trades Union Congress, three from the Confederation of British Industry and three from education and local authorities. The commission submitted to me an entirely unanimous set of proposals covering about 50 pages and I accepted those proposals in full and did not try to double-guess them.
      Ms. Short rose—
      Mr. Fowler: Perhaps the hon. Lady would allow me to continue. I shall give way to her in a moment.
      As I say, I accepted those proposals in full and for that reason it is fair to ask that other hon. Members should consider their position in this important debate on employment training. It is not a matter upon which we should have the kind of divisions that, regrettably, have appeared over the last few months. I hope that we can put that behind us.
      The whole purpose of training is to help the long-term unemployed. Whatever may be said by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), and whatever may be our differences in respect of unemployment figures, the number of long-term unemployed has fallen. I announced today a record fall in the past 12 months. Even more important is the fact that there are many more jobs available in the economy than there have been for many years, with more than 700,000 vacancies around the country.
      Ms. Short rose —
      Mr. Fowler: If I may continue, I shall give way to the hon. Lady later.
      My ambition is to give the long-term unemployed training that will provide them with the skills necessary to fill the vacancies which are increasingly available. It is my purpose to reach as much agreement as possible, though I must say that I do not respect what has been done by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) in respect of the training programme.
      In my meetings with the TUC, the Scottish TUC, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and local authorities, I have underlined my belief that we should take full advantage of the training opportunities which exist.
      Ms. Short: I am sure that the Secretary of State for Employment would not wish to mislead the House, but he described the new scheme as reflecting the unanimous proposals of the Manpower Services Commission. Does he not concede that he told the commission how much money
      284
      was available to it, that the scheme would have to be a benefit-plus system, and how many people were to be covered by the scheme? No one on the committee concerned would have come up with such a scheme had the Minister not imposed those constraints upon it.
      The Minister claims that he seeks a consensus on training, but he recently threatened the TUC. He knows that many unions do not believe that the scheme is good for the long-term unemployed. There is some question whether the TUC's general council will support it. If it does not support the scheme, the Minister has warned that he will close down the Manpower Services Commission. Is that a search for a consensus on training? I think not. It is in no way accurate for the Minister to pretend that such is the position he occupies.
      Mr. Fowler: The hon. Lady is attempting to draw the House into a much wider debate, but I shall try to respond to her comments. The situation is exactly as I stated. The Manpower Services Commission made a unanimous report to me. The tripartite organisation of the commission is all about hammering out proposals which can be put to the Government. I emphasise again that I accepted the commission's proposals in their entirety.
      The hon. Lady has a very heavy burden of guilt to bear. She will have to shoulder the burden of guilt if the scheme does not work out, although I do not want to debate that point with her today.
      I could not have done more to demonstrate my willingness to seek the consensus which has been urged upon me than by accepting all the proposals which were put to me. Beyond that, and as a result of the visits to me by the TUC and other authorities, further proposals have been made which I hope will also prove attractive to those organisations. They were set out in my letter to Mr. Norman Willis, general secretary of the TUC. I have made a copy of that letter available to the hon. Lady and one has also been placed in the Library.
      9.15 pm
      As I have said, the Government believe that explicit mention in the Bill of disabled people has some value and will continue to do so. Even more important—I entirely agree with what has been said by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish)—in a Bill, that is a declaratory statement of what we want to do. We want to develop training provision for disabled people to the maximum possible extent, and, given the time that I spent in the DHSS, I hope that no one needs to convince me of the needs that exist and the concern that we should feel.
      The normal entry rules will be relaxed so that any disabled person will be able to benefit from employment training. There will be special financial assistance for training disabled people, just as there is in the YTS, which will help towards the costs of, for instance, adapting premises and special equipment. We are also allowing supplementary grants for sponsors, which will be available to cover the higher costs in general of training groups such as the disabled.
      I guarantee the hon. Gentleman that we shall do everything in our power to help further. Any programme has to evolve, but I hope that we are showing our commitment to the future.
      I am of course aware of the report by the Public Accounts Committee on employment assistance for disabled adults. We have put in hand a review within the

      285
      Department of the policies and programmes that we support for disabled people in employment, which will take full account of the conclusions reached by the PAC and which will be completed as quickly as possible during the current year. I also note the welcome given in paragraph 35 of the report to the
      "considerable measures that the Department of Employment and the MSC have already put in hand in the six months following the publication of the National Audit Office report."
      We shall certainly try to take that as far as we can.
      There is nothing between us on the subject of ethnic minorities. Although it is not included in the Bill as such, we want and expect the maximum provision for them. Section 37 of the Race Relations Act 1976, for instance, allows training providers to take positive action on behalf of ethnic-minority groups, and I hope that the references that we have made to that will be taken into account. We have already announced that we will seek to allow the Training Commission to make full use not only of section 37 but of any other means open to us.
      One of the criteria for achieving approved training organisation status will be the active pursuit of equal opportunities. In seeking to reach the highest possible standard in training, we have now reached a point at which people must have approval. The programme for approved training organisation status, which, for example, the YTS has at present, will also apply to employment training. I repeat that one of the criteria for achieving such status will be the active pursuit of equal opportunities. Again, if there is anything further that the Government can do in that respect, I should be happy to consider it.
      I underline that I have accepted the commission's view that the scheme should be voluntary. I do not intend to designate it as an approved training. My aim and intent is that trainees should be attracted to the programme by its quality and relevance. If people have doubts about that—although I cannot see why they should have such doubts—I hope that they will realise that if they are members of the Manpower Services Commission involved in employment training, they can ensure that the voluntary nature remains part of the programme, as I intend.
      Ms. Short: The Minister knows that the voluntary nature of the scheme is very important. He has said that he has no plans and that it is not his intent. Will he say now that he will not designate the scheme under clause 26 in the lifetime of this Parliament? If he says it, we shall know that he means it.
      Mr. Fowler: We have had this debate time and again. I do not think that it is sensible to set down artificial time limits, because that implies that after a certain time we shall be into the approved argument and the whole scheme will become compulsory. That is neither my intent nor is it my approach. The aim of the scheme is to attract people to it. It is a voluntary scheme. Members of the Manpower Services Commission have not just the right but the absolute power to check that that is the case.
      Mr. Riddick: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Fowler: No. I should like to get on.
      Payment to trainees is an important point, and I hope that I can help the hon. Gentleman. Trainees will receive a training allowance. Obviously that training allowance
      286
      will be adjusted to their circumstances through their entitlement to benefit. In other words, we are aiming to ensure a position in which no one is worse off when taking part in the training programme than they would be on benefit.
      That is not so important for young people. It means that for the first time we can bring into the programme families with children who have greater entitlement. That is recognised by a whole range of organisations. The training allowance will provide a lead of £10 to £12 a week more than benefit entitlement. It will also provide travel expenses over £5 a week and lodging costs for training away from home. It will provide assistance to meet the cost of special clothing and tools and child-care costs of up to £50 a week per child for lone parents. I shall return to that as a separate issue. Trainees will not be liable to income tax or national insurance contributions and those on income support will be entitled to the passport benefits which go with social security. In any event, that is a substantial package which will ensure that everyone on the new programme will be better off than they would be if they were simply on benefit.
      Additional payment can be made by training managers or employers without affecting the trainee's allowance. The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) mentioned DHSS rules which allow voluntary payments of up to £5 a week. That certainly can be done.
      In addition, items such as special clothing, travel costs and subsidised meals can be provided by training managers or employers if they so wish. The importance of that would be, for example, if a trainee manager or employer decided that the £5 of travel costs which are not covered needed to be covered, it would he entirely in their power to do that without it having any impact whatever on the trainee. Therefore, that can be covered, as can the cost of meals.
      In addition, we shall provide a system of training bonuses which will be paid to trainees on the basis of their successful completion of the training programme and for obtaining vocational qualifications. The bonuses will range between £50 and £200. The MSC, with Government funds, will contribute on a pound for pound basis. We have come a long way to seek to satisfy some of the legitimate anxieties that people have about the programme. I hope that our movement will be recognised by those who make the decisions.
      On the eligibility of special groups, the current level of provision will be maintained in the new programme—that is for disabled people, women returning to the labour force, people whose first language is not English and ex-offenders. Those groups will be able to enter the programme without meeting the normal eligibility requirements of six months' registered unemployment.
      Single parents, like other people, will be eligible for the new programme if they have been registered as unemployed for at least six months, and the child care costs of all single parents on the new programme of up to £50 a week per child will be paid, again as recommended by the MSC. I have decided to go beyond the MSC proposals. There should also be additional arrangements whereby single parents, all of whose children are in full-time education and who have received income support on DHSS order books for at least six months, should also be eligible for the programme. All such single parents entering the programme will qualify for child-care allowances.

      287
      It is perfectly fair for the hon. Lady to say that that only goes part of the way. But we have now not only accepted the MSC proposals, but gone beyond them with our proposals on finance. On all these schemes and programmes, the start is not necessarily how they will end up for all time. However, the start that we have made on child-care allowances is innovative and, even given reservations, I hope that it will be welcomed as a substantial step towards what many people on both sides require.
      I have strayed rather wide of the amendment, but these are important issues which I wanted to put before the House before important decisions are taken.
      Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]
      Lords amendment No. 33 agreed to.

    Clause 33

      SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
      Lords amendment: No. 34, in page 31, line 23, leave out "Part I of this Act" and insert
      "Sections 1 to 16 and 18 to 22 above"
      Mr. Nicholls: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This amendment modifies the provisions for commencement set out in clause 33. It means that clause 17 will come into effect on Royal Assent rather than, as was originally provided, on a day appointed by the Secretary of State. Clause 17 has no substantive effect in itself. It enables the Secretary of State to issue and bring into force codes of practice for certain purposes after following the statutory requirements on consultation and parliamentary approval contained in section 3 of the Employment Act 1980. As with the provisions of part II of the Bill, which are also to be brought into effect on Royal Assent, it is an enabling provision. The amendment does not modify the need for the Secretary of State to satisfy the requirements of section 3 of the Employment Act 1980 in respect of consultation or parliamentary approval before the issue of any code under the clause. The amendment therefore avoids any necessity for delay in undertaking the required process of consultation with ACAS and the publication of a draft code, so that representations can be made. I therefore commend it to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 35 to 38 agreed to.

    Schedule 3

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Lords amendment: No. 39, in page 38, line 38, leave out
      "In subsection (8) of section 5 of the Employment Act 1980"
      and insert
      "In section 2 of the Employment Act 1980 (secret ballots on employers' premises)—

      (a) in subsection (1), at the end there shall be inserted the words 'unless the ballot is one in which every person who is entitled to vote must be given a convenient opportunity to vote by post.'; and

      (b) in subsection (9), at the end there shall be inserted the words; and in this section "post" has the same meaning as in Part I of the Trade Union Act 1984.'

      (2) In section 5 of that Act—
      (a) in subsection (8)".
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Nicholls: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take Lords amendment No. 40.
      Mr. Nicholls: The first amendment is a substantive one. It simply ensures that statutes are not inconsistent. Section 2 of the 1980 Act provides that where an independent trades union proposes to hold a relevant ballot and requests an employer to permit his premises to be used for the purposes of giving his workers who are members of the union a convenient opportunity to vote in the ballot, the employer shall, subject to certain conditions, comply with that request so far as is reasonably practicable.
      Both union executive election ballots and political fund review ballots qualify as relevant. Employers can therefore be required to make their premises available for voting in such ballots. Clause 13 requires executive election and political fund ballots to be held only by the fully postal method. The substantive amendment accordingly removes a source of potential conflict between the 1980 Act and the Bill by removing any entitlement to use an employer's premises where ballots have to be held by the fully postal method.
      The other amendment is entirely consequential and reorders paragraph 3 of schedule 3 so as to make room for the amendment. I commend it to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 40 and 41 agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 42., in page 39, line 25, leave out
      "section 2(5) of that Act"
      and insert
      "section 2 of that Act—
      (a) in subsection (5)".
      Mr. Cope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take Lords amendment No. 43.
      Mr. Cope: These amendments are about balloting for union officers and other similar matters when some of the union members are overseas. The unions will be free to choose whether to ballot overseas members, as they do at present. The trade union Act 1944 and the Bill do not provide, however, for safeguards in voting to apply to overseas votes.
      When we were dealing with workplace ballots, that was all very well. Now we need to provide for postal ballots. The amendments ensure that where a union enfranchises its overseas members they must use a voting paper and vote by post, and be able to do so without interference and without cost where that is practicable. Of course, they must be able to have their votes counted fairly and accurately.
      The clauses concerning independent scrutiny and election addresses which we discussed earlier will apply automatically where overseas members are enfranchised. The amendments do not detract from the union's freedom of choice but simply ensure that, where overseas members can vote, they are treated in the same way as their counterparts in Great Britain. I commend the amendments to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 43 to 48 agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No.49, in page 40,line 11, leave out "and".
      Mr. Cope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendment No. 52.
      Mr. Cope: For reasons at which I can only guess, these amendments were thought by some Opposition Members in the other place to be sinister. In fact, they are boringly technical and simply clarify the original intention of the Government.
      The amendments concern the effect of the provisions about national union elections on those who are shortly to retire. The basic principle is that those who hold office as a result of a postal ballot or of a statutory election under the Trade Union Act 1984 can do so without a new election if they are due to retire within five years. Another part of the Bill provides that those who hold office at the time of the commencement of the provisions can continue without a new ballot for two years.
      Obviously the decisions about the length and application of the time limits are a matter of judgment, but I do not think that they are unreasonable. However, they were, and to some degree still are, expressed in the Bill by means of amendments to schedule 8 to the 1984 Act. The question hinges on when sections 2 and 3 of that Act apply. The Bill, as it was originally drafted, was undoubtedly difficult to follow and the amendments help to clarify the position. I commend them to the House.
      Mr. Strang: I cannot accept the casual explanation that the Minister has given for the Lords amendments, particularly Lords amendment No. 52. It makes an important change to the provisions requiring certain trade union officials to stand for election and it is our submission that the amendment has been tabled to require particular trade union leaders to stand for election. I shall seek to expand on that. However, in the 17 years or so during which I have had the privilege to be a Member of the House I have never come across a more petty and vindictive approach to such matters.
      Let us go back to the beginning. Our view—we have made it clear consistently throughout the deliberations on the Bill, starting from Second Reading—is that the question of which officers of a trade union, whether the principal executive committee—which is usually elected anyway—the general secretary, the president or whoever, should be elected by a ballot of all members is one that should be for the union members to decide.
      The rules of our unions have evolved over many years and they are based on what the members of the various unions believe is the best approach for their circumstances. I defend again the right of any union to appoint a general secretary, to regard a general secretary as primarily a senior administrator and to want a relationship with a general secretary that makes it clear that the authority on the executive lies with the elected lay members of the executive and that the general secretary is there to carry out its decisions. Many unions take the view—I am not saying that one approach is better than another—that that clarity of decision-making and that clarity in the
      290
      relationship between the senior official and the union is best served by having an appointed general secretary who is answerable to the elected lay members of the executive.
      To a certain extent, that was done away with by the 1984 Act when the Government required that all voting members of executives should be directly elected. If the Government were determined to intervene—wholly unreasonably—in these matters and were determined to draw a distinction, that would be the best distinction to make. It is obvious to all trade unions that if members are to have a vote on the executive under the 1984 Act, they have to be elected, and if they do not have a vote they do not have to be elected.
      We have only to read the Green Paper, which was the precursor to this Bill, to know that in the Government's view the decision of one trade union, the National Union of Mineworkers, to alter its rules to enable the president to give up his vote on the executive and thus avoid election meant that there was some loophole in the provisions. We do not accept that. The NUM was simply coming into line with the laws that the Government had introduced and in no way should that have been seen as the union somehow cocking a snook at the Government.
      In response to that, quite unreasonably, the Government brought forward the provisions in this Bill that would require that the president of the NUM and many other unions, and the general secretaries, would have to be elected, regardless of whether they had a vote on the executive. That was a quite monstrous intrusion, we believe, in the affairs of the union, and was wholly unjustified. However, the Government having virtually admitted that this provision had been brought forward as a consequence of the decision of the NUM to create a situation in which the general secretary and the president did not have votes on the executive, we duly deliberated on these matters in Committee and on Report.
      The president of the National Union of Mineworkers stood for election during that period. I would say in passing that this was in difficult circumstances, in the aftermath of a very damaging strike for the union. Certainly as portrayed by the mass media in this country, he was seen as something of a villain and, in the course of that campaign, was expected to be the repository of all the blame for what went wrong during the strike. Nevertheless, he won that election decisively.
      It seems quite obvious now that the Government saw that the president of the NUM, having been elected in that way under the legislation as it was then drafted, might not he required to stand for election again. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would clarify this because many people have suggested that part of the motivation for the Lords amendment was to ensure that the president of the NUM was required to stand again. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, and I acknowledge that I do not think that that was the sole purpose of the Lords amendment. What makes it so distasteful, in our view, is that it seems as though the Government looked at the ages of certain general secretaries in the trade union movement and, on the basis of what they saw, decided to amend the retirement provisions. The evidence for that comes from the House of Lords proceedings. I make no apology for referring to this because it is this that leads us to argue that in some sense the Bill is hybrid.
      When Lord Wedderburn asked the Minister, Lord Trefgarne:
      "We may assume that this class"—

      291
      that is, of trade union leaders—
      "has been ascertained by reference to the ages of particular people"—
      a perfectly straightforward question as to whether they had looked at the ages of these general secretaries and decided that they would enact a particular amendment to ensure that they had to be re-elected before their retirement—Lord Trefgarne said:
      "As I understand it, yes."
      Lord Murray, the former general secretary of the TUC, then asked the Minister if he would be so good as to publish the list of the people considered and their ages and say how he had taken the decision whether he wanted some to be elected and not necessarily others. And the Minister said:
      "Perhaps I can reflect upon that request. Off the cuff, I cannot think of any reason why we should not."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 March 1988; Vol. 494, c. 613.]
      Subsequently, the Minister, I presume after having been advised by his civil servants that that was not a point that one should make public in the House of Lords, sought to retract it.
      The Minister will be aware that there are different categories of trade union leaders. Some are elected by postal or workplace ballots. Much depends on whether one is a voting or non-voting member of the executive, on one's age, when one is due to retire and when the provisions are to come into force. It is perfectly clear that instead of trying to be consistent and requiring a group of people to be accountable to their membership, the Government approached the matter in a selective way. As I said earlier, that demeans the parliamentary process.
      If a Labour Government introduced legislation affecting the heads of major companies, I could imagine the furore that there would be if the legislation required certain heads of companies, whose views we did not like, to be subject to certain requirements but not others. I hope that no Government would do that because we should not go down that road, but it shows the sort of comparable action that a Labour Government could take.
      This is an outrageous intrusion into the affairs of trade unions. We want trade unionists to respect their rule books, which have been evolved by generations of trade unionists. Passing these laws will devalue those rules, and that is something of which the Government should be ashamed.
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Winnick: I said earlier that some unions—mainly white-collar unions such as mine—have always appointed their general secretary. The lay executive is the governing body in the absence of annual conference. Every four or five years, my union had a rules revision conference so that any branch could put forward suggestions about changes. It was ironic that on any number of occasions it was, for want of a better phrase, the revolutionary Left that went to the rostrum and said that the general secretary should be elected and not appointed. It was left to me, a humble, modest Left-winger in the mainstream of the trade union movement, to argue that to elect a general secretary would give that person far greater authority than otherwise, and that it would be at the expense of the lay executive. I am glad to say that, without too many difficulties, I was able to persuade conference that the office of general secretary should remain an appointed position.
      The Right-wing Tory Government, with typical impertinence, are telling the trade union movement how to
      292
      go about its business. The election of a general secretary has always been part of some unions' rules. White-collar unions such as mine and the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs, as it was formerly, have taken a different course. Surely it should be left to trade unionists and the rules revision body to decide whether they want to elect the general secretary or whether he should be appointed.
      It is not only the general secretary but any official of a union who regularly attends meetings of the executive council who will be subject to election. There will be much legal ambiguity, to say the least, about who comes within the Act. There will be a few court test cases to decide whether an official should be elected, according to the provisions of the Act, because he may attend the executive council at regular intervals. What a stupid road the Tory Government have gone down.
      Now, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) has pointed out, this latest amendment seeks to ensure that one or two people whom tile Government clearly do not like, such as the president of the NUM, will no longer be exempted for reasons of age, and so on—not that he is frightened of elections because, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, he stood again recently and was elected.
      If we had a Government who believed in their own internal democracy, we could at least say that they practised what they preached, however much we were against what they were doing. But here is a political party that, until 23 years ago, could not even elect its own leader. It was subject to the magic circle. The late lain Macleod wrote an informative and lengthy article on how the then Mr. Alec Douglas-Home became the Prime Minister. He was not the subject of any election. Even now, the chairman of the Conservative party is not subject to election.
      The Tory party conference is more or less run on the same pattern as party congresses in eastern Europe. Here is a political party that does not practise democracy in its own ranks, that has no concern about democracy in the City or in big business—no legislation has come before us to bring any form of elementary democracy into big business or the City—but that has the impertinence to use its majority in the House to pass legislation such as this. This is a vendetta there is no other description for it—against the trade union movement.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East pointed out how a Labour Government could reply in kind. I only wish that when the time comes they do so.
      Mr. Skinner: I have said before in recent weeks that the Government are becoming arrogant and contemptuous of almost everybody in the land. Despite all the sermons that the Prime Minister preaches, we are now seeing that they are prepared to bend the rules and shift the goalposts. They are prepared to do any mortal thing to attack working class people and their representatives or anybody who stands in their way. I can just imagine someone in the Tory party asking, "What is McCluskie's age? Next time we introduce a Bill we shall have to tackle him."
      It crosses my mind, Mr. Speaker, that it is just conceivable—I choose my words carefully—that there might be some mole burrowing away saying, "This Speaker has not been exactly kind to us. I wonder whether we can devise a new rule. I wonder whether we can sort him out." Such is the nature of the Tory Government that

      293
      they will go to any lengths to carry out what my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) described as nothing short of a vendetta.
      Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: Disgraceful.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. This has nothing to do with the Bill.
      Mr. Skinner: I am not one to defend anybody in the Establishment, but when I smell a rat over matters such as this it is worth exposing. I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, that you were able to refer in your programme to the cavalry—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. We are debating the Employment Bill and I am not subject to that.
      Mr. Skinner: I finish on that point, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to draw an analogy between the way in which the Government's collective mind works and anybody who might appear to stand in their way. The Government devise rules to shift them, with the exception of their own people, of course.
      In a few days' time, the Government will not deal out the same treatment to the ex-leader of the Social and Democratic party—the leader of the provos. He will not have rules that will allow him to be chained to the fence. They are bringing in some new rules for him—new rules that will be favourable. There are only three Members of Parliament now, but he will finish up with £53,000-worth of Short money. They are not unhappy about that. Neither are the Social and Liberal Democrats, who never stood in the election and yet will get £180,000.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. We are debating the Lords amendment. That matter has nothing to do with it.
      Mr. Skinner: People outside want to know how the Government are operating and just how far they will go to try to undermine the collective weight of the Labour party by feeding large sums of money to the rag, tag and bobtails who sometimes sit on the Conservative Benches below the Gangway. I shall be referring to that at greater length on another occasion when I oppose the handing out of the money.
      We are witnessing the same vindictiveness as the Government showed when they decided to get rid of the GLC. They said, "What's happening over there across the river? They are causing us some trouble. They want to bring down fares for Londoners. We shall put a stop to that by abolishing the council." They have introduced the same sort of proposals—[HON. MEMBERS: "ILEA."] Yes, the same was true of ILEA. [HON. MEMBERS: "The BBC."] In their dealings with the BBC and all the rest of it the Government have shown arrogance and contempt. There is no end to what they will do to try to stop people—even democratically elected trade union leaders—standing up to them.
      Conservative Members stand need talking about elections and democracy—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) who has just spoken from outside the Chamber—the putative Prime Minister—stands need talking about democracy. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North talked about the chairman of the Tory party being
      294
      appointed by the Prime Minister of the day. The chairman of the Bank of England gets the job because he happens to be "one of us". Every quango chief, including William Rees-Mogg, gets the job because he passes the test. In between writing and preaching sermons, the Prime Minister asks the question, "Is he or she one of us?"—and it is usually a he. If the answer is yes, she says, "He's all right then. Give him the job." But when a trade union leader stands for election, the Government say, "How can we stop him holding that position?" It really stinks in the nostrils that the Tory Government can sink so low and be so contemptible as to twist the rules and shift the goalposts to try to hamper working class people and their representatives.
      I am pleased that Opposition Members are going to march through the Lobbies tonight to vote against this obnoxious measure which started in another place. What a joke that it should have come from the place where 1,100 people can turn up for work on £100 a day tax free while not one of them has stood for election to get into the building. Now they are bending the rules to try to stop people being properly elected. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) is absolutely right. He hit the nail on the head. They burned all that midnight oil looking for ways and means to let us down. We must make sure that when we get back to power we undo all this nonsense.
      Mr. Nicholls: Perhaps I may start by returning to Lords amendments Nos. 49 and 52.
      I may be able to set the mind of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) at rest to some extent. It would be nice if I could do that, bearing in mind the fact that this will probably be our last substantive debate on the Bill. It helps to approach the matter on the basis of those who are presently in scope for the retirement exemptions and those who we want to bring into scope. At the moment voting members of PECs are in scope. If they are there by virtue of a workplace ballot properly conducted under the 1984 Act, they could benefit by the retirement exemption if the provision comes into force within five years of their retiring. That is one category of people, and nothing in the Bill changes that.
      The second category contains those who we would bring into scope. I accept that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East profoundly disagrees with my reasons for bringing them in. However, the people who we wish to bring into scope are non-voting members of the PEC. If they are to benefit by the retirement exemption, their previous election must have been conducted by postal ballot. Ultimately it is inconsistent to say, "They should be entitled to benefit by a workplace ballot, just as voting members did."
      The distinction—it is an absolutely vital distinction—is that those voting members who were returned under a workplace ballot did so in accordance with the Act. Even that workplace ballot had to be properly conducted. In other words, they conducted themselves in accordance with the legislation. Those people who may have decided, even though the Act did not apply to them, that they would nevertheless hold a workplace ballot are literally outside the law. They are not, as it were, complying with the law, because the law does not apply to them in their situation. It would mean, for instance, that in an election which was conducted in that way—not satisfying a requirement of the Act because they were literally outside

      295
      it—no member would have a right of complaint to the certification officer if he considered that ballot defective. What it comes to is that, under the 1984 Act, where workplace ballots took place because they were required to take place—
      It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
      Ordered,
      That, at this day's sitting, the Lords amendments to the Employment Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Maclean.]
      Lords amendments again considered.
      Question again proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Nicholls: It was not just any old workplace ballot that had to be conducted; it had to be conducted in accordance with the Act.
      The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East said in effect that there is perhaps an element of retrospection here; here is a provision which is aimed directly at Arthur Scargill, the president of the National Union of Mineworkers. It is not, because at the moment in no way could Mr. Scargill qualify for the retirement exemption, either as a voting member or, for that matter, a non-voting member, unless he reduces his retirement age. As I understand it, when his present term of office expires, he will still be only 55 years of age. Therefore, the only way that Mr. Scargill could bring himself remotely near this provision is if he decided to reduce his retirement age to bring himself within it. I do not claim to have any understanding of Mr. Scargill's inner mind, but if the hon. Gentleman knows that it was Mr. Scargill's intention throughout to bring himself within the scope of this scheme, I take the hon. Gentleman's point. That would be an entirely different matter. However, as we stand here today, Mr. Scargill does not qualify for the retirement exemption.
      It is remarkable that the hon. Gentleman should feel that we conceived this particular provision to get rid of Mr. Arthur Scargill. If I could pander to the hon. Gentleman's worst suspicions for a moment, why on earth would a Conservative Government want to get rid of Mr. Arthur Scargill? The idea is ludicrous. I dare say that some of my more flippant colleagues would think that it would make far more sense to have an Arthur Scargill preservation society. The idea that Conservative Members have some vested interest in removing Mr. Arthur Scargill from the political scene is a dubious one. It is sad—I say that with all the insincerity that I can muster—that tonight we see a once great political party going into a vote in favour of Mr. Arthur Scargill on a false premise. It will carry as much conviction as a load of turkeys voting for Christmas.
      The opposition to these amendments is completely ill founded. Mr. Scargill does not come within them, unless he wants to bring himself within them by particularly devious means. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will at least acquit us in this matter. The idea that Conservative Members have some interest in removing Mr. Scargill from the scene is bizarre in the extreme.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments No. 50 and 51 agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 52, in page 40, line 16, at end insert
      ";and
      (d) after the said subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      '(5) Where any person holds any such position as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above by virtue of an election held at any time before the coming into force of section 13(2) of the Employment Act 1988 (requirement of postal ballot), section 3 of this Act (non-postal ballots) shall be disregarded in determining for the purposes of that paragraph whether any election is an election in relation to which section 2 of this Act has been satisfied, unless the position to which that person was elected in that election was, at the time of the election, either—

      (a) a position as a voting member of the principal executive committee of a trade union; or

      (b) a position by virtue of election to which the person elected would become such a voting member.—

      Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 246, Noes 185.

      Division No. 326]

      [10.3 pm

      AYES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Alexander, Richard

      Cope, John

      Allason, Rupert

      Couchman, James

      Amess, David

      Cran, James

      Amos, Alan

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Arbuthnot, James

      Curry, David

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

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

      Ashby, David

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Atkins, Robert

      Day, Stephen

      Atkinson, David

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Dicks, Terry

      Baldry, Tony

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Batiste, Spencer

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Dover, Den

      Bellingham, Henry

      Dykes, Hugh

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Evennett, David

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Fallon, Michael

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Farr, Sir John

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Favell, Tony

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Boswell, Tim

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Bottomley, Peter

      Forman, Nigel

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Forth, Eric

      Bowis, John

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Franks, Cecil

      Brazier, Julian

      Freeman, Roger

      Bright, Graham

      French, Douglas

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

      Fry, Peter

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Gale, Roger

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Gardiner, George

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Burns, Simon

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Butcher, John

      Gow, Ian

      Butler, Chris

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Butterfill, John

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Gregory, Conal

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Grist, Ian

      Carttiss, Michael

      Ground, Patrick

      Cash, William

      Grylls, Michael

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Chope, Christopher

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Churchill, Mr

      Hannam, John

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

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

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Harris, David

      Colvin, Michael

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Conway, Derek

      Hayes, Jerry

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      297

      Hayward, Robert

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Riddick, Graham

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Hill, James

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Hind, Kenneth

      Rost, Peter

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Holt, Richard

      Ryder, Richard

      Howard, Michael

      Sackville, Hon Tom

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

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Howells, Geraint

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Shersby, Michael

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Sims, Roger

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Irvine, Michael

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Jack, Michael

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Jackson, Robert

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Janman, Tim

      Speed, Keith

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Speller, Tony

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Squire, Robin

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Stanley, Rt Hon John

      Key, Robert

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Kilfedder, James

      Steen, Anthony

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Stern, Michael

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Stevens, Lewis

      Latham, Michael

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Stokes, John

      Lilley, Peter

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Summerson, Hugo

      Maclean, David

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Mans, Keith

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Maples, John

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Thorne, Neil

      Mills, Iain

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Mudd, David

      Walden, George

      Neale, Gerrard

      Walker, Bill (Tside North)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Wallace, James

      Neubert, Michael

      Ward, John

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Watts, John

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Wheeler, John

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Whitney, Ray

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Page, Richard

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Paice, James

      Wilshire, David

      Patten, Chris (Bath)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Pawsey, James

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Wolfson, Mark

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Wood, Timothy

      Portillo, Michael

      Woodcock, Mike

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Price, Sir David

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Rathbone, Tim

      Mr. Tony Durant and

      Redwood, John

      Mr. David Lightbown.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Battle, John

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Beckett, Margaret

      Allen, Graham

      Beith, A. J.

      Anderson, Donald

      Bell, Stuart

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Ashton, Joe

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Blair, Tony

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Blunkett, David

      Barron, Kevin

      Boateng, Paul

      298

      Bradley, Keith

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Lambie, David

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Lamond, James

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Leighton, Ron

      Buchan, Norman

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Buckley, George J.

      Lewis, Terry

      Caborn, Richard

      Litherland, Robert

      Callaghan, Jim

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      McAllion, John

      Canavan, Dennis

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      McCartney, Ian

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Clay, Bob

      McFall, John

      Clelland, David

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Cohen, Harry

      McLeish, Henry

      Coleman, Donald

      McNamara, Kevin

      Cousins, Jim

      McTaggart, Bob

      Cox, Tom

      McWilliam, John

      Cryer, Bob

      Madden, Max

      Cummings, John

      Marek, Dr John

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Darling, Alistair

      Martlew, Eric

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Maxton, John

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Meale, Alan

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

      Michael, Alun

      Dewar, Donald

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Dixon, Don

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Doran, Frank

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Douglas, Dick

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Morley, Elliott

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Eadie, Alexander

      Mullin, Chris

      Eastham, Ken

      Murphy, Paul

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Nellist, Dave

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

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

      O'Brien, William

      Fisher, Mark

      O'Neill, Martin

      Flannery, Martin

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Flynn, Paul

      Patchett, Terry

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Pike, Peter L.

      Foster, Derek

      Prescott, John

      Foulkes, George

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Fraser, John

      Radice, Giles

      Galbraith, Sam

      Redmond, Martin

      Galloway, George

      Reid, Dr John

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Richardson, Jo

      George, Bruce

      Robertson, George

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Rogers, Allan

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Rooker, Jeff

      Gordon, Mildred

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Gould, Bryan

      Rowlands, Ted

      Graham, Thomas

      Ruddock, Joan

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Salmond, Alex

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Short, Clare

      Grocott, Bruce

      Skinner, Dennis

      Hardy, Peter

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Haynes, Frank

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

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

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

      Henderson, Doug

      Snape, Peter

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Soley, Clive

      Holland, Stuart

      Spearing, Nigel

      Home Robertson, John

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Hood, Jimmy

      Stott, Roger

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Strang, Gavin

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Turner, Dennis

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Wall, Pat

      Illsley, Eric

      Walley, Joan

      Ingram, Adam

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Janner, Greville

      Wareing, Robert N.

      John, Brynmor

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      299

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Wilson, Brian

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Winnick, David

      Mr. Frank Cook and

      Worthington, Tony

      Mr. Ray Powell.

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 53 to 60 agreed to.
      Lords admentment: No. 61, in page 42, line 27, at end insert

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
        The Agricultural Training Board Act /982 (c. 9)
        12A. In section 4(1) of the Agricultural Training Board Act 1982 (power of Board to take part in arrangements in pursuance of the 1973 Act), for the words "section 2(1) or (2), 3(4)" there shall be substituted the words "section 2, 3".

        The Industrial Training Act 1982 (c. 10)
        12B.—(1) In section 5(3)(e) of the Industrial Training Act 1982 (power of industrial training board to take part in arrangements in pursuance of the 1973 Act), for the words "22–23section 2(1) or (2), 3(4)" there shall be substituted the words "section 2, 3".
        (2) In section 15(3) of that Act (directions in pursuance of directions under section 3( 1 )(b) of the 1973 Act), for the words "section 3(1)(b)" there shall be substituted the words "section 2 or 3".
        10.15 pm
        Mr. Nicholls: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
        The amendment is wholly technical. It alters references to the Employment and Training Act 1973, the Agricultural Training Board Act 1982 and the Industrial Training Act 1982 which would otherwise become inactive with the passage of clause 25 of the Bill. I commend it to the House.
        Question put and agreed to.

  Elderly People (Social Security System)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
  10.16 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: It is not pleasant to be frightened and alone. It is even less pleasant when one is old, frightened and alone. In my constituency many people are unfortunately in that situation. The last census informed us that my population was becoming elderly, that young people were being forced to go elsewhere to find jobs, and that some of the difficulties they would face would be associated with long life and failing health.
  It is frightening to approach the situation that we are rapidly approaching in my constituency, with many elderly people being admitted to hospital and being told, "You now have a choice. You need fairly long-term care but it is clear that we cannot provide that within the hospital service." The old people are told, "We suggest that you go into the private sector and seek to find some way of supporting yourself in one of the very pleasant private nursing homes that have grown up since the Government gave very positive encouragement to many people to look on geriatric care as a suitable field for private expansion."
  As a result of the pressure on the Health Service from an elderly and growing population requiring help, the NHS has almost become a system that decants units into suitable storage depots. That is not a suitable or acceptable way of looking at the provision of health care. I get letters almost every day from people who say:
  "It seems there is an almost, Impossible task facing me. Due to the health cuts I have to take a decision on which I have no option. [1. To nurse my very sick husband at home. He is paralysed in both legs and cannot talk or even do anything for himself, after a brain operation. He is doubly incontinent and needs turning 4 times each night. I am told I have the other choice of private care which is going to cost at least £185 per week and, possibly more, as time goes on leaving me with about £20 to live on after I have bought clothes, etc, for my husband—as the funding for this is to be made from his pension, DHSS and private pension."
  That unfortunate woman is herself not very well. Her letter goes on to describe how both she and her husband served in the forces during the war and how they find it unacceptable that, at this point in their lives, this is the solution that they are asked to accept.
  Another of my constituents is in her seventies and has a 38-year-old, severely mentally handicapped daughter whom she has to dress and care for. She has now been told that she must take her mother home to live with her, or alternatively place her in private care. Her mother, who is normally very spry, is blind in one eye and nearly blind in the other. She has a fractured hip but she was kept in hospital for only two days. She subsequently had to be re-admitted and was then sent to another hospital, where she was told that she must move to a private unit.
  Is all that so cruel? The Department of Health and Social Security will say that it assesses every situation and does everything that it can to make the individual comfortable. However, the other side of the equation has been put to me by increasing numbers of those who, taken by the Government's attitude towards the expansion of geriatric care, have themselves set up homes for geriatrics.
  They inform me that the DHSS has now fixed a cut-off point beyond which it will not pay for those in geriatric

  301
  care. One SRN told me of a man suffering from multiple sclerosis who had been in her care for four years. The fees she charged had now reached the level where neither he nor his family could find a way of meeting them, and the DHSS was not prepared to meet them either. The SRN running that home asked me, "What am I expected to do?" She was told that what was important was that she should decide for herself. When she asked if the suggestion was that she should put a man suffering from multiple sclerosis out on to the street, she was told, "If that is the only alternative, that is what you must do."
  In another case, a general practitioner was so deeply incensed that he wrote to me after one of his patients died.
  He said:
  "Whilst he was in hospital in a 'holiday relief' bed, [his] condition deteriorated, and at the end of the fortnight he was therefore unfit to be discharged. [His wife] is herself ill and in any case would not have been able to take him home to look after him. I think the family are relieved, in view of [his] mental state, at what has happened, and I would like to thank you for your efforts on his behalf."
  But the chairman of the health authority had sent a letter saying:
  "I can only presume that [the doctor] has confirmed this is not a case where the patient, for acute reasons, should stay in hospital, but could be looked after at home."
  In his letter, that general practitioner went on to explain in psychiatric terms why he did not share that view, and why he had made clear from the beginning of that patient's treatment the fact that he required constant hospital care, which he could not receive in a private home.
  The reality of geriatric care in my constituency is straightforward. Over the past two years, 36 geriatric beds have been closed—18 in October 1986 and 18 in March 1988. There were 3,139 geriatric admissions in 1986–87 and 3,104 in 1987–88. The continuing pattern of care shows that over the past two years the average length of stay was 23·3 days in 1986–87 and 30·6 days in 1987–88.
  There is now a demand that the local geriatricians and psychogeriatricians should themselves find a way of dealing with the question of organising geriatric care in my constituency. They are told that the easiest way of doing that is to create a trust. When they produced a plan that gave them at least some control over the standards of care in private homes, they were told by the chairman of the regional health authority, Sir Donald Wilson, "That is unfortunate—take it back. It does not rely sufficiently on the private sector."
  Let me say one thing very simply to the Minister. If the Government persist in a policy that deliberately cuts down the numbers of geriatric and psychogeriatric beds in the National Health Service—if they deliberately seek to expand care in the private sector—they must face up to their responsibility in some other way. First, the Department can no longer say to people, "You must be cared for in private homes, but we shall limit the amount that we pay for your stay." They must know that that places on working-class and even middle-class families a burden that many find unacceptable, and with which many are unable to deal. There is no point in saying to someone who may himself be unemployed or low paid and in need of a sufficient boost in his income to achieve a decent standard of living that he must support his aged parent—or, in some cases, both aged parents—in private homes, at a cost that they know that he cannot meet.
  302
  Few people in my constituency can meet a cost of £200 a week if they are to undertake their proper responsibilities. Yet the Department is deliberately not accepting changed plans for geriatric care that would enable such people to be dealt with in the NHS, and at the same time is throwing out any attempt by the geriatricians to ensure that private homes attain a proper standard of care.
  That is a plain, simple and entirely unacceptable policy. In effect, it says to many old people, not only in my constituency—unfortunately this is happening throughout the length and breadth of the United Kingdom—"We are sorry, but you have lived too long. Our form of Christianity says that if you can obtain charity, well done, but if you cannot the state will neither provide you with proper care in the NHS nor support you within the private system over a certain point." That is now happening every day.
  If the Minister has come here tonight with a plain statement that my constituency is to have increased geriatric care, I can only welcome that statement with open arms. But if he has come to reel off a lot of statistics without pointing out that the day-to-day reality for my constituents is an entirely unacceptable decision with which they are unable to deal, I must tell him that, along with his colleagues in the Conservative party, he bears a heavy burden. They are effectively saying that a nation that can afford with no difficulty to hand back considerable sums to those who already have means intends to treat its old—particularly its sick old—in a way close to barbarism.
  I find that a sad commentary on a democratic country. I find, above all, that my constituents now see the stark reality of Conservative health policy, which is: "To them that have shall be given; to them that have not, there will be no health care in any form."
  10.28 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Portillo): I congratulate the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on obtaining this Adjournment debate, and on speaking at a fairly reasonable hour. I join her in saying that this subject is important. She has broadened her remarks to cover the welfare of the elderly, not merely the issues immediately brought to mind by the title of the debate.
  However, there is a certain inconsistency in some of what she has said. She seemed to attack the encouragement that she said that the Government had given to the expansion of the private sector. At the same time she was attacking the limits paid under income support as being too low.
  Since 1980, first through supplementary benefit and now through income support, it has been very much easier for fees for nursing homes and residential care homes to be met. Of course that has brought about an increase in the number of people in residential care homes or nursing homes who are claiming income support to cover their fees. There has been an enormous increase in the number of claimants who are not well-off, as the hon. Lady seemed to imply. By definition, they are poorly off. For those people a need that could not be met before has been met through supplementary benefit and income support. It has

  303
  given those people choice. They can choose the place where they go to live with the taxpayer picking up the burden. Perhaps the hon. Lady should bear that in mind.
  First, I shall deal with some of the issues that are particular to the hon. Lady's constituency and to her health authority. I understand that the Crewe district authority has been considering discharging elderly patients from hospital into the community when they no longer require the level of medical and nursing care normally provided in hospitals. These proposals are still at an early stage. Crewe DHA has been examining a number of options. some of which would involve the NHS building nursing home facilities on NHS land. Thereafter the property would be leased to a private operator. Also under consideration are a number of other options involving use of private or company trusts or use of the voluntary sector. Those options are being examined within the context of national policy, and no decisions have been taken. Crewe DHA is due to meet next on 17 June when this matter will be given further consideration.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I should not like to accuse the Minister's Department of misleading him, because I am sure that that is what it has been told. The reality is that it was suggested that a private home should be built on an NHS site. That plan was set up in such a way that geriatricians would be able to control the level of care. That plan has been turned down by the regional health authority which said that there is not sufficient private involvement. If it meant by that that the geriatricians should have no say in the standards of care, it is better that the Minister understands that and makes it public.
  Mr. Portillo: I heard the hon. Lady say that during her speech and I raised an eyebrow at the time. I shall tell her what I understand the situation to be.
  The proposals made by the DHA are very complex and need to be considered with care. The recent Public Accounts Committee report on community care readily acknowledged that patients should not be tranferred into the community until appropriate services are in place. There are legal problems where health authorities have set up trusts or joint arrangements with voluntary bodies or housing associations to house patients discharged from long-stay hospitals. These problems arise from the fact that health authorities are not allowed to charge, and must provide the care free. Legal problems arise where there are intimate connections between health authorities and privately provided care and living facilities.
  Last autumn we asked health authorities to hold back on proposals for any new schemes on those lines where they were at the planning stage while we gathered information on the extent of such schemes, clarified the legal position and considered the long-term expenditure implications of any switch in services from a cash-limited Health Service budget to a demand-led social security budget. We are now giving urgent consideration to the way forward. Obviously Sir Roy Griffiths' report will be an important consideration.
  In my opening remarks I referred to the extent to which the provision of support has risen, first through supplementary benefit and now through income support. When people cannot afford fees in private or voluntary homes they can get help from income support, and the spending on that has increased considerably from £10 million in 1979 to well over £500 million today.
  304
  The hon. Lady is looking impatient because she said that she did not want to hear any statistics, but the statistics are about a very large number of people with almost no resources of their own who are now being helped by the taxpayer to live and to be cared for in residential care and nursing homes, and that is a very important factor.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Minister please answer the point? In my constituency—he can come and visit it any time he likes—people are told that there are no NHS beds and that they must go into private care. But they cannot afford to pay the sum, even with income support or anything else with a fancy name for handing out charity. That is happening day after day, and talking about billions of pounds does not change that for anyone.
  Mr. Portillo: That is not true. Talking about billions of pounds changes the position for many more than the 100,000 people who are receiving their care in that way. The situation has arisen under this Government because before 1980 these fees were not available on supplementary benefit. It is nonsense for the hon. Lady to talk as though the help was insignificant.
  I am not arguing that the social security arrangements are perfect, but the hon. Lady will recognise that some sort of limit needs to exist. She seemed to accept that point when she said that she disapproved of the expansion of the private sector. Where income support pays the fees of people in private homes, whether residential care or nursing homes, she presumably wishes to see a decent standard of care, that the charges are reasonable and that the amounts that the DHSS is willing to pay are suitable to reasonable, average charges throughout the country, and so they are. We base the amounts that we allow on research into the costs and charges that various homes make.
  We introduced those national limits in 1985 because we wanted a coherent approach. There are now national limits for a range of categories of residential care homes and, similarly, nursing homes. Many of these limits have risen sharply in recent years. For example, in residential care homes the limit for elderly people is £130 and for those who are very dependent £155. Those figures represent increases of 18 per cent. and 41 per cent. over the 1985 limits, well in excess of inflation over the period. Again, people are being provided for in that way.
  We are always willing to listen to the views of hon. Members and the public on this, but we keep these limits under careful review. That has been demonstrated by the fact that several limits were raised again in April 1988. Health and local authorities have the power and duty to meet high care needs, and they are often best placed to judge these. The question that arises is whether people are suitably placed. Although the national limits are tailored to care categories, they cannot respond to the infinite variations of individual needs. That matter is discussed in the PAC report published last week.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Minister please listen to what he is saying? Will he tell me why there are insufficient beds in the NHS, and why the Government have encouraged the expansion of private care and now refuse to pay for it? The Government must either provide care under the NHS where it belongs or justify how they treat people in the private sector. They cannot have it both ways.
  Mr. Portillo: I would perhaps listen to myself more carefully if the hon. Lady was not making so much noise in my speech. She pointed to the plans of the Crewe DHA to discharge patients into new set-ups that it is planning. I have already addressed that issue in saying that it raises complex issues which need to be considered, and for the moment we have said that health authorities should sit on such plans until we have been able to resolve those issues.
  At the same time there is this large expansion in the private and voluntary care sector, about which the hon. Lady seems to be confused. On the one hand she is denouncing it as a bad thing and on the other saying that the limits seem to be set too low. Those two attitudes cannot be consistent. We believe that people are on the whole appropriately placed under the present system, but that is something on which we do considerable research. Recent research that was done by the social policy research unit seemed to show that more than 90 per cent. of the people studied needed residential care at the time of admission to homes and two years later. A minority of those in the sample were admitted to homes directly from the community, and were found to have lesser needs at the outset, although there was no difference between them and the rest of the sample by the time of the survey. Those are not conclusive results, but again I believe that they show that the care packages that are available on the whole suit the needs of people.
  Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: If the Minister is going to talk about the SPRU report and the Public Accounts Committee report on community care that was issued last week, would it not give a fuller picture if he also talked about the PAC report, which said that there is not enough community care, that 800,000 people have been let out into the community, and there are not the facilities to cater for them, as my hon. Friend says?
  Mr. Portillo: The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) will forgive me if I do not respond to the PAC report, because that would be improper, apart from anything else.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: The Minister has been using it.
  Mr. Portillo: No, I have mentioned the PAC report on two occasions and I have quoted from it, but I have certainly not attempted to respond to it.
  The hon. Member for Redcar and her hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich cannot be in any doubt that the Government are serious about community care because we have devoted much time and effort to studying the subject. The hon. Ladies need to show a little more patience.
  We have recently received the Griffiths report. These are complex issues. I do not think that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich did justice to the complexity of the issues which concern the appropriate level of care for people in the community, the efficiency with which the taxpayer can deliver that care, and the question whether it is best provided to persons in the home, in the voluntary sector, in residential care, in a nursing home or in geriatric beds in the National Health Service.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: That is the best way.
  Mr. Portillo: The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich has not referred to geriatric care in the National Health Service, but she will be perfectly clear about it. That option is in general the most expensive, not least because many of those who are cared for within the NHS are most dependent and require the greatest amount of care. That is a very important factor, but none the less it does not remove the great importance of ensuring that taxpayers' money, whether it is spent via the social security system, through social services or through the NHS, is spent efficiently so that we provide the appropriate level of care for people in whatever context.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: With any luck, they will die!
  Mr. Portillo: In short, I believe that the present arrangement for benefits for those in homes are a good deal better than they have been in the past, particularly given the reforms that were made in 1980. I am open to any suggestions for further improvement, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the characteristic way in which she has made a number of suggestions to us this evening.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

WALES

  Waiting Lists (Gwent)
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what urgent action is now proposed to reduce the waiting lists in Gwent following the meeting with the chairman of Gwent area health authority on 13 May.

  Mr. Grist
  As I announced yesterday, £1 million has been made available to Welsh health authorities under the hospital waiting times initiative in the current financial year. Of this, Gwent health authority has been offered £225,000 to help tackle waiting list problems in trauma and orthopaedic. In addition, Gwent has recently submitted its revised waiting list action plan and in conjunction with Welsh Office officials, it is actively working on its waiting list problems.

  Homeless People
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people were classified as homeless in 1979; and what is the most recent figure.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 16 May 1988]: The numbers of persons accepted as homeless during 1979 and 1987 were 12,698 and 13,345 respectively.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people were classified as homeless in 1979; and what is the most recent figure, excluding the area covered in the valleys initiative.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 20 May 19881]: The number of persons accepted as homeless in districts other than those which are in the valleys initiative area, during 1979 and 1987 were 8,755 and 9,817 respectively. The valley initiative programme launched during 1986 includes the following districts: Blaenau Gwent, Merthyr Tydfil, Cynon Valley, Rhondda, Ogwr, Lliw Valley, Torfaen and Islwyn.

  Housing Statistics
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many housing starts there were in 1979; and what is the most recent figure;

  (2) how many housing completions there were in 1979; and what is the most recent figure.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 16 May 1988]: A total of 11,426 dwellings were started during 1979 compared with 10,665 during 1987. A total of 11,265 dwellings were completed during 1979 compared with 9,254 during 1987.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many houses in Wales were built before 1919.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 18 May 1988]: There were 440,000 dwellings in Wales at 31 December 1987 which were built before 1919.
  100
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many Welsh pensioners are living in houses classified as unfit to live in.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 16 May 19881]: In 1986 there were 46,800 persons of pensionable age in Wales living in dwellings classified as unfit.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many Welsh pensioners are living in houses classified as unfit to live in, excluding the area covered in the valleys initiative.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 20 May 1988]: In 1986 there were 32,800 persons of pensionable age in Wales excluding the local authorities covered by the valleys initiative, living in dwellings classified as unfit. The valleys initiative programme launched during 1986 includes the following districts: Blaenau Gwent, Merthyr Tydfil, Cynon Valley, Rhondda, Ogwr, Lliw Valley, Torfaen, Islwyn.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many houses in Wales, excluding the area covered in the valleys initiative, lack(a) one or more basic amenity, (b) an inside toilet and (c) a fixed bath;

  (2) how many houses in Wales are classified as unfit to live in excluding the area covered in the valleys initiative.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 20 May 1988]: In 1986 in Wales, excluding the local authorities covered by the valleys initiative, there were 31,700 dwellings lacking one or more basic amenity, 12,500 dwellings lacking a WC inside the dwelling, 11,000 dwellings lacking a fixed bath or shower and 57,100 dwellings classified as unfit. The valleys initiative launched during 1986 includes all of the following districts: Blaenau Gwent, Merthyr Tydfil, Cynon Valley, Rhondda, Ogwr, Lliw Valley, Torfaen and Islwyn.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many houses in Wales are classified as being seriously in need of repair, excluding the area covered in the valleys initiative.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 20 May 1988]: In 1986 there were 90,300 dwellings in Wales classified as being in serious disrepair (that is, with repair costs of £3,000 or more), excluding the local authorities covered by the valleys initiative. The valleys initiative programme launched during 1986 includes the following districts: Blaenau Gwent, Merthyr Tydfil, Cynon Valley, Rhondda, Ogwr, Lliw Valley, Torfaen and Islwyn.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many housing starts there were in 1979; and what is the most recent figure, excluding the area covered in the valleys initiative;

  (2) how many housing completions there were in 1979; and what is the most recent figure, excluding the area covered in the valleys initiative.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 20 May 1988]: The number of dwellings started in the districts other than those which are covered by the valleys initiative area, during 1979 and 1987 were 9,614 and 9,183 respectively. The number of dwellings completed for the same districts and years were 9,496 and 7,848. The valleys initiative launched during 1986 includes all of the following districts: Blaenau Gwent, Merthyr Tydfil, Cynon Valley, Rhondda, Ogwr, Lliw Valley, Torfaen and Islwyn.

  Synthetic Index
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how the synthetic index which ranks the regions of Europe in order of the intensity of their problems is calculated with regard to Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  [holding anwer 23 May 1988]: The method of calculation of the synthetic index which forms part of the 3rd periodic report published by the European Commission (COM(87)230 final) is described at annex 2.3.1-D of the report. It is applied to level II regions; statistical information is made available by the United Kingdom Government, but the calculation of the index is entirely the responsibility of the Commission.

ENERGY

  Electricity (Privatisation)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what amount has been provisionally committed for publicity and advertising purposes in the forthcoming privatisation of the electricity industry.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  At present no provisional commitments have been made for these purposes.

  Oil-based Muds
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has any plans to seek to tighten the criteria presently applied for the use of oil-based muds in the North sea.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The Government are at present seeking to reduce pollution in the North sea by limiting the quantities of oil discharged into the sea associated with cuttings from wells drilled using oil-based muds. On the United Kingdom continental shelf steps are already being taken by the oil industry to reduce the extent of pollution from this source.

  Liverpool
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Liverpool.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I visited the Merseyside Council for Voluntary Services on 12 February to show my support for the community insulation project which it sponsors under the community programme. This project, known as "Keep Warm", has now draughtproofed over 2,500 homes of pensioners and low-income households in Liverpool. I was impressed by the enthusiasm of the sponsors of the project, and the success that they have achieved. I have since been in correspondence with the Merseyside Council for Voluntary Services about the points it raised with me during this visit.

  North Sea Employees
  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has on the extent to which certain operators in the North sea oblige employees to bear the financial cost of health, safety and survival training for working offshore.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I am aware of only one instance where a contractor in the North sea obliged his employees 102
  to bear the financial cost of survival and fire-fighting training courses for working offshore. I understand that the contractor ceased this practice in 1986.

  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has on the extent to which certain employees working on North sea oil platforms are not being paid two weeks' leave pay in accordance with the work practice of two weeks off and two weeks on.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I understand that it is not uncommon in the offshore contracting industry for employees to be paid only for the weeks in which they work.

  Plutonium (Transport)
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central of 11 May,Official Report, column 110, he will list the agencies other than the police which are to be involved directly or indirectly, in the physical protection of plutonium transported from Sellafield to Japan.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  For security reasons it would not be prudent to add to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member on 11 May 1988 at column 110.

PRIME MINISTER

  Basingstoke
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Prime Minister when she last paid an official visit to Basingstoke.

  The Prime Minister
  I have not recently visited Basingstoke.

  Denmark
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next expects to pay an official visit to Denmark.

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

  Land Statistics
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will ensure that all Government Departments publish details of vacant, dormant, derelict and underutilised land in their possession.

  The Prime Minister
  Details of unused and underused land in the ownership of Government Departments in England and Wales are currently entered on the registers of such land maintained by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Wales. These registers are available for inspection by the public.

  Following the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Enviroment on 7 March that public bodies would themselves publish information about unused and underused land they own, similar publication of information by Government Departments is under consideration.

  Northern Region
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next expects to pay an official visit to the northern region.
  103
  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  Avon
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next intends to pay an official visit to Avon.

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

  Engagements
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 May.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 May.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 May.

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

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Procedure Committee
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Lord President of the Council which reports of the Procedure Committee in the 1983–87 Parliament have yet to be debated.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies given to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 25 April at columns 17–18 and to my hon. Friend, the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) on 30 March at columns 521–24.

  Parliamentary Pensions
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when the TSRB report on parliamentary pensions is to be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  During the passage of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1987 there was a feeling among some Members of the House that the time had come for a review of certain features of the parliamentary pension scheme. In my written answer of 24 July at column 502, I explained that I had, therefore, invited the TSRB to review aspects of the scheme, the pensions of the Prime Minister, the Speaker and the Lord Chancellor, and ministerial severance pay. The report was published today and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House. I would like to thank the review body for the time and effort it has devoted to these issues.

  The TSRB recommends revised early retirement arrangements under which a full accrued pension would be payable from a "pensionable age" of between 60 and 65, depending on length of service at the date of leaving the House. When the pension is brought into payment before the pensionable age it would be subject to an abatement, to be calculated on a broadly actuarial basis. The TSRB also recommends that the death in service gratuity should be two years' salary. We will be consulting the trustees of the parliamentary pension scheme on these and the other recommendations affecting the scheme itself, including the
  104
  suggestion that the holders of the office of Prime Minister and Speaker be allowed to participate in it. Depending on the outcome of those consultations, the Government would expect to lay before the House regulations under the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1987.

  The remaining recommendations, and that proposing that the Speaker and Prime Minister be allowed to participate in the parliamentary scheme, will require legislation to amend the Parliamentary and other Pensions Acts. We will bring this forward in due course.

  We accept the TSRB's recommendations that the holders of the offices of Prime Minister, Speaker and Lord Chancellor should be entitled to pensions of half final salary, that the cap on pensions increases payable to former office holders should be removed and the recommendations on ministerial severance pay. We propose that these arrangements should apply after the necessary Bill has received Royal Assent.

  Opposition Parties (Financial Aid)
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if his review of the scheme for financial assistance to Opposition parties has been completed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  A comprehensive review of the scheme for financial assistance to Opposition parties, or "Short" money, the first since it was introduced in 1975, has now been completed, and I intend to table shortly the necessary motions, embodying a number of proposed changes to the present resolution.

  In particular, it is proposed that the existing separate arrangements, which pre-date the introduction of "Short" money, whereby certain office equipment, postal facilities and stationery, are provided for the official Opposition out of departmental Votes shall be brought to an end. The current arrangements for the employment of four officially paid staff in the official Opposition Whips' Office would however, remain unaltered.

  It is also proposed, following discussion with the Opposition parties, that certain detailed changes should be made in the accounting procedures for these funds; in particular, that an independently certified statement should in future be made annually on behalf of the entitled parties that the amounts claimed have been expended on purposes in accordance with the resolution of the House.

  The review has also taken account of the recommendation made by the Top Salaries Review Body (report No. 24) for a similar "Short-type" scheme to be introduced in the House of Lords. The Government agree, in principle, that such assistance should be provided. Whilst, therefore, it is not proposed to establish a separate scheme for the House of Lords, it will be recommended that the amounts made available under this scheme to Opposition parties should in future be on the understanding that a substantial part of that assistance will be allocated to their work in that House.

  In the light of these proposed changes in the scope of the scheme, and the rises in relevant costs since the formula for calculating the amounts payable to entitled parties was last approved by the House, it is proposed that the new annual amounts payable under this scheme shall he based on £2,550 for each seat won by the qualifying party at the last general election plus £5·10 for every 200 votes. This new formula represents a rise of 70 per cent. in the formula approved for the existing scheme in 1985, but is not, of

  105
  course on a comparable basis. The new arrangement would be backdated to the date of the last general election, and is on the basis that there will be no further rise during this Parliament. It is further proposed that, in so far as the eligibility for assistance under the terms of the existing resolution is related to parties as they stood at the last general election, exceptional provision shall be made for the allocation of financial assistance to the Social and Liberal Democratic party and the present Social Democrat party, relating to their existing parliamentary membership.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Biwaters Project (Malaysia)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 31 March, Official Report, column 599, whether the Coopers and Lybrand/Sir William Halcrow and Partners value-for-money check contains figures other than Biwaters own published specifications.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The value for money study provided a detailed review of costings supplied by the Biwater group and was based on the group's own costings and those of its prospective suppliers and sub-contractors.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Overseas Development Administration, when considering grant/aid for Biwaters' Malaysia project, took into account the findings of the contemporaneous Nigerian inquiry into similar equipment under Mr. Justice Awoniyi.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I refer the hon. Lady to the answer my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave her on 26 April at columns 95–96. The Nigerian Government did not accept the recommendations of the commission of inquiry.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the cost comparisons with other plant of similar purpose and capacity contained in the Coopers and Lybrand/Sir William Halcrow and Partners value-for-money check on Biwaters' Malaysia project.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  No. The report contains commercially confidential information.

  Overseas Aid
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the gross public expenditure on overseas aid in 1987.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  In 1987 gross public expenditure on overseas aid totalled £1,283 million.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Weapons Control (EC Proposal)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the European Commission's proposal for a directive on the control of the acquisition and possession of weapons (COM (87) 383 FINAL).
  106
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) on 14 January at column 352.

  Jury Service
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to strengthen the rights of people who because of conscientious objection do not wish to take part in jury service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Lord Chancellor have received a number of representations on this issue and are considering them.

  Coach Parking, Westminster
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will request the Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis to consider whether the parking of coaches opposite Parliament and the consequential congestion is consistent with the Sessional Order requiring the passage through the streets to be kept free and open.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I am advised by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the parking restrictions prohibit coaches from parking in the area referred to by my hon. Friend, but that they do allow coaches to stop to set down and pick up passengers. Traffic wardens are deployed to prevent coaches from parking and to limit the number of coaches stopping at any one time. The police prevent coaches stopping when this causes difficulties; for example, during lobbies of Parliament.

  Tactical Aid Unit (Merseyside)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Merseyside as to the purpose and functions of the tactical aid unit and for the reason for the uniform it adopts while in action; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Merseyside police tactical aid unit comprises police firearms instructors and other officers with experience and expertise in the use of firearms and firearms tactics. The unit provides a small specialist firearms team to deal with operations such as entry and search of premises where the subject is known or believed to be armed; siege situations; armed surveillance in support of the CID; and the destruction of dangerous animals. Members of the unit are routinely engaged on other police duties and are called upon as and when their specialist skills are required. The unit is not limited to a uniformed role but is able to respond in a manner appropriate to the circumstances of a particular operation.

  Entry Clearance Applications
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the current delay in inquiries being made into entry clearance applications being referred to the United Kingdom for further inquiry; what proposals he has to increase staff who are undertaking such inquiries; and what proposals he has to expedite inquiry reports being submitted to overseas post.
  107
  Mr. Renton
  The time taken to make inquiries into entry clearance applications referred by overseas posts to the Home Office depends on the individual nature of the case, in particular whether an interview is needed. Entry clearance inquiries are an integral part of the work of the immigration department and are taken into account in determining staffing levels. Further, the recent immigration rules changes were designed to reduce the burden of routine work and thus to release resources to enable staff to deal more speedily with the other aspects of their work, including entry clearance referrals.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many entry clearance applications have been referred to him for inquiries to be made in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years; how many such refusals have been made in 1988 to the latest available date; how many immigration officers are involved full-time with such inquiry work; what is the minimum and maximum delay in arranging interviews currently; and what is the current minimum and maximum time taken between a case being referred to his Department and reports being received by the appropriate overseas post.

  Mr. Renton
  The information is not available in the form requested. The available information is as follows:

  Entry clearance applications referred to immigration service headquarters for inquiries to be made through local immigration offices:

  Year

  Number

  1983

  2,336

  1984

  2,351

  1985

  2,258

  1986

  2,109

  1987

  2,084

  11988

  1,169

  11 January to 13 May.

  These inquiries represent only part of the duties of immigration officers at the ports involved and no officers are currently employed full-time on entry clearance interviews.

  Arrangements for interviews are made immediately on receipt of the file at most ports although the maximum time at others before these arrangements can be made is up to a month.

  Immigration
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many immigrants have been admitted for settlement in the 10 years 1978 to 1987; what is his best estimate of the number likely to be admitted over the years 1988 to 1997; what estimate has been made of the cost to public funds of providing housing, school and hospital places to meet this influx; and what budgetary provision has been made to meet it.

  Mr. Renton
  The numbers persons subject to immigration control who were accepted for settlement in the United Kingdom in each of the last 10 years is as follows:

  Number

  1978

  72,330

  1979

  69,670

  1980

  69,750

  1981

  59,060

  108

  Number

  1982

  53,870

  1983

  53,460

  1984

  50,950

  1985

  55,360

  1986

  46,820

  1987

  45,980

  There is no estimate made of the numbers of likely to be granted settlement in the next 10 years or of the costs or contributions to public funds which might result from this component of the total likely change in the population of the United Kingdom over that period.

  Plans for the provision of housing, school and hospital places take into account overall changes in population, including estimates of net migration. These are the subject of projections produced by the Government Actuary's Department (national figures) and by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys with the Department of the Environment (for local authorities).

  Neighbourhood Watch Schemes
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of producing the Home Office research unit's study of neighbourhood watch schemes by Professor Rosenbaum published on 16 May.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 23 May 1988]: Professor Rosenbaum contributed a chapter to a book entitled "Communities and Crime Reduction." This followed his contribution at an open conference in 1986 on crime prevention. This book was produced by the Home Office research and planning unit and published by HMSO on 16 May. A copy has been placed in the Library. He was not paid a fee and the cost to the Home Office was nil.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Durham County Council
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from Durham county council and other interested parties about its inability to meet its obligations through Government spending restrictions.

  Mr. Dunn
  My right hon. Friend has received representations from the Durham local education authority about the level of its education prescribed expenditure allocations for 1987–88 and 1988–89. The criteria used for determining those allocations are designed to ensure that all LEAs receive fair and equitable treatment and that none should find itself unable to fulfil its statutory obligations.

  Glasgow and Edinburgh Universities (Veterinary Colleges)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list in the Official Report the names and status of those University Grants Committee members who visited the veterinary colleges of Glasgow and Edinburgh universities during the week beginning 16 May.

  Mr. Jackson
  In its review of veterinary education, the UGC is being advised by a committee of six experts
  109
  chaired by Sir Ralph Riley, DSc, FRS, former secretary and deputy chairman of the Agricultural and Food Research Council. Only Professor T. A. Douglas, PhD, MRCVS (department of veterinary clinical biochemistry, Glasgow university) is also a member of the UGC. Because of a clash of interests, Professor Douglas did not visit the Glasgow veterinary college. Otherwise, all members of the review group visited both establishments.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what sums in total his Department has allocated for spending on capital, current and other costs of city technology colleges for the current financial year and for 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Overall planned expenditure on the city technology colleges programme is £19 million for the current financial year, £33 million for 1989–90 and £34 million for 1990–91. Future plans will be the subject of review during the year since 1991–92 falls outside the current public expenditure planning period. It is not possible at this stage to provide a breakdown showing capital and recurrent costs separately as this depends on a number of factors including the nature and condition of premises acquired, and the speed at which sponsors' plans are implemented.

  Teachers (Qualifications)
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any proposals to amend the arrangements for granting qualified teacher status in England and Wales.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  After consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales I am today issuing a consultation document proposing new arrangements for granting qualified teacher status in England and Wales.

  I propose to simplify the arrangements governing the employment in England and Wales of teachers from other parts of the United Kingdom and from overseas and to introduce clearer and better arrangements for the entry to teaching of persons with relevant experience and other qualifications who have not completed courses of pre-service training.

  My objectives are to:
  enhance quality by requiring that—except in closely prescribed cases—all those entering teaching by other than the normal initial training route should have demonstrated the necessary knowledge, personal qualities and teaching ability in the classroom before being granted qualified teacher status;
  ensure that the arrangements for granting qualified teacher status are better able to serve the needs of employers;
  reduce significantly the administrative complexity of the present arrangements.

  With certain limited exceptions, primarily for teachers from other parts of the United Kingdom or other parts of the education service, I therefore propose that all entrants to teaching by other than the standard training route should have to have satisfactorily completed a period of service as a licensed teacher and any associated training required by the employer before being eligible for qualified teacher status.

  To secure that appropriate statutory authority exists for the new arrangements as these may be implemented in
  110
  the light of the process of consultation, the Government will table appropriate amendments to the Education Reform Bill now being considered in another place.

  I am also proposing to revoke the regulations providing for a statutory system of probation for teachers. The present system has proved cumbersome and ineffective. It should be the responsibility of the employer to provide support for the beginning teacher, to monitor his performance and, if necessary, to decide that that performance is unsatisfactory.

  Full details of my proposals are set out in the consultation document: copies are being placed in the Libraries of both Houses and in the Vote and Printed Paper Offices. I shall invite replies to the consultation document by mid-October.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Overseas Takeover Bids
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make it his policy to ensure that there is full reciprocity in connection with bids for British companies from companies located overseas which protect themselves by devices such as the weighting of voting rights in order to enable minority shareholders to retain control; if he will investigate the wide variety of such obstacles permitted in the state of Delaware in the United States of America; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  It is the responsibility of the Director General of Fair Trading to consider all aspects of a proposed merger when preparing his advice to the Secretary of State on the question of reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission under the provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973. With regard to inward investment, one consideration that may be relevant in some cases is the extent to which United Kingdom companies have reciprocal freedom to acquire companies based in the home country of the prospective acquirer.

  I am aware of Delaware state takeover law.

  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what consideration he has given to the economic and social implications of business decisions affecting the future of British companies, their shareholders and employees, being transferred to centres offshore and outside the European Community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  As stated in the DTI Blue Paper on mergers policy, issued March 1988, the Government's general attitude towards inward investment is to welcome it, whether it be by acquisition or by direct inward investment.

  Nevertheless, there are instances in which foreign ownership of the United Kingdom company may raise particular concerns, and in such cases the power to make a reference if the proposed merger to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is available. Each case is considered individually on its merits in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973.

  The main consideration in deciding whether to make a reference to the MMC is the effect on competition but other relevant aspects of a case are also taken into account, including wider public interest issues.

  Trade Statistics
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what, for each year since 1975, was the

  Total visible trade

  Percentage changes on previous year (in United States dollar terms)

  Exports

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  Denmark

  France

  Netherlands

  United Kingdom

  United States of America

  Federal Republic of Germany

  Japan

  1975

  2

  13

  14

  6

  14

  9

  1

  0

  1976

  14

  5

  7

  12

  5

  7

  3

  21

  1977

  14

  11

  14

  13

  22

  4

  16

  20

  1978

  20

  18

  20

  15

  22

  20

  20

  21

  1979

  25

  23

  28

  27

  27

  27

  21

  5

  1980

  15

  15

  14

  16

  28

  21

  12

  26

  1981

  -14

  -5

  -9

  -7

  -7

  6

  -9

  17

  1982

  -6

  -4

  -9

  -3

  -5

  -9

  0

  -9

  1983

  -1

  4

  -1

  -1

  -5

  -6

  4

  6

  1984

  0

  -1

  2

  0

  2

  9

  1

  16

  1985

  4

  7

  4

  4

  8

  -2

  7

  4

  1986

  28

  24

  23

  18

  5

  2

  32

  19

  1987

  21

  119

  20

  15

  22

  16

  21

  10

  Imports

  1975

  3

  5

  3

  6

  -1

  -4

  8

  -7

  1976

  15

  20

  19

  13

  5

  26

  18

  12

  1977

  14

  7

  9

  15

  13

  21

  15

  9

  1978

  20

  11

  16

  16

  20

  17

  20

  12

  1979

  25

  25

  31

  27

  31

  20

  31

  39

  1980

  19

  5

  26

  14

  16

  16

  18

  28

  1981

  -14

  -9

  -11

  -14

  -10

  8

  -12

  1

  1982

  -7

  -4

  -4

  -5

  -4

  -7

  -5

  -8

  1983

  -6

  -4

  -9

  -2

  1

  6

  -1

  -4

  1984

  2

  2

  -1

  1

  5

  26

  0

  8

  1985

  1

  10

  4

  6

  4

  6

  4

  -4

  1986

  22

  25

  20

  15

  15

  7

  20

  -3

  1987

  21

  19

  22

  21

  22

  10

  20

  18

  1 Estimate

  Source: OECD Trade Series 'A'.

  Trading Standards Officers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has on the present number of trading standards officers in England and Wales on 30 April and for the same period in 1987 and 1986.

  Mr. Butcher
  The information is not available for 1988 or in the form requested for the previous years. However, the following table provides figures for the years ending 31 March 1986 and 1987.

  Number of qualified trading standards officers in post with local weights and measures authorities

  Year ending 31 March

  1986

  1987

  England

  1,277

  1,196·6

  Wales

  95

  97

  Total England and Wales

  1,372

  1,293·6

  Notes:

  1. The figures have been collated from the annual returns of local weights and measures authorities.

  2. Provisional figures have been entered for the small number of local weights and measures authorities for whom information is not available.

  Pirate Radio (Birmingham)
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he intends to take to deal with the increase in pirate radio broadcasting in Birmingham.
  112
  percentage fluctuation in the foreign trade of Belgium, Denmark, France, Holland, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, West Germany and Japan.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The information is in the following table:

  Mr. Butcher
  During 1987, my Department's radio investigation service (RIS) carried out 19 raids on three unlicensed stations in Birmingham. So far this year, the RIS has raided four Birmingham stations eight times, and interviewed eight people for possible prosecution under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949. The RIS will continue to act to remove unlicensed transmitters causing interference to authorised radio services, and we shall be seeking to strengthen the terms of the law concerning the unlicensed use of radio as soon as possible.

  Biwater Project
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many British officials(a) testified to and (b) submitted written evidence to the Awoniyi commission of inquiry into the Biwater project.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No British officials testified to the Awoniyi commission of inquiry. Her Majesty's Government submitted written responses to questions put to it by the commission.

  Radio Britannia
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what action his Department is taking to stop the illegal broadcasting by Radio Britannia in south London.

  Mr. Butcher
  A recently established unlicensed broadcaster calling itself Radio Britannia on a frequency
  113
  of 95·3 MHz was raided by radio investigation service officers on 18 May. One person was interviewed for possible prosecution under the Wireless Telegraphy Act, and the station's equipment was seized.

  Anglo-Soviet Trade
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give the figures for trade between the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union for each year between 1975 and 1987.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The information is as follows:

  United Kingdom Trade with the Soviet Union 1975–1987

  Value in £ millions

  Imports

  Exports

  1975

  235·8

  211·4

  1976

  460·1

  241·5

  1977

  545·1

  347·1

  1978

  488·8

  422·9

  1979

  491·6

  416·2

  1980

  422·0

  449·2

  1981

  426·7

  408·3

  1982

  645·4

  3561

  1983

  729·9

  445·4

  1984

  855·3

  734·8

  1985

  726·5

  536·5

  1986

  702·1

  542·5

  1987

  875·4

  491·6

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics.

  Note: 1987 figures provisional.

  Turkish Yarn (Imports)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which companies have made representations to him about trading difficulties caused by Turkish yarns imports in the last two years.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The following United Kingdom producer companies have made representations to the Department about problems resulting from the import of Turkish acrylic hosiery yarn:

  Benson, Turner Ltd.

  Courtaulds plc (on behalf of Courtaulds Spinning)

  Listers & Co. plc.

  Mossley Wool Combing & Spinning Co. Ltd.

  Thomas Burnley and Sons Ltd.

  In addition, representations have been made on behalf of this sector by the British Textile Confederation and the Confederation of British Wool Textiles.

  Representations have also been made by hon. Members on behalf of United Kingdom producers and of United Kingdom users writing in their support.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what action he is taking and what representations he is making to reduce the volume of Turkish yarn imports into the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Following the renewal, from 1 January 1988, of the informal voluntary restraint arrangement between the European Community and Turkish textile export associations which covers cotton yarn and acrylic hand knitting yarn and was extended to cover acrylic hosiery yarn for the first time, the Department is monitoring the situation closely. In fact the volume of acrylic yarn imports from Turkey has fallen off sharply in the first three months of 1988, compared with the same 114
  period last year. The Department's unfair trade unit is assisting the United Kingdom industry in preparing an anti-dumping complaint on Turkish acrylic hosiery yarn.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received from Courtaulds Spinning about the effect of Turkish textile imports on production at the factory at Broad lane, Bramley, Leeds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Department has received a number of representations from representatives of Courtaulds plc, on behalf of Courtaulds Spinning, about the effect of imports of Turkish acrylic hosiery yarn on their business over the past year. Most recently Courtaulds provided detailed information on 4 May concerning the impact of these imports on its activities at Bramley, and at Worksop, in support of an anti-dumping complaint being prepared by the industry.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations listed by date and reference, he has received from Courtaulds plc about the impact of Turkish textile imports in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  My Department has received a number of representations from Courtaulds plc about the impact of Turkish textile imports over the last 12 months. These have either been made direct to the Department or as part of representations made by the sector as a whole. It is not possible to list them in the form requested.

  Civil Servants (Outside Activities)
  Mr. John
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many civil servants in his Department are also directors or consultants in(a) public liability companies, (b) companies limited by guarantee, (c) building societies, (d) other friendly societies and (e) commercial undertakings other than the above; and what rules or instructions govern these activities with particular reference to remuneration.

  Mr. Butcher
  [holding answer 23 May 1988]: Members of staff of the Department of Trade and Industry are not permitted in their private capacity to hold directorships (other than in small, private, "family-type" companies); or to engage in consultancy work which has a connection with official duties or is on behalf of a firm or concern which is in a contractual or other special relationship with the Department. Currently no member of staff has permission to hold a directorship or act as consultant in a private capacity. Permission is granted only if the directorship or consultancy does not require attendance during office hours; would not impair the officer's usefulness as a civil servant; and does not conflict with the interests of the Department. If permission is granted no restriction as to remuneration is attached.

  As part of the Department's policy of encouraging and maintaining close links with industry and commerce, seven members of staff have been appointed in their official capacity as directors of public liability companies on a part-time basis. No central record is kept of consultancies undertaken by members of staff as part of official duties. Officials are not separately remunerated for directorships or consultancies, but expenses incurred on the business of the private organisations may be reimbursed.

ENVIRONMENT

  Sewage Sludge
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has plans to apply restrictions on the applications of sewage sludges with high nitrogen and phosphorus content to arable land; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  No. The Department and the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service have already published advice to water authorities and farmers respectively about the disposal of sewage sludge to land.

  Barter Deals
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the qualifications and criteria by which barter deals between local authorities and the private sector will be judged to be bona fide transactions.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend announced on 25 April, at columns 103–104, the criteria against which he would consider applications for additional capital allocations for schemes affected by the measures he announced on 9 March. Guidance on how to apply for such allocations will be issued to local authorities shortly.

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which office buildings, whether leasehold or freehold, in central London within the Property Services Agency control in both the civil and military estates are going to be surplus to requirements in the next four years; and what is their floor area.

  Mr. Chope
  It is the aim of the Property Services Agency to dispose of accommodation, whether freehold or leasehold, when it becomes surplus to Government requirements. A number of leases in central London are due to terminate during the next four years and the landlords may wish to recover possession of the buildings for refurbishment or redevelopment. The PSA will take the opportunities as and when they may arise to rationalise its holdings with the aim of minimising overall costs of accommodation to the Exchequer. Negotiations with landlords are always conducted on a commercial and therefore confidential basis. The future of office buildings in central London on the military estate is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to the reason for the delay in the acknowledgement by Southwark LBC of the right-to-buy application of Mrs. E. Stevens of 138A Copleston Road, Peckham SE15.

  Mrs. Roe
  According to Southwark council, shortage of staff and high volume of work. The application was accepted on 19 May.

  Rate Support Grant
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the total rate support grant paid 116
  to local authorities in (a) the south-east region, (b) Greater London, (c) outer London and (d) inner London, in total, in each year from 1979·80 to 1988·89, estimate.

  Mr. Chope
  The information is as follows:

  South east region

  Greater London

  Outer London1

  Inner London2

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  1979–80

  2,473

  1,285

  772

  513

  1980–81

  2,856

  1,470

  894

  576

  1981–82

  2,798

  1,363

  777

  358

  1982–83

  2,844

  1,452

  840

  375

  1983–84

  2,749

  1,343

  825

  382

  1984–85

  2,711

  1,316

  836

  342

  1985–86

  2,740

  1,506

  830

  396

  1986–87

  2,841

  1,613

  3850

  3595

  1987–88

  2,859

  1,700

  912

  622

  1988–89

  2,835

  1,789

  976

  647

  1 Outer London boroughs only.

  2 Inner London boroughs (including City of London) only.

  3 London boroughs' grant entitlements changed in 1986–87, following the abolition of the GLC.

  Notes:

  Rate support grant comprises needs, resources and domestic elements in 1979–80 and 1980–81 and block grant, domestic rate relief grant in the following years.

  The figures given are the latest available grant entitlements. These are final for the years 1979–80 to 1984–85 inclusive.

  Ealing
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the housing investment programme allocations, and what was the total spending power out of capital receipts of the London borough of Ealing in each of the last five years and for the current year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Roe
  HIP allocations (in £ million) have been made as follows:

  £ million

  1983–84

  16·283

  1984–85

  15·140

  1985–86

  12·553

  1986–87

  11·812

  1987–88

  10·653

  1988–89

  110·864

  1 Initial allocation only.

  The total spending power out of capital receipts, from figures supplied by Ealing council, was £13·8 million for 1985–86 and £18·2 million for 1986–87. Information for other years is not available.

  Local Government Superannuation Scheme
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will reconsider reducing the age of entry into the local government superannuation scheme from 18 to 16 years; and if he will make a statement:

  (2) if he will abolish the 12-month waiting period for manual workers to enter the local government superannuation scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  No. The rules which debar admission to the scheme to employees under the age of 18 and to manual workers during their first year of service were made many
  117
  years ago with the agreement of the local government employers and the unions. There is nothing in the recent social security legislation which requires an occupational pension scheme to admit classes of employees who have previously been excluded.

  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimates have been made of workers nearing the end of their service who have opted out of the local government superannuation scheme and, because of the diminished advantage of a personal pension, joined the state earnings-related pension scheme; and how this will affect the Government's plan to reduce the cost of the state earnings-related pension scheme.

  Mr. Chope
  The regulations under which employees may elect to leave the local government scheme only came into force on 6 April, and it is too early to estimate the numbers and ages of those who will take advantage of the new provisions.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish his reply to the letter he has received from the Ramblers Association dated 13 May on the subject of planning precedents and opencast mining.

  Mr. Trippier
  An official reply was sent to the Ramblers' Association on 19 May: publication is a matter for the association. I have no objection to its doing so.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he proposes to issue a consultation document on local government finance with reference to the use of capital receipts.

  Mr. Howard
  My right hon. Friend hopes shortly to put forward proposals for a new legislative framework for all aspects of local authority capital expenditure and finance.

  "News on Sunday"
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he plans to take against those local authorities which invested pension funds in News on Sunday; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on 3 December 1987 at column 642.

  Palace of Westminster (Toilets)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the last two occasions when the wall tiles in the ladies' toilets of the Committee Room Corridor were fully cleaned; when the floor was cleaned; and if he will give the same information for each of the ladies' toilets in the Palace of Westminster.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 23 May 1988]: The wall tiles and floors were cleaned in accordance with the terms of the contract today and yesterday.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Disarmament (Verification)
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any information on progress being made on verification procedures in the INF and START talks.

  Mr. Mellor
  Mr. Shultz and Mr. Shevardnadze announced that they had resolved the outstanding United States-Soviet problems on the INF treaty verification procedures in Geneva on 11–12 May. They also reviewed the progress made in the START negotiations which of course include detailed verification provisions.

  Maori Warrior's Head (Sale)
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the New Zealand Government, the National Maori Council, Survival International, and any other organisations or individuals about the proposed sale of a Maori warrior's head at a London auction house on Friday 20 May; what response he has made and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have received representations from Survival International and the Maori Council of New Zealand. These are being studied in the light of the litigation at present under way.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when and how he intends to make representations to the Government of China in relation to the Basic Law of Hong Kong.

  Mr. Mellor
  The drafting of the Basic Law is the responsibility of the Chinese Government. However, as my right hon. and learned Friend stated in Parliament on 20 January, we will wish to satisfy ourselves that the Basic Law accurately reflects the provisions of the joint declaration. The draft Basic Law has already featured in a number of our exchanges with the Chinese authorities. If there are points which we consider are inconsistent with the joint declaration, we will make our views known to the Chinese authorities clearly and firmly.

  Japanese Wartime Signals
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, in the light of the release of Japanese diplomatic intercepts to the national archives in the United States of America and the availability of the same material in Japan, he will authorise the transfer to the Public Records Office of the 1,800 decrypts of signals sent by the wartime Japanese naval attaché in Berlin presently retained by his Department.

  Mr. Mellor
  No.

  St. John's Church, Maseru
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will make representations to the Government of Lesotho stressing the historical importance and significance of St. John's
  119
  church Maseru, and the war memorial which it contains; and if he will seek assurances that the church will not be demolished;

  (2) if he will seek clarification from the High Commissioner in Lesotho about reported proposals that the historic British church of St. John, Maseru, and the war memorial which it contains, are to be demolished; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  This is a matter for the Anglican Church in Lesotho. I understand that the diocesan and church councillors are considering ways of developing the site, but that they are concerned to preserve the church and its war memorial.

  Entry Clearance Applications
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning delays in decisions being taken on entry clearance applications made on the Indian sub-continent because of the need for inquiries to be made in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We receive a number of representations from hon. and right hon. Members concerning individual cases. Specific statistics about such letters are not kept separately.

  Gibraltar (Shootings)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Gibraltar coroner about the postponement of the inquest into the deaths of three IRA personnel from June until August.

  Mr. Mellor
  The date of the inquest is a matter for the coroner. He announced in Gibraltar on 23 May that the inquest would not now be held in June, and a further statement giving the new date would be made as soon as possible.

  Cash Limits
  Sir Peter Blaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he proposes to make any changes to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office cash limits.

  Mr. Eggar
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary revised and Supplementary Estimates, the cash limit for Class II Vote 1 (overseas representation) will be reduced by £2,861,000 from £434,883,000 to £432,022,000 and the cash limit for Vote 3 (BBC external broadcasting and monitoring) will be increased by the corresponding amount of £2,861,000 from £114,621,000 to £117,482,000. This reflects the rationalisation of the operation of the three FCO broadcast relay stations at Orfordness, Masirah and Cyprus whereby the BBC external services will take over financial responsibility from the FCO for certain United Kingdom-based BBC support staff, technical maintenance and utilities costs. The transfer does not represent increased funding for additional broadcasting activity; nor does it add to the planning total of public expenditure.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Belfast Urban Area Plan Inquiry
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) by what authority permission was granted to representatives of Sinn Fein to make representations in Irish before the public inquiry into the Belfast urban area plan;

  (2) what was the cost of providing a translator when representatives of Sinn Fein made representations in Irish before the public inquiry into the Belfast urban area plan on 5 May.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 19 May 1988]: All arrangements for the public inquiry are the responsibility of the independent Planning Appeals Commission. I understand, however, that the cost of providing a translator was in the region of £25.

SCOTLAND

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the number of staff employed in the private offices of his Parliamentary Under-Secretaries in July 1987 and April 1988.

  Mr. Rifkind
  There were 2·25 whole-time equivalent staff in each of the private offices of the two Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State on 1 July 1987 and 1 April 1988.

  Nurses
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average increase in weekly pay for nurses in Scotland following the increase approved in April.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government's acceptance of the recommendations made by the Nurses' Pay Review Body this year will result in a wide range of pay increases from 4·2 per cent. to 33·6 per cent. with the largest percentage increases going to staff covered by the new clinical grading structure. For individuals with posts in the new clinical grading structure the outcome will be dependent on their placing within it but the total cost of this year's award has been estimated as 14·5 per cent. excluding the cost of London supplements. Examples of annual salaries for nursing staff in direct patient care areas from 1 April 1988 are shown in the table in terms of scale minima and maxima. The salaries payable from 1 April 1987 are shown for comparison, as are the equivalent gross increases in weekly pay.

  Grade

  1987 £ year

  1988 £ year

  Approximate gross increase £/week

  Student Nurse

  Minimum

  4,540

  4,825

  5·48

  Maximum

  5,170

  5,575

  7·79

  Nursing Auxiliary

  Minimum

  4,565

  5,000

  8·37

  Maximum

  5,855

  6,300

  8·56

  Enrolled Nurse

  Minimum

  6,250

  6,975

  13·94

  Maximum

  7,750

  8,300

  10·58

  Staff Nurse

  121

  Grade

  1987 £ year

  1988 £ year

  Approximate gross increase £/week

  Minimum

  7,300

  8,025

  13·94

  Maximum

  8,600

  10,650

  39·42

  Nursing Sister

  Minimum

  9,000

  10,200

  23·08

  Maximum

  12,000

  13,925

  37·02

  News Releases
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in full, the names of all organisations and individuals who are on the Scottish Information Office's distribution list for news releases.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I shall arrange for a list to be placed in the House of Commons Library as soon as possible.

  Cairngorms
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to alter the national planning guidelines on skiing to allow a road to be built into the northern corries area of the Cairngorms.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to do so.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his Department treats the Cairngorms as qualifying for designation under the World Heritage convention; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received a recommendation from the Nature Conservancy Council, supported by the Countryside Commission for Scotland, that the Cairngorms should be inscribed on the World Heritage list. The recommendation is being considered in the light of the criteria for natural sites set by the World Heritage convention. My right hon. and learned Friend will announce his decision in due course. The status of the Cairngorms as a national scenic area, and of large parts of it as national nature reserve or as sites of special scientific interest, already provide protection for the special qualities of the area.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Cairngorms will be notified as a special protection area under the European Community directive on the conservation of wild birds (EC 79/409); and whether the area notified will include the northern corries site of special scientific interest.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I understand that it is the Nature Conservancy Council's intention to put forward detailed advice to the Secretary of State later this year on the classification of the Cairngorms as a special protection area under EC directive 79/409, and that the council may recommend inclusion of the northern corries site of special scientific interest within the area to be classified. I cannot say when the Secretary of State will thereafter reach a decision.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to the number of days that the main Cairngorm chairlift was operating each month during the period April to October, inclusive, for each of the past five years; and if he will list the number of chairlift tickets sold in each month during the last five years.
  122
  Mr. Lang
  These are operational and commercial matters concerning the Cairngorm Chairlift Company which is a private enterprise.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to what guidance is given to visitors using the Cairngorm chairlifts in order to reduce damage inflicted upon sensitive plants and wild animals in the Cairngorms.

  Mr. Lang
  The chairlifts are operated by the Cairngorm Chairlift company which is a private enterprise. The hon. Member may wish to note, however, that the Highlands and Islands Development Board as owner of the Cairngorm Estate has recently published a management plan, which sets out its policies for managing the estate. A copy has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of what steps have been taken, or are planned, by the chairlift operators as landowners of the Cairngorm skiing grounds to reduce damage by visitors to sensitive plants and wild animals found on the Cairngorm plateau; and if he will specify how much has been spent in these matters in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Lang
  The skiing area is leased to the Cairngorm Chairlift Co. Ltd. by the Highlands and Islands Development Board. The board and the company have no direct responsibility for conservation of the Cairngorm plateau. This is owned privately and, as a national nature reserve, is the subject of a management agreement with the Nature Conservancy Council.

  East Kilbride (Housing)
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations have taken place between officials of the East Kilbride development corporation and the private sector on the sale of all or any part of the public sector housing stock under the management of the development corporation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  No such consultations have taken place.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on the application of the poll tax to monastic communities.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has given careful consideration to the position of members of religious orders under the community charge system and has decided that there should be an exemption from the personal community charge for members of religious communities the principal occupation of which is prayer, contemplation, the relief of suffering, education or such other activities as may be prescribed. The exemption will be limited to monks and nuns who are dependent on the community for their material needs and who have no income or capital of their own. Income from a pension in respect of a former employment will however be disregarded. Appropriate amendments to the Local Government Finance Bill will be brought forward in due course.

  Quality Street Housing Association
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the discussions taking place between officials of Glenrothes development corporation and Quality Street housing association.

  Mr. Lang
  The Scottish new town development corporations regularly meet representatives of private sector companies to discuss proposals for the further development of the towns. The present discussions between Quality Street and Glenrothes development corporation represent but one example of that continuing dialogue. The present discussions are at a very preliminary stage. Should definite proposals be agreed between the parties it will then be a matter for the development corporation to approach my Department in the usual manner to seek the Secretary of State's consent. Meantime, I welcome the prospective participation of Quality Street in Glenrothes and hope that satisfactory proposals can be developed which will add to the housing options available to residents in the town.

  New Town Development Corporations
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will detail the regulations or advice given to new town development corporations on the timing and disclosure of information to board members or meetings of development corporations or sub-committee.

  Mr. Lang
  These matters are determined by the boards of the development corporations on the advice of the appropriate chief executive—managing director.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of regulations or advice given to new town development corporations on the disclosure of information to press and public.

  Mr. Lang
  It is for each development corporation to determine whether or not to open board meetings to the press and public. Glenrothes development corporation held its first open board meeting in November 1986, and Livingston development corporation in summer 1987.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the regulations or advice given to new town development corporations on the disclosure of information to his Department.

  Mr. Lang
  New town development corporations disclose information to my Department on request.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the present members of new town development corporation boards, the nominating organisation and the date of appointment and the date of termination of appointment of each member.

  Mr. Lang
  This information is available in the annual report of each of the Scottish new town development corporations, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the official guidance available to new town development corporations involved in disposing of public sector housing or development land.

  Mr. Lang
  The terms on which new town development corporations may dispose of land are detailed in section 124
  18(5) of the New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968. That section provides that, except with the consent of the Secretary of State, development corporations shall not dispose of land otherwise than on the best terms that can reasonably be obtained. The same statutory prescription of the terms governing disposal also applies to public sector housing, since "land" in Scots law includes buildings situated upon that land.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total amount of housing land available and owned by development corporations in each of Scotland's new towns.

  Mr. Lang
  As part of the review announced by the Secretary of State for Scotland on 13 May 1988,Official Report, column 280, an exercise is presently under way to establish precisely the information sought. Once that exercise is concluded, I shall write to the hon. Member with the information he requests.

  Ro-Ro Ferries
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make financial provisions to assist the operators of roll-on/roll-off ferries which serve the Scottish islands to either replace or adapt those vessels which do not comply with new IMO stability standards.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  International Maritime Organisation stability standards for new vessels will not be considered for adoption until later this year. Until that time it will not be possible to assess the implications for ferry operators.

  New Towns (Housing)
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if any discussions have taken place between Ministers or officials and representatives of Glenrothes development corporation on the sale of housing assets in the new town.

  Mr. Lang
  Discussions have taken place on this subject on a number of occasions in recent years between my officials and officers of Glenrothes development corporation. The developments at Alexander road, Huntly drive and Durris drive arise directly from those discussions. Furthermore, Glenrothes development corporation's sales of housing to sitting tenants have proved very successful and the 5,000th such sale is expected to take place in the very near future.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met with Scottish local authorities with new towns to discuss the future of public sector housing in Scotland's five new towns.

  Mr. Lang
  The last such meeting took place on 3 October 1986. I am due to meet SLANT (Scottish Local Authorities with New Towns) in London in early June.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he or any of his officials have met Kirkcaldy district council in its current year to discuss the future of the public sector housing stock in Glenrothes new town.

  Mr. Lang
  No.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if any discussions have taken place between
  125
  Ministers or officials and representatives of Quality Street housing association on the sale of housing assets in Glenrothes new town.

  Mr. Lang
  No.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if any discussions have taken place between either Ministers or officials of the Scottish Office and Quality Street housing association on the sale of new town housing assets in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  No.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to ensure that Scottish new towns do not enter into agreements to sell public housing assets to organisations other than individual tenants in advance of the coming into force of the Housing (Scotland) Bill.

  Mr. Lang
  No. Scottish new town development corporations have over the last three years successfully concluded agreements whereby 608 houses have been sold to the private sector for refurbishment and subsequent sale to new town residents. Of these, 99 houses were in Glenrothes in the Alexander road, Huntly drive and Durris drive areas. The Government's proposals in clause 67 of the Housing (Scotland) Bill are designed to remove the limitations in section 18 of the New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968, whereby disposals by a development corporation may be solely for the laying out or development of the new town. Given the maturity of the Scottish new towns, the Government concluded that this constraint was both dated and unnecessary.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total number of public sector houses and flats in each of Scotland's new towns.

  Mr. Lang
  The information is available at page 36 of the "Scottish Housing Statistics 1986", published in 1987, copies of which are available in the Library, although separate information on houses and flats is not available centrally.

  House Sales
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of district council or new town corporation sales of public sector housing in stock approved by him in each year from 1983 to 1987.

  Mr. Lang
  The information is contained in SDD statistical bulletin, HSIU No. 34—Q4(87), table 5, a copy of which was sent to all Scottish Members in April 1988.

  Local Authorities (Compensation)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements he makes to compensate local authorities for the costs of reinstatement grants or repurchasing of houses under part XIV of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Under section 296 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, the Secretary of State may contribute to local authorities' expenditure in giving assistance under the Act as follows:126
  Reinstatement: 90 per cent. of the annual loan charges on the amount of the grant.
  Repurchase: 75 per cent. of the loan charges on the relevant amount where the dwelling was originally sold by the authority or a predecessor; or 100 per cent. where it was sold by another public sector body.
  (The relevant amount is the price paid by the authority plus the seller's reasonable legal and other expenses, less the defective value of the house).

  Defective Housing
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate how many houses categorised as defective under part XIV of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 remain in the ownership of(a) each local housing authority, (b) each new town development corporation or (c) the Scottish Special Housing Association.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested, based on returns by the bodies concerned to the Scottish Development Department, is set out in the table. No houses of the type described are owned by any of the new town development corporations or by those local authorities not entered in the table.

  Houses designated as defective under Part XIV of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987

  Public sector authority

  Number of houses owned

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  48

  Roxburgh

  50

  Tweeddale

  6

  Clackmannan

  81

  Falkirk

  599

  Stirling

  313

  Nithsdale

  42

  Stewartry

  40

  Wigtown

  74

  Dunfermline

  274

  Kirkcaldy

  283

  North East Fife

  63

  Aberdeen

  292

  Banff and Buchan

  87

  Kincardine and Deeside

  68

  Moray

  86

  Inverness

  129

  Lochaber

  167

  East Lothian

  208

  Edinburgh

  920

  Midlothian

  263

  West Lothian

  217

  Argyll and Bute

  156

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  89

  Clydebank

  479

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  172

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  297

  Cunninghame

  363

  Dumbarton

  813

  Glasgow

  2,496

  Hamilton

  522

  Inverclyde

  120

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  79

  Kyle and Carrick

  49

  Monklands

  254

  Motherwell

  606

  Renfrew

  146

  Strathkelvin

  103

  Angus

  43

  Dundee

  1,146

  Perth and Kinross

  230

  Western Isles

  1

  SSHA

  2,147

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many houses which are categorised as
  127
  defective under part XIV of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 have been purchased by sitting tenants since the passage of the Housing (Scotland) Act; and how many have subsequently been (a) repurchased by the land authority or (b) reinstated with grant aid.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Assistance under the Housing Defects Act 1984, now consolidated as part XIV of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, is generally available only to those persons who bought their houses before the designated cut-off date of 26 April 1984. No information is therefore held centrally on defective houses purchased by sitting tenants after that date or of any subsequent resale to the authority.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the typical cost to a local housing authority of(a) the discount on the sale of a house to a tenant who qualifies for the maximum discount. (b) the cost of repurchasing the house at 95 per cent. defect-free value under part XIV of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 and (c) reinstating the house to the required structural standard.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The discount element of a sale under the right to buy legislation does not involve a housing authority in any cost, whilst the sale generates receipts which would not otherwise be realised.

  The average cost of repurchasing a house designated as defective under the provisions of part XIV of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, at 95 per cent. of the defect-free value, is £21,000. During the course of each financial year, housing authorities are issued with special supplementary capital allocations to cover such liabilities.

  In Scotland, no reinstatements have yet been completed, so typical costs for this work cannot be determined.

  Fife Health Board
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the decision of Fife health board to appoint Colonel Francis Gibb to the position of general manager of Fife health board; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No. The appointment of a general manager is a matter for Fife health board.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he or his officials have met the chairman of Fife health board to discuss the appointment of Colonel Francis Gibb to the post of general manager.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No. In the usual way the short list of candidates for the post was cleared in advance with my right hon. and learned Friend.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the costs incurred by Fife health board in appointing a firm of consultants to find suitable applicants for the post of general manager.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No. The costs incurred by Fife health board are a matter for the board.

  Health Boards (Managers)
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the names, together with details of previous occupations, of all health board general managers in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is as follows:—

  Health Board

  General Manager

  Previous Occupation

  Argyll and Clyde

  Mr. I. C. Smith

  Health Service Treasurer

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Mr. J. M. Eckford

  Health Service Secretary

  Borders

  Mr. D. A. Peters

  Health Service Secretary

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Mr. M. D. Cook

  Health Service Treasurer

  Forth Valley

  Mr. A. R. Robertson

  Health Service Secretary

  Grampian

  Mr. H. Fullerton

  Director, Wiggins Teape

  Greater Glasgow

  Mr. L. Peterken

  Controller of Operational Services, Greater London Council

  Highland

  Mr. R. R. W. Stewart

  Health Service Secretary

  Lanarkshire

  Mr. F. Clark

  Health Service Secretary

  Lothian

  Mr. W. J. Tayler

  Health Service Administrator

  Tayside

  Dr. R. C. Graham

  Chief Administrative Medical Officer

  Orkney

  Dr. J. Cromarty

  Chief Administrative Medical Officer

  Shetland

  Mr. D. C. March

  Health Service Secretary

  Western Isles

  Mr. J. Glover

  Health Service Secretary

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice is given to health boards on the appointment of general managers; and what regulations apply to such appointments.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Advice to health boards on the appointments of general managers is contained in NHS circular 1985 (GEN)4 issued on 8 March 1985. A copy of the circular is in the Library of the House. This advice was issued for the initial appointments and central advertising is not undertaken for subsequent appointments. There are no statutory regulations applying to these appointments.

  Drug Tariff
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to add to the drug tariff in Scotland any health care products that are currently available only through the hospital or community health services.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In the White Paper "Promoting Better Health" published on 25 November 1987, the Government announced that as soon as the necessary arrangements could be made they would make both blood glucose testing strips for diabetics and a new range of wound care products available on prescription. I am pleased to be able to announce that from 1 June 1988 that blood glucose testing strips together with single use lancets will be available on prescription in Scotland: and that
  129
  from 1 July 1988 general practitioners in Scotland will be able to prescribe two of the new wound care products, namely Granuflex and Sorbsan dressings.

  Both the diabetic test equipment and the new types of wound care products are currently available through the hospital and community health services. But by making them available through family doctor prescription, a better and more convenient service to patients will be provided. In the case of diabetic testing materials, the wider availability will make a valuable contribution to enabling diabetics to treat and monitor their condition independently in their own homes. The new wound care products are more comfortable for patients than traditional dressings and make for quicker healing.

  Tay side payments

  Tayside as percentage of Scottish total

  Tayside as percentage of Great Britain total

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1986–87

  1987–88

  £ million

  £ million

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Regional selective assistance

  2·9

  2·0

  8·3

  5·3

  2·3

  1·4

  Regional development grant I1

  5·1

  0·6

  4·6

  1·8

  1·6

  0·6

  Regional development grant II

  3·1

  3·8

  8·2

  8·7

  2·6

  2·6

  National selective assistance

  Nil

  Nil

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Tayside loans disbursed

  Tayside as percentage of Scottish total

  Tayside as percentage of United Kingdom total

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1986–87

  1987–88

  £ million

  £ million

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  European investment bank loans2

  2·2

  —

  16·0

  —

  3·3

  —

  Loan guarantee scheme

  0·1

  0·4

  3·4

  11·4

  0·3

  0·8

  1 Changes to the Regional development grant scheme were introduced in 1984. For the earlier scheme RDG I, data refers to payments over £25,000 as comprehensive figures are not available on a local basis.

  2 Information is available only for loans for which cover was provided under the exchange risk guarantee scheme. The scheme has not applied to European Investment Bank loans since 18 July 1985 and figures for 1986–87 relate to offers made before that date.

  Chernobyl (Compensation)
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications have been received for a review of their case from farmers in Scotland claiming to have suffered losses as a result of the Chernobyl disaster but who had not been compensated under the Government's scheme; if he will give the dates between which they were made; if each such application was considered individually; on what date a decision was taken on them; how many of them he has rejected; and if he will make a statement on the general pattern of the defects in the applications which led to their rejection.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 19 May 1988]: A total of some £1·5 million has been paid to sheep farmers in Scotland since 1986 to compensate them from the effects of the Chernobyl disaster. The compensation arrangements have in general been welcomed by the National Farmers Union of Scotland, who have not found it necessary to submit any cases for review on the lines adopted by their counterparts in England and Wales. No cases are at present under review in Scotland, but two farming businesses have made, and are continuing to make, representations to the effect that they have not been compensated for losses which they claim to have suffered as a result of restrictions imposed in the aftermath of the Chernobyl incident.

  Tayside Region (Assistance)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the level of(a) regional selective assistance (b) regional development grant, (c) European Community loans paid through the European Investment Bank, (d) national selective assistance and (e) the Government's loan guarantee scheme which is paid to the Tayside region; and what proportion this represents of the respective totals for (a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 25 April 1988]: Comprehensive information in the precise form requested is not available. Available information for 1986–87 and 1987–88 is set out in the table:

EMPLOYMENT

  Departmental Advertising
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much money has been spent by his Department on television advertising in each of the past three years.

  Mr. Cope
  The total amount of money spent by this Department on television advertising in 1985, 1986 and 1987 was as follows:

  Department of Employment

  £ million

  1985–86

  Nil

  1986–87

  9·3

  1987–88

  13·7

  1 Includes Employment Service expenditure.

  Benefits
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many women with dependants have been excluded from eligibility for benefit under the new claims experiment.

  Mr. Lee
  The experiment involved using more senior staff to interview newly unemployed people. Its aim was to see whether it was possible to provide more advice on both benefit procedures and employment opportunities at the initial point of contact with an unemployed person.
  131
  The entitlement rules for benefit remained unchanged during the experiment. Information was not collected on the number of women with dependants who were disallowed benefit during the experiment.

  Labour Statistics
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current trends in unemployment in the United Kingdom regions.

  Mr. Lee
  Unemployment has fallen in all regions of the United Kingdom over the last 12 months. The largest falls in the unemployment rate have been in the west midlands, north-west and the north.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many job vacancies were registered at jobcentres in the city of Durham, at the most recent available date; what this figure represented as a percentage of registered unemployed; and what the comparable percentage is for the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lee
  The table shows the number of unfilled vacancies at jobcentres and the number of unemployed claimants for the city of Durham and the United Kingdom in April 1988. It is not meaningful to calculate the ratio of unfilled vacancies at jobcentres to unemployed claimants, since only about a third of all vacancies in the economy are notified to jobcentres.

  Unadjusted

  Unfilled vacancies

  Unemployed claimants

  City of Durham

  447

  3,839

  United Kingdom

  251,300

  2,535,989

  Tourism
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many overseas visitors visited regions other than London during the last period for which full figures are available.

  Mr. Lee
  It is estimated that, in 1986, overseas residents made approximately 7·9 million visits to the United Kingdom that included at least one night spent in a region outside London, which represents 57 per cent. of the total number of visits made that year. An equivalent estimate for 1987 will be available later this year.

  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number of schemes in receipt of funds administered under section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969, during the years 1985, 1986 and 1987.

  Mr. Lee
  Figures are not available in the form requested. The numbers of projects in England to which section 4 assistance was offered were:

  Year

  Projects

  Projects with assistance totalling £11·5 million

  1985–86

  542

  Projects with assistance totalling £13·9 million

  1986–87

  630

  Projects with assistance totalling £14·8 million

  1987–88

  609

  Economic League
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the implications for industrial relations of the use by employers of the services of the Economic League.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I have made no such assessment.

  Benefit Fraud (Glasgow)
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total cost of the operation which led to the identification of Glasgow taxi drivers who were illegally claiming benefit.

  Mr. Lee
  The total cost to my Department for the Glasgow taxi drivers exercise was £4,328.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what means of electronic surveillance was used in Glasgow as part of the operation mounted to detect taxi drivers illegally claiming benefits.

  Mr. Lee
  Electronic surveillance is not used by my Department.

  Mines and Quarries Act 1954
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has consulted British Coal on the replacement of the Mines and Quarries Act 1954; and whether these consultations will be published.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Commission and Executive have consulted British Coal on the renewal of mines and quarries legislation. This forms part of the extensive consultation programme which involves all interested parties within the mining and quarrying industries.

  Responses to consultations are not published. The views of all consultees are taken into account both when proposed regulations and codes of practice are drafted and also by the commission when it considers proposals for new legislation.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether any changes will be made to his Department's cash limits or running cost limits for 1988–89.

  Mr. Fowler
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary revised and summer Supplementary Estimates, the following changes will be made:

  The cash limit for class VII, vote 1 (employment programmes) will be reduced by £327,452,000 from £1,621,069,000 to £1,293,617,000. The reduction reflects the transfer of provision to class VII, vote 5 (Manpower Services Commission).

  The cash limit on class VII, vote 2 (Department of Employment: administration) will be reduced by £702,000 from £263,872,000 to £263,170,000. This is the net effect of the reduction of administrative costs paid to the Manpower Services Commission in respect of the community programme and further adjustment of the provisional split of capital and running costs between the Department of Employment (DE) and the Manpower

  133
  Services Commission (MSC) agreed at the time of the 1988–89 main Supply Estimates in respect of certain employment and enterprise functions transferred from MSC to DE on 26 October 1987.

  The cash limit for class VII, vote 5 (MSC) will be increased by £281,927,000 from £1,656,251,000 to £1,938,178,000 in order to introduce the employment training programme that I announced on 16 February 1988 at column 825. The increase is the net effect of transfers from class VII, votes 1 and 2, offset by appropriations in aid totalling £46,227,000 from the Industry Department for Scotland (class XVII, vote 4) and the Welsh Office (class XVI, vote 4) towards expenditure on employment training.

  The cash limit for class XVI, vote 4 (MSC Scotland) will be increased by £23,719,000 from £186,363,000 to £210,082,000 to meet the proportion of the MSC increases described above which can be specifically identified as applicable to Scotland.

  The cash limit for class XVII, vote 4 (MSC Wales) will be increased by £22,508,000 from £120,213,000 to £142,721,000 to meet the proportion of the MSC increases described above which can be specifically identified as applicable to Wales.

  Finally, there is a token £1,000 cash limit on the new vote for the sale of professional and executive recruitment (PER), class VII, vote 6.

  Consequently the cash limits total for the Department of Employment group as a whole is reduced by £46,226,000 from £3,654,953,000 to £3,608,727,000.

  The Department of Employment's running costs limit will be increased by £6,000 from £611,290,000 to £611,296,000. This is the net effect of the transfer back to DE from the MSC of £1,397,000 running costs in respect of the transfer of certain employment and enterprise functions in October 1987 and the reclassification of PER seconded staff salaries out of running costs.

  The transfer of running costs to DE has resulted in the MSC's running costs limit being reduced by £1,397,000 from £225,055,000 to £223,658,000.

  Consequently the running costs total for the Department of Employment group as a whole is reduced by £1,391,000 from £945,916,000 to £944,525,000.

  "Action for Jobs"
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the total expenditure by the Central Office of Information on the Government's "Action for Jobs" programme for each month since its inception to the present day, distinguishing television advertising from other expenditure.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 18 May 1988]: The information requested is not available. Total expenditure by the Central Office of Information on the Government's "Action for Jobs" programme is as follows:

  £ million

  1986–87

  Television advertising

  9·3

  Total expenditure

  12

  1987–88

  Television advertising

  2·2

  Total expenditure

  5

  Government Campaigns
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will place in the Library copies of all leaflets and brochures from the "Action for Jobs" and "Action for Cities" campaigns.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 18 May 1988]: I have arranged for the following leaflets and brochures to be placed in the Library:

  —"Action For Jobs" booklet PL843.

  —"Action for Jobs" booklet (ethnic language versions) PL782 Hindi, Vietnamese, Urdu, Gujerati, Bengali, Punjabi, Cantonese.

  —"Action for Cities" brochure.

  —"Action for Cities Guide for Action."

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list, giving the dates of their employment, those advertising firms employed by the Central Office of Information on the "Action for Jobs" and "Action for Cities" campaigns.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 18 May 1988]: Davidson Pearce Ltd. was appointed by the Central Office of Information in April 1986 to the "Action for Jobs" campaign.

  The "Action for Cities" campaign does not employ an advertising agency. The "Action for Cities" breakfast presentations are organised by the Commercial Presentations Group, a conference and presentations company which was appointed directly by the Department of Trade and Industry in January 1988.

  Turkish Yarn (Imports)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his latest estimate of the total number of workers who have been(a) put on short-time working and (b) declared redundant as a result of Turkish yarn imports; and if he will name the companies involved.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested on short-time working and redundancies is not available from official sources, as there is no reliable way of relating redundancies to imports from a particular country—or indeed to imports in general. The acrylic yarn sector has also been affected by a fall in demand for knitwear.

THE ARTS

  Museums, Galleries and Theatres
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what plans are currently under consideration for the establishment of new museums, galleries and theatres; and where these will be located.

  Mr. Luce
  I know that the trustees of the national nuseums and galleries which I sponsor are considering a number of exciting new developments. For example, the Victoria and Albert museum is investigating the possibility of displaying part of its Indian collection at Bradford; the Imperial War museum has plans to establish an American air museum in a new building at Duxford airfield; and the Science museum is looking at a number of possible sites for a new national museum of food and farming. The Tate gallery is about to open the Tate gallery in Liverpool, and
  135
  the National Portrait gallery is opening a new outstation at Bodelwyddan castle in association with Clwyd county council.

  I am aware of some proposals to establish new theatres, such as the plan to set up a theatre in Spitalfields to take productions from the Royal exchange, Manchester; and the moving of the Empire, York, to a new building. The trend for new development in these areas is most encouraging.

  Galleries and Museums (Funding)
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what is the proportion of public funds(a) given and (b) loaned to galleries and museums in England and Wales during each year since 1983.

  Mr. Luce
  The expenditure plans of the Office of Arts and Libraries are published every January in the public expenditure White Paper. The principal channels of funding to museums and galleries are:

  (i) as grants or grants-in-aid to the national museums and galleries and other directly funded museums in England;

  (ii) as grant-in-aid to the Museums and Galleries Commission which then makes grants to the English area museum councils and to non-national museums and galleries throughout the United Kingdom; and

  (iii) as rate support grant to English local authorities.

  No loans are made from the arts and libraries expenditure programme.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what percentage of those appointed to national governmental public bodies each year since 1985 are women.

  Mr. Luce
  Figures are as follows, in each case referring to the percentage of appointments on 1 April that year:

  Per cent.

  1985

  18

  1986

  19

  1987

  19

  The figure for 1988 will be published in "Public Bodies" later this year.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Building Societies
  Mr. Holland
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the share, respectively, of the top three, top six and top 10 United Kingdom building societies as a percentage of total share of deposits and loans of all building societies in 1985 and 1986.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 23 May 1988]: For 1985 the proportion of total shares, deposits and loans of building societies held by the largest three, largest six and largest 10 societies was 45, 62 and 77 per cent. respectively. For 1986 the figures were 46, 62 and 77 per cent. respectively.

  Channel Tunnel (Customs Facilities)
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on progress on discussions for on-train customs facilities to be provided for Channel tunnel passengers to London.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 23 May 1988]: I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) on 18 March at column 690.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Sheepmeat (Testing)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many days elapsed between the taking of sheepmeat samples under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1986 and the results of the tests being available.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  There is no standard time between samples being taken and test results being available. Existing arrangements permit most samples to be turned around within 24 hours where this is necessary.

  Sewage Sludge
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he intends to take to reduce the contamination of sewage sludge by persistent or toxic substances, which accumulate in living organisms.

  Mr. Gummer
  The presence of such contaminants in sewage sludge disposed of at sea is permitted in only trace quantities to avoid harm to the marine environment. Extraction of such trace quantities is not practicable. Further reduction in contaminant levels must therefore be achieved by water authorities through their controls on trade discharges to sewers, in the context of Government policy to bring about a substantial reduction in the inputs of dangerous substances to rivers and estuaries by 1995.

  Industrial Waste
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he plans to prohibit the dumping of industrial waste into the Irish sea.

  Mr. Gummer
  There is no dumping at present in the Irish sea of either solid or liquid industrial waste, under the licensing controls of part II of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985.

  I would examine very rigorously any new application for such dumping.

  The Ministry is controlling closely the dumping of sewage sludge and dredged spoil which are also licensed under the Act.

  Slimming Products
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what controls there are over foods which claim to be slimming products.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The Food Labelling Regulations 1984 set out the conditions that must be met by any food that claims it is an aid to slimming. These
  137
  include requirements for a nutrition statement on the label and that the food must be capable of contributing to weight control or weight reduction. The requirements also extend to the advertising of such products.

  Beef
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what inspections take place of beef landed at United Kingdom ports from the Republic of Ireland for onward shipment to the continent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Animal and public health checks on beef landed at United Kingdom ports from the Republic of Ireland are the same whether the beef is intended for consumption in the United Kingdom or for onward shipment to the continent. Two types of checks are involved: checking of the necessary health certificates against the import documentation is carried out by Customs officers in all cases and physical checking of the meat is carried out on sample consignments by the port health authorities.

  Beef entering the United Kingdom for onward shipping to the continent is not eligible for payments of beef variable premium, hence no inspections for this purpose are carried out.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action is taken to ensure that beef landed at United Kingdom ports from the Republic of Ireland for onward shipment to the continent is not subsequently sold in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Goods in transit are subject to control by the country of export. The authorities in that country must be furnished with proof that the goods have reached their intended destination and are not diverted elsewhere. Moreover, beef sent from the Republic of Ireland to the United Kingdom in transit would not benefit from the United Kingdom mca or the beef variable premium. These taken together contribute a significant disincentive to diversion.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about the labelling of imported beef which has been produced with the aid of hormones; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  No such representations have been received.

  Irradiated Foodstuffs
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and food what recent representations he has received about the case for requiring the labelling of irradiated foodstuffs so as to indicate that they have been irradiated once the ban on irradiation has been lifted; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Many of the people who have written to me about food irradiation express the view that labelling should be required to make it clear when this process has been used. In my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) on 24 March, at column 207, I made it clear that appropriate labelling provisions are among the controls we are examining.

  Contamination
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to complete the revision of his Ministry's contingency plans for dealing with emergency contamination and agriculture; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 9 February at column 158.

  Cod
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give a table of all cod catch records for all vessels in the Lowestoft fleet for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 12 May 1988]: Landings of cod by the Lowestoft fleet are not readily available for the previous five-year period, due in part to changes in the fleet over this period and landings by under 40 ft vessels not being individually recorded prior to 1985. Landings of cod into Lowestoft by British vessels for the previous five years together with landings by the Lowestoft fleet during 1987 are however available. These are as follows with figures given in tonnes landed weigh:

  Cod landings at Lowestoft by British vessels

  Tonnes landed weight

  Value (£ thousands)

  1983

  3,321

  2,093

  1984

  2,382

  1,809

  1985

  1,638

  1,422

  1986

  1,565

  1,540

  1987

  2,122

  2,092

  Cod landed by vessels in Lowestoft as at end 1987

  Tonnes landed weight

  Value (£ thousands)

  1973

  1,929

  Plant Testing and Seed Certification
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of the time of his Department's review team which investigated plant variety testing and seed certification systems in the United Kingdom was spent in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, respectively.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 23 May 1988]: Members of the review team made three visits to Scotland, one visit to Wales and one visit to Northern Ireland. In England the team held meetings with various organisations, some of which represented interests for the United Kingdom as a whole. In addition, the team liaised closely with officials in all the Agriculture Departments and with members of the United Kingdom Seeds Executive.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will name the officials of his Department who conducted the review of plant variety testing and seed certification systems in the United Kingdom, giving any relevant information about their qualifications and experience, and making particular reference to any experience connected to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.
  139
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 23 May 1988]: The names of the four officials who conducted the review are shown in the report on "The Plant Variety Testing and Seed Certification Systems in the United Kingdom." A copy of the report is available in the Library of the House. The team of officials was headed by the controller of plant variety rights for the United Kingdom who is also a member of the United Kingdom Seeds Executive. The team included the chairman of two senior interdepartmental committees with responsibilities for plant variety testing and seed certification matters in the United Kingdom. It is not Government policy to disclose personal details of the qualifications and experience of individual officials.

  Civil Servants (Outside Activities)
  Mr. John
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many civil servants in his Department are also directors or consultants in(a) public liability companies, (b) companies limited by guarantee, (c) building societies, (d) other friendly societies and (e) commercial undertakings other than the above; and what rules or instructions govern these activities with particular reference to remuneration.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 23 May 1988]: As part of a programme for improving awareness of the needs of business, senior officials are from time to time appointed as non-executive directors of commercial companies. At present two officials hold such appointments, for which they receive no remuneration.

  Where staff have private business interests of the sort referred to, they are required to seek approval if there is any possibility of conflict with the work of the Department. There are no rules about pay from private business interests.

  Sheep Variable Premium
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the sheep variable premium for lowland farmers is likely to be paid.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 23 May 1988]: An announcement on the ewe premium rate on eligible ewes for 1987 was made by the Department on 18 May, following its determination and publication by the European Commission. The final premium will be £6·238 per ewe for lowland producers. LFA producers received an advance of £2·80 per ewe last November and will be paid a balance of £3·438. All payments will be made as soon as possible. Variable premium payments on lambs of certifiable quality have been made throughout the marketing year in the usual way.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Dispensing
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what representations he has received from dispensing doctors about the costs of their service compared with the same service provided by dispensing chemists;

  (2) whether he will make a statement about the comparative prices per script dispensed by (a) dispensing doctors and (b) dispensing chemists.
  140
  Mr. Newton
  We have received a few representations from dispensing doctor interests to the effect that dispensing by doctors is less expensive than dispensing by pharmacists. However, it is not possible to make such a comparison because the complex remuneration arrangements for general medical practitioners do not permit the precise separation of dispensing from non-dispensing costs. Thus dispensing fees to dispensing doctors do not reflect all their related costs, as they do with pharmacists, since some of the expenses of the former are directly and separately reimbursed in respect of expenditure on staff and premises. In 1986–87 the cost per prescription (excluding VAT) of drugs and appliances dispensed by doctors and by pharmacists was £3·81 and £3·98 respectively.

  Health Authorities (Costs)
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list in the Official Report, for St. Helens and Knowsley, Southport and Formby, South Sefton, Wandsworth, Islington, Central Manchester and Liverpool health authorities (a) the percentage of Health Service costs devoted to the administration of the service, (b) child mortality rates at birth and within a month of birth, (c) the number of registered nurses in special care baby units per 100 low birthweight births, (d) the district nurse contact rate for the over 65s, (e) the number of community mental and physical handicap nurses employed per resident in each authority, (f) the day-patient attendance rate for the over 65s and (g) the extent of meals-on-wheels provision.

  Mr. Newton
  Such information as is available centrally is in the tables. The hon. Member may wish to contact the health authority chairmen concerned for the other details he requires.

  (a) Expenditure on headquarters administration as a proportion of total revenue expenditure

  Per cent.

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  3·44

  Southport and Formby

  4·68

  South Sefton

  3·27

  Wandsworth

  2·38

  Islington

  3·17

  Central Manchester

  2·67

  Liverpool

  2·92

  Notes:

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

  2. Information derived from the 1986–87 annual accounts (the latest available) of the health authorities concerned.

  (b) Child mortality rates

  The mortality rates quoted have slightly different criteria. The still birth rate is shown per 1,000 live and still births, whereas the neonatal (deaths in the first 28 days of life) rate is deaths per 1,000 live births. These rates have been calculated from all births ie including low weight births. The latest available data are for 1986.
  141

  Rates per 1,000 births

  Still births per 1,000 live and still births

  All neonatal deaths per 1,000 live births

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  5·3

  4·5

  Southport and Formby

  4·2

  19·3

  South Sefton

  4·9

  4·9

  Wandsworth

  4·4

  4·1

  Islington

  6·8

  5·2

  Central Manchester

  9·4

  6·3

  Liverpool

  6·1

  5·0

  Source: OPCS Monitor DH3 87/4

  1 In Southport and Formby, where the birthrate is low, the comparatively high rate of neonatal deaths represents only 11 actual deaths in 1986.

  (c) The number of registered nurses and midwives in special care baby units (at 30 September 1986)

  Whole-time equivalent per 100 low birthweight births1

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  2·2

  Southport and Formby

  8·0

  South Sefton

  3·2

  Wandsworth

  7·5

  Islington

  10·8

  Central Manchester

  26·6

  Liverpool

  3·9

  1 Calculated on unrounded whole-time equivalent staff in post and number of births.

  Sources: DHSS Annual Census of National Health Service Non-Medical Manpower. Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  (d) The district nurse contact rate for the over 65s (1986)

  Persons 65 and over treated by district nurses

  Percentage of population aged 65 and over treated by district nurses

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  8,336

  18·8

  Southport and Formby

  6,026

  26·5

  Number of main meals provided for elderly and/or physically handicapped people during the year ended 31 March 1987

  Health authority

  Local authority

  Meals at home Number

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  St. Helens

  144,249

  Knowsley

  61,018

  Southport and Formby; South Sefton

  Sefton

  103,626

  Wandsworth and part of Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton (30 per cent, by population)

  Wandsworth

  382,065

  Islington

  Islington

  268,467

  Central Manchester, South Manchester, North Manchester

  Manchester

  735,936

  Liverpool

  Liverpool

  404,103

  Benefit Entitlement
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the number of households entitled to (i) supplementary benefit and (ii) housing benefit which failed to claim benefit in 1987–88 and how many were pensioner households.

  Mr. Portillo
  The latest take-up estimates for supplementary benefit are for 1983 and those for housing benefit are for 1984. A convenient summary is shown on pages 272 and 273 of the 1988 public expenditure White Paper (Cm. 288). More detailed technical reports are available in the Library.
  142

  Persons 65 and over treated by district nurses

  Percentage of population aged 65 and over treated by district nurses

  South Sefton

  2,847

  10·5

  Wandsworth

  2,438

  9·9

  Islington

  3,464

  14·6

  Central Manchester

  2,315

  13·6

  Liverpool

  16,869

  21·7

  Source: DHSS form LHS 27/3.

  (e) Number of community psychiatric nurses per 100,000 population

  (at 30 September 1986)

  Whole-time equivalent

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  10·7

  Southport and Formby

  7·6

  South Sefton

  3·9

  Wandsworth

  16·8

  Islington

  4·8

  Central Manchester

  7·9

  Liverpool

  6·0

  Source: DHSS Annual Census of NHS Non-Medical Manpower; OPCS mid-year population estimates.

  (f) The day-patient attendance rate for the over 65s

  Information, including the age of patients admitted to a hospital bed for treatment as a day case and regular day admissions will be available centrally for the first time later this year. For patients using NHS day care facilities, the specialty function classification will provide some indication of the age groups using the facility.

  (g) Meals on wheels provision

  Information on meals-on-wheels provision is not available in the precise form requested as data are by local authority area, which is not always conterminous with health authority area. The latest information for the relevant local authorities is given in the table.

  Child Care
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to publish a Bill as outlined in the 1987 White Paper 'The Law on Childcare and Family Services' (Cm. 62).

  Mr. Newton
  I cannot at present add to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) on 28 October 1987 at columns 307–8.

  Electro-convulsive Therapy
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list for each of the last three years for which figures are available(a) the number of cases where the Mental Health Commission has been asked to approve

  143
  the treatment with electro-convulsive therapy of a patient detained under section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983 and (b) the number of such cases in which the Mental Health Commission has recommended against such treatment.

  Mrs. Currie
  I have asked the Mental Health Act Commission to provide the hon. Member with this information.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services for each of the last three years for which figures are available, what was the number of patients treated with electro-convulsive therapy following a diagnosis of puerperal psychosis; and, in each case, what was the average number of treatments per patient.

  Mrs. Currie
  I am sorry I cannot give the hon. Member the figures she has requested. Records of diagnoses of patients receiving electro-convulsive therapy are not collected centrally.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list, for each of the last three years for which figures are available, the number of patients in whose deaths electro-convulsive therapy was considered a contributory factor.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information is not available in exactly the form requested.

  However, during 1985 and 1986, the number of deaths registered in England and Wales with "Failure in dosage in electroshock or insulin—shock therapy" (International Classification of Disease code E.873.4) mentioned as a cause of death on the death certificate was nil.

  No "mentions" data for 1984 are available, but in that year no death was assigned an underlying cause of E873.4.

  Lobotomies
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services for each of the last three years for which figures are available, what was the number of lobotomies performed in Britain.

  Mrs. Currie
  I am sorry I cannot give the hon. Member the information in the form she requested. The number of psychosurgical operations (including lobotomies—leucotomies) performed in neurosurgical units in England (including referrals from other parts of the British Isles) are as follows:

  1984

  1985

  1986

  10

  21

  15

  Figures for Scotland and Wales are the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Legionnaire's Disease
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how often tests are carried out on hospital water supplies to detect Legionnaire's disease; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  In the absence of a quick test to measure the pressure of legionnella in water, we consider that the 144
  maintenance of hospital hot and cold water systems to standards recommended in a code of practice issued by the Department offers the best means of protection against infection by legionnella. Routine sampling is not recommended unless a water supply is suspected as being the source of an infection, because technical and scientific resources can be more effectively employed on preventive maintenance.

  Single Payments
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how much was paid out in single payments to social security applicants in Lambeth in the financial year ended 31 March; and how much has been allocated under the social fund for the current year.

  Mr. Portillo
  The London borough of Lambeth is served by 10 local social security offices. The boundaries of these offices are not conterminous with those of the borough. Figures for single payment expenditure for the period 8 April 1987 to 10 April 1988 are given in the table. The figures are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Office

  Expenditure

  £

  Balham

  238,476

  Battersea

  202,006

  Brixton

  253,353

  Camberwell

  130,768

  Crystal Palace

  228,931

  Kennington Park

  210,689

  Oval

  227,673

  Peckham

  168,065

  South wark

  164,513

  Streatham

  486,924

  Information on the social fund allocations to local offices for 1988–89 was contained in the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) on 4 November 1987 at columns 774–81.

  Solvent Abuse
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many children under the age of 16 years died as a result of solvent abuse in the most recent years for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Currie
  The most complete data available come from a continuing study carried out by the department of clinical epidemiology and social medicine of St. George's hospital medical school, London.

  This study—the national study of deaths associated with the abuse of volatile substances—collects data from a variety of sources, including death registrations and a survey of coroners' findings. It suggests that in 1985 there were 23, and in 1986 27 (provisional figure) such deaths of those aged under 16 in England and Wales.

  Three Rivers (Electorate)
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will set out a table showing the 1988 electorate for each ward in the district of Three Rivers.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is as follows:
  145

  District of Three Rivers

  Ward name

  Parliamentary electorate on the 1988 register

  South West Hertfordshire parliamentary constituency

  Chorleywood

  4,166

  Chorleywood West

  2,575

  Croxley Green North

  2,505

  Croxley Green

  3,327

  Croxley Green South

  2,817

  Rickmansworth

  3,537

  Moor Park

  3,273

  Moneyhill

  2,902

  Mill End

  2,364

  Maple Cross and West Hyde

  2,007

  Bedmond

  2,552

  Langleybury

  3,004

  Barratt

  2,102

  Oxhey Hall

  2,514

  Hayling

  3,268

  Northwick

  3,832

  Ashridge

  2,484

  Carpenders Park

  4,008

  Watford parliamentary constituency

  Abbots Langley

  3,612

  Leavesden

  3,264

  Dacorum (Electorate)
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will set out a table showing the 1988 electorate for each ward in the borough of Dacorum.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is as follows.

  District of Dacorum

  Ward name

  Parliamentary electorate on the 1988 register

  South West Hertfordshire parliamentary constituency

  Northchurch

  2,122

  Berkhamstead West

  3,438

  Berkhamstead Central

  3,844

  Berkhamstead East

  4,836

  Bovingdon and Flaunden

  3,617

  Chipperfield

  1,396

  Kings Langley

  3,712

  West Hertfordshire parliamentary constituency

  Central

  3,999

  Highfield

  4,377

  Adeyfield West

  4,373

  Adeyfield East

  3,873

  Crabtree

  5,102

  South

  3,048

  Boxmoor

  5,015

  Warners End

  4,574

  Gadebridge

  3,583

  Chaulden

  2,039

  Levistock Green

  5,458

  Cupid Green

  4,924

  Grovehill

  5,845

  Bennetts End

  4,478

  Nash Mills

  1,732

  Tring East

  1,800

  Tring Central

  4,249

  Tring West

  3,747

  Aldbury and Wigginton

  1,873

  Ashridge

  2,818

  Flamstead and Markyate

  3,343

  Regional Health Authorities
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what further plans he has to oblige regional health authorities to put out to competitive tender their solicitors, architects, quantity surveyors and engineers services.

  Mrs. Currie
  We have no new central initiative in mind, but we do encourage regional health authorities to test on a regular basis the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of all their services and to consider the use of private contractors for operational activities. Under existing arrangements all National Health Service construction work and at least 75 per cent. of design work is undertaken on the basis of external contracts based on fee competition.

  In-patients (Teaching Hospitals)
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list, for the latest convenient year, the percentage of in-patients treated in each English teaching hospital who came from outside the health district in which that teaching hospital was located.

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

  Estimated percentage of non-maternity, non-psychiatric cases treated in National Health Service teaching districts in England who are normally resident outside the district: 1986

  Teaching DHA

  Per cent.

  Newcastle

  53·4

  Leeds Western

  33·6

  Leeds Eastern

  32·6

  Leicestershire

  4·4

  Nottingham

  21·9

  Sheffield

  25·5

  Cambridge

  39·7

  Paddington and North Kensington

  58·5

  Riverside

  52·1

  Hampstead

  69·3

  Bloomsbury

  84·6

  City and Hackney

  63·0

  Tower Hamlets

  46·8

  West Lambeth

  65·3

  Camberwell

  42·3

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  46·2

  Wandsworth

  55·6

  Southampton and South-West Hampshire

  23·4

  Oxfordshire

  21·8

  Bristol and Weston

  43·4

  Central Birmingham

  78·6

  Liverpool

  34·8

  Central Manchester

  69·4

  South Manchester

  65·6

  Salford

  27·1

  North Sea Oil (Sub-contractors)
  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has on the extent of non-payment by sub-contractors on certain North sea oil platforms of national insurance contributions for weeks when employees are on leave.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department does not hold central information on the extent of non-payment of national insurance contributions by individual employers on North sea oil platforms. However, if any employee is concerned about his position in national insurance, he can discuss this with his local social security office and the staff there will be pleased to advise or investigate.

  Benefits
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the estimated number of claimants who lost entitlement to increases of(a) unemployment benefit, (b) sickness benefit, (c) invalidity pension and (d) retirement pension, respectively, when section 10 of the Social Security Act 1988 came into force; and how many of them were women.

  Mr. Scott
  It is estimated that the total number of claimants who lost entitlement when section 10 of the Social Security Act 1988 came into force was 2,500, of whom 50 were women. The great majority of those losing entitlement are retirement pensioners and invalidity pensioners. Losses for other claimants are negligible.

  Community Care
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what impact the Government expect regulation 19(3) of the Income Support Regulations 1987 to have on its community care policy.

  Mr. Portillo
  Regulation 19(3) of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 provides definitions of establishments which are to be treated as residential care homes or nursing homes for income support purposes. These definitions do not substantively differ from those in force under supplementary benefit legislation and represent no change in the Government's policy on community care.

  District Health Authorities
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his answer to the hon. member for Stockport of 11 May,Official Report, columns 183–84, what steps he proposes to take to assess whether the factors he there sets out fully account for the disparities in administrative and clerical costs as between district health authorities; what steps he proposes to take to reduce such costs in all district health authorities to the levels achieved in those districts with the most efficient performance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  There are many factors which influence the level of administrative and clerical staffing. Only detailed scrutiny of each individual district can establish whether differences are justified or not. This is the job of NHS management but we have sought to help in two specific respects.

  As part of the performance indicator package, DHAs and RHAs have been asked to undertake analyses of the past four years' indicators. These analyses, combined with local information, will form a basis for commentary to be presented to authority members and to be made available to local MPs and community health council members. This commentary should highlight changes over time and identify those main areas requiring further investigation.

  In addition, we will shortly publish a report of a review of administrative and clerical staff which commends to health authorities ways of monitoring the numbers of such staff and makes suggestions for potential improvements in performance.

  Cancer Hot-spots (Hull)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will publish in the Official
  148
  Report the figures upon which the discovery of two new child cancer hot-spots on the Bransholme and Greatfield estate in Hull are based.

  Mrs. Currie
  I am aware that the East Yorkshire health authority is preparing a report on childhood cancers from 1974 to 1986. I understand initial indications are that the rates in the Bransholme and Greatfield census wards are not significantly elevated. I would refer the hon. Member to the chairman of the East Yorkshire health authority for further information.

  HIV and AIDS
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will publish the report of the working group on the monitoring and surveillance of HIV infection and AIDS; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  We have today published the working group's report, and copies have been placed in the Library. We are grateful to Dr. Smith and to the members of the group for the very thorough work they have done.

  The group has made a number of recommendations to improve existing arrangements for the reporting of test results, for studies based upon them, and for further steps to improve information about the prevalence of HIV infection and its spread. In particular, it has recommended a programme of antenatal testing, based on three large samples drawn from different parts of the country, with participation being voluntary, and provision being made for unnamed testing if an individual wished.

  The Government accept all the group's recommendations in principle, and will be consulting interested bodies about their implementation. In respect of the proposal for antenatal testing, consultation will build on the experience of work already undertaken towards establishing antenatal testing in parts of Scotland, which we would seek to incorporate into the wider programme recommended by the working group.

  In the Government's view, implementation of the group's recommendations will significantly improve the information needed both for planning services and for the continued development of measures to minimise the spread of the disease.

  However, the Government are aware of a substantial body of opinion which believes that there is a greater likelihood of achieving these objectives through studies based on the testing of unnamed samples without specific consent—usually described as "anonymised testing"; and note that the working group itself recognises the possibility that this might in future be required. In view of this, and of the difficult ethical and legal issues associated with such testing, we consider it right that the issue should be the subject of further and wider public debate. We would welcome views by the end of August 1988.

  Birmingham Children's Hospital
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will list the number of job forums in which jobs for intensive care nursing staff at Birmingham children's hospital have been advertised since 17 February 1988; what response there has been; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list the number of advertisements for intensive care nursing staff at Birmingham children's

  149
  hospital carried (a) in the nursing press and (b) in the Nursing Times since 17 February; what response there has been; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 23 May 1988]: Since 17 February one two-day job forum has been held aimed at attracting nursing staff to the Birmingham children's hospital as a whole. Following this forum a number of nurse trainees expressed a firm interest in working at the hospital on completion of their training this summer.

  A recruitment advertisement for trained nurses appeared in the Nursing Times on 9 March but received no response. Since earlier advertisements in the nursing press also had minimal success in recruiting nurses trained in intensive care, recruitment efforts will in future concentrate on the hospital's innovative 52-week teaching and experience package, under which nurses work as supernumaries in the intensive therapy unit and which has already attracted nine recruits; on a course for training post-graduate nurses in paediatric intensive care, which will be the first such course outside London; on a possible course to convert enrolled nurses to registered sick children's nurses; on increasing the output of training schools in the region from 56 to 77 registered sick children's nurses a year; on local press and radio appeals to mature registered sick children's nurses who had left the profession to return to nursing; and on future job forums as opportunities arise.

  Widows (Income Support)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether a widow whose income exceeds her applicable amount for income support purposes might nevertheless live below income support level because the rate rebate taper makes no allowances for mortgage costs.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 23 May 1988]: Yes. This might happen in some cases where the income support assessment contains an amount for mortgage interest and where the person's income remains slightly above income support levels. All those actually on income support will receive a maximum rate rebate. The reason for this is that mortgage payments made by owner-occupiers are not an eligible housing cost for the purposes of housing benefit.

TRANSPORT

  Military Explosives (Transport)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he proposes to amend the Conveyance by Road of Military Explosives Regulations 1977.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 10 May at column 78.

  Carlisle-Settle Railway
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many times he has travelled on the Carlisle to Settle railway, since his appointment as Secretary of State.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  My right hon. Friend has not visited the line in his present capacity, but I have travelled on it on a number of occasions.

  Historic Wrecks Advisory Committee
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of his Department's guidance to the historic wrecks advisory committee.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I have placed in the Library a copy of the Department's booklet on historic wrecks, which contains a description of the committee's functions and how it fulfills them. No further guidance is supplied to the committee.

  East London River Crossing
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take into account the future requirement of operating British Aerospace 146 planes in and out of London City airport, when coming to a decision with regard to the east London river crossing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Channon
  Late representations were received at the inquiries into the east London river crossing on the possible future use of the British Aerospace 146 at London City airport. These objections were referred by the inspector without comment to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and myself. We shall take these representations into account in considering the inspector's report of the inquiry. The use of BA146 aircraft would require a variation in the planning consent for the airport.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he hopes to announce the decision of the inspector relating to the east London river crossing.

  Mr. Channon
  Soon.

  Ferries (Stability)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the roll-on/roll-off ferries which operate in Scottish waters, indicating which routes they operate on and whether they comply with the proposed new IMO stability criteria;

  (2) how many of the ferries which operate in Scottish waters were included in the recent IMO survey of standards of residual damage stability for passenger ships; and how many met the new IMO criteria.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  A list of the 56 roll-on/roll-off ferries that normally operate in Scottish waters, and the areas in which they operate, will be placed in the Library. All these ferries comply with the present international safety standards. The study into the standards of residual stability of passenger ships sponsored by my Department compared the standards attained by a representative sample of existing ships with the standards proposed for new ships, which are not yet in force. There are as yet no new IMO criteria.

  Garages (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the number of prosecutions, in each of the last three years, for giving a false description of work carried out by a motor garage.

  Mr. Butcher
  I have been asked to reply.
  151
  We have no information on the total number of prosecutions brought. However, the number of cases of successful prosecutions under section 14 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, relating to repairs or servicing of motor vehicles, as reported to the Office of Fair Trading by local trading standards departments, was as follows:

  Number

  11984–85

  18

  11985–86

  17

  11986–87

  28

  1 In each case, the year covers the period October-September.

  Breath Tests
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will introduce legislation to resolve the difficulty which arises where police officers are able to stop drivers at random but are prohibited from requiring breath tests at random; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have been asked to reply.

  The courts have made it clear that the police may use their power to stop under section 159 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 to stop vehicles at random. They may then require a breath test under section 7 of the Act where there is reasonable cause to suspect that a driver has alcohol in his body, has committed a moving traffic offence, or has been involved in an accident. The Government have at present no plans to introduce further legislation in this area.

DEFENCE

  Maritime Strategy
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals concerning maritime strategy he will be taking to the Eurogroup meeting of Defence Ministers in Brussels on 25 May.

  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals concerning maritime strategy he will be taking to the Eurogroup meeting of Defence Ministers in Brussels on 25 May.

  Mr. Younger
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott).

  Trident
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about the latest cost of Trident nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  One representation, in the form of a letter from a member of the public, has been received since the Secretary of State announced the revised Trident estimate in January this year.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made on a system of communication to and from Trident submarines, and on the development of a control centre subject to political decision making.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 23 May 1988, at column 38.

  Bramley Camp
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for defence in respect of how many acres of Bramley camp his Department intends to seek planning permission for housing development.

  Mr. Freeman
  There are three small areas of land, amounting to about 20 acres in all, for which we have no further use. These areas adjoin existing residential areas and discussions are taking place with the Basingstoke and Deane borough council planning officials to consider these sites in relation to the local plan. These discussions will also cover the possible release and future use of an area of railway sidings which are no longer used.

  Defence Export Services Organisation
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the progress of the defence Export Services Organisation.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  As the defence White Paper makes clear, the Defence Export Services Organisation is a continuing success in its work of assisting defence manufacturers, large and small, in their drive for exports which contribute significantly to our national wealth and job opportunities.

  NATO (nuclear Weapons)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to meet his North Atlantic Treaty Organisation counterparts to discuss nuclear matters.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to meet his North Atlantic Treaty Organisation counterparts to discuss nuclear matters.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to meet his North Atlantic Treaty Organisation counterparts to discuss nuclear matters.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to meet his North Atlantic Treaty Organisation counterparts to discuss nuclear matters.

  Mr. Younger
  The next meeting of NATO's nuclear planning group will take place in the autumn. I also expect to meet my NATO colleagues at the Defence Planning Committee in Brussels on 26/27 May when we shall be discussing a range of defence and security matters affecting the Alliance.

  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Defence what discussions he has had with his North Atlantic Treaty Organisation counterparts about battlefield and short-range nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his North Atlantic Treaty Organisation counterparts about battlefield and short-range nuclear weapons.

  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his North Atlantic Treaty Organisation counterparts about battlefield and short-range nuclear weapons.
  153
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) on 23 February at column 165.

  Merchant Shipping (Wartime Use)
  Mr. Heffer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last reviewed arrangements for the use of merchant shipping in time of war.

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last reviewed arrangements for the use of merchant shipping in time of war.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last reviewed arrangements for the use of merchant shipping in time of war.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply that I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran).

  Air Sea Rescue
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at which Royal Air Force bases he intends to retain air sea-rescue facilities.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to receive the results of the review of search and rescue operations.

  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he intends to replace the Royal Air Force Wessex air-sea rescue helicopters.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will outline his plans for United Kingdom air-sea rescue coverage in the 1990s.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer right hon. and hon. Members to the Adjournment debate on 23 May with my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker).

  Ex-Government Employees (Outside Appointments)
  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about former civil servants and members of Her Majesty's forces accepting outside appointments with defence contractors.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about former civil servants and members of Her Majesty's forces accepting outside appointments with defence contractors.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about former civil servants and members of Her Majesty's forces accepting outside appointments with defence contractors.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland).

  UK-USSR (Confidence-Building Measures)
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals for confidence-building measures he intends to put to the Soviet inspection team visiting the chemical defence establishment, Porton Down.
  154
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals for confidence-building measures he intends to put to the Soviet inspection team visiting the chemical defence establishment, Porton Down.

  Mr. Cunliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals for confidence-building measures he intends to put to the Soviet inspection team visiting the chemical defence establishment, Porton Down.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals for confidence-building measures he intends to put to the Soviet inspection team visiting the chemical defence establishment, Porton Down.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The exchange of visits between the chemical defence establishment at Porton Down and the Soviet chemical warfare facility at Shikhany, first proposed by the United Kingdom in 1986, will itself make a valuable contribution to confidence building. During the Soviet visit to Porton Down the talks will cover the full range of CW-related issues. We hope this will provide the opportunity for the Soviet Union to demonstrate the much greater openness about its CW capabilities necessary to build confidence in the context of the negotiations for a global CW ban.

  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the total value of contracts placed with United Kingdom firms or institutions in connection with the United States strategic defence initiative.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  US$61.5 million.

  HM Forces (Equal Opportunities)
  Mr. Michael Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has to extend monitoring of equal opportunties in Her Majesty's forces.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has to extend monitoring of equal opportunities in Her Majesty's forces.

  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has to extend monitoring of equal opportunities in Her Majesty's forces.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) on 20 May 1988 at column 609.

  Nuclear-capable Aircraft
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what decisions concerning nuclear-capable aircraft were made at the last North Atlantic Treaty Organisation nuclear planning group meeting.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what decisions concerning nuclear-capable aircraft were made at the last North Atlantic Treaty Organisation nuclear planning group meeting.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what decisions concerning nuclear-capable aircraft were made at the last North Atlantic Treaty Organisation nuclear planning group meeting.
  155
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what decisions concerning modernisation of nuclear weapons were made at the last North Atlantic Treaty Organisation nuclear planning group meeting.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what decisions concerning modernisation of nuclear weapons were made at the last North Atlantic Treaty Organisation nuclear planning group meeting.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what decisions concerning modernisation of nuclear weapons were made at the last North Atlantic Treaty Organisation planning group meeting.

  Mr. Younger
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Members for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley).

  Merchant Fleet
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will commission a study into the defence implications of the contraction in the merchant fleet.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  No. The number of merchant vessels available in the categories required for defence purposes in an emergency is already closely monitored and careful consideration is given to any defence implications.

  Type 23 Frigates
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money has been spent to date on the development of a computer system for the type 23 frigate.

  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money has been spent to date on the development of a computer system for the type 23 frigate.

  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money has been spent to date on the development of a computer system for the type 23 frigate.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Expenditure to date is of the order of £35 million comprising some £30 million net expenditure on CACS4, and £5 million spent on the new command system for the type 23 frigate.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received concerning the ordering of type 23 frigates.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Since tenders were invited for up to four type 23 frigates in October, meetings have been held with three groups of hon. Members, one of which included local trade union representatives, and to date we have received letters from 12 hon. Members and one letter from a regional council.

  In addition, I have replied to 12 questions in this House and the matter was raised during the debate on the Royal Navy on 3 March, at column 1242.

  Procurement Expenditure
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of his Department's expenditure on procurement was spent in(a) England. (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland during the last year for which full figures are available.
  156
  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Ministry's procurement expenditure in the United Kingdom on equipment in the financial year 1986–87 is estimated to have been distributed as follows:

  Per cent.

  England

  92

  Scotland

  5

  Wales

  2

  Northern Ireland

  1

  Note: The above estimates are based on the location of final suppliers to the Ministry of Defence. They do not take account of the different location of subcontractors or of suppliers to the main contractors.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's policy with regard to the regional distribution of procurement expenditure within the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on 10 November 1987 at column 158.

  Sea King Helicopters
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last reviewed the armed forces' requirements for Sea King helicopters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The armed forces' requirements for Sea King helicopters are kept constantly under review. In November 1987 orders were placed for seven Sea Kings for the Royal Navy to maintain front-line aircraft numbers.

  Low-flying Aircraft
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether Her Majesty's Government or their North Atlantic Treaty Organisation allies are proposing measures (i) to protect the civilian population of the countries affected by low-flying exercises from accidents and damage and (ii) to compensate the victims of such accidents.

  Mr. Freeman
  There are well established procedures for compensating members of the public in cases where it is established that personal injury or damage to property has resulted from military aircraft activity. These arrangements are kept under review and are subject to revision where appropriate. All possible steps are taken to keep to a minimum the risks associated with this essential military training.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if military aircraft operating in the United Kingdom low-flying system, outside the three designated tactical training areas, are permitted to descend below 250 ft minimum separation distance in special circumstances such as the run-in to targets during simulated attack or interception manoeuvres; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Only within range areas, which fall within the physical boundaries of the United Kingdom low-flying system, but which are not part of the system in that they are designated avoidance areas for low-flying training, are aircraft permitted to descend below 250 ft minimum separation distance during the final approaches to a target.

  Chemical warfare
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what scientific, technical and military information on chemical warfare related matters has been exchanged between the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union.

  Mrs. Clywd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what scientific, technical and military information on chemical warfare related matters has been exchanged between Britain and the USSR.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what scientific, technical and military information on chemical warfare related matters has been exchanged between the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what scientific, technical and military information on chemical warfare related matters has been exchanged between Britain and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  A wide variety of scientific, technical and military information on CW-related issues, relevant to the conclusion of a verifiable global CW ban, is exchanged on a multilateral basis at the conference on disarmament at Geneva, in which both the United Kingdom and the USSR are participants.

  Ammunition Expenditure
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department intends to spend on medium and large calibre ammunition in the present financial year.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Our anticipated expenditure in this area for the present financial year was some £125 million.

  Royal Army Veterinary Corps, Melton Mowbray
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress is being made with the review of activities at the Royal Army Veterinary Corps, Melton Mowbray.

  Mr. Freeman
  The review to which my hon. Friend refers concerns the possible formation of a joint service dog school; there are currently two dog schools which are located at Melton Mowbray and RAF Newton. The review, which will also take account of the costs of the Army's equine functions at Melton Mowbray, should be completed in the summer.

  Air Combat Facility (North Sea)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to make a commitment to British Aerospace's proposed air combat manoeuvring instrumentation facility in the North sea.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I have nothing to add to my reply of 11 May at column 134.

  Donnington Central Ordnance Depot (Fire)
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the cost of the recent fire at Donnington central ordnance depot.
  158
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the cost of the recent fire at the Donnington central ordnance depot.

  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the cost of the recent fire at the Donnington central ordnance depot.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the cost of the recent fire at the Donnington central ordnance depot.

  Mr. Freeman
  The latest provisional estimate of the book value of the stock lost in the recent fire at COD Donnington is £147 million. The final estimate of the scale of the loss will depend on how much of the stock which survived proves to be salvageable.

  Maritime Operations
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes are under consideration to the current concept of maritime operations.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes are under consideration to the current concept of maritime operations.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes are under consideration to the current concept of maritime operations.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes are under consideration to the current concept of maritime operations.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on 14 December 1987 at column 409, to which I have nothing to add.

  Low-flying Exercises
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received concerning low-flying exercises in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Between 1 March 1988 and 12 May 1988 the Ministry of Defence received 719 inquiries or complaints about low flying in the United Kingdom.

  Soldiers' and Airmen's Scripture Readers Association (Centenary)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to take part in the centenary celebrations of the Soldiers' and Airmen's Scripture Readers Association.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend was invited to attend the service to be held in the Guards chapel on 25 May to mark the 150th anniversary of the Soldiers' and Airmen's Scripture Readers Association but unfortunately had to decline as he will be out of the country on that day. However, a number of senior officers from the Army and RAF will attend.

  Air Cadet Motor Gliders (Noise)
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of recent complaints he has received about the engine noise of air cadet motor gliders at volunteer gliding schools.
  159
  Mr. Freeman
  Within the last six months the MOD has received a total of four complaints about engine noise of air cadet motor gliders at volunteer gliding schools. The four complaints were about activities at the following stations: RAF Little Rissington, RAF Henlow and RAF Halton.

  RAF Aircraft (Commercial Demonstrations)
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he plans to take to monitor the use of RAF aircraft on commercial demonstrations.

  Mr. Freeman
  None. Every effort is made to respond helpfully to requests from United Kingdom companies to provide RAF aircraft for demonstrations in support of sales ventures. Well established procedures are followed in such circumstances. I will write further to my hon. Friend shortly.

  Glenmoriston Estates, Inverness-shire
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will assess the defence implications of the proposed sale of Glenmoriston estates, Inverness-shire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The defence implications of this proposed sale are currently being assessed, but no decision has yet been taken and I am not, therefore, in a position to make a statement at present. I will write to the hon. Member when the situation has been clarified.

  Military Supplies (Storage)
  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will further review safety procedures for the storage of military supplies.

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will further review safety procedures for the storage of military supplies.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will further review safety procedures for the storage of military supplies.

  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will further review safety procedures for the storage of military supplies.

  Mr. Freeman
  Safety procedures for the storage of military supplies are already subject to a process of continuous review.

  Procurement
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from defence industry representatives on the question of procurement over the last four weeks.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence receives many letters from the defence industry during the normal execution of his duties. He meets industrialists frequently, both formally and informally, and most recently chaired a meeting of the National Defence Industries Council on 17 May.

  Nuclear-powered Submarines (Decommissioning)
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the decommissioning policy being adopted for nuclear-powered submarines.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on 9 May at column 2.

  Cruise Missiles
  Mr. Terry Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the United States Defence Secretary about sea-launched cruise missiles.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the United States Defence Secretary about sea-launched cruise missiles.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the United States Defence Secretary about sea-launched cruise missiles.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply given earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg).

  Army Equipment (European Collaboration)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of Army equipment is currently produced through European collaboration.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Provision made in the Supply Estimates for 1988–89 for Army equipment being procured through collaborative projects involving our European allies amounts to 7 per cent. of the Army equipment budget.

  Procurement (Collaborative Projects)
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the United Kingdom defence procurement is presently spent on collaborative projects.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  About 15 per cent.

  USSR (Nuclear Forces)
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on steps being taken by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to modernise its nuclear forces following the intermediate nuclear forces treaty banning land-based medium range weapons.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The Soviet Union is continuing to modernise its whole array of nuclear-capable forces

  For details of the Soviet modernisation programmes I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) on 22 March at column 101 and to the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1988".

  Arms Levels
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his North Atlantic Treaty Organisation counterparts about conventional arms levels.
  161
  Mr. Younger
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett).

  Tornado
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Tornado F3 aircraft are currently held in storage at Royal Air Force, St. Athan; how many further aircraft of this type it is planned to place in storage; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  In order to facilitate an orderly build-up of the Tornado F3 force, a number of aircraft are held in storage at RAF St. Athan before being assigned to squadrons. This number fluctuates continuously; currently there are eight.

  Royal Navy
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Royal Navy has a nuclear capability for shore bombardment.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I have nothing to add to the information contained in paragraph 302 of volume 1 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1988".

  Nuclear Weapons (Accidents)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all agreements, memoranda of understanding and other formal arrangements which relate to special arrangements between the United Kingdom and the United States of America covering accidents involving United States nuclear weapons on British soil.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  There is a formal arrangement between the British and United States Governments which sets out the roles and responsibilities of the respective authorities in the highly unlikely event of an accident on United Kingdom territory involving a United States nuclear weapon.

  NATO (Nuclear Planning Group)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the date and location of each meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's nuclear planning group since January 1980.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The dates and locations of NPG meetings since January 1980 are as follows:

  Location

  3–4 June 1980

  Bodo, Norway

  13–14 November 1980

  NATO Headquarters, Brussels

  7–8 April 1981

  Bonn, Federal Republic of Germany

  20–21 October 1981

  Gleneagles, Scotland

  20–24 March 1982

  Colorado Springs, United States of America

  30 November 1982

  NATO Headquarters, Brussels

  22–23 March 1983

  Vilamoura, Portugal

  27–28 October 1983

  Montebello, Canada

  3–4 April 1984

  Cesme, Turkey

  11–12 October 1984

  Stresa, Italy

  26–27 March 1985

  Luxembourg

  29–30 October 1985

  NATO Headquarters, Brussels

  20–21 March 1986

  Wurzburg, Federal Republic of Germany

  162

  Location

  21–22 October 1986

  Gleneagles, Scotland

  14–15 May 1987

  Stavanger, Norway

  3–4 November 1987

  Monterey, United States of America

  27–28 April 1988

  NATO Headquarters, Brussels

  NATO Defence Ministers (Meetings)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what meetings of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Defence Ministers he plans to attend in the current year.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  My right hon. Friend will attend the ministerial meetings of the Eurogroup and the defence planning committee in Brussels from 25 to 27 May. He expects to attend further meetings of the Eurogroup, the defence planning committee and the nuclear planning group this autumn.

  NATO
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the Royal Navy's conventional warfare role within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to paragraph 302 of volume 1 of the "Statement of the Defence Estimates 1988".

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what instructions he has issued to members of the armed forces about registration under the community charge legislation.

  Mr. Freeman
  Members of the armed forces in Scotland who receive community charge inquiry forms have been instructed that they should fill them in and return them to registration officers in the normal way. No instructions have yet been issued in respect of England and Wales.

  Defence Spending
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the percentage of gross domestic product allocated to defence in each of the years 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The information requested is as follows:

  Per cent.

  1987–88

  4·4

  1988–89

  4·2

  1989–90

  4·1

  The reducing percentage largely reflects forecast growth in GDP.

  Gibraltar (Incident)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many bomb disposal units or military personnel with expertise in this field were present in Gibraltar on Sunday 6 March; how many bomb disposal
  163
  and other personnel this involved; how many of these were sent to Gibraltar in expectation of a possible Provisional IRA bomb attack; and on what dates these units or personnel arrived in Gibraltar.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  It is not the policy to comment on operational matters.

  Bomb Disposal Units (Gibraltar)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many bomb disposal units are normally stationed in Gibraltar at any one time; and how many personnel this involves.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Personnel providing a military bomb disposal capability are permanently based in Gibraltar. For reasons of security it is not our practice to give details of establishments of military personnel.

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

Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
What financial savings have resulted from the 10 per cent. reduction in workload ordered by the Central Birmingham District Health Authority in September 1987.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, the 10 per cent. reduction in workload related solely to the in-patients at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital and not to the Central Birmingham District Health Authority as a whole. I understand that the savings from the temporary bed closures at the hospital, effected in September last year, are approximately £10,000 per month.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that this amount is about one-half of 1 per cent. in savings at that hospital and that the cancer ward at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital suffered a 39 per cent. reduction? Does he think that it is cost-effective and efficient for patients from Kidderminster, for example, to have to self-administer their drugs before they have treatment and for them to have to get a taxi to go to and from the hospital because they are too ill to travel by public transport? Is it right that patients should be transferred to Stoke-on-Trent, which is a 90-mile round trip from Birmingham, every day for four to five weeks for treatment and that the waiting list has increased from four weeks to eight weeks for cancer treatment?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the ordered reductions were across the whole range of specialties. I can advise the noble Countess that the reduction in workload across the hospital as a whole was 7·1 per cent. The 10 per cent. has not been reached. As regards cost-effectiveness, this is a matter jointly for the hospital authorities and for the clinicians themselves.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is it conceivable that the Secretary of State or indeed the Minister could have given his approval to a decision by a district health authority simply to make a ruthless overall cut in the work of one of its hospitals? Is he aware that this cut is due to continue for a total of 12 months regardless of the consequences for patients? Does he agree with that?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, that is the most extraordinary definition of a cut that I have ever encountered. Central Birmingham is most certainly getting more money. This year central Birmingham's budget is £92·2 million. That is a 5·6 per cent. cash increase over last year and a real terms increase of 13 per cent. since 1982–83.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, if the health authority requires a 10 per cent. cut in its workload, is not that a cut in its workload?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in 1986–87 activity in central Birmingham reached levels that were not planned until the early 1990s. In other words, the authority was in danger of breaking the law by not making ends meet. This was made worse by the fact that the district treats an unusually high proportion of difficult and therefore expensive cases. I would point out that over the district as a whole there has been a 9 per cent. increase in patient treatments between 1982 and 1987. I regard that as a success story.
Earl Russell: My Lords, will the noble Lord consider looking again at the actuarial basis of these figures, because outside government circles they carry very limited conviction?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, they do not for anybody who has been treated in central Birmingham in the years that I have mentioned.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, will the Minister please tell the House whether the Government still have every confidence in the management of the West Midlands health authority and in the central district authority?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords. The Government have every confidence in the management. The management themselves realise that there is a slightly imperfect world as regards health in that part of the country. That is why they are reviewing the situation. The Government look forward to the results of that review.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister what he would do in the circumstances in which the regional health authority finds itself in Birmingham. I am quoting from the Birmingham Post of May 12th when the general manager, Mr. Ken Bailes, admitted that the authority had firm requests for projects totalling more than £15 million. It has £3·6 million to spend on those projects. Would the Minister like to tell us what his priorities would be?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, they would certainly not be increasing patient treatments at a greater rate than there is money available to do so. As regards the West Midlands Regional Health Authority as a whole, substantial increases in funding have enabled the region to treat 24 per cent. more in-patients, 17 per cent. more out-patients and 79 per cent. more day cases than in 1978.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, how can the noble Lord justify that statement when he said on 23rd March in the debate of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that it was patients who mattered to Her Majesty's Government, and not beds?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, none of the answers that I have given this afternoon would, I believe, lead me to contradict that statement or those thoughts. I have been talking about patient treatments throughout. It is the noble Countess who has been talking about beds.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that the money released to reduce the waiting list for urology in central Birmingham was used as effectively as it should have been, in view of the bed closures and the reduced number of theatre sessions which had already been arranged?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I know that waiting lists for urology cases in central Birmingham have been reduced substantially. I do not have the details at the moment. I shall write to the noble Lady.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether he is aware that Birmingham is a nice city which has produced some very distinguished people.
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords; and they are particularly well treated.
Lord Harvington: My Lords, will the noble Lord remember that Birmingham is perhaps the best governed city in England?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, that is an interesting point of view.

British Passport: New Format
2.45 p.m.
Lord St. John of Fawsley Lord St. John of Fawsley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy on the phasing out of the present style British passport.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, a new form of United Kingdom passport, which is machine readable and which is in a common format with those of other EC countries, is being introduced from July of this year. By the end of 1989, all new standard passports which will be issued in the United Kingdom will be in the new format. Passports in the present format may continue to be used until they expire.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, irrespective of any views which may be held on the EC, there is widespread dismay at the prospect of losing the traditional blue format of British passports in favour of a limp vermilion mini-version? Since the Home Office maintains that there is no such thing as a European passport and since
770
there is no legal obligation to impose one, will the Government think again and allow us to retain a symbol of which every British citizen is proud?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand the adherence of my noble friend to the traditional British passport. However, I do not think that his description of the new one as limp, vermilion and mini does it true justice. I am sure that my noble friend appreciates the wording which is inside the passport and the coat of arms on the outside. Those will be precisely the same. The passport is being computerised in order to meet the increased public demand. That move was recommended by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and by a Rayner study in 1982. The manual form of passport was not compatible with computerisation. Therefore, we are modernising the system.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, are the Government aware of the very long delays in passport offices and the inconvenience which is caused to the public in seeking new passports? What do the Government intend to do about that?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, oddly enough the Government are aware of the delays, which are unacceptable. There has been a 25 per cent. increase in applicants on the corresponding period in 1987. We are trying to expedite matters by the recruitment of additional staff at all offices. Some 250 staff have been recruited. Overtime working at weekends has gone up by 65 per cent. The immediate grant of free short-term extensions to expired passports for personal callers and the issuing of emergency travel documents to personal callers whose applications cannot be readily traced have also helped.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, whether the description of the new passport by the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, is an overstatement or an understatement, can the Minister explain to the House why tradition should be sacrificed to the computer? Would it not be more acceptable to ask the computer to produce something like the old British passport?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is producing something like the old British passport. However, it is not producing the old British passport. The changes are being made so that the passport will have a common format with the passports of other Community countries. It is also being done in order to make the passport machine readable—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will understand exactly what that means—and to prevent the very troubles to which the noble Lord referred earlier.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, am I right in suspecting that the noble Earl has a sample of the new passport with him? Will he show that to the House?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord has peculiarly penetrating eyes. I have a sample. However, I think that it would not be a suitable precedent to start flourishing things in the Chamber. It might encourage other noble Lords of less agreeable disposition, if there are any, to do the same.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, will the noble Earl confirm that the passport will contain the traditional wording:
"We, Her Majesty's principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs", etc., etc.?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Earl has not got the wording right. It begins:
"We, Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State"
and it does not say "etc., etc.". Perhaps I may tell the noble Earl exactly what the wording is:
"We, Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State requests and requires in the name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary".
If the noble Earl is as diligent as I have been and compares that with his present passport, I think he will find that the words are the same.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, now that the Minister has shown us the passport—which he had not intended to do—will he accept that on these Benches we are delighted with the Government's enthusiasm for high tech and even more delighted with the unusually communautaire spirit in which they are backing the passport?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may say that I particularly appreciate the communautaire spirit of the noble Baroness in congratulating the Government. I did not think that I had many friends around the Chamber and I am grateful to those I do have.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House and future brides that when brides take their husband's name their maiden name will, as it used to, appear in brackets in their passports after their marriage?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I should be reticent about giving any assurance to brides on any matters—including the format of their names on the British passport.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, with regard to the communautaire spirit, can the noble Earl give an absolute assurance that the French Government will comply with the new rules and the new passport, skilled as they are in adapting the Community rules to their own purposes?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if I were to say to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that I cannot answer for the French Government I think he would understand. I have no reason to believe that they will not.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am much obliged. The noble Earl has made a very serious statement.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, do my eyes deceive me or is the new passport smaller and less bulky than the present one?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is smaller in dimension. I have not counted the number of pages. It has a less flexible cover than the original and therefore may fit into ladies' handbags more easily.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether Parliament will have anything to say in the matter?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the common format was agreed by the heads of Government within the European Community, and that is the reason why it is going forward.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, will my noble friend agree with regard to the communautaire spirit that that spirit has nothing to do with uniformity but with unity, and within unity there can be diversity? Since we have had a glimpse of the dreaded new passport will my noble friend kindly place it in the Library where it will clearly take up very little room?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend draws a semantic distinction between uniformity and unity. I would not wish to follow him on that. Even he will know that in this modern day and age there is a certain advantage in uniformity and that is one of the reasons why this is being done. With regard to placing a copy of the new passport in the Library, I shall certainly see whether that can be done.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether the computer at the Passport Office will be better trained than the one at the DVLC which refused to understand that we were not all Mr., Mrs., Miss or Ms?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not think that those two computers will talk to each other. I have no reason to believe that the Passport Office computer will not be fully capable of dealing with the problem which the noble Countess has described.

Uniform Business Rate: Policy
2.54 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to delay the proposed introduction of the uniform business rate in 1990–91, and if so, what steps they will take during the interval to remove the anomalies which at present disadvantage the Scottish business community.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, the Local Government Finance Bill provides for the introduction of uniform business rates in England and in Wales from 1990–91 but we have always made clear that the extension of a uniform business rate to Scotland cannot be contemplated until non-domestic property north and south of the Border is valued for rating purposes on a comparable basis. In the

773
meantime all Scottish business will benefit because from next year non-domestic rate poundages will be subject to index-linked ceilings.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, while I welcome the statement about an index-linked ceiling, will the Minister agree that it makes no contribution whatsoever to removing the glaring anomaly in which an industrial plant based in Scotland pays £9 million in rates but if it were situated south of the Border in Carlisle or Newcastle its bill would be £1.5 million in rates? Can the Minister give Scottish industry any hope that there will he a degree of harmonisation in valuation which will take care of such anomalies?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, knows because he was present at the passing of the Scottish Act, discussions had to take place as a first stage between the Inland Revenue valuation office and the Scottish Assessors' Association. Progress in those discussions has been significant. Perhaps I should draw your Lordships' attention to the simultaneous revaluations in 1990, which will be a major step not least because they will help to clarify the extent to which differences north and south of the Border arise from different valuation practices.
I am very well aware of this particular issue, which is germane to the fortunes of Scottish industry. I think that the noble Lord will understand from my reply that the first steps have been taken. I shall be happy to elaborate on those further should the noble Lord wish.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, is treading on dangerous ground in calling for harmonisation between England and Wales and Scotland? Is it not the case that the amount of government support per head of population in Scotland is some 27 per cent. higher than in England and Wales? When my noble friend is considering harmonisation in the interests of some of the hard-pressed areas of the North of England will he bear that fact in mind?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I do not think that this is the time or the place to go into a Scotland versus England and Wales debate. However I appreciate what my noble friend has said. I have to say to him and to others that the one thing that has to happen before we can have a unified business rate which will be effective north and south of the Border is for harmonisation to take place. That could well lead to legislation but I am very happy to report that so far the discussions between the two bodies have gone extremely well.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the Minister will recall that during the discussion of the Scottish Bill on the community charge great concern was expressed because the last revaluation in England had taken place about 15 years ago and because of the passage of time the necessary skills had been lost. Therefore, although Inland Revenue staff and Scottish assessment people are getting together
774
now, a very large body of others will need to be trained for the mammoth task of harmonisation. Is the Minister sure that they will be available in the year 1990, when the harmonisation becomes imperative?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, while I thank the noble Lord for that remark, I am very well aware of the amount of work that has to be done. Perhaps I may elaborate on the steps already taken, which will indicate the direction in which we are going. First, those bodies have looked at the handling and interpretation of rental evidence to ensure that it is in line north and south of the Border. Secondly, they have identified certain classes of subject where there have been differences of practice—namely, racecourses and petrol stations—with a view to developing a more common approach.
Thirdly, they have studied in detail the operation of the contractor's principle. As the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, will be aware that is one of the biggest problem areas to be faced and could perhaps lead to legislation. They have identified the major underlying causes of the differences. One of the differences is decapitalisation rates and the Government are considering whether the rates should in future be prescribed on a Great Britain basis.
Finally, there is the whole question of plant and machinery and the valuation thereof and the differences north and south of the Border. That is a very complex area. While I thank the noble Lord for indicating that it will mean a lot of work, I think that the principles of achieving a unified business rate north and south of the Border are well understood and we are well on the way to removing some of the difficulties.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will the Minister say whether the same injustices will occur with the uniform business rate in Scotland in large cities with commuter populations? Or will the problem arise only in London and the South, where inner cities will be adversely affected by low resident population and high commuter population and the full business rate will go into a central pool?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her question. I think that that is a matter which ought to be addressed during the debate of the Bill presently before your Lordships' House. So far as concerns Scotland, as noble Lords will know, at the moment the basis of business rates—which will have ceilings applied to them—is regional.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, harking back to the last question, may I ask my noble friend whether he is advocating unity or uniformity?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I am advocating a sensible arrangement north and south of the Border so that business both north and south of the Border will be able to prosper. The rates will be those which can be paid by business and not those that some people think that business should pay.
Lord Parry: My Lords, as regards the issue of comparative funding raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, will the noble Lord accept that that is something which, even though it is accidental, we appreciate very much when there is some benefit to Wales and Scotland as distinct from the English regions? Does he appreciate that there is a very serious reason behind this: that the fundamental basis of the economies in those countries of Wales and Scotland has been so badly eroded that some difference in funding is only to be expected?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his question. I hope that he will be in his place tomorrow when I shall have something to say to the House about the Scottish economy.
Lord Parry: My Lords, I can assure the Minister that I shall be in my place.

Education: Prime Minister's Statement
3 P.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the statement by the Prime Minister (Sunday Times, 8th May 1988) that, "the Department of Education and Science could not make all the decisions with regard to schools; it would just not be possible. They would not know the circumstances", represents their policy.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the Government's policy is that the duty to secure that sufficient schools are available in each area should continue to rest with the local education authorities. The day-to-day running of the schools should rest with the schools themselves.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I welcome that reply. The Prime Minister states a general principle, in the words on the Order Paper:
"the Department of Education and Science could not make all the decisions with regard to schools; it would just not be possible".
Those noble Lords who sat through the marathon of the Education Reform Bill may feel that they have heard those words before. May I therefore ask whether we are to welcome the Prime Minister to the ranks of the critics of the Bill? Are we to welcome her conversion to the view that has been so brutally expressed by Digby Anderson that Kenneth Baker is a socialist? May we look forward to the amendment of the Education Reform Bill in order to loosen the straitjacket of the DES? Or must I give notice of a Question to ask whether that Bill represents government policy; and, if so, would the Secretary of State know the answer to it?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, that was a plethora of questions from the noble Earl. I should point out that the main thrust of the Education Reform Bill is to involve more people in the running of schools by giving more power to parents and governors. Local authorities will continue to play a very important role, not least in setting the framework for the education service for their areas and in monitoring its delivery.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that this Bill will allow more choice to parents and to pupils?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, my noble friend asked a most apposite question because the Government's purpose is to provide a much wider range of choice for parents and their children. The Bill will widen choice by allowing more open enrolment to maintained schools and by providing new kinds of schools. The legislation is concerned with introducing a greater variety of provision so as to give parents a real choice.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, can the noble Earl say how pupils can be given a wider range of choice when there is a fixed curriculum that every child will have to take and which will occupy 70 per cent. of the time?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, that may be the noble Baroness's comment on the national curriculum, but I remind your Lordships that the Bill passed through this House in its present form. Everything else that pertains to it is quite correct.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the words of the Prime Minister quoted in the Question refer to the DES, which, it says,
"would not know the circumstances".
Can the noble Earl tell the House whether there is any one thing that the DES knows at all?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the DES knows a considerable amount about how to run things. Furthermore, I should point out that in this country we have a great tradition of a career Civil Service. Its primary strength lies in the capacity of its senior civil servants through their ability, experience and training—
Noble Lords: Yes, Minister!
The Earl of Arran: —to offer impartial and objective advice to Ministers on a wide range of policy issues. It is their job to review and synthesise—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Earl of Arran: Thank you, my Lords—the often conflicting advice of specialists in the field.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have asked a Question on this matter at least twice in written form and that I put an oral question to him last month? From among the ranks of its very famous civil servants with general qualifications does the DES have people with the necessary experience? Do they have teaching experience—the professional experience of teaching in schools or further education establishments—or even experience in administration in local authorities?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, that is a well worn track of questioning pursued by the noble Baroness. My reply is that the DES draws on advice from a wide

777
range of sources, which include HMI, a variety of expert non-departmental public bodies and also expert working groups set up to consider particular issues.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that HMI is independent of the DES, and that the two are quite separate?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am only too well aware of it. Nevertheless, the DES continues to draw advice and experience from HMI.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, is it not the whole point of financial delegation to schools and setting up the new governing bodies that decision-making in future will devolve to schools and not be done in the DES or in the local authorities? That is where the people are who know what teaching and children are all about. That is the whole ethos of the Bill. Is it not very important that the House should accept that?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. Our proposals are designed to achieve maximum delegation of decision-making to the school level while retaining an overall framework to protect standards of provision. Local authorities will remain responsible for setting the framework within their areas while national government set standards across the country. The Bill is concerned with securing the maximum delegation of power consistent with maintaining standards.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that, as quoted in the Question, the Prime Minister has stated a general principle that is in fundamental conflict with the purpose of a Government Bill; and if not, why not?
The Earl of Arran: No, my Lords.

Business
3.7 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Local Government Finance Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Second Reading of the Scotch Whisky Bill will be taken.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, while we are on the question of business, in the absence of the Government Chief Whip may I ask a business question of the noble Lord the Leader of the House? Knowing how solicitous he is for the attendants who serve us so excellently in this House, perhaps I may ask him to arrange that the next time this House is filled with unknown Peers—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Hatch of Lusby: —somebody from the Whip's Office or from his own office is on hand to
778
help the attendants to identify people whom they have never seen before, provided that either the Whip's Office or his own office knows them.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, of course I understand the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch. Perhaps I may assure him that his face is familiar and always welcome.

Brighton and Preston Cemetery Bill
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Bill
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
Scottish Development Agency (Oban South Pier) Order Confirmation Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Local Government Finance Bill
3.11 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee. —(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair]
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): I should like to make a short statement about yesterday's Division. The number of noble Lords voting Content was announced as 183. However, the Tellers concerned have since agreed that the number should be 184. The mistake arose because the name of one noble Lord who voted was not recorded. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to remind Members of the Committee of the importance of giving your name distinctly to the Clerk and making sure that it is marked on the Clerk's list.
Schedule 1 [Personal community charge: exemption]:
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 80, line 27, leave out paragraph 4.
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 25 standing in my name and the names of the noble Lords, Lord Hayter and Lord Banks, and the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby. I also speak to Amendments Nos. 188 and 189. Amendment No. 189 is the important one.
These amendments could not possibly be described as wrecking amendments, but they are of great importance to some of the less fortunate members of society. When we were discussing the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill on Report on 30th April of last year, three issues arose that are directly relevant to today's discussion. First, the Government introduced an amendment exempting the severely mentally handicapped on the ground that they did not have the mental capacity to take part in the local democratic process. The amendment did not say how severe mental handicap was to be determined. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, accepted that guidance to the registration officer would have to be worked out in consultation with the professional bodies.
Secondly, in response to the questions about the physically disabled, the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, said (at col. 1655 of the Official Report) that the Government recognised that there was a category of severely disabled people who at present enjoyed full rates relief, and that the Government proposed that additional help which could extend up to 100 per cent. of the community charge should be available for a group of disabled persons to be defined in the regulation. Although that undertaking has in the event not been honoured, we start today with the fact that the Government are on record as having contemplated 100 per cent. rebates for certain disabled people.
Thirdly, some of us urged on the Government that it was illogical to go down the road of exemption for the mentally handicapped, and down the road of rebates for the physically disabled. Perhaps there is a fourth point that no scintilla of doubt was raised about the competence of this Chamber to amend the legislation.
Despite the representations made then, paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the present Bill follows the Scottish precedent of exempting the severely mentally handicapped but, unlike the Scottish Bill, states how it is to be decided that an individual is to be defined as severely mentally handicapped. There are two tests: entitlement to the severe disablement allowance; and certification by a doctor. However, in the nature of things, most ordinary GPs can have very little experience and knowledge of mental handicaps and correlating it with levels of understanding. It is a very difficult matter, and the formula in the Bill is a recipe for inconsistent decisions up and down the country. Nor do I see anything about any right of appeal. I should have thought it very much better to have a test which avoids altogether going through a second and rather obtrusive process of judgment.
This is apart from the objection in principle to categorising a group of mentally handicapped people as set aside from the rest of the community—and the feelings on this point are very much more strongly felt than I had realised at the time that the Scottish legislation was going through. As we therefore argued on the Scottish Bill, I am now suggesting that the preferable route is one of rebates, and (again as was contemplated at one stage in Scotland) of rebates of up to 100 per cent. in appropriate cases. This
780
amendment tries to define the appropriate cases. It extends the 80 per cent. community charge benefit to 100 per cent. where a claimant's income is low enough to warrant it, with the consequence too that the scope of the tapered element of the rebate would be enlarged, starting, as it were, at 100 per cent. instead of 80 per cent. It seems to me that the proposal would fit into the government's rebate scheme and conform to the same means-tested rules.
To qualify, the individual must not only be poor, he or she must also be in receipt of one of the special benefits listed in the later amendment to which I have referred, or be registered as blind or partially sighted. I expect the Government will argue that those in receipt of income support will be entitled to the reduction of 80 per cent., and that income support levels will include an amount to help with the remaining 20 per cent. I understand that the formula currently in use refers to the extra as being intended to help with the 20 per cent. rather than to claim that it will necessarily cover the 20 per cent.
The Government may also point out that the threshold at which a disabled person remains entitled to the maximum 80 per cent. reduction is higher than for the non-disabled. But it is central to the Government's case that since in high spending areas the uprated amount will not cover the 20 per cent., those living there who are in receipt of the maximum rebate will still have to find money themselves and will therefore have an interest in the spending policies of their local council.
However, it seems to me that this is an approach which simply treats those concerned as voting units. It may look very well on paper; but when one considers who the people are, the picture changes. We are talking about the poor who are blind, mentally handicapped, so disabled as to need attendance, or those who are immobile without special help. Many of them already have the greatest difficulty in making ends meet. Is it really the mark of a compassionate society to look to people like this to struggle, or to be wheeled to the polling booths, or to wrestle with the forms which they might receive, all in the name of local accountability? Those of us who have dealings with these fellow human beings with all their handicaps find it quite difficult to accept that that is right.
I should like to make one other important point. The Bill exempts those living in a residential care home, but not those who try to live an independent life in the community, although until this Bill appeared one rather thought that it was government policy to encourage just that. It is no good anyone arguing that there are differences between them now, since there is no getting away from the fact that the Bill's provisions would in future tend to act as a disincentive for disabled people to live in or to go back to the community and thereby incur expense which, by staying in residential care, they could avoid. After all, when a family now takes in a disabled relative, under the present rating system there is no increase in the contribution which that family makes towards the costs of local services.
I fear that the provisions in the Bill, as they affect the physically and mentally disabled poor, have

781
rather too many elements of illogicality for comfort. I am not naive enough to think that we necessarily have the drafting right with our amendments, but the principle involved is clear enough and I invite the Committee to give the other place the possibility of thinking again. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I have often argued the case for the disabled in this Chamber, but now—if I may say so very briefly and give my reasons—I find myself in some difficulty with this amendment. On the Scottish Bill I argued for the exemption of the severely mentally handicapped on the basis that it was totally absurd to apply the principles of accountability to severely mentally handicapped people. The Government accepted the argument—I see my noble friend Lord Glenarthur in his place. The amendment was carried into the Bill. It was agreed in another place and it is now in the Scottish Act.
There is no question whatever of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and the amendments linked with it, being wrecking amendments, but surely it is of cardinal importance that there should be parity of principle both north and south of the Border. To carry the mentally handicapped from exemption to rebate would be to import a disparity of principle as regards treatment either side of the Border. Amendment No. 25 is the paving amendment to Amendment No. 189, the important amendment. I suggest that the amendments are open to objection on that ground.
However, there is another aspect. The fourth paragraph of Schedule 1, which Amendment No. 25 seeks to excise in favour of Amendment No. 189, may well require considering again. There I agree with the noble Lord. There are difficulties about it. I do not see an amendment down to that effect, but the Committee may agree that we should have more than one medical practitioner to certify. The Committee may think that there should be some form of appeal procedure. There are all sorts of other issues which the Committee may wish to consider, such as the suggestion that in its present form paragraph 4 is not quite right, but that is a totally different matter.
The other problem of principle that arises which worries me is that the complex structure of rebate, as proposed in Amendment No. 189 related to income support plus various premiums and various allowances to secure the 100 per cent. rebate—which, as I understand it, would include this category of exemption of the severely mentally handicapped—is another departure in principle from the rebate system, complex as that is, which is incorporated in the Scottish Act.
Although I hope that noble Lords or my noble friend the Minister may improve on paragraph 4 of Schedule 1, it is for those reasons that as a matter of principle, I have difficulty in importing a disparate regime north and south of the Border.
Lord Irlayter: Having congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, on his birthday—I shall forbear from saying which one it is—I want to make the point that this corner of the Committee has no monopoly on charitable organisations and charitable amendments. What happens is that
782
governments come and go, although they often forget that they do go, but charitable organisations on the whole go on forever. Therefore it ill behoves a charitable organisation to become too political. That is why more often than not they come to independent Peers for support for their problems.
This amendment and the accompanying amendments raise some complicated issues. The difficulty is one of definition, particularly that of the severely disabled. I shall point out some of the main problems and I have no doubt that some will emerge in the discussion on the amendment. Dealing with the first point that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, made, I thought it had been understood—maybe I heard it wrongly—that if there were any major principles in the Bill which altered the Bill as it came to this House, efforts would be made to alter the position in Scotland. Perhaps the noble Earl will correct me on that, but I believe that that was said by someone.
The main point behind our amendments is that we want to see whether it is possible for the severely disabled and severely handicapped to live in the community. That is not only a question for this Bill, but it is also for the Government to make up their minds about the level that the social services should reach to enable that to be carried out. It is vital—and this is what we are trying to do in the Bill—to straighten out the money aspect.
I cannot forbear from saying that I am as conscious as the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, of the Glenarthur promise, if I may put it that way. I understand that that has not materialised and that even if it does, it will be compensation on the average going right across the country. Although it is true that some will gain and some will lose, the people who lose will never be able to forget that they should be able to stand by that original promise and be given compensation, which would make their life bearable.
As I said, the difficulty which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, also pointed out is this problem of trying to define the severely disabled, particularly as the severely disabled, as I understand from their organisations, do not feel that they are asking for any special favours. As much as possible they want to be put in the same position as the average citizen, but disablement brings extra costs. Nobody can argue about that. So we hope that we shall be given from the other side of the Committee today the same charitable thoughts as were exemplified so well yesterday.
We were delighted by the concessions that were made by the Government yesterday. We hope that they will think seriously about the propositions that we have put in front of them. If we have this or that wrong, for heaven's sake let us get it right. We are not too proud to be told that we have made a mistake. I believe that it was Emerson who said that to say that one has made a mistake is to say to the world one is a wiser man today than one was yesterday. It is with that thought that I commend the amendment.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I remember being very much involved in the amendment on the Scottish Bill

783
which exempted the severely mentally handicapped, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Allen, and referred to in the Glenarthur promise. It is important that the Committee should first think what is right about this issue. We should consider how different people are treated in relation to the community charge. Secondly, the Committee should consider how the mechanics and money can best be organised.
I believe that a thread should run through all our considerations on this issue. It is the way to bring into society those who are disadvantaged, handicapped and difficult to trace, such as the people of whom we spoke last night, and make them feel that they are a part. It is exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, said. People want to be made to feel the same as others. I believe that there should be an absolute minimum number of exemptions. They should apply to people who cannot be made to feel that they can play a part in the democratic process. Last night the Committee discussed prisoners on remand who are not able to take part in the system because, although they are not convicted, they are in prison on remand. That also applies to the severely mentally handicapped.
However, when dealing with severely handicapped people, is it not much better that they and their families know that they can contribute to the services which we have, as does everyone else? It can be explained in a simple way so that they can understand. If we then make the conditions, we must make quite sure that they have the money to fulfil them. That is the point. I believe that the same proposition will apply when we debate the amendment about volunteers. That is how I see the matter.
The question that the Government must address is: how can we be sure that such people have the money and ability to fulfil the conditions? It must be arranged in a way which would enable them to do so and if they cannot read and understand, it must be explained to them. I hope that that does not sound condescending because it is meant to be the opposite. Last night I thought that we were on the verge of treating certain people in our society as being incapable of playing their part. I believe that to be quite wrong and I believe it from the depths of my being.
Very few people cannot play their part and it is they who should be exempted; the others should be rebated. I do not believe that a 100 per cent. rebate will give the feeling of taking part. I believe that their contribution should be at the level of 20 per cent., and we must make sure that they have the money to pay. That is how I see the issue. It is the moral basis of the benefit system. One produces money to help people to meet the difference between the needs that they must meet and the income that they have. I believe that we should do that in this case. I still draw a distinction between the severely mentally handicapped and those who can understand and would like to contribute. We must make sure that they can.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I should like to deal with the Scottish Act in short measure. I agree with the
784
noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that the Scottish definition is different. I understand that the Government have given an undertaking that if this Bill produces a different situation from that in the Scottish Act, the Scottish Act will be amended in this Bill in order to bring the two together.
The Scottish definition of excluding people who are severely mentally handicapped puts an impossible burden on the relatives with whom the mentally handicapped person lives, whether they are children or parents. The carer must decide whether the person's mental handicap is severe. In Edinburgh it is estimated that the community charge will be between £400 and £500, which is a lot of money. One may have a child whom one is trying to educate to be as self-sufficient as possible considering his mental handicap. If the parents say, "I am sorry, we must go to the registrar and say that you are severely mentally handicapped because we will save £500 a year", what will that do to the relationship between the child and the parents? How does one do that if one's mother or father is living at home and is beginning to show signs of mental frailty? At what stage does one say to one's parents, "I shall now apply to have you registered as being severely mentally handicapped"? It does not work and it is not an example of a caring society. The Scottish Act is wrong and we should again try to achieve the correct result.
Lord Banks: I should like to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and the two amendments associated with it, to all of which my name is added. As the noble Lord has clearly explained, the amendments would eliminate the exemption from community charge for those people with severe mental handicap. It would replace the exemption with a maximum 100 per cent. rebate for certain categories of very old and disabled people receiving certain benefits, and for those registered blind or partially sighted.
Members of the Committee who support the amendments consider the exemption of those with a severe mental handicap to be very unsatisfactory. First, there is the problem of definition, to which the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, referred most tellingly. Secondly, the proccess of certification is likely to be very distasteful for both patients and carers. Thirdly, there is the problem of those who have acquired a mental handicap during their lifetime, because it appears that they are not covered by the Bill. I believe that the condition must be congenital. However, there are over 1,000 people with functional limitations as a result of strokes and over 1 million people suffering from Alzheimer's disease. It appears that those people are not included.
The Minister, the right honourable Michael Howard, said at the Report stage in another place that he would look again at the definition. That statement appeared in the House of Commons Hansard, at col. 702, on 19th April 1988. I am wondering what has happened about that undertaking and whether the Minister is contemplating introducing an amendment at a later stage.
All the major disability organisations agree that it is undesirable to hand out exemptions from the poll

785
tax to certain categories of disabled people on the grounds that they cannot fully understand what is going on. People should be treated according to their ability to pay and not according to the degree of comprehension which they may be thought to have. Hence, the provision in Amendment No. 189 for certain categories of the very old and disabled who are in receipt of certain benefits indicating their condition and not requiring any additional certification to receive a maximum 100 per cent. rebate.
In other words, instead of beginning at 80 per cent., the table would begin at 100 per cent. The poorest in those categories would be relieved altogether of the poll tax while those not so poor would have greater help than they have at the moment. The 20 per cent. which they would have to pay as a minimum, as things stand, is not, in my view, adequately compensated for in income support. In addition, the amendment would make sure that some extra contribution was made towards offsetting the additional cost of disability for the low-income disabled.
Amendment No. 189 also provides for the registered blind and partially sighted to receive the maximum 100 per cent. rebate. The majority of blind people are in the poorest sector of society. Some 75 per cent. of them are pensioners, and yet they receive virtually nothing to compensate them for the added cost of their disability. They find it very hard to qualify for attendance or mobility allowance. The amendment would make them eligible for a 100 per cent. rebate if their income was such as to warrant this. I repeat that: if their income was such as to warrant this.
The amendment would prevent the tendency referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for people to be taken out of the care in the community and put in residential care in order to secure exemption, which is the opposite of the Government's proclaimed policy.
Some time ago in relation to this matter, I asked in this Chamber why the Government were so keen to take people on low incomes out of taxation and equally keen to ensure that they are all brought into paying towards local government. I remember that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, reminded me that the people who would be taken out of income tax would be paying indirect tax, and that indirect tax helps, as does income tax, to meet the national expenditure. However, it is equally true that through the support grant indirect taxation helps towards paying for local government. The only argument against what seems to me a very sensible arrangement set out in the amendments can be that everyone must contribute something to the costs of local government by means of direct payment, except for certain categories of the mentally handicapped. They must do that however old, disabled or poor they may be. It seems to me that the Government are in danger of making a fetish of this diktat, and I hope that they will not allow it to prevent their acceptance of this amendment.
Viscount Ingleby: I should like to support this amendment and I shall confine my remarks to the
786
physically disabled. I should like to ask the Minister what is the justification for adding an extra burden to those whose handicap already makes life much more difficult and expensive bearing in mind that the Government will be saving £61 million in the form of rebates? The Government say that the income support will be increased to compensate for the 20 per cent. community charge, but if that is only at the national average, that will mean that certain severely disabled people in places such as Camden will be paying an extra £2 a week.
Perhaps I may also ask whether the extra support will be geared to inflation because otherwise it will simply slip away as the years go by. Also, will it not save a lot of work to grant 100 per cent. exemptions in this case? Otherwise, severely disabled people may be paying only £1 a week and someone will have to keep records of that. That seems to me a very time consuming exercise. Will it be worthwhile to collect these very small amounts of money?
3.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: I was one of those who joined with other Members of this Chamber in persuading the Government in the last Session to do something about the mentally handicapped. Although I was glad that they dealt with those who were described as severely mentally handicapped, and that the definition was inserted, I did not think it went quite far enough at the time. Therefore, I have some sympathy with the motives of those moving these amendments. However, I am puzzled by the method of doing so. Speaking for myself, I would not leave out paragraph 4 of the first schedule and would not replace it with something more specifically related to that at which the paragraph is aimed.
However, having said that, I believe that the principle has been well aired and I have great confidence that my noble friends on the Front Bench will give some kind of positive response although I do not see how they could easily accept the amendments as they stand.
On the broad principle of the Bill, it is true that there are some mentally handicapped people who are able to work and can contribute to and take part in the life of society. That is especially so in the spheres of horticulture and farming. At MENCAP we have special facilities for training such people and many obtain good jobs on farms. Therefore, there is a real difficulty about definition. We do not want that definition to go too far in either direction.
The same applies regarding the physically disabled. There are some physically disabled people who are quite incapable of doing any kind of work and they require special consideration. However, this country can be proud of the fact that the vast majority of disabled people are able to do some work according to their capacities, and that also needs to be acknowledged in the wording of this Bill.
Lord Carter: I am glad to support the amendments from these Benches. They seem to have a number of advantages. First, they have identified disabled people on low incomes. The 100 per cent. rebate is both targeted and tapered and I should have thought that that would appeal to the Government. It relates

787
the rebate to the actual community charge in each area and not a national average figure. I hope when the Minister replies he does not refer to gainers or losers because if one is a disabled loser it is of no consolation to be told that there are some disabled gainers.
Disabled people have a complicated life pattern. They have stays in hospital, in respite care, in residential and short stay homes, and live at home with assistance and so on. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, was arguing for a comprehensive disability income. We all agree with that, but we do not have it. We are talking about very poor people. It is estimated that 40 per cent. of disabled people are in the low income group compared with 23 per cent. in the population as a whole in the non-disabled group, and that 2 million of the 3 million disabled in this country are living on or near the margins of poverty. The level of allowance for disabled people, especially under the new Social Security Act, goes nowhere near meeting the extra cost of the disability.
The advantages of these amendments are that the means of defining disability are automatic and unobtrusive. As I said, they identify and target those who are on low incomes, thus reflecting the fact that disabled people have a financial disadvantage. To that extent the phrase of which we heard a lot yesterday—namely, "the ability to pay"—is the central criterion rather than the disability as an inherent characteristic. The measure marches with the principles of good community care and it seeks to ensure that there are no financial penalties for people who seek to move into the community nor a financial disincentive for staying in the community. Eligibility for the rebate proposed is defined by a particular person's entitlement to certain income-related and other benefits. The intention is to ensure that the ability to pay and the particular needs of disabled people are taken fully into account.
As I said, yesterday we heard a great deal about the ability to pay. The Government have argued throughout the passage of this Bill that the ability to pay is enshrined in the legislation either directly or indirectly. These amendments make that factor crystal clear in the case of people with disabilities. I support the amendments.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: The noble Lord, Lord Carter, has put the plight of the disabled very well indeed. I know that my noble friend Lady Darcy (de Knayth) and I agree that disabled people want to be the same as other people as far as possible, and they also want to pay their taxes if they can. However, there are some who cannot and it is those people I hope my noble kinsman will consider.
Disability is so complicated. I believe that the Government should now look very seriously at the whole problem of severe disability, as the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, said. The Disablement Income Group (DIG) tried to sort out this problem with Parliament over many years but nothing has been achieved. Perhaps now is the time to look at this problem and to do something concrete in order to compensate and then to allow disabled
788
people to pay their taxes in the same way as everyone else.
Lady Kinloss: I too wish to support these amendments. Many disabled people want to take their full place in the community with everyone else. However, for a disabled person on a low income it becomes more and more difficult to play a full role if one is struggling to make ends meet. Surely it is far better to ensure that a disabled person has sufficient resources to play a full and active role in the community; otherwise we may see some disabled people applying for residential care or returning to it as they feel that they no longer have the resources to stay in the community. Surely that is a situation that the Government would not wish to see happen.
Lord Parry: Until fairly recently, for 10 years I was chairman of the Spastics Society in Wales. For much longer my wife was in charge of a unit for the mentally and physically handicapped. Our daughter has just now left the school in which she teaches, which is dedicated to the severely mentally and physically handicapped. It is therefore a pleasure for me to support this amendment and to appeal to the Government in an area where I know they care. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, is known to me as a caring family man and I am sure that he is as moved as the rest of us by the plight of the people who, whatever the niceties of judgment, will never make any contribution to the economy of this country because they are prevented from doing so by the bodies in which they live and the minds that motivate them.
If we all begin from that position—I am sure we do—then we can perhaps approach this amendment not in the mechanistic sense (though we have to get the wording right) but in the caring sense in which it has been put by all noble Lords who have spoken to it. The Spastics Society is extremely concerned that the poll tax will adversely affect disabled people in the low income groups, about whom my noble friend Lord Carter spoke. It applies especially, as he said, to those on income support levels and those whose incomes, when even small losses occur, are devastated.
Given those factors, it is important that any rebate system aiming to protect the people of whom we speak should really do so. The Spastics Society and I feel that the present government proposals fall short of giving the protection that was promised and intended. Perhaps I may quote the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, though this has already been referred to twice. However, the passage is worth reading back into the record:
"There will be a category of severely disabled people living in the community who at present enjoy full rates relief and should maintain that position under the community charge system. We therefore propose that extra help should be made available for a clearly defined group of severely disabled people which could extend up to 100 per cent. of the community charge".
Unfortunately that is not what the Government have so far achieved, whatever their intentions may be. At the moment we are faced with a system where many disabled people on low incomes will not receive adequate rebates. The Government's system is the most complicated and, in our opinion, the most

789
discriminatory way of constructing a rebate system. Compensation will come from community charge benefits and through the income support system; yet because that compensation was set at an average of the community charge many disabled people will pay more, not less. It is true that some may gain—at least in theory—but surely we want a system where everyone receives a rebate for the actual obligation rather than a system of winners and losers, as my noble friend said.
Further, those with a mental handicap have to submit themselves to a humiliating certification procedure, and that hurts most where the level of mental ability is highest even though impaired. Many more who have acquired a mental handicap will not be entitled to exemptions at all—the noble Lord, Lord Banks, made that point—even though they are in the same situation. Other disabled people on very low incomes but not actually claiming income support will also miss out. Such consequences of a rebate system designed by the Government and by those who have effected the legislation to protect disabled people cannot be acceptable.
The amendment introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Allen, will on the contrary be more consistent than the Government's system by ensuring that disabled people receive proper rebates and in encouraging good community care by ensuring that there are no financial disincentives to stay in the community. The amendment identifies disabled people on low incomes and it stipulates that they are rebated properly for the actual community charge that they have to pay in their area. That is consistent with the best principles of community care. The Government are already committed to those best principles.
The amendment ensures that there is no disincentive for disabled people in moving into the community. If the Bill remains unamended there will be another incentive added to the powerful ones already identified by the Audit Commission in its report on community care for disabled people to stay in residential care. That is even more true if one considers that the Government rightly exempted people living in residential homes from the community charge as they would not have the income to pay the charge.
I ask Members of the Committee to put out of their minds any suggestion that the majority of the people who are mentally and physically handicapped can make a positive earning contribution to their own care. Those who can will do so, and they have been rightly identified in low-level earning jobs. However, more and more mentally handicapped people, because of all kinds of circumstances, are taking their places in society unable to contribute to its earnings. It is those people—a great body of them—whom this amendment seeks to support.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that I have listened carefully to his last remarks. Frankly, I believe that he does an injustice to those people all over the country who, for many years, have been striving to train both the physically and the mentally handicapped so that they can work according to their capacities.
Lord Parry: Surely the noble Lord does me an injustice. I carefully explained my association and my own experience. There is no way in which I would detract from the massive effort that is being made at every level; nor indeed would I detract from the efforts that those people are making themselves to take their place in the community. Please do not attribute to me any suggestion that I am criticising them. I am asking the Government to follow their own best intentions.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the Minister replies, I should like to clarify what I said. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, thought that I was arguing for a general disability allowance. I was not doing that at all. I was suggesting that everybody, except the very few who are exempt, should pay something and that we should ensure that they have the money to do it, which is precisely what will happen in respect of people who are on the highest amount of benefit. It is the same argument.
Lord Carter: I understood the noble Baroness to say that the disabled and handicapped should have enough income to meet the requirements of society. The case for comprehensive income support for all disabled people irrespective of their income has been discussed for many years and rejected by the present Government and by previous Labour governments. If it were accepted, the disabled and handicapped would pay their rates and taxes in the same way as everybody else. That is all.
4 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Virtually every speaker who has taken part in the debate has better experience than I of the problems of disablement. There are those who are involved with voluntary organisations for the disabled and the mentally handicapped, those who are concerned themselves and within their families and those who have professional responsibility in this area. I venture to make only three points about public policy which I hope will be taken into account by the Minister when he replies to the debate.
My noble friends and I support the amendments. We are not certain about the drafting but I do not think anybody is entirely happy with that. However, the principles behind them seem to us to be humane and sound. My first point relates to care in the community. It has been the intention of governments over a number of years, not only for motives of economy but for motives of equality of care and quality of life, that those suffering from physical and mental handicaps should be cared for in the community rather than in institutions. This Bill already provides exemption from the personal community charge for those staying in hospitals and yet it proposes an extraordinarily complex series of hoops through which those with the same mental or physical handicaps will have to jump if they are to avoid the personal community charge when they are being cared for in the community. Surely the principle must be that the community charge is neutral as between hospital care and community care and that the decision must be made on clinical,

791
medical, mental or social grounds rather than on grounds of taxation. Taxation should seek to be neutral in this respect.
The second matter was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. It concerns the incapacity to take part in public affairs as the criterion for exemption. She said this with deep sincerity and I know she believes that the freedom to pay 20 per cent. of the personal community charge is a meaningful step towards social responsibility. Candidly, I cannot see how that can be the case, especially when the people concerned do not have the money to pay the 20 per cent. One has to jump through all these hoops afterwards in order to make up the money to them so that they are not financially worse off. Surely in this respect the criterion should be recognition of need rather than some theoretical idea of participation in the community as exemplified by the requirement to pay tax. If we want to involve people in the community there are many positive ways of doing that. However, making them pay a tax and then subjecting them to a means test as to whether it is made up to them is not the way.
The third issue, which has been raised by a number of Members of the Committee, is the identification and definition of those who qualify for rebates. The system that is proposed—and attempts are being made to operate it in Scotland—requires that there shall be separate application for registration as severely mentally handicapped. If that is changed, the situation will probably become worse. There will be more definitions which doctors will find difficult to apply.
My noble friend Lord Morton asked about the position of those who have elderly parents living with them. They will have to say, "I shall make application to the authorities"—who knows how it will be done—"to exempt you from the personal community charge on the grounds of severe mental handicap". That is an impossible position. The only humane way of identifying those who should qualify for rebates must be that they are identified already by the fact that they are receiving income support.
That is what Amendment No. 189 does. It uses the existing mechanism for identifying those in receipt of income support with disablement premium, income support with higher pensioners' premium, attendance allowance, mobility allowance, or the severe disablement allowance and those registered as blind or partially sighted. No new criterion is required. There is no imposition on hospital authorities, general practitioners or families. It is something which follows from the existing system of identifying those who are disabled and who are in need.
I suggest to the Government that that is far more humane and is a more economic and efficient way of dealing with this problem. Whatever defects there may be in drafting, the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Allen, deals with those three points in a way that the Government's present proposals do not. I hope that the Government will move a considerable way to agreeing with it.
The Earl of Caithness: This has been a most useful debate and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for initiating it and to noble Lords who have taken part in it. I should like to differ from the noble Lord and divide my answer into two parts. I shall deal first with the position of the severely mentally handicapped.
Their position in respect of the personal community charge was, as I am sure the Committee will recall, discussed at some length during the passage of the Scottish legislation through this Chamber. It was argued then, in particular by my noble friends Lord Renton, Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lady Carnegy of Lour—and they have all spoken today—that people suffering from a severe mental handicap should be exempt from the community charge on the grounds that such persons do not have the mental capacity to take part in the local democratic process. In other words, accountability, which is at the centre of our proposals, cannot reasonably be expected to operate properly for people in this unfortunate position. The Government found these arguments persuasive and accordingly brought forward a suitable amendment to the Scottish Bill which was subsequently accepted by this Chamber. The current exemption in the Local Government Finance Bill mirrors the one in the Scottish legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has argued that the best way of protecting those at the lower end of the income scale is through rebate rather than exemption. I entirely agree with him. However, with respect, the argument here is not about income but about mental competence. It is true that the great majority of those with a severe mental handicap are not able to work and are therefore dependent on income support and social security benefits, but the exemption is in recognition of the fact that severely mentally handicapped people cannot be expected to understand the link between the provision of local services and changes in the community charge level. That argument applies equally whether the severely mentally handicapped person is rich or poor. Exemption, not rebate, is therefore the most appropriate remedy.
Perhaps I may answer the noble Lord, Lord Banks, by taking this opportunity to inform the Committee of the decision we have reached in respect of the undertaking given in another place to consider, in consultation with the other departments concerned, widening the definition of severely mentally handicapped. I am sure that the Committee will welcome what I have to say. Our current proposals already exempt those who are severely mentally handicapped from birth or in childhood. We have now agreed that the exemption should be extended to those who suffer severe intellectual impairment as a result of an accident in adulthood. This will include individuals who suffer from accidental injury, medical accident, criminal injury, brain surgery, infection affecting brain tissue and the effect of toxic or nutritional conditions.
We consider this further exemption justified because of the concept of accountability that is at the heart of the Bill. Those who are severely mentally handicapped through injury would be unable to

793
participate in local democracy and councils would not be accountable to them. It therefore seems right that they should not have to pay the charge and we shall bring forward a suitable amendment at Report stage—
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Before the noble Earl leaves the topic, perhaps I may say that he did not mention senility or Alzheimer's disease. That is something of which we are all now aware. Is it included in his opinion? If not, I think it should be.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, raises an important point. We have indeed considered the possibility that he has raised concerning extending the exemption of the severely mentally handicapped to those suffering from degenerative conditions. We believe that there are two main difficulties. The main consideration must be that of the patient. There is, regrettably, still a stigma attached to mental handicap. Many of those suffering from a degenerative disease may not consider themselves as having reached the stage where they should be classified as severely mentally handicapped. They may not want to incur the stigma that is attached to that, and many of them will have periods of remission when such a classification would be inappropriate. But classification is what will have to happen. The Bill specifies that a doctor has to certify someone as severely mentally handicapped if that person is to be exempt.
The second point is linked to the first. It concerns the role of the doctor and the medical and professional difficulties that he would face. I suggest that doctors would be concerned to have a definition that would be capable of consistent application of what constitutes a severe mental handicap. If we were to extend the exemption to those suffering from degenerative diseases, such a definition would be almost impossible to arrive at. Degenerative diseases are by their very nature gradual. Their progress is often most imperceptible in the short term. In many cases it would be unreasonable to expect a doctor to certify that at a particular moment his or her patient had passed from being mentally capable to being mentally incapable. The diseases we are talking about do not work with such precision.
Perhaps I may say a word on the definition of "severely mentally handicapped" because it was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. The noble Lord suggested that it would be very difficult for registration officers to judge whether a person was severely mentally handicapped. I agree with the noble Lord. It is precisely for that reason that we have proposed that, in order to qualify for the exemption, the mentally handicapped should have a certificate from a medical practitioner. In this way we would ensure that registration officers do not have to make judgments about people's mental condition without having a clear medical opinion in front of them.
A number of noble Lords said that it would be difficult—in some sense degrading—for the relatives of handicapped people to claim exemption on their behalf. I think that this concern rests on a misapprehension, since relatives already have to
794
claim benefits on behalf of handicapped people, including the severe disablement allowance. The community charge exemption process will be little different—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: May I ask my noble friend whether it is possible that two doctors would be taken on board?
The Earl of Caithness: As I understand, it is one. However, I will look at the point which my noble friend has raised.
The Countess of Mar: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl again. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, mentioned the fact that a great many doctors do not have much experience in mental handicap, and the judgment must be a subjective one. There is no objective judgment of mental handicap. Would it be possible to put into the Bill something to the effect that the doctors who will provide the certificate must be specifically trained in dealing with mental handicap?
4.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Countess raises an important point that I should like to look at. It seems to confirm what I was saying earlier about degenerative diseases, and how it would be more difficult for even a qualified doctor to assess at what point a person moves into severe mental handicap. But perhaps I may look at that point which the noble Countess has raised.
Amendments Nos. 188 and 189 seek to provide 100 per cent. rebates for elderly and disabled people. As the noble Lord, Lord Parry, said, the Government accept that disabled and elderly people have special needs, and that many of them will require assistance in paying the community charge. However, I do not accept that it would be right to provide that they should not pay anything towards the community charge. Physically handicapped and elderly people—unlike severely mentally handicapped people—can play a part in the local democratic process. It would not be right to isolate them as a group from able-bodied members of the community. I agree with my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour, in that I do not believe that the majority of disabled and elderly people would welcome being categorised in that way.
We must all be glad that the physically handicapped and the elderly have much better opportunities than of late to take part in everyday life and play as full a part as possible. Is it not right that every adult, whether able-bodied or disabled, should have a direct financial stake in the decisions of his or her local authority, for indeed not all—I admit a great many—physically disabled are poor. Would it be right to exempt those, or give 100 per cent. rebate to those, who could afford to pay the community charge?
I agree with my noble kinswoman. I warned her that I might raise this point of her concern. I wonder whether she would be happy to be exempt from the charge. But I come back to the point that was raised by your Lordships: that many physically disabled

795
and elderly people have low incomes—I agree on that point with my noble kinswoman—and the Government accept without reservation that they should have help in paying their community charge. Disabled and elderly people will benefit, along with others on low income, from reductions in their community charge up to a maximum of 80 per cent. for people receiving income support—
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Before my noble kinsman carries on with another point, I should like to make it clear to him that I am not receiving income support.
The Earl of Caithness: My noble kinswoman does not surprise me. The system of community charge reduction provided for in this Bill will in fact direct help particularly towards the elderly and disabled people, since they benefit from special premiums in addition to their personal allowances. In addition to the 80 per cent. maximum reduction, income support will contain an amount reflecting the average 20 per cent. minimum contribution which everyone will have to make to the community charge. Whether this amount is sufficient to cover the actual 20 per cent. contribution is in the hands of local authorities. People in low-spending authorities will be better off, while those in areas with high spending authorities will be a little worse off. Local authority spending decisions will make them directly accountable to all charge payers, and I do not believe it is right to exclude elderly and disabled people from this process of accountability.
Perhaps I may turn—and I apologise for going on at length but I think it is important—to answer some of the points raised by your Lordships during the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Parry, said that the rebates should relate to the actual community charge and not to the average. I can assure him that rebates will in all cases relate to the actual charge in each area up to the maximum of 80 per cent. It is only the increase in income support to cover the 20 per cent. contribution which will be set on the basis of the average charge. It is this 20 per cent. element which will ensure that local accountability continues to operate even for those on the lowest incomes because even they will have an interest in the costs as well as the benefits of above-average spending by their local councils.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, referred to proceedings at Report stage of the Scottish legislation, and to a statement by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur that rebates for the severely physically handicapped could extend up to 100 per cent. The noble Lords, Lord Allen of Abbeydale and Lord Parry, suggested that the commitment had not been fulfilled. I have to say to the noble Lords that their assertion is not correct.
The reason is that the Government's undertaking to increase the income support entitlement of all income support recipients by 20 per cent. of the average charge post-dated that commitment by my noble friend. Therefore the undertaking given by my noble friend was carried out, not just for the physically handicapped but for all income support
796
recipients. Surely 80 per cent. rebate plus 20 per cent. uprating is, in any language, a scheme that extends up to 100 per cent.—as my noble friend provided.
Mention was made in regard to disabled people and the existing rates system. Disabled people living in their own homes pay domestic rates like everyone else. The maximum rebate they can receive, as from April this year, is 80 per cent. The existing rates system allows for reductions in rateable value for disabled households, but only to the extent that their rate bill would otherwise be higher as a result of their disability; for example, as a result of having to have a downstairs bathroom. Therefore in asking for 100 per cent. community charge rebates the noble Lord was effectively asking for a more favourable treatment than disabled people receive at present.
Finally, I turn to a most important point raised by many Members of the Committee: the disincentive to care in the community. I cannot agree with those who raised the point that there will be any significant disincentive to care in the community. If a person has a low income he or she will be entitled to a rebate of up to 80 per cent.; if that person is living in the community the income support will be uprated by 20 per cent. of the average charge. Elderly or disabled people living with their grown-up children will be entitled to rebates and income support in their own right, regardless of the income of their adult children. Therefore it will make little difference whether a person is in a home and exempt, or living in the community and receiving an 80 per cent. rebate plus increased income support.
An elderly or disabled person with a high income might, in theory, notice a bigger difference between living in a nursing home and living in the community. However, in practice, living in a nursing home would be the more expensive operation because a reasonably well-off person has to contribute a large part of his or her income towards the cost of care in a home. Therefore it is wrong to believe that there will be any significant disincentive to care in the community.
As I said at the beginning, this has been a most useful debate and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, will welcome the commitment that I have given to bring forward an amendment in relation to severely mentally handicapped people at a later stage of the Bill's proceedings. However, I think that this unfortunate group of people can be distinguished from the equally unfortunate group of people who are the physically handicapped.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The amendment was tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and his friends; therefore it must be his decision as to whether it should be pursued. I am sure that he will welcome the extension which the Government have made to the definition of "severely mentally handicapped", as I do. It is clearly right that handicaps acquired in adulthood should be treated in the same way as those which existed from birth or which have been suffered during childhood. However, I do not think that the answer he gave to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, was adequate in dealing with Alzheimer's disease and other related disabilities.

797
When the noble Lord, Lord Allen, considers what to do I hope that he will consider the three issues of public policy which I raised. It does not seem to me that the Government's concession goes any way towards meeting them. The first one is care in the community. The noble Earl simply repeated the same tired old formulae about there being no significant difference. If you have those disabilities and you are in hospital there is no question: you do not pay the community charge. On the other hand, if you have such disabilities and wish to come out of hospital and be cared for in the community, or your family or neighbours or the charitable organisations will look after you, then you must go through the whole rigmarole of obtaining an 80 per cent. rebate, getting your income benefit uprated, and then dealing with the problem of whether it is enough or too much to meet the charge that exists in a local authority. If that is not a significant burden on the disabled person and on the carers for such people, I do not know what is. It is a nonsense and it should not be repeated in this automatic way on every occasion.
The second issue concerns making a separate application. The noble Earl made no progress at all in understanding the issue that income support, attendance allowances, and so on are recognisable and are used. The recent exchange between the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and the noble Earl revealed that he did not understand the issue, because the noble Baroness does not receive income support, does not expect to receive income support, and does not expect to be exempt from the community charge. We are talking about people in need and they will not be helped in the way that the noble Earl suggested.
The final issue is that there has been no answer to the charge that this incapacity to take part by those in need and disabled is a meaningless nonsense. What should be the criterion for income support?—because in relation to expenditure, it is all part of income support. The criterion should be a recognition of need, and not this pseudo-political mumbo-jumbo which the noble Earl has repeated.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord, Lord Allen, makes up his mind on how to advise the Committee, I should like to say something which I hope will assist. I greatly welcome the undertakings given by my noble friend to bring forward amendments which refer to paragraph 4 of Schedule 1. If Amendment No. 25 were carried, we should be moving that paragraph out of the schedule altogether and that would frustrate the Government's intentions which are to assist in the matter. Therefore, whatever other amendment the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, feels should be moved, I hope that he will not move to leave out that paragraph.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: I agree with the noble Earl that we have had a most useful debate and I learnt with interest of the amendments that it is proposed to introduce to the definition of "severely mentally handicapped", especially no longer limiting it to congenital mental handicap. However, I am afraid that I must have been even more muddled than I usually am when the noble Earl referred to my reference to the registration officer. I was merely
798
quoting what we said in the Scottish debate. When we came to England I was saying that it was nearly beyond the capacity and the experience of the ordinary GP to perform what is a most difficult function—that of defining severe mental handicap. I think that the provision of two doctors would be an improvement, but it is not a solution to the problem—
The Earl of Caithness: I apologise to the noble Lord for mishearing what he said.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: I also did not hear anything about a possible right of appeal.
Regarding a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I have been most impressed by the degree of feeling that there is in many circles in the societies, and among the individuals concerned, about the stigmatisation involved in defining one category of disabled people as set aside from the rest of the community. Paragraph 4, as it stands, gives rise to a great deal of disquiet.
Having said that, I must test the feeling of the Committee; and, in the unlikely event of our amendment failing, I hope that the Government will not be discouraged from pursuing improvements to paragraph 4 for us to consider at a later stage.
However, on the main issues I am extremely puzzled by the reply which I received. The sole reason for discussing the matter is that in certain circumstances, in the high-spending areas, the 80 per cent. plus the average 20 per cent. will not add up to 100 per cent. That is what we are talking about. How can the noble Earl say that that honours the undertaking given by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur? And, further, how can he argue that there is no discouragement for people to go and live in the community, thereby incurring this extra charge in the expensive areas? That is something that I find most difficult to follow.
I return to the basic principle. Here we have very poor people who, in addition to being poor, have qualified for some special form of assistance—attendance allowance, special disablement allowance or mobility allowance—and they have passed the tests for those special allowances. This is a method of ensuring that they are able to meet their commitments without putting them through some further bureaucratic process.
I think that the amendment stands and the arguments that I have heard used against it do not prevail. If Members of the Committee think that these elderly, disabled and mentally handicapped people will have an effective voice in dictating who shall represent the council and what their activities are to be, I do not think that we are living in the real world. I must end, I think, by asking the Committee to decide.
4.31 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 25) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 126; Not-Contents, 146.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Listowel, E.

Allen of Abbeydale, L. [Teller.]

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Amherst, E.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Annan, L.

Lockwood, B.

Ardwick, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Attlee, E.

Lytton, E.

Banks, L.

McCarthy, L.

Basnett, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Blackstone, B.

McNair, L.

Blease, L.

Mar, C.

Blyth, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Milford, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mishcon, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Molloy, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Mulley, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Carter, L.

Nicol, B.

Chitnis, L.

Northfield, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Oram, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Parry, L.

Cromartie, E.

Peston, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

David, B.

Porritt, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Diamond, L.

Raglan, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Ennals, L.

Rochester, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ross of Newport, L.

Falkender, B.

Rugby, L.

Falkland, V.

Russell, E.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Foot, L.

Seear, B.

Gallacher, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Galpern, L.

Serota, B.

Gifford, L.

Shackleton, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Glenamara, L.

Shepherd, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Somers, L.

Grey, E.

Southwark, Bp.

Grimond, L.

Stallard, L.

Hampton, L.

Stedman, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hart of South Lanark, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hayter, L. [Teller.]

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hughes, L.

Thurlow, L.

Hunt, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Ingleby, V.

Underhill, L.

Jacques, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jay, L.

Walston, L.

Jeger, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Whaddon, L.

Kilbracken, L.

White, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Leatherland, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Leicester, Bp.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Balfour, E.

Ailsa, M.

Bathurst, E.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Beaverbrook, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Allerton, L.

Beloff, L.

Arran, E.

Belstead, L.

Astor, V.

Bessborough, E.

Atholl, D.

Birdwood, L.

800

Blatch, B.

McFadzean, L.

Bolton, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mancroft, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mansfield, E.

Burton, L.

Manton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Margadale, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Merrivale, L.

Caithness, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Morris, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mottistone, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnock, L.

Munster, E.

Cathcart, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Nelson, E.

Coleraine, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Newall, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Norrie. L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Northesk, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cowley, E.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Daventry, V.

Onslow, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Orkney, E.

De Freyne, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Deedes, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Donegall, M.

Pender, L.

Dundee, E.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Portman, V.

Elibank, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Prior, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Pym, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Ferrier, L.

Reay, L.

Fortescue, E.

Renton, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Renwick, L.

Geddes, L.

Rochdale, V.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Romney, E.

Gisborough, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Glenarthur, L.

St. Davids, V.

Goold, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Haig, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sandford, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Sharples, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Harvington, L.

Southborough, L.

Hastings, L.

Strange, B.

Havers, L.

Suffield, L.

Henley, L.

Terrington, L.

Hertford, M.

Teviot, L.

Hesketh, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hives, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Hood, V.

Thorneycroft, L.

Hooper, B.

Torphichen, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Trafford, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Tranmire, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Joseph, L.

Trumpington, B.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Killearn, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Kimball, L.

Whitelaw, V.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Wise, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Yarborough, E.

Layton, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.40 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 80, line 38, at end insert—
("Residential community volunteers.
.—(1) A person is an exempt individual on a particular day if at any time on the day he is a residential community volunteer.
(2) A residential community volunteer is a person—

(a) who is performing full-time duties on a volunteer basis.

(b) who is required as a condition of their duties to reside away from their normal home during that period.

(c) who receives board, lodging and pocket money only.").

The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 26, standing in my name and the names of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, and the noble Lord, Lord Banks. The purpose of this amendment is to exempt residential community volunteers from paying the community charge.
The organisation called Community Services Volunteers was founded in 1962. It involves young people working alongside professionals as full-time residential volunteers with people in need. In return, these young people receive board and lodging and £16 pocket money per week.
Each year approximately 2,000 young people become community service volunteers. They work with handicapped children, children in care, young offenders, homeless people in the inner cities, and the elderly. The most demanding work is carried out by about one-third of them through the independent living scheme. Here they literally act as arms, legs and eyes for people with severe disabilities. In this way they enable those people to lead full lives in their own homes or in educational establishments or in hostels. This scheme was initially funded by central government and is a model of the care in the community strategy which the Government so keenly advocate.
I have been lucky enough to have a personal insight into the work of these young people as last year my own son worked for the Carr-Gomm residential homes scheme, where people who for one reason or another cannot care for themselves and cannot cope are cared for. There are people there with mental illnesses, including many schizophrenics. Through living with these unfortunate people and helping them in their everyday lives and trying to bring some light, happiness and laughter into their lives, the young volunteers really do give them the opportunity to approach a real life in the community and they give them something to live for.
As the Bill stands at present, full-time residential volunteers will be subject to the community charge. Under the rebate scheme they will first have to pay in full and probably be eligible for rebate up to 80 per cent. So one wonders what the effect of this provision will be. Financially it will mean that these young volunteers will have to find perhaps £1 or £2 out of their tiny subsistence allowance of £16. Clearly there is very little doubt that this will prevent many young people coming forward to perform this work because, as I say, their budget is already so intolerably tight that it could not possibly stand up to even the smallest additional strain. So in the first place the community at large in many cases may easily be denied the important contribution that many selfless young people give. As regards the young people themselves, they will be denied the opportunity to help others and to benefit from this very enrichening experience.
From the point of view of those who benefit—I mean the handicapped, the elderly, the homeless and others—the consequences could be very serious indeed. If the CSV no longer succeeds in attracting so many of these young volunteers to its ranks, many of those handicapped will have no choice but to return to institutional life. So the tragedy will be twofold:
802
first, for the handicapped and elderly who have temporarily seen their lives transformed; and, secondly, for the public purse, which will have to foot the bill for their return to residential homes. That may be very large indeed in some cases.
At this point I should like as an example to describe the case of the volunteers working within charitable organisations such as the Sue Ryder Homes. The noble Baroness, Lady Ryder of Warsaw, is so very sad that she is unable to be here today to give the example herself, but she told me that there are as many as 230 residential volunteers working each year at her headquarters and principal home in Suffolk. If these young people are subjected to the tax or even a proportion of it and decide they cannot afford to continue with the work, what will happen to that remarkable and world-famed home for the sick and the incurable?
I have a letter from the chairman of the Harrogate health authority, who describes how in the department of computer studies at Leeds University a number of volunteers are used to help severely handicapped undergraduates taking a data processing scheme of study. He says that one particular undergraduate is now in her final year and preparing for her final examinations. As a consequence of Stills' disease the girl in question is blind, confined to a wheelchair and requires 24-hour support. Without the CSV support, the chairman of the health authority says, it would not be possible for her to undertake a degree scheme at all. There is already considerable difficulty in locating suitable volunteers and it is believed that the imposition of a community charge, even at a reduced rate, on these volunteers would make it increasingly difficult to recruit them and would mean that students as heavily disabled as this student would be unable to go in for higher education.
It seems inconceivable that the Government really could wish to bring about this very serious result that I have described, for after all they have upheld the concept of care in the community. I know that that has been mentioned many times already in this debate but I think that this is an example of how care in the community has been seen to work. There is general agreement on the need for handicapped people to leave institutional care and to be looked after in the community. The only problem has been that sometimes there has not been the support mechanism available. So the handicapped end up either back in the institutions or in the case of the mentally handicapped sometimes in police cells or indeed prison.
However, in the cases where help has been enlisted from these very altruistic young people care in the community has become a reality. There is little doubt that the argument used by the Minister and indeed on many occasions by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, who I see is no longer in her place, that the payment of the community charge in exchange for local services is a means of drawing people into the community to make them fully part of it and to make them feel as if they are more a part of it would fall on pretty stony ground with these young volunteers. They might feel, and rightly so, that they are themselves providing a very important local service.
After all, every day they give unequivocal proof that they are totally involved in the community and are contributing to the well-being of the local community in a greater way than are, say, those who collect dustbins or who provide some other kind of service. There can be no doubt at all that these young volunteers might well feel that the boot was on the other foot and that the community which they are so selflessly and loyally serving is in their debt.
There is no point in the Minister arguing that the sum of money at issue may be very negligible, because everything is relative. Whatever one sets beside £16 a week will take on enormous proportions. Besides the money aspect, I feel very strongly about the principle of this particular case; namely, that those performing this all-important task of enabling the weaker members of a community to lead fuller and more constructive lives are doing more than their duty to the community and any attempt to extract a financial payment for them is inappropriate and absolutely wrong.
I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say. I think that there is a very strong case to be made for volunteers. They are a growing category of people and some thinking must be done on how to encourage them and how to fill the gap which exists in helping people within the community who are disabled, disadvantaged and badly in need of help. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I support the amendment. I know the CSV organisation very well. I have been concerned in one way and another for the past 60 years with people who work full-time for very little money to help others. One of the few things that I have ever liked about the Conservative Party is that it has always favoured such activities. I hope that it will go on doing so. It is extremely important to encourage that sort of work, quite apart from the importance of getting the work done. Without the volunteers, that would not happen. I support the amendment.
Lord Gisborough: I also support the amendment. I was glad to be able to meet yesterday with some of the youngsters we are discussing. I was interested to learn that one of the disabled people needed two volunteers to look after her at all times. The youngsters are dedicated and have service to the community at heart.
As has been explained, they receive £16 a week as pocket money. That will be insufficient to fund the community charge for the period before they receive a rebate. They are extremely cheap labour and the cost of the alternative—a professional person either in the home or in hospital—will be much higher. I hope that the Minister will consider the matter seriously, consult with the CSV and perhaps come back with another suggestion.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I have had many letters from concerned disabled people who survive in the community only because they have the help of community volunteers. They say that they will be unable to pay the community charge of volunteers.
804
As the volunteers only receive pocket money, they will not be able to afford the charge either. The volunteers will be forced to take up another employment.
That sad situation may mean that a disabled person is forced into a dreaded institution. We heard yesterday from the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder of Warsaw, that many places, such as her homes, will be in financial difficulty over the collective community charge.
I have also received letters from York University, which takes some severely disabled students. They are looked after by community volunteers. Again, the community charge may be the deciding factor which stops a disabled student from being able to attend university. At the moment, one of the brightest students at Cambridge University is a young man who broke his neck and who has no use of his body. However, he has a brilliant brain and he manages his university life with the help of community service volunteers.
I hope that my noble kinsman the Minister will look seriously at the amendment. At the time of the French Revolution, on being told that the people had no bread, Marie Antoinette said, "Let them eat cake". Are the Government going to tell community volunteers and hard-pressed disabled people to do likewise? The Government are high on the crest of the wave following their big win yesterday. Does not the amendment prick the conscience of the Government? I shall be very surprised if my noble kinsman is unable to help with this very important amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: I support the amendment standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, and in my own name. I wish to look carefully at one or two of the more general arguments which I think may be used to defend the proposed arrangements in the Bill for application to this category of people.
We heard quite a lot both yesterday and today about the belief that in some way the payment of the community charge will ensure that people feel they are really contributing to the community. Looked at carefully, the implication of the argument is that you are not fully contributing to the community unless you are paying money by that means. If it is put like that, I suspect that many people will back away and say, "No, that isn't what we mean". However, that is how it comes across. That seems to be a very strange argument, especially in relation to a group such as community service volunteers. It can hardly be said that those people are not contributing fully to the community when in fact they are contributing a great deal more than most of us.
There are many different ways in which we contribute to the life of our communities. It is easy to fall into the trap of supposing that people with money contribute more or are in some way better placed to contribute than those without money. I have spent much of my professional life resisting that kind of insidious claim. If we accept that argument, we shall find ourselves wrestling with all sorts of complicated arrangements to enable people to pay what they need to pay in order to feel that they are contributing to the

805
community. I do not believe that we should go as far down that road as we are sometimes encouraged to. It is not a good general argument.
Within that argument, there is another argument which I have heard many times in the past few hours. That argument is that it is not so much that you are contributing to the community but rather that you are going to ensure that you have stable and responsible local government. The belief is that by contributing to a community charge you will exercise some sort of influence over local government, and if you have the misfortune to find yourself in an area with a high community charge you will do something to ensure that it comes down.
As regards the group of people with which the amendment is concerned, that cannot be a strong argument. By the very nature of the way they are working, they are temporary residents. They are not part of a community. It is even on the cards that they may not vote in local elections if those elections take place only every three, four or five years. It cannot be argued that they have a significant impact or that that will be a matter of great importance to them or anyone else in the community.
Furthermore, the actual cost of collection which will be involved is great and out of proportion to the amount we are discussing. That applies in the present case as well as in other cases. I believe that the cost of collection will be greater than the amount recovered. We are discussing a group of people who are not receiving income support and are giving an enormous amount to the community. We shall be saying to them, "You have to pay the full amount and we shall then set in train a cumbersome process by which you will eventually get a rebate of 80 per cent.". That may take a long time. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, admitted as much in one of his replies last night. Many of us who have experienced how such systems are working presently will have little confidence that they will work faster in the future.
We are either asking people who are mainly students or ex-students to find the full amount of the community charge out of £16 a week or asking the charity concerned to find that amount. They will then have to wait for goodness knows how long until somebody in some office eventually decides that they can have an 80 per cent. rebate. That will almost certainly cost as much as or more than the tiny amount that will come from a relatively small number of people who are making a tremendous contribution to disabled people. The disabled are benefiting from their wonderful service, and they are the first to say that they are benefiting from it.
I plead with the Committee to look rather carefully at the arguments which may be deployed in this particular case because I think that they are irrelevant and would do a very great disservice to a wonderful cause.
5 p.m.
Lord Parry: The noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, is not in his place because he has to be in Wales. It may be appropriate if I contribute one word or two. As a Welshman, it will probably be more than one. I rise to support the amendment. What is not often
806
mentioned is the fact that volunteers who work in this field of help for the mentally and physically handicapped grow themselves. It is one of the great surprises of working with the handicapped and underprivileged that the individual who seeks to help is himself or herself helped by the process. I should like to add the typical Tonypandy suggestion that in terms of this amendment we should be as concerned with the growth of the personalities of those who help the handicapped as with the help that they give to the handicapped, which is so greatly appreciated. Yesterday morning in the Lobby, the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, and I talked with both the handicapped and their volunteer helpers and the message that they gave was one of support for the amendment.
Lord Hastings: I think it is time that more support came from this side of the Chamber for the amendment. I have had letters from young people telling me about their work. It is quite clear that it is invaluable to the elderly or disabled people with whom they are working. As the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, pointed out, and as has been repeated in the letters, in many cases those young people are a lifeline. Withdraw them and the disabled and elderly will suffer direly, if indeed they can remain in their own homes at all.
It seems to me that the Government are proving quite inflexible about the principle of accountability. I should like to put the case to them in a rather different manner. Those young people will probably be living at home before taking up their voluntary work and they will be assessable and paying the community charge. After they leave their voluntary work they will be in the same position, perhaps in a job and paying the community charge. We are therefore talking about one year in the lives of a shifting volunteer population. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark has pointed out, the trouble and cost of tracing those young people will be considerable. The burden will presumably be placed on the residences where they live. That will make for an unpleasant and difficult atmosphere between the young and the people who run the places.
I think that that is impractical. Apart from being impractical I do not think it is worth it. I understand that there are usually about 1,000 and never more than 2,000 of the CSV volunteers at any one time. It is peanuts and I do not think that it is worth the candle, apart from the fact that I think that it is probably morally wrong in this particular case.
That is only one category of temporary volunteer worker. The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, referred to volunteers in the Sue Ryder Homes. I happen to be concerned with and participate in the Camphill Villages for the adult mentally handicapped. In those villages, which range from quite small hostels to large villages of over 300 people, there will be several hundred co-workers, all of them volunteers—not temporary but permanent workers. Some of those people are young, some are middle-aged and some are old. They have been in the movement all their lives. They have no money because they are not paid. They are volunteers who

807
live from the communal purse of DHSS and MSC grants and donations. They have no money to pay, so the charity will have to pay.
I am not sure whether that situation is covered in the Bill. I cannot find it because it is a very long and complicated Bill. Are charities of that nature to be exempted or will they have to pay a collective community charge? The individuals certainly cannot pay. If they have to pay as a community the total will run to many thousands of pounds.
I think that that also is something which needs to be looked at very carefully. We are not talking about vast sums of money or thousands of people. They are probably numbered in hundreds or a few thousand at most. They are all doing absolutely vital work serving their fellow human beings in a Christian manner. I think that we need to approach the matter with a thoroughly Christian attitude and to treat those people with the greatest respect and gratitude.
I hope that in this case the Government will be able to move a little away from the argument of accountability. I hope that they will do as I think they ought for these very humane people who are serving their fellow men in a way which I can only describe as following the second great Commandment: Love they neighbour as thyself. I support the amendment wholeheartedly.
Lord Banks: I should like to support the amendment moved so effectively by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, and to which my name is attached. It seems to me that the issue is very simple. People who give their services to help the disadvantaged in return for pocket money should not have to pay the community charge. As we have heard, residential community service volunteers work away from home. They work full-time, they receive board and lodging and a small subsistence allowance, which may amount to £15 or £16 per week. They are not eligible for benefit. It is true that they will be eligible for the 80 per cent. rebate of the poll tax but in certain areas—for example, inner London—even after receiving the rebate they will still be paying some £2 to £3 per week of their community charge.
There has in the past been some doubt as to whether Ministers fully appreciate the value which those volunteers offer in helping people to live independently in the community. There is also doubt as to whether Ministers appreciate the disincentive to recruitment which the community charge may well create. Therefore one hopes very much that Ministers will consider this matter very carefully and feel that they can withdraw the opposition which they have expressed to the exemption of residential voluntary workers. If they do so they will help to prevent people being sent back into residential care, which would in the long run cost the Government much more money.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am sorry that I did not hear the noble Baroness introduce the amendment because I was called out of the Chamber. I should like to make one point and I should particularly like to make it in the presence of the right reverend Prelate, who spoke so well on the subject and issued a note of
808
warning about going too far in the direction which he sees the Government following on this point.
There are many volunteers other than CSVs, which is a marvellous organisation for marshalling volunteers. But there are also many others. What we must remember when discussing how this matter should be dealt with is that we shall be living in a country in which everybody, but everybody, is involved in the community charge except for the very few people whom we have been discussing. The community charge will be part of life and part of the basic expenditure of virtually everybody. I believe that it would be most natural for a volunteer to get the amount needed through pocket money.
How that situation is to be reached is another matter. Some people have spoken about benefit coming in the direction of such people, or money from MSC schemes, and so on. My view is that our discussions have not yet moved into the sphere where the community charge will be part of everybody's cost of living on the same basis as buying one's food and so on. Everyone will be paying that little bit of community charge.
The estimate of what is needed for pocket-money is based on what young people are likely to require for basic necessities. The volunteers freely accept that. They enjoy their work tremendously; it is wonderful work, but this charge should be part of it. To speak otherwise would simply confuse them and other people about the whole issue. It is a great way to oppose the community charge, although that is not what the right reverend Prelate was doing when he talked about whether this was the right way to treat volunteers. I respect his views enormously and always listen carefully to him, but I wonder whether he has pictured to himself the scene that will exist when the whole scheme has become accepted and part of everyone's life. We must project our minds forward to that time.
I do not know what the Government will say about this matter. They may have some ingenious proposals about which neither I nor anybody else has heard anything. I hope that it will be possible for them to do something along the lines that I have suggested should be done in respect of disabled people.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Before the noble Baroness sits down I should like to say one thing to her. The Government have thought again about student nurses paying the community charge. Student nurses now receive quite a large wage compared with the £16 of a community volunteer.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: That is why I look forward to hearing how these groups are to be related. I do not know. There are various categories of people who are paid allowances to cover costs, and pocket-money is meant to cover costs. I meant to say so. It is a related point. However, I still believe that we should not say that, because their work is so marvellous and they do not receive a salary, they should be exempt from paying the community charge. That is my argument.
Lord Hastings: I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether she is suggesting that if they pay the charge out of their pocket-money the Government should increase that pocket-money.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The Government do not pay the pocket-money.
Lord Hastings: Who does pay the pocket-money?
Noble Lords: The charities.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I should like to thank my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs for giving the Committee a full and rounded picture of the work of the community service volunteers. She explained their work quite clearly. I emphasise that I am well aware of the work of the CSVs at the Birmingham Royal Institution for the Blind. A number of the volunteers help not only in the college but also in the residential block where blind and mentally handicapped people live.
I see the work of those young people on the ground. They are very keen. They enter into the work with gusto and enthusiasm. It is not simply a chore for them; it is part of the enjoyment of life. As my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs said, they possess an enthusiasm which they radiate towards the people they are trying to help. And they do this on a mere pittance.
I should like to follow up what I thought were the most commendable comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, who likened their involvement to a Christian approach. I believe that the noble Lord was not present during our debates on the Education Reform Bill—and if I am wrong I beg his pardon—when we had three long debates about Christian ethics and Christian teaching in schools. That was given great support by the noble Baroness who raised the issue and other noble Lords. They should be here today to support the approach suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings; that is to say a Christian approach. I appeal to noble Lords on the Benches opposite to think seriously about that suggestion should my noble friend decide to take this amendment to a vote.
It should also be remembered that if such volunteers are not given exemption, they will become a cost to the charities. The charities will have to find more money to pay the community charge of the volunteers. That also takes away accountability, because the charity will be paying the charge and there will be no impact or sense of accountability for the person on whose behalf it is paid. Moreover, if such people do not have to pay, perhaps the way that they use their votes will not be taken into consideration.
Lord Ross of Newport: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Baroness to say that it is not just the charities that are concerned; in some cases it is the local authorities themselves. I have a letter from a community service volunteer who is working in a home for the mentally retarded located in my former
810
constituency. That home is run by the county council. So this matter also concerns the local councils and it is a ridiculous situation.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I appreciate the intervention of the noble Lord. The Government are becoming terribly muddled with the various pieces of legislation that they are bringing forward. They are not considering the overlap between one department and another. The noble Lord's intervention bears that out. I hope that when the Minister replies he will give us some good news on this important matter so that at last these Benches will obtain some concession on this Bill.
Lord Hunt: I should like to say a few brief words because I believe that this issue goes rather further than the community service volunteers themselves. I had very close contacts with Alec Dickson when he started the movement over 30 years ago. One must remember to what extent the community service volunteers from the beginning have been and still are the supreme example of service by young people. They are the exemplars and the standard bearers. We badly need people who are prepared to do the ultimate in volunteering. They encourage untold numbers of other young people to serve in some lesser way.
I am concerned lest there is a shrinkage in the numbers coming forward and working in the splendid way that has been described in such difficult situations. I fear that those numbers may be diminished by the legislation as it stands at the moment, and if the numbers are reduced it will have an impoverishing effect on young people who wish to follow the shining example given by the community service volunteers.
Baroness Faithfull: I should like to speak from the point of view of local authorities, which have already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport. Under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act local authorities have a statutory duty toward the disabled. At the moment it is very difficult to carry out those statutory duties because of the cutback in resources to local authorities. A number of local authority social services departments are trying to carry out their statutory duties by way of volunteers. The CSVs are helping local authorities to carry out their statutory duties without extra cost to the local authorities. If the charities think that they will have to subsidise the volunteers, the local authorities will feel the same, and the resources will not allow for that. The noble Lord may agree. I therefore hope that the Minister will take this into account.
The Countess of Mar: On the same theme that has been taken up by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, perhaps I may give some examples of what is happening in Hereford and Worcester, which is an area that I know quite well. At the moment it has 11 independent living schemes. Nine of them are financed by the county council and two by the disabled persons, having special transitional protection under income support because they had a higher rate of domestic assistance allowance. On a

811
number of occasions the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and I have raised the question of special transitional protection. As this charge will probably mean an increased cost to the disabled persons themselves—and Ministers for the Government have said on a number of occasions that there will be no provision for increasing the transitional protection because of increased costs—this will mean either that the disabled persons will be more impoverished than they already are, or that they will have to go into an institution. At the moment, nine of the volunteers' expenses are met by the county council through the social services department. They will probably meet the increased charge and perhaps they would top up the other two. If the alternative were to take them into local authority care, at the moment in Hereford and Worcester there is no provision. There are no beds. It would be extremely costly. I believe that it costs about £30,000 a year to keep someone in a hospital or an institution, whereas when they are in the community it is very much cheaper.
What about the independence of these people? For a long time we have said they must be allowed their independence. They would lose it completely if they had to move back into an institution. The only thing that enables them to live in the community is the assistance that they receive from the community service volunteers.
Lord Jay: I should like briefly to emphasise one point. As I understand the law, until now the charities which organise these services have been charities exempt from tax. If they own property, by dint of that exemption they are not liable to make any payment by way of rates to local authorities. The volunteers giving these services will in many cases be unable to pay. They will either have to abandon the service altogether, which will be a great loss, or, alternatively, the charity will have to provide them with the money in order to pay the community charge. In that case, the Government will, in effect, be taxing charities, which has been contrary to all practice and law, and to the policy of all governments until now. We shall reach the point when, as a result of this community charge, the Government will be introducing the principle of taxing charities by the back door. Surely they do not wish to do that.
Lord Gisborough: It is not a question of the charity now paying rates when it had not done so before, but more a matter of timing. These community charges will be recoverable. It is more a question of timing than whether they are out of pocket at the end of the day.
Lord Torphichen: In view of the obvious good intentions of this amendment, I do not like to be the one Member of the Committee to express an opposite view. However, there is one point that worries me. I cannot see that there is here a definition of a volunteer which will stand the test of time. Can one of the movers of the amendment, or perhaps the Government spokesman afterwards, attempt to tell us whether some organisation which would not fit the popular view of a charity or a voluntary organisation—such as Scientologists—could simply claim that
812
they were volunteers under this form of words and misuse the effect of the amendment as it stands?
Lord Craigmyle: The definition is extremely important. I am entirely behind the principle of the amendment but I cannot pretend to like the wording. The definition is at once both too narrow and too loose. It does not describe sufficiently clearly the people who are to be covered by it. It seems based on the assumption that community service volunteers are the only such people. In practice I do not think that that will be found to be so. In a few minutes, when we consider Amendment No. 28, we shall be considering religious communities, many of whom will have working with them just such volunteers who are not members of the religious community and will therefore not come within the definition in Amendment No. 28, but who are very definitely the kind of people whom the noble Baroness and her co-signatories to this amendment have in mind.
On the financial matter, surely it is quite clear that if someone who could earn in almost any job £8,000 or more a year is working for pocket money amounting to £800 or so, he is giving 90 per cent. of his earning capacity to the community. It is quite monstrous to expect him to pay a community charge as well.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: One of the problems when one changes one set of taxes for another is that one changes one set of anomalies for another. It seems to me that that is precisely what we are doing in changing from rates to the community charge. We can see by the amendments that the system will be riddled with anomalies. This amendment seeks to correct only one of them. It is almost inconceivable that the Minister will not go to that Dispatch Box and say that he accepts this amendment. If he does not accept it, then he will look very mean indeed.
Furthermore, when we come to Amendment No. 28 he will ask the Committee to support an amendment which asks for the relief of people in a closed religious community who work for the relief of suffering. This is precisely what the volunteers about whom we are talking this afternoon are doing. Why is the Minister asking us to exempt those who live in a closed community, and therefore need no money to deal with worldly things, but not to exempt those people who need their £16 a week because they are out in the world? They need that £16 merely to deal with the day-to-day matters of life. The Minister needs to answer that question.
We know that the Minister is a compassionate man. How on earth a man of his calibre, who thinks so much of his fellow people, can contemplate refusing acceptance of this amendment I do not know. I hope that he will not disappoint us.
Lord Carter: I shall be extremely brief, but we have heard from noble Lords that yesterday we had a visit from a number of severely disabled and wheelchair-bound young people accompanied by the young volunteers who do this magnificent job of looking after them. I was given one example of a young man who is severely disabled. He has been told that he needs a spinal operation. He depends for his income

813
on benefit. He will not go into hospital to have the operation because if he is in hospital for more than six weeks—it is a change of circumstances under the new Act—the level of his transitionally protected benefit will go down severely. One can multiply examples of people in these situations. Surely it is essential that people with these problems, with the agony of the day-to-day living that they have, should not have the added concern of the possibility of some proportion of the poll tax being levied on the volunteers who enable them to live at home.
As has already been pointed out, in many cases the need is for two volunteers who are required to give assistance. It would be an insupportable burden if the poll tax were levied on these volunteers. As my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs said, we cannot believe that this is the Government's intention. From what the Minister has heard from all the speeches on the amendment, he will realise that we all have this view. We urge him to accept the amendment.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, gave the Committee a graphic account of the work of residential voluntary workers. As so often, direct personal experience of a situation enhances our debate. Indeed it has enhanced our debate, as many noble Lords have had experience with these workers in various fields.
I take the Committee back and remind it that our aim in introducing the community charge is to improve accountability in local government by spreading far more fairly the burden of paying for local services. To achieve this aim we wish to ensure that as many people as possible pay the community charge so that a far greater number of local electors have an incentive to consider the costs as well as the benefits of extra local spending. Residential voluntary workers, like other adults, use and benefit from local services; it is only fair therefore that they should also contribute towards the cost of those services.
I accept that voluntary workers who have no means other than their subsistence would have difficulty in paying the full community charge. However, they will not have to pay the full charge. All those on low incomes, including voluntary workers, will be able to apply for reductions of up to 80 per cent. of the community charge. Voluntary workers relying solely on pocket-money would qualify for the maximum reductions. This means on average that they would have to find about 85p a week as a contribution towards the community charge.
I must also point out that residential voluntary workers receive free accommodation and food. So I understand that the £16 a week they receive is effectively pocket-money. I certainly do not claim that £16 a week, over and above accommodation costs, represents affluence. The question is whether it is right to ask volunteers to pay on average 12p a day out of their £16 a week towards the cost of the local services they can use and vote for. Some Members of the Committee have said that it is wrong because it would be asking too much and, perhaps more importantly, it would be a disincentive to recruitment.
814
I turn now to a point raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark about the complications of the collection of a charge. Like other individuals who are eligible for 80 per cent. rebates, we want community volunteers wherever possible to receive net bills of only 20 per cent. of the charge. We accept that hardship would be caused if they had to pay 100 per cent. and then reclaim the balance. Because volunteers will generally spend a considerable time at an address, they will be subject to the personal charge. That means that it would be relatively straightforward to send them a net bill.
It is not simply that we think it is fairer that more of those who use and benefit from local services should contribute something towards the cost of paying for them. But it is important for all adults, including voluntary workers, to be aware, through changes in the level of their community charge bill, of the spending decisions taken by their local authority; and to share financial responsibility for those decisions. That in our view is the best way to improve accountability, give value for money and revitalise local democracy. The more people are excluded from this process, the less chance there is of bringing about the lasting improvements to the operation of local government which the community charge aims to bring.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: Does the Minister not agree that in this kind of case most of the people will never actually vote because they are only resident for a year in a place which is not their home, so that argument hardly applies?
The Earl of Caithness: I certainly would hope that they would take the opportunity to vote if an election occurred during the period that they were there.
My noble kinswoman said that we were on a high and hoped that as a result we had not lost our compassion. I remind her that within hours of the vote yesterday not only my noble friend Lord Glenarthur, but I too, took away issues for further reflection as the Committee suggested. I assure her that our concern to get the details right has not diminished overnight. If anything it has probably increased. I have listened with great care and I should like to take away and consider with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the Minister for Local Government—who has listened to your Lordships' Committee today as he did yesterday—to see whether we can bring forward an amendment to target the benefit carefully on those who deserve it most, those to whom Members of the Committee have referred.
My noble friend Lord Torphichen raised an important point when he said that the definition must be looked at. Indeed that is one of the many matters that together with my right honourable friend I should like to consider.
Lord Parry: Will the Minister accept that his statement about docking 85p from the volunteer worker to give him a lesson in democracy sits very ill with the lesson that we are seeking to teach that we should encourage the people who are volunteers? They give of their lives in the service of others.
The Earl of Caithness: It is because they are to be encouraged that I referred specifically to some of the points that Members of the Committee made about the fact that it would be harder to recruit volunteers. That is one of the reasons why I wish to consider this amendment again.
Lord Hastings: Will the Minister apply his mind to the very important point that where volunteer workers are unable to pay, the charities will have to pay, and hitherto they have been exempted from the rates?
The Earl of Caithness: My noble friend is absolutely right. He tells us that charities could have been exempted from rates at the moment. They have a 50 per cent. rebate from central government and there can be a discretionary rebate from local government. Of course that will be transferred to the community charge.
The Countess of Mar: The noble Earl quoted averages, such as 12p a day and 85p a week. What is the maximum cost likely to be in a very highly rated area?
The Earl of Caithness: Without notice I cannot give the noble Countess either the maximum or the minimum; but if there is an average, there will be some who lose but there will be others who end up with cash in their pockets.
Baroness Faithfull: I am deeply grateful to my noble friend for saying that he will take this back.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I am a little confused because the Minister opened his remarks with all the same arguments that we have heard until now against the exemptions. He did not answer the point that was made by the right reverend Prelate and myself that volunteers were making a contribution to local services, even though it may not be in monetary terms. He did not answer the points that we made, but at the end, just when we had all given up hope, the Minister changed his tune altogether and said that he would look at it. I should be grateful if he would clarify this because it puts me in rather a difficult position.
The Earl of Caithness: I thought it was right, as I have done before to the Committee, to spell out what I thought the arguments were. I have heard exactly what the Committee has said. That is what I should like to consider. But I thought it would be wrong not to spell out the situation as I had seen it.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My co-sponsors are a long way away and therefore I am unable to consult them. Obviously I thank the noble Earl very much indeed for saying that he will take this amendment back and look at it. We reserve our position to put down our amendment again, perhaps in better terms. We have been asked for a definition of "volunteer" and that we can easily produce; if there is nothing satisfactory down at Report from the Minister that is what we shall do. I thank him for what he said and in the light of it I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 81, line 5, at end insert—
("Members of religious communities.
6A.—(1) A person is an exempt individual on a particular day if at any time on the day—

(a) he is a member of a relevant religious community, and

(b) he has no income or capital of his own and is dependent on the community concerned for his material needs.

(2) A relevant religious community is a religious community whose principle occupation—

(a) is prayer, contemplation, the relief of suffering, education, or any prescribed occupation, or

(b) consists of two or more of the occupations mentioned in paragraph (a) above.

(3) A prescribed occupation is such occupation as may for the time being be prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(4) In construing sub-paragraph (1)(b) above income by way of pension in respect of a former employment is to be ignored.").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 28. This amendment follows a commitment given earlier in the Bill's progress that we would exempt from the personal community charge members of religious communities (those devoted to prayer, contemplation, the relief of suffering or education) who have no income or capital of their own and are dependent on the community.
I hope that the amendment will be welcomed by the Committee. I should say that it has been drafted so as to ensure that any member of a religious community, where the relevant criteria were met, will secure an exemption. There has been consultation with representatives of a number of religious groups—including Buddhist communities—in the preparation of the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister is right. Anything which, on careful analysis and reflection, has caused him and his fellow Ministers to exempt such groups is welcome. Those Members who follow the proceedings in another place will recognise that this kind of matter is raised and it corrects an anomaly. Will the Minister justify and explain the terms of the amendment? Will he also spell out exactly who is likely to benefit? For instance, the yardstick or measuring rod for the exemption of an individual is that he is a member of a relevant religious community. If I mention some religious communities, will the Minister say whether they fall within that definition? For instance, there is the Church of Scientology which would argue that it is a religious community. There are also the Moonies, Hare Krishna and the Rastafarians. I appreciate that the Minister may not have been involved directly, but will he say how wide were the discussions and who will benefit from the amendment?
As regards subsection 6A(2) we have the hoops through which the individual must jump. It states:
"A relevant religious community is a religious community whose principal occupation … is prayer, contemplation, the relief of suffering, education, or any prescribed occupation,".
Will the Minister say what he considers to be prescribed occupations? Those words are not idly put

817
into a statute and I appreciate that not everything can be spelled out in a statute. However, Parliament is entitled to understand what will be spelled out when the question of a prescribed occupation arises.
If the yardstick is membership of a religious community the exemption is inconsistent with the Government's desire not to exclude ministers and vicars. Am I right in that belief? If that is right, how is it reconciled with the amendment now before the Committee? Paragraph (4) states:
"In construing sub-paragraph (1)(b) above income by way of pension in respect of a former employment is to be ignored".
Can the Minister give the Committee the rationale behind that provision? Such a disregard might be justified if the pension were being paid into the religious community. However, if the member of the religious community had not taken vows of proverty and was still in receipt of a pension, he or she should pay the poll tax.
I draw to the Minister's attention inconsistencies and requests for clarity. The Minister must understand that my questions are benign and not malignant in the sense that I am trying to be helpful to those outside. If I do not ask the questions here and receive acceptable answers, if the Bill is not clarified, and if Hansard does not record it, those people will be asking the questions and the Minister can be helpful in answering them here.
I am intrigued with subsection 6A(3) which states:
"A prescribed occupation is such occupation as may for the time being be prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph … ".
That is the answer to the first question that I asked, and we now come to the second question. The Minister must have ideas of the type of people, occupation and work or calling capable of being defined in that way. I am asking the Minister to be helpful.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Somers: Is this not another case where the whole problem would be solved by the insertion of the word "Christian" of which we appear to fight so shy nowadays?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Following on from the remarks made by the noble Lord opposite, I should like to ask what is in my noble friend's mind in respect of paragraph (4) of the amendment. It appears to say that however large a pension is now being paid to a member of a religious community, he shall still receive exemption from the community charge. It is not unknown for people who have had a successful career in the world, as a result of which they have retired with a substantial pension, to spend their declining years in a religious community. That is not an unusual phenomenon. However, it seems ridiculous that if a large pension were being paid to such a person he should be exempted from the charge. Will my noble friend consider putting a limit on this and excluding it only where the pension is of fairly modest dimension?
Baroness Faithfull: Members of the Committee will remember that a Question was asked about the position of Scientologists and Moonies. It was
818
decided by the Charity Commission that they were registered charities. Would the term "relevant religious community" apply to organisations such as the Scientologists and the Moonies which are charitable institutions?
Lord Stallard: I am concerned with the Simon Community which is a mission for the caring of those on Skid Row. They are probably the most unfortunate people within the community. Those who no one else wants to help are helped by the Simon Community. I suppose that it is a quasi-religious organisation; it has the backing of many religious leaders and bodies. It practices voluntary poverty in the same way as do many religious organisations. Its workers receive £10 a week pocket-money. It is dependent on no public funds but relies wholly on charitable organisations and on collections to provide funds. Does the community come into that category?
It operates in four boroughs and moves from one to the other offering different levels of assistance in different places. Most of its clients do not qualify for DHSS benefits. One can see them in any main-line railway station, underneath many of the arches and in all kinds of places. They do not understand the DHSS let alone qualify for it. However, under the Bill they will all be liable to pay the community charge. Obviously the Simon Community are most concerned that the charge would cripple it in a borough such as Camden. I was surprised that in the previous debate the Minister could not give examples because I thought that everyone knew about Camden. He should have been able to say that, for whatever reason, its poll tax will be in the region of £760, £780, £800 or £880. One can take one's pick according to the paper one reads.
However, it will certainly be up to £3-plus a week, so that the community operating in those circumstances will be absolutely crippled unless it receives an exemption. I should like the Minister to consider whether, within the orbit of his amendment, he can grant the exemption that will be so necessary if the community can carry on the task which no one else wants to do but is nonetheless very important.
Lord Carter: There is an area which I believe is unclear and perhaps the noble Earl can help. In the Catholic Church there are examples of members of a religious community who are running a parish. They are not living in a community but are members of a community. I understand that the intention is not to exclude the minister or vicar who has an income and who has not taken a vow of poverty. Therefore one could have a situation where there are two parishes alongside each other; one is run by a member of the secular clergy who will be liable to the poll tax; and the one next door will be run by a member of a religious community who is not in his community but is detached to run the parish, who will be exempt from the poll tax. Perhaps the Minister can tell me whether or not that is the case.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, has appeared because yesterday we were discussing various communities,

819
which may not have been religious communities, which were perhaps working with more difficult people, performing a more demanding job than some of the religious communities. I am a Catholic and a Christian, but why should a religious community which may be living in more comfort and with more money than some of the communities about which we were speaking last night which are dealing with AIDS and drug abuse and other problems, be exempt when the others are not? If the noble Lord, Lord Rodney, was here he would be quite horrified to hear that the Moonies might be exempt. I suggest that the two Ministers should get together and take away this amendment and look at it along with last night's amendments.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester: I am grateful to the Minister for bringing forward this amendment. I speak with particular interest as chairman of the Church of England's Advisory Council for Relations between Bishops and Religious Communities. Therefore, I was expecting some of the questions which have been posed about definitions and perhaps I may be able to offer some guidance on a few of those points, although further definition will be required.
I believe that to insert the word "Christian" would be rather offensive to most Christians. The Minister said that there had been consultations with Buddhists. Christians are now very much aware that we are living in a multi-faith Britain and do not seek any privilege to be apportioned to them simply because they are Christians. In a related way, we do not see this as anything comparable to the community charge being paid by ministers of religion. Ministers of religion are supported and have money at their disposal in a way in which members of a religious community living under a vow of poverty do not.
The way in which a parish priest who is a member of a community is supported varies from community to diocese and to some extent between the Anglican and Roman communities. However, in justice, it should not be too difficult to find a solution whereby a man or woman who is in a job which has a stipend or source of payment attached to it should be liable for a charge.
There is the question of the sects. The fear that people who are much distrusted by the public at large might, by calling themselves religious, become exempt would not be solved by using the word "Christian", because the majority of them also call themselves Christians, and rather than defining the word "religion" one would have to define the word "Christian" which, in the end, might be more embarrassing. Therefore perhaps I may thank the Minister for the work which he has already put into this and encourage him to take a positive view of all the pertinent comments which have been made about the difficulties of definition.
Baroness Blatch: I want to support the amendment brought forward by the Minister but I am concerned about the possibility of a technical loophole, for
820
example, for the Moonies. I believe that the word "and" at the end of paragraph 6A(1)(a) which states:
"he is a member of a relevant religious community, and (b) he has no income or capital",
probably covers the point raised by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Technically, many of the Moonies and members of such sects operate as a communal entity and therefore, individually, may claim to have no money, but as a collective organisation it is possible that they have a great deal of money. Therefore, under these rules all the individual members may be exempt but the sect itself is very wealthy. I believe that we all want to support this amendment but we are really talking about monks and nuns, and would like to see a form of words in which they are included but which positively excludes sects such as the Moonies.
Lord Craigmyle: My noble friend has been bombarded with all sorts of questions about this, but they are all questions around the periphery of the matter. I am sure that Members of the Committee would not wish him to receive the impression that we are all carping at him. We are all grateful, as I am sure are all religious communities throughout the land, for the introduction of this amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful for the opportunity to explain a little further the amendment which has been the subject of much discussion. As the right reverend Prelate reminded the Committee, the discussions were with the Church's main committee, which not only represents the Christian and Jewish religions but also Buddhist organisations.
The requirements of the amendment have deliberately been drawn tight because we believe that it is sufficient to exempt all those who are members of genuine religious communities. I am glad to say that the Churches believe that that is right and, indeed, agree with the definition in this amendment.
It may be helpful if I sum up the amendment as being one to cater for the situation of monks and nuns. That is why it has deliberately been drawn tight. There has been some talk of Moonies and the Church of Scientology. Simply because the Church of Scientology is a charity does not necessarily mean that it will qualify for this exemption, because the exemption is tightly drawn. For example, if a Moonie were to take a vow of poverty and devote himself to prayer or education and renounce all worldly goods—and I stress the word "all"—he would qualify for this exemption. I very much doubt whether many or indeed any Moonies would be prepared to go that far to claim exemption from the community charge. Indeed, if Moonies were to go that far, the Government could take credit for singlehandedly reforming that sect!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am delighted to hear the Minister's intentions, but the amendment does not say, "renouncing all worldly goods". It says:
"no income or capital of his own and is dependent on the community concerned for his material needs".
Those parents who complain about their sons and daughters being taken away by the Church of Scientology, among other things, complain that they

821
devote all their financial resources to that Church. I am not at all convinced that the Minister has shown how he can avoid them qualifying under this clause.
The Earl of Caithness: I am interested in what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said and it is a point at which I should like to look. We believed that we had covered the situation, as did the Church's main committee. However, the noble Lord has cast doubts. I cast doubts on one of his definitions yesterday and I believe he realised that there was another way to look at it. Perhaps he would allow me to look again at this point.
I should like to cover the point raised by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter on pensions when he spoke of the possibility of those very few monks or nuns who might have substantial pensions. Our proposed exemption assumes that all those monks or nuns in employment or with pensions will have taken vows of poverty and will therefore pass over the income they receive. That was the point that my noble friend Lady Blatch raised.
6 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: If that be so, why is it necessary to have sub-paragraph (4) disregarding the pension? Either there will be a pension, and in those circumstances I suggest that the exemption should be limited in respect of the amount of the pension, or, as my noble friend says, if it is not going to apply to anyone who has a pension why on earth is it necessary to put in sub-paragraph (4)?
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend answers, it would appear that the Government are legislating on the basis of an assumption which may not be universal.
Lord Sandford: Perhaps I may also add my voice to the misgivings of my noble friend. My noble friend intends to be generous, and his move is obviously welcome for genuine religious communities. However, it seems to me that, as worded at the moment, the amendment makes it quite possible now for me to wait until one retires on a good pension, finds a number of colleagues with whom one is ready to pool one's resources, devote oneself to prayer and contemplation and one is then exempt from the community charge. Is that really what is intended?
The Earl of Caithness: My noble friend is ingenious. That is certainly not what is intended. Indeed, I shall make sure that that intention is not fulfilled. I say to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that the reason we have sub-paragraph (4) is this. It is to prevent a situation where, for a period in his life, someone may have worked and received a pension before entering a proper and relevant religious community and then being told that because he had worked and received a pension, he was liable to the community charge even though he had taken the vow of poverty and said that he would not receive his pension or would pass it on to the religious organisation.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I do not follow my noble friend's argument. Either the person concerned has
822
no pension (in which case the sub-paragraph is irrelevant) or the sub-paragraph must be taken as a modification—the point which my noble friend Lady Blatch did not understand—of sub-paragraph (1)(b). The noble Lord cannot have it both ways.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: There is one point which seems relevant in relation to any attempt to define what is a religious community of which people approve, and one of which they do not. It would be helpful if the Minister indicated that the Government have no intention of trying to redefine what is a religion or a charity as regards this schedule.
The Earl of Caithness: Having dealt a little with charities while I was at the Home Office, I know full well the difficulties that that would entail. That is a subject which is being looked at in the reports on charities which have been recently undertaken. Far be it for me today to interfere with that good work.
In reply to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I do not believe that I am trying to have it both ways, but I shall read with care what my noble friend said. I understand the concern of the Committee that we get this matter absolutely right. I hope that the Committee will accept this amendment because it has been agreed with the main committee of the Churches and between now and another stage we shall have further discussions with the right reverend Prelate and his committee to make sure that we cover the points of concern that the Committee has raised.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The final words of the Minister are very welcome because it is clear that with the very best of intentions he and his colleagues, and those whom he has consulted, genuinely thought that they had anticipated possible escape holes and routes. Despite that, from all sides of the Committee—genuinely from a non-partisan point of view and on a basis of curiosity—a number of points have emerged. It would have been a great pity if the Minister had stood by those words as being the definitive ones.
The Minister is without commitment inviting us to accept this amendment on the basis that at the next stage there will be some modifications to the amendment which will take into account the genuine points which have been raised. That is a very helpful attitude.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 81, line 19, at end insert ("and
(c) he is in receipt of income less than £15,000 per annum").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 29, I speak also to Amendment No. 30. Again, we require understanding and clarification from the Minister. The Committee is well aware that there are great disparities between those who either pay the poll tax or part of it and those who, in our view, ought to pay considerably more towards the financing of local government.
The amendment has two aims. Schedule 1 relates to exemptions from the personal community charge.
On page 81, under the sub-heading, "Patients in homes", we find:
"A person is an exempt individual on a particular day if at any time on the day—

(a) he has his sole or main residence in a residential care home, nursing home or hostel, and

(b) he is receiving care or treatment (or both) there".

We are puzzled that despite the financial wherewithal of that individual, in that place, he or she will be exempt from paying the poll tax, but that there will be others in different circumstances, perhaps in the same condition, who have to pay the poll tax.
For example, there may be a person who has the same malady, the same condition, the same need for treatment, but who is receiving it at home and in that case the poll tax would have to be paid. Someone has to minister to that person's needs. Therefore, the worker in the home will have to pay the poll tax. I use the phrase—it is not clumsy—that the rich person or the person with good means will not be paying but the ordinary worker will.
If, for a variety of reasons, a person declines to go into a residential home—perhaps he cannot afford it—and he is being treated at home, not only will he have to pay the poll tax but his relatives will have to pay the tax, too. We believe that there is an anomaly here. I am not arguing one way or the other, but for equity. In response to the amendment, the Minister may tell us that we have it right, that a person, whatever his means, provided he conforms with the words in the Bill (namely, that he is receiving treatment in one of the homes) will not pay the poll tax, but that another person in the same condition, receiving treatment at home, will have to pay the poll tax. In those circumstances, I believe that, in equity, the Minister must agree that there is an injustice.
The first part of our amendment says that there should be some limit, some level of income, below which the current part of the Bill will stand—an exemption—but above which there will not be an exemption. We suggest that the figure should be £15,000. Subparagraph (c) says:
"he is in receipt of income less than £15,000 per annum".
It may be argued that £15,000 is the wrong figure but we believe that it takes into account a number of considerations. For example, besides making normal payments someone may have to keep up a home outside the residential home. We believe that such factors should be taken into account.
The Minister is an assiduous reader of what happens in another place. He will certainly have had his attention drawn to the words of his honourable friend Mr. John Butterfill, the Member for Bournemouth West. During the Committee stage on 28th January he said at col. 175 of the Official Report:
"There is considerable anxiety in my constituency about residential homes. The number of residential homes has increased, especially in south-coast resorts, and it is a matter of contention in my constituency that under the law as it stands they have been excluded from rates. That has had adverse effects. First, it has resulted in the diminution of the amount produced by rates for the local authority. Secondly, and more importantly for a resort, it has meant that properties that formerly were boarding houses or small hotels have become rest homes because they are not liable for rates and thus are more profitable".
824
These are complex problems to resolve, but the Bill is not of our making. This aspect of the Bill does not have our approval. We are trying to make it more sensible and a little less inequitable, particularly in comparison with those who live outside. I hope that the Minister will say something helpful along those lines.
Our second amendment seeks to insert the words:
"The Secretary of State shall reimburse the owner of any residential care home, nursing home or hostel for all costs incurred by them in collecting any charges due under (c) above".
That refers to administration, keeping books and so on in respect of the £15,000. We do not see why a business should bear the costs of administering this aspect of the clause. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: Paragraph 8 is fairly widely drawn. There is no doubt that it would cover residential care homes or nursing homes where the fees are fairly high. Presumably it is intended not to cover those places so much as places where people of slender means are cared for, especially in old age. That could happen to any of us one of these days. The amendment has at least served the purpose of enabling us to consider what is to apply to people of substantial means who are cared for in—I use two of the expressions—residential care homes and nursing homes.
The amendment refers to income of less than £15,000. We heard yesterday that the average industrial wage is £220 a week. My arithmetic shows me that that adds up to £11,440 a year. Whatever his intentions—and I appreciate the view that he has expressed—the noble Lord has inserted in his amendment a relatively high limit in terms of present money values. Therefore I do not think that I could expect my noble friend on the Front Bench to accept the amendment. On the other hand it gives an opportunity for the Government to declare their hand with regard to those people of substantial means who pay quite high fees to be cared for in these homes and still have some income left over. Within the philosophy of the Bill one would expect them to make some contribution to local government services even though they are not in the position of enjoying them quite to the full.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My noble friend Lord Renton has explained the very wide nature of paragraph 8. As I understand this provision—and no doubt my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to enlighten me—this is one of the points where a different method of meeting the charge is being adopted. The building will be rated. The charges to the patient, where there are charges, will include an amount towards running the building, including the non-domestic rate. This is a sensible arrangement whereby in some respects a collective charge will be paid through the non-domestic rate machinery.
In the case of a charitable home there will be an exemption. However, I would not expect to find people with incomes of £15,000 or more being taken into charitable homes. Therefore there is a perfectly clear and logical reason for what is in the Bill. Wealthy patients in nursing homes which are not

825
charities but are run as businesses will be paying the national non-domestic rate and the amount will be reflected in the charges that patients have to pay to the home. It would be quite inappropriate if long-stay patients in these establishments find themselves paying the individual community charge.
In the case of a charitable home, if the exemption applies, there will be no non-domestic rate. The same applies to the patients. They will not be paying the community charge. The contribution will be from individuals in the appropriate form. I recognise that in those circumstances there will not be the direct payment which, as it were, closes the loop of accountability, but in terms of sheer practicality this is a sensible way of doing it. The noble Lord's point is misconceived. What is proposed is a sensible way of dealing with the matter. In a sense it is a derogation from the precise principle of the Bill, but it shows the flexibility of the Government in having regard to the practicalities of collecting the tax. In those circumstances, I hope that my noble friend will not feel it right to accept the amendment.
As to the question of cost, people have always had to pay their rates. Homes and hostels, unless they are charities, have had to reflect that in their management costs. That has been part of the cost of running a home. It does not seem to me appropriate that there should be a special case. This is an example of a sensible and pragmatic way of trying to make the Bill work.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, meant an income of less than £15,000 gross or net. If he meant £15,000 gross, that is not a very high income, especially as it is not unusual for the cost of living in one of the homes to be in the region of £250 a week. I have just done a little arithmetic and £250 multiplied by 52 comes to £13,000. So if it were gross, that person would not even have enough left to pay the cost of the home.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I moved the amendment and we had it in mind as a gross figure. We had experience of the £250. In Enfield where I live amounts in excess of £300 a week are being charged, which are not borne wholly by the social security department. Those are the charges being made. The figure of £15,000 is appropriate. I should be interested if the Minister could explain precisely the relativity of an individual who is exempt from paying the community charge and yet, according to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, will be paying the community charge—that is, a portion of the global sum paid on the business. I should like the Minister to deal with that point.
Baroness Blatch: I am interested in the interpretation put on Clause 5 by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, because if that interpretation is right I should certainly wish to support it. However, I am minded to agree with at least the question mark raised by my noble friend Lord Renton because, as I understand it, an individual who has sole residence on a particular day and who is receiving care or treatment is exempt and the means
826
of an individual are not at all taken into account. I believe that the whole thrust of this Bill is that if someone is able to meet the community charge, he should do so, and the cost should be ameliorated only if his means are such that they require to be ameliorated by the rules set down. So, having heard my noble friend Lord Jenkin, I am not clear about the precise meaning of this clause and I welcome elucidation by the Minister.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: On the general point of Clause 8, many people who are being cared for in the community are getting respite care. Two people whom I visit spend six weeks at home and then three weeks in respite care. I do not think the places where they go come under the definition of a nursing home, a hostel or a residential care home. Originally they were small hospitals in Birmingham which were closed down and then came under the social services department, so they are not the normal type of nursing home or residential home.
These people are spending a considerable time each year in a caring position, and not in a nursing home as defined in the Bill, and the rest of the time at their own home. The difficulties arise when they claim social security benefits, because as soon as they go into respite care their social security is stopped as they are not being looked after at home. Will the same apply in the case of the poll tax? They will have to pay it at home, whatever the amount, but can they have it stopped when they go in for respite care, because their social security money will have stopped in the process?
Lord Ross of Newport: I put my name to this amendment because in my part of the world there are over 90 homes and goodness knows how many nursing homes and we have planning restrictions on any further developments. It seems to me that there is a loophole here, where people with extreme wealth can dodge paying poll tax, and I do not think that they should be allowed to get away with it. I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that there will be an extra charge on them through the rates being paid by the home in which they are resident, but what is their main residence? We know that they 'can go in for a considerable amount of time, can then be looked after by the family and then go back in again.
I do not know whether the figure should be £15,000. I think that this amendment should be read with Amendment No. 34, where we put a figure below which people should not pay anything at all, which coincides with the Government's recent decision on social security benefits. But there is a loophole. We have been discussing community service volunteers receiving £16 a week paying poll tax, so let us look at the other side of the scale and make sure that these people who are able to pay, and should be paying, do not escape paying by going into a nursing home or a residential care home, for I know very well that many people are in those places at the present time.
Lord Monson: I understand the purpose of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and have qualified sympathy with it. But is it not

827
dangerous to insert into an Act of Parliament a fixed monetary amount of annual income in an era when the long-term rate of inflation is still ranging between 4 and 5 per cent., even under this Government? Heaven knows what it might be under any other government. Would it not be preferable to refer instead to 1·5 times average annual earnings or possibly, as my noble friend Lady Saltoun has pointed out, 1·75 times average annual earnings?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to say that this is a probing amendment. This is an illustration. The alternative formula which has been proposed would certainly be acceptable to us.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: There is just one small point that I want to make in reply to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. He said that, because people in residential care homes are being charged the business rate in their fees, then this amendment should not apply. However I point out that there are also people who have a long-term stay in hotels. They wish to stay in a hotel and they pay high fees for staying in a hotel. Those high fees are reflected in the amount that they pay to the hotel for staying there, but they will still have to pay the community charge. It seems to me that on those grounds and under those circumstances the argument which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, used falls to the ground. Therefore there is merit in what my noble friend is suggesting.
I must confess that the more I look at this Bill, and the more I see the amendments that are made to it, the more my mind boggles and the more convinced I am that my original view and my original instincts about the Bill were right. As I have said previously this afternoon, this community charge will cause more anomalies than were ever evident in the rating system.
It occurs to me that if I went into a nursing home and left my wife at home, as presumably under this Bill I am responsible for paying her poll tax, by going into a nursing home and having less than £15,000 a year, I should not only not have to pay my own poll tax but should not have to pay my wife's poll tax either. I do not know whether I am right about that, but that is what has occurred to me during this debate. Therefore that is another anomaly to which we may need to come back at some later stage. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has seized on what he believes is an anomaly in the Bill, which is that a few relatively well-off people who are being cared for in nursing homes and similar institutions will nevertheless not be subject to the personal community charge. I must say that I was a little surprised by what some noble Lords have said, because I must remind the Committee that it was not originally the Government's plan to exempt those who are being cared for in nursing homes. All would have had to pay the personal community charge. That was the position when the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc.
828
(Scotland) Bill reached your Lordships' House a year or so ago. Strong respresentations were then made by all sides of the Chamber, including the Benches opposite, that those people being cared for in this way should be exempt. The Government subsequently agreed to take the matter away and consider it. Having done so, we accepted that as it was already planned to exempt long-stay hospital patients, so it would be right to exempt those being cared for in nursing homes. Accountability could not reasonably be expected to operate for many—although by no means all—of those individuals. The decision was welcomed in this place when it was announced and it has now become law in Scotland. However, it seems that now Members of the Committee are not quite so sure about it.
I do not think that we can attempt to pick and choose between those people in nursing homes in the way the amendment seeks to do. I say that for two reasons. The first is that if the criterion is accountability—as we believe it should be—then the income of the individual is immaterial. Secondly, to operate the system suggested by the amendment would be an immensely complicated undertaking. In order to ascertain which individuals in nursing homes had annual incomes in excess of £15,000—a very small proportion, I suspect—the registration officer would have to investigate in detail the incomes of all those people being cared for in such homes. Of course that would lead us to the local income tax arguments that were discussed yesterday, which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, found so unattractive. It is possible that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, finds this amendment, and Amendment No. 34, so attractive because it is a back-door method to local income tax.
The amendment is not a realistic proposition: either there is an exemption or there is not. If the Labour Party, on reflection, do not believe that people being cared for in nursing homes should be exempt, then they must put forward an amendment to that effect at Report stage. Otherwise, they must accept that a handful of relatively wealthy individuals may benefit from exemption, as indeed they would if exemptions had been given to all those who are physically disabled.
I fear that my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding has on this one rare occasion misunderstood the position. He suggested that homes will be left in rating because their residents are being exempted from the community charge. In fact, we cannot leave such homes in rating because almost all of them (including those run commercially) receive a 100 per cent. rate relief at present. When we agreed to the exemption, we felt that we could not put such homes back into rating because of the considerable extra burden that would be placed on those who run them. Therefore, we come back to the dilemma that we either accept that there will be some, although relatively few, who will benefit from the exemption as it stands in the Bill (which Members of this place wanted and agreed that the Government should make to the Scottish Bill last year); or we must head down the road towards local income tax which the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, would be the first to welcome but which Members of the Committee did not take kindly to last night.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Will the noble Earl give some intimation in regard to the point that I raised?
The Earl of Caithness: I apologise to the noble Baroness; I did indeed mean to reply to her. However, I cannot answer her in detail on this occasion because I should like to study the point carefully. However, as I understand the position, it would depend on where the sole main residence of the person was. Perhaps I may write to the noble Baroness on the matter.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister is inviting us to look at a situation where we have an establishment—a nursing home—inside of which there is a patient. The patient is a rich man but he pays no poll tax. He is being administered to by the workers in the nursing home who are poor people, but they must pay the poll tax. If the Minister believes that that situation is equitable and constitutes accountability, it is certainly not acceptable to those of us on this side of the Committee.
The Minister fairly points out that Members of the Committee on this side wanted those who are residents in nursing homes to be exempt. There is nothing wrong with that. However, what is wrong is that at the same time—we can argue about the figures, and I do not accept that there are only a few people—there will be rich people who will escape paying the poll tax, despite the premise of accountability. There are not only relatively and comparatively poor people, but really poor people who work in nursing homes and who will have to pay the poll tax. I think that that is wrong.
It is no good the Minister saying to us that we should come forward with an amendment to put the situation right. We are really saying to the Minister, "It is your Bill; it is the country over which you have the remit to rule equitably and fairly and you must take into account that if, in practice, that is what the situation turns out to be, then you must put it right."
The other matter that we consider to be absolutely wrong is this. There is nothing wrong with a person who needs to be nursed in a nursing home—rich or poor—being exempt; but what about the person who decides that they cannot afford to go into a nursing home—or perhaps does not wish to—and yet needs the same type of treatment in their own home? They pay the poll tax and their relatives, who will look after them, will also have to pay it; it is inequitable.
The Minister has given us no solace or comfort. However, it is not a matter upon which we are prepared to divide the Committee tonight. Nevertheless, I assure the Minister that it is something about which we feel most strongly. It is wrong.
The Earl of Caithness: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way on the matter. However, in view of the valid point that he made about accountability, I wonder whether he would like to return to the position that we were in when we introduced the Scottish Bill to this place?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No. There is no justification for the Minister trying to draw my noble
830
friend in that way. He is quite right in saying that we welcome the change; we are merely trying to refine and improve it. If that is not being helpful and trying to revise what is increasingly becoming clear to be a ludicrous way of flouncing local government, I do not know what is. We are trying to be helpful within the terms of the Bill as put forward by the Government. The Committee has accepted the principle of the Bill, so let us try and improve it.
If the Minister has an answer to the accusation made by my noble friend that we may land up with rich people in homes being exempt, whereas the poor people who serve them will have to pay the community charge, then let him give us that answer. It is the Government's responsibility, not ours.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I second the remarks made by my noble friend and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
Viscount Rochdale Viscount Rochdale moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 81, line 37, at end insert—
("Staff in Residential Care and other Homes
.A person is an exempt individual on a particular day if he has sole or main residence in—

(a) a residential care home, nursing home or hostel, or

(b) a hereditament which is exempt under paragraph 15 of schedule 5 to this Act

and he is employed in that home, hostel or hereditament.").
The noble Viscount said: Perhaps it would be helpful to the Committee if, when I move the amendment tabled in my name, I mention the main difference between my amendment and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, which was discussed a short time ago. The noble Baroness's amendment dealt entirely with volunteers; my amendment deals with staff who have some degree of salary and who are not volunteers.
The amendment I put forward to the Committee refers to staff who are resident in establishments owned and run by charities for the benefit of disabled people. As it stands, the Bill provides that such staff would be liable to pay the community charge. As I shall explain in a few moments, that would incur extra costs to the charity itself and would divert charitable funds which should be used for the main charitable purposes for which the whole organisation has been set up.
In my view, there are two types of institutions which would come within the broad picture that I am trying to illustrate. At one end of the scale would be residential homes, care homes and nursing homes, in which the full-time residents would be the disabled visitors themselves, with only a few of the staff actually living in as residents. At the other end of the scale there would be resident visitors who would only be in the institutions for short periods of time—say a week at a time—whereas the staff would be permanent residents within those homes. Both are now covered under the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1978 and receive 100 per cent. rebate.
The Bill seems to indicate that the Government are continuing relief on buildings so that they will not

831
have to pay the new non-domestic rate charge. They are continuing the exemption on disabled residents but, according to my understanding, they are not continuing it on the staff.
Perhaps I may give an example of the kind of institution that I have particularly in mind in the last category. There is an institution in the North of England that describes itself as an adventure centre for the disabled. Nearly all the individuals who come there come in wheelchairs. They come from all over the country. Occasionally some even come from overseas. They come for one week; they come to get country interests and to learn country pursuits. They have to be instructed so that they can take part in the many activities open to them. These are activities such as canoeing, other kinds of boating, riding, swimming, bird watching and even—the Committee may be surprised to hear—a degree of mountaineering. The effect on disabled people who would otherwise be sitting in chairs in their homes, wherever they come from, is often remarkable. Here they are able to take part in what must have been to them undreamt of activities. They go home with added confidence and able to compete better in the world at large. They go home also often feeling that they can seek a job, and frequently obtain one.
For disabled people to be able to come for a week and take part in such activities, it is essential for them to have available to instruct and to look after them very experienced staff. That is why the staff must live full time in the home that I have in mind to gain the experience. It is obvious that the staff must win the confidence of the disabled people whom they instruct. They must be sympathetic. Above all, they must ensure that there is safety in all the things that they do, and hence the amendment.
The pay of these very experienced instructors, who stay for a long time, is moderate. Their lodging and board are free and their pay is therefore low. Under the Bill, they would have to pay the community charge. I know that the trustees in question have decided that, if this were so, the charity would have to make good to the staff the community charge that they had paid. The extra amount paid would therefore have to be grossed up to meet the additional tax of the staff concerned. The charge on such an institution has been calculated to be over £4,000 a year, which a modest sized charity can ill afford. The money must either be taken from other charitable purposes or be levied on the disabled people. It adds to the running costs of the charity if the visitors themselves are not charged.
Members of the Committee who know about such activities will realise how important it is to give confidence to disabled people. The amendment therefore extends what is already in the Bill for residential care homes to cover the kind of situation that I have described. I very much hope—I am full of hope—that my noble friend will give sympathetic responses to what I have said and will look with favour on the amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I support the amendment. I have as much hope as the noble
832
Viscount, Lord Rochdale, and indeed some experience of having that hope dashed in the past. We shall have to wait and see.
The burden of the amendment concerns the effect upon a charity. The tab will be picked up by the charity. The Government have been fair in retaining the exemptions that existed under the rating system so that they will apply to a building or institution under the new system. However, they have the fetish of requiring accountability by the individual. In the pursuance of that, if an individual pays, the charity will lose. The case referred to is one of considerable size and importance, and we know the relevance of this work. There are thousands of such places, but even if one aggregated them the amounts of money involved would not be enormous.
We want to get down to the nitty-gritty of the impact and consequences of the big decisions, and the big decisions were taken yesterday by Members of the Committee, who declined to ask another place to consider yet again the question of ability to pay. Here we are speaking of ability to pay. The big impact of the ability to pay is written small here: it is the ability of the charity to bear the consequences. I hope that the Minister will say something that is not only sympathetic but also meets the point. The point may be met in a way that differs from the precise words of the amendment, but the spirit is there. Perhaps the Minister will accept that the consequences of the Bill as drafted will be damage to a charity. I hope that he will say how that can be avoided so that, even if individuals have to pay, a mechanism can be established whereby a charity will not have to pay. If this cannot be done, a charity with much anguish will say that the standard of living of its employees, who are doing so well, must necessarily fall to maintain what I believe is a wrong premise.
The Earl of Caithness: I am sure that all Members of the Committee appreciate the good work that is being done by those who work in nursing homes and residential care homes, particularly perhaps live-in staff who may need to be on call even during their off-duty hours. Indeed my noble friend Lord Rochdale gave us a stirring example of such people just now.
But I think that it would not be appropriate to translate that appreciation into an exemption from the personal community charge. If we were to do so it would be doubtless rightly asked of us to grant similar exemptions for others—those on lower incomes and those also engaged in the caring professions who did not benefit from the exemption.
The exception for those being cared for in nursing homes and residential care homes was agreed to by the Government after pressure during the passage of the Scottish legislation through this Chamber. The Government agreed to an exemption because they accepted that accountability could operate to only a very limited extent for many of those being cared for in such circumstances. The same argument does not, I believe, apply to the staff of the nursing homes concerned. They play a full and active role in the community. They vote at local elections and they benefit from local services. Therefore I simply do not believe that an exemption could be justified.

833
I do of course accept that people on low incomes may need assistance in paying the community charge. However the correct way to give that assistance is through the rebate system, which I have explained in some detail to the Committee already.
Where I had difficulty in following my noble friend was when he said that the charity would suffer. I do not quite see how the charity would suffer, because this is a personal community charge for those who work at the charity. If the salary and the income of those who are working for the charity in looking after the disabled is below a certain level then the means of that person are taken into account and the necessary rebates can be granted. That is the right way of focusing the relief on the individual. Therefore there would be no extra cost for the charity.
Viscount Rochdale: I am a little disappointed at what my noble friend has said. I should like him to go a little further on the question of exemptions. When he was about to sit down he said that he was in some doubt as to what I meant when I said that the charity would suffer. The charity would suffer because it would have to increase the salaries of the individuals concerned by a certain amount. Those amounts would cause the individuals to pay increased tax. All that would have to be added up and made good to the individuals by the charity. Therefore the charity would suffer to that extent. The figure I gave in the particular case that I mentioned was something like £4,000.
That could be dealt with either by taking that amount of money out of charitable funds, which would reduce the service that the charity was giving to the inhabitants by that amount, or by adding it to the fees that the residents have to pay when they come for their week's course.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to my noble friend for clarifying that matter. I think that I understand his point a little more clearly now. But again I would say that in our view that would be the wrong way of looking at the matter, because we believe that, as the basis of this charge is a personal community charge to the person, the income of that person will be taken into account and if it is below a certain level the rebate will be applicable to him or her.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I genuinely think that the Minister has not grasped the point. If the take-home pay of a worker in the home at the moment is, say, £100 a week, in future when the community charge has been dealt with and the rebates have been taken into account he will take home perhaps £98 or £95 a week.
We are arguing that the impost will diminish the income of the worker. We are saying that the Minister can say, as has been said before, that that is the worker's cost for participating in the new democracy. He has to pay and he has to be accountable. But, in the real world, when the workers say to their employers, "This has nothing to do with me but the impact of it is that I am £5 per week worse off", the good employer regardless of any other factor will say, "This lesson in democracy should not
834
cost you £5 a week. I shall pick up the tab." If the employers do not do this there will be dissension, dissatisfaction and the possibility of a worker deciding to look for a job where he can earn a little more. In the real world, those are the real decisions that will be taken.
The Minister may say that that is wrong and that people should not bridge the gap, tiny as it may be. But I can tell the Minister that £1 or £2 to him or even to myself would not be missed. But there are people in the real world for whom the reduction of £1 or £2 is a real impost. There are employers who will say to those people that they will bear the cost rather than the workers concerned. That is the real world. It is not the world in which the Minister lives.
Viscount Rochdale: I do not intend to ask the Committee to divide on this issue. But I would ask my noble friend to give it further thought between now and Report to see whether something further can be done. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 82, line 26, at end insert—
("; and
(c) the day does not fall within a period in which a person is temporarily residing, as a result of actual or threatened domestic violence, in a refuge established for that purpose, or in such other accommodation as prescribed by order made by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment which I am moving seeks to exempt persons who are temporarily residing in homes or refuges established for the purpose of providing safety against actual or threatened domestic violence. In effect, the amendment will largely exempt women suffering from domestic violence who are residing in women's aid refuges.
However, I must say that the amendment is so worded that if it were ever felt that men were in need of such refuge and similar institutions were provided for men seeking refuge from domestic violence the amendment would cover them too. But in the course of my remarks I shall refer to women and to the women's aid refuges. At the present time there are about 200 such refuges in England and Wales providing accommodation for some 15,000 women and children a year.
These refuges are run by a voluntary organisation—Women's Aid England and Welsh Women's Aid—which provides a 24-hour crisis service. That is followed up by a high level of intensive care and support for the women in the refuges. Women in these circumstances are a very vulnerable group. They are living in temporary accommodation, having sought refuge from their own home in circumstances that are quite traumatic both for the women themselves and, where there are children, for the children too.
I am glad that the Minister has recognised some of the problems involved and I am grateful to him for having written to me setting out some of the arrangements that have already been made with the women's aid organisations. It has been decided, for

835
example, as a result of the representation made, that battered wives will be allowed to register for the community charge without having their names made public. In that sense a certain amount of protection of anonimity is provided for them.
However, I must say to the Minister that the women's aid groups and Welsh Women's Aid in particular do feel that a much greater protection would be provided for the women if they were actually exempt from the community charge and not included on the register at all.
In his letter, the Minister also recognises that there are financial problems which such women will probably have to solve by relying on income support. Even if they come from homes which are not particularly poor—they might well come from homes which are reasonably well to do—it is probable that for a temporary period they will have no income in their own right. As I have said, the Minister recognises that and he has pointed out that, in such circumstances, women would be entitled to the 80 per cent. rebate. Income support would also reflect the additional 20 per cent. payment for the average community charge. That 20 per cent. may or may not cover the actual community charge. As we have already heard this afternoon, there will be areas where there will be gainers and also areas where the amount provided will not be sufficient to meet the actual community charge.
However, the point at issue is that such women are in temporary residence. They have left their homes and possessions behind. They may even have already paid the community charge for the home which they have left. They are being sheltered from violence and they need to be rehabilitated back into the community. The Women's Aid refuges are safe places where women can remain while they decide what steps they should take about legal proceedings, housing options and their future financial situation, including their future work prospects.
At the time they go into such a refuge, it will not be appropriate for women to be thinking of transferring their community charge and thinking in terms of their local accountability. That kind of thought will follow when women are resettled. In any case, transferring the community charge from the original address to the temporary refuge address may not be appropriate. Women may remain in a refuge for a very short time. At most, the time spent in refuges is usually a few months, during which the women sort themselves out and then move elsewhere.
Moreover, at such a time women are likely to be in a highly emotional state. It is unfair to impose too many responsibilities upon them. With the help of the workers in the refuge such women will need to settle children in school and make contact with the DHSS to establish a claim to income support. In many cases, that will be the first time that such women have had to seek DHSS support because of the type of homes that they have come from. Women may be involved with visits to social workers, solicitors, or even the courts. They will be in constant need of advice and counselling.
All those matters require a high level of care and support from the refuge, which, although different from the type of care provided in a residential nursing home, is in some respects equivalent. I suggest that it deserves recognition by an exemption from the charge. An additional factor is that such women will be temporary residents.
It is interesting that the Minister, in acknowledging that fact in his letter to me, has made a very significant point. He pointed out that the women's refuges are not going to be designated for the purposes of the collective community charge. He went on to say:
"In order to be designated a building must be used as the sole or main residence of individuals, most or all of whom reside there for short periods. This means that in practice women's refuges will not be designated since"—
and I underline this—
"women who stay in refuges have their sole or main residences elsewhere".
That surely takes account of the argument of accountability which we have heard all afternoon. If those women have their main residence elsewhere—a home that they have just left or one which they are planning to set up and move into—then that is where their accountability should be called into play. Therefore, I suggest that that argument does not apply in the case of women in refuges.
From an administrative point of view, rather than expecting such women to transfer their responsibility for community charge first to the refuge and then to wherever they are moving, it would be more sensible and kinder to the women, and also more sensible from the point of view of registration officers who will have their administrative work added to as a consequence, to make an exemption.
I hope that the Minister will look kindly on the amendment. Last night a series of amendments were moved which had some similarities with this amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, who regrets that she is unable to be here to speak in support of the amendment this evening, brought up the question of women's refuges. I hope that the Minister will either be able to accept the amendment or assure me that he will give careful thought to the implications of what I have said. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): As my name also appears on the amendment, perhaps I may say a few words in support of it. The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, has given a very full picture and I also wish to thank the Minister for writing to me. However, I feel that making women pay the personal community charge while they are in refuges adds an unwarranted burden and hassle at a time of great distress. They have many problems to resolve and many decisions to take. Surely arguments about accountability are inappropriate at a time of crisis in their lives.
The Earl of Caithness: I have listened carefully to what the noble Baronesses have said about women's refuges. Let me say straightaway that the Government share their concern about domestic violence and applaud the good work done by women's refuges.

837
However, the Government see no reason to grant a community charge exemption to women in refuges. There is another and more appropriate way of providing assistance by means of the rebate system. It may be of interest to the Committee to know that officials from my department and the Welsh Office met representatives of the Women's Aid Federation of England and the Welsh Women's Aid last November. As a result of the representations made, as the noble Baroness has said, we decided to allow battered women and other people who live under threat of violence to register for the personal community charge without making their names public.
Anyone who demonstrates to the registration officer that she or he might suffer violence if their name and address were made public would have their name and where appropriate their address omitted from the register extract which will be made available for public inspection. That is clear evidence of the Government's willingness to consider sympathetically representations made by or on behalf of women's groups.
An exemption for people staying in women's refuges would not however be appropriate. Schedule I to the Bill confers limited exemptions on those groups for whom local accountability cannot be said to operate—the severely mentally handicapped, prisoners and people receiving long-term care in hospitals, homes and hostels. Women in refuges cannot be said to fall into that category.
Of course I accept that many women in refuges will need help in paying the community charge. It may be of assistance to the Committee if I explain how we see the system working. Where a woman decides to leave her husband as a result of domestic violence, she may go to stay with friends or relatives or she may go to a refuge. At that point she is unlikely to have decided where she will live in the long term. In some cases she may decide to go back to her husband; in others the breach may, alas, be irreparable and she may, for example, apply to the local authority to be housed. However, at that stage there is no need for her to change the address at which she is registered for the personal community charge. She does not know where she may be living in a couple of weeks' time and the registration officer will not in those circumstances require her to do anything until matters have sorted themselves out.
However, in most cases, even if she remains registered at the marital home for the time being, she cannot expect her husband to provide for her or to pay the community charge. So as soon as she leaves the marital home she will need to go to the DHSS office, which will pay income support for her and her children. Entitlement to income support will automatically also entitle her to an 80 per cent. rebate on her community charge. Of course the income support will also include an amount in recognition of the 20 per cent. charge she will still have to pay.
To complete the picture I should say that if in due course she finds permanent accommodation of her own she will at that stage need to re-register for the personal community charge at that address. Unless she has income of her own she will of course continue
838
to receive income support and an 80 per cent. rebate. As I have already mentioned, if she is still under threat of violence her name and new address will be omitted from the published extract of the community charges register so that her estranged husband will not be able to trace her from that source.
I hope that the explanation I have given meets the concerns expressed by the noble Baronesses and makes clear why we think all the legitimate worries about battered wives can be met without the need for an exemption.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I should be grateful if the Minister could help me. I listened very carefully to the range of facilities to which battered wives will have access or recourse. I did not detect in any of them anything which takes account of their special circumstances. The Minister told us that consultations had taken place. I am grateful for the fact not only that he told us but also that they took place and that they were meaningful. Did I detect that the net product of those discussions and of the Government's sympathy was the decision by the Government to provide anonymity in the event of their registering for the community charge? Was the Minister invited to provide more practical assistance than just sympathy? Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, will be able to tell us.
As we go through the Bill increasingly we shall come across groups of people for whom I feel great compassion. Yet what the Government have offered in this case to women in refuges is wholly inadequate to meet their needs. The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, has suggested in the amendment that they need special treatment. I did not detect from what the Minister said that they were to receive anything special other than sympathy and anonymity.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may also intervene at this stage. I was puzzled by the Minister's reply. The problem of women in refuges is a very small one in national terms but it is a major problem for the women concerned. The Minister's solution seems to be extremely bureaucratic and I cannot imagine why he would want to approach the problem in that way.
I should have thought that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, said, many of the women concerned would not want to get involved with social security officers even if they had little or no income but would prefer to manage on their own. Yet it appears from the Minister's response that he wishes to push them into social security offices. I cannot imagine why he would want to do that.
The other question that I wish to ask him, which is of general significance, is whether the Government are seriously saying that they would go through the whole business of penalties if one of those women did not pay her community charge for one reason or another. Can we assume that in this case that whole section of the Bill which refers to penalties—which ends up with going to prison—would apply to those women? It seems to me that the whole thing is preposterous.

839
Since we understand that the Government are trying to look sympathetically on what one might regard as minor amendments—and it is certainly minor and does not infringe any fundamental principle—I cannot imagine why the Minister does not say that he will go away and think about it. It would help the Government not to levy the community charge in this situation because it would remove a problem for them.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: I am disappointed at the Minister's response. As I indicated, the women's aid groups feel that it would be much more helpful if women in refuges could be exempted. I know that women's aid centres will not be responsible for a collective community charge. However, I think that we have to accept that most of the care and responsibility for taking the women to the DHSS, telling them what to say and helping them, throughout rests with the women's aid centres. The very fact that there is an additional burden on them in the form of the community charge is a burden both on the women and the women's aid centres.
In response to the question asked by my noble friend, I should like to say that the women's aid centres have been very modest in their request to the Government. They have asked for this exemption. I accept that, as the Minister said, in some cases more than the total amount will be provided for the community charge for those women living in a low rated area and rather less than the community charge will be provided for those living in a higher rated area. I accept all that he has said and that the Government are attempting as far as they can to meet the request financially. However, it is the emotional problem which is involved and which we are asking the Government to take into account.
The Minister says that a woman has no need to register until it has been decided what she will do and whether she will go back to the matrimonial home or set up a new home. Before I decide what to do about this amendment, I should like his views. Is he really saying that while the woman is residing in the refuge she does not need to do anything about registering or changing her registration for community charge?
The Earl of Caithness: On that last point the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, is absolutely right. That is what I said. Her sole or main place of residence is not determined, because she may very well go back to her husband and the home which was her main or sole place of residence. If she moves or is rehoused by the local authority, she will have a new sole or main place of residence.
Baroness Lockwood: Then surely the Minister is meeting the objective of the amendment. The amendment asks for exemption while the person is in that refuge. If the Minister is now telling me that while the woman is there she will not be required to register and meet the community charge, then the point is covered.
The Earl of Caithness: I think that the noble Baroness and I are on absolutely the same rails until we come to the unfortunate situation in which the woman goes into the refuge. She does not have to change her main place of residence from her home to the refuge and back either to her home or elsewhere. The main or sole place of residence will remain that place where she was until she decides to change it. Notwithstanding that, she will still be liable to a personal community charge and the assistance that she will be given will come through the rebate system.
I should like to answer the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Graham and Lord Peston. I should make clear that when officials met representatives of the women's refuge organisations they were concerned on two counts: first, the fear that women would be traced and, secondly, the possibility of them having to pay the collective community charge at the refuge. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, we have met the women's organisations on both those points.
Certainly it is not the case that we are pushing women toward the DHSS. We look at the matter realistically and understand that women who find themselves in such circumstances with no income will inevitably have to seek support from public funds. The point I seek to make is that immediately they have received income support they will receive an 80 per cent. rebate.
In reply to the point about penalties made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I envisage that we shall have a long and interesting debate when we reach that point and I hope that the noble Lord will then be in his place.
Baroness Lockwood: I thank the Minister for his remarks. I should like to have the opportunity to read very carefully everything that he has said in order to see just how much difference there may be between us.
The Earl of Caithness: If, when she has read the Official Report, the noble Baroness would like to see me, of course I shall make time for her.
Baroness Lockwood: On those grounds, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 82, line 26, at end insert—
(". A person is an exempt individual on a particular day if at any time on that day he is in receipt of no income other than State benefits but excluding any earnings related benefits and his capital resources of less than £8,000.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to add to the list of exemptions under Schedule 1 an individual whose only source of income is state benefits and who has very limited capital resources. The Minister mischievously said that he thought that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, by adding his name to this amendment and the previous one moved by my noble friend Lord Graham, was using a backstairs method to bring in local income tax. That

841
was a rather mischievous remark from the Minister. There is no such purpose behind the amendment, as he knows full well.
This amendment follows up the principle on which the Government have already moved forward by stating quite clearly that regulations will be brought in to give some relief from the community charge to individuals who have very low incomes. It may be asked why we have indicated a figure of £8,000 in the amendment as the limit for capital resources. One must bear in mind that that is a maximum figure and it may well be that the capital resources fall below £8,000.
The Government, through the mouth of the Prime Minister and other Ministers, have repeatedly stated that individuals should stand on their own feet and if necessary provide toward their own retirement. I should like to ask the Committee to consider two possible cases. First there is the example of a couple who are pensioners. They decided that they would save money so as not to be a burden upon their sons and grandsons in later life and could have their house repaired and have other jobs done in their home. They are pensioners and state benefit is their only source of income. They may be living in an area in which the community charge is high and they may have to pay two community charges. Are we suggesting that those individuals should eat into their capital in order to meet the full amount of the community charge? The second case illustrates circumstances which are not dissimilar to those of a neighbour friend of mine. He was a man who took early retirement and had a limited amount of money. He died and his widow is now a pensioner. In order to meet the community charge does she have to eat into the limited amount of money that her husband received when he took early retirement?
This amendment seeks to ensure that a person whose only source of income is state benefits and who has very limited capital resources which do not exceed £8,000 is included in Schedule 1 under the list of exemptions. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I have already made the point several times, both at Second Reading and during this Committee stage, that we believe that a great deal of this Bill is about restoring accountability. Exempting income support recipients from the community charge would, we believe, severely reduce the extent to which that aim can be achieved. Each year, every adult, with very few exceptions, should receive a community charge bill setting out how much the local authority spends compared with its assessed need to spend and how that will affect the amount that people in that area will have to pay. As a result, those who receive a bill will be better able to judge the performance of the authorities in whose area they live.
There is no reason why people who are in receipt of income support should not receive a community charge bill. They use local services and they will have a say in the decisions of the local authority through the ballot box. They should also be aware of the cost of local services. In that respect they are no different from other adults who will be subject to the personal community charge.
842
Of course those on income support cannot be expected to pay their bills without assistance, but the answer is not to exempt them. We have said that those who are in receipt of income support will receive a maximum benefit of 80 per cent. of the community charge. They will receive a net bill for 20 per cent. of the community charge levied in their area. However, we have also made clear that income support levels will include an amount to help pay that remaining 20 per cent. The result will be that those on income support will not only receive a bill but, commensurate with their limited financial resources, will have some moderate exposure to the effect of variations in local spending.
In an area of modest spending the individual concerned will be in pocket. The amount provided in income support will be more than the 20 per cent. bill that he needs to pay. As spending grows the bill will gradually rise. Those not receiving rebates will be exposed to the full marginal cost of increases in spending. A rise of £1 per adult in spending will increase the community charge by £1. Those who are on income support will pay only 20p towards each additional £1 of local spending. However that will still play an important part in strengthening accountability.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, cited the case of a single pensioner. I am delighted to be able to say to him that, although I should need to consider in detail the circumstances that he mentioned, as a general rule 80 per cent. of all single pensioners will be better off under our proposed community charge than they are under the existing rating system.
Earl Russell: I speak in support of Amendment No. 34 on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ross of Newport, who is unable to be present. I have listened with some puzzlement to the reply that has just been given to the Committee. It seems to me that the Government have created an enormous and complicated apparatus in order to achieve a very small and somewhat theoretical gain. There are to be rebates of 80 per cent. and there is money to be paid out of public funds in order that it may come back into public funds. That is a long, circular, laborious and expensive process. I understand that the Government themselves estimate that the housing benefit caseloads will increase by 18 per cent. as a result of the rebate scheme.
We are led to understand that all this is done in the name of the principle of accountability. I understand that that is a real principle, but in the real world principles have to exist together. It seems to me that this principle is being elevated to a very lonely eminence where it is dominating all other principles including that of practicality. Furthermore, the principle of accountability is being invoked in only a very limited context. It is being invoked only in the context of the amount of money that a local authority spends.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, last night referred to a local council doing well. It was fairly clear that she was referring specifically to the amount of money that a local council spends. A lot of people would take the principle of accountability

843
a great deal more seriously if it were made clearer that the council is accountable for the quality of its services as well as for the size of its spending.
We find this complicated apparatus built up at great expense by a government constantly saying that they are concerned to save public money simply in order to assert the theoretical principle. Some of us feel that we have wandered into the more complicated part of the Athanasian Creed.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I wonder whether the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has ever served in a local authority. I am a member of a local authority. I welcome the idea of being more accountable to the local electorate. The first port of call for that accountability is the cost of services. I suspect that where the cost of services impacts on an individual that becomes the first hurdle. If the cost is excessive, the individual moves on to the question: is it producing value for money? A further judgment is therefore made not simply on cost but on whether or not the cost is producing a service that an individual considers is worth paying for. I do not believe that accountability stops on the bottom line of cost. It moves on to making judgments about the quality of service.
The Earl of Caithness: Perhaps I may respond to the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The noble Earl has made it perfectly clear that he disagrees with the proposals in the Bill, and the accountability in which we believe. I cannot remember whether the noble Earl was here for the discussion last night on his party's proposal for a local income tax. That is not a very accountable tax and would be a great deal more costly to administer and a great deal more costly for most people to pay.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful for what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has said. However, the Minister has not made any comment upon the point in the amendment regarding capital resources. In view of statements that have been made by Ministers in the other place, can the Minister repeat the position with regard to capital resources held by an individual in relation to liability for community charge so that it is on the record? Does the Minister consider that our figure of an £8,000 limit is reasonable?
The Earl of Caithness: As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, knows, the tailoring of the community charge and the rebate is linked to the social security legislation which I believe sets out the position quite clearly.
Lord Underhill: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hesketh: Perhaps I may suggest that this is a suitable time to break for dinner. I suggest that we do not return before 8.35. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Scotch Whisky Bill
7.33 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
In another place the Bill was in the capable hands of my honourable friend Mr. Bill Walker, the Member of Parliament for Tayside. He was fortunate to draw a high place in the ballot and took the opportunity to respond to the long-standing and increasingly urgent need for legislation to strengthen the hand of the Scotch whisky industry. During its passage through Parliament so far the Bill has had all-party support and considerable help from the Government. It is also strongly backed by the Scotch whisky industry, its workforce and the trade unions. It is doubtless also backed by many other people who throughout the UK, and throughout the world, enjoy a dram of true Scotch whisky and wish to continue doing so.
At this point I must declare a modest consumer interest in that from time to time I greatly enjoy the odd dram myself. I must also declare a financial interest since the firm in which I am a partner grows, among other things, barley which is sold for malting. The widespread support for this Bill is not surprising. As your Lordships will be well aware, the Scotch whisky industry is of enormous importance to the economy of Scotland and the UK. It provides direct employment for some 15,000 people and indirect employment for many more. It produces exports worth over £1,000 million a year and it contributes £1,000 million a year in revenue to the exchequer. In Tayside alone, where I live and where my noble neighbour, Lord Mackie of Benshie—who I see is down to speak later in this debate—also lives, and where Mr. Bill Walker, the promoter of this Bill has his constituency, there are no fewer than 10 distilleries, and blending and bottling plants, and seven registered offices. Further north the industry is of even greater local significance. Added to all that, I need hardly say that Scotch whisky is quite simply an inseparable part of our heritage and culture. It makes many friends for Scotland, and that is certainly reflected in the growing Scottish and UK tourist industry.
The immediate need for legislation is brought about by the proposed European Community regulation. This will cover all the main spirit drinks: gin, brandy and rum, for example, and it will contain a definition of whisky. It now seems likely that that definition will be less stringent than the current UK definition as set out at the moment in the Finance Act 1969. The fear is that a less rigorous definition could make way for the production of lower quality whisky in Scotland and that this could be marketed, as, for example, "whisky—a product of Scotland". That would be confusing for consumers. It might greatly damage the quality image on which the reputation of Scotch whisky has been built. The need for clarification for that which is Scotch whisky and that which is not is now upon us, and that is what this Bill aims to achieve.
The broad aims of the Bill are three-fold: first, to ensure that all whisky produced in Scotland is true Scotch whisky; secondly, to prevent the sale in Great

845
Britain of whisky purporting to be Scotch whisky but which in fact does not meet the definition of Scotch whisky; and, thirdly, to enable Ministers, if and when the time is right, to set a minimum alcoholic strength for Scotch whisky.
Because of the need to take account of that which is decided by the European Council in due course, the Bill is constructed as an enabling measure designed so that its various provisions can be brought into effect by Ministers as and when required by means of orders laid before Parliament. I should like to take your Lordships through the Bill because it is slightly unusual in structure and I think it would be easier if I were to do that.
Clause 1 is central in that it prohibits production in Scotland of whisky other than Scotch whisky and provides for sanctions. Your Lordships will note that the part of the Bill dealing with definitions of "whisky" and of "Scotch whisky" comes later in Clause 3. Clause 1(1) makes it unlawful to produce in Scotland, mature in Scotland or keep or use for blending in Scotland any whisky other than Scotch whisky. This would mean that all Scotch whisky would be known to have come from Scotland and other whisky would be known not to have come from Scotland.
Subsection (2) concerns the ability to enforce these prohibitions by civil action. If they are contravened, any producer of Scotch whisky or an association of producers, such as, for example, the Scotch Whisky Association, would be able to apply to the Court of Session for an interdict.
Subsection (3) of that clause makes any whisky produced in Scotland that is not Scotch whisky in contravention of subsection (1) liable to forfeiture, and the fourth subsection makes those parts of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 which relate to forfeiture apply to this Bill.
Clause 2 makes it unlawful to sell as Scotch whisky spirits which do not meet the definition of Scotch whisky. Clause 2 also allows Ministers to set by order a minimum alcoholic strength for Scotch whisky and, should the power be exercised, makes it unlawful to sell Scotch whisky at any lower strength. I should add here that the reason why the Bill does not stipulate a minimum alcoholic strength is that all interested parties will require to be consulted when the time comes before it is decided what is appropriate.
Clause 2(2) allows a Scotch whisky producer or association to apply to the High Court for an injunction in England or to the Court of Session for an interdict in Scotland to prevent people who are contravening the sales prohibition from continuing to do so.
In Clause 3, to which I referred previously, the first subsection contains definitions of various terms. Your Lordships will note that "Scotch whisky" is described as:
"such whisky (distilled and matured in Scotland) as conforms to a definition of Scotch whisky contained in an order made under this subsection".
Once the order is made the new definition will replace the current definition which is that contained in the Finance Act 1969. It is intended that the new definition should relate much more closely than does
846
the present one to the modern practice of the industry and that there should be full consultation with all interested parties before the definition is finalised and the order laid. The wording of the definition in Clause 3 is the anticipated Euro definition which is set out in the draft Community regulation. As the text of the regulation is not yet settled it is necessary to allow for an amended version. That is done in subsection (2).
Subsection (3) allows orders made by Ministers under Clauses 2 and 3 to make different provisions for different cases. For example, it may be necessary to define different production processes for malt and grain whisky separately. Subsection (4) states that orders under Clauses 2 and 3 are to be by statutory instrument, subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament.
Subsection (5) means that the definition of Scotch whisky in Clause 3 will apply for all purposes of Customs and Excise. This is achieved by inserting it in the place of the old definition in Schedule 7 to the Finance Act 1969.
Clause 4 makes possible corresponding legislation for Northern Ireland. The subject being a transferred matter under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, it cannot be dealt with by way of an Act passed by the United Kingdom Parliament but by an Order in Council under the Northern Ireland Act 1974. The clause simply enables the corresponding legislation made by Order in Council to be subject to the negative resolution procedure. It is important to note that the Bill in no way affects the production of whisky in Northern Ireland.
In Clause 5 the second subsection states that most of the provisions of the Bill will come into force by means of a statutory instrument on a day or days appointed by Ministers. Only Clause 4 will come into force immediately on Royal Assent. Under subsection (3) Ministers may include transitional arrangements in these commencement orders. Subsection (4) confines the Bill, apart from Clause 4, to Great Britain.
I hope it will not be misunderstood if I suggest that the continuing good name and quality of Scotch whisky are likely to be dear to the hearts of many Members of your Lordships' House. The emergence across the world of a variety of whiskies of one kind or another and the projected Euro definition of whisky make it highly desirable that legislation should be in place in this country as soon as possible. The European Community allows for such legislation. It could hardly do otherwise; after all, champagne has been protected under French law since 1934 and that protection will continue.
I commend the Bill to the House and I hope that your Lordships will give it a fair wind.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Carnegy of Lour.)
7.48 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I first congratulate the noble Baroness on the manner in which she has both introduced and explained this rather important Bill. I believe, without anticipating what other speakers in the debate may say, that most people will wish to welcome its general aims. However in certain parts of

847
Scotland there is concern about the designation of alcohol by volume, particularly in the light of the fact that powers are to be given to Ministers to make this designation by order. The attitude of Ministers to the trade in lower strength Scottish whiskies has yet to be specifically defined. There is the possibility that these lower strength whiskies, which are popular in Scotland and beyond, could be abolished by Ministers without the necessity for further legislation.
As I understand it, the history of the legal position of Scottish whisky is that there is no minimum strength at present in United Kingdom legislation, but there is a defence in law—if spirit is sold over 37.1 per cent. alcohol in volume, and even sales at a lower strength than this are legal if the reduced level is clearly marked. Currently the position is that since 1983 whisky under 40 per cent. alcohol by volume marked "under-strength" is acceptable. In 1985 agreement was reached between the producers of lower strength whisky and the Minister of Agriculture for a voluntary practice of marking "under-strength" clearly on the label.
I have already mentioned that these lower strength whiskies have grown in volume sales in recent years and I am advised that currently 10 million bottles are sold annually. The reasons for the popularity are, first, price, and, secondly, quality, because it is a well blended whisky. I am told that Which? magazine recently tested Scotch available in supermarkets. A leading lower-strength brand came second in their test. There is also the growing use of mixers with whisky, and that points the way for most consumers to purchase a slightly cheaper product in the first place if it is consistently well blended.
The image of Scottish whisky, to which the noble Baroness referred, is important. It is equally important that domestic consumers should have the opportunity of making a choice between full-strength whiskies of nationally-advertised brands which are usually sold at or near the manufacturers' recommended price, and sometimes with considerable encouragement from the supplier to sell at those particular prices. One recalls the intervention of the Director-General of Fair Trading not so long ago. He felt that a particular supplier was perhaps encouraging his outlets too strongly to sell at a specific price by reason of an indication that if they failed to do so they may suffer a loss of supplies.
The damage to the image of Scottish whisky abroad comes from bulk exports of whisky. The whisky is bottled in foreign countries and sold under different laws. It is regrettable that the Scotch whisky industry has so far failed to deal with the growing problem of bulk exports to foreign countries.
The main producers of lower-strength whisky are smaller private companies. It is important to preserve them because much of the Scotch whisky industry is now controlled outside Scotland, regrettable as that is to most Scots. The noble Baroness referred to the European Community's activity in that area and it is an important point to make in the debate this evening.
848
The harmonisation of excise rates of duty in the Community, as part of the move towards completing the internal market by 1992, presents social issues as great as those arising from seeking a two-tier system of value-added tax, for example, with near-common rates throughout the Community. The House of Lords Select Committee on the European Community reported on indirect taxation and the internal market in 1986. The report was numbered HL 127. It is an important report and it showed clearly the nature of the potential social problem confronting harmonisation. For example, is the United Kingdom to end zero rating on food for value-added tax purposes while reducing excise rates on alcohol and tobacco to levels imposed by other major member states? We must ask ourselves what effect such changes would have on consumption.
The noble Baroness referred to current European Community activity regarding definitions and regulations for spirits throughout the Community. I understand that the proposal as it stands is that the common alcohol-by-volume content for spirits should be fixed at 37·5 per cent., and that negotiations are under way in that connection. We therefore see some dangers under the Bill if Ministers use powers to designate higher alcohol-by-volume rates for whisky sold in Britain. That might lead to bulk exports of whisky to the Continent with the loss of the bottled trade and a growth in the continuing problem of selling Scotch whisky at strengths below that which it is being sold here.
During the discussion of the Bill in another place, which was at times contentious, the Minister made it clear that the Government had not made up their mind on the question of alcoholic strength. I certainly do not expect the Minister to make a statement on that matter this evening. The purpose of my intervention is to emphasise some of the arguments which have been brought forward for applying a not too heavy-handed approach in this matter. There are also the dangers which could exist for an important if small section of the trade in Scotland if a level of alcohol-by-volume content is set higher than that which they are currently operating. That said, I welcome the Bill.
7.54 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I rise to welcome the Bill perhaps in a slightly different way to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher. I must declare an interest in that I also grow malting barley and it is probable that I consume even more whisky than the noble Baroness who introduced the Bill. But by all kinds of test I believe that I am qualified to speak about whisky, including the hereditary test. I had a forebear who was the farmer of Pitmillan. He consumed a great deal of whisky and his wife did not altogether approve. For the benefit of the English present, I shall put what he said into English. One day in exasperation she said, "William, William, you've drunk as much whisky as would swim a ship". He looked at her complacently and said, "Aye, I believe I would have given it a gey shake".
Whisky is part of our heritage, and it is often misused. However, taken on the whole it has done the

849
Scots a great deal of good. Our national poet extolled its virtues when he said:
"Wi tippenny we fear nae evil,
Wi usquebcach we'd face the deevil."
Again, he said:
"Freedom and whisky gang thegither".
In taking the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, to task, I believe it is terrible that a good Scot like him should be defending this tippenny which is now being sold. I have no doubt that it is being sold because the price is dropped below what one expects for a decent bottle of whisky at the proper strength. Although that is clearly marked on the bottle, people see that they can buy a bottle of whisky for £6 and they do so. It is a kind of deception, although it is clearly marked, and it cannot do anyone any good. After all, if one wanted to reduce the strength of whisky, one needs only to add a little water.
There seems to be no point in charging more per unit of alcohol and then selling it like that. I believe that it reduces the value of whisky in the eyes of the world. There is no question that the Scotch whisky trade has been built up with immense skill all over the world. It may have fallen back a little lately but it has promoted exports on the excellence of the product. Without any doubt the strength of the product has a great deal to do with its quality.
I agree with the noble Lord about one matter. I believe that the industry has probably done itself a great deal of harm by exporting malt in hulk and allowing other countries—notably in the Far East—to reduce it with their own grain whisky and then sell it as an imitation of Scotch whisky. In the long run that cannot have done us any good. I welcome the move to protect standards, as does my neighbour, the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. I should like those standards to conform to previously accepted strengths of blends of whisky. Possibly they are our main export, although increasingly the single malts are coming into favour all over the world. A great deal can be done to promote them and they are much more difficult to imitate and to cheat with than are the blends. Nevertheless, I believe that standards must be set.
The name is extremely important. We cannot allow the name of Scotch whisky to be anything other than the traditional Scotch.
Finally, I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, who is to reply, on her ambitions. She sits on the Front Bench surrounded by four Scots and she is to reply on behalf of the industry. I admire her courage, her cheek and her competence.
7.59 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, when I started to investigate this Bill I was surprised and concerned to learn of the number of counterfeit whiskies available on the market, and that there is no statute establishing a definition of Scotch whisky. This is a very important Bill designed to protect an industry which, as has already been said, generates over £1 billion in foreign exchange earnings. It provides direct employment for over 16,000 people in Scotland.
850
Although free trade without restrictions is important to this country, particularly within the EC, unless the Ministers can produce a satisfactory standard for the nature, substance and quality of Scotch whisky, this important industry will be wide open to counterfeit imitations. Even within my own area of the Lothian Region the trading standards director and his team of officers are facing an ever-increasing battle against cheap imitations of well-known quality products flooding the market.
The definition of whisky in the third clause is broadly the definition recognised by the EC. However, there is nothing in the EC rules preventing any member country from setting a higher standard for its own products. Your Lordships will see that at line 33 the definition uses the expression:
"with or without other natural enzymes".
Very crudely, that can be regarded as flavour buds. Scotch whisky is always without other natural enzymes. Seven hundred litres or 154 gallons is a huge cask. The largest cask used by the Scottish whisky industry is a hogshead of about 52½ gallons or 238 litres. In the quality whiskies of Scotland it is extremely important to keep the surface area of a cask at a suitable proportion to the volume of the contents so that undesirable products can evaporate through the wood and flavours can he absorbed from the wood. It should be emphasised that three years in a wooden cask is the absolute minimum period and I believe I should add that the age of a blended Scotch whisky is determined by the youngest whisky that goes into the blend.
In Clause 2(1)(b) reference is made to the minimum strength of Scotch whisky when sold over the counter. While I do not believe that a figure should be determined in this Bill, the general opinion in the industry is that it should be not less than 40 per cent. by volume. In days gone by that would have been 70 per cent. proof. It is worth pointing out that whenever water is added to whisky, or beer for that matter, thereby reducing the strength from the production strength to the strength in the bottle, it tends to go cloudy, as one will often see in homemade wines, because it is a yeast product.
Both the previous noble Lords who have spoken raised this point but I should like to take it further. It is because whisky or beer tends to go cloudy that the industry passes it through a filter. If the alcoholic strength is less than 40 per cent. by volume, it means that a lot of the natural flavours are filtered out. That results in three distinct disadvantages: first, the whisky loses many of its natural flavours; secondly, it is relatively more expensive to buy a bottle at 37½ per cent. than 40 per cent. in respect of the alcoholic strength; thirdly, it would be very difficult for the industry to prove a counterfeit product.
As has already been said, the purpose of this Bill is to enable the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to establish by statutory instrument the definition of Scotch whisky. I wholeheartedly support this Bill and hope that it receives a speedy passage through your Lordships' House. I am confident that it is adequately drafted and meets the requirements of the industry in allowing it to take to court any person

851
contravening the provisions of this Bill. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour for introducing this important piece of legislation.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, as a native Scot and a consumer of Scotch whisky of long standing, I join with my noble friend Lord Balfour in urging your Lordships to give this excellent Bill a Second Reading forthwith.
I remember that at one time I was discussing prohibition with a prominent Minister of the Indian government. I contended that porridge and Scotch whisky were important parts of our national diet. I could go on and on because I can remember when I fitst drank whisky during the 'flu epidemic in 1918–19. The eminent Scottish physician whom I consulted said that whisky is a preventive, and possibly quinine also. He said, "The medical profession know nothing about what they call influenza".
My excuse for speaking tonight is to urge the promoters to initiate a campaign to go back to the old-fashioned request for Scotch and soda—emphasising the Scotch—or, in the United States, the euphonious Scotch-on-the-rocks. It is also interesting that in South America the practice is to order a whisky by the brand name, and that point has already been made by one speaker. The brand names are important. I urge your Lordships to lose no time in putting this excellent Bill onto the statute book.
8.7 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I apologise for speaking in the break but I made a muddle of putting down my name. The French in the Champagne district are proud of their sparkling wines and since 1934 have prevented others from using the name of Champagne. There is Sekt in Germany, Asti Spumante in Italy, Vin Mosseaux de Borugogne and even sparkling elderflower wine which we make and drink at home. They are all delicious but not one is allowed to be called champagne. Surely if our auld allies can protect their national wine, we should so do in Scotland. Our Usquebeach, which means the water of life, is not the same as Jack Daniels, Tennessee Mash, Welsh whisky, Eurowhisky or Japanese whisky. It is made in Scotland and made to a very high standard. It is made from distillation through copper coils from a mash of very high quality malting barley, as grown by my noble friend Lady Carnegy, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and also by ourselves. It is then fermented to a high alcoholic strength and matured for a long time in proper wooden casks.
It is enjoyed by many, not only Scotsmen. As Daisy Ashford wrote in The Young Visiters:
"Bernard always had a few prayers in the hall and some whisky afterwards as he was rather pious".
Surely we should take this opportunity of allowing only the highest quality whisky produced in Scotland to be called Scotch whisky. Who else can export the water of life?
8.10 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, for the very clear and concise way in which she put forward the Bill and explained to us the various clauses, which, on the whole, are fairly simple and straightforward. They are to be welcomed. Like most of the other speakers I confess to the universal liking for Scotch and, as my noble kinsman said, the family on both sides have a fair record of consumption in the past and the present generation are keeping up that heritage.
I always remember the story of the temperance meeting. The speaker had very carefully explained all the points about what happens to you when drinking Scotch whisky, including killing a worm in a glass; pouring it in, and things of that kind. When question time came, a gentleman at the back repeatedly questioned the speaker about one thing after another, but the speaker was fit for him. Finally, the gentleman at the back said: "Well, there is one thing, ye canna say that we dinna like it".
The definition of whisky as Scotch, as the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, said, is universal. I have travelled a good deal in other countries including America, and there is no question but that if one asks for Scotch one gets Scotch whisky; if one asks for whisky, as the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, said, there are various brands of bourbon which are produced the world over. I am very much against the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, that Scotch on the rocks is a drink that should be encouraged. However, every man to his taste.
As regards the strength of whisky, my noble friend Lord Gallacher has a point; namely, that if there is a demand for it, it should be clearly marked. I am not sure that at present it is as clearly marked as it should be. It is marked at 37.5 per cent. proof, and I have seen bottles of a lower proof level than that. The bottles are not as clearly marked as I should like, but how many people look right down in the corner to see the proof level? Probably they have their finger or thumb over it anyway. I believe that bottles should be much more clearly marked than they are. I am not against the production of lower proof whisky if there is a demand, but I do not know why it cannot be pointed out to people that it is far better to buy a bottle of 40 per cent. by volume and water it down if one wants it a little weaker. It is also a little cheaper.
I am sorry to take the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, to task twice but I do not think the 70 proof is a percentage. I believe it is the temperature at which its flash point is reached. I may be wrong, but I think not, because many people have often asked me about it and I have tried to explain. Sometimes I say that it is the temperature at which it explodes! I am rather sorry that we have forsaken that because it was unique for a bottle to have that figure on it. However, we have to move with the times.
Another question is the size of the bottle. I believe that the standard 75 cl. should be clearly marked on the bottle because there are quite a lot of bottles, particularly brandy bottles, although they do not come into the picture tonight, which contain much less than 75 cl. As the noble Baroness, Lady Strange,

853
said, the Bill is simply to enable us, when we go fully into the Common Market, to argue the case of the name, as the champagne people did a few years ago, for Scotch whisky and the method of making it.
I am sure that we all welcome this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and I believe the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, also suggested that we get it through as quickly as possible. I cannot imagine that there will by any amendments put down.
Perhaps I may finish with another story about Scotch whisky. Not long after the private stills had at last disappeared, an Englishman arrived in a West of Scotland village and got into conversation with a native. He asked the native if the cost of living was high. That is something about which the native of a small village in the North of Scotland would not talk about a great deal. He looked a little blank so the Englishman said: "Are the necessities of life expensive here?" The Scotsman said: "Och aye, they are very expensive; and are nae worth drinking when you get them".
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may add that I never recommended the consumption of Scotch on the rocks. I only used the word because of the programme that I hope will follow this Bill. It is a euphonious description and promotes Scotch. I never favoured Scotch on the rocks, especially if the rocks were made with London water. It is to be avoided like anything.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord.
8.16 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, I remind my fellow Scottish Peers that it is not for nothing that my maiden name was Campbell-Harris. Your Lordships have tempted me. At the age of 12 and at the very first grown-up lunch party I went to, my mother allowed the hostess to pour me one glass of sherry. The hostess made a mistake and gave me one large glass of neat Scotch. I drank it with alacrity. I like to think that I have never looked back since that day.
I am most grateful for the opportunity given by the Second Reading of this Bill to emphasise the importance that the Government attach to the wellbeing of the Scotch whisky industry. I take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, said and I wish to reassure him, as my noble friend Lady Carnegy said in her eloquent opening speech, that the Government have given firm assurances that they will consult widely with all those having an interest in the precise level of minimum strength to be set for Scotch whisky. These consultations cannot therefore be prejudged by giving any prior commitment on the level of minimum strength that may be proposed in the light of those consultations.
Since the question of a minimum alcoholic strength of whisky—not Scotch—is also the subject of current negotiations in Brussels, it would in addition be unwise to prejudice the position of the United Kingdom in those negotiations by specifying a minimum strength in the Bill.
854
As regards the noble Lord's remarks about exports of bulk Scotch whisky, the question of whether the Scotch whisky industry should export its products in bulk is really a matter for the industry to determine for itself. There can be no question of the Government legislating to prohibit such exports. To do so would risk criticism in GATT and it would be of doubtful legality under EC law.
My noble friend Lord Balfour referred to the abundance of counterfeits available in his area. I reassure your Lordships that there is no evidence of counterfeit Scotch whisky available in the United Kingdom even if there are counterfeits of other products. There is certainly some evidence of counterfeit Scotch in overseas markets. The industry vigorously and rigorously searches this out and it brings legal proceedings against offenders in foreign courts. This Bill will reinforce the efforts of the industry in these proceedings and strengthen its hand.
The industry has made tremendous efforts throughout the world to defend its own interests. However, this Bill deals with problems which the industry alone cannot solve. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will welcome the Bill as a practical step which this House can take towards safeguarding this great industry and thus equipping it better to increase its exports based upon the undoubted quality of its products. I warmly commend the Bill to your Lordships and I hope that it will not be long now before we can go out and have a wee dram.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
8.19 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this Second Reading debate. In a small way this subject is an inspiration to us. We have certainly borne out the fact that there is no subject which arises in your Lordships' House which does not find a number of experts to speak upon it. We have heard the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, speaking as a prominent member of the Select Committee on the European Communities, particularly on the agricultural side. He knows much about what is going on within the Community and he was able to bring that experience to bear in what he said. He referred to the producers of lower-strength Scotch whisky and any anxieties they may have. This was discussed very fully in another place. As my noble friend on the Front Bench said, this matter requires an enormous amount of consultation before any minimum strength is fixed. All those people will be consulted. That assurance was given in another place and I think I can give it now too.
We do not yet know what strength Europe will settle on. Should it be lower than the 40 per cent. for which the industry has hoped it is possible for it to ask the Government to go to Europe and ask for a special dispensation for Scotch whisky. That can be done but it would be a judgment for the industry whether to ask for it and for the Government to decide whether they would do so. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, clearly very strongly

855
disapproves of the export of whisky in bulk. It is true that in Australia one finds whisky which has travelled a long way and which is sold at a strength different from what one would expect here. That is the way they drink it in Australia. It is a commercial matter on which the industry has to make a judgment.
I am sure that we were interested in what the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, had to say about the production process, about which he knows so much. We will take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, about the importance of the different brands. I am sure that we all agree about that. The noble Baroness, Lady Strange, reiterated my earlier comment that champagne is protected and is defined geographically. That is what the Bill seeks to do. I was much encouraged by what the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, and indeed my noble friend Lady Trumpington had to say. My honourable friend in another place, the promoter of the Bill, appreciated very much the help that the Government have given both with the drafting of the Bill and in its various stages. It has been encouraging that the Government have been so helpful. I am grateful to the House and I hope that it will now give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 8.26 to 8.35 p.m.]

Local Government Finance Bill
House again in Committee on Schedule 1.
[Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 not moved.]
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Persons subject to standard community charge]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Airedale): In calling Amendment No. 37, I have to say that if this were to be agreed to I could not call Amendments Nos. 38 or 39.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 3, line 9, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 37 I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 38, 46, 47, 50 and 51 and I understand that together with those amendments have been grouped Amendments Nos. 39, 40, 45, 48, 49, 52, 94 and 101 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. By a delicious irony the noble Earl and I reach the point of Amendment No. 50, which is in our joint names, by a circuitous route which we take separately. We then depart again with further amendments from the noble Earl.
I must say at the outset that it is clear that the intention of both of these sets of amendments, and
856
the common amendment which forms part of both of them is similar though not identical and it is to give effect to an undertaking given by Mr. Christopher Chope, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in another place on 25th February that mobile caravans should be exempted from the provisions of the Bill.
Let me first rehearse very briefly the reasons why it was argued on the part of the Opposition that mobile caravans should be removed. The first and perhaps the most important point of my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna is that not to remove them would create an anomaly between caravans in England and Wales and in Scotland where the standard charge will not apply. I do not think my noble friend or I would welcome a collection of caravans on the Border at Gretna Green or anywhere else. My noble friend Lord Morton comes here by aeroplane and does not notice these mundane things.
But the point that we wanted to make out of this, which does not appear to be reflected in the Government's amendments, is that caravan parks are commercial operations and we think it is more appropriate for them, in line with what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, thought was appropriate for residental homes, to remain in non-domestic rating—
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I stood firmly corrected by my noble friend Lord Caithness. I had not read, I fear, to the end of Clause 56 of the Bill and I had failed to spot that the definition of a domestic hereditament had been changed, so that nursing homes are now not part of the non-domestic rating system. For that I can only apologise to the Committee and I shall try not to do it again.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: But the noble Lord does not mind us teasing him if we catch him out on the rare occasions when it is possible to do so. But, as I say, we would prefer caravan parks to be treated for non-domestic rating purposes and to be treated as commercial operations.
There are elements of common ground between us. It is common ground that we think that caravans are different from most second homes in that they are chattels and depreciating assets, and that practically they are movable and it would be difficult to trace the owners of movable caravans. The approach which we took in the amendments was to rely on non-domestic rating. The approach which the Government take in the amendments, as I understand, is to say that, if the caravan is stationed on land which is a protected site for the purposes of Part I of the Caravan Sites Act, then it is subject to the standard charge.
I suspect that the difference between the two will probably work out for most people concerned as a technicality. But it would be valuable if the Minister in responding to this amendment, and indeed in moving his own amendments, which I take it he will do now, would explain the difference and then we can see whether there is any point of substance between us. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): I am grateful to the noble Lord for setting out his approach to the problem and for acknowledging the fact that the Government's approach has been on broadly the same lines to achieve the same ends, although perhaps along a slightly different route and with one small difference which he has highlighted. I am also grateful to him for acknowledging the fact that the Government's amendments stem from our willingness to listen to arguments constructively put forward in another place.
As Clause 3 stands, the owner of any caravan or houseboat which is not used as a sole or main residence would be subject to the standard community charge. However, that is not wholly consistent with the approach adopted in Scotland, whereby holiday caravans and houseboats will not come within the scope of the standard community charge; instead they will remain in non-domestic rating.
It was argued in another place that the Scottish approach was correct and that holiday caravans and houseboats should remain in rating. The government amendments, which have been drafted after consultation with representatives of caravan site owners and operators, give effect to that commitment. The effect of the amendments is to take all holiday caravans and houseboats out of the scope of the standard community charge. The only caravans which will remain within the scope of the standard charge are those which are not used as a sole or main residence and which are stationed on a protected site, as the noble Lord pointed out—that is, one defined for the purposes of Part I of the Caravan Sites Act 1968. A protected site is one where caravans are stationed not for holiday use but for residential occupation.
Perhaps I may confirm, as I am happy to do for the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that holiday caravan parks will be subject to non-domestic rates. We shall ensure that this happens by bringing forward suitable clarifying amendments to Clause 56. In other words, the standard charge under the government amendments will apply only in the case of mobile homes which are used as second homes. That approach is in line with the Scottish Act and has been accepted, as I have already said, by the representatives of the caravan industry to whom I have already referred.
Therefore I hope that in the light of those remarks and the assurances I have given about caravan parks, especially holiday caravan parks, the noble Lord will accept that we have met the intentions as we said we would. I trust that when it comes to the point he will accept the Government's amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I cannot give any commitment about amendments which have yet to be tabled and I am sure that the noble Lord will not expect me to do so. However, it is clear from what he said that we are getting closer together on the intention behind this series of amendments than was evident at the beginning of the proceedings. Indeed, it may not matter so much which side approaches the problem in order to arrive at the same result. I notice
858
that neither side has paid any attention to the issue of houseboats, which occupies a considerable part of the text of the noble Lord's amendments. Again I do not think that the difference is of enormous significance. I suspect that when it comes to the point neither caravan nor houseboat owners will notice a great difference between being subject to the standard community charge and being subject to non-domestic rating. Therefore, in those circumstances, I think it would be best if I withdraw the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
8.45 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 3, line 13, leave out from ("(1)(a)") to end of line 14 and insert ("and (b) above, and
(b) the condition that it is stationed on land which is a protected site.").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment, when referring to Amendment No. 37, as the Government's alternative to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 3, line 15, leave out subsection (6).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 3, line 21, at end insert—
("(7) A person who is in the process of changing his sole or main residence for another shall not be liable to a standard community charge for a period limited to three months if he has a freehold or relevant leasehold interest in both properties.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to deal with the situation which arises when people change house. It is perhaps, if I may say so as a Scot, typical of the draftsman's approach where he has a piece of Scottish legislation which he totally ignores. The Scottish legislation allowed for this provision, after a debate of which the Minister is aware. It allowed for the position covered by Section 11(8) of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987. However, when the Government come to draft this Bill it is ignored completely.
People are either in a position where they have two houses and are desperately trying to sell the one they are moving out of, or they have no house, which from the point of view of personal and standard community charges does not matter. However, when someone is changing house it is quite iniquitous that they should have to pay charges for the two dwellings, one of which they are trying to dispose of. The Scottish Bill dealt with that situation; the English Bill does not. It is in the endeavour to deal with that situation that Amendment No. 41 has been put forward. I do not doubt that the drafting is wrong and that it will be amended in some way or other by the government draftsman. However, the purpose, as I have already said, is to deal with such a situation, and the period of three months is the same as was allowed in the Scottish Act. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: I hope that I can deal with the matter speedily and reassure the noble Lord about his amendment, which, as he explained, seeks to give a three-month period of grace to people who become subject to the standard community charge as a result of moving house.
I entirely accept the principle adumbrated by the noble Lord. We have repeatedly made it clear that we shall provide that the standard community charge cannot be levied on properties that are vacant for up to three months in the same way that vacant property rates are imposed at present only after three months have passed.
However, it is not necessary to make the amendment in order to achieve the desired result. We shall achieve that end by using the powers under Clause 36. We shall specify that properties which are empty for up to three months are to constitute a separate class of property and we shall then set a multiplier of zero for that class. The end result in England and Scotland is precisely the same. It is on the face of the Scottish Act, and we have a regulation-making power. This is a matter reflecting different drafting approaches, but they achieve the same objective.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The determination to do something by regulation rather than by statute seems strange. The Minister and I argued about the question last year. Why is it necessary to do this by regulation, except perhaps to allow the English six months in which to sell a house rather than three months? As a Scot, I wonder what the difference is. Is it that the Scots would need amending legislation while the English would have a regulation subject to the negative procedure? If so, why is there the difference? What do the Government fear in making the two the same? Do they intend to amend the Scottish Act so that it is covered by regulation and the two run side by side? The Government undertook that the two would run side by side. Why is there a difference?
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Lord should not suggest that we change one to make England different from Scotland. That is far from the situation. We have made clear on many occasions that the three months' figure is that which exists. I see no reason to suppose that Scotland and England should be separate. As I said, this reflects different approaches to drafting. As the noble Lord will know—and as I begin to discover when I tackle an English Bill after a Scottish Bill in quick order—there is no difference of intent; it is a matter of drafting.
Lord Morton of Shuna: As the Minister knows, it is easier to produce a statutory instrument and have it approved by Parliament than to produce an amending Act. If in August or September, say, the Department of the Environment considers that four months, six months or one year would be better for England, how will the Government change the Scottish Act to bring it into line? If the two are to be the same and regulation is the better way, perhaps the Minister will undertake to amend the Scottish Act with a related schedule in this Bill. The matter is
860
simple: the Scottish Act will be amended and there will be a power to make regulations, but let us have the same "rule", if I may use that word, for Acts and regulations for both countries. That was the Government's undertaking.
Lord Glenarthur: As the noble Lord and I have discussed this many times previously, we must not become too bogged down in the technical differences that arise on drafting. The intention is the same. I cannot say that for all time there will be no change or that they may not coincide at any particular point, but I assure the noble Lord that there is no intention to have any difference. If there were, I should not have given the earlier assurance.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I know well that the Minister is an honourable man, but he will not be the Minister responsible for rating in Scotland and England. What is wrong with fulfilling the Government's earlier undertaking that the two situations will be the same?
The Government have an alternative. They can put the English one on the face of the Bill or the Scottish one into regulations, but either way they must do the same for both countries. If they do it differently, as presently appears, they are not achieving the same objective for the two countries and are therefore in breach of their undertaking. I must press the Minister on the matter.
Lord Glenarthur: I am happy to consider whether we can examine the Scottish Act in the light of the passage of this Bill in regard to the need for some amendment. I do not necessarily hold out any hope that that will be the case. We often have this kind of discussion when there is a slight difference between the way in which an English Bill is drafted and the way in which a Scottish Bill is drafted.
I hope the noble Lord is not suggesting that there is any intention to change the legislation in one country without bringing the other into line. If there were to be a change to the Scottish legislation, by regulations or statute, it would require primary legislation. In this case, only the negative procedure is required. There is no such intention, and I hope that the noble Lord will give the Government credit for having so stated.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The Minister says that there is no intention by this Government. However, sometimes the intention on small matters of this kind is not the intention expressed at a Cabinet meeting but an intention—or lack of intention—expressed by a civil servant in one department and not expressed by a civil servant in another department.
It is important that the two lie together. This Bill includes passages for altering the Scottish legislation. It is easy for the Government, if they so wish, to change the Scottish Act by regulation and to provide a power to make regulations. For once, I should not oppose that if that was how the Government chose to do it. If the Government chose to do it by following the Scottish Act and including both in that Act, that again is easy. One way or another, however, I ask that we have the same rule for the two countries.
Lord Glenarthur: The difficulty in what the noble Lord proposes is that not only would we be faced with altering this Bill or, indeed, the Scottish one, but a host of amendments would be necessary to various measures already passed in another place reflecting slight differences in the way in which the English and Scots approach issues.
I can only give the assurance that the Government do not seek to try to make differences between England and Scotland in this matter. Three months is the figure, and three months it will stay. It is not the Government's intention that there should be a change; or, indeed, if there is a change, that there should be a difference between one side of the Border and the other.
Lord Morton of Shuna: It is pointless to continue the discussion. I shall return to this at a later stage. It seems to me that it is easy for the Government to do one or the other to bring the two into line on this issue. The Minister apparently is unable to get instructions on that point. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I shall come back to this at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 3, line 21, at end insert—
("(7) A person shall not be subject to a Charging Authority's Standard Community Charge on any day if at any time on the day he is required as a condition of his service to live for the time being in a specified property (the tied property) and he maintains elsewhere in the United Kingdom a freehold or relevant leasehold interest in unoccupied property, with the intention that once the requirements under his conditions of service end he will return to live in the said property.
(8) In each chargeable Financial Year the Secretary of State shall for each Chargeable Authority increase the Revenue Support Grant he would otherwise make under section 84 hereof by the amount by which the Charging Authority's Standard Community Charge is reduced by virtue of subsection (7) hereof.").
The noble Lord said: This deals with a person who has lived on the site of his job for a period and who has a house of his own. In the circumstances, it is unfair that he should have to pay the standard charge in respect of his own property in which he is unable to live because of his job when the property is standing empty and unlettable as he may choose to live in it at those times when he is not working at his job.
The people who fall into this category include school caretakers, vicars, teachers in special boarding schools and wardens of residential care homes. Such people have to live on the site of their work in accommodation that they must give up when they cease to work. If they are careful people, they tend to have a house to which they can move when they change jobs, retire or can take a day or two off. I am sure that the Minister will accept this reasonable amendment in the terms in which it is moved.
9 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Lord has described how his amendment concerns people living in tied accommodation, and he has cited a number of examples. Those people who have a separate property which they intend to use as a retirement
862
home when they finish work will of course be subject to the personal community charge at the property which constitutes their sole or main residence. They may have to pay the standard community charge in respect of the other property unless it is used by someone else as a sole or main residence. It will be up to the community charge registration officer, subject to appeal, to decide which of two homes is a person's sole or main residence.
I understand why some Members of the Committee are concerned about those who fall into these circumstances and who do not generally regard themselves as second home owners. But it is important not to lose sight of the fact that in these cases there are two homes—two properties—and, at present, rates will be paid in respect of both properties. So what we are proposing is no new imposition. We are merely proposing that the two rate bills should be replaced with two community charge bills—one in respect of each residence—one for the personal charge and one for the standard charge.
It is far from certain that the total amount paid in these cases will increase. To reply to one of the examples that the noble Lord gave, a schoolmaster who owns a retirement home will be paying rates on that home at present and he may very well pay a lower standard charge bill in future. Whether the standard charge bill is larger or smaller than the existing rates bill will depend on a number of factors, including the use that the local authority makes of its discretion to levy the standard charge; and, of course, the existing rateable value.
On average, one full standard community charge bill, set at two units of personal community charge, will be equivalent to the average rate bill at present. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord will accept that in principle we are not imposing any extra burden on people who live in tied accommodation and who have a second home. I would repeat that the important point to remember is that there are two rate bills at present.
There is of course a second order question which concerns the matter of who actually pays the bills. I could dwell further on the matter of who pays the bills; but I hope in the light of the explanation that I have given (which I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Morton, will accept) that there is no reason to believe that schoolmasters or other people in tied accommodation will necessarily be worse off than under the rating system, and that he will not press the amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: At this time of night, I shall not press the amendment; but I must say that the answer of the Minister is far from satisfactory. I must try and fit in with the thinking that perhaps the other side of this Committee might have. For example, take someone who is a housemaster at a public school. When he is working there he will have to pay the personal community charge. If he has a house for his planned retirement between the ages of 60 to 65 (and he will be very ill-advised if he does not have a house) and if he is single, it seems to me highly unlikely that any local authority will use a multiplier of any less than two for the standard community charge. That is

863
because there is no incentive for it to use anything other than the maximum for the standard community charge. In that case, that person will pay what may be very much more than his rates.
I am not quite certain that the rates argument has any validity. The Government have said so often that the rates are totally unfair anyway so there is no point in comparing this provision with the rates. I believe that the Government just have not thought this provision out for the various people who have to live, because of their jobs, in certain places and who lose that right of residence when they lose the job for one reason or another. However, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 3, line 21, at end insert—
("(7) A person shall be exempt from a charging authority's standard community charge on any day if at any time of the day he is—

(a) a patient who has his sole or main residence in a hospital as defined in paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 below, or

(b) he has his sole or main residence in a home as defined in paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 below and he is being cared for there,

provided that the building in which he has an interest which but for (a) or (b) above would make him subject to the charging authority's standard community charge was his sole or main residence immediately before his admission to the hospital or home referred to above.").
The noble Lord said: This is an amendment which tries to deal with the situation of a single person. Again, we must think of a single person because this measure does not really apply if there is more than one person living in the house. If there is a single person living in his own house for which he would normally pay the personal community charge and then that person gets taken into hospital with appendicitis, for example, and is in hospital he becomes an exempt person. He is exempt from the personal community charge; but, so far as I can gather, he is not exempt from the standard community charge. Is that right or is that wrong?
If that person is not exempt from the standard community charge, a situation could arise where somebody who is paying one personal community charge is taken into hospital—quite a number of people who are taken into hospital find themselves in financial difficulties—and then suddenly instead of not having to pay his personal community charge, he has to pay twice that in the standard community charge because he is in hospital for the relevant period. I am sure that the Government have not thought this provision through. That possibility is something that must be considered. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: Would the noble Lord mind repeating how it is that someone can be caught for two community charges? I did not quite understand the case that was being made.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am sorry if I did not make the case clear. If somebody is living alone in a house, he pays the personal community charge. If he then gets taken into hospital, he becomes an exempt
864
person and the house in which he was living becomes empty. If the house is left empty, it becomes liable for the standard community charge, and the exemption in Schedule 1 is only an exemption for the personal community charge. Therefore that person may become liable to pay twice what he had to pay before when he actually lived in the house because he is no longer living in it. That was what I was trying to say. That provision I feel sure, even for this Government, is a mistake. I am sure they did not mean it.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I question whether the noble Lord, Lord Morton, is right in saying that that is a mistake. A few moments ago he was criticising fiercely the fact that in the Bill the Government have taken powers to deal with the multipliers for the standard charge by order. I was not clear whether he was asking that the Scots should have the same system or that the English Bill should be brought in line with the more rigid Scottish Act. The fact of the matter is—no doubt my noble friend on the Front Bench will confirm it—that it is open either to the Minister to make the order under Section 36 setting the charge anywhere between nought and two (therefore the assumption that it will be twice the charge is premature) or, alternatively, the local authority can determine what the multiplier is in respect of the standard charge as regards a dwelling of a particular class.
I see no reason why a particular class should not be dwellings which have been left vacant because someone has been taken to a hospital or nursing home. The Bill contains a provision for dealing with that precise point. I say that with great respect to the noble Lord, who has a longer experience in dealing with this legslation than I have. I have only had to invent it. He has actually had to deal with the Scottish Bill in the House. I should have thought that the power was there and that it could be used. It is precisely because it is done in that way that gives the Government and local authorities flexibility to deal with the problems which he is drawing to the attention of the Committee.
Lord Morton of Shuna: With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, I do not think that the Scottish Act will allow a class of standard charges to be invented for people who are going into hospital. The class that the local authority can fix is that of unoccupied houses. It could not say, "This house is in a different class from that house", when the only difference is the reason that it is unoccupied. I may have misunderstood the Bill completely. I probably have, because I have seldom seen a more difficult Bill to understand. However, I doubt whether the noble Lord can get away with that classification, which seems not to fit the status of the Bill.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I apologise. No doubt my noble friend will shed a flood of light on all this. However, it seems absolutely clear to me. Clause 36(3) says:
"A specified class is such class as may be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State".
It seems to me that the Committee may criticise the breadth of the order making power. However, it gives

865
the flexibility which the noble Lord asks for. The power is there and I cannot think why he is complaining about it.
Lord Morton of Shuna: That will not do. Those of us who are lawyers are accustomed to such things as the Wednesbury rules which apply to judicial review and all sorts of ideas such as being prejudiced against red-haired teachers, to take an example mentioned by the Master of the Rolls, Lord Green, in 1947. That will not do for that sort of classification. I am sure that that is the kind of classification which the noble Lord is trying to invent in the provision. However, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and I had better see what the Minister has to say.
Lord Glenarthur: I shall endeavour to enlighten both my noble friend and the noble Lord opposite. Perhaps I may start by saying that I have considerable sympathy with the intention behind the amendment. I accept that hardship may arise where a person becomes resident in a hospital or residential care home and leaves his or her previous home vacant. In the long term, one would expect a person in those circumstances to sell his previous home, thus extinguishing any standard community charge liability. However, that may not always be possible either because of difficulty in selling the home or because the person wishes to return in due course.
However, I am not convinced that a blanket exemption is justified in such cases or that a reduced standard charge should be allowed for an indefinite period. We believe that the answer lies not in the amendment but rather in giving individual charging authorities the discretion, as my noble friend has suggested, to set a separate standard community charge multiplier, perhaps for a limited period, for houses and flats left empty by people who move into homes and hospitals.
We shall give effect to that proposal by specifying in regulations under Clause 36 that properties left vacant by people moving into homes and hospitals are to constitute a separate class of property. That will give each charging authority complete discretion to set a standard charge multiplier of zero, if it wishes, for properties in that field. The effect of setting a zero multiplier would be to confer a complete exemption. I hope that the noble Lord opposite agrees that giving local authorities discretion on the matter is by far the best approach, since locally elected councils are in the best position to judge what is in the best interests of local residents.
So far as the Scots are concerned, as I understand it, the Scots will get the benefit that will accrue from that approach. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that the undertaking that I have just given would go a long way towards meeting the spirit of his amendment but that we do so by a slightly different route, not for the first time.
Lord Winstanley: Before the noble Lord responds and decides what course to take I should like to ask the Minister to explain a little more fully what he has just said. I listened most carefully and tried to understand him. He will know, as will all Members of the Committee, that people go into hospital for very
866
different reasons and with very different expectations. Sometimes their expectations are not fulfilled. Sometimes a person goes into hospital expecting to be there a week and finishes up being there many years. Sometimes a person goes in expecting to be there a very long time and finds that suddenly he is sent home.
When the Minister explains that the local authority is in the best position to judge individual cases and to establish a particular class, is the authority to establish a particular class with respect to patients as a whole or is it to establish a separate order for every individual patient according to the individual circumstances? It appeared from the noble Lord's answer that a blanket approach was suggested with regard to all patients, whereas that would clearly not be appropriate. Alternatively does he expect that there will be flexibility within the different degrees of being a patient so that there will be many classes rather than just one or two?
9.15 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: I think that that would be a matter for the local authority—the charging authority—to determine. My proposal suggests that that charging authority should have discretion to set the standard charge mutiplier of zero if it felt that that was the right way to proceed within its local area for the properties it feels should fall within that separate class to meet special needs.
Lord Monkswell: Perhaps I can enter the debate at this point. There are a couple of points which have not been considered in this debate. We are asked by the Government to believe that they will make an order that will give power and discretion to the local authority virtually to the level of the individual household. Quite honestly, after nine years of this Government's activities in restricting the powers and abilities of local authorities I cannot believe that anyone would accept that as a sensible explanation. That is quite apart from the difficulty mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, concerning the discretion in terms of the detailed level of categories that is liable to be made available. The mind boggles at the risk of, dare I say, corruption coming into play if a local authority could make a decision on the terms of the community charge levy down to the level of the individual household, whether or not, as has been suggested, it could discriminate against red-haired people. That seems to be ridiculous.
The other point that I should like to interject into this debate relates to the effect of the Treasury. We are asked to accept that the Secretary of State for the Environment—who will presumably be the Minister determining the regulations—will remain as at present. That is not so into the long-term future. The other factor that we do not appreciate is that the Treasury will have an input. It will take an interest in the breadth of the tax base. It will stick its oar in and say, "If you have exemptions left, right and centre it will create a problem in tax rating capability". So it is not just one Minister who will be involved; it will be a series of Ministers through time and a lateral extension of Ministers.

867
For all those reasons I hope that we can support the amendment and have the provision written on the face of the Bill to protect poor people who go into hospital and will be levied double the charge as a result.
Baroness Blatch: Members opposite underestimate the ability of local authorities substantially on this point. I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of any local authority to have a view either about an individual's circumstances, such as whether or not in the case of a single person living in one house who goes into hospital and has already paid a community charge it should levy up to the maximum of two charges. It is not beyond the wit of a local authority to have a policy about the general circumstance and then relate it to a specific person.
I should like to add as a tailpiece that if one is comparing the proposals in the Bill with the situation that we have at the moment, that person right now would be paying rates whether he was in hospital or out of hospital. Under this proposal such people would receive a substantial reduction in that they would pay one community charge. Even if the maximum were to rise to two community charges, it would probably be comparable to what they are paying now in rates.
I still come back to the need to have a little more faith in local authorities than is shown by the Benches opposite. I believe that it is quite possible for a local authority to judge particular circumstances. It is also possible in the case of someone who is detained in hospital for a very long time, possibly without any prospect of coming out, as has been referred to already, that judgments can be made about whether or not that person's property can be disposed of. If the property is retained as an investment, it might well be that part of the investment is liable to pay up to two community charges.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am very much obliged to the noble Lords who have spoken. I wonder whether the noble Baroness Lady Blatch lives in the real world in Cambridgeshire. Has she ever considered how difficult it is to convince a relative who has gone into hospital that he or she is not going to leave it? The house in question belongs to the relative and he has to deal with that situation. It is not the easiest of situations to deal with.
Can the Minister tell the Committee whether the regulations that he mentioned will be made under Clause 36(4)?
Lord Glenarthur: Will the noble Lord repeat that question please?
Lord Morton of Shuna: Are the regulations with which the Minister is threatening us, or which he is promising us, to be made under Clause 36(4)?
Lord Glenarthur: I hope that the noble Lord is not suggesting that I am threatening any particular amendment to the Bill. I understand that the regulations will be made under Clause 36(4). The noble Lord is correct.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Perhaps the Minister will look at Clause 36(4). That clause does not give the local authority the power to specify. It is the Secretary of State who is given the power to specify a multiplier. It does not give any freedom to the local authority. It states:
"If the Secretary of State so requires by regulations, a multiplier for a specified class of property shall not exceed whichever of the following he specifies in the regulations as regards the class, namely, 0, ½, 1, 1½, and 2".
It is the Secretary of State who specifies; it is not the local authority. The local authority has no choice in the matter.
The period is left totally blank. How long does one give someone who is taken into hospital of whom the consultant says, "Well, it is very unlikely that your relative"—a mother or a father—"will come out of hospital"? How much time does one allow the family to persuade a parent that he or she has to give up his house? There is no suggestion of a period of time in that clause.
Are these regulations to be produced before the Report stage of the Bill or will they be like the Scottish ones which come out in drafts, like the Encylopaedia Britannica, after the Act is passed, telling us such things as that bicycles can have anything up to four wheels. When shall we have the regulations? If the Minister does not believe what I have just said, he can read the Scottish regulations for himself. According to them, bicycles can have up to four wheels.
Lord Glenarthur: The mind boggles. I should like to correct one point which relates generally to the discussions that we have had and to the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. As I understand it, the powers that would be used in this specific instance in the way that I have described would apply only to a whole class of property about which the local authority would not be able to decide case by case. Indeed that would not be desirable.
The exemption will only be needed in cases where people become solely or mainly resident in a nursing home or hospital. If someone were to enter hospital for just a short time, perhaps a couple of days or so, he or she would not become exempt.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The whole of this Bill relates to a person who is "solely or mainly resident on a particular day". That wording runs throughout the whole of this Bill. It concerns any particular day on which a person is solely or mainly resident. So there is an interval of 24 hours each way every way through the Bill in which someone is "solely or mainly resident" somewhere. I have personal difficulties because sometimes I seem to be "solely or mainly resident" in a British Rail sleeper. I am not quite certain whether that situation applies. However, in the Bill we are talking about one day.
Lord Glenarthur: If there is the concern that the noble Lord has expressed that local authorities may not be able adequately to safeguard all those concerned—and I recognise the force of the argument he has put—will he agree that this might be

869
a better way to proceed? I recognise that the force of his argument is that he is not happy for the matter to be left to local discretion.
Lord Morton of Shuna: No, not at all.
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Lord is not arguing that?
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am not arguing that. I am arguing that the power under Clause 36(4) is given to the Secretary of State. Will the Minister let us know in what way he or she will deal with the power?
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Lord is arguing two points. They overlap to a certain degree but not entirely. There are two different kinds of orders that can be used to give discretion. One is by the local authority. That is what I described when I responded to the amendment of the noble Lord. I was going to make another suggestion that I hoped would go further and would impose more of a duty upon the Secretary of State. I am not content to impose further duties upon the Secretary of State if that is not what noble Lords opposite wish. However, I still believe that ultimately the responsible way to tackle this is through the local authorities. They know their people and have a responsibility towards the people in that area.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It would be impertinent for me to seek to defend my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna. He hardly needs that. I intervene to defend the Minister who has got himself into an impossible position. He does not seem to appreciate our argument. We are saying that Clause 36, as it stands, and as paved by this amendment, gives the Secretary of State a power, but the Minister can give no indication how it will be used. There are clear indications of potential injustice, as instanced by my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna. Surely the wise thing now is for the Minister to say that he will take this away, consult his right honourable and honourable friends, and bring to their attention the arguments which have been advanced in the Chamber. That is the only way in which he can get off the hook on which he has placed himself.
Lord Glenarthur: I have not placed myself on a hook. There is a perfectly valid argument to support the case that this discretion should be given to the local authorities.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is not what the Bill says.
Lord Glenarthur: It is not what the Bill says, but it is precisely what I said when I answered the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. I made it perfectly plain that we were not prepared to follow his amendment but to give effect to what he proposed by specification in regulations under Clause 36. Clause 36(1) and (9) give the power to charging authorities to set multipliers. That is
870
written into the Bill. If the noble Lord looks at Clause 36 he will see that subsection (9) sets out what a multiplier must be. Subsection (1) states:
"A charging authority shall determine a standard community charge multiplier for properties in its area".
Lord Morton of Shuna: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. He has moved from Clause 36(4), which earlier he accepted was the regulatory power, to Clause 36(9) which states;
"A multiplier must be one of the following",
and various possibilities are given.
Clause 36(1) states:
"A charging authority shall determine a standard community charge multiplier for properties in its area".
That is one multiplier for all properties in its area. That could cover a person who has a large holiday home and someone who moves into hospital out of his or her home. It does not give the power to the local authority to use different standard community charge multipliers for different types of property. It says quite firmly:
"A charging authority shall determine a standard community charge multiplier for properties in its area"—
not that they shall differ from one to the other. I believe that my noble friend Lord McIntosh had the right suggestion. If the noble Lord will take the matter away, I shall withdraw the amendment.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: I should like to point out to the noble Lord that it is important we get this right. It is not just a question of taking the matter away and leaving half the arguments unanswered. The noble Lord will read:
"If it sees fit, different multipliers may be determined for properties of different specified classes".
He has given half the answer but he has not given the whole answer.
I was going to make a suggestion, but the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, seemed to wish me not to do so. Having listened to the debate I realise that there is certainly an element of concern about the powers of discretion. I do not believe that the noble Lord is indicating that he disagrees that there has been some concern about that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: But—
Lord Glenarthur: If I may finish my argument, which I have tried so far twice to finish and the noble Lord has not allowed me to do so, what I should be prepared to do would be to propose that the Secretary of State should use his power under Clause 36 to set a standard charge multiplier at zero in these cases across the board.
If the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh or Lord Morton of Shuna, will agree to withdraw the amendment I shall undertake to recommend to my right honourable friend that he should use his power in this way; that is to grant a complete exemption. I shall then report back to the Committee, or to the noble Lord in some way that perhaps I can

871
determine, to indicate what the outcome of that might be. That is as far as I can go at the moment and I hope that the noble Lord will accept it.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am perfectly happy with that and I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 3, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I wonder whether I may just pose a question to my noble friend. Clause 3 perfectly properly catches people who have two homes. Many Members of this Committee occupy two homes and will inevitably have to pay the standard charge on what is not their main home. That is quite right; rates are paid at present. Then the logic of the Bill is entirely satisfied because, as no doubt Members are well aware, one may be registered for voting in local elections in both homes. There is nothing whatever to prevent one from casting a vote in two different local authorities, though not more than one vote in one local authority; so the logic of the Bill is absolutely sound.
However, as I understand it, the standard charge will also apply to the remote holiday cottage which may be occupied only for a few weeks or a month or two in the year. It is well established that in those circumstances the owner is not entitled to have his name put on the electoral register. Nevertheless at present he pays rates and does so without any representation. The only question I should like to put to my noble friend is whether the Government have any intention of modifying the electoral law so that in those circumstances somebody who is paying a standard community charge in respect of a property where at present he is paying rates but cannot vote may in future be able to pay the standard community charge and be able also to exercise his right to hold the local authority concerned accountable by voting in the local election. The logic of the accountability principle which underlies this part of the Bill seems to point in that direction. That is the question I should like to put to my noble friend.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I rise to speak on the Question, That Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill. I do so not for the reasons which my noble friend Lord Mulley would have put forward because he has withdrawn all the amendments which referred to it. I do so because I believe that there are enormous misconceptions about what is meant by a second home. They appear to be held more firmly by this Committee, perhaps for obvious social reasons, than by anybody else. I shall have a few words to say about the most revealing comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding.
Second homes, in the sense that many Members of the Committee have them—a country cottage or a place to go at the weekend—are most untypical of the type of second home which will come within the scope of the Bill. Most second homes in this country will belong to those who do not wish to have second homes; in other words, people who are in hospital or
872
comparable institutions, as has recently been discussed. They will belong to people who are obliged to live in one place for the purposes of their work—perhaps working abroad—but need to keep a home in this country which they do not occupy. There will be far more of those second homes than of those which in the classic sense belong to the middle and upper classes who have the good fortune to be able to afford two places in which to live in this country.
The second point I should like to make is that for the very rich the standard community charge will not apply in any event. Anyone who has a second home in which he can afford to maintain a housekeeper, a gardener or any resident person will benefit from the fact that the property will be subject to the community charge to be paid by the person living there. The owner may go there for weekends, to shoot grouse or whatever and he will pay nothing. The conception that we have of owners of second homes as being people who need particular concern and care is totally wrong.
The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, reveals only too clearly why we on this side of the Committee insist on calling this a poll tax and not a community charge. The noble Lord is concerned that those who have this position of privilege should have an additional position of privilege in that they should be able to vote in more than one place in local authority elections and be able to choose where to vote in parliamentary elections.
To some extend that is the position that already exists, although I yield to the expertise of my noble friend Lord Underhill, who will correct me if I am wrong about that. However, to link any of that to the provisions of the community charge is to reveal that it is a poll tax under a euphemistic name.
The whole concept of the standard charge, as it has been put forward by the Government, is a false concept. It is not based on reality. We have had to chip away at the edges, as has been done by my noble friend Lord Morton, by revealing some of the difficulties which will arise when second homes are owned by people in need rather than people in positions of privilege. I should like to give notice that on Report I shall be putting forward a series of amendments in conjunction with amendments to Clauses 36 and 14 and possibly to Schedule 1. They will attempt to deal with the matter in a comprehensive way which will be much fairer than the existing system. We do not propose to press the Question, That Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill, but we are most clear about its defects.
Lord Monkswell: While I agree with the arguments put forward by my noble friend on the Front Bench, I was interested to hear the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. I ask the Government to clarify the situation. Is it true, as he suggested, that rich people with more than one home have more than one vote as individuals in local authority elections? If that is the case, it is not the popular understanding of the situation, and I would hope that the Government might do something to correct that anomaly and ensure that rich people

873
cannot vote in local elections which may be held on the same day in two or more different places. That seems to me a total abnegation of democracy as we know it in this country, or what is popularly understood in this country. I hope that the Government will resist the idea that their rich friends can have two or three votes in local elections. I hope that we shall receive some respect for democracy from the Government.
Baroness Blatch: I am fascinated that in order to press the case against Clause 3 standing part of the Bill the reference is not being made to second home owners, tied houses, or people who have to work abroad; but in order to get back at the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, the second home owner is referred to as rich.
Lord Monkswell: Perhaps I may just make the point that I did not talk in terms of the second home owner being rich. I talked in terms of rich people with two or three homes. There is a difference.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: The noble Lord is drawing conclusions which seem to be at some variance with the facts. Perhaps if he consults some of his friends in another place he will discover that many of them, because of their jobs, have to have two homes. Of course, they are registered at both and because they pay rates they are entitled to vote in different elections. They are voting for two different local councils to which they pay two lots of rates. That has been the law for as long as I can remember. Why the noble Lord should now think that that is some appalling breach of democratic principle passes my understanding. That has been the law of the land for many years.
I ask that if there is a property for which, under the electoral law, a person is not entitled to be registered for a vote, are the Government intending to look at that? The principle of accountability which is enshrined in this Bill seems to require one to close the loop; that is to say, to express one's views on the level of efficiency and standard of service given by the local authority to which one is paying one's standard community charge.
Lord Monkswell: So far as I understood the history of this country, the qualification to vote being based on one's income or one's property was abolished many years ago. We now live in a country where there is adult universal suffrage based on the individual and not on their rate-paying or tax-paying ability or their wealth characteristics. Surely that is the criteria on which any democracy should determine the capacity to vote, and not on whether an individual pays rates. To think that if one pays rates in two different areas gives one the qualification to vote is preposterous in this day and age.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: Perhaps I should intervene to try and straighten out this matter because I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, is labouring under something of a misapprehension. As I understand it, it is not possible to vote in two places on the same
874
day, supposing there were to be district council elections which affected both a residence in the country and a flat in London, or something like that. As I understand it, the only exception is if one happens to own property both in Scotland and in England. It is then possible to vote in two places but not if the elections take place on the same day. I shall come back to that in a moment.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has nailed his colours to the mast on his objections to Clause 3 and says that he will return to the charge at a later stage in the Bill. One of the disadvantages in dealing with the theory lying behind a clause when one reaches the end of the clause is that it does not allow one the opportunity to introduce it fully in the beginning. Therefore, perhaps I can take a little time to explain the importance of Clause 3.
It has been frequently said that the Bill introduces "the community charge"; but there are in fact three charges. One is the personal community charge, and that is the one that most people have in mind when they talk about "the community charge". There is also the collective community charge, which is a close relative of the personal charge. The third member of the trio is the standard community charge.
The standard charge is rather different from the other two community charges. It is not designed to secure a payment from those who have their sole or main residence in the area. Its aim is to allow authorities to charge the owners, or where appropriate the leaseholders, of domestic properties within the area at which no one is solely or mainly resident. There are various circumstances in which a domestic property will be no one's sole or main residence. For example, a family may have more than one home and the second home may be a weekend cottage of the kind that we have been talking about. It may be a pied a terre in London or it may simply be empty, perhaps awaiting sale, renovation or something of that kind.
The owners and tenants of second homes and holiday homes at present pay rates, as we all agree. They also use local services. Local authorities can also levy rates on empty properties after a period of three months has elapsed since they became empty. In fact, I understand that a number of local authorities, particularly in London and the other metropolitan areas, levy property rates. If in future there were no possibility of a charge on second homes and empty property, if the standard charge did not exist the owners of such properties would receive a windfall gain and would be paying nothing towards the cost of local services. So we decided that there should be the possibility of payment equivalent to up to two units of the personal community charge for the area.
As I hope the Committee will recognise, two units of personal community charge will be broadly equivalent to the average rates bill. I should stress also that we envisage the standard charge being up to two units of the personal community charge. There will be some circumstances in which we shall propose that the Secretary of State should be able to set up a lower figure, rather on the lines that we discussed on the last amendment, rather than two as the

875
maximum. As I have described, individual district councils will have discretion to levy a reduced standard charge or even to decide not to levy a standard charge at all in some circumstances.
Perhaps I should explain why the Government do not think it appropriate simply to leave second homes and empty property in rating. There are two parts to my answer. The first is that the Bill is structured so that domestic property—property which is used wholly for the purpose of living accommodation—will no longer pay rates. Non-domestic rating will then apply only to accommodation which, as its name suggests, is not used as living accommodation. There is also a simple, practical reason for treating all houses in the same way and not trying to keep some in rating.
Second homes may become someone's sole or main residence at any time. They may then revert to being second homes. Keeping them in rating would cause a great deal of extra work for the valuation office and would mean potentially that every house may need to be given a rateable value as it could become empty or be used as a second home. Perhaps the most important reason for not keeping second homes in rating—here we go back to the main principle of the Bill—is that domestic rates simply are not a fair way of paying for local authority services. Indeed, the party opposite has acknowledged this several times in the course of the past couple of days.
The use which a second home owner makes of local services has nothing to do with the size or value of his home. Most local authority services are provided to people rather than to property, so it is much more logical to have a flat rate charge which reflects the
876
benefits that a second home owner derives from local services in the area of his second home.
I suggest that our proposal for a standard community charge is the best way to proceed. I remind the Committee that not all second homes will be subject to the charge and I have described how properties that are empty for less than three months will be exempt, so there will be a period of grace after moving house. I turn again to the point that my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding made. It is perfectly true, as he said, that people are not entitled to vote in two places simply because they have two homes. Therefore the standard charge will often be payable in an area where its owner is unable to vote.
The explanation is that the standard community charge is only one aspect of our proposals and one whose central purpose is, I hope the Committee will appreciate, not designed purely to secure local accountability. That matter is taken care of by the personal community charge and the collective community charge. The standard charge is designed instead to ensure that people with second homes pay a contribution towards the cost of those local services in the area of the second home. I hope that the Committee will feel that this is entirely desirable, because, as my noble friend has indicated, people pay rates on their second homes at present and they would receive that unfair windfall gain if there were no standard charge.
I have no hesitation in urging the Committee to support the principle of Clause 3. It is fair and flexible and it is right. With respect, the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, about voting and about the history of who has the right to vote where at any point were something of a red herring.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Section 3: interpretation]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 3, line 22, at end insert—
("(1A), "Interest" means a legal estate.").
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 57. These are purely technical drafting amendments designed to clarify the meaning of Clauses 3 and 4. I do not believe that they are in any way controversial. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am only a Scottish lawyer and therefore I am a complete lay person in matters of English law. A few minutes ago the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, was sitting to my left, but he has now left us. I have to rely on the wise advice of my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones on my right.
What does this sentence mean, if anything? It says:
"'Interest' means a legal estate".
That is an odd sentence sitting by itself. One finds in Clause 3 that the interest being referred to is interest in property. If somebody owns property but does not have the full title, does it mean that he has no liability for community charges? Is it because he does not have completed title? Is that what is intended? What does "legal estate" mean? If legal estate means what I think it means, what is an illegal estate? Where are we going, and what is the meaning of this?
Lord Glenarthur: In the interests of time I hoped that I would be able to get away with a very brief introduction. However, the noble Lord has tempted me and I shall therefore endeavour to explain it.
The first thing I shall certainly not do, if it is possible to put it like that, is to define what is illegal. I can explain to the noble Lord that a legal interest which is a legal estate is one under a formal signed lease. There are, however, other less formal kinds of leasehold interest. These fall into two categories—a beneficial interest and an equitable interest. A person would have an equitable interest in a property if he had an agreement to a lease—that is, an informal agreement to enter into a lease—but not yet a formal lease. A person would have a beneficial interest if the lease were held by someone else—a trustee or someone like that—who held it in trust for the person.
These amendments seek to say that one has to have a formal signed lease before one can become subject to the standard or collective community charge. Having an agreement to a lease, or having someone else hold a lease on one's behalf, is not sufficient. I can assure the noble Lord that this is purely a clarifying amendment. Even if the noble Lord does not seem particularly clarified by it, I can assure him that that is the intention.
Lord Morton of Shuna: That is all very well, but if I have a lease which is beneficial or an equitable right to a lease, so far as I can see I have every interest not to complete title to the lease but to leave it in the hands of some company which owns the lease and has a contract to sell it to me, but which has not
878
completed the title. Then I will not have to pay the community charge. The lease owner with the contract to sell it to me—and I, of course, pay the rent quite happily—may be in Jersey, Monaco or wherever, and you cannot get the community charge out of him either. The opportunities for avoiding the community charge under this definition seem on the face of it to be extensive. But I am not an English lawyer and perhaps English lawyers do not think of such things. Scots lawyers certainly would.
The Earl of Lytton: If I may intervene—and I thank the noble Lord the Minister for giving way there is one point upon which I should like some clarification. It relates to the fact that anyone who has a freehold interest in a property may become liable to the standard charge. This could be a divided interest, such as that between husband and wife or between a group of people. I must straight away declare a personal interest at this point and say that I have had some very helpful responses at very short notice from the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on this matter. But I should like to seek clarification that, in the case of joint or multiple ownership, each individual owner of a relevant interest will not attract the maximum charge which could, in cases where the double charge applies, amount to a very great inequity for second homes.
Lord Swinfen: Can my noble friend tell me whether a licence to occupy constitutes a legal estate?
Lord Glenarthur: The short answer to my noble friend is: no, I cannot. I have to say that for once I thought we had a relatively straightforward amendment. It just shows what pitfalls there arc when one imagines that that is the case. I wonder whether I can take on board the point of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. I honestly do not know the answer to the point he raised. The noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, is at least a Scottish lawyer, but I am no sort of lawyer and I do not think I can go into the detail of it now. I believe it to be straightforward. What I should like to do is give the assurances for which noble Lords have asked me when I have read in Hansard what they said. I hope that that will satisfy both them and my noble friend Lord Swinfen.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Then I presume that the Minister is not going to move the amendment now and will come back with it, if he wants to explain it, at the Report stage.
Lord Glenarthur: No, I rather hoped that the noble Lord might take me as being at least honest in this matter. I believe it to be perfectly clear so far as English lawyers are concerned. I hope that the noble Lord will accept the principle of it and that I may indeed move the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Amendment No. 45 has been spoken to, but I have to say that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 46.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 3, line 26, leave out (", self-contained part of a building, caravan or houseboat") and insert ("or self-contained part of a building").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I cannot therefore call Amendment No. 46.
[Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 not moved.]
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 3, line 42, leave out ("or houseboat").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this with Amendment No. 37. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 3, line 46, at end insert—
("(8A) Whether anything is a caravan at a particular time shall be construed in accordance with Part I of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.
(8B) Land is a protected site at any time if it is at that time a protected site for the purposes of Part 1 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 4, line 1, leave out subsection (9).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 4, line 6, leave out ("or houseboat").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Persons subject to collective community charge]:
[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]
Viscount Brentford Viscount Brentford moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 4, line 24, leave out from ("education") to end of line 28.
The noble Viscount said: In moving this amendment it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 56, 68, 69 and 70. At this early hour of the evening we take a nice flight of fancy into the collective community charge by the quirks in the way the groupings run. The main point of what I wish to say is set out in Amendment No. 69, which inserts into the collective community charge a family community charge, as well as the hostels community charge. Perhaps it may be difficult for Members of the Committee to grasp these new concepts, having just dealt with the personal and standard community charges. However, I can only apologise for the way that the situation has fallen upon us.
The principal object of this group of amendments is to provide a single assessment for a family unit living together in one principal residence. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the Government are keen on strengthening the family role in the nation today. That is also something about which I feel most strongly.
There are three main effects which I should like to bring to the Committee's attention. However, before I set them out I should like to emphasise that I support the idea of a charge for such local authority services and that that charge should be levied on the individual. To my way of thinking it is a charge and not a tax, and the flat rate charge, with the abatements which are provided, seems a reasonable way forward.
However, as I said, there are three principal effects which come before us. First, the adult family members living together can be assessed together. If all of them are shown on the register as separate individuals they will pay the personal community charge; if on the other hand one name only is shown on the register, it will fall within Clause 9 and form part of the collective community charge. The individual family can decide who will be shown on the register and how it will be played in conjunction with the registration officer.
The second effect is that it will save administration costs because the local authority will have to provide only one assessment for the whole family—whether two, four, six, eight or however many members of the family are living in the residence. The principle has been discussed with members of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy who have warmly approved of the principle set out.
The third effect is to provide rebates of 50 per cent. for certain needy members of the family. The level of rates is not the key factor; it is obviously the principle concerned.
In Amendment No. 69 I have inserted three categories of people. The first is the dependent spouse or relative. Amendment No. 70 sets out my definition of "dependent". The second is 18 to 25 year-olds. The third is those over the age of 80. From the point of view of accountability, I believe it is important that as many people as possible should contribute, because they receive benefit from what is provided for them by the local services. Many cases of hardship and difficulty need to be covered, however, so that people are protected.
I turn to the dependent spouse or relative. There is the case of the single earner couple where the non-working partner looks after children or perhaps an elderly relative. This is the opposite of what we discussed earlier in Committee—that is, an elderly or handicapped person living in a family. I refer now to the individual who stops work to look after a dependant. If the husband in the family earns £7,500, as the Bill stands the couple would pay two full charges, say £450. This would penalise someone who gives up work to care for a dependent person. The proposed provision would be of assistance to take account of the family circumstances and responsibilities.
There are today more young people moving out of family homes earlier than was the case in the past. This helps to exacerbate the housing shortage, which is pushing up housing prices. Fortunately this is abating now in the South-East, although the trend continues in East Anglia, where housing prices are continuing to rise. For national insurance purposes, the age of 25 is chosen for rebate for young workers.

881
I have therefore selected that age. The young are likely to be the low wage earners. They therefore need protection. I have suggested a 50 per cent. rebate. This would encourage families to stay together and to live in one home where that is the right thing to do. They will continue to have the choice, but the amendment would provide an incentive.
I turn next to a rebate for the elderly. Perhaps I may say first what I am not talking about. I feel strongly that Ministers are wrong about what has been termed the case in which 80 per cent. plus 20 per cent. does not equal 100 per cent. This is my big stumbling block on the Bill. For example, old age pensioners with no other income who are living in Camden will receive 80 per cent. rebate and only 20 per cent. of the average rate, and will have to pay more than they receive out of their pensions.
It is about this situation that I feel uncomfortable. It worries me intensely. However, my noble friend the Minister will be glad to hear that I am not talking about that in this case. I wish to make that clear. This is a rebate for the elderly to give an incentive to the family to care for such an individual in their own home rather than for that elderly person to go into a home for elderly people. We have had quite a lot of discussion about that today. I believe very strongly that a financial incentive such as this to encourage the person to stay in the family home will actually save the Government a lot of money. It is cheap at the price.
Another point that I should perhaps make as I draw to a close in moving this amendment is that ethnic minorities often have very large families living in one home. This amendment would provide some respite for them. Even if it were only a transitory matter, a large family living in a home will be badly hit by having to pay a large number of community charges where at the moment they only pay one rate for the property. This amendment would ease their burden. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I rise to give a general welcome to the thrust of the amendments. There have been many occasions when we on this side of the Committee have moved many amendments that have sought to ameliorate the kind of situation to which the noble Viscount has referred—that is, the net burden upon a family.
I know what the noble Viscount is seeking to persuade the Committee and the Minister to take into account. He is saying that to keep the family together is not only important but it is absolutely crucial and vital in the social conditions of the time. I feel fairly certain that Members on this side of the Committee subscribe to that view.
I listened very carefully to all of the arguments, and to the case that was made. They all fit together. At the end of the day what the noble Viscount is saying is that if the Government really value family life, the ethic of family life and the interdependence of one member of the family on another, and if they wish to keep young people at home longer than is usually the case—and they leave home for a variety of reasons—one of the ways in which they can do this is to, as it were, tax the family as a unit rather than tax the individuals in it. That is acceptable.
882
We have had many opportunities over the past two days to deal with this issue in different ways. The sadness is that we do not get support from all round the Committee for those opportunities. But nevertheless I must say that we on this side certainly subscribe to and support the points that the noble Viscount has made.
The noble Viscount makes a case which may be acceptable to the Minister. He said that this provision would save the Government money. That is something near and dear to the heart of the Minister. This is not only a matter of whether the community charge and the tax is fair, but there are all the other social costs to be taken into account. The noble Viscount has pointed out quite fairly that those costs can flow from an ununified family unit and from the stresses and the strains that such a unit causes. Those will result in calls upon the social services and social costs.
I cannot possibly go into all of the details. In our view, the noble Viscount made out a very cogent case. I very much hope that the Minister will say something helpful in reply to him. The Minister particularly needs to answer the charge about the way that the Bill is balanced. Not only does it give the noble Viscount great unease at the inequity of its application, but at the end of the day he poses another interesting point. That point is that we are not just in this case talking about money or a tax or charges; we are talking about community life and family life.
If the Government wish to put their money where their mouth is, this amendment is one of the ways in which they can do it. We certainly give it our general support.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, with rising astonishment. My mind goes back to the 1968 Finance Act when the Labour Chancellor introduced legislation to aggregate the investment income of children with their parents with the express purpose of making sure that those families paid more tax than if the income were disaggregated. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, has stood that argument absolutely on its head. I suppose that one should rejoice at a sinner repenting. However, the fact is that it is the same party, it is 20 years on and the argument is exactly the contrary.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me. To get rid of a tax dodge, which is what the 1968 attitude was, is unfair. If he says that circumstances and conditions in 1968 fit exactly the circumstances and the inequity of the Bill in 1988, then no matter what else I have to learn, it is clear that the noble Lord has a great deal to learn.
Lord Swinfen: I believe that my noble friend Lord Jenkin is rather unfair to the noble Lord, Lord Graham. The noble Lord has always spoken in this House in favour of the family. The fact that his party was remiss some years ago is not his personal fault. The amendment has much to be said for it. It is important to keep the family together. The increasing demand for accommodation in the South-East is

883
caused by the breaking up of families. If families stayed together we should need far fewer houses. It puts the cost up; it puts them out of reach of many people and it makes the economy difficult to run in the South-East. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Brentford has much to be said for it.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Perhaps I may make one point to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. The thrust of the amendment is to try to keep the family together. The argument is that the legislation, in the way that it will be applied, runs the risk of encouraging a drift away from the home. I bow to the knowledge of the noble Lord. However, my recollection is that the legislation of 1968 was a million miles removed from breaking up families.
Lord Glenarthur: Perhaps I should preface my remarks by saying that, while I am sure that my noble friend is well intentioned, he is labouring under a serious misconception about the collective community charge. That charge is not a family charge, as he has suggested. It will apply only to properties such as hostels, night shelters, bedsits and so on which are in multiple occupation and where residents come and go fairly frequently, making individual registration impractical. The collective charge will not apply to any stable family living in its own home. He has started off on the wrong foot.
The effect of the amendments which my noble friend has proposed would be to limit severely the scope of the collective community charge. Clause 5, as currently drafted, allows the registration officer to designate for the collective charge any property used as short-stay accommodation by people who have no other sole or main residence and where the registration officer judges that it will be difficult to register people for and collect from them the personal community charge. The amendment would delete that criteria and substitute a reference to the amendment he proposes to Clause 9.
I do not think that it would be appropriate to narrow the scope of the collective charge in the way which my noble friend suggests. That charge is an important mechanism for ensuring that contributions towards the cost of local services can be made, even by those who stay for only a short period at each address. The amendment would mean that in many cases the collective charge could not be used and the registration officer would have the unenviable task of trying to register each individual for the personal charge, which I am sure that my noble friend would not like to see.
Of course, as many Members of the Committee made clear yesterday when we discussed Amendment No. 5, there are some residents of collective charge properties who command particular sympathy. The Committee will recall that I agreed to take away the question of an exemption for those living in charity hostels, and to report back in due course.
However, we are not talking about those kinds of hostels today. We are talking about all collective community charge properties, including those which provide accommodation for people who have jobs
884
and can well afford to pay a collective charge contribution. It is simply not acceptable to give reductions of 50 per cent. in collective charge contributions to certain categories of people, across the board, as the amendment proposes.
The categories of people my noble friend has described are 18 to 25 year-olds, the over-80s and those who are dependent on the owner of the designated property. As I have said. I do not believe an across-the-board 50 per cent. reduction would be justified for these groups, but I accept that some of them will need help. Where assistance is justified, we intend to be more generous than my noble friend.
Where 18 to 25 year-olds with low incomes stay in collective charge properties they will be eligible for rebates. Where they are unemployed, for example, they will pay ony 20 per cent. of the charge, not 50 per cent. as the amendment would require. Moreover, their income support will be increased by 20 per cent. of the average charge. So they will be treated much more generously than my noble friend proposes.
Let me briefly mention the second category—the over 80s. There will, I think, be very few people over 80 who move home frequently and so come within the scope of the collective charge. But, whether they are subject to the personal or to the collective charge, elderly people too will be eligible for rebates of up to 80 per cent. if they are on low incomes, and they too will have their income support uprated by 20 per cent. of the national average charge.
Both my noble friends Lord Brentford and Lord Swinfen spoke of the importance of keeping the family together. My noble friend Lord Brentford mentioned the matter of financial incentives for families to keep elderly relatives living at home. As my noble friend Lord Caithness has already said today, we do not accept that there will be an incentive to move old people into an institution. Where an old person has a low income he will be entitled—regardless of the income of his adult children—to a rebate of up to 80 per cent. plus an increased amount of income support. Again that is more favourable than the 50 per cent. discount offered by my noble friend Lord Brentford.
A majority of elderly people—including the vast majority of single pensioners living alone—will be better off with the community charge than they are with rates. And more than half of all pensioners—about 4 million people—will be eligible for rebates.
The final category of individual, to whom my noble friend's 50 per cent. concession would apply, are those who are dependent on the owner of the hostel. The community charge system treats dependent relatives very favourably. Any dependent adult, other than a spouse, will be separately assessed for a rebate and income support. So if, for example, a 19 year-old unemployed son or daughter is living with his or her parents, or an elderly relative is living with his or her children, then those people will be eligible for rebates—again of up to 80 per cent.—and income support in their own right, irrespective of the incomes of others in the household. Only husbands and wives, and unmarried couples living as husband and wife,

885
will be jointly assessed for rebates. So yet again, the Government are being more generous than my noble friend to those people who really need help.
I think that those are compelling reasons why this would not be a sensible amendment. More than that, it treats less favourably than the Government's proposals those people who really do need assistance.
Viscount Brentford: I am grateful for the detailed reply. Unfortunately my noble friend the Minister misheard my opening sentence and an awful lot of what he said does not have any bearing on my amendment. I said that the amendment inserted into the collective community charge a family charge as well as a hostels charge. The two run neck and neck and do not overlap. Therefore what he said about trying to apply the hostels wording to my amendment does not really take effect.
Lord Glenarthur: Perhaps I may interrupt my noble friend to say that such may be his view but in point of fact that is not the result of the amendments that he has put forward.
Viscount Brentford: I admit that I drafted this amendment fairly late at night but I beg to differ from my noble friend. For instance, I expressly excluded from the amendments the unemployed 18 to 25 year-old, about which my noble friend the Minister spoke at great length. I am not concerned about the specific wording of the amendment. I should have liked to hear from the Minister whether he was prepared to consider any aspect of this amendment in order to promote the family in what is essentially a very individualistic community charge. I am very disappointed at his lack of comment along those lines. Nevertheless at this late hour naturally I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 55 and 56 not moved.]
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 4, line 41, at end insert—
("(6A) "Interest" means a legal estate.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment has been spoken to with Amendment No. 44. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Hesketh: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past ten o'clock.

  SOCIAL FUND: GRANTS AND LOANS STATISTICS
  SOCIAL FUND: GRANTS AND LOANS STATISTICS
  VOTING: DISQUALIFICATIONS
  VOTING: DISQUALIFICATIONS
  COMMUNITY CHARGES REGISTER, SCOTLAND: DATE OF BIRTH INFORMATION
  COMMUNITY CHARGES REGISTER, SCOTLAND: DATE OF BIRTH INFORMATION
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT: GRANT SYSTEM
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT: GRANT SYSTEM
  NORTHERN IRELAND: COMPLETION OF DEBT REPAYMENT
  NORTHERN IRELAND: COMPLETION OF DEBT REPAYMENT