Sitting of 11 April 1989

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    Tees (Newport) Bridge Bill [Lords]
    Read a Second time and committed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  DEFENCE

    Gulf Operations
    Miss Lestor: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Navy vessels are currently deployed in the Gulf; and what impact this has on their availability for other duties.
    Mr. Ted Garrett: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Navy vessels are currently deployed in the Gulf; and what impact this has on their availability for other duties.
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): There are currently three Royal Navy ships and one Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessel deployed in the area of the Gulf. The Royal Navy's commitment in the Gulf inevitably limits the availability of ships for other tasks. All the vessels could, however, be recalled in support of NATO in the event of an emergency.
    Miss Lestor: Does the Minister agree that the time is approaching when we should consider reducing our military presence in the Gulf? As the Iran-Iraq war is over and the risks to commercial shipping have been considerably lessened, the reduction would not simply be a goodwill gesture—which I believe is needed—but would release Royal Navy vessels for other areas where they might be required.
    Mr. Hamilton: I remind the hon. Lady that no treaty has been signed to end that war. We believe that it would be inappropriate to begin to withdraw our commitment before that happens. However, these matters are constantly kept under review.
    Mr. Garrett: Will the Minister convey my thanks to all the personnel who served in the Gulf during that extremely difficult period? Will he assure the House that the vessels will be fully repaired and maintained when they are pulled back to the United Kingdom? Some of the Fleet Auxiliaries will be ready for major refits. When will the contract for HMS Southampton be announced?
    Mr. Hamilton: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman when the contract for HMS Southampton will be announced.
    722
    However, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement is looking at that matter very closely. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks about the role of the Royal Navy in the Gulf. The Royal Navy did sterling work, which was much appreciated by everyone. We must bear in mind that the Royal Navy escorted more ships than all the other navies in the area put together.
    Mr. Mates: Contrary to what the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) suggested, will my hon. Friend the Minister please ensure that our presence in the Gulf—it has been in the area now for nine years, it has been unobtrusive and highly professional and it has acted well in the cause of preserving the peace—is not allowed to fall below the level which my hon. Friend considers necessary?
    Mr. Hamilton: I can give my hon. Friend that commitment. It is very important that we maintain a presence in the Gulf for the foreseeable future.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that we should maintain a presence there because we owe it to all those who gave their lives in north Africa and in the middle east in the defence of the oil supplies so that the United Kingdom could continue the war against Hitler? Our presence in the Gulf and in north Africa was necessary then and it would be quite wrong now, just because there happens to be a temporary cessation of hostilities in the area, to reduce that essential presence which safeguards the traffic routes.
    Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We want to see significantly greater reductions in the tension in the area. It would be good if a peace treaty could be arrived at between Iran and Iraq and the area made more secure than it is today. I understand my hon. Friend's point about the sacrifices that people made in the past to ensure that the oil flowed.
    Mr. Tony Banks: What information has the Minister about the number of ships which have re-flagged to take advantage of the protection provided by the Armilla patrol? Is it not now time to ask the owners or nations from which those ships originally re-flagged to pay a contribution? Why should the British taxpayer have to pay for other ships to be escorted through the Gulf?.
    Mr. Hamilton: In general terms, we believe that the patrol has made a valuable contribution to the security of the area. Although there was a degree of re-flagging, we cannot ask for contributions from nations. We have made an important contribution to the security of the area.

    Chemical Weapons
    Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution his Department is making to the Geneva negotiations on a chemical weapons convention.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Younger): The negotiation of a comprehensive, global and effectively verifiable ban on chemical weapons is a major Government and NATO arms control priority. As the House knows, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary takes the lead on this and other arms control negotiations. However, my Department contributes in a number of ways to the Geneva negotiations,

    723
    particularly through the provision of military, technical and scientific advice both in Geneva and, by close liaison with the Foreign Office in London.
    Mr. Moss: Is not my right hon. Friend as puzzled as I am that in all the time that the Russians recently spent in Britain they never once sought to refute the allegations, widely carried in the British press, that their stockpile of chemical weapons is some 10 times the size that they claim? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is about time that there was a little more glasnost from the Soviet Union with regard to its chemical weapon capability?
    Mr. Younger: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. As I think my hon. Friend will know, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised that issue last week with Mr. Gorbachev and took the opportunity to emphasise our commitment to a global and verifiable ban. However, Mr. Gorbachev produced no further information on that matter.
    Mr. Robertson: Does the Secretary of State think that the Government's position is helped by the fact that increasing evidence—some of which has been verified by his Department—of the use of chemical weapons by Iraq against its own Kurdish civilian population is being greeted in the United Kingdom not by proper condemnation but by a doubling of trade credit to Iraq?
    Mr. Younger: I cannot confirm what the hon. Gentleman says, but some evidence has been put about of the use of chemical weapons on the Kurdish minority by Iraq. We would regard that as a serious matter because chemical weapons are undesirable in all circumstances.
    Mr. Brazier: Did Mr. Gorbachev, in his welcome discussions here, offer to open up to international inspection those parts of the Soviet Union's chemical weapons supply which were not opened up to us as promised during our last visit to the Soviet Union?
    Mr. Younger: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point but I am afraid that no such offer has been made. As it is a long time since Britain possessed any chemical weapons, it is disappointing that in the new climate of openness which is supposed to exist there does not yet seem to be openness on the subject of chemical weapons, which we believe should be banned on a world-wide basis.

    Fylingdales Early Warning Station
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what agreement there is with the United States of America about sharing early warning information from Fylingdales early warning station and ensuring it can be used independently by the United Kingdom Government.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: The ballistic missile early warning system at Fylingdales is under RAF command and control. Early warning information from the system is disseminated in parallel to the United Kingdom and United States authorities for their own use without restriction.
    Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that the United States has done all the modernisation? Is he confident that the United States would pass on information to the British Government if the British Government were contemplating using Trident in some way of which the United States
    724
    did not approve? Surely if we are to have a credible deterrent of our own we should have our own early warning system and not be dependent on the Americans who might not pass on the information. Or is all that now irrelevant? Have we a guarantee from the Soviet Union that if it intends to launch any missiles at us it will ring up and tell us?
    Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is working on the wrong assumption. We share the information that comes from Fylingdales. We receive it in parallel, so there is no question of one nation having it and giving it to the other, or vice versa. The costs of modernisation are also being shared. The United States will be paying for the radar and we shall be paying for the infrastructure that goes with it. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the RAF operates Fylingdales early warning station, so we can ensure that we obtain information from it—and we do.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Does my hon. Friend accept that the question is flawed because the international early warning system, in which Fylingdales plays so important a part, is based on the principle of mutual corroboration? Will he take this opportunity to send to the men and women who have worked throughout the past 25 years at RAF Fylingdales, which I had the pleasure of visiting recently, his congratulations on the expertise and professionalism with which they conduct their task?
    Mr. Hamilton: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend and I will pass on his message of congratulation on a job extremely well done.

    Belgian Defence Minister
    Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to meet the Belgian Defence Minister; and what matters will be discussed.
    . Ms. Short: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to meet the Belgian Defence Minister; and what matters will be discussed.
    Mr. Younger: I met Mr. Coeme yesterday. We discussed a range of subjects of mutual defence interest.
    Mrs. Fyfe: As the Belgian Government do not share the British Government's obsession with modernising nuclear weapons, can the Secretary of State tell us whether they are starry-eyed idealists or dupes of Moscow?
    Mr. Younger: The hon. Lady is not correct in her assumption. It was made perfectly clear to me that the Belgian Government entirely subscribe to NATO's deterrent strategy. They also fully agree that weapons systems must be kept up to date. They are also strongly against any idea of a third zero in shorter-range weapons.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that when he next meets his Belgian counterpart he will be able to say that the United Kingdom—in concert, one hopes, with the other NORTHAG partner, the Dutch—has either agreed a defined specification for a new light attack helicopter or has procured the Apache AH64, as NORTHAG badly needs improved anti-armour capability and as the Belgians have recently procured about 50 Agusta 109 utility helicopters?
    Mr. Younger: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point, but that subject was not raised either by me or by Mr. Coeme

    725
    in our discussions yesterday. The Belgian air force has a number of collaborative projects with NATO, particularly in respect of training.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: In view of the Belgian Government's well-publicised attitude, is not a consequence of enforced modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons at this time likely to be a weakening of the North Atlantic Alliance which may possibly result in Federal Germany being driven towards neutralism? What account of those risks do the Government take in their policy on that issue?
    Mr. Younger: Those matters must all be carefully discussed and taken into account before any decisions are reached on keeping up to date the weapons that NATO has. It is worth remembering that the Soviet Union has itself modernised at least 95 per cent. of its shorter-range weapons in recent years. We must be careful not to leave it with an incovenanted advantage.
    Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: As the Belgians are taking over the presidency of the Council of Ministers of the Western European Union from us, when my right hon. Friend next meets the Belgian Defence Minister will he try to build on the excellent out-of-area co-operation that we saw in the Gulf so that we have some sort of set plan if anything similar occurs in the future?
    Mr. Younger: Yes, that matter was covered in the Western European Union ministerial meeting last week, when it was decided that the operations jointly undertaken in the Gulf were extremely successful and a good example of the way in which European nations can co-operate. We shall bear in mind that a similar form of organisation might be available in future needs for out-of-area activities.
    Mr. O'Neill: Will the Secretary of State confirm that at the forthcoming NATO summit, the Belgian Government will not support the early modernisation of short-range weapons and will not contribute to any process by which a signal could be given to the American Congress that a replacement for Lance would be the unanimous wish of NATO?
    Mr. Younger: That matter was certainly not covered in my discussions yesterday. It is for the Belgian Government to explain their own attitude. I understand that the Belgian Prime Minister is doing that in the Belgian Parliament today. I think that he had better do that himself, in his own language. As to Belgium's position in the Alliance, the hon. Gentleman will know that Belgium has been a very sound ally in NATO and totally subscribes to NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence based on nuclear weapons.

    Anti-armour Weapon Systems
    Mr. Greg Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what anti-armour weapon systems are available to the British Army of the Rhine.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): The British Army of the Rhine has a balance of anti-armour systems which includes Challenger and Chieftain main battle tanks; Lynx helicopters armed with TOW missiles; Swingfire and Milan missiles; infantry anti-tank weapons; and mines.
    Mr. Knight: Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite the proposed cuts in Warsaw pact conventional forces. its capability for sudden, large-scale offensive operations remains strong? That being so, are not the British Government absolutely right in maintaining a mix of anti-armour weapons systems, including tanks and helicopters, to meet this ever-present threat?
    Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend is right. It has long been a feature of the Warsaw pact forces that they have a large predominance of assault and rapid attack forces, particularly main battle tanks. My hon. Friend is right to say that our assessments conclude that the right way to counter tanks is with a balance of anti-armour weapons.
    Mr. Duffy: Will the Minister confirm that there is concern in the British Army of the Rhine about its ability to defend itself against Warsaw pact tanks? Will he also confirm that there are even greater symmetries on both sides in anti-tank weapons than in tanks, and that there is an impressive improvement in Soviet tank technology? Does he agree that the answer may lie not so much in more weapons in any of the categories that he mentioned but in smarter ones? What is the present position on Trigat development?
    Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that not only are the latest Soviet battle tanks highly capable, and have explosive-reactive armour, but there has been a pattern over the years of new and improved Soviet main battle tanks arriving at regular intervals. At the moment we assess that our current equipment can match the present threat, and we have invested in a number of improvements which are under way, including—as the hon. Gentleman rightly identifies—medium-range and long-range Trigat, which will play an important part in future anti-tank battle.
    Sir Jim Spicer: Will my hon. Friend explain why both the United States and the German armed forces give a much higher priority to the use of helicopters in an anti-tank role than we do within our Rhine army?
    Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend will be aware that we are currently assessing and keeping closely under review the role of the helicopter in anti-tank battle. Some of our NATO allies, for reasons of their own, decide to give more predominance to helicopters. This is an important subject and one that we are keeping closely under review.

    Conventional Forces
    Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much more in real terms his Department has spent on conventional forces since 1978–79.
    Mr. Younger: Up to the end of the financial year 1987–88, some £20 billion more had been spent, in real terms, on conventional forces than if spending had continued at 1978–79 levels. This figure takes into account GDP inflation during the intervening period and excludes. the costs of both the Falklands garrison and nuclear strategic forces.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that 95 per cent. of the increase in defence spending since 1978–79 has gone towards conventional forces? Will he give some examples of how this additional money for conventional forces has been spent?
    Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend that the figure represents an enormous increase in the resources provided by the Government for conventional weapons, and has enabled us to provide resources, including 64 new ships, seven regiments of Challenger tanks and more than 500 new aircraft for the RAF.
    Mr. Benn: Is it not a plain fact that the present level of defence expenditure in this country, the United States and the Soviet Union is far beyond that which is either necessary or possible for those countries to bear? Is it not clear that when Mr. Gorbachev says he wants to disarm, the reason why people believe him is because he also says that he wants to raise the standard of living of the Soviet people, which is what they want? There is now a much greater awareness in Britain that the present level of defence expenditure is starving the Health Service, education, the housing programme and other public services of the funds that they so urgently need.
    Mr. Younger: There cannot be anything more urgent than ensuring that the country is safe and the people protected. However, as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) will fully realise, if he thinks about it, thanks to the Government's policies and NATO, we are now able to negotiate reductions in weapons with the Soviet Union from a position of safety without imperilling our own security. The right hon. Gentleman should be pleased about that.
    Sir Antony Buck: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the figures that he announced should put an end to suggestions that conventional armed forces have been starved of funds because of our deployment of Trident and other nuclear weapons?
    Mr. Younger: My hon. and learned Friend is correct. As I have said all along, the Trident programme is not only necessary but extremely good value for money. We have managed not only to achieve that but to make an enormous increase in the provision of conventional weapons at the same time.
    Mr. James Lamond: Surely the Secretary of State heard President Gorbachev spell out once again at the Guildhall last Friday the unilateral reductions that Russia is making in conventional forces and call on the rest of the world to do the same. As an excellent opportunity arose in the talks following the Vienna agreement, should not the Secretary of State, instead of boasting about excessive expenditure, be taking positive initiatives to ensure that we help the world to achieve lasting peace?
    Mr. Younger: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is a little behind the times. Mr. Gorbachev spelt out some of his proposed reductions, which we warmly welcome, but he did not mention that while he has been talking about reductions we have been making them. We have reduced our nuclear warheads in Europe by over one third in the past 10 years, which is the other side of the equation that the hon. Gentleman should ponder.
    Sir Dudley Smith: Despite what has been said recently, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a big difference between the conventional forces of the Warsaw pact and those of NATO and a total imbalance in chemical weapons?
    Mr. Younger: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a large difference. Even supposing that the Soviet Union had completed all the reductions that it has proposed but not yet effected, there would still be an enormous disparity against the West in tanks, guns and aircraft. None of the figures produced last week were able to counter that.
    Mr. Rogers: The Secretary of State wants the penny and the bun. First, he boasted of how much more the Government were spending on defence, but then he said "Look how much we have reduced expenditure." He cannot have it both ways. Without boasting of the achievements of the Labour Government, is it not true that many of the decisions that resulted in the present level of conventional spending were taken in 1978 by Lord Mulley and that, contrary to what the Secretary of State would have the House believe, spending on conventional defence expressed as a percentage of gross domestic product is declining and is forecast to do so in the White Paper?
    Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman will know better than I precisely what decisions the previous Labour Government took, but it is clear that they did not provide the resources to carry them through. This Government, because of a much increased gross domestic product, have been able to provide extra money, which has enabled our forces not only to be properly paid but to have modern, new equipment, which they were denied by the cuts made by the Labour Administration.

    Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last had discussions with the chief of general staff regarding recruiting levels in the Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve, and the co-operation of employers in releasing employees for training.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Michael Neubert): Consultation on recruitment and employer support, as with other matters relating to the Territorial Army, is a continuous process through the formal Ministry of Defence committee structure and normal official channels. As regards employer support, we launched a major campaign last year, recommended by the national employer liaison committee, and I am pleased to say that the response thus far has been very encouraging, with more than 500 companies pledging their firm support to the reserve forces.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the Territorial associations are being allocated adequate resources to support and sustain the successful campaign that he mentioned? Does he agree that the so-called demographic trough makes it especially important to maintain effective follow-up with employers for volunteers?
    Mr. Neubert: Yes, I can confirm that there is full Government commitment to the financing of our present Territorial strength and, in particular, the number of man training days planned. As I said, we are very encouraged at the response from employers, because the 500 companies already signed up represent 30 per cent. of the national private sector work force, and when this is

    729
    combined with the home Civil Service and the Scottish Office, it represents a substantial sector of employment. We intend to pursue this policy and to tackle smaller firms and professional partnerships as well.
    Mr. Ron Brown: Will the Minister agree that, if money is to be spent effectively, members of the Territorial Army have a right to form trade unions, or is that extending democracy too far?
    Mr. Neubert: I have to respond that that is not part of our tradition, and long may it remain so.
    Mr. Conway: Does my hon. Friend agree that important aspects of retention in the Territorial Army include not just the very generous level of bounty and payment, but the opportunities to train with Regular units and to partake in exercises which, more often than not, are with the British Army of the Rhine rather than Salisbury plain or Otterburn training area?
    Mr. Neubert: My hon. Friend experiences that opportunity and takes full advantage of it. It is a fact that the Territorials are equipped, as are the Regulars, for their role, and this means that they have the most modern equipment and are constantly kept in the forefront of our battle plans.

    RAF Bruggen
    Mr. Illsley: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to visit Royal Air Force Bruggen.
    Mr. Younger: I last visited RAF Bruggen in 1986 and I have no plans to visit the station again in the near future.
    Mr. Illsley: Is the Minister seeking to replace the free-fall nuclear WE177 bomb, which is used on Tornado aircraft from RAF Bruggen, and will the replacement be capable of use in areas of central Europe, where the use of nuclear weapons is now restricted by the INF agreement?
    Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman is slightly misconceiving the INF agreement, which outlaws a certain type of missile—a land-based missile with a range of over 500 km— anywhere in the world. It does not, unfortunately, control where such missiles, should they exist, would land. The replacement of the free-fall bombs will be necessary by the mid-1990s, because the present weapons systems will have become out of date and unsuitable for use.
    Mr. Mans: Will my right hon. Friend agree with me that it is necessary to replace these free-fall weapons not only because the present generation will have become out of date, but because the Russians have a similar weapon and we need one to maintain our deterrent effect into the next century with the Tornado aircraft?
    Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The Soviet Union is equipping itself with air-launched air-to-ground missiles. It is also worth reminding the House that over the past five years the Russians have modernised 95 per cent. of their shorter-range missiles, including SS21s, Scud launchers and Frog 7 launchers. They have all been modernised in the Warsaw pact, and that is something we must therefore take account of.

    Deep Battle Concept
    Mr. Hague: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made as to whether the Soviet Union is abandoning its concept of the deep battle.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: In the last two years Soviet statements have claimed that its military doctrine is now of an exclusively defensive nature. Although we welcome such statements, it should not be forgotten that the Soviets still retain the capability to conduct operations deep into NATO territory and to launch a surprise attack.
    Mr. Hague: Will my hon. Friend agree that the conclusion to be drawn from his answer is that, however welcome the latest proposed reductions in Soviet armed forces may be, the forces of NATO must continue to be fully prepared and fully modernised? Can he tell us anything of how radical the changes in Warsaw pact organisation, doctrine and equipment would have to be For it to be said that the pact had changed from an offensive to a defensive military posture?
    Mr. Hamilton: There would of course have to be major structural changes in the deployment of Soviet forces and their training would have to change as well. So it would mean a complete change throughout the whole of the Soviet military structure.
    Mr. Cryer: Is this word "modernisation" not jargon for cheating on the INF agreement? Will not the 133 non-nuclear nations who were signatories to the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty change their minds about not deploying or manufacturing nuclear weapons if the United Kingdom starts to cheat in an atmosphere of mutual peace and force reductions generated by the Soviet Union? Would that not be a very dangerous step, and will the Government stop cheating and think again?
    Mr. Hamilton: There is no question of the United Kingdom cheating on the INF treaty. The problems of the non-proliferation treaty have been with us for some time. We suspect that there are countries that are deploying the nuclear capability. That is regrettable.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Russian forces, particularly the naval forces, are changing their tactics and that the British armed forces need to respond? Has there been a major review of Royal Navy equipment and tactics, particularly as the Soviet Union has decided to keep its naval forces deployed in a defensive rather than in a blue sea role?
    Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend must be careful. The fact that the Soviets may be exercising their naval forces rather less than they did in the past may be for reasons of economy. It does not mean that they are reducing their capability, which is what we must judge them by.
    Mr. Sean Hughes: In view of the Minister's answers, will he do the House the courtesy of answering the question that the Secretary of State refused to answer at the last defence Question Time? Do the Government take seriously the threat of a Warsaw pact short-range nuclear attack on NATO's fixed assets in Germany?.
    Mr. Hamilton: The Government take seriously and place importance on a flexible response. We believe that we should have modern and up-to-date weapons to respond over a whole range of different capabilities.

    US Defence Secretary
    Mr. Douglas: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to meet the Secretary of Defence of the United States of America to discuss matters of mutual interest.
    Mr.
    Patnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to meet his new United States of America counterpart; and what matters will be discussed.
    Mr. Younger: I hope to meet Mr. Cheney at the meeting of NATO's nuclear planning group in Brussels next week to discuss a range of matters of mutual interest.
    Mr. Douglas: May I respectfully ask the Secretary of State to raise with Mr. Cheney the incident relating to the Soviet submarine at the weekend? Is there not a need to reach an international agreement and understanding, particularly among those powers that have nuclear weapons and nuclear-powered submarines, that there should be disclosure about what happens to such vessels when an accident or an incident takes place? Is it not essential that vessels of this type should not fall into the hands of people like Gaddafi? Is it not essential that no power should sell to such people vessels of that type, which could be extremely dangerous to the peace of the world?
    Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman makes some valid points. Any accident of that kind, whoever is the owner of the ship in question, must cause us all the gravest concern. I note what the hon. Gentleman has said and I shall discuss the matter with Mr. Cheney when I meet him.
    Mr. Patnick: Will my right hon. Friend discuss with the United States Defence Secretary the United States commitment to and support of NATO?
    Mr. Younger: In a general review of NATO's affairs with Mr. Cheney, I expect to cover these matters generally. I am sure that Mr. Cheney will be able to confirm that the new Administration—like, indeed, all previous Administrations—are firm believers in the effectiveness of NATO as an organisation that is entirely defensive and aims to reduce armaments from a position of strength.
    Mr. Cohen: Does the Secretary of State recall telling the House last July that no decisions had been made on NATO force modernisation? Why is it, then, that six weeks previously the United States started work on its new design facilities at RAF Upper Heyford to take new Fills? Will the Secretary of State discuss with the United States Defence Secretary why he is misleading the House?
    Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman is not correct. No decisions have been taken on the modernisation of any NATO facilities of that kind. Any alternations or improvements that the United States wishes to make to its bases in this country will first have to receive the British Government's permission. Therefore, I deny both the hon. Gentleman's points.
    Sir Peter Emery: When my right hon. Friend meets Mr. Cheney and the other Defence Ministers, will he refer them to the speech made by Mr. Tindemans, the Belgian
    732
    Foreign Minister, at the joint NATO meeting organised by ambassador Abshire, at which a number of hon. Members were present when Mr. Tindemans made it absolutely clear that the Belgian Government would want to support the modernisation of all weapons, nuclear and otherwise, within the NATO armoury?.
    Mr. Younger: I thank my hon. Friend for reminding the House about that. The Belgian Government, like all the other members of the Western European Union, have subscribed to the platform of the Western European Union, which clearly commits the whole Alliance to a strategy based on nuclear deterrence.
    Mr. O'Neill: Will the Secretary of State reflect on his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) about the construction changes which are to take place at Upper Heyford? Will he look at the military construction appropriations report for 1990 which was presented to the House of Representatives of the United States, because it contains references to major constructions at Upper Heyford as a consequence of a decision to deploy additional aircraft to that site? Will he consider that question and put his reply on record in the Library or write to me or my hon. Friend and correct us, because we seem to be going wrong? It appears that the United States Congress is spending money on something which the Secretary of State seems to know nothing about.
    Mr. Younger: Of course I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman has said and write to him, but I stress that the question is whether works are taking place as a result of NATO decisions on modernisation. There have been no such decisions; therefore, that is a clear answer to a clear question.
    Mr. Rathbone: On a different aspect of possible co-operation, will my right hon. Friend find out in his discussions whether there is room for initiatives by Britain and the United States in offering military assistance to countries in south America which have to fight the war against the drug barons, to help them restore law and order to their own countries?
    Mr. Younger: I note what my hon. Friend says. It is not our policy to detach any forces for operations in south America, but we would always be prepared to discuss with our allies any way we could help in the battle against drugs.

    NATO
    Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to meet the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; and what subjects he intends to discuss.
    Mr. Younger: I expect to see Dr. Woerner at next week's meeting of NATO's nuclear planning group in Brussels. We shall discuss a range of subjects of mutual interest.
    Mr. Wallace: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his informative reply. Will he be discussing the SRAM-T missile and whether the Government intend to fit it to NATO aircraft and ultimately to the European fighter aircraft? Is he aware that General Ronald Yates in evidence to a congressional sub-committee indicated that the missile was designed to restore capability lost by the

    733
    INF treaty? Do the Government accept that restoration is necessary and will Britain play its part in that? Does he consider it justified, given the credit that the Government have tried to take for being party to the INF treaty?
    Mr. Younger: I do not expect to discuss that issue with Dr. Woerner when I meet him next week, but I should make it absolutely clear once again that the INF treaty applies to ground-based intermediate-range missiles. We fully support that treaty which adopted NATO's proposals. There is no question of our wishing to go back on that treaty in any respect, but we have to maintain for our future defence a range of options that we could use if we were threatened with an attack which we could contain by no other means, and in that we are supported by the entire NATO Alliance.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: As the proportion of Soviet GDP spent on defence has increased in recent years, does my right hon. Friend agree that NATO's defence policy must be predicated on what the Soviets do and not what they say?.
    Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. We must look quite realistically at the capabilities of the countries concerned, and we must equip ourselves to defend ourselves in all foreseeable circumstances. Expressions of increase or decrease on the Soviet defence budget are not worth very much until we know the level of that budget.
    Mr. Wilson: When the Secretary of State meets the Secretary General of NATO will he discuss the targeting policy for nuclear weapons for the duration of the Queen's visit to Moscow? Does he agree that there would be a certain irony in extending the hand of friendship on one side and, on the other side, threatening the use, implied or real, of nuclear weapons?
    Mr. Younger: I do not think there is any likelihood of my discussing with Dr. Woerner any aspects of nuclear targeting during the Queen's visit to Moscow.

    Defence Policy (Scottish Representations)
    Mr. David Porter: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from Scotland on defence policy since 11 March; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Younger: I have received no representations from Scotland specifically on defence policy, although I do, of course, receive a large volume of correspondence on various defence issues from all parts of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Porter: Does my right hon. Friend realise that on that day, at the Labour party conference in Scotland, pronouncements were made advocating unilateralism?
    Mr. Younger: Yes, I did observe that at a Labour party conference in Perth on that date—[HoN. MEMBERS: "It was Inverness."]—resolutions were passed urging that the review of policy—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us hear the answer.
    Mr. Younger: At that conference, resolutions were passed urging that following the review of policy that has taken place in the party, it adhere to unilateralism in all its
    734
    features. It occurred to me to wonder whether the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) supported that, or agreed with it.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Maxton: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 April.
    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 today.
    Mr. Maxton: Will the Prime Minister tell my 79-year-old, blind constituent, Mr. William Bradley, whether she thinks that it is fair that on 1 April 1988 his income was £52·55, that on 1 April 1989 it was £52·55, and that on 1 April 1990 and 1 April 1991 it will be £52·55? if she thinks that that is fair, would she care to justify it?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member is taking a particular case which, I assume from what he says, was the subject of transitional protection, so that when the whole system was simplified and improved, and a lot more money was spent on it, people were protected from having a reduction in their cash. The hon. Gentleman takes a particular case in which there will be no real increase. May I, therefore, take credit for the fact that 98 per cent. of all pensioners will receive a cash increase with the coming uprating?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to comment on the National Health Service White Paper proposals on doctors' budgets? Will she confirm that the proposals are entirely voluntary, helpful guidelines to be available to those who want them, rather than cash limits imposed on those who do not?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, whether or not a doctor wishes to hold his own budget, provided that he is within the eligible group, is a decision for him to take. The fact that some doctors do not wish to do it should not deny others the right to do it if they want. I noticed in a recent article in the New Statesman and Society a report of one doctor from the Royal College of General Practitioners saying:
    "Why should general practitioners resign over a plan which embodies so much of what the Royal College has been working for over the years?"
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister think that all senior civil servants who make Government leaks should be prosecuted?
    The Prime Minister: Prosecution is not a matter for me, as the right hon. Gentleman knows.
    Mr. Kinnock: From that answer by the Head of Government may I take it that she has decided to give a public interest defence to Mr. Powell and Mr. Ingham?
    The Prime Minister: No. I have nothing further to add —[Interruption.]—nothing further to add to the many answers given in statements, speeches and replies to questions. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman has nothing real to complain about.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: During her busy day will my right hon. Friend find time to join me in congratulating my distinguished constituent, Nick Faldo, on his outstanding achievement on winning the American Masters? That, together with the equally important result achieved by Sandy Lyle last year, has illustrated that this country leads the world in golf.
    The Prime Minister: I gladly congratulate Nick Faldo on this year's result. It was a very exciting tournament and a very exciting play-off. It was one of the best things that we have seen on television for a long time.
    Dr. Owen: Given that the leader of the Transport and General Workers Union wants to renegotiate the terms and conditions under which the abolition of the dock labour scheme could go ahead, will the Prime Minister confirm that she would be ready—if such negotiations produced changes in the terms and given that the mineworkers' redundancy terms are much more generous —to amend the legislation as it goes through the House?
    The Prime Minister: No. We believe that the restrictive practices contained in the present dock labour scheme are highly damaging to the prosperity of ports and highly damaging of the prospects of this country in 1992. There is only one thing to do and that is to abolish the scheme; then those ports that suffer under it at present will have the chance to become as prosperous as those ports that do not belong to it. The redundancy terms, at up to £35,000 for redundant dockers, are generous.
    Mr. Michael Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the grave concern among family practitioners about some of the proposals regarding the new way in which they would work under their contracts? Will she listen to their representations and recognise that for family practitioners the key dimension in the end is care for the sick?
    The Prime Minister: Obviously the changes in the National Health Service White Paper and in the accompanying detailed documents are meant to improve the service to the patient. I notice again from an article in the New Statesman and Society that it says:
    "The white paper is neither anti-socialist nor anti-NHS …the gain for patients will be immeasurable".
    I believe that my hon. Friend is referring to the contract arrangements which pre-dated the White Paper. With regard to the matters in the detailed consultation papers they are, of course, for consultation. They are not meant to be a specific blueprint and we will, of course, consider representations.
    Mr. Terry Fields: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Fields: Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether it was she who gave permission to MI5 and mercenaries to bug telephones, private and public, in Scotland, to bug meetings of Labour politicians and to bug their telephones in Liverpool, to infiltrate and bug
    736
    meetings of opponents to nuclear power in other parts of the country and to tap the telephones of foreign politicians? If she did not do it, who gave permission? What is her link with David Coughlan and when can we expect criminal proceedings to commence against those people engaged in illegal activities?
    The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to look up the legislation passed in this House which governs telephone interception. That legislation is followed meticulously and an annual report is made upon it.
    Sir William Shelton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on Good Friday seven of my Conservative councillors in Lambeth found their houses daubed with death threats? On Sunday last three of those seven received threats by telephone to kill them and to burn down their, expletive deleted, houses. Will she condemn such outrageous extremist political action and urge the police to increase surveillance and activity so as to apprehend those wretches as soon as they can?
    The Prime Minister: The events which my hon. Friend describes are utterly disgraceful and totally contrary to democracy. I shall, of course, do as my hon. Friend says, and I hope that anyone who has information will not hesitate to give it to the police to see that such behaviour is stopped and, if need be, the people who perpetrated it are brought before the courts.
    Mr. Maclennan: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Maclennan: Would the Prime Minister be prepared to consider the proposal made by Nobel prize winner Professor Abdus Salam at the Edinburgh science festival on Saturday that an international science centre should be established in Caithness drawing on the resources of that community to provide facilities for advanced scientists coming from the Third world to developed countries?.
    The Prime Minister: I saw a proposal for an international science centre in Edinburgh. I did not see one for Caithness. For a feasibility study to be conducted into any proposal for an international science centre—I think that such a proposal has been put forward by Edinburgh district council —an application for money should be made to the Scottish Development Agency for its consideration. No such formal request has yet been made to that agency. The hon. Gentleman—or anybody from Edinburgh—should first go to the SDA.
    Mr. Baldry: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Baldry: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole House welcomes the progress that was made in Anglo-Soviet relations last week, not least those of us who were fortunate enough to be among the last Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation to the Soviet Union? But does my right hon. Friend agree that Mr. Gorbachev's comments about modernising NATO's short-range nuclear weapons were somewhat cynical having regard to

    737
    what the Soviet Union has been doing with its short-range nuclear weapons in the last five years? Does she agree that the concession on uranium and plutonium could better be put into context?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. We estimate that about 95 per cent. of Soviet short-range nuclear missile systems in the forward area have been modernised or replaced in the last five years and that some 200 SS21 missiles have been introduced since 1981. By contrast, NATO's Lance missile was introduced in 1972 and therefore needs modernisation. As for uranium and plutonium, as I have said, the Soviet Union has very substantial stockpiles and of course weapons grade uranium and plutonium do not deteriorate. The closure of three plutonium production reactors would leave four others still in operation.
    Mr. Loyden: Will the Prime Minister say why, following a most peaceful period in the docks industry, with ports such as Liverpool being in profit, she should cause a political strike? Is it because we have a bloody-minded Minister, a bloody-minded Cabinet and a bloody-minded Prime Minister who are prepared to take political action to achieve an industrial end?
    The Prime Minister: No. The Minister, Ministers, the Government and the Prime Minister are concerned that all our docks should be working at maximum efficiency and prosperity and that those who are in the hinterlands to docks should have the chance of attracting inward investment, just as have those who are in the hinterlands to non-scheme docks. It will be much better and we should be able, when all the ports are working well and economically, to attract a lot of business from the European docklands to this country. Many fishermen who are having difficulty getting their fish landed will welcome our decision.
    Mr. Aitken: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Aitken: Will my right hon. Friend soon find time to introduce some major improvements to the highly unsatisfactory methods by which the House continues to scrutinise EEC legislation? Does she agree that it is wrong that an important EC directive such as the one on broadcasting which will be ratified next week, could not be debated in the House? However, perhaps because of lack of scrutiny, that directive has been supported by Home Office Ministers who agreed even to a statutory right of reply being introduced for the European media. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that her Government will now support the same principle by giving a fair wind to the private Member's Right of Reply Bill when it comes back to the House on Friday?
    The Prime Minister: I shall attempt to answer the multiple parts of my hon. Friend's question. It is important to have the best possible scrutiny of draft directives before they are debated in the House, especially with the number of them now coming forward, the effect that they will have on our lives and the tendency of the Commission to put far too much detail in them. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Lord President has put some suggestions to the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee for improving the scrutiny that should take place. I understand my hon. Friend's concern about the broadcasting directive. He asked about the private Member's Right of Reply Bill. Of course that is a matter for private Members. Whatever view is taken, it indicates that there is great concern about some of the things that we see in the press today. We may not have the right answer, but we cannot ignore the concern.

North Cormorant Platform
3.33 pm
Mr. James Wallace(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the environmental impact of the leak of 50,000 gallons of drilling mud from Shell's North Cormorant platform 100 miles north east of Shetland?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I understand from inquiries made by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland that about 1,140 barrels of oil-based drilling mud were accidentally discharged into the sea yesterday afternoon from the North Cormorant oil and gas production platform. The accident occurred during transfer of the mud from a supply vessel to a holding tank on board the platform. It is believed that there was a mechanical failure in a drainage pipe from one of the holding tanks which led to the leakage of mud about 100 m below the surface of the sea.
The drilling mud contained about 60 per cent. of refined oil. It is expected that the released mud has fallen to the sea bed close to the installation. The spilled mud contained about 680 barrels of oil. The tanks on board the platform were emptied yesterday afternoon, immediately following discovery of the leakage. No further spillage has occurred.
The information received as a result of inquiries indicated that the effect on the environment is minimal. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Energy and I will be seeking a report on the source and impact of the spillage from the responsible authorities and the operators as soon as possible. Furthermore, we have asked Shell to report to us immediately if there is any evidence at all of any adverse environmental impact.
Mr. Wallace: I am grateful to the Minister for his detailed reply. I am sure that he will reassure the House that if Shell report, any sightings of adverse environmental impact immediate action will be taken. Does he agree that, given the present sensitivity about pollution, not least from oil-related installations, merely to look at incidents individually is to miss the whole point that further consideration should be given to an overall examination of the environmental implications of North sea oil developments?.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is yes. In answer to the second part, I should make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that in the wake of the Alaska episode my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Energy asked for an update on how we deal with oil spillages in United Kingdom continental waters. That process is already under way, and if improvements are needed they will be made. Exercises on a considerable scale take place annually and are carried out by the marine pollution control unit of the Department of Transport. The last major one was on 4 July last year, and a smaller exercise was carried out in Humberside on 7 March.
Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: First, will my hon. Friend confirm that Shell acts very responsibly in relation to matters such as pollution, and indeed safety and other matters? Will he assure the House that he is getting all possible co-operation from the
740
company, as I am sure he is? Secondly, will he confirm that, if a major pollution problem should arise, there are adequate resources in the area to deal with it, as evidenced by the fact that companies in Aberdeen have been called upon to assist in clearing up pollution in Alaska?.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: With regard to my right hon. Friend's first point, I have had a meeting with a representative from Shell, and I agree with what my right hon. Friend said. The other matter will certainly be followed up with the relevant Departments and we shall do everything in our power to ensure inter-departmental co-operation to effect this very important purpose.
Mr. Robert Hughes: The Minister is being characteristically vague about who is to provide this very important information. When he refers to responsible authorities in the company, does he mean that the Government will be relying almost entirely on the company for further information? Ought he not to be insisting that all Government resources be commanded immediately to inspect the area, continue to monitor and to take positive action with urgency to prevent the pollution having any effect on the marine environment?.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We received information from Shell in the first instance, but I assure the hon. Member that we will check monitoring and that wider surveys are carried out by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries scientists in this matter. It is the responsibility of the operator—in this case Shell—to monitor the oil content of discharges of mud or cuttings around each platform under the powers exercised by the Secretary of State for Energy.
Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is impossible to eliminate either human or mechanical accidents in any sphere whatsoever and that therefore, as long as we extract oil from the sea and transport it in ships, there will be a risk? The important thing is that we have the resources available to deal with the possible results of that risk. It would seem certain that we do in this case.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We want to reduce risk to an absolute minimum and do everything humanly possible to achieve that purpose. As for safety issues generally, which my hon. Friend touched on indirectly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy is responsible. As my hon. Friend knows, Lord Cullen is now conducting the Piper Alpha public inquiry and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has made it clear that if he makes any recommendations for improvement of the safety regime they will be adopted.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Following the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), does not the Minister consider that there is a difficulty in that all the information that he has given us today has come from the company? When will the independent investigation take place? Does he not consider that there is a real difficulty in that we do not have a system of regulation in the North sea; we have in effect a system of self-regulation?.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Preliminary investigations indicated that isolation of the mud storage tank on the platform failed and that involved the valve and cement plug, we believe, allowing the mud to discharge into the sea

741
through one of the platform legs about 100 m below sea level. The mud contained approximately 680 barrels of oil out of 1,140 barrels and this sank to the sea bed. There is no visible sign of a slick on the surface. Admittedly, conditions are not particularly good, but I can give the hon. Member the assurance that there will be monitoring as necessary by the appropriate authorities.
Mr. Barry Field: Can my hon. Friend reassure the House that in the review dependence on dispersants will be looked into very carefully, as much of that technology comes from the oil companies which manufacture the dispersants and there are serious misgivings that that means of dealing with a major oil spill will fail, as it has failed in Alaska?.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Energy has asked for an update on how to deal with oil spillages so as to get the most up-to-date advanced technical and technological information to enable us to deal with these matters appropriately in all circumstances.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the Minister stop muttering platitudes about monitoring and updates and acknowledge that it is fairly common practice for unwanted material to find its way over the sides of oil rigs? Is there not an urgent need for effective action by Government Departments to control this practice?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Strong penalties exist. If it is shown, for example, that a discharge is due to want of reasonable care, the operator is liable to penalties under the Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1986 of up to £50,000 on summary conviction or an unlimited amount or imprisonment on indictment. If the hon. Gentleman has evidence of misdeeds in the sea outside his constituency he should report them as appropriate.
Mr. Donald Dewar: I note what the Minister has said, and I recognise that there is no surface slick and that the mud has sunk to the sea bed within the 500 m exclusion zone, but surely he accepts that any unintended discharge of as much as 50,000 United States gallons of oil-based mud—even if it is of low toxicity—is a matter for genuine concern, and that the House and the country would expect monitoring to be very tight and extended.
The Minister referred to the circumstances of the discharge. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that the supply vessel, the Edda Fram, started pumping into the storage tank at 1130 hrs yesterday and it was only at 1500 hours, a considerable time later, that someone noticed that the contents of the storage tank were dropping and not rising. That suggests that at least there was something wrong with the surveillance system. In effect, they were pumping through an empty discharge drain straight into the sea for three to four hours before those operating the system became aware that something was wrong. Does not that suggest that there was something wrong with the inspection system and that there is food for thought for the Department?.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes. The hon. Gentleman touches on a relevant point. It was at 11.30 am that the supply vessel commenced pumping and it was at 3 pm that those responsible became concerned that stocks were not building up as expected, exactly as the hon. Gentleman has said. It is important that we should find out exactly why the isolation system failed. Shell is making immediate inquiries and both the Scottish Office and the Department of Energy expect to be kept closely informed. I agree with the points that the hon. Gentleman made.

Points of Order
3.41 pm
Mr. Tom Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Arising out of the Prime Minister's answer to the Leader of the Opposition, can you give us guidance about ministerial responsibility? Of course, the Prime Minister is quite right in saying that she is not responsible for prosecutions. But is she not head of the Civil Service? Therefore, are not questions about the behaviour not only of the most senior civil servants but her own intimate personal civil servants, working for her, like Mr. Charles Powell, matters for the Prime Minister?
Mr. Speaker: It is certain that they are not matters for me.
Mr. Eric Martlew: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is about the contempt in which the House is being held by the Secretary of State for Transport. I understand that at this very moment he is making an announcement at the Department of Transport about the Carlisle-Settle railway line. I welcome the decision to keep the line open, under the control of British Rail, which proves to be a defeat for British Rail who wanted to close the line, and a defeat for the Government, who wanted to privatise it. If we look at Hansard, we see that announcements about the Carlisle-Settle line have been made on the Floor of the House and hon. Members could question the Minister on them. Will you, Mr. Speaker, adjourn the House and bring the Minister from his press conference to the Despatch Box to answer the questions that many of us would like to put to him?.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The matter is worse than has been outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) because there appears to have been a deliberate conspiracy to avoid accountability to the House.
The question on page 3084 of today's Order Paper for written answer was handed in only yesterday. I understand that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) issued a statement this morning commenting on the reply to that question. That suggests that some information has been circulated exclusively among Conservative Members about a matter which has been the subject of several debates and more than 30 petitions from all parts of the United Kingdom and from hon. Members on both sides of the House.
When the Secretary of State for Transport said last year that he was minded to close the line, he made a statement to the House following Transport Questions. He deliberately picked out two questions which he could refer to at the end of Question Time through the usual arrangement. This railway is of great interest to many people and many hon. Members have referred to it in oral and written questions. It is monstrously outrageous that we should be denied the right to question the arrangements which the Secretary of State has entered into. I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, deprecate such a shoddy conspiracy by the Government.
Mr. Speaker: I was unaware that any statement was being made outside the House. The House well knows that I feel very strongly that statements should first be made in the House.
Mr. Peter Snape: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No. I am still speaking.
Today is an Opposition day and it could well be—although I have no knowledge of this—that arrangements have been discussed through the usual channels about this matter to protect the day's business.
Mr. Snape: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Having listened to the exchanges, and bearing in mind your ruling, it seems that two points arise directly. First, the Secretary of State for Transport held a press conference that was scheduled to start at 3.30 pm. Perhaps you can look into this, Mr. Speaker. Is it not unprecedented, that the Secretary of State is so punch-drunk that he is too terrified to come to the House to announce good news, let alone bad news?.
Mr. Speaker: I have never travelled on the line, but I hope that it is good news. I have heard a lot about it.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. This morning the Select Committee on Procedure held a press conference at 11 o'clock and precisely this abuse of the House was raised in justification of those who seek to frustrate our procedures. If you were to rule that this practice was improper, Ministers would act accordingly and change their practices. When we were asked at the press conference to justify what has been happening, this type of example was raised. The matter is in your hands, Mr. Speaker, and you can resolve it.
Mr. Speaker: It is not in my hands. The House is aware that I am not responsible for organising the business. However, it may well be that an Opposition day is not considered to be an appropriate day to make a statement. I frequently receive representations from hon. Members who complain about not being called because a statement was made on a day when the Opposition had chosen the subject for debate. It is a question of balance. I do not organise the business.
Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that you would agree that one of the roles of the House of Commons, certainly a role of the Opposition, is to identify where abuse and misconduct have occurred and to raise such matters on the Floor of the House. Yesterday I raised a question with the Attorney-General. I do not question your decision, Mr. Speaker, because you must decide these matters. However, yesterday, with regard to his role in the Westland affair, you said that the Attorney-General should not reply because it was not relevant to the question on the Order Paper. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister gave a very evasive reply.
If we know that there was deception, lying and dishonesty over the Westland affair, certainly by Mr. Ingham and Mr. Powell, how can we raise the issue on the Floor of the House? When such deception, dishonesty and outright lies occurred in January 1986 over the Westland affair, why are we silenced and not allowed to raise the matter?.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will be the first to appreciate, because he has been a Member for a long time

745
and is very experienced, that if he looks at yesterday's Hansard his question had no relevance to the main question on the Order Paper.
Mr. Alan Williams: Further to those points of order, Mr. Speaker. The two points of order relate to each other. You must have gathered by now the profound frustration that is beginning to be felt in the House at the way in which Ministers feel able to ignore the normal conventions and responsibilities. My hon. Friends the Members for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) have just outlined one matter which, on previous occasions, has led you to say that Ministers should make statements in the House rather than outside. However, your advice is continually ignored. In that respect, Mr. Speaker, what do you intend to do to assert the rights of the House?.
That matter relates to the first point of order that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). When does the House have the right to investigate and question the Executive? That power can be operated only if Ministers are not allowed to stand at the Dispatch Box and blatantly say that a matter is not their responsibility when clearly it is. As protector of the rights of the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, how do you intend in future to ensure that where officials of the Prime Minister. the Head of the Civil Service, have created a major constitutional abuse, the House has the right of interrogation that the Prime Minister and her Ministers are attempting to deny it?.
Mr. Speaker: I am surprised that the deputy shadow Leader of the House should put a question in those terms to the Chair. He knows perfectly well that it is not the role of the Chair to organise the business. Furthermore, he is part of the management, through the usual channels of the House. Today is a Supply day and he could have chosen that topic for debate had he wished. It is for the Opposition to choose the subject for debate—he has those opportunities. I am not responsible for what is said from the Dispatch Box, provided that it is in order.
I have deprecated more than enough the fact that statements are made outside the House. I should always prefer statements to be made in the House before they are made to the press, but, equally, the right hon. Gentleman
746
should bear in mind that that is likely to impinge on Opposition time. That would undoubtedly have been the case today if there had been a statement. These are not matters for me but for the management of the House.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Some of us in the Chamber this afternoon are hoping to listen to the debate on pensions. I am becoming concerned that the Labour party intends to continue making bogus points of order until 10 pm in order to disguise its appalling record on that subject when in government and to disguise the weakness of its policies today. I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will put a stop to all this nonsense and let us get on with the debate.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As one of the privileges of the House is that we can attend and vote safely, will you use your good offices to ensure that hon. Members who are hurrying from Norman Shaw and crossing Palace Yard do not suffer the fate that almost befell me of being mowed down by a Government car speeding in through the narrow entrances, a matter which I raised with the relevant Minister at the Department of the Environment last night? When the Division bell goes, one accepts that Ministers and Government cars have to come in, but someone should tell them about speed limits because there is a serious danger to hon. Members and the staff of the House who could well be injured by motor cars whose drivers do not know how to drive and who appear to be in an unnecessary hurry.
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman gives me further details of that incident, I shall have it looked into.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Ordered,
That European Community Document No. 4092/89 relating to pesticide residues be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, & c.
Ordered,
That the draft Building Societies (Money Transmission Services) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, & c.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Counting Women's Unremunerated Work
3.54 pm
Ms. Mildred Gordon: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require Government departments and other public bodies to include in the production of statistics relating to the gross domestic product and other accounts a calculation of the unremunerated contribution of women; and to include this calculation in the gross national product.
The Bill requires the Government to quantify the unremunerated work of women and to include that quantification in the gross national product. In order to explain the need for the Bill and the gross injustices that it will redress, I shall put before the House facts about the economy that women—particularly the poorest women —have been wanting to give right hon. and hon. Members for many a day.
When I was 16 my parents sent me to secretarial college to learn shorthand, typewriting, bookkeeping and business studies. All over the walls of that building, in large letters, was the slogan "Time is money". Although that time is money is an accepted and obvious economic fact, everywhere in society women's time is squandered as if it were worthless. Today few shops will even say whether goods will be delivered in the morning or the afternoon. The same is true when equipment needs repairing and of meter readings and gas, electric and telephone connections or disconnections. Women's waiting time is expected to be at everyone's disposal.
The daily queues at supermarket checkouts grow on Saturday when women, many of whom have been out to waged work all week, have to plough through their housework on their so-called day off. Of course, those time-wasting queues lower staff costs. Clearly time is money—but it seems that it is women's time that ensures that other people, especially the captains of commerce and industry, make money.
Much of the work that women do is unremunerated and never enters the GNP, as that quantifies only goods and services exchanged for money. However, that unremunerated work, while it is not counted, is certainly counted on. The Government, in closing hospitals and many institutions that provided health care and other services, claim that they will be replaced by community care. However, it is not the community in general that does the caring but women who shoulder the extra burden of time-consuming, back-breaking and emotionally exhausting work for which the Government are refusing to pay. That shift from waged to unwaged caring is not quantified in official statistics, so no one knows just how much money women are saving the Government by picking up the pieces of the shattered welfare state. Again, women's unpaid work is counted upon but not counted.
Most women in waged jobs find themselves at the bottom of the pyramid. They are particularly exploited when they take on part-time work in order to have time for family responsibilities. Even those few women who secure well-paid jobs find that, once they become mothers, their lives too are shaped by the task of bringing up their children—the future labour force—and of caring for others whose work is considered more important than almost everything that women do, whether the women are professionals, cardboard box makers, or are fully occupied at home.
748
The work of women that is included in the GNP is based on a pedestal of unremunerated, uncounted work. Imagine how much work and responsibility falls on the women in the families of British Rail employees who in a recent accident inquiry revealed that they work a 12-hour day, seven days a week. There is not much chance of those men helping with the housework; all the burden falls on their wives.
It is almost always women who care for those who are ill or who have disabilities. As so-called farmers' wives, they tend kitchen gardens and livestock. They are market traders, shop attendants and bookkeepers in family businesses. They are often secretaries, typists and hostesses, as well as being wives and a status symbol for their professional husbands. It is women who ensure that the flowers are on the church altar and that schools have parent-teacher associations as well as volunteers to make up for education cuts by running jumble sales, mixing paints and coaching young readers.
Women visit ailing relatives and neighbours, especially when meals-on-wheels no longer roll up. Women work overtime to shield families and whole communities from the effects of racism and racist immigration controls, class prejudice, polluted food, water and air, and the economic, physical and emotional devastation of unemployment. None of this skilled, time-consuming life-giving but unwaged work of women is counted in the GNP.
The fact that women are statistically invisible as producers and service providers means that some economists have the cheek to label as marginal these workers without whose vital work society would grind to a halt. The failure to count women's unremunerated work in the gross national product results in a distorted picture of the economy and leads to faulty economic planning, which does not meet the needs of working people. The very same work enters national statistics when performed by those who are paid for their work, such as nannies, nurses, bookkeepers, housekeepers, agricultural workers, physiotherapists, chauffeurs, chefs, interior decorators—the list is almost endless. Endless too are the damaging effects of the monetary and statistical invisibility of the work of housewives. The fact that this work is unwaged and uncounted devalues women's waged work, too.
The many organisational, technical and other practical skills that women develop as housewives gain them little in the waged labour market. One exception to that involves the National Union of Teachers, which was my union for many years. The NUT gained one year's increment for every three years that women spent at home with their own children. This was recognition for some of the work of mothers who return to teaching. However, most of the time the housework women do either full or part-time—before they go to work work in the morning, after they return home at night and at weekends—is not considered work. Only when this unwaged work of women is officially quantified by widening the compass of the GNP will we even begin to know how much time and skill goes into the economy and the production of specific commodities.
I therefore present this Bill, which requires Government Departments and other public bodies to include in the statistics relating to the gross domestic product and other accounts the quantification of the unremunerated work of women—in both the formal and informal sectors of the economy—and to include that calculation in the gross national product.

749
There is growing international awareness of the need for recognition of the totality of women's contribution to the economy. According to the United Nations, women carry out two thirds of the world's work for 10 per cent. of the income, and own only 1 per cent. of the assets. In July 1985, the United Kingdom Government were represented at the United Nations world conference in Nairobi, Kenya and agreed "Forward Looking Strategies for the Advancement of Women", the final document of the Decade for Women. Paragraph 120—amended by delegates from Sierra Leone, Jordan and Uganda, along the lines put forward by the international wages for housework campaign—committed Governments to include women's unremunerated work in the GNP. The following November, paragraph 120 was singled out as one of the most important decisions of the Decade for Women and ratified by the United Nations General Assembly. My Bill would implement that decision.
Despite their enormous contribution, women are undervalued because so much of their work is unvalued and economically invisible. That has enabled the Government to get away with cutting maternity grants and freezing child benefit—the only money which many women can call their own. Adding up this work makes the unanswerable case that these benefits are rights for work done, not charities.
Economic invisibility keeps older women dependent on their husband's goodwill because, despite a lifetime of serving family and community, there are no pension contributions for unwaged housework. Many a divorced wife lives to see her ex-husband retire from the position which she helped him to obtain on a good pension, while her income is reduced to a bare minimum. The economic invisibility of most women's work has allowed the Government to inch nearer to workfare—the American version of the workhouse—which forces claimants into dead-end jobs to earn their entitlement to income support.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has now been speaking for 10 minutes and should begin to draw her remarks to a close.
Ms. Gordon: Counting women's work would prove that every mother is a working mother and that some of them have two or even three jobs. Counting women's work would make women count by making clear that every woman, whether or not she does waged work, is nevertheless a working woman.
Perhaps the most unjust policy that economic invisibility has permitted is the poll tax, which is levelled at women who have no income. Despite women's enormous contribution, the Government are demanding more. These women will become institutionalised and further dependent on the goodwill of the wage earner. They will be institutionalised into an inferior, vulnerable and archaic position which will invite domestic violence. Women on income support, including mothers, will have 20 per cent. of the poll tax deducted from the household's survival money.
When all the work that women do is finally made visible in the GNP and other official statistics, no one will be able to continue to ignore the extent of dependence of the mighty institutions of the state, industry, commerce and every social organisation throughout the United Kingdom on women's voluntary and involuntary unwaged work.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms. Mildred Gordon, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. John Battle, Mr. Tony Benn, Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie, Mr. Eric S. Heffer, Mr. John Hughes, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Ms. Marjorie Mowlam, Ms. Joyce Quin, Mr. Dennis Skinner and Mr. Nigel Spearing.

COUNTING WOMEN'S UNREMUNERATED WORK
Ms. Mildred Gordon accordingly presented a Bill to require Government departments and other public bodies to include in the production of statistics relating to the gross domestic product and other accounts a calculation of the unremunerated contribution of women; and to include this calculation in the gross national product: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 April and to be printed. [Bill 114.]
Opposition Day
[6TH ALLOTTED DAY])
Opposition Day

  Uprating of Pensions and Other Benefits
  Mr. Speaker: We now come to the first Opposition motion, on the uprating of pensions and other benefits. I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. Given that we are starting rather later than I had hoped, I ask Front-Bench spokesmen and Back Benchers to make short contributions.
  4.7 pm
  Mr. Robin Cook: I beg to move,
  That this House notes that this week pensions and other benefits are increased by 5·9 per cent. at a time when prices are rising by 7·9 per cent. and earnings by 9 per cent.; further notes that if the pension had been uprated since 1979 in line with earnings, under the formula introduced by the Labour Government, a married couple would this week be receiving an additional £17·55 p; records its deep concern at the plight of over half a million pensioners and other claimants who this week do not receive a single penny in uprating; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to extend the full uprating to all pensioners and claimants.
  I read daily that preparations are under way to commemorate in May the 10th anniversary of the Prime Minister's election, when she will exceed the time limit that Mr. Gorbachev has thought it prudent to impose as a maximum period for which any elected official can hold senior office in the Soviet Union—a prudent measure to prevent the abuse of power.
  Six weeks later, on 13 June, we shall celebrate another 10th anniversary. On that date in 1979, the then Secretary of State for Social Security, who has now been translated to another place, announced to the House that pensions would no longer rise in line with earnings but would be pegged only to prices. That is not quite how he put it. He said that that was the minimum that the Government would do to the pension. If the right hon. Gentleman had been mean with the money, he was generous with the promises. He said:
  "I should like to make it clear, however, that it remains the Government's firm intention that pensioners and other long-term beneficiaries can confidently look forward to sharing in the increased standards of living of the country as a whole."—[Official Report, 13 June 1979; Vol. 968, c.439.]
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: A pack of lies.
  Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) characteristically commits the Government to rigorous scrutiny. I hope that he will forgive my saying that I am sure that the then Secretary of State meant every word he said. The sad thing is that the Government of which he was a member did not keep a single word of that pledge. Not once in the past decade have pensioners on the basic pension shared in the increased standards of living of the country as a whole. Every year under this Government they have been short-changed.
  I wish to be scrupulously fair: it is not the case that pensioners have had no share in the increased living standards of the country. That would be unfair; they have been given a 2 per cent. share. That is the precise amount by which the basic pension has gone up in real terms under this Government, while over the same period average earnings have gone up by 24 per cent.
  752
  I heard the Minister for Social Security interviewed on the radio on Sunday, when he entertained me by saying that he was looking forward to this debate with relish in order to contrast the record of his Government with the record of the last Labour Government. There certainly is a contrast. In 10 years this Government have increased the basic pension by 2 per cent.; in five years the last Labour Government increased the basic pension by 20 per cent. in real terms. If that is the contrast the Minister relishes, I give him 10 out of 10 for bravado but one out of 10 for prudence.
  Of course, the Secretary of State and the Minister have a well-worn alibi. I have not the slightest doubt that they have been rehearsing it all morning at the Department in front of the mirror to make it sound more convincing. The alibi runs thus: the basic pension does not matter all that much; what matters is the growth in pensioners' total income.
  What makes that alibi so breathtaking, so bald that it would take away the breath of any honest jury, is that it rests on a system which this Government inherited from the last Labour Government. On 13 December the Under-Secretary of State, in a reply to a parliamentary question from me, confirmed that the largest single contribution to the growth in real incomes of pensioners was from the state earnings-related pension, designed by the last Labour Government, which has provided two fifths of the increase for which the Government claim credit. The irony is, of course, that the Government have spent the last four years doing the best they can to undermine SERPS and to make sure it does not make the same contribution in the next decade.
  It is possible to measure how much the pensioner has been short-changed over the past decade by supposing that the statement made 10 years ago had not been made and that the pension had been uprated in line with earnings, as it would have been under the formula inherited from Labour. A married couple would this week have been receiving £17·55 more than they will get in their pension book this Friday. That is big money. It is very big money to those living on a pension. Yesterday I unveiled what a pensioner might get in a shopping basket for that money. It included a fresh chicken for a Sunday roast; half a dozen oranges, a source of fresh fruit; a packet of tea bags; a jar of instant coffee—even that is now a luxury to many pensioners; a pair of tights; a couple of bars of soap; a cheap brand of talcum powder; two stamps towards the TV licence. The really depressing feature about every item on that list is that nothing there is not likely to disappear within a week in a household of two. Without that extra income, all those items disappear from the weekly budget of that couple.
  Mr. John Redwood rose——
  Mr. Cook: If I can just finish this point I will certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  The result is that that couple is left with a constant conjuring trick to make ends meet. This was perfectly expressed with complete understatement by Age Concern, Scotland, which said:
  "Age Concern Scotland staff know of one elderly man who budgets by buying one big item every week. One week the big item is the washing up liquid, the next week toilet rolls. A loss of a couple of pounds per week for someone with this kind of budget is drastic."
  Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Does he not agree that pensioners have also benefited under this Government from income from savings, which has gone up dramatically; from the real increases in occupational pensions; and, for the poorest one fifth, from the substantial increase in income support and related payments, particularly for the elderly pensioner, which Conservative Members welcome and which far outstrips anything done in the 1970s?.
  Mr. Cook: Of course there have been increases. There have been increases in occupational pensions and, given that the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 was passed by the last Labour Government, we would expect that increase. If the hon. Gentleman looks up the figures, he will find that the bottom quarter of pensioners receive an average of £3·50 a week in occupational pensions. The second bottom quarter received an average of £10·50 a week in occupational pensions. Most of the income of the great majority of pensioners in Britain comes from their basic pension.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that if pensioners had received this week the pension increases that they ought to have received they would even have been able to afford a pair of the special long johns from Harrods that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) suggested, when she was a Minister, they ought to wear to keep warm in winter?.
  Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend will have to wait until we receive the Department of Trade and Industry report to find out whether it will be possible for pensioners to obtain access to Harrods.
  It is possible to measure the short change and the extent to which the Secretary of State had the money to provide extra for pensioners. If he had wanted to do so this year, he certainly had the money. Any doubt that he had the money is removed by a glance at the Government Actuary's report on the national insurance fund. In the financial year that ended last week, the Government expect to make a surplus of contributions over benefits of £2·5 billion. That, alone, is enough to treble this week's increase in the state pension. Nor is that an aberration under this Government. It is an inevitable consequence of benefits increasing in line with prices, although national insurance contributions increase in line with earnings. The Government have become so accustomed to running a surplus on the national insurance fund that the cumulative surplus has almost doubled during the last three years. By April 1990 it will stand at over £10 billion.
  To put that staggering sum in terms to which Conservative Members can relate, it is big enough to pay for the Trident submarine programme. There is some reason to fear that that is probably what it is doing. Rather than pass on the benefit of the surpluses to pensioners by way of increased benefits, the Treasury is siphoning them out of the fund for its own use by reducing the Treasury supplement. This financial year—for the first time, I believe, since 1948—not a penny will be paid into the national insurance fund by the Treasury. Contributors are being conned, by accepting deductions from their wages in good faith, that they are paying for benefits to pensioners and other claimants, when in reality what they are paying for is to let the Treasury pocket money that used to be paid into the fund.
  754
  The reason why pensions have not increased faster than prices is not because the Government lack the money but because they lack the will. It would take some convincing to persuade most pensioners that this week's increase keeps pace with prices. The increase that pensioners will receive this week is 5·9 per cent., at a time when prices are rising at 7·8 per cent. Some of those prices, most of which are under Government control, are rising even faster. I refer to the increases in the price of gas, fares and water. All those increases have a direct impact on pensioners.
  Mr. John Butterfill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cook: I shall give way on this occasion, but as I am mindful of Mr. Speaker's injunction, it will be the last occasion on which I shall give way.
  Mr. Butterfill: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the underlying rate of inflation, if we exclude mortgage interest payments which most pensioners do not pay, is only 5·5 per cent. and that therefore the increase in pensions is above the cost of living of most pensioners? On top of that, most pensioners have some investment income, which has improved as a result of high interest rates.
  Mr. Cook: We look forward with interest to the Social Security Bill 1990 in which we shall no doubt see the new re-rating of pensions to take account of the increased income from interest on savings. Many pensioners do not pay mortgage interest—that is reflected in the retail prices index—but they spend a much higher proportion of their income on food, fuel and the basic necessities of life. If we look at the increase in the price of those items in the retail prices index, we find that they are rising faster for pensioners than for anybody else.
  Another measure that the Government have introduced which will have a direct impact on pensioners took effect only this week.
  The introduction of charges for eye tests will hit pensioners harder than anyone else. Boots, which has a quarter of the market, is now charging £10·50 a test. Boots is the market leader, but some opticians are charging up to £15. The optician nearest to the House of Commons is charging £17·50 for an eye test. Even if we confine ourselves to a charge of £10·50, a pensioner would need to club together this year's uprating for four weeks to afford an eye check. There is one clear, inescapable consequence. Many pensioners will now not go for a regular check-up on their eyes, and as a result some of them will put their sight seriously at risk.
  It is entirely fair for me to remind the Secretary of State for Social Security that eye-test charges were introduced this month, as he thought them up before his transfer to his present post. He was also in charge of last April's social security changes. I note that the Secretary of State's amendment to the motion invites the House to congratulate the Government on the
  "simpler, fairer, more flexible system".
  It is curious to describe the system as more flexible when it has resulted in all the extra allowances for special needs being abolished. The new, flexible scheme takes no account of claimants' needs, although it still makes rigorous searching scrutiny of individual claimants' means. It is curious to describe the system as fairer when the people who have been hit hardest are the most disabled, frail and invalid people who received the

  755
  allowances. They received heating allowance because they are housebound, they received diet allowance because they are chronically sick, and they received laundry allowance because they are incontinent. By definition, those who got most had the most to lose. Tens of thousands of them have already lost it all because the slightest change in circumstances triggers a review whereby they lose all the transitional protection they had last April.
  Some people lost transitional protection because they were unwise enough to fall sick. One of the most distressing letters I have received in the past couple of months was from a resident of Midlothian who fell sick in October and transferred to sickness benefit. In February she came off sickness benefit because she was well again and she discovered that because she had been on sickness benefit she had lost transitional protection. Why had she received transitional protection? She had been receiving an extra allowance to pay the bus fare from Midlothian to Edinburgh to visit her elderly mother twice a week. Her mother is in a geriatric hospital where she will be confined until she dies. There is simply no way in which my correspondent can afford to make that trip on her new reduced benefit of £34·90 a week. Because she made the mistake of being sick, she is unable to visit her mother in hospital. Is that fairer? Is that more flexible?.
  Other people have lost transitional protection because, under the party of the family, they were unwise enough to take on increased family responsibility. In previous debates, I have drawn the attention of the House to the way in which a couple who have an extra child are entitled to an extra £10·75 addition in income support, but if they are on transitional protection that money is included in the transitional protection.
  Since our last debate on the subject, an even worse case has been drawn to my attention. It relates to a single girl in Cheshire. Last April she was receiving £7 a week in allowances for her diet and health needs. At the end of April she gave birth to a child. She was given an additional £10·75 which wiped out the £7 in transitional protection but left her just a little better off as she was given an extra £3·75 a week net to feed the infant. In October the child died, her benefit was reassessed and the £10·75 was taken away, including the £7 she used to receive in transitional protection. She is now on a flat rate of £26·05. This girl has suffered an appalling personal tragedy. The grief and distress that she must experience should be understood by every Member of this House. The understanding that the Government have shown of her personal tragedy is to tell her that it has cost her her benefit. Is that a fairer system? Is that a more flexible system?.
  There is another example that I should like to share with the House. This very month the Secretary of State hopes to complete the proceedings on the Social Security Bill, which will force the unemployed into even more desperate efforts to find work. Under the Tory party, of course, some claimants have lost their transitional protection because they were unfortunate enough to succeed in their search for work. One case was brought to me by a citizens' advice bureau in north London.
  Mr. Tony Favell: What is unfortunate about finding a job?.
  Mr. Cook: If the hon. Gentleman waits, he will discover what is unfortunate about finding a job.
  One claimant in north London—a person confined to a wheelchair—through great personal effort, was successful in finding a temporary job, for four weeks. What support did the Government give that disabled person as a demonstration of the virtues of independence and self-reliance? The support they gave him was that when he ceased his four weeks' employment and came back on to benefit he discovered that he had lost his transitional protection because he had been temporarily employed. That is what is unfortunate about his experience. If I may say so, it is a question not of misfortune but of deliberate Government policy. That person is now £4 a week worse off than he would have been if he had never bothered to seek work.
  But perhaps the most remarkable contradiction between this Government's rhetoric and the reality of their benefits policy is that, under the party of the owner-occupier, some claimants have lost all, or nearly all, their transitional protection as a result of the rise in the mortgage interest rates, which is the Government's chosen way of fighting inflation. Disability Alliance has drawn my attention to the case of one of its members who was receiving attendance allowance—indicating, as the House will know, that he was severely disabled. Last April he was receiving £17 a week in transitional protection. As a result of the increase in the mortgage interest rate, his interest payments have gone up by £13 a week. His entitlement, of course, has been adjusted to reflect that addition, but every single penny of the £13 comes out of his transitional protection. He is left with additional mortgage expenditure but not an additional penny in benefit.
  An interesting feature of that case is that last April a then Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Health and Social Security wrote to the Member of Parliament for this claimant, and ended his letter reassuring the MP by saying:
  "I do hope that you will now be in a position to reassure Mr. F…that he will not be any worse off in April as a result of the changes."
  Here we come to the greatest irony of all. The House will recall that when we debated the April changes we were assured repeatedly that 88 per cent. of claimants would be either better off or no worse off. I should like the Secretary of State to confirm that in calculating that 88 per cent., every one of the cases that I have drawn to the attention of the House in the last 10 minutes was counted. I should like to hear the Secretary of State try to explain to any one of those people that he or she was not a loser as a result of last April's changes. I invite the Secretary of State, or the Minister for Social Security—whichever one of them has the greater brass neck—to repeat to the House now that those people were not losers as a result of the "fairer, more flexible" system that was introduced last April. I cannot hear it from them; I am willing to hear it from any Conservative Back Bencher who voted for the measures that were introduced last April. I am bound to say that if no Conservative Member is prepared to argue that these people were not losers, we can conclude only that the 88 per cent. figure was a mischievous deceit practised upon this House and upon the public.
  Not all the people who are on transitional protection have yet lost it. At the end of this week there will still be a minority drawing transitional protection. That is something of a mixed blessing particularly as this week

  757
  those who have managed to retain the transitional protection do not get a penny extra in benefit—that is 570,000 claimants, one tenth of all those on income support. By definition none of them got a penny last year either. For two successive years they have experienced a freeze in their income—two years in which prices have gone up by 12 per cent.
  Many of those affected have written to me and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. There is a common theme to the letters that they send us: disbelief that even this Government could treat them so badly. They demonstrate a touching and misplaced faith in the belief that the Government cannot let them suffer so badly. I have in front of me one such letter and I shall share only this one with the House. It says:
  "I have been waiting desperately for this £2·50 rise as my money runs out on a Friday and I have to wait till Tuesday comes round again before I get my pension …as I have angina, kidney complaint and rheumatoid arthritis I am so cold all the time and gas is so dear, on top of all this I am also a diabetic…I cannot afford a proper diet as I never have enough money left and for some time I have been losing weight".
  During the radio interview when I heard the Minister perform I was astonished to hear him describe the situation in which that correspondent finds himself as a "soft landing". That suggests that he does not have the remotest grasp of the bleak despair of those half a million people on transitional protection. He is not alone in his incomprehension. The last time we had social security questions one Conservative Member asked of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary whether he was really satisfied that claimants had been warned sufficiently far in advance in order to make other arrangements once their benefit went down. The Under-Secretary replied that all those who were not having their benefit uprated and who were on transitional protection:
  "will have been informed well in advance."—[Official Report, 6 March 1989 Vol. 148, c. 588.]
  Perhaps the Secretary of State can tell us how on earth those claimants are supposed to make other arrangements. What are they supposed to do? How are they supposed to cease to be retired or cease to be disabled? How are they supposed to cease to suffer from arthritis or from angina?.
  One reason why it is inexcusable for Conservative Members not to understand the plight of those claimants is the letter which I just read to the House, which was sent from a Conservative constituency. I have received many such letters from Conservative constituencies, such as Harlow, Torquay, Romford and Brentwood. Every Tory Member of Parliament represents at least 1,000 claimants who, this week, will receive not a penny in uprating.
  Are those Conservative Members going to leave it to Opposition Members alone to speak for their constituents? Are none of them prepared to speak for those who find themselves in that trap? Are none of them—I appeal to what motivates them most when they vote—more afraid of what their constituents might do to them than what their Whips might do to them? If there are any such people on the Conservative Benches I appeal to them to join us in the Lobby tonight and to vote for a simple act of justice for those bewildered and desperate pensioners who, once again, this week are cheated by their own Government.
  4.33 pm
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. John Moore): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and add instead thereof:
  `notes that it is now one year since the Government introduced a simpler, fairer, more flexible system of income-related benefits and that the uprating which took effect yesterday added a further £2·2 billion to spending on social security, now running at £51 billiion a year; and congratulates the Government on the success of its economic policies which have enabled it not only to fulfil the pledge to maintain the value of the basic retirement pension in line with price movements but also to use the new system of income-related benefits to direct additional help this year of over a quarter of a billion pounds beyond the normal uprating to those in greatest need.'.
  The Opposition have produced a motion that I fully understand in the sense that it seeks to challenge fundamentally the adequacy and the methods of the benefit provisions that were introduced a year ago. They are to be debated in part today. I have vivid memories going back beyond the past 10 years to the period when the Labour party had the misfortune to seek to govern our country.
  Mrs. Margaret Beckett: What about the pensioners?
  Mr. Moore: I shall come to the pensioners later in considerable detail.
  That the Opposition should table this motion despite their record of incompetence means that I must start my speech by reminding the House of why I am able, as Secretary of State, to spend record sums of money in our country's history on social security—the increases this month attest to that—and how miserably Socialism's record compares with our success.
  We were, and will continue to be, re-elected to office because of the absolute inability of Labour Members to understand the reasons for our success. [Interruption.] I will take my time and make the points I wish to make. Opposition Members have tabled the motion and if we have the usual vulgar and irrelevant sedentary interruptions that we get from them, that will only take time out of the time available to them in the debate.
  Social security needs, above all—I should have thought that this view was shared by Members in all parts of the House—wealth to be able to care. Without economic success, none of our achievements, or the understandable ambitions and aspirations of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), would be possible.
  The uprating this year increases our spending on social security to £51 billion. That is not simply an increase of £2 billion over the previous year, for it conceals additional increases because of the happy reduction in unemployment. That adds about £.1·6 billion to the overall increase in my spending.
  That record is not just for this one year. It reflects a decade of achievement in which we have seen increases in social security spending go up by 33 per cent—[Interruption.] I think I know the point that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) is making, albeit from a sedentary position. Would she care to rise and interrupt and make it in more detail? I should be happy to let her do so, and I would point out in reply that, even taking unemployment out of the data, the increase would still have been 27 per cent.

  759
  In that decade of achievement, the priorities of the Government have been clearly shown by their spending on social security. We have seen a pattern of increase as a proportion of our overall public expenditure from 25 per cent. in 1978–79 to 31 per cent. this year. That is a sign of the added significance that we place on social security spending compared with Labour Members when they were in office, and the contrast in that improved position within that increased expenditure is telling in terms of social security priorities.
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: If there has been such tremendous economic success and the Chancellor has a surplus of £14 billion, why will pensioners on £47·90, many of whom live in my constituency, not receive a penny increase in the next financial year because the Government are clawing back the whole of the transitional allowance? The same will apply the following year in relation to the £1·80. Surely the Government could have afforded to ensure that such pensioners got a real increase.
  Mr. Moore: I shall come to the question of pensioners and to the transitional point to which the hon. Gentleman refers. It is an important issue which I shall cover in detail. I wish first to contrast the relative impoverishment of the areas that Labour Members considered, rightly, to be important when they were last in office with the decade of achievement under the Conservatives. To do that I will take only two issues, the disabled and families with children.
  The achievements of the last Labour Government on behalf of the disabled were considerable. They increased spending in real terms by 29 per cent.—they increased spending each year in real terms on the disabled by £220 million—and I recognise that achievement. But that was as nothing compared with the achievement of the last decade, during which expenditure on the disabled has increased in real terms by 90 per cent., or an annual average increase of £390 million.
  That is the first contrast that I think the House will acknowledge. The second is about families with children, and I am talking about spending in real terms.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that one change that the Government have made applies to people who apply for attendance or mobility allowance? Does he agree that when such an application is granted the money will now be paid not from the date of the claim, if it takes time to process through appeal, but from the time it is granted? Why are people being cheated out of this money, out of disablement help that they need desperately?
  Mr. Moore: The position on claimants is unchanged from that under the previous Government. I shall shortly go into more detail about the disabled.
  I should like to look at the second area of major social security expenditure because the motion refers to all benefits. That second area is expenditure on families with children. When Britain last had the misfortune to have a Labour Government expenditure was reduced in real terms over five years by 7 per cent. I am sure that the then Labour Government had no intention of doing that, but they were not able to govern with economic success.
  760
  In the last decade we have seen an increase in expenditure on families with children of 27 per cent. In addition to this year's uprating, our economic success has allowed us to spend an extra £200 million on a poorer pensioner package which is welcomed by all hon. Members. I shall deal with that later. Again because of our economic success, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was able to announce in his Budget the abolition of the earnings rule for pensioners at a gross public expenditure cost of £375 million. Everybody welcomed that. He was also able to announce because of our economic success the completion of our national insurance contribution changes. That will especially help the lower paid and will cost £2·8 billion in a full year. I could continue to deal with our record, but I think that I should answer the first Opposition charge.
  Mr. Dennis Turner: People outside will treat the Secretary of State's contribution with absolute incredulity. Thousands of my constituents are finding it impossible to live through the week. How can the Secretary of State say that the Government have been kind and generous when people know that they cannot live from week to week? This week a lady in my constituency threatened suicide because of water bills pouring through her letter box. She has no possibility of paying them. The Secretary of State's speech is no answer to the real struggle that our people face day by day, in Conservative as well as in Labour constituencies.
  Mr. Moore: I must try to proceed. I have taken more interventions than did the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. I have heard statements and not questions.
  Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Moore: No, because, as I have said, I have given way more than the Opposition spokesman.
  I have tackled the Opposition's first basic charge about the adequacy of provision. I shall now consider the challenge in the motion to the methods of the new system and our transition to it. Will the Opposition seek to argue for a return to the old, unloved supplementary benefit and single payments system? As they well know, it had flaws which they recognised. It was complex, difficult to understand, extremely intrusive, and absolutely inflexible. Hon. Members did not like the fact that, for example, a family earning £140 a week could be worse off than a family earning half that amount. None of my hon. Friends—I am not certain about Opposition Members—would welcome the return of the abused single payments system under which 80 per cent. of the money went to about 10 per cent. of the claimants.
  This is the first anniversary of improvements that are already in. The first of those is income support. Nobody would deny that there is now a simpler system that is faster for claimants. That is important for those who claim and those who advise claimants because it means that they can understand the advice. Those who sought to try to help people through the old supplementary benefit system were not impressed by the complexities of the structure.
  The new system is much faster. We are handling claims within five days, rather than nine days, as in March 1988. That is important for those who seek help. The system is also producing—again, I should have thought that this

  761
  would be welcomed by Opposition Members if they were in a more serious mood—an 80 per cent. success rate for the claimants compared with 73 per cent. previously.
  The error rate—another important feature of a system designed to help people—has improved from 12 per cent. to 8·3 per cent. Furthermore, as I illustrated last year and in this week's benefits improvements with regard to child premiums, it is easier to target help more accurately as a consequence of the new income support system.
  Family credit, again, is infinitely better than family income support. A total of £422 million has been spent in the first year in comparison with £180 million on family income supplement. I should have thought that that would be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I should also have thought that the House would be welcoming the fact that payments are averaging £25 a week. The expenditure percentage take-up so far is too low; it is 65 per cent. and I am launching a major new campaign to increase it. But the expenditure is more than double the FIS of a year ago.
  I should have thought also that the House would wish to support the changes in the disablement arrangements. Last year, under the old scheme, 70 per cent. of long-term sick and disabled claimants were getting additional payments averaging £5·34 per week. I will not lay too much stress on the fact that under Labour the figure was not 70 per cent. but 38 per cent. Now all 270,000 are getting the disability premium, which is running at £13·70. I should have thought that that would be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  I should have expected the House to welcome also the fact that, while under the old system 4,500 severely disabled people were getting domestic assistance additions averaging £6·35 per week, now 7,000 are getting severe disability premiums at £26·20. Again, I should have thought that that was something to be welcomed by all hon. Members.
  Beyond that, the new system is much more flexible. My hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and I said that we would monitor the system and seek to change it if necessary, and we have been able to do so, as all hon. Members know, not just last year but three times this year.
  Mr. Martin Redmond (Don Valley): I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. Will he accept the simple truth that there are many elderly disabled people worse off under his regulations? What steps will he take to ensure that those people are brought back up to standard?
  Mr. Moore: I always listen to the hon. Gentleman. I was trying to illustrate that in terms of the new versus the old system there have been enormous improvements for the disabled. I said, as did my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security, that we would watch, monitor and seek to improve the system. We have already made major changes in a relatively short period and I will continue to watch the area to which the hon. Gentleman particularly draws my attention.
  I will come in a moment to pensioners, but I think it right first to address the point made by the hon. Member for Livingston about transitional protection. As he well knows, one cannot change any system in such a way that most will gain or be unaffected without some doing relatively less well. The Government promised in 1986—we have the economic success to fulfil our promises—that we would protect income support recipients from cash
  762
  losses during the changes. Clearly, that protection reduces as entitlement rises with each uprating. If it did not, that would mean keeping the old system for ever with all its inequities. The hon. Member for Livingston has mentioned quite a lot in the media, and in the House briefly today, the nature of the old system of additions. Hon. Members should remember—sometimes people forget—that something like 40 per cent. of income support recipients were not in receipt, under that incredibly complex system, of additions of any kind. Furthermore, the average addition was running at £3·57 and, although this is not mentioned very often, the whole of expenditure on the heating addition of more than £400 million was put into the income support rate.
  However, I recognise the point which the hon. Gentleman has made and I can confirm to the House, because I think it right to do so, that 3·25 million income support recipients will receive their uprating in full, over half a million will receive partial increases and, as he rightly said, nearly 600,000 will receive no increase at all. But the vast majority of claimants on income support——
  Mr. Favell: A great deal has been said about the transitional provisions. However, but for the transitional provisions, would there not have been a two-tier system for people living in identical circumstances, old claimants and new claimants? That would be unfair and wholly unacceptable to many hon. Members and certainly to new claimants.
  Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is right. I was trying desperately to be non-political and helpful to the Opposition.
  I remind the Opposition of what happened when they last attempted to make changes in the social security system; I think it was in 1976 when they were going through another process with the International Monetary Fund. Memories of those days are clear. [Interruption.] I will take plenty of time to make the point. Obviously the Opposition have memories of that time when they were trying to change the system from family allowances and child tax allowances to child benefit. I am not now talking about the £1·4 billion of which they cheated families with children in one year. In the face of economic failure they also had to reduce provision in cash terms by £300 million.
  I have been led astray and I shall go back to the point that I was seeking to make, which was that the vast majority of claimants on income support;87 per cent. —will have an increase. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said today in the Chamber, 98 per cent. of pensioners will get an increase, as will practically all couples with children.
  Mr. Robin Cook: Before the Secretary of State leaves that passage, will he answer the question that I put to him in my speech and confirm that every single one of the cases that I described, who have lost transitional protection in the past year, would have been counted in the 88 per cent. that he claimed last April would be no worse off as a result of the changes?
  Mr. Moore: I said then, and I say again, that it is impossible without detailed notice of all the cases concerned to answer precisely. I am assuming, of course, that they were included. I will look at the individual cases; I always do. Of course, I will come back to the hon.

  763
  Gentleman, as I always do, but I will not go into a detailed commitment on those cases now. I cannot possibly do so without examining the details.
  I shall go on to deal with pensioners, on whom the hon. Member for Livingston based most of his speech. I thought that the hon. Gentleman classically fell into the Socialist trap. It was a perfect illustration of the way in which the Opposition seek to argue the issue. They are obsessed with only one part of the pension equation—the level of the state retirement pension. I shall give sufficient illustrations for the House to understand the comparisons. For pensioners the true measure of economic well-being —no doubt the hon. Gentleman thought I might say this —is their total income. That is why the Government's approach throughout this decade contains two vital elements, not one.
  The first is our pledge to increase pensions in line with prices to provide a secure foundation for income in retirement. The second is to pursue policies to keep inflation under control to safeguard the pensioner's income from other sources. [Interruption.] I shall illustrate the success in a moment. The comparisons should shock Opposition Members. The success of our policy versus the failure of Labour's promise is a fact of history that I shall illustrate. [Interruption.] If Opposition Members think that Labour Governments are utterly irrelevant, I cannot say that I disagree with that concept. But they have to learn to live with the reality of what they sought to do when in office.
  I want to consider first the relative record of the way in which pensioners lived under two Governments, Labour and Conservative, remembering that we have been happy to look after 1 million more pensioners, but still our record is outstanding. Throughout our period of office the growth in net income has averaged 3 per cent. per year to produce a total increase in net income of 23 per cent. versus a miserable 3 per cent. in total throughout the whole Labour period of office. Secondly, my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) and Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) were very conscious of the role of savings.
  What an appalling record there was under Labour. Throughout their period of office savings lost their value. [Interruption.] Those who are denying the role of savings for the pensioner will get a bigger shock at the next election. Under Labour, savings went down by 3·4 per cent. per year. In all they lost 16 per cent. of their value throughout the Labour period in office. For the eight years to 1986—we only have figures until then—savings increased by 7 per cent. per year, or 64 per cent. in all.
  I saw the hon. Member for Livingston on television yesterday with wonderful charts, talking very properly about how pensioners should share in our prosperity. Let me remind him of the reality of sharing under Labour and what happened to the pensioner then. The hon. Gentleman talked on television yesterday about the pensioner needing to share in a successful growth of earnings and the economy. Let me tell him what happened. I shall give him exact comparisons.
  In comparison to the average earnings of all manual workers in 1974 the pensioner was receiving 63 per cent. —[Interruption.] I will come to the Conservative figures in a second. Hon. Members will not like them. Between 1974 and 1979 the pensioner saw his percentage of the average
  764
  manual worker's income go down, not up, from 63 per cent. to 60 per cent. Was that sharing in the national earnings and prosperity? That was the price of Labour's failure.
  Since then, the pensioner's share has gone up, not from 60 per cent. to 63 per cent., but to 66 per cent. I can see Opposition Members on the Front Bench nodding and chatting. No doubt they are saying, "Of course, he is now arguing about the average pensioner." Let me give them other figures that they have not heard—the figures for those who have no income other than state benefits and their state pension income. What happened to them under the five years of Labour government? Their income went from 32 per cent. of the average earnings of all manual workers, not down happily, but up by 1 per cent. That was the achievement of Labour. Under the Conservative Government their income has gone up, not by 1 per cent., but from 33 per cent. to 37 per cent. That is what is called sharing in the prosperity of the rest of the community.
  Mr. Robin Cook rose——
  Mr. Moore: No; I have already given way. This is an abuse. If the hon. Gentleman will sit down, I shall give him the figures.
  Mr. Cook: Those figures are wrong. They are fabricated.
  Mr. Moore: I object. I shall now repeat carefully and precisely the figures that I have obtained from my officials. There are two groups of figures. First, would the hon. Gentleman like me to repeat the figures for the average pensioner, which he seemed to accept, or does he just want me to give him the figures for the pensioner who has no income other than state benefits? I shall repeat the figures, which are the figures obtained from my Department—[AN HON. MEMBER: "For what years?"] I will give the precise years. They are the latest family expenditure survey data because, of course, that is what I bring to the House. I repeat that a pensioner with no private income, whose only income is from the state, through his state pension and benefits, in 1974 would have received in comparison to the average of all manual workers 32 per cent. I acknowledge that by 1979 that had gone up to 33 per cent. By 1986, the latest figures I have from the FES data, it was up to 37 per cent.
  Mr. Cook: No.
  Mr. Moore: It is no good the hon. Gentleman saying no.
  Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. I have before me a table prepared by the Library's statistical section which I believe is accepted by hon. Members on both sides of the House to be a source of impeccable objectivity and reliability. I have a copy of the table of figures from which the Secretary of State is quoting. The figures show that the Secretary of State was correct with regard to a married pensioner between 1974 and 1979. However, the figures do not rise between 1979 and 1989. They actually drop from 32·6 to 26·1 per cent. between 1979 and 1989. Those are figures produced by the House of Commons Library. I invite hon. Members to question whether the statisticians who advise hon. Members on both sides of the House can be relied upon better than the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Moore: These figures come from my Department. They were obtained from the economic advisers office. The hon. Member for Livingston knows full well that I do not use data other than that which has been placed in the House of Commons Library. I will consider the figures to which the hon. Gentleman referred. However, I repeat that the figures in my possession to 1986, the latest figures available from the latest thorough FES data, take the figure up to 37 per cent.
  Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The figures given by the Secretary of State have been challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). The Secretary of State says that he will reconsider the figures. Will the Secretary of State give a clear commitment that the Minister for Social Security, when he replies, will try to clarify the position so that the House and pensioners outside this place, who know very well what——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Mr. Moore.
  Mr. Moore: Of course that was not a point of order. I did not retract one iota of what I had said. The hon. Member for Livingston was talking about Library data. I have not seen those figures—[Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Livingston will contain himself. The figures to which he referred relate to 1989. The hon. Member for Livingston may not be aware that the latest full FES data relate to 1986 and it was on the basis of those figures that I was giving the full, accurate data. I stand by that data because it reflects the latest full data which show an accurate comparison.
  I want to illustrate the improving position in society. The hon. Member for Livingston quite rightly drew attention, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham, to the position of pensioners in relation to the poorest in society. The hon. Member for Livingston neglected to draw the attention of the House to the fact that in 1979 a total of 38 per cent. of pensioners comprised the bottom one fifth of the population. Happily today, only 24 per cent. of pensioners occupy that position. There has been a significant improvement in their relative position.
  I agree with my hon. Friends and with Opposition Members that that is not enough. I am not satisfied and that is why I have brought forward a poorer pensioner package which will increase considerably the position of many pensioners in the autumn. [Interruption.] I wonder whether the hon. Member for Livingston could possibly pay attention to me for a moment because I want to correct what I know he would want me to correct, which are one or two unfortunate inaccuracies which he made in a radio interview on 10 April in the "Today" programme.
  I fully understand that it is not always easy to keep all kinds of figures in mind at any one moment, but the hon. Member for Livingston referred to the increase as a token increase, going only to those on income support, only to those who are over 75. I must remind the House that it is not a token increase. It goes to 2·6 million people including approximately 1·4 million who are above income support level who will receive help in the form of housing benefit. It also includes 340,000 disabled people and, within the income support group, it includes 1·22 million pensioners on income support. That is not an insignificant number, as
  766
  I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House will appreciate. Therefore, many couples over 75 can see increases this year of more than 11 per cent.
  Mr. Lofthouse: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Moore: Mr. Speaker invited us to be brief and I have answered many interventions. I want to finish my remarks now.
  The date 11 April is an anniversary of which the Government can be proud. Our system for delivering benefits to the most needy had fallen into sad disarray. It was outdated, inflexible, unfair and bewildering in its complexity. We tackled that problem and overcame the nonsenses of the past. But Britain's prosperity, which the Government's policies have fostered, has given us the resources to do far more.
  Mr. Lofthouse: Will the Secretary of State give way now?
  Mr. Moore: I am trying to finish, as the hon. Gentleman is aware.
  We have been able to protect the poorest against the impact of change without cash loss and we are using the improved system to direct still further help, flexibly and surely, to where it is most needed. We are doing all that on top of a massive commitment of resources to social security which is higher now, as all hon. Members have acknowledged, than ever before in our history. That is the surest testament to our economic success, based on capitalist principles of market enterprise. Economic success is at the heart of our more generous provision. It is a heart with the strength to care. I urge the House to support the Government's amendment.
  5.5 pm
  Mr. Jack Ashley: The difference between the Secretary of State's speech and reality shows that he lives on a different planet. It was unbelievable to hear the right hon. Gentleman make such claims. First, he said that he was trying to be non-political and then he peppered his speech with a series of party political points, not many of which were valid. He also failed to respond to the challenges of my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), in particular the challenge about the 88 per cent. of people who will be better off or no worse off. The Secretary of State fell at that fence. That was his Becher's Brook.
  The Secretary of State also made the mistake of claiming that the Tory party will be re-elected because of its policies on social security. That is the last thing that the Tories would be re-elected for. Social security is one of the Government's many Achilles heels. They have failed abysmally.
  The truth underlying this debate is that Ministers have deliberately tried to change people's perceptions of social security. To those in desperate need, social security used to be a reassurance that our civilised society would not desert them. That was very important for them. They thought that it would ease their poverty, edge them away frorn disaster and lend a friendly and dependable hand in times of need. That does not apply any more.
  The Government have turned social security into dirty words. They have sullied compassion and scoffed at what they call the "dependency culture". If anything makes me sick, it is the sight of well-heeled politicians complaining

  767
  about the poor. The miserly uprating of a miserable system of benefits is one of the disgraceful aspects of that despicable attitude.
  One would expect the Government's aggressive and parsimonious approach to be softened when they dealt with disabled people. However, that does not apply with this Government. Disabled people cannot stand on their own feet and their problems cannot be attributed to lack of will or enterprise. However, they have also become the targets of Government marksmen, the Ministers who are picking off the poor. Those same Ministers are boasting to the country that the Government have a £14 billion Budget surplus.
  Disabled people were not included in the social security review. The Secretary of State promised them a review of their own when the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys studies are completed later this year. However, although they were not included in the review, they were greatly affected by the social security changes as no fewer than 75 per cent. of disabled people rely on social security.
  The Government have boasted of their generous increase in money for disabled people, but individual disabled people are little better off. The main change has been that more disabled people are claiming their benefits. When the Minister makes his grandiose claims, he is misleading the House because individual disabled people are not better off. More disabled people are applying for benefits which they badly need because of the squalor into which they have been plunged by the Government.
  The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State claim that there have been significant increases in the mobility allowance. However, increases in petrol and other costs for cars have been even greater. Therefore, that is a bogus claim. The basic fact is that many disabled people have lost out as a direct consequence of Government policies.
  When the Secretary of State talks about flexibility, he is talking nonsense. Disabled people have lost flexibility as a result of changes imposed by the Government. They have lost individual help. The most severely disabled people now have to turn to the independent Disabled Living Foundation, which provides handouts, not payments as of right. It is outside the state system. There is no right of appeal. People must accept the decisions that are made. Where else does one have such a system in a civilised society? Moreover, the system receives inadequate publicity.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston mentioned transitional payments in his eloquent and splendid speech, and he was right to do so. The Secretary of State was wrong to dismiss worries about transitional payments. Ministers made a clever move when they introduced transitional payments because they promised that there would be no immediate loss of benefit. Some innocent disabled people believed that assurance, which gagged the protests and held back an avalanche of complaints when the changes were first made.
  It is only now that transitional payments are being understood. Prices are soaring and those on transitional payments have no overall increase in income. There will not be any such increase until income falls to the level that the Government deem appropriate, when it will be much less than it was in the first place. That is the check of the transitional payments. My hon. Friend was right to attack
  768
  that. The scheme is a fundamental error. The real hurt will come later this year. Incomes will be frozen while inflation soars. What kind of Government can hit the disabled in that way while at the same time boasting of their great economic success? The Secretary of State referred to "economic success" at least four times. How can he boast about that and at the same time hit the severely disabled in this way? It is disgraceful.
  What hope do disabled people have for the future? They did have hope for the future, but they were told to wait for the completion of the OPCS survey when the Government would respond to their plight—and some plight it is. When people become disabled before retirement, they have a fearful time under the present Government, as Labour Members recognise. They have only a one-in-three chance of getting a job. On average, their income is only half that of an able-bodied person, and that was before the social security changes which the Disability Alliance, accurately quoted by my hon. Friend, estimates has made 1 million disabled people worse off. They are the people we are speaking about today.
  When the Minister for Social Security replies, he should tell us what has happened to the long-awaited promised review for disabled people. It is a punctured balloon. In a letter to Ian Bruce, the director general of the Royal National Institute for the Blind, on 27 February 1989, the Minister said:
  "However, it would be wrong to assume at this stage that we will proceed to a review on the same lines as the social security reviews in 1984–85; that might well delay things unnecessarily. For that reason, I don't see much purpose in our discussing the terms of reference and composition of a review team."
  Some letter that.
  We do not know what will happen. Disabled people have been waiting for the review, but it may not be a full one. I do not usually make forecasts in the House because they are difficult things to make, but I shall make a forecast now of what will happen. There will be a snappy Civil Service investigation, done by people who are not disabled and have no experience of disabled living. The Minister will make minimal and inexpensive changes. The long-awaited additional costs allowance will not be forthcoming even though the Social Security Advisory Committee, agreeing with all disability organisations, recommended that the first step should be help with additional costs. I am putting down these markers for the Minister to answer tonight. If the review does not confirm my forecast I shall stand up and withdraw it.
  I forecast that Government energy will be devoted not to helping all disabled people but to encouraging occupational and private schemes for the better off and the privileged. Will the Minister intervene now and deny that? If he does not, he should do so when he replies.
  Contrary to what was said a few moments ago, we shall have a two-tier Britain. That will be the Government's epitaph. They have already achieved that in many areas. The Health Service will be the next immediate target, and a quick Bill on disability will finish off the process before the next election. The message to the people of Britain is: "Do not be disabled if you are also poor, at least while the present Government are in office."
  5.18 pm
  Mrs. Marion Roe: From experience gained in my constituency through contact with many elderly people, there is no doubt that the 1980s have

  769
  witnessed a sustained and substantial improvement in the living standards of most pensioners. Sound economic policies and a realistic social policy have been the key to that important change. The essential safeguard for pensioners' living standards will always be a growing economy, able to pay for the services and benefits that the elderly need, coupled with the firm control of inflation to protect pensioners' savings. The policies of the past 10 years have helped pensioners on both counts, spreading greater prosperity to more pensioners than ever before.
  Opposition Members are eloquent in their commitment to pensioners but as the history of the Labour Government shows—and as was confirmed last night in the speech on economic policy by the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock)—their policies could never deliver the sustained and vigorous growth needed to fulfil all their grandiose pledges. In short, there was plenty of commitment, but no cash.
  The present Government, by contrast, are determined to help pensioners and have the policies to do so. Today, Britain spends £23 billion on caring for our elderly people, which is more than is spent on either defence or education. The revival of the British economy has enabled the Government to raise spending on all forms of benefits for the elderly by almost one quarter in real terms since 1979. Despite all the nonsense that we hear from members of the Labour party about Britain lagging behind our European partners, it is instructive to note that the United Kingdom spends 9·6 per cent. of its gross domestic product on care for the elderly—a proportion exceeded in the European community only by France and Denmark.
  It is not sufficient to measure any Government's record on care for pensioners solely in terms of overall expenditure levels. The system of support for the elderly should also be fair, simple, and easy for claimants to understand. Above all, it should get the help to those who need it most. The social security system which we inherited from the Labour Government—and which had developed piecemeal over almost half a century—failed on all those counts. The reforms that came into effect last year dramatically simplified and modernised the social security system. The service to the public has improved and both the time taken to process claims and the error rate in assessment of entitlement are down.
  It was inevitable and necessary that the reforms would create some net losers. The alternative was to perpetuate many of the manifest weaknesses and inconsistencies of the old system, at huge cost to the taxpayer and to the most needy. No meaningful reform that is affordable, fair and brings extra help to those who need it can make all claimants better off. However, transitional payments ensure that no one loses out in cash terms.
  If one accepts the logic of the 1986 reforms, one must also acknowledge that as benefit levels rise transitional relief should disappear. Only a tiny proportion of pensioners—about one in 50—will see no increase in income support levels after yesterday's upratings, due to withdrawal of transitional support. Similarly, more than one in nine claimants in the other groups targeted for extra help by the 1986 reforms—the sick and disabled, lone parents, and couples with children—will receive increases. The vast majority will receive the full uprating. Following last year's reforms, the social security system is providing more help to those who need it most more quickly than ever before. Crucially, it is doing that far more efficiently
  770
  and with far fewer damaging consequences for the rest of the economy now that we have done away with benefit withdrawal rates of more than 100 per cent.
  Current preoccupations with the first anniversary of implementation of the reforms should not obscure a remarkable development in the last few years—the way in which a growing number of pensioners rely only to a limited extent on the state for their pensions and benefits. Thanks to the spread of personal and occupational pensions, savings and home ownership, eight out of 10 pensioners receive income from savings or from their own pensions. Thanks to the revitalisation of the economy and to policies which have reduced inflation to less than one third of the peak that it reached under the Labour Government, pensioners' private incomes have risen well ahead of the growth in earnings. In the seven years to 1986, for example, pensioners' real incomes from savings and occupational pensions rose by a massive 60 per cent. Opposition Members find it difficult to grasp that what matters to pensioners is the growth of their total incomes, as was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, not merely benefits and the state pension but earnings and income from savings and private pensions. Typically, Labour Members think that all pensioners are totally dependent on the state. In reality, the majority have savings and private pensions, and most pensioners' standard of living is higher than ever.
  Mrs. Beckett: Perhaps the hon. Lady did not entirely follow the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), when he pointed out that Labour, far from being unaware of the increased prosperity of many pensioners as a consequence of occupational schemes and of the state earnings-related pension scheme, actually brought those advantages into being. Under the present Government, they are being cut back so that in a few years pensioners' income growth will be substantially reduced.
  Mrs. Roe: My experience is that pensioners feel that they are much better off than they have ever been, and that relates entirely to my point concerning savings and private pensions.
  Since 1979 pensioners' total incomes have grown twice as fast as those of everyone else and five times faster than under the Labour Government. The modernised and reformed social security system brings more help to pensioners in greatest need. Last November's announcement of an extra £200 million income support will be particularly welcome to those elderly pensioners who never had a chance to participate in personal or occupational schemes or in SERPS.
  The Labour party's extravagant and voluble compassion is nothing without policies to deliver sustained economic growth. The Government's record shows that a strong economy benefits everyone. The Labour party would be well advised to take that lesson to heart.
  5.27 pm
  Mrs. Llin Golding: I bring to the attention of the House, and to the Secretary of State especially, the case of a 79-year-old woman who came to my advice bureau the other week. She entered the room very breathless and obviously upset, but with a determined expression on her face. She is one of the many working

  771
  women of north Staffordshire whose lungs have been damaged from breathing the industrial pollution which previously existed in the Potteries.
  That lady, who had known her fair share of low pay and hardship, said to me in a quiet, firm voice, "I have come to tell you of the plight of many of the pensioners where I live. They will not come to see you because they no longer believe that the Government will listen to what they have to say, so I have come for them. Many of us received little or no increase in our pension this time. I myself received nothing. Because of my health, I cannot do much housework or my laundry—I have to pay someone to do that, and all the heavy work. Every week I carefully portion out my money into separate piles so that I do not get behind with any of my payments, and so that I do not owe anyone anything, which would be a dreadful thing to do, but I have been finding it very hard to manage and I cannot go on any longer. I used to have four pints of milk a week—now I have two. I used to have two loaves of bread a week—now I have one. For many months I have been unable to afford fresh fruit. Occasionally I buy a tin of fruit, such as apricots, which lasts me a number of days. I was looking forward to an increase in my pension, but I have had no additional money. Please could you go down there and tell them what it is like for many of the pensioners?"
  I wrote to the manager of the local Department of Social Security office—a caring man who would help if he could—and received the following reply:
  "This lady was in receipt of Supplementary Pension prior to April 1988 and was receiving extra payment for her additional requirements in respect of heating and laundering costs. The Income Support scheme introduced in April 1988 made no provision for payments in respect of additional requirements and to prevent her becoming financially worse off under the new scheme a transitional addition payment was awarded to maintain the weekly allowance at the pre-April 1988 level. The effect of this is that … benefit will remain at this level…until the transitional payment has been eroded by subsequent increases in benefit rates."
  The letter continued that the lady was
  "receiving her full legal entitlement by way of benefit"
  and
  "will qualify for the higher rate of pensioner premium when she attains age 80 in August 1989 which will further erode the transitional addition."
  That lady will not receive any additional pension or any extra money until her pension reaches £51, but she will continue to have to pay for laundry, cleaning and for people to help her with all the heavy work that she is incapable of doing for herself. She asked me to put her case to Ministers in the belief that they would do what they could to help elderly people like her who suffer from ill health and those who are poor and unable to help themselves. I ask them—please do not fail this lady.
  5.32 pm
  Mr. Robert McCrindle: The first half of the Opposition motion is a red herring. I shall turn my attention to that in an attempt to persuade the House that it is better to judge by actions rather than rhetoric.
  However, although I cannot agree with the extravagant language of the second half of the Opposition motion, I shall show more sympathy with the underlying point that the Opposition seek to make. In the process I hope to take
  772
  up the challenge of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and prove that at least one Conservative Member is influenced considerably more by the plight of pensioner constituents than the threat of Government Whips. I say that with great respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown).
  I always look to what a Government have actually done rather than paying undue attention to either the promises that they make for the future or criticising them for their present actions. Although it is correct that, during the last Labour Government, pensions were linked to earnings rather than prices, the hon. Member for Livingston conspicuously overlooked, when addressing this point—which he has addressed many times in this House and outside—the fact that the Labour Government were unable to deliver that promise for three out of the five years during which they were in office. On some occasions that was for reasons outside their control.
  Before the Labour party lectures the Government for failing to continue the link with earnings, it should recognise that those of us who listen to what it plans to do —should it ever again be given responsibility for the government of the country—are inclined to reflect that the Labour Government were unable to keep their promise because of their own poor economic stewardship of the country. Rather than concentrate, as some Labour Members seem to do, on the past and what they would do in the future, they should recognise that, since 1979, the Government—who have made no secret of their wish to link pension increases to the level of prices—have carried out that undertaking to the letter.
  I freely concede that some Conservative Members would have infinitely preferred it if, during this year when we have a substantial Budget surplus—and recognising that pensioner expenditure tends to be far less inflationary than the expenditure of younger earners, and less is spent on imported goods—we had safely increased the standards of living of pensioners and other beneficiaries. I am disappointed that the Government did not consider that to be an appropriate move.
  Let us examine the system which is at the heart of today's debate. It would be extremely difficult for any hon. Member to say that we did not need the reforms represented in the 1988 legislation. It cannot have escaped the attention of hon. Members that, at that time, there were 30 different benefits, myriad conflicting rules and a complex administration which was vastly overdue for reform. I have been at the forefront of those who have welcomed this endeavour to improve the simplicity of the social security scheme and, in the process, to improve targeting so that those in greatest need receive most help.
  I warmly welcomed the Government's aim to remove the poverty trap and encourage savings—to which Opposition Members have not paid enough attention—to foster positive attitudes towards employment and—I make no apology for this—to seek to move away from what has come to be known as the dependency culture. We should recognise that we should not continue to expect the state alone to prop us those who are able to earn additional incomes. At one time it may have been accepted as the norm, but that is clearly not so now.
  The Government's aims are laudable. I regret that the results do not seem to have equalled the aspirations. I have already endorsed the welcome attempt to streamline the

  773
  benefit structure, and remove the pages of regulations, so that it is more easily understood. I have no hesitation in once again endorsing that attempt.
  The Opposition spoil their case by exaggeration. However, it is true that a minority of pensioners who—being no longer entitled to the various additions on matters such as fuel, diet and incontinence, which they had and which no doubt contributed to the complication of the scheme—will find one year later, as the transitional period moves on, that they are in a worse position. That seems to be buying the simplification of the system which I support at too high a cost.
  Targeting has undoubtedly benefited millions of people. Again, the Opposition spoilt their case by failing to concede that many gained as a result of last year's changes. It is a pity that a much-improved system for many people is reduced in the eyes of the population because there is a minority for whom it is not so.
  Targeting is a splendid aim, which I continue to endorse, but it does not appear to be working. The people for whom it is not working are not those who, by most definitions, do not need it to work because they are among the less well off, no matter how that definition is stretched. The fact that there will be no increases or will be net reductions for some and modified increases for others because they are not entitled to the additions that they were able to expect before, or because of the end of the transition period, or because of both, shows that there is a corner of a broadly extremely successful review of social security to which the Government must turn their attention.
  I concede that in most cases improvements have been made. I concede the point made by the Secretary of State that in the autumn there will be further advances for those whom I and other hon. Members have represented in previous debates, but there is no question but that a tiny element have not benefited from targeting, which was one of the principal objectives of the reforms. If people who are by no means well off are losing further benefit, targeting is not working across the board in the way that it is to a considerable extent for millions of beneficiaries, on whose behalf we understandably receive few representations.
  There is no virtue in being consistent, but I hope that hon. Members will concede that, whatever else, I am at least consistent about the introduction of the requirement to pay 20 per cent. of the community charge. It may be desirable according to the views expressed by some of my hon. Friends, who say that it will involve the community and lead to understanding of what local government costs, but the other side of the ledger is that many who would have benefited as a result of the social security reforms will be tipped back on to the other side of the register. It may be too late to redress that merely by saying that we shall discontinue the 20 per cent. contribution, but this aspect must be taken into account by Ministers as they try to plug gaps.
  I am reassured when Ministers remind me that they continue to monitor the position. To their eternal credit, they have monitored the system since 1 April 1988, and as a result of pressures brought by a number of hon. Members they have moved. The capital limit of £6,000 was increased to £8,000, and an announcement was made recently regarding 16 and 17-year-olds. I hope that the Minister will take this as a sincere representation on behalf of the people whom I represent, but the same could be said of people who live in Labour constituencies. When they
  774
  ask me, "Could you live on this net amount?" the only answer that I can give in all conscience is no. When they ask, "Am I one of the better off, because that would seem to be the reason for my not receiving as much as I did before?", again, I must answer no.
  The position of beneficiaries has undoubtedly improved as a result of last year's changes, but thousands of people have been adversely affected. As I and other hon. Members were able to persuade the Minister to move on previous anomalies, I hope that we will persuade him that fresh thinking is required. It reflects no credit on an otherwise excellent range of social security reforms if, with inflation rising, people tell me "I am about to receive less in 1989 than I did in 1988." That cannot be right.
  5.44 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle), who has a reputation for independence and thinking out his own thoughts. His speech would repay careful study by Ministers, and I hope that he will receive answers to the questions that he posed.
  It will come as no surprise to hon. Members who served on the Committee considering the Social Security Act 1986 that we are in this position today. I welcome the motion, which was ably presented by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), and will recommend that my colleagues vote for it.
  The Fowler reviews set themselves an impossible task. It was impossible to simplify matters, which was laudable, and increase targeting, which was also an honourable objective, without incurring any additional cost. It is the main reason for the difficulties being experienced now by hon. Members' constituents.
  The Secretary of State for Social Security and the Minister for Social Security are picking up the consequences of the fact that no detailed research was done prior to the Fowler reviews. We regularly have these debates, in which Conservative Members trade statistics and Opposition Members confront them with individual cases. It is a hopeless and frustrating process which gets us nowhere.
  Some of the points made by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar were right. Perhaps Opposition Members do exaggerate the number of people experiencing financial difficulty, but that does not detract from the fact that some are indeed suffering very real difficulties. The debate should not proceed further without our placing on record the fact that the basic level of premiums and allowances under the new income support, family credit and housing benefit rules are far too low to allow a normal person a normal standard of living and to play his or her part in the community. It is substantiated by figures produced by the Policy Studies Institute, which show that 2 million pensioners are on income support, 2 million additional pensioners are on housing benefit and I million are estimated to be claiming benefits to which they are entitled. That clearly shows that the basic state pension cannot provide for basic needs, and that state of affairs must be addressed. Almost half of the 10 million pensioners are caught in the poverty trap, and the Government have an obligation to do something urgently about that.
  Mr. Faye11: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the dilemma that faces any Government responsible for looking after pensioners who cannot otherwise look after themselves. He said that the basic pension is not adequate for 2 million pensioners on income support. That being so, what is the point in increasing the basic pension for rich people such as Lord Forte or the Prime Minister? Why not concentrate benefit on income support for the poorest pensioners? What is the point of spreading the jam thinly?
  Mr. Kirkwood: I do not think the hon. Member understands the difference between the needs of those on contributory state pensions and those who enjoy occupational pensions. I will try to deal with that point later in my speech.
  It is incumbent on Opposition Members to resist the temptation to be extravagant about numbers. I want to limit my remarks to the generation of pensioners with us now. They will come to the end of their natural lives between now and the end of the century. There has been a significant change in the rules for providing most income from occupational personal pensions and after the year 2000 when these pensions are the norm we will not have this problem of inadequate pension provision, but the problem will get worse before it gets better. There is no point in going on in abstract terms about total incomes or even average incomes of pensioners; we have to deal with the 2 million real people suffering real hardship now. That is the question the Government must address today.
  As was said earlier, benefits have increased in real terms over the period of this Government by only something like 2 per cent., while earnings have increased by more than 20 per cent. I think that the figures used by the hon. Member for Livingston are right; they are the ones the Library supplied to me. I am seeking to make a contrast between the increase in pensions and benefits and the increase in earnings, however measured, and the Government cannot deny, whichever figures are used, that there has been a substantial difference between them.
  I do not think it is possible to rely only on price protection between now and the end of the century. I understand why the Government should make that pledge, and it is a pledge worth having, but if one applied price protection to the July 1948 pension figure of £1·30, which was the original level at which the pension was set, it would only be something like £18·70 at today's prices for a single person, and the figure of £2·10 in July 1948 would now only be £30·59 for a married couple. Nobody would seek to justify that miserly level of increase over that period of time. Also, the Social Security Advisory Committee says time and again in its reports that the Government cannot simply, between now and the end of the century, hide behind the screen of price protection, because the standard of living of pensioners will inexorably fall further and further behind. That is an absolutely certain consequence of the Government restricting their policy for uprating benefits like pensions merely to price protection.
  Transitional protection is presented as an example of generosity by the Government. To me, it is a device to conceal the full extent of the original 1986 cuts. This debate will occur year after year, and it does this House no credit to keep running away from the fundamental problems causing the difficulties. I have warned in previous debates that this day would dawn, and constituents I meet are frequently distraught, furious and feel cheated. What distresses me more than anything else,
  776
  however, is that, after going through these three respective angry phases, they invariably adopt a resigned, subdued attitude, as they realise they must submit themselves to the Gradgrind of continuing poverty for yet another year or even longer.
  The poll tax rebate scheme, from a Scottish point of view, is in a state of total chaos. Nobody seems to be able to get answers to questions and all sorts of anomalies are appearing. This is a totally iniquitous, unjustified, damaging and complex new tax, loved by nobody north of the border. If English Tory Members think they have problems with transitional protection, just wait until the poll tax comes into force in England. In future in these debates words of criticism such as those of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar will seem like milk in balm compared with what they will then have to tell Ministers.
  Problems are not only restricted to deprived urban areas, but occur in rural areas, too. A series of very disturbing representations was made to me this weekend in Hutton in Berwickshire, an otherwise idyllic part of the world. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) lives within a stone's throw of there. He will confirm what type of place it is. There were real problems there which caused me substantial concern. Another separate problem is the fact that there is a capital upper limit of £8,000 on the poll tax rebate, and not, as should be since it is a personal charge, a married couple's upper limit of £16,000. This is in my view an absolute disgrace.
  I anticipate I will have the sympathy and support of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar for my final point. I am worried about the injustice experienced by those with small occupational pensions and other income. For reasons I have explained earlier, nearly half the 10 million pensioners in our country are potentially caught in a poverty trap. Any income over basic benefits is firstly taken into account in reducing their income support and then housing benefit. I have not done a calculation at the current rates, but under the benefit rates in place in November 1988 the first £30 of increased additional income could be reduced to £4 extra in certain circumstances, and I know of cases like that. It seems to me that, where the Inland Revenue has a special scheme enabling people to have the first £20 of income free from tax, it is quite wrong for the DSS to require it to be declared against income support and housing benefit. I put it to the Minister of State that the Department should do something urgently about that. Some earnings should be disregarded over and above those that already are. That would help remove some of the worst problems of the poverty trap faced by some of our worst-off pensioners.
  The Government do have a problem. Provision for pensioners between now and the end of the century is inadequate and a matter of real concern, and I hope the Government will take carefully into account what is said in debates like this and try to do something to alleviate problems caused by the whole transitional mechanism before it hits us again in the same disastrous way next year.
  5.56 pm
  Mr. Simon Burns: I do not know how familiar you are with contemporary rock music, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it may not have escaped your notice that a new rock song has been going around recently,

  777
  reviving a flagging theme, the red rose. Sadly, it will not get to No. 10. However, I have been struck by some of the lyrics in that song, saying
  "To help each other every day,
  Remove injustice on the way".
  Perhaps those lyrics are somewhat trite but, taken in isolation, no reasonable person can dispute the basic sentiments expressed. However, if these lyrics are a declaration of intent of any Labour party which might seek office at some distant time, and if they are taken in the context of today's motion by the official Opposition and the past record of the Labour Government of 1974 to 1979, they are meaningless. Good intentions, glib promises and pious rhetoric are just not good enough. It is a cruel deception to raise expectations which cannot be realised.
  Labour's October 1974 election manifesto proudly proclaimed
  "Britain will win with Labour".
  It proclaimed that Labour's policies would
  "protect the weak, the poor and the disabled, … and to maintain and improve their living standards."
  The subsequent performance of that Labour Government failed dismally to live up to those high-falutin' declarations. Labour might have been the winners, but the losers were the pensioners, the less well off and the disabled in our society.
  The oft-repeated claim that pensions increased each year by the movement of prices or earnings, whichever was the greater, is not sustainable. It was not honoured in 1976 or in 1978. If Labour had won the 1979 general election, its proposed policies would have meant that it would not have been honoured in 1979, either. Mrs. Barbara Castle dispensed with the historic calculation of earnings and replaced it with a system of forecasting in 1976. That deprived pensioners at a stroke—if I dare use that expression—of £500 million. At today's prices that is over £ 1 billion.
  To add insult to injury, the method of forecasting was wrong in five of the seven years in which it was used to calculate the increase in the state pension. Even the Christmas bonus did not escape unscathed. It was not paid in 1975 and 1976. If Lord Barnett's memoirs are to be believed, it was only a kicking and screaming Lord Ennals and the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) who agreed to pay the Christmas bonus in 1977. Opposition Members should think twice before lecturing the Government on their uprating of benefits record. Their criticisms do not square with the facts.
  The Government have not simply paid lip service to the need to help pensioners, the less well off and the disabled. They have encouraged the creation of wealth, with the result that this year the Government have been able to spend a record £51 billion on benefits. Approximately half of it is paid to the elderly. Pensioners have shared in the nation's prosperity. Their total incomes have grown twice as fast as those of everyone else and five times as fast as they grew under the last Labour Government.
  Much play has been made of the claim that Britain's pensioners lag behind those of our European competitors. Again that myth cannot be sustained, because 9·6 per cent. of Britain's gross domestic product is spent on all programmes for the elderly, excluding medical care. Britain is third on the EEC chart. We are marginally behind Denmark, at 10·4 per cent., and France at 9·8 per cent.
  778
  The most powerful argument for what the Government have done for pensioners comes not from me but from Mrs. Dorothy Rhodes, the president of the National Federation of Retirement Pensions Associations. Recently she said:
  "I have spoken loudly in support of parity with Europe but during the past year … having spoken at length to those who receive Europensions and discovered that in many cases the actual cash received in relation to the cost of living is often lower than in the United Kingdom, I am revising my opinion, for in no way can our Federation ask for an equality that would disadvantage our own people."
  There is a gulf between Conservative Members and the Opposition over pensions. The gulf is not about whether we care, or about trying to find the best solution and the best policies for providing help to the less well off. That does not divide us; everyone believes that the most effective help possible should be provided. What divides us is philosophy and the implementation of policy. Our policy during the last 10 years has benefited pensioners. We must create wealth so that the state can then spend the money that is generated on providing genuine help to the less well off and to pensioners whose only income is the state pension. It is crucial to target resources.
  I return to child benefit which, deliberately, has not been increased but frozen. My right hon. Friend's decision was absolutely correct. My wife and I have a young daughter. It is nonsense for my wife to receive a tax-free sum of money each week towards the upkeep of our child. I much prefer that money, or the money that my wife would have received as an increase in child benefit, to be targeted on genuinely less well-off families through the income support system and the family credit system.
  The less well off rightly deserve help and they a re getting it from the Government. The vast majority of people do not whine and complain. They accept the Government's philosophy. They accept also that the money is going to those who are in genuine need and who need to be helped.
  6.5 pm
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) asked you, M r. Deputy Speaker, whether you enjoyed pop music. My eldest son writes pop music, although I brought him up on Bach and Beethoven. I much prefer Bach and Beethoven. The majority of my pensioners preferred the Labour Government to the present Conservative Government when it came to pensions.
  The hon. Gentleman used the word "whine." That was obnoxious. The pensioners that I shall be speaking about are not whining. They are demanding a right that they worked for all their lives. In the community that I represent, many husbands have died and their widows have been left on their own. Their husbands earned poor money and died young as a result of the work that they did. Their widows have been left totally dependent on the state.
  We have been challenged and asked to look at total incomes and targeting. I accept both challenges. I expect the hon. Member for Chelmsford to accept the challenge that I intend to put to him, based on the cases to which I shall refer and also on the cases mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding). I refer to a widow whose husband died younger than he ought to have done, because of the work in which he was engaged. I wrote to

  779
  the local Department of Social Security office. I do that as a matter of course until I find that DSS employees are victims of Government policy. I complained that that widow would not receive a penny increase in the financial year 1989–90. I received a letter from the DSS, together with the calculation. I ask the Secretary of State to listen to the simple terms of the calculation, which are that the total income on 11 April 1988 was £47·90 and that the total income on 10 April 1989 was £47·90.
  Does the Secretary of State believe that a pensioner whose total income is £47·90 should be targeted? That pensioner, on £47·90, will have to soldier through the whole of the next financial year without a single penny increase in her pension. The whole of her pension increase has been clawed back because of the loss of the transitional addition. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Onger (Mr. McCrindle) did not say that he supported the cases that we are bringing to the Secretary of State's attention. This pensioner has lost the whole of the increase for 1989–90. Moreover, because she was in receipt of transitional addition amounting to £3·80 instead of just £2, she will lose the whole of her increase for 1990–91 as well.
  With the odd exception, Conservative Members are endorsing a system under which a pensioner with a total income of £47–90 will spend this year and next year without a single increase in her pension to cover increases in the cost of living. If we do not include the mortgage interest rate and take inflation as 5·5 per cent., we still know that water charges are to increase by 10 per cent., and that, despite low inflation, the cost of living and the prices of essential goods still change. We know that rents will go up, and only a percentage of those rent increases will be covered by increases in housing benefit.
  The pensioner I mentioned—I hope that the hon. Member for Chelmsford agrees that she should be targeted —is one of the 20 or 25 per cent. of pensioners who will have to depend on a static income to cover essential costs for the next two years. She is one of dozens of such pensioners in my constituency. Does the hon. Gentleman think that that is fair? Does he believe that the policy of targeting benefits should include that pensioner? In an intervention I asked the Secretary of State whether he thought that a pensioner on £47·90 a week should be targeted for support or whether that pensioner should go through the next two years without any increase in income to handle the additional costs of living. The Secretary of State did not reply.
  I understand that by their very nature transitional additions must be phased out, but we should remember that the transitional additional allowances were dragged out of the Government as a result of pressure from both sides of the House more than 12 months ago when the impact of the new scheme was fully understood. I understand that among others the Prime Minister at her Finchley surgery suddenly realised the consequences of introducing the new system. Why is there not the same reaction this year? The same thing is happening. The same dozens of people who knocked on our surgery doors last year—I hope that they are knocking on the surgery door of the hon. Member for Chelmsford—are now saying that they did not realise that when they received the transitional addition the entire increase in their pensions would be clawed back in a single year and within a year.
  780
  The transitional additional allowance was not some act of great generosity but was a limitation of the loss of benefit as a result of the change in the system. We should watch out for the Orwellian double talk that the Government use when they talk about the transitional additional allowance as if it were a marvellous act of generosity when it was limiting the loss of benefit as a result of the so-called reform to a simpler system.
  No one should have believed that a transitional addition equivalent to the entire increase in the pension should have been clawed back, as has happened. I hate to be in this position. I do not agree with the whole show and I do not agree with the system, but if we have to work the system and make a desperate plea on our hands and knees, I ask the Secretary of State now why he does not have an urgent rethink. He claims that he is monitoring, so here is the information he requires. Why does he not adjust the system at least by a much more gradual process by which the transitional additional allowance is clawed back? I hate the notion of presenting such a plea, but as the situation is desperate and the Government have a majority and can override our motion and continue to enforce the provisions, just as the Secretary of State had a rethink when he introduced the transitional allowances, will he not consider introducing in the next month or so some measure to provide a much slower and more gradual claw-back of the transitional addition? For example, he could say that no pensioner should lose more than one quarter of the increase in the next financial year.
  If the Secretary of State is to introduce such a horrid system, let him at least do it with some amelioration, and introduce a scheme so that pensioners, such as the widow to whom I referred, do not have to soldier through the coming year and the year after without any increase in income. I hate the idea of having to ask the Secretary of State to do it, but will he reconsider urgently the concept of phasing out the transitional additional allowances over a much longer period? Instead of clawing back the entire £2·06 increase this year and virtually writing off next year's increase in the income of the average pensioner such as the one I described—and there are dozens of them in my constituency—if the Secretary of State were to ameliorate that situation it would be a modest crumb for us and we could tell our constituents that someone has listened, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme argued.
  When the Minister replies, will he give his assessment of what it would cost not to claw back the full £2·06 from those in receipt of transitional addition in the next year if a pensioner were allowed to retain three quarters of the £2·06 increase? What will be the additional cost in a financial year to introduce a more gradual transition? Conservative Members repeatedly have defended the system by arguing that the Conservative party and not the Labour party has established a major economic success story which allows the Government to be generous to pensioners. But why can they not be generous to pensioners living on £47·90 a week? Why do they have to claw back the entire pension increase? We are not talking about millions of pounds. Perhaps we are talking about hundreds of thousands of pounds or whatever figure the Secretary of State or the Minister wishes to provide. If the Government's economic success story is so great, surely they can assist and support that group of pensioners.
  I read with fascination the Secretary of State for Wales' speech last night to that tower of Tory power, the Tory

  781
  Reform Group. He condemned the "simplistic economic dogma" which does not solve the nation's problems. Nor does the simplistic social policy dogma that has emanated from some quarters of the Government and the Conservative party. But the Secretary of State is a member of the Cabinet which endorsed all the changes. I look forward with great interest to his speech on social policy in the near future, on behalf of the pensioners whom I represent. But we have to depend upon urgent pleas to the Secretary of State.
  In the past few weeks, I have done what I did last year. I have sent a whole batch of cases, such as the case I have described, to the Prime Minister in the hope that some message of assistance and support to the pensioners may come from on high. I noticed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in presenting the Budget, spoke about the £14 billion he had to pay off the national debt. But there is another debt to be paid to a whole generation of elderly people who sacrificed their efforts, their health and their lives, and who are entitled not to request, to beg or to whine but to demand the right to a fair and just pension system.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is very little time and I hope that hon. Members will make brief speeches.
  6.17 pm
  Mr. John Butterfill:
  "I wish to raise the subject of the uprating of retirement pensions, and especially the uprating that took place last November. I want to call upon my hon. Friend the Minister to consider paying a bonus of an extra week's pension for Britain's 8 million pensioners. I believe that this is urgently required to make up for what I consider to be a sleight of hand or conjuring trick which occurred last November. At that time pensioners received 1·8 per cent. less than the law required that they should receive.…I do not think that Parliament should allow the pensioners to be double-crossed in the way that they have been over the latest pensions uprating…the pensioners' own money was hi-jacked by the Government to pay their Christmas bonuses at Christmas…many of us are seriously disturbed by the fact that a firm pledge, about which we have frequently publicly and proudly boasted, is apparently not to be honoured." [Official Report, 12 March 1979; Vol. 964, c. 231–35.]
  Those are harsh words, but they are not my words and they are not about this Government. Those are the words of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and the words of Mr. George Rodgers, the former Labour Member for Chorley, almost exactly 10 years ago, speaking about the last Labour Government. Whatever we may have heard from the Opposition about the good intentions of the Labour party, we can hear from their own lips what the performance was when they were last in power. For the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) to say that had their formula remained in place there would have been an increase of £17-plus a week for pensioners is sheer deception, as is manifest in the words of his Back-Bench colleagues that I have just quoted. The difficulty about the speech of the hon. Member for Livingston was that it was almost entirely anecdotal.
  Of course there are people who are suffering under the arrangements that have come into force recently. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) was right to point out that there are anomalies that need to be redressed. My right hon. Friend has said that he will look at these problems and keep the matter
  782
  under continuous review. Where the hon. Member for Livingston was wrong was in not giving any account of the enormous improvements that have been made by this Government, or of the enormous improvement in the welfare of pensioners that has taken place over the past few years. We are not talking just about the basic pension; the improvements in income support and in housing benefit have to be taken into account.
  My hon. Friends have already spoken about the total proportion of GDP that we in this country, compared with other European countries, spend on benefits. We are third in the European league. It is right that that 'should be pointed out, but it is right also to point out that the changes that we have made have not been made without extra money. An extra £200 million is being spent on income support as from October. In particular, the older and disabled pensioners will benefit by an extra £2·50 a week.
  Equally, the Opposition have taken no account of the exceptionally cold weather payments. Recently they criticised the basis on which those payments were made. But at least the payments were introduced by this Government; they did not exist when the last Labour Government were in power. The Labour Government certainly did not think of such payments. Nor have the Opposition paid any tribute to the very generous improvements in the tax allowances for pensioners that were introduced in the last Budget. The age allowance was increased very substantially, the age threshold was reduced, and the earnings rule was abolished. All of those things are very good news for pensioners.
  Instead, Opposition Members harp on about poverty. They produce statistics to show that an ever-increasing number of people in this country are living in poverty. It is worth looking at the basis of those claims. They tend to operate on one of two bases: either earnings related to average earnings, or earnings related to the thresholds for income support. Of course, the difficulty with that is that every time we improve the level of social security the number of people allegedly in poverty goes up. It is a no-win situation for the Government. But those are precisely the sort of statistics that the Opposition like to deal in.
  We have to look at the fact that we are now spending £51 billion on the social security budget, which is a real increase of 33 per cent. since the last Labour Government were in power. We have to look also at the increases that we have made in income support and family credit. The amount being paid in income support is £421 million more than was paid in supplementary benefit; and £400 million is being paid in family credit against £200 million under the old family income supplement. Those are real increases that are benefiting the majority of people.
  The great problem in this country is that, despite all the money that is being spent, we still have people who are genuinely poor. We must ask ourselves why it should be so. When we are spending £51 billion—nearly £1,000 a year for every man, woman and child in the country—why are there still poor people? If the bottom 10 per cent. of the population were regarded as the really needy, that would give them £10,000 a year each. Why do we have poor people? It is because benefit is very poorly targeted. So long as we have universal benefits, such as child benefit —this was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns)—there will be a problem. Of course, child benefit did not benefit the genuinely poor

  783
  because it was clawed back from their other benefits; it benefited only the middle classes. So long as we continue with nonsenses like that we will never redress poverty in this country.
  Mr. Robin Cook: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could clarify a point. He has just said that so long as we continue with nonsenses like universal benefits we will never resolve the problem of poverty. Is he including in "universal benefits" the state pension?
  Mr. Butterfill: I include all benefits in my assessment of the way in which we should treat people. I am not suggesting, for example, that we should get rid of the state pension, but I am saying that we need very much more accurate targeting of benefits if we are to eliminate poverty.
  6.26 pm
  Mrs. Rosie Barnes: The Government have a very shabby record in their treatement of the poor, the disabled and the under-privileged, particularly those who are dependent on benefits, and even more particularly the elderly. It is clear that the Government believe that by reducing the value of benefits, by failing to uprate benefits in line with inflation, they will produce a net result of a reduction in the dependency culture and will compel people back into productive economic employment. This is just not the case. People are not dependent on benefit of their own wish; the vast majority wish to be employed, and wish to have a dignified standard of living that they have earned and provided for themselves. If they are in need of a pension, if they are in need of benefit, it is not something that they have willed upon themselves.
  It is a disgrace that, at a time when inflation is running at nearly 8 per cent, we see increases in benefit of only 5·9 per cent. There is nothing complicated about the net effect of that: the poor will become poorer—straight, unavoidable fact. There is no whining about it, no harping on about it; I am simply reporting what many of my constituents have told me, and what the constituents of all hon. Members will be telling them over the coming weeks. Whatever extravagant claims the Government may make, nothing can explain the policy of lowering the income of those people who are dependent on benefits.
  That is particularly exacerbated by the combined system of taxation and benefit—or rather the fact that those are not combined. The two have to be looked at together because, together, they exacerbate the poverty trap. They frequently and continually inhibit people from taking low-paid or part-time work because, by doing so, those people would be worse off than they are when on benefit. Most people do not have a fair choice—the combined effect of the tax and social security system ensures that they stay at the bottom of the pile.
  My greatest criticism of the Government is of their meanness of spirit. Yes, the system is simpler than it was before—and that is to be welcomed—but it is also totally inadequate. The Government had an invaluable opportunity to revise the system, to simplify it, and to make sure that no one was worse off. Such opportunities come very rarely. There was an opportunity last year, and the
  784
  Government passed it over. Yes, many people are worse off. We are talking about a minority, but it is a minority of people who are suffering through no fault of their own.
  We are looking not at a decision that was made against the backcloth of a shortage of revenue, but at one that was made against the backcloth of a surplus of £15 billion. Despite the growing shadow of inflation, which endangers our economic recovery, we have seen consistently strong economic growth. One of the advantages of a strong, successful economy is that it enables a caring, socially responsible Government to share the fruits of success with those members of society who have not been able to benefit directly—those who are not earning high wages, those who are not getting increased revenue from shareholdings. If the Government seriously want to encourage everyone to participate in our economic success, they should understand that they must give everyone, including the needy and the poor, a share of that success. They should never have considered cutting the real value of social security benefits.
  The uprating of pensions and other benefits, including child benefit, should be automatic. The Government have shunted child benefit to one side and it has been gradually eroded, presumably in order to dismantle the universality of that benefit.
  The Government should go further and examine ways to make benefits more buoyant. They should ensure that the poor benefit from our economic success by giving an additional increase in benefits which is related to the success of the economy. It is a measure of the Government that, today, we are debating real cuts in benefit. We are witnessing the poor becoming poorer when the Chancellor does not know how to spend the reserves that he has.
  Pensioners have a particular right to be angry. The Government happily preside over a system of supposedly contributory benefits. The system educates people to believe that they are paying into a fund on which they will be able to draw, by right and with dignity, in later life. In reality, however, the Government treat pensions as though they were a handout rather than money which is given back to those who have paid in over the years. Pensioners are only asking for what is theirs by right and for what they have paid. They are right to argue that the Government are wrong to cut the value of their pensions. This is an argument of principle that goes far beyond the fact that many pensioners are living in great poverty today. If the Government have decided that they do not accept the contributory principle, they should have the courage to say so rather than to act as the arbiters and controllers of what is given back to those who have paid over the years.
  The growing number of dependent elderly poses a challenge to and a great problem for the future reduced working-age population. To try to wriggle out of social obligations, to try to reduce the cost of supporting the elderly by cutting pensions and by trying to push the elderly into the private health sector by subsidising private health insurance amounts to a cowardly approach to a problem that must be faced honestly and openly.
  It is right to continue the tax relief on personal private pensions to enable many people to enjoy a better standard of living in later life. Ultimately, if the majority of our elderly are covered by such schemes, it may be right to reduce the extra tax relief given to pensioners through the age allowance. For the majority of today's pensioners, however, the state pension is their basic income. It is clear to anyone who meets and talks to pensioners regularly that

  785
  their basic pension is not high enough. Those with small occupational pensions often suffer even more deprivation because they are denied access to the benefits that may be claimed by those with no additional pension.
  We must consider seriously the provision for poor pensioners. To achieve a better allocation of resources is not just a question of giving more money. We must change the structure to make claiming a more straightforward and simplified matter, with less stigma attached to it. The answer must lie in the integration of the tax and benefit systems. Only by aggregating everyone's earnings and benefit entitlement can a sensitive assessment of net tax burden or net benefit entitlement be made. An integrated system is perfectly feasible within a computerised Inland Revenue. That would eliminate the "churning" of revenue that results in the Government giving with one hand and taking back with the other. For the population as a whole it would ensure that people did not become worse off by taking on work and subsequently losing benefit. Within such a system provision for poor pensioners should be a priority.
  Mr. Butterfill: The system that the hon. Lady has adumbrated has some merit. Would it involve withdrawing universal benefit such as child benefit?
  Mrs. Barnes: No. My party strongly defends child benefit. It was, in part, a tax concession that was taken away from the main earner in the family and given to the caring parent, usually the mother. Time does not permit me to take that argument further this evening.
  Other measures that we advocate, particularly for the elderly, include the miserly £10 bonus at Christmas. We believe that a double pension should be given the week before Christmas. We should also seriously consider abolishing the standing charges on gas, electricity and telephones, which hit the elderly particularly hard.
  The issue today is not how much the system costs but how effective it is. Does it fairly do the job it was set up to do? No one believes that any increase below the level of inflation will do anything other than make people poorer. There has been some indictment today of the use of anecdotes, but those who have made such criticisms should remember that anecdotes represent people who are suffering and that they are symptomatic of some of the failings of the system. They highlight the gaps which we must plug.
  On Friday night, a constituent, a single parent with three children, came to me. She is a diabetic and, because her eldest child has just turned 16, her income has fallen from £72·96 a week to £46·31. Her 16-year-old son has not yet got a job. Her doctor sent a letter to tell me that she may be hospitalised because her diabetes is getting out of control as she is eating badly. How can I explain to my constituent just how fair and compassionate the Government are? Such anecdotes represent people. They may represent the minority, but they are suffering, and they deserve the attention and a share of the resources of this country.
  6.36 pm
  Mr. Tony Favell: I shall confine my remarks to a few basic truths about the basic pension. A country is judged on the way in which it treats its pensioners and that is right, because a decent society should be judged on how it treats its elderly citizens.
  786
  There are widely held misconceptions about the basic pension. There is a belief held by the young, including the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes), that most pensioners have to live on the basic pension. But they do not. Opposition parties complain about the rate of increase in the basic pension and ask whether it is reasonable to expect couples to live on £65·80 a week. The answer is that none do because the basic income support level is above the basic pension. Therefore, any couple on basic pension are entitled to income support and if they are householders they are also entitled to housing benefit.
  Opposition Members have complained that one fifth of our elderly population are on income support or receive housing benefit, but that means that four fifths of our pensioners also have occupational pensions or savings, or both. What on earth is the point of raising the basic pension to the level advocated by the Opposition parties? As I said earlier in an intervention, what is the point of spreading the jam so thinly that no one benefits? There are many pensioners who are very rich and what is the point of giving extra help to them? As I said earlier, what is the point of benefiting Lord Forte or the Prime Minister? It is much more sensible to target extra help to those in real need.
  Mr. Allen McKay rose——
  Mr. Favell: No, I shall not give way. With a falling working population and the elderly thankfully living longer, to increase the basic pension would have no purpose and would simply be a waste of money.
  6.40 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Our motion refers to the fall in income that has been experienced under the Conservatives by vulnerable groups, including many pensioners, and I remind the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) that many pensioners do not claim the means-tested benefits to which they might be entitled because they are proud and resent the fact that those benefits are means tested. They are among the most vulnerable and needy and they most lose out and resent being deprived of that basic pension increase which is still the most important part of the income of the vast majority of pensioners.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) admirably exposed the Government's lamentable record on pensions, and it was plain again, as in the past, that neither the Secretary of State nor his Back Benchers had much in the way of any accurate response to make to refute the points that my hon. Friend made. They had even less to say about the case made on behalf of those whose standard of living not only dropped last year but will drop again this year—those for whom the Prime Minister's recent sweeping assertion that everyone is better off under Conservative rule rang hollow.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston pointed out that every one of those individuals benefiting from or receiving transitional protection, whose difficulties we are highlighting in this debate, and many of whose case histories have been given by my hon. Friends and others, are the people who were untruthfully described by the Prime Minister and other Ministers last year as being no worse off after last year's benefit cuts—some of the 88 per cent. about whom that outrageous claim was made.

  787
  Indeed, Ministers defended the claim that they were no worse off by saying that they were no worse off because they faced no cash losses. By definition, the Secretary of State either chose not to, or could not, answer the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston. By definition, every one of those vulnerable individuals whose cases have been highlighted in this debate were among those whom the Prime Minister said were no worse off, though their income rose at most by £1·30 and their bills alone, including in most cases their rate and water rate bills, rose by far more. They have since faced the rise in gas and electricity prices without a penny more. That was last year. This year, 600,000 of them again get not a penny more, while another 500,000 or so will get some increase, but not the full increase needed to meet price rises in November and which are already out of date.
  The Government's response to the plight of those people is to talk about something else. The Government are hoping that if they shut their eyes tightly enough and for long enough they will all go away, and that if the Government shout loudly enough and long enough, mouthing one set of meaningless or manipulated figures after another, either those people will not be heard or they will not be believed. But Opposition Members are determined that they will be heard because they have a right to be heard.
  It is bad enough that we have a Government who are so uncaring and deceitful that they are prepared to cut the standard of living of the most vulnerable people in the country and call it targeting on those in the greatest need. They do not even have the guts to admit that that is what they have done. To the injury of increased struggle they add the insult of pretending that it is not happening.
  The Conservative case is that they are doing more than any previous Government. It is certainly true that the Conservatives have had the opportunity. No Government in history have had a windfall gain such as that of North sea oil—revenues secured for them by the Labour Government whom they succeeded, who did not believe in throwing away the nation's assets—[Interruption.] It is all very well for Conservative Members to laugh. If the policies of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) had been pursued by the last Labour Government there would have been no North sea oil revenues for them to throw away. But that opportunity, like those assets, has been squandered.
  Indeed, almost every penny of the increased expenditure of which the Secretary of State spoke—spending in real terms of which the Government boast —is due not to more generous benefits but to increased numbers forced to draw them. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) pointed out, there are more people unemployed, more people reaching retirement, more living longer in retirement and showing increased frailty and more with some disability who can no longer find work under Conservative rule. Only three times in 10 years have the Conservatives given a real increase in benefits over and above that required by inflation-proofing, and even those amounts were usually tiny.
  If the Conservatives have been so generous, how did it happen that 600,000 people did not get a penny more this year for the second year running, with no cost of living
  788
  increase? Whose fault was it that there was no increase in child benefit for 12 million children and no increase of any kind for the upkeep of nearly 8 million of them? What wicked fairy brought about the reduction in case load that meant that I million people lost all help with their rent and rates?
  We have had a further indication today of the generosity of the Government. I refer to a report in today's Glasgow Times about the handling of deductions from the income support of people who are refusing to pay the poll tax deductions to which the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) referred. A memo sent to all DSS offices in Scotland has been leaked to the Glasgow Times. It states:
  "In deciding whether a deduction can be made"—
  for the poll tax—
  "the adjudication officer will ensure that there is sufficient Income Support to allow for the deduction to be made in full whilst leaving 10p in payment to the claimant."
  That is 10p a week, and of course it must be left in payment to the claimant because that is the law. That is the generosity of the Government.
  I understand that over the weekend the Minister of State was reported as saying that when a new system of benefits such as this was introduced it was inevitable that there would be losers. That was obviously in the Whips' Office briefing because several Conservative Members have referred to it.
  The Minister was talking nonsense. We know how the Prime Minister fancies that she is the Queen. Is it now the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State who considers herself or himself to be Moses? Was it divine revelation written on tablets of stone that there were bound to be losers, or were those just the instructions handed down by No. 10 and the Treasury?
  There are bound to be losers because that has been decided by the Government. They chose it. It is not the product of some natural or divine law. It is certainly not divine law that the losers should be found among the elderly, the poor, the halt and the lame. That sounds much more like the woman who thought that the only thing that mattered about the Good Samaritan was that he had money in his pocket, not that he was prepared to spend it on the unfortunate. The victim was lucky that the Prime Minister did not pass by, or he would have got a brisk lecture on the value of standing on his own two feet.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston pointed out, the Department has been throwing away sources of income that could have been used to make sure that there did not have to be losers. He referred to the supplement that every Government have made for 40 years, the supplement from tax revenues to make sure that decent pensions could be paid to the elderly and the disabled.
  In 1980–81, £4·5 billion came from tax revenues for that purpose, but this coming year there will not be a penny, not because it is divine or natural or any kind of law other than that made by the Government, but because this Administration decided that it was money that the pensioners and the disabled did not need. In their view, they were already too well off.
  The Government's attitude to the erosion of transitional protection is, in some ways, the most puzzling of all. Why are the Government prepared to defend a cut in the standard of living of the elderly, the sick and the

  789
  least well-off families, a standard of living that even the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) described as buying simplification at too great a cost?
  A parliamentary answer that I received suggested that the full uprating of income support for which the motion calls could have been provided for about £70 million. In October, as the Government amendment to the motion records, they are spending three times as much to save the Chancellor's face and divert attention away from his long-term plans to means-test benefits such as child benefit, the Christmas bonus and—as the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) was good enough to confirm—even the basic state pension. If the Government can find £200 million to help out the Chancellor, the money could have been found to uprate those benefits where transitional protection was being paid when the overall uprating was calculated.
  The Government amendment proudly asserts the huge success of their economic policies. In other words, the Government are not saying that they could not have found the extra money. Why is it so important for them to push through these cuts, comparatively minor by the Government's standards and doubly difficult to defend? What principle is at stake?
  Since the changes of April last year the Government have tried to insist that they have made no real or significant cuts. Every example to the contrary has been decried and denied. In particular, they have insisted that if any problems were inadvertently created, it was all in the cause of targeting the help still given on those in the greatest need.
  What could more surely reveal the phoneyness and dishonesty of that case than the existence alongside a growing band of new claimants of a group, however small or fast diminishing, of people whose problems, sickness or distress were identical in all major respects but who got much more money because their benefit level under the old system was permanently protected?
  When the woeful inadequacy of many new benefit levels becomes apparent by comparing people's needs with their resources, what will more dramatically blow the gaff on the Government's case than a simple straightforward comparison between what is paid now and what used to be paid? We can all write the script. Mrs A gets the old level of benefit but under the new scheme Mrs. B, if she becomes ill or is injured, will receive less money every week. What could more starkly prove what we know to be the truth, which is that the Government believe that 1 million of our most vulnerable people were too well off last April? Although the Government were prepared to see the standard of living of those people fall, they are a bit squeamish about admitting it. People might even have remembered that two weeks earlier the same Government had lavished tax cuts on the wealthy.
  Mr. Butterfill: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Beckett: No, I do not have time. I would have given way if the hon. Gentleman had asked me earlier.
  The debate is taking place not because justice and fair treatment for the 1 million people who have not received a full uprating or any at all cannot be afforded, but because that would expose the sham and the meanness of Government policy. The hardship of those people is the price of concealment.
  6.50 pm
  The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I am delighted to know that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) listens to my weekend broadcasts. I do not resile for a moment from saying that I approached the debate with some relish, although the relish is slightly diminished because in my winding-up speech I have to deal with the statistical argument between the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. l utterly refute the Opposition accusation that my right hon. Friend intended to mislead the House. The statistics quoted by the hon. Member for Livingston and those quoted by my right hon. Friend are simply different statistics. Both sets of statistics are accurate and acceptable in their own way, and the House can judge which set is more relevant to the debate. Having looked at both sets of statistics, I have no doubt where the right answer lies.
  The hon. Member for Livingston obtained his figures from the Library and they relate to the basic state pension calculated as a proportion of male earnings. My right hon. Friend's figures were from the 1986 family expenditure survey and compare total state benefits with average manual earnings. The difference in the two sets of figures is easily explained. It is not the basic state pension that matters to pensioners, but their total income—in this case from state benefits. Those may include a whole range of benefits apart from the basic state pension. The important point about the statistics is that they contain figures about actual people with actual incomes. The figures supplied by the Library and quoted by the hon. Gentleman describe the pensioner equivalent of that well-known figure the person with 2·3 children. Such figures are an abstraction rather than a representation of the reality of what is happening.
  Now that the hon. Member for Livingston has listened to my explanation and has reconsidered the matter, I hope that he will share my preference for the figures quoted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Gentleman will read what I have said. If he cares to write to me about the matter, I shall be perfectly happy to conduct the argument by correspondence. I am certain that we have the right answer.
  The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) accused the Government of abysmal failure in running the social security system. Let us consider what has happened to total benefits under the Government. In 1988–89 the total benefit figure was calculated at £45·2 billion—a real increase of £10·9 billion since 1978–79. That increase was due to many factors, such as a real terms increase in the average amount paid accounting for about £3·9 billion, and increased numbers of beneficiaries accounting for about £7 billion, of which £2·2 billion was accounted for by extra unemployment. Over the same period, social security spending rose from 25·6 per cent. to 31 per cent. of public expenditure. That is what the right hon. Gentleman describes as abysmal failure. In fact, it shows a successful economy generating money for extra expenditure on people who need help.
  The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South takes a special interest in the disabled and their entitlement to benefit. He knows as well as I do that in the past 10 years there has been a 90 per cent. increase in benefits for disabled people, a real terms increase of no less than £3·5 billion. The right hon. Gentleman was right to say that £3

  791
  billion of that was due to increased take-up and that about £500 million was due to the increased level of benefits. The numbers of disabled people did not suddenly multiply when we came to office. Those people were there when the Labour Government were in office but they were not getting benefits then. They are getting benefits now, and that must surely be right.
  Mr. Ashley: The Minister now admits that the Government are wrong to claim that all the money has gone to increase the individual incomes of disabled people because the larger numbers of disabled people mean that it is a small increase for individual disabled people.
  Mr. Scott: The Government have never made any such assertion—certainly not while I have been in my present post, and none of my predecessors has done so. We have never said that the figures were anything other than those that I have just given—and those figures can not only be defended but applauded.
  With his tongue firmly in his cheek the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South asked me to prophesy our reaction to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys reports and the nature of the review that we intend to conduct when we finally receive those reports. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to be patient and to await the arrival of the remaining four reports. I do not think that he could expect any other answer.
  Without unduly delaying any action that might flow from our consideration of those reports, we shall want to find some way in which disabled organisations and perhaps hon. Members can make their views known as to the most appropriate way forward. We shall then take those views into account before making up our mind.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) raised a specific case, and was not the only hon. Member to do so. I make it a general rule not to reply to questions about individual cases across the Floor of the House because it is difficult to establish the basic facts, but I will look at the case that the hon. Lady put forward. I can tell her that the package for poorer pensioners introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will provide a second uprating this year for poorer pensioners and that the October uprating will not erode transitional protection. We have made special arrangements to make sure of that. I hope that the hon. Lady will draw that to the attention of her constituent.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) endorsed the simplicity of the new system but seemed to argue that we should return to the complexities of the additional requirements which existed under the supplementary benefits system. I remind him and the House that the additional requirements were complex and needed a great deal of intrusive questioning to ascertain the amount to which people were entitled. We got rid of those complexities and replaced them with a severe disablement premium. With Government money we established the independent living fund so that the needs of people with exceptional requirements could be met, thus preventing such people from being institutionalised rather than supported in the community. Those people were helped in a compassionate and flexible manner and the independent living fund has turned out to be a considerable success.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Scott: I have much regard for the hon. Gentleman but I have two minutes in which to complete the winding-up speech. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not give way.
  When I saw the Opposition motion, I could hardly believe my eyes. It is now 12 months since the introduction of the reforms——
  Mr. Rowlands: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Scott: No. I shall read carefully what the hon. Gentleman has said and I shall write to him because the argument is complex.
  When I first saw the Opposition motion, I could hardly believe my eyes. Twelve months after the introduction of the reforms and all the predictions of dire consequences flowing from them, the Opposition have laboured mightily and brought forth a mouse. At the weekend I heard a commentator say that in preparing to mount their attack on the Government the Labour Opposition had decided to concentrate their forces on a broad front—not a military tactic with which I am familiar—but it may be that they have had second thoughts on that and decided to concentrate on a much narrower target today. Perhaps this is because, as successive commentators have recognised and as most hon. Members recognise, they know that when we get away from the minority of individual hard cases—I accept that hard cases exist—the overwhelming success of our reforms is manifest.
  The motion concentrates on two points—the way in which pensions are calculated, and the transitional protection. With regard to the first, the Opposition make two points—first, about the date of the calculation and, secondly, about whether it should be linked to earnings and prices. We have given a commitment to link it to prices and we have fulfilled that obligation. The Labour party had a variety of devices linking it to earnings or moving to the forecasting method.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) very effectively explained in his opening remarks the criticisms that were levelled against the Labour Government at the time. Further on in that debate the hon. Member then for Coventry, South-West—now the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise)—made it clear why that change had been made when she said:
  "In April 1976, when the changed basis of calculation was announced, it was clear that the change was brought into being because it was advantageous to the Government at that stage and saved £500 million compared with what would have been required for that pension uprating to keep in line with the historic costs of inflation."—[Official Report, 12 March 1979; vol. 964, c. 236.]
  That was the record of the Labour Government.
  We have given pledges and we have honoured them, and we shall continue to do so. We have honoured our commitment to monitor these reforms and to make changes where necessary in housing benefit and with regard to poorer pensioners, widows, 16 and 17-year-olds and hostels, and we shall continue to do so. The fundamental structure, however, is right and I commend the Government amendment to the House.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 220, Noes 308.

  Divlslon No. 153]

  [7.02 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Fyfe, Maria

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Allen, Graham

  Galloway, George

  Alton, David

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Anderson, Donald

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  George, Bruce

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Ashton, Joe

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Gould, Bryan

  Barron, Kevin

  Graham, Thomas

  Battle, John

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Beggs, Roy

  Grocott, Bruce

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Harman, Ms Harriet

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

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Haynes, Frank

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Blair, Tony

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Blunkett, David

  Henderson, Doug

  Boateng, Paul

  Hinchliffe, David

  Bradley, Keith

  Holland, Stuart

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Home Robertson, John

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Howells, Geraint

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Buchan, Norman

  Hoyle, Doug

  Buckley, George J.

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Caborn, Richard

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Illsley, Eric

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Ingram, Adam

  Cartwright, John

  Janner, Greville

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Clay, Bob

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Clelland, David

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Kennedy, Cnarles

  Cohen, Harry

  Kilfedder, James

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Corbett, Robin

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Lambie, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Lamond, James

  Cox, Tom

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Crowther, Stan

  Leighton, Ron

  Cryer, Bob

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Lewis, Terry

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Litherland, Robert

  Dalyell, Tam

  Livsey, Richard

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

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

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dewar, Donald

  McAllion, John

  Dixon, Don

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dobson, Frank

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Doran, Frank

  McFall, John

  Douglas, Dick

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  McKelvey, William

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  McLeish, Henry

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Maclennan, Robert

  Eadie, Alexander

  McWilliam, John

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Madden, Max

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Marek, Dr John

  Fatchett, Derek

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Marshall, Jim (Lelcester S)

  Fearn, Ronald

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Martlew, Eric

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

  Maxton, John

  Flannery, Martin

  Meacher, Michael

  Flynn, Paul

  Meale, Alan

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Foster, Derek

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Foulkes, George

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Fraser, John

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  794

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Sillars, Jim

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mullin, Chris

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Murphy, Paul

  Smith, C. (Islton & F'bury)

  Nellist, Dave

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

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  O'Brien, William

  Snape, Peter

  O'Neill, Martin

  Soley, Clive

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Stott, Roger

  Parry, Robert

  Strang, Gavin

  Patchett, Terry

  Straw, Jack

  Pendry, Tom

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Turner, Dennis

  Prescott, John

  Vaz, Keith

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Wall, Pat

  Radice, Giles

  Wallace, James

  Randall, Stuart

  Walley, Joan

  Redmond, Martin

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Robertson, George

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Rogers, Allan

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Rooker, Jeff

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wilson, Brian

  Rowlands, Ted

  Winnick, David

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Salmond, Alex

  Worthington, Tony

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths and Mr. Ken Eastham.

  Short, Clare

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Alexander, Richard

  Burns, Simon

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Allason, Rupert

  Butcher, John

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Butterfill, John

  Amess, David

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Amos, Alan

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Carrington, Matthew

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Ashby, David

  Chapman, Sydney

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Chope, Christopher

  Atkins, Robert

  Churchill, Mr

  Atkinson, David

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

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Baldry, Tony

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Colvin, Michael

  Batiste, Spencer

  Conway, Derek

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Couchman, James

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Cran, James

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Critchley, Julian

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

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

  Body, Sir Richard

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Day, Stephen

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Dicks, Terry

  Boswell, Tim

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bottomley, Peter

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Jamess

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Dover, Den

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Dunn, Bob

  Bowis, John

  Durant, Tony

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Eggar, Tim

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Brazier, Julian

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Bright, Graham

  Evennett, David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

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

  Fallon, Michael

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Favell, Tony

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  795

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Key, Robert

  Forman, Nigel

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Knapman, Roger

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Franks, Cecil

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Freeman, Roger

  Knox, David

  French, Douglas

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Fry, Peter

  Lang, Ian

  Gale, Roger

  Latham, Michael

  Gardiner, George

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Gill, Christopher

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Lilley, Peter

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Lord, Michael

  Gorst, John

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Gow, Ian

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Gregory, Conal

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Maclean, David

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Grist, Ian

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Ground, Patrick

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Grylls, Michael

  Malins, Humfrey

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mans, Keith

  Hague, William

  Maples, John

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mates, Michael

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Hannam, John

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

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

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Harris, David

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Hayes, Jerry

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Hayward, Robert

  Moate, Roger

  Heddle, John

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Hill, James

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Howard, Michael

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

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

  Moss, Malcolm

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Neale, Gerrard

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Needham, Richard

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Neubert, Michael

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Irvine, Michael

  Norris, Steve

  Irving, Charles

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Jack, Michael

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Janman, Tim

  Paice, James

  Jessel, Toby

  Patnick, Irvine

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  796

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Pawsey, James

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Portillo, Michael

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Price, Sir David

  Thorne, Neil

  Raffan, Keith

  Thurnham, Peter

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Redwood, John

  Tracey, Richard

  Renton, Tim

  Tredinnick, David

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Trippier, David

  Riddick, Graham

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Rost, Peter

  Walden, George

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Ryder, Richard

  Waller, Gary

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Ward, John

  Scott, Nicholas

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Watts, John

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Wells, Bowen

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Wheeler, John

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Whitney, Ray

  Shersby, Michael

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Sims, Roger

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Wilkinson, John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wilshire, David

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Squire, Robin

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wood, Timothy

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Woodcock, Mike

  Steen, Anthony

  Yeo, Tim

  Stern, Michael

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.

  Sumberg, David

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to. MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House notes that it is now one year since the Government introduced a simpler, fairer, more flexible system of income-related benefits and that the uprating which took place yesterday added a further £2·2 billion to spending on social security, now running at £51 billion a year; and congratulates the Government on the success of its economic policies which have enabled it not only to fulfil the pledge to maintain the value of the basic retirement pension in line with price movements but also to use the new system of income-related benefits to direct additional help this year of over a quarter of a billion pounds beyond the normal uprating to those in greatest need.

  Construction Industry (Safety)
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move, That this House, alarmed that the number of fatal and major accidents on building sites is up by two-thirds since 1981, and noting the Government's responsibility in encouraging relentless commercial pressures whilst at the same time failing to enforce safety standards, fully supports the efforts of workers and trade unions in the industry to press for higher health and safety standards; and calls upon the Government to increase inspection, improve site management and enforce tougher penalties that counter effectively profit pressures and managerial negligence.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I should inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Meacher: The Opposition have chosen to debate safety in the construction industry because it represents a microcosm of the rising toll of preventable carnage that has affected all our industries over the last 10 years. The facts are not in dispute. Last year 157 building workers were killed on site, nearly one quarter of them in London alone. The number of fatal and major accidents is up by no less than two thirds on 1981, and on average a construction worker is killed or seriously injured every hour and less serious accidents occur every two minutes. Those are Government figures. They are shocking enough, but, by concentrating on the immediate causes of fatal and major accidents, even those figures ignore the far greater number of construction-related deaths, as many as 4,000 a year, caused later by bronchitis, cancer and other diseases of dust and lousy working conditions.
  The Health and Safety Executive lays the blame for all this with the employers. According to "Blackspot Construction", the publication of the Health and Safety Executive in June last year, 90 per cent. of deaths on building sites could have been prevented, and at least 70 per cent. were directly due to the negligence of management. The Government accept no responsibility. With regard to building sites, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State told the House earlier this year, with mind-blowing complacency, that he was
  "confident the law is already being enforced stringently."— [Official Report, 17 January 1989; Vol. 145, c. 168.]
  Let us consider the facts. There are only 85 construction inspectors for the entire country. In London there are only 12 who have to cover 200,000 building sites, so that each inspector is responsible for 17,000 building sites. If that is what the Under-Secretary calls stringent enforcement of the law, let us compare it with the near doubling of the number of social security fraud inspectors by the Government. If only the Government were as anxious to stop death and serious injury in the workplace as they are to stop benefit fraud, we would not have half the number of accidents.
  How can the Minister seriously claim that the law is being enforced stringently when in London last year there were 36 deaths on construction sites and 413 major injuries, but there were only 18 prosecutions? The average fine was a piffling £1,050, scarcely even pocket money for some major construction firms. How is the law being enforced stringently when no action was taken on more than half the sites where a death or major injury occurred?
  In their amendment the Government have found only two measures which they have taken to halt the rising toll
  798
  of death and serious injury and those are enforcement blitzes and publicity campaigns—[Interruption.] I am surprised that Conservative Members are so disinterested in this subject and the rising roll call of death that they find it amusing to talk of other matters when this high level of carnage is happening in the industry as a result of the Government's omissions.
  Clearly the news has not trickled through to the Secretary of State for Employment that enforcement blitzes and publicity campaigns have been dismissed as inadequate by the Health and Safety Executive. The HSE notes about publicity that there was no improvement in site safety where the agent or supervisor knew of the blitz campaign compared with where they did not. The HSE also refuted the Secretary of State's claims in the Government's amendment by concluding:
  "Clearly even a high level of publicity does not on its own achieve improved safety on sites."
  We await further proposals from the Government about these problems, but so far they have produced none.
  The Government fair no better with their blitz campaigns. The HSE found that there was no significant reduction in death and serious injury on construction sites during the campaigns. That is a pretty sobering conclusion. The HSE also found that the issuing of prohibition notices during the two years of blitzes also revealed no significant improvement in site safety. That is not the Labour party view; it is the view of the HSE. So much for the way in which the Government hyped the blitzes as a great success.
  Mr. Harry Cohen: With regard to publicity and the Government taking these matters seriously, the Government do not even appear to be taking this debate seriously, because the Secretary of State for Employment is not going to answer these very important points about safety on construction sites. He is too busy creating mayhem in the docks.
  Mr. Meacher: Anyone watching our proceedings and seeing that there are only seven or eight Conservative Back Benchers here, compared with many more Labour Members, will draw the right conclusion about the importance which the Government attach to health and safety. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) is aware, when the Secretary of State for Employment made his statement about the dock labour scheme the Conservative Benches were full to brimming because the Conservatives want confrontation. They are not interested in health and safety.
  There would be a real difference in the position if there were proper deterrent penalties. However, the Secretary of State will not impose such penalties. On 6 January The Independent reported:
  "Mr. Fowler does not support calls for top company personnel to be jailed where health and safety has been flouted. He hoped safety breaches would be taken 'very seriously indeed' by the courts"
  even though he knows that there is abundant evidence that that will not happen. The Independent continued quoting the Secretary of State, who said:
  "I do not think we should go to the lengths of sending, people to prison."
  Perhaps we should not go to the lengths of sending people to their deaths on manifestly unsafe building sites. The Independent continued:

  799
  "His department was 'looking at' the use of television to advertise the safety message. The medium has been heavily used to promote Government training schemes."
  That is certainly true. Obviously the Secretary of State can find £4 million to revive his flagging employment training programme, but that only involves taking people off the unemployment register. When it comes to paying for media coverage to save people's lives, the Secretary of State is only "looking at" the matter. What a stark difference.
  Our case is not just that the Government's record on health and safety in the construction industry is limp and feeble, even though it certainly is; it is much more serious than that. In their amendment, the Government conveniently place all the blame on
  "employers and others on site;"
  Our central contention is that the Government have wilfully generated a commercial climate in which employers are forced to make a choice between getting business and safety, and workers are forced to make a choice between keeping their jobs and safety—[Interruption.] I am glad that the Secretary of State for Employment has finally decided to join us. However, we are disappointed to learn that he does not regard health and safety as sufficiently important to address the House and has delegated this task to his junior.
  By encouraging a climate of unrelenting commercial pressure while failing to enforce safety standards, the Government have undermined 100 times over such small health and safety intitiatives as they have taken. The climate of intensified competition, of reduced contract times and heavy penalty clauses for delay have helped to squeeze health and safety out of money contracts.
  Mr. Len Dodds, the chief safety adviser to Balfour Beatty, one of our major construction firms, has said:
  "It does appear that to obtain a satisfactory safety performance on major construction projects a minimum figure of between 6–7 per cent. of total labour costs should be allowed … Responsible contracting companies have been seriously disadvantaged by the cowboy element in our industry under-cutting prices, which inevitably means ignoring safety provisions."
  In other words, the untrammelled commercial pressures unleashed by the Government, combined with their abject failure to enforce proper safety standards, have, according to a senior construction executive, caused the safety margin to be squeezed out. That is the essence of our charge against the Government.
  There is an estimated £12 billion worth of building work going on at present in London and the south-east, a much higher level than for many years. Clients are taking advantage of the current no holds barred business climate to demand completion from contractors in record time. However, at the same time, more building workers are self-employed and at the mercy of the casualisation of the industry which has created a huge hire and fire labour turnover.
  The truth is not the Government's facile view about the causes of the rising level of accidents. The root of the worsening record of the construction industry lies in the lack of training. In the White Paper published last November the Government are once again reviving the proposal to end the construction industry training board. The roots of the problem lie with the failure to enforce current safety legislation, the increase in casual labour, the
  800
  decline in union membership, which the Government have done their best to encourage, the increasing fragmentation of the industry and the growth in sub-contracting.
  The Secretary of State's response to all that has been pitifully narrow minded. The Government are planning to make the wearing of hard hats compulsory on construction sites. That response was given on 17 January. No one would disagree with that; it should have been done many years ago. However, it completely misses the point about the wider structural causes of the rising toll of death and serious injury. The Government's only concession is contained in the statement made by the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), on 17 January when he said:
  "Health and Safety Executive inspectors will also be paying more attention to the quality of site management and its ability to manage health and safety."—[Official Report, 17 January 1989; Vol. 145, c. 147.]
  That is a noticeably vague statement. What he does not say is how that is to have any cutting edge when each inspector in London has to deal with 17,000 building sites apiece.
  I want to make it clear to the House that the Labour party gives a far higher priority to health and safety than do the Thatcherite Government with their unfettered commercialism. I want to spell out briefly a seven-point programme which would transform the appalling safety record which the Secretary of State's current laxity has produced.
  First, we will bring forward a charter for employees which will give equal status to all workers, part time as well as full time, which cannot be signed away on the demand of an employer for a new contract or, as with the lump, ignored because there is no contract. Under our proposals, all workers currently employed as lump labour will be covered by basic rights on pay, conditions of work, employment practices and health and safety. In effect, the lump will no longer exist and one of the fundamental causes of the worsening accident record in construction will be removed.
  Secondly, we will increase the number and the role of the inspectorate and union safety representatives. On larger sites safety representatives should be full time. If convenors are in larger firms, why not safety representatives on larger sites? We shall also introduce the important concept of roving safety representatives who will have the right to inspect any site in their area either at their own instigation or on the invitation of those who work on that site. For the first time, that will give a measure of safety to building workers who believe that their lives are being put at risk by dangerous working conditions.
  Thirdly, we will outlaw blacklisting. According to the booklet entitled "Against Democracy: the True Story of the Economic League", which was published last year, Service Group companies, contruction's self-sufficient organisation within the Economic League,
  "just call people 'troublemakers' … blacklisting on grounds of health and safety activity is the most common thing."
  Instead of that disgraceful state of affairs where people are victimised simply because they complain about inadequate health and safety provision, we shall guarantee the right of individual workers to be represented by trade unions on a number of issues, including health and safety.
  Fourthly, we will use contract compliance to ensure that at least minimum health and safety standards are

  801
  always adhered to in the awarding of Government contracts and, indeed, on all public contracts which involve public expenditure.
  Fifthly, we will make it clear that responsibility for site safety is placed squarely on the main contractor, whatever the management arrangements on a particular site. That is of great importance because it effectively remedies the present dissipation of control and responsibility where there is a series of sub-contractors. The Health and Safety Executive regards that as one of the major causes of rising accidents.
  That also provides an answer to something that the Secretary of State should be considering—the alarming finding by the Health and Safety Executive that on one in every five sites visited there was no site agent and no supervisor available. Our measure would provide an answer to that by squarely putting the responsibility where it should lie—on the client and the main contractor.
  Sixthly, we shall see that the Health and Safety Commission takes a stronger line. I know from my contacts that many inspectors would wish it so to do. We shall require the commission to record its decisions and to make them publicly available in order to discourage employer representatives from seeking to veto safety initiatives. We shall also encourage the executive to prosecute senior management under its powers under section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to appeal against light sentences—the Government are perfectly prepared to do that in other cases, so why not for health and safety?—and to invite the police to make manslaughter charges in cases of gross neglect.
  Seventhly, penalties for negligence that causes death or serious injury must be tough enough to counter powerful commercial pressures, as I have outlined. At present, fines are laughable, if not insulting to the families of those who die or who are maimed. For example, Balfour Beatty, whose pre-tax profits for 1987 were £130 million, was fined just £2,700 after being found criminally guilty of three health and safety offences on three occasions during 1986. That is rather like using a nut to crack a sledgehammer. Such fines are pathetic and inadequate.
  The horrific level of deaths and maimings at work will be reversed only by making negligent management liable to hefty gaol sentences. Dangerous driving that kills is subject to the punishment of a gaol sentence and dangerous management in the workplace that kills should be similarly punished, as it is already in the United States, Italy and Sweden.
  We agree with Dr. John Cullen, the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission, who last month said:
  "I believe that there have been circumstances where employers should have been jailed … I think that a jail sentence would help concentrate the minds of employers who might not be carrying out their duties under health and safety laws."
  Only the Secretary of State is ready to send people to prison for benefit fraud, but not employers who cause other people's death at work.
  We have a programme to match our determined commitment to higher health and safety standards. It represents a huge advance on the facile and cosmetic approach of the Government who, whenever there is a choice, put profit above safety every time. We may well make life harder for negligent employers—a few famous
  802
  collars in jug would work wonders for health and safety —but it would be a small price to pay for safeguarding the lives and limbs of millions of our working people.
  7.37 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Cope): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  deploring the high accident rate on construction sites and noting that 90 per cent. of construction accidents are preventable, recognises that the prime responsibility for safety lies with employers and others on site; acknowledges the vigorous action which the Health and Safety Commission and Executive have taken through enforcement blitzes and publicity campaigns on construction safety; and welcomes the increased provision which the Government has made available to the Health and Safety Executive thereby enabling the Executive to increase the number of inspectors employed on construction work.'.
  It may surprise the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) to learn that I very much welcome the debate and the opportunity that it gives to draw attention to the dangers of the construction industry and what is being done about it, but I deplore the hon. Gentleman's efforts to twist those dangers into political point scoring. The hon. Gentleman is hopelessly over the top in his political invective. We are used to that. It is so normal that I was able to write that firmly into my speech without even listening to him. As usual, it damages his case—which I do not mind—but today it also damages the message that should go out from the House which should be one of clear and universal support for. the Health and Safety Commission and Executive in what they are doing to reduce the carnage in the construction industry.
  As the hon. Gentleman knows, for more than 15 years we have had a health and safety regime, run by the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive. Parliament made the HSC the primary body in health and safety, recommending legislation and enforcing the laws we pass. The HSC's work, quite rightly, is based on elaborate consultation, and it has a whole family of committees, both technical and consultative. The HSC and those committees have on them representatives of trade unions as well as employers and others. It is very important that the HSC and HSE have the backing not only of Ministers—which they have, in full—but of right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House.
  The consultative procedure is sometimes slow but it delivers wide support for the measures that it produces, and that is valuable. Opposition Members should welcome that and support the HSC if they value it, because consultation is an essential prerequisite of safety at work on construction sites and elsewhere. It is the people on site —management and employees—who can do most to improve safety. However, there is no doubt that it needs improving.
  There are too many accidents and deaths on construction sites. As the hon. Gentleman said, in 1987–88 there were 157 deaths—about one in three of work-related fatalities—and many more accidents resulting in injuries. Some were serious while others, thankfully, were less so. That adds up to waste, inefficiency and lost time. More importantly, it adds up to a catalogue of pain, suffering and grief.
  Mr. Allen McKay: At least the Minister has got the order right, for a Conservative.
  Mr. Cope: More importantly, everyone concerned must recognise that construction and demolition work is inherently dangerous. A building site is essentially a temporary workplace. Its condition, by definition, changes day by day, with different tradesmen arriving at the site and leaving it daily. It has a changing population and changing conditions to a much greater extent than does a factory or other fixed site. However, as the hon. Member for Oldham, West also said very fairly, many of the 157 deaths were avoidable. Last year's report by the Health and Safety Executive, "Blackspot Construction", from which the hon. Gentleman quoted, showed that about 90 per cent. of fatal accidents are preventable. if basic precautions had been taken and common sense prevailed, perhaps 140 of those 157 people would still be alive today.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West tried to make political capital out of all that, but he knows as well as I do that the figures for major accidents are affected by improvements in reporting requirements introduced at the suggestion of the HSC and approved by the House. However, the figures for fatal accidents are much clearer. The average number of deaths in construction is down under this Government by comparison with the last Labour Government. I do not crow about that, because I want the figure to be lower. Nevertheless, it was a bad political point for the hon. Gentleman to make. That is also true of his remarks about inspectors. In 1979, 86 inspectors were engaged on construction work. I do not suppose that the hon. Gentleman intended to mislead the House, but he did so—for today there are 99 inspectors, representing a 15 per cent. increase. It is for the HSE and HSC, not Ministers, to decide on the number of inspectors required for that work.
  Mr. Dave Nellist: Does the Minister condone the fact that the Government fund six times as many dole snoopers in London as they do factory inspectors? Where do the Government's priorities lie?
  Mr. Cope: The hon. Member can always be relied upon to introduce a red herring into the debate, and he has done so on this occasion.
  The long-term drop in accidents is welcome, but it is not enough.
  Mr. Ron Leighton: I am sure that the Minister does not intend to mislead the House, but although it is true that inspectors have been moved from other duties to construction work, it is also true that for four years under the present Government the recruitment of factory inspectors was stopped, and there are fewer inspectors today than there were 10 years ago. More inspectors may have been moved to construction, but the Minister knows that no inspectors were recruited for four years and that their number was cut. If I catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall give the House the relevant figures.
  Mr. Cope: The hon. Gentleman can give the House those figures, if he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is true that the number of factory inspectors is lower than it was 10 years ago, but it is also true that the figure is rising. It is true also that the shadow Cabinet, in its wisdom, presumably advised by the hon. Member for Oldham, West, chose to debate construction safety, where the number of inspectors has increased by 15 per cent. and where the average number of deaths under a Conservative
  804
  Government has been fewer than under Labour. That was the Opposition's choice, not ours, and that is the basis of the debate.
  The reduction in the number of fatal construction accidents is welcome, but it is not enough. The most important finding of the studies mentioned is that 90 per cent. of fatal accidents examined were avoidable. The hon. Gentleman may pour cold water on this, but we believe that the first essential is to make people aware of the dangers and of how to avoid them. That is why we encouraged the excellent new literature produced by the HSC and HSE. It is well produced and covers every level. Some of it is highly technical, and some of it popular in format. All of it is valuable in increasing awareness, and so are the specific campaigns—the "blitzes"—run by the inspectorate. Also valuable were the special visits paid by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to construction sites, to draw the attention of the media to the necessity for safety. So is the special book for small firms that I had the honour to launch a couple of months ago jointly with John Banham of the Confederation of British Industry and Norman Willis of the Trades Union Congress. We want the message to go out loud and clear that 90 per cent. of fatal construction accidents are preventable.
  Awareness alone is not enough. Training is also important, and that is why I welcome the emphasis placed by the construction industry training board, big companies and large sections of the industry on training. As it happens, today sees the launch of a new initiative by the Open College and the CITB. The House will be aware of the renewed support for the Open College that I announced recently. Today, it announced two new courses, "A Site more Safe" and "A Site Better Off-. They are both multimedia courses that make use of audio and video tapes as well as an associated television series that will be broadcast on Channel 4 from 20 April. Open learning is particularly suitable given the irregular lifestyle of those working in the construction industry, and I am sure that those new courses will be very valuable.
  For those who do not get the message, there remains the force of the law. The key power of construction inspectors —the difference between them and other safety experts —lies in their enforcement powers. During their construction blitz, inspectors issued more than 2,000 prohibition notices. Such notices are important and can prove expensive for the employers concerned.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Minister acknowledge how important it is that employees receive information about site safety? But how will the Minister deal with the problem that when workers make complaints they are placed on a blacklist?
  Mr. Cope: If the hon. Gentleman can produce evidence of people being blacklisted for reasons connected with safety, I shall certainly look into it. So far, I have seen no such evidence.
  In 1987–88, 2,874 prohibition notices were issued in construction. I remarked that they can prove expensive for the employers concerned. They are also immediate in their effect. They can be used immediately to close down whatever piece of machinery or section of the site against which the notice has been issued. That can close a whole construction site for one day or for several days, while the

  805
  matter is put right. That can prove extremely expensive for the employer, and it should not be sneezed at as a quick, direct and forceful method of imposing site safety.
  There were also 610 prosecutions last year in the construction industry, which is a considerable increase. The publicity for convictions is considerable and the fine is not always the end of the matter because civil proceedings often follow. Nor should any manager or supervisor imagine that the fine will apply only to the company. A fortnight ago, in north Wales, there was a court case following a fatal accident at a steel erection site. The site agent and the senior foreman were each fined £2,000, as well as a fine being imposed on the company.
  The levels of fines imposed are a matter for the courts in individual cases, but anyone who thinks that his company can afford a fine, and does not need to bother about it, should remember two factors. First, BP was recently fined £500,000 and £250,000 on the same day—it was not for a construction accident but the law was the same. That is the highest fine so far imposed, but it does not mean that higher fines will not be imposed in other cases. Secondly, there is clear evidence that safe sites are profitable sites. That is not a matter for speculation but a demonstrable phenomenon.
  The specific regulations on construction under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 are considerable.
  Ms. Mildred Gordon: Is it not true that, in this country, no employer who has been found guilty of negligence that has caused a fatal accident on a building site has ever been imprisoned for criminal negligence? Should not such employers be sentenced? If it is their fault that a worker dies, is it not true that only imprisonment will make them take the matter seriously? When great profits are at stake, fines of £400, or even £2,000, will not improve the position.
  Mr. Cope: I was drawing attention to a fine of £750,000. However, suspended prison sentences have been passed in the past and may well be passed in the future. That is a matter for the courts.
  Mr. James Wallace: The Minister has mentioned a variety of sums. Does he know from his own experience and knowledge whether one can insure against such fines? Does he favour legislation to ensure that one could not insure against such fines?
  Mr. Cope: I cannot give an authoritative answer about whether the fines are insurable, although I doubt it. I shall certainly look into the matter and, if possible, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will respond to that point.
  There are many specific regulations on construction under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, as well as the broad and effective provisions of the Act itself. However, the HSC and the HSE are working up new regulations—a fact which, I was glad to see, had penetrated the mind of the hon. Member for Oldham, West—which will take account of modern conditions and fill some gaps where the present law is less demanding than it should be.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West referred to the compulsory wearing of safety helmets. We have received prospective regulations from the Health and Safety
  806
  Commission and shall soon lay them before the House for the House to decide on them. Those regulations would make it compulsory to wear safety helmets on construction sites.
  Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I have had correspondence with the Minister concerning Sikhs in rife building industry. The legislation would affect a devout Sikh, although not one who has given up the turban wearing with the long hair on top—which, I should say to the Minister, is to be recommended as a measure of safety if hair can be grown on top. I successfully introduced a Bill on turbans, helmets and motor cycling. The House took the view that it was right to make a religious exemption for turbaned Sikhs. Therefore, I hope that the House will support such an exemption in a measure that applies to building sites because turbaned Sikhs would have to leave the building industry if the legislation were enforced universally. If necessary, I shall be happy to provide such
  Mr. Cope: No doubt we shall come to that debate at some point. The Health and Safety Commission, which considered the matter and had public consultation on it, recommended that there should be no exception for turbaned Sikhs. However, we are considering that matter, as, no doubt, the House will wish to do in due course. I am conscious—as are others—of the Bill relating to motor cycles that the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) successfully introduced in Parliament.
  With regard to hair on top of the head, I do not think that I am doing any better than the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall, but if he has any suggestions to improve my state I shall consider them carefully.
  The regulations involving safety helmets are not the only ones coming forward. Other regulations are also being developed by the commission and the executive—the right place for them to be developed—with the active co-operation of trade unions, employers and others involved in the Health and Safety Commission and the consultative process. Those in the pipeline include regulations to require more short-term but high-risk activities to be notified to the inspectorate. At the moment, the inspectorate must be notified if sites are likely to last longer than six weeks—the length of time is one measure of the importance of the site, but certain high-risk activities may last less than six weeks.
  Other regulations are being considered to extend the requirement for safety supervisors to smaller companies —at present the number of employees is 20. Regulations are also proposed to provide for better management, and co-ordination on multi-contractor sites, bringing up to date 25-year-old regulations—the hon. Member for Oldham, West picked up this point from the HSC and the HSE.
  Each of those proposals will be an important step forward. I understand that the Health and Safety Commission hopes to bring them forward later this year with a view to making the regulations in the course of the next year.
  Some attention has recently been drawn to safety on the youth training scheme. About 66,000 young people are on the YTS in the construction industry, 37,000 of them on construction industry training board schemes. I have already explained that construction work is more dangerous than other work. That is also true of construction work done by young people on the YTS as

  807
  compared with other trainees. Our evidence—which is not conclusive—suggests that youth trainees are less at risk than older construction workers. However, that is no reason for complacency; the accident rate is still too high. Tragically, there was one fatality last year involving a 17-year-old electrical trainee who fell from a ladder. I am glad to say that there were no fatalities in 1987 and there have been none so far this year.
  As the House knows, we have been re-examining arrangements for ensuring health and safety on the YTS. The basic arrangements are sound. Trainees, like employees, have all the legal protection of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. Every trainee receives advice and instruction on health and safety matters and they have full insurance. The providers of training—the managing agents—must have effective safety arrangements in order to be awarded a YTS contract. Under the terms of that contract, managing agents must exercise a duty of care towards all their trainees and ensure that training takes place only in premises which have been notified to the Health and Safety Executive or equivalent authorities. They are also contractually obliged to ensure that work experience providers and shop floor training supervisors share in the duty of care, are fully informed of their responsibilities and carry them out conscientiously.
  YTS providers are monitored by trained staff of the Training Agency and receive extensive guidance on health and safety. At regional level, its monitoring is overseen by professionally qualified health and safety experts, some of whom are former factory inspectors. Nevertheless, we have decided to institute practical steps to improve awareness and understanding of these important matters and to tighten controls on the providers of training and work experience.
  The Training Agency is issuing additional new and improved health and safety guidance, in particular a document entitled "A Good Start to Assessing Placement Safety", for wide distribution to training providers and others. It complements the existing range of documentation. My copy is hot off the press and rather exclusive, but the bulk order will be delivered in the next few days and I shall place copies in the Library.
  The Training Agency is making stronger provision in the standard YTS training proposal, which becomes part of the contract if the proposal is accepted, to ensure that each YTS training provider states its monitoring policy clearly in advance. It specifically identifies and monitors agreements that prohibit use of machines or locations by YTS trainees. We are inviting the Health and Safety Executive and other independent experts to examine YTS health and safety arrangements and documentation and to advise us on further improvements.
  We are commissioning from independent experts a new study of YTS accidents between April 1986 and March 1989. It follows earlier studies of accidents to young trainees commissioned from consultants at Aston university, which were published in 1985 and 1987. We hope that it will be completed about the turn of the year, and it will of course be published.
  Taken together, those measures will strengthen the safety regime in YTS, including the construction industry, but I must stress that the primary legal and moral responsibility remains with managing agents and those in
  808
  charge of young trainees. We will not give YTS contracts to those who do not have proper safety arrangements. We withdraw the contracts of those who are not carrying out their responsibilities properly. YTS managing agents and training providers are just as liable as employers to prosecution, notices and civil liability when things go wrong.
  For safety, Acts, regulations made under them, guidance, inspectors and courts are important, but not as important as the man or woman on the site. Construction is inherently dangerous, but the majority of accidents are avoidable, and that is the message that we must send out. They arise from carelessness, thoughtlessness, lack of planning and lack of attention to equipment. In a moment, a human life can be lost or blighted by disablement. Once that has happened, nothing can restore the position; no fine or inspector can recompense the family. Hon. Members should not trade politics but should back the Health and Safety Commission and its allies.
  8.3 pm
  Mr. Eric S. Heller: The Minister, as so often in the past, made a statement that I have heard from different people in the construction industry—that the fault for the poor safety record lies with the worker.
  Mr. Cope: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman so soon. I said not the worker only, but those on site—it is both.
  Mr. Heffer: I assume that most of the people on site are workers, whether they are managerial workers or people doing physical work.
  For years, workers in the construction industry have taken risks. Some have been tempted by bonus schemes to cut corners. To earn a little more money in relation to lump labour, some workers have taken risks, sometimes with horrible results. It would be wrong for me to say otherwise. I know the construction industry because I was a carpenter and joiner for many years before I became a Member of Parliament. I do not deny for one moment that some workers will take risks, but those risks arise from the nature and character of an industry in which profits are put before the interests of workers. It comes down to profits being made at the expense of safety. If a mistake is made by a worker, which does not happen often because he will suffer as a result, it is because he is cutting corners because the employer wants to make extra profit by finishing the job more quickly.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) made an excellent speech, making seven good points on behalf of the Labour party to which I am sure that workers in the industry and trade unions will respond and which give us a positive campaign for which we can fight.
  The Minister said that he welcomed the debate. I find that strange. He will remember that I tabled an early-day motion which attracted about 240 signatures—probably the largest number of supporters for such a motion—from hon. Members of all political parties, including two Conservative Members. If the Government thought that their position was so strong and that they had a story to tell, why did not the Leader of the House, whom I asked every Thursday for a debate, rush forward and say, "We have a great story to tell, so we shall have a debate at the earliest possible opportunity"? On every occasion, I was

  809
  told, "You cannot have a debate next week, but we shall look into it." We never got round to having a debate, and we are having one this evening only because my right hon. and hon. Friends in the shadow Cabinet have decided to have one on this important issue in Opposition time. I am delighted that the motion is not dissimilar to the one that I tabled.
  Safety in the construction industry has always been a problem. I can testify that it is a dangerous industry because I worked in it for many years. The issue of health and safety in the industry is of great importance, to such an extent that workers in the London area, though members of trade unions, have got together with the local authority and ordinary people to launch a construction safety campaign. One of the points they make in their document is "Your health, their wealth", the very point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and myself—that it is a case of profits before the interests of the people.
  What is so tragic is that a worker in the construction industry—it may be a woman nowadays—can leave home in the morning perfectly healthy and not come home because he or she has been killed or maimed. That is a horrible tragedy. It is something that Members of Parliament do not experience—if they do not get home it may be due to a heart attack or the like, but it would not be because of the work that they do here; it would not be because the employer had failed to comply with safety regulations and had put profits before the interests of his work force. Yet that is what happens daily in the construction industry.
  The Government amendment rightly says that 90 per cent. of construction accidents are preventable, and that prime responsibility lies with employers. This was pointed out in the early-day motion and in the Opposition motion today. All too often construction workers die or are maimed due to lack of responsibility on the part of the employer. It is therefore right to say that the Government are responsible, by encouraging relentless commercial pressures and at the same time failing to enforce safety standards.
  The point is emphasised in the introduction of the Health and Safety Executive document, "Blackspot Construction", published in 1988, which begins by saying:
  "During the five year period 1981 to 1985, 739 people were killed by the construction industry. Five hundred and sixty one were employees; 120 were self-employed; 47 were members of the public—including 21 children."
  The next point is very important:
  "Death comes to construction sites all too often. The industry is among the most dangerous of all industries in the post war period and the post war period of improvement in the annual toll of death has, in recent years, come to an end."
  If the improvement has come to an end in recent years, that means in the years of the Tory Government. So when the Minister of State claims that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West is making political points he is suggesting that his own document is making political points. In fact, this is reality.
  The document goes on:
  "This and the rising trend in the numbers of serious injuries reported to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in 1981–85 has prompted increasing concern in the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) and its construction industry Advisory Committee (CONIAC)."
  Many of the workers killed and maimed in the industry are highly skilled. It is interesting to note that 49 people of managerial and professional status were killed in that
  810
  period; in my own trade, 37 carpenters and joiners; 19 bricklayers; 13 plumbers and glaziers, and so on. It is riot just the labourer digging holes who is affected.
  Hon. Members have seen the television programme showing a woman inspector going around various sites. She stopped work at a particular site and had only been off the site for a few moments when they started work again, with the employer telling them they were either back at work or sacked because it was easy to replace them. The inspector had to go back and stop the work again. That was a recent television programme showing what actually goes on in the industry in London.
  The situation has not improved since 1985; in fact, it has got worse. In 1977 the number of fatal accidents was 130. The Minister is trying to make out how much better it is now. In 1977 the number of employees in the industry was 1,167,000; in 1987 the number of fatal accidents was 100, but the number of employees in the industry at that time was 984,000–183,000 fewer. If there has been a certain fall-off in the rate of accidents, there has also been a fall-off at certain times in the number of workers in the industry. It is very interesting that the number of self-employed has gone up, with lump labour in particular. In 1981, 11 self-employed workers met with fatal accidents, and there were 40 major injuries. In 1987, 41 self-employed workers were fatally injured and 450 suffered major injuries. In 1981 there were 388,000 self-employed and in 1987 542,000, so it is clear that there is a correlation between the number of self-employed and the number of fatal accidents.
  On 1 January 1979, 86 factory inspectors were employed in construction. According to Government figures given to me by the Library of the House, on 1 September 1987 there were 75. To be fair, in addition to the 75 experienced inspectors in 1987, there were a further 17 qualified inspectors. This total of 92 qualified inspectors compares with a total of 90 at the beginning of this year—a number which is unlikely to have changed by September 1989, when the recent public expenditure White Paper envisages that there will also be 90 trained inspectors. It is intended that there will be 100 such inspectors by 1990, but even with those numbers, how on earth are they dealing with the real situation? It is high time that the number of inspectors in the construction industry was doubled. We need not the 100 that the Minister boasts that we shall get but at least 200. Even that would not be enough, but it would be a great improvement on what we have now. Despite the safety blitz, whole sections of the construction industry are without safety supervision. Where trade unions are weak on a site, the employers get away with murder.
  More than 2,000 dangerous sites were shut down by factory inspectors during the safety blitz. More than 10,000 contractors on 8,272 sites were inspected. Yet during the year of the blitz, which ended in March 1988, 157 people were killed—including 16 members of the public—and 21,000 people were injured. In London there were 38 deaths. Yet the average fine imposed on the 47 companies brought to court was £837. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West said, that is a joke. When will real penalties be imposed? When will people who are criminally negligent be put in prison?
  If the Government are so keen to deal with safety in the construction industry, when do they intend to introduce legislation? They are keen to introduce, out of the blue, legislation that affects dock workers. How much better it

  811
  would be if dockers did not have to consider taking strike action. Instead, we ought to have been welcoming Government action to eliminate death and injury in the construction industry.
  The general secretary of my union, Mr. Albert Williams, was right to declare that death caused by employers' neglect should be an indictable offence and that there should be prosecution for corporate manslaughter, but it is cheaper for employers to take the risk of being fined than to pay for the introduction of proper safety standards.
  We need far more health and safety inspectors. There should be an elected health and safety representative at every workplace. My trade union is the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians. I am proud to say that I have now served for 50 years in that union, beginning in the old Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers, which then merged with UCATT. The former regional secretary of the Merseyside branch of the ASW argued that every member must be his own safety officer, and I agree—where there are good, organised trade union jobs there is collective power to enforce the regulations—but the unions are becoming increasingly weak in certain areas because of the growth of lump labour and individualism. Workers are therefore unable to enforce safety regulations, as they can if there is a good trade union organisation. That is one of the problems in the construction industry.
  UCATT is conducting a safe site campaign and has produced an excellent document. [Interruption.] Do you mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker? If I speak for half an hour, that is a matter for me, not for you. With all due respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, even if I have been speaking for 20 minutes, I am entitled to do so. I do not intend to speak for much longer, but it is not your job to mention to the Whip that I ought to be thinking of sitting down.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The hon. Gentleman has been called early in the debate. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to speak and time is getting very short.
  Mr. Heffer: I will reply to that by telling you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I tabled a motion that carried the names of 240 hon. Members. The debate has arisen from the desire of those who supported the motion that it should take place. I am ending my speech by referring to what my union is doing. It is important that the House of Commons and the country should know that if employers conducted themselves as my trade union conducts itself and as the workers in the industry conduct themselves, there would be fewer accidents and deaths. There would be a little less profit, but that would benefit the workers in the construction industry.
  It is not just a question of the safety regulations. There is the question of chemicals, asbestos and wood preservatives on site, and also the problem of noise and the handling of loads. Those issues cannot be brushed aside lightly. More deaths and injuries are caused to workers in the construction industry because of the materials that they work with than happens in any other industry. I make no apology for speaking at length on the issue. It is dear to my heart and to the hearts of many other people. I am part of that industry, even though I have been a Member
  812
  of Parliament for 25 years. I have fought for a hell of a long time to get the House to discuss safety in the construction industry and I make no apologies for having spoken at length on the subject.
  When I was an apprentice, conditions in the industry were little different from those described in "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists". Despite all the technology and the health and safety regulations, when I go on to some sites today I think that conditions there have returned to those described in that book. It is time that the people of this country did something positive about that. That is why I welcome the debate. I hope that the motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West will be carried.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House once more that time is very limited. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to speak. I hope that those who are called will be fair to the others by making brief speeches.
  8.28 pm
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) on his 50 years in his union, but he attached great blame to employers and at times to the self-employed. I was disappointed that he did not point out that there is a great need for good training and safety standards to be inculcated at an early stage. I understand that 107 deaths were due to industrial accidents in 1988. Half those tragic deaths were of people who had been working on site for less than one week, which makes it much worse. It also emphasises the critical need for training at an early stage.
  The seven-point plan proposed by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) is a march back to the over-regulated 1960s and apparently proposes controls and burdens on businesses. Surely that is not the way forward. We need higher standards, but we will not achieve them by imposing burdens that have not been properly thought through or considered. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman about higher fines. It is easy to be simplistic and consider only the fine for a criminal offence. Any firm that is negligent is liable to massive damages in the civil court. I could reel off a number of cases in which firms have had to pay damages well in excess of £250,000 when someone has suffered death or serious injury, and that must not be overlooked. I also agree with the hon. Member for Oldham, West about the responsibility of a main contractor. That must also be considered extremely carefully.
  I shall confine my remarks to the construction industry training board which is based in my constituency, as the Under-Secretary of State knows because he has been there. It is a centre of excellence and has a profound effect on my constituency. It is located not in a town but in a rural area and employs about 500 people. At least 10 villages are largely dependent on the CITB for their entire economy. Its impact locally is quite enormous, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is well aware. Since the centre was opened, 95,000 adults have been trained. It trains 5,000 people a year on 50 different courses. This year the CITB is responsible for 35,000 YTS places.
  Paragraph 4.24 of the White Paper on training criticised the failure of industrial training boards to make a

  813
  significant impact on training generally, but that does not apply to the CITB, given its record in training over the years, its standards of excellence and the emphasis it places on safety right down the line. I am very pleased that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State mentioned today's initiative. "A Site More Safe" which is being launched by the CITB in conjunction with the Open College and Channel 4 and is aimed at those on the sites who are responsible for site safety—the foremen and the managers. That is why it is an important initiative. I shall not elaborate further, but the CITB is constantly producing more initiatives to improve safety standards. It is aware of the need to reduce the number of deaths and injuries. It is rising to that challenge through its training infrastructure.
  The White Paper contains an intention to move the ITBs to a non-statutory training organisation basis. However, the construction industry differs from all other industries. It is unique. A vast number of businesses operate within it. Its work is largely cyclical and is often dominated by large projects such as the docklands and the Channel tunnel. The work force is highly mobile. As the hon. Member for Walton pointed out, the work shop is the site itself and that is why the industry cannot be considered in a ordinary way. Training must take place on site and if the work force is constantly moving on in different directions and different employers are poaching skilled workers and constantly looking for new staff for different sites the usual rules cannot apply to the construction industry.
  If every employer contributes to a scheme and pays a levy the industry will be happy as it is at the moment. However, if only some employers contribute voluntarily, inevitably there will be a great deal of poaching. If some firms train staff and workers and pay the levy, when times become difficult they may not continue to do so. The arguments in favour of a statutory levy are extremely strong. If training moves on to an entirely voluntary basis, as my right hon. Friend the Minister said, when things are going well firms will continue to pay that levy. Certainly in a time of plenty and an economic boom which we are experiencing at the moment, firms would continue to pay, but if there were a downturn or another recession—and, as I said, the construction industry is cyclical by definition—I am convinced that firms will opt out of paying that levy and the entire infrastructure of the CITB would be under pressure and that would be high-risk tactics.
  I accept that the CITB must make certain changes. It must do something about its deficit of £94 million. It proposes to reduce that deficit over five years to £25 million by charging the industry more. At present the industry pays nothing at all for the 35,000 YTS trainees. I believe that it will be fair for there to be some charge. There are other ways in which the CITB can raise money commercially. It will do that, and, furthermore, it will make it very clear to the Government, if it has not already done so, that it is quite prepared to take a smaller, reduced levy over a phased period. It can live with that, but an organisation that turns over £160 million and has such a training structure obviously cannot make changes too quickly. I would be the first person to say to the CITB that its whole bureaucracy is outdated and outmoded. It has a board of 30 people which meets three or four times a year and that structure is hardly conducive to good, streamlined, effective management. So I am pressing for
  814
  structural changes to be made. However, I believe that the CITB can produce proposals that will satisfy the Minister and will be in keeping and in tune with the White Paper.
  I must say to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State who is to reply to the debate that if the CITB has to cut its operations in west Norfolk the effect on local employment will be immediate and extremely serious. If we were talking about King's Lynn or Norwich the surplus employment could be taken up, but in rural villages where there are very few other jobs there is very little scope for alternative employment, especially when employment in agriculture is contracting. Obviously that is of tremendous importance to my constituency, particularly when the CITB has recently moved its headquarters to Norfolk. It was a major vote of confidence in a rural area and a rural constituency for a major organisation to move its headquarters into west Norfolk and employ 500 people. If the CITB has to cut back because the statutory levy is removed or confined to labour-only sub-contractors, inevitably there will be cuts in what the organisation offers at Bircham Newton and surely that would mean major cuts in safety standards.
  If the Minister is serious about trying to reduce the figure of deaths and injuries which is far too high—there were 3,624 major injuries last year—there must be training at an early stage and those 5,000 adults a year must go through the CITB. Those adults do not all work on site. Many will be operating sophisticated plant. Many of them will be operating cranes, for example. Many will be scaffolders and steeplejacks. Those are the sorts of people who must have high-cost, highly sophisticated training, and if they do not get it at the CITB, or at Bircham Newton, it is unlikely that the firms will pay for it. In that case, this catalogue of statistics will get worse, not better.
  I say to the Minister of State and to the Under-Secretary that the initiatives that the Government are coming up with are excellent. What they are doing to try to boost the Health and Safety Executive is to be applauded, but I urge them to look very carefully before making any major changes in the statutory levy. That could mean only one thing: perhaps not immediately, but over a period of years, the industry would pay less for training, and in due course a centre of excellence in my constituency would decline. That would have a devastating effect on safety and on the people about whom we care most—those working in the industry. We want to get the casualty figures down, and the only way of doing so is by continuing with the CITB. I urge my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to do that. I hope that he will take my suggestion on board.
  8.41 pm
  Mr. James Wallace: I will not follow the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) into a consideration of the merits and demerits of the construction industry training board, whose ability to deliver its service to a constituency a s remote as mine is somewhat incidental. However, I cannot help observing in passing that the hon. Member said that if the board were to play a lesser part, private employers would be likely to spend money on training. That does not seem a very great vote of confidence in the Government's proposals to put a greater burden of responsibility for training on the private sector.

  815
  As to the issue that is actually before the House in this debate, I do not think that there is any dispute about the fact that there is a serious problem and that this is a matter of considerable concern. That, I think, is common ground in all parts of the House. The fact that early-day motion 241 in the name of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has attracted so many signatures is indicative of the level of concern that this issue has raised. Quite honestly, I do not think that it matters whether the deaths have occurred under a Labour Administration or a Tory Administration. They are deaths, the number is far too high, and it is in the interests of every hon. Member to find ways of reducing it.
  It is not entirely clear to me whether the figures that have been mentioned include deaths and injuries resulting from contact with dangerous substances and noise. I noted that last month Mr. John Cullen, the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission, indicated that far more workers on construction sites are injured or killed as a result of contact with such substances or noise than as a result of accidents. The hon. Member for Walton raised that question. Clearly it is an important issue, and we shall be interested to know how the Government are responding to the claim.
  In the debate in this House on 2 December 1987—the last time, I think, that the issue of health and safety was considered at length here—the Secretary of State said that
  "our health and safety arrangements are fitted to cope with the needs of a modern society and a changing and expanding economy."—[Official Report, 2 December 1987; Vol. 123, c. 1004.]
  In all honesty, I do not think that those comments match the situation. Since that time it has been clear that health and safety arrangements are not coping. Reference has already been made to the report "Blackspot Construction". I take encouragement from the fact that I do not think that any such great claims were made by the Minister of State when he spoke earlier today. I think that there is recognition of the fact that much more needs to be done.
  As to the causes of accidents, including fatal accidents, it is all too simple to lay all of them at the door of some buccaneering builders, although I cannot deny that a good number of such builders exist, and no doubt they are responsible for many of the accidents that take place. Nor do I believe that the accidents can be laid at the door of some system of work—that it is all the result of people pursuing the profit motive. Inevitably, human nature comes into it. During my few years of practice at the Scottish Bar I acted on both sides of the argument—for employers and for employees. An amazing number of cases were put down purely to human nature. Employers can provide helmets, but the helmets are not always worn. Nor are safety harnesses always worn. That has nothing to do with failure to provide safety equipment; it is just that, for one reason or another, people think that they can do without it, and in some cases it is a question of sheer forgetfulness. Nevertheless, what is quite clear, as was indicated in the report "Blackspot Construction", is that 70 per cent. of accidents could be prevented by positive management action. Much could be done to increase awareness of safety. Awareness, I think, is the key, and lack of awareness is attributable to both employers and employees.
  816
  The report on the blitz campaign to which reference has been made showed that one third of all managers had insufficient knowledge of basic health and safety. That is a staggering figure. The report also showed that in 14 per cent. of the cases investigated no one was in charge of the work. Quite clearly, if management is unaware of important safety matters, one cannot readily expect employees to have that knowledge. As has been said by the Minister of State, particular features of the construction industry make the problems more acute. Unlike a factory, where the same conditions tend to prevail over many weeks—indeed, years—construction sites change constantly. Indeed, we are talking about different sites, as well as changing sites. A person may be on a site for only a few days, or even just a few hours. I talked earlier today to representatives of the Scottish building trade. They said to me—I regret that I do not have figures to back this up—that in the case of a long-term project such as the Torness power station construction it appeared that over a period of 10 years the level of accidents fell due to familiarity with the site. That is not always the case when building contractors move quickly from site to site.
  Mr. John Ward: I agree very much with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Certainly I agree with what he says about big permanent or semi-permanent sites being much easier both to administer and to inspect. Does he recognise, however, that a great deal of the construction industry is based on very small sites with one, two or three men, and that in many cases those men are dealing with minor drainage projects, and so on? Very often that is where the greatest danger lies, and it is difficult to blame the employer alone for accidents.
  Mr. Wallace: To some extent the hon. Member is making the point that I was about to make—that there is a whole series of small sites and that people may be on them for only a matter of hours. However, surely the underlying point must be taken together with the rapidly changing work force and lump labour—the fact that the person on whom one relied yesterday is not necessarily here today. That emphasises the need for a keener awareness of safety and for greater attention to safety matters. The fact that a site is small and that workers may be on it for only a few hours in no way absolves those responsible for safety factors.
  The response that we have had from the Government is not adequate. The blitz campaign underlines the seriousness of the problem, but I do not believe that the increase in the budget of the Health and Safety Executive and the number of new inspectors go nearly far enough. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) illustrated the shortage of inspectors by referring to the number of sites that each inspector in London has to cover. It is my understanding that in the west of Scotland, including the great Strathclyde conurbation and the whole of the south west of Scotland, there are about five health and safety inspectors. It was graphically put to me that a health and safety inspector going to investigate a construction site in Dumfries would probably have to pass many hundreds of sites on his way there and that if he stopped to check each one he would probably never get to Dumfries.
  The volume of work is immense and the necessary resources should be provided. By all means let us acknowledge what has been done, but it is clear from this

  817
  debate that far more needs to be done. We have heard the Government's response in relation to the compulsory wearing of safety helmets, and I do not dissent from that proposal at all. Indeed, I look foward to an indication from the Minister as to when it might be expected. There is good precedent for tomorrow not being early enough. I welcome the fact that more guidance material is to be made available to small firms. However, if the fundamental problem of increasing awareness is to be tackled, it is not just a question of highlighting faults, as the blitz campaign did. The Health and Safety Executive must do more by way of advising safety practices and encouraging good practices. I also agree that it is important to bring home to senior management the impact of fines. We should consider personal prosecutions rather than corporate ones. That was mentioned by the chief inspector of factories, Mr. Tony Linehan, in an article in the Financial Times of Friday 13 January:
  "The Health and Safety Executive plans to start prosecuting directors of construction companies running building sites where there are serious accidents…he said the time had come to move beyond prosecuting companies and to explore action against individual directors responsible for safety."
  The Minister also mentioned the recent prosecution of a site agent and a senior foreman. No doubt they are now well aware of the serious lessons to be drawn from failing to enforce adequate safety standards. Until that awareness is felt at the highest level, no real action will be taken to ensure that all sectors of the construction industry recognise the need to improve safety practices.
  In a recent White Paper on road traffic law, the Government rightly suggested that insurance policies which protect the drink-driver offender from the consequences of disqualification are undesirable. To that end they have reached agreement with the Association of British Insurers to phase out such policies. If the fines imposed in the construction industry are to be effective, similar consideration should he given to phasing out insurance cover against such fines. I accept, as the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West has suggested, that civil damages may be sought, but invariably such matters are covered by insurance.
  More attention must be given to smaller sites. We need more inspectors. We must also stress the importance of safety in training. Safety groups should be established under the auspices of an employers federation. It may be that a small company is unable to employ a safety officer or is not fully acquainted with the vast number of existing regulations. If a number of smaller companies joined together they could employ a safety officer whose remit would be to brief his various employers on safety requirements.
  This debate is worthwhile because it highlights the importance of the issue. There is no room for complacency. I am sure that we shall return to this matter in the future and I hope that, by then, some of the positive and constructive ideas that have been mentioned tonight will have been implemented. I also hope that we shall have seen a downward trend in the current unacceptable level of fatal accidents and serious injuries.
  8.52 pm
  Mr. James Cran: As I am usually tail-end Charlie in debates, I assure hon. Members that I shall curtail my remarks tonight as I know that others want to speak.
  818
  I welcome this debate because I start from the premise —I assume that it is shared by all other hon. Members tonight—that the protection of the work force is the highest priority of any company. There is no question about that. I am sad, however, that, so far, this debate has not made clear that that responsibility is ably discharged by many construction companies, although there is no doubt that the construction industry faces problems. However, over-simplification will not help to solve them
  I am especially struck by the fact that no Opposition Member has been able to explain why it is that other sectors of British industry, which are equally beset by commercial pressures and all the other pressures outlined tonight, have better records on health and safety than the construction industry. One is led to conclude that the reasons for the above-average number of fatalities and injuries in the construction industry are therefore more complex than commercial pressures.
  As I read the Opposition motion, it appears that they believe that the answer lies in more regulations, but that will not solve the problems. I do not believe that the mailed fist approach would help because the problems are much more deep seated than has been so far outlined.
  I am also sad that the debate has not highlighted that health and safety are not just the responsibility of the Government. The motion charges the Government with this, that and any other responsibility but, although the Government have a role to play, such an approach ignores the role of companies, trade unions and employees. Alas, individual employees within the construction industry are just as guilty of lack of responsibility as some of the companies. There are good companies and bad ones, but I believe that we have more good ones than bad ones. Unfortunately, there are good and bad sectors of industry and the construction sector gives cause for great concern. It is important to stress, however, that it has been a matter of concern for many years and that that concern has spanned a number of Governments.
  Health and safety should not be a political football, but the debate is in danger of making it such. Health and safely should be completely non-partisan and if one accepts that principle it leads in a more constructive direction than that proposed in the motion. Although the reasons behind the motion are of the highest integrity, the motion itself is disappointing and narrow. It over-simplifies the issue and as soon as one does that one unfortunately reaches the wrong conclusions.
  We are all well aware that the Health and Safety Executive provides inspection, enforcement and advisory services. In the main, those advisory services are given free. Therefore, there is no excuse for any company to plead ignorance. In the past I have visited many companies and too many companies within the construction industry tended to plead ignorance.
  We have heard a great deal about the strength of the Health and Safety Executive. I understand that there are now 99 inspectors. That level was not dictated by the Government; rather, the HSE established that that represented the right manning level. I accept that the inspectorate might be one short, but it is manned at roughly the right level. The HSE's funding for 1989–90 will be met in full and its budget will increase within the next three years. All that is in sharp contradistinction to the message I got from the Opposition Benches. I got the impression of depleted ranks within the HSE, a lack of money and all the rest of it. That is simply not true.

  819
  I have the impression that, although a number of hon. Members have referred to the need for blitzes—indeed, the word appears in the Government amendment—it is considered by some to be an irrelevance. It is far from that. The blitz that took place between April 1987 and September 1988 resulted in about 8,300 construction sites being visited which highlighted many problems and resulted in action. Therefore, we need more site visits rather than less.
  There is an even more powerful weapon to solve the problem that we are discussing. Sending directors to gaol and so on may be part of the solution, although I do not think that it would work. However, the threat of the closure of unsafe sites is a more important sanction because it hits a man—or in this case a company—where it hurts, which is in the pocket. Knowing the industrial community well, I am sure that such a sanction has a strong effect. Will the Minister say how many sites have been closed and whether the Government have been considering the use of this weapon in a more aggressive way?
  We must accept that, even if the number of inspections was doubled, the enforcing authority could not have inspectors everywhere at the same time. That leads me to conclude that the amendment is right. Companies have by far the bigger role to play simply because inspectors cannot be everywhere.
  The problem in this industry is attitudinal. There is a high labour turnover with small sub-contracting companies. That is the classic ingredient for extreme difficulties such as those we are debating. Bearing that in mind, and curtailing many of the remarks that I would have made had the debate been longer, I will confine myself to a few suggestions.
  Companies have a definite responsibility. The problem lies in the large number of small sub-contractors in the industry. If they will not tackle the problem, it must be tackled by the main contractors. In other areas, such as manufacturing, large companies use their purchasing power with those from whom they purchase to get the right quality.
  It does not seem a great departure for contractors in the construction industry to get their sub-contractors together and tell them the facts of life with regard to health and safety. The essential fact—it should go ringing from the House—is that the figures of fatalities are unacceptable.
  In addition, I hope that the Health and Safety Executive will continue to intensify its activities. Will the Minister give us an assurance that that will happen, because, along with the resultant enforcement actions, it is of prime importance? The other piece of the jigsaw is what the Government can do to help. I support what the Minister of State said about more regulations being needed to cover such issues as the compulsory wearing of hard hats on construction sites. That is not an irrelevancy; it can make a big contribution to reducing the fatality figures.
  I applaud the Government for what they are doing and I shall be watching their efforts to ensure that they take whatever steps are possible to solve the problem. None of us wants to return to this issue in a year or two and have to speak again about this sorry state of affairs in the industry.
  9.4 pm
  Dr. John Gilbert: I must at the outset declare an interest as a non-executive director of a civil engineering company. I support the motion and particularly the call on
  "the Government to increase inspection, improve site management and enforce tougher penalties".
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) on his campaign over many years to get this matter brought before the House. He knows far more about the industry than I shall ever know. He made a fair speech, acknowledging that responsibility for accidents lay in different places.
  Some incidents are clearly management responsibilities, some are due to workers ignoring management instructions, and some are plainly accidents about which nothing can be done. For example, the provision of adequate safety clothing, and the enforcement of its wearing, the provision of railings where appropriate and the shoring up of excavations are clearly management responsibilities. But there is no way to legislate to ensure that a man handles a piece of mechanical equipment correctly. He may do it negligently or in circumstances which result in an accident.
  The use that may be made of site statistics can be misleading because, as has been pointed out, some sites exist for only a day or so, or even a few hours. It would be misleading to include those in the total statistics. But that does not alter the fact that it would be good to have up to double the number of inspectors and site visits, and every responsible firm would agree with that.
  No sensible firm wants a prohibition notice or prosecution. My company makes safety a formal item on the agenda for every board meeting and at every meeting we discuss a report on safety matters. In addition—at my suggestion, which my colleagues cheerfully accepted—the safety officer must make a report in person to the board at least once a year. There is great awareness that safety is, above all, a board responsibility.
  The Government should consider making the appointment of a safety officer a statutory responsibility of every company in the industry, rather in the way that the appointment of a company secretary is a statutory responsibility of a company. I disagree with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) that some firms might be too small to employ a safety officer. At least one member of the management of every company, however small, should have responsibility for safety. Even if it is a small firm, he can do that along with his other duties. The fact that a firm is small should not be a let-out from having a safety officer.
  Hon. Members in all parts of the House accept that the situation remains unsatisfactory, and I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) say that there should be more site visits. I did not understand how he thought that could be achieved without many more inspectors being appointed. We want more such visits and more prohibitions where necessary, but, above all, we want those visits to take place as a deterrent so that prohibitions and prosecutions are not necessary.
  There will be no permanent solution to the problem, because just as there will always be traffic accidents there will always be construction accidents. There could be far fewer, and it is up to us to reduce them. The responsibility lies squarely with the Government who must play their

  821
  part. They are not doing that and their complacent amendment shows no sign of their accepting responsibility for these matters.
  9.10 pm
  Mr. Simon Coombs: The subject of the debate is of great concern to all hon. Members. I shall avoid repeating what has been said with eloquence by other hon. Members. There are two ways of looking at the problem and they illustrate the difference between the Government and the Opposition. First, there is the idealistic approach. It is quite right in its way and says that every death is a tragedy, that it is preventable and should be prevented. Who among us could possibly argue with that view?
  There is another view which says that it is remarkable that so few construction workers are killed every year, given the boom in construction all over the country and human nature. Little has been said about human nature, but it is the fundamental problem at the heart of the matters that we are discussing. We talk about short cuts, carelessness and over-confidence and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) said, we often talk about inexperience. We point to those things as being the causes of accidents in the construction industry.
  Another difference between the two main parties in the House is that the Government look to the Health and Safety Executive and the Health and Safety Commission for guidance. The Health and Safety Executive said that by 1990 we would need 100 inspectors in the construction industry. A year before that time we have 99 inspectors in post. The Opposition propose to tell the Health and Safety Executive what to do. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said that we could have 200 inspectors now, but I suspect that if he had his way we would have many more. I say to him and to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who is not in the Chamber, that it is not a bad idea to take note of the advice and guidance of the experts that we employ. The man in Whitehall does not always know best.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West spoke about blacklisting. That is a typical red herring that comes up in almost every debate on employment. I should like to quote a real expert, the director general of the Health and Safety Executive, Mr. Rimington. When he addressed the Select Committee on Employment at the end of last year he said:
  "We are in fact increasing the number of inspectors in construction. Perhaps I should explain, I think it is generally known, that we did make representations to the Secretary of State, the Commission did, last year, with the result that more money was made available to us. We are building up the Factory Inspectorate from what is certainly too low a figure. Our main priorities over the next year will be to increase the amount of inspection on construction sites, and to increase the amount of inspection of small firms and contracting firms generally. As you probably know, there has been quite a mushroom growth of those. Many of them, while not wishing, I think, to defy safety provisions, prove to be unaware of some of the hazards with which they are confronted."
  In the same exchange Mr. Rimington said:
  "Certainly, as regards the construction industry generally, there has been an enormous amount of enforcement activity over the past two or three years. The number of enforcement actions that the Factory Inspectorate has taken on construction sites have virtually trebled over the past two years."
  That is the reasoned and measured voice of the expert, and I prefer it to the hysterical ravings of the hon. Member for Oldham, West. He blamed Thatcherism and said that
  822
  the amazing growth in activity in the construction industry caused the problem at the root of our debate. There has been massive growth not only in activity but also in employment, yet the hon. Gentleman berates the level of unemployment. He cannot have it both ways.
  Nothing that the Government could do could be as effective as discipline and self discipline on site. Safety education, protective clothing, prohibition orders and fines are important. Perhaps when the Minister replies to the debate he will comment on the point that a maximum fine of £2,000 in a magistrates court is too low. It might with advantage be significantly increased; and the power to bring actions in a higher court should also be examined.
  At the end of the day, safety comes down to one man and one job and the right and wrong way to carry it out. There is no point in saying that it is the Government's fault. It is the fault of any man who allows his life to be placed in jeopardy. We must not get into the cosy attitude of blaming it on Government. We are all individually responsible when we put ourselves at risk, whether in construction, on the roads, in the home or anywhere else. The individual's responsibility must be paramount.
  9.16 pm
  Mr. Ron Leighton: I echo the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) in paying tribute to the Health and Safety Commission and complimenting it on the documents that it has supplied. The commission says that between 1981 and 1985 there were 739 deaths in the construction industry. It said that nearly all of them could have been prevented and that in 70 per cent. of the cases positive action by management could have saved lives. It clearly pins the responsibility on management. It talks about the need to plan and develop safe systems of work before the job starts. The commission talks about roof work and says:
  "In the vast majority of fatal accidents on roofs, management…did not exercise sufficient control to ensure that relatively simple precautions were taken."
  On demolition the commission said that 67 out of 95 accidents causing death were caused by management allowing unsafe systems of work.
  The Labour party has instigated this debate because there is a rising trend in accidents. Between 1981 and 1985 major injuries increased by 30 per cent. and in a 10-year period there were 1,500 deaths in the construction industry. In that same decade 500,000 injuries were sufficiently bad to keep people off work for three days. That is much worse than what happened at King's Cross or in the Clapham rail disaster. The number of deaths is much greater than the 495 killings by the IRA. During that same decade three times as many people were killed on construction sites.
  In the Falklands conflict 254 British service men were killed, but there have been many more deaths in construction. We must speak out loudly and clearly and say that this is intolerable. Death and injury occur too easily and too often in the construction industry, which is one of the most dangerous industries in Britain. The worrying thing is that the post-war improvement in the figures has been halted, the trend has been reversed and the toll of death and crippling injury is increasing. That is an intolerable scandal and the House must decide to do something about it.
  Why are the figures getting worse? Why is there a disaster area? Perhaps it is partly because of the changing

  823
  face of the industry. Many of today's larger companies have fewer directly employed workers than they used to have. There has been a huge increase in self-employment, what is known as the lump, and in small contractors. The Health and Safety Executive said that these small firms are constantly competing for work and often cut costs to the bone and that safety is usually one of the first casualties —if it is ever considered at all—so that, in the conflict between profits and health and safety, health and safety come last.
  More than one third of all employees are now in companies with seven or fewer people, whereas in 1975 it was only one in seven. So we have myriad tiny sub-contracting firms going in and out of business. More than half the deaths occurred on sites with fewer than 10 people. Half the victims had been working for only a week or less on the site where they were killed. Those in charge of the work were considered to be wholly or partly to blame for two thirds of the deaths and to be solely responsible in over half those cases.
  If we are to have a campaign that will succeed, most of these small firms will have to be brought into it. My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) knows that in the east end of London there is a great growth of construction industry at the moment. The east end is like a forest of cranes. There is an increase in work and this means great pressure to take on inadequately trained, inexperienced labour; and unless something drastic is done there will be an increase in this tide of tragedy.
  What is being done about it? We have had the so-called blitz. It started in April 1987 and it was found that by law if work is to last for six weeks the health and safety authorities have to be notified. Only one third of the employers did so. That is another way of saying that two thirds broke the law. Nearly one third of the sites were controlled by agents or supervisors whose knowledge of health and safety legislation was poor or very poor. On 14 per cent. of the sites management was non-existent. Things were so bad and dangerous that on one in four sites work was stopped.
  Of course, some firms were good and some were excellent and that showed that they could compete in the market place and implement proper safety measures, which disproves the argument that proper safety makes firms uncompetitive.
  The other thing that was found through the blitz was that there were very few prosecutions. Why was that? The Health and Safety Executive explained that it was because of the time and effort necessary to prosecute and the fact that it did not have the necessary staff.
  We must ask ourselves what we are to do about this situation. We have to have enforcement of the existing law. If there are no prosecutions, if firms know that they can break the law and cause death and injury and there will be no prosecutions, or they will just have their wrists smacked, nothing will happen. If they are prosecuted in the magistrates court, where the maximum fine is £2,000, we shall not get anywhere. We need proper enforcement. There are not enough inspectors or resources, and the Government are to blame. That is why I intervened in the Minister's speech.
  824
  The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs), who is a valuable member of the Employment Committee, referred to the health and safety evidence given to the Committee. I have here the annual report of the Health and Safety Executive 1986–87, which says:
  "During the six year period April 1980/86, the resources available to the Executive declined in real terms and the number of our inspectors by 213".
  So under this Government real resources to the Health and Safety Executive have declined and the number of inspectors has been cut. There is also a reference in the report to a suspension of recruitment between 1980 and 1984. For four years there was a complete suspension of recruitment to the inspectorate. The Government ought to apologise for that error and that cutting of the inspectorate.
  The same report says that the pressure on resources throughout the year was a matter of anxiety to the executive and it could not do its job. It explained that in the following year, 1987–88, the rates of pay for inspectors were increased, but the amount of money available to the Health and Safety Executive did not go up. Therefore, again the number of inspectors had to be cut.
  The truth is—and I will give way immediately if the Minister can say that I am wrong—that the numbers of agriculture inspectors, factory inspectors and inspectors of mines and quarries are now lower than in 1986 and in 1977, 12 years ago. That is where the Government are to blame for the lack of enforcement.
  They say that there are 99 inspectors in the construction industry. That is totally inadequate. There are 180,000 firms in the construction industry.
  Time is very short and that is why I have truncated my remarks to let some of my colleagues speak, but I want to suggest a number of things that I think should be done.
  First, there must be an increase in penalties. We have to get prosecutions brought in the Crown court and not in the magistrates court. They have to go to the magistrates court first and it is for the Health and Safety Executive to ask that they be moved up to the Crown court. When men or women leave home to go to work their families expect them to come home in the evening, and if employers are so grossly negligent that they cause the death of a worker the sentence should be imprisonment. I believe that until we get some sentences of imprisonment neither employers nor anybody else on the site will take these matters seriously.
  The second step is to take up the idea of UCATT, which has asked for what it calls super-safety reps, rather similar to full-time shop stewards who would be full-time safety representatives.
  Thirdly, the super-safety reps should have the right to stop a job when there is danger to life. If they had that power it would really mean something. Some people may think that that is going too far, but I remind the House that in the Norwegian sector of the North sea the Norwegian trade union safety representives have that right, although they hardly ever use it because the management takes them seriously and there is proper safety treatment. There should be a right to stop the job where necessary to protect life.
  Lastly, because we are dealing with an emergency and need extra safety representatives and inspectors quickly, the Government should take up the visionary offer by the general secretary of UCATT to make available his 120 union officials to act as inspectors. These are people with a lifetime of experience of the industry who know what

  825
  they are talking about. They would work under the supervision of the Health and Safety Executive. That would be a way of doubling the inspectorate immediately to get some action on something which all hon. Members must regard as a national emergency.
  9.28 pm
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: I agree with hon. Members on both sides of the House that safety in the workplace is too important to be dealt with on the basis of ideological prejudice. Indeed, anyone who recognises the nature of the building industry will know how deep-seated and difficult some of the problems are. It is a diffuse industry which works in many different locations. As a result, it is small wonder that the Health and Safety Executive found in its survey that 65 per cent. of firms did not identify work that was likely to go on for more than six weeks.
  It is inherently a risky industry. Risk is compounded by latitude in the industry, as my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) mentioned. It was significant that the report of the Health and Safety Executive, referring to the introduction of helmets to improve safety, said:
  "Reactions range from unthinking abuse to total apathy, typifying an all too common lack of concern for safety measures."
  Therefore, health and safety problems in the industry remain deep-seated. It is wrong to lash out at various so-called contributory factors, such as the lump system or what the motion calls "relentless commercial pressures". That is simplistic.
  The evidence provided by the Health and Safety Executive does not support the theory that the irresponsible behaviour and sloppiness that lead to accidents are necessarily increased at times of commercial upsurge. For instance, as a proportion of the numbers in the industry there was little difference in the number of fatalities in 1981, when the industry was depressed, and 1986–87, when it was booming. The survey on the blitz between April 1987 and September 1988 on the 2,000 prohibitions issued by the Health and Safety Executive shows that, while prohibitions were imposed on 51 out of 55 sites in Glasgow, which was booming at that time, in Southampton, where market conditions were equally booming. there were only five prohibitions out of 134 sites.
  Most of all, the Labour party motion fails to recognise, as Her Majesty's chief inspector of safety recognises, that it is precisely those companies with the most strict safety rules and the most strict system of monitoring and training their work forces on safety that are the most successful and profitable. As the chief inspector said:
  "A well-planned contract which identifies safety requirements will be more efficiently run, more productive and therefore more profitable."
  The Government are right to try to set down an effective framework within which, through voluntary co-operation, employers, employees and regulators within the industry can make an improvement in safety.
  That is not to say that safety is not a matter of concern. There has been reference in the debate to an article in the Financial Times which said that only 49 per cent. of sites with more than 50 employees visited by the Health and Safety Executive had prohibition notices; that the overall standards of health and safety were poor; and that only one third of managers on sites had an adequate grasp of safety procedures. It is worrying that prosecutions have not led to a greater change in attitudes in the industry.
  826
  While I welcome the approach by the Government to increase safety supervision in smaller companies, to improve site notification procedure and to allow for better management and co-ordination on multi-contractor sites, I think that there is a strong case for stricter penalties for people who break the law. Equally, there is a strong case for the promotion of model contracts which could be put forward by the Building Employers Confederation, the National House-Building Council and others. Those contracts should show exactly what good safety procedures involve.
  In the long run, attitudes will be improved only through training. It was significant that Brian Hewitt, the National House-Building Council president, welcomed the Government review of training recently when he said that it
  "provides the house-building industry with the first opportunity for over 20 years to make a meaningful impact on training policy."
  There will be 60,000 entrants a year into the building industry over the next few years and a massive need for retraining. Now that the National Council for Vocational Qualifications has recognised the CITB as a lead industrial body, it is important that it uses competence procedures for qualifications in a modular form, if necessary, including health and safety aspects so as to improve significantly the amount of training that is done within the industry on health and safety.
  It is a waste of time having well-trained operatives within an industry unless the public have confidence in the way that industry is policed. Although statutory regulations for every type of building work contractor would be unrealistic and undesirable, there is a strong case for statutory self-regulation of the industry, which could take place either through the National House-Building Council or the Building Employers Confederation for companies, depending on the kind of work that they are doing, its complexity and its scope.
  A house builder, if he has satisfied criteria of confidence and experience and has provided adequate insurance indemnity and evidence that he has understood safety procedures, would be made responsible on the site on which he worked, irrespective of whether he was sub-contracting, employing lump labour or directly employing labour, for safety on that site. It is curious that, while there is a seven-year training period for architects and a four-year training period for house planners, there is no specific and necessary training period for house builders. If we did what I propose, the reputation of the industry would be increased, the consumers' confidence would be restored, and the safety of employees in the industry would be immeasurably improved.
  9.35 pm
  Mr. Dave Nellist: Piper Alpha, King's Cross and Zeebrugge were all dreadful disasters involving huge loss of life and terrible injuries. Shock and horror were rammed into the lives of the families affected. Every year there is a disaster of similar magnitude in the construction industry, but the disaster is diffused. It is not concentrated but hidden, and it is not exposed in the media in the same way as the terrible disasters to which I have already referred.
  My colleagues have referred to "Blackspot Construction" produced by the Health and Safety Executive in June 1988. That document recorded that 739

  827
  people were killed in construction accidents between 1981 and 1985—an average of 147 deaths per year. That is twice the rate for agriculture and five times the rate for manufacturing industry. Since 1985, it has climbed to 160 deaths per year. A construction worker is killed or seriously injured on site every hour of every working day and a less serious injury occurs once every couple of minutes. Deaths caused by long-term diseases and injuries kill 4,000 people per year. That is carnage—the word used by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher)—and carnage on a horrific scale. It is a battlefield on which building workers are the cannon fodder for the employers' profit system.
  Not all the people on a building site face the same risks. The chances of a site manager or agent dying of lung cancer before reaching retirement age are half that for the general population. By contrast, according to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys decennial occupational mortality supplement 1979–80 and 1982–83, a plasterer runs three times the risk of disease as his boss. The risk of disease extends to families living in buildings under construction, repair or renovation, as recent evidence from Germany has shown from the use of timber treatment solutions containing pentachlorophenol and lindane. Fifty thousand people in this country belong to the Association of Victims of Wood Preservatives and are preparing to sue United Kingdom companies such as Rentokil and Cuprinol which distribute products which can allegedly cause leukemia, cancer and blood disorders including aplastic anaemia.
  My time on the shop floor during the 1970s was littered with anecdotal stories of how we hardly ever contributed to retirement do's for chippies or welders as they never lived long enough to retire because they worked with similarly dangerous substances. The common link between Piper Alpha, King's Cross, Zeebrugge and the construction accidents and illnesses which we have discussed this evening is that they are all preventable. All the deaths are the result of callous disregard by employers for workers' safety. It does not matter whether the employers be Occidental, British Rail, Townsend Thoresen, John Laing, Tarmac, Rentokil or Cuprinol.
  Whether those deaths are preventable is not, in a sense, in question tonight. The Opposition have stated that they are, as has the HSE in its five-yearly report which stated:
  "Ninety per cent. of construction fatalities could have been prevented."
  Even the Prime Minister's amendment acknowledges that. Clearly the Government have been on the defensive tonight. The HSE continued:
  "In 70 per cent. of cases, positive action by management could have saved lives."
  Why is that action not forthcoming? That question should be the crux of this debate. That is what I think and what I want to express in these two or three minutes after waiting many months to make a major contribution in this hallowed hall of the House of Commons. That question should be the crux of the debate in the few minutes that remain.
  Action is not forthcoming because of the £12 billion worth of contracts in London and the south-east alone. Contractors have been told to complete contracts on time, regardless of how many corners they cut. The most infamous statement that I have heard in six years in this
  828
  palace of varieties is "a man a mile" in relation to the building of the Channel tunnel. It is estimated that the Chunnel will lead to 20 deaths in 20 miles. That is the impact on the work carried out. Deaths are being built into the budget. That is an obscenity. There is no other word for it. It is obscene that the construction industry's profits should be put before the lives of those who create that wealth.
  The Government and the Prime Minister's all pervading and perverse philosophy of "get rich quick and ignore the lives of the workers" underpins the philosophy of the employers. In the past 10 years, 1,500 people have died in construction accidents. According to the Health and Safety Executive, the number of fatal and major injuries has risen by 66 per cent. in the past seven years. In the two years 1986 and 1987, six of the top building firms in Britain—Beazer, Bovis, Laing, Tarmac, Wimpey and Trafalgar House—made £836 million profit. In the past three years, Laing, McAlpine, Balfour Beatty, Tarmac and Wimpey have all been found guilty of health and safety offences. The fines have been between £500 and £2,000. When one compares that with Jeffrey Archer's £500,000 and Elton John's £1 million—when one sets the reputations of those individuals against the lives of construction workers—how do the scales balance?
  From January 1983 to March 1987, the average fine on 2,343 firms was £361—the same as the average fine for not paying the fare on London Transport. That is how much the lives of workers in the construction industry are considered. The Government take no serious account of that point, and their attitude is understandable when one notes that in 1987 Wimpey, Bovis, Tarmac, Trafalgar House and Costain each gave between £25,000 and £37,000 to the Tory party to keep it sweet. Amey Roadstone, Costain, Gleeson, McAlpine, Marples, Taylor Woodrow, Wimpey and Mowlem also all subscribe to the Economic League which blacklists any shop steward who sticks his head above the parapet and complains about unsafe working conditions.
  The Labour Government gave us the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, but that is no more than a bit of paper unless it has teeth and stewards have the confidence to use it. The Health and Safety Executive is staffed by well-intentioned individuals, but it is inadequate. The Minister said earlier that this was a red herring, but the Government employ six times as many dole snoopers in London as factory inspectors. Last year, 4,133 sites known to inspectors in London had 12 inspectors to cover them. They could not get to each of them once a year if they tried, so although there were 36 deaths in London last year and 413 major injuries there were only 18 prosecutions and no employer was gaoled—so much for the law and order party!
  The workers have had enough. A debate like this will not satisfy the thousands of workers who are sick to the back teeth of burying their mates after accidents. Comrades have spoken of it. Building workers, first in London and now in the midlands, have formed the construction safety campaign. They are asking for a lot of things—but the first and most important is that the number of deaths and injuries of construction workers in Britain should become a major political issue. Tonight we have made a start on that. There are a few more miles to go down that road. We shall have lobbies and meetings and, no doubt, some industrial action along the way as well. We shall do what we have started to do in Coventry,

  829
  where we are banning contractors when scaffolding and other inadequate working practices on building sites are creating risks for workers. We shall put that proposal to every Labour council.
  Our experience and that of the Health and Safety Executive is that the Government do not allow the HSE the resources to operate properly. The debate may be a little irritant to those Tory Members who have turned up, but what of the wives and the bairns of those who have died in the past 10 years? There are about 1·5 million workers in the industry, and in the past 10 years 1,500 have been killed and 40,000 have died from bronchitis, cancer and other diseases caused by dust and unhealthy working conditions. The number injured runs into millions.
  Our motion puts the blame where it lies. The chilling report of the Health and Safety Executive shows that 90 per cent. of fatalities in the construction industry are preventable—not "avoidable", as the Minister said. He should look in a dictionary and see the difference between the two. If employers—those with the money—really meant to save the lives of their workers, they could do so.
  There is a solution to the problem. It lies in the motion, in the suggestion of the Health and Safety Executive, and in the work of the construction safety campaign. Employers do not care a damn about safety. They care only about profit. The only way that we shall stop their lust for profit and the killing of workers in the construction industry is when those employers no longer own and control it—when workers in the building industry and the working class generally own, control, plan and manage the construction industry. Then we shall build houses without the death of workers being the price that is paid.
  9.45 pm
  Mr. Gavin Strang: It is a measure of the importance that we attach to the subject that not all right hon. and hon. Members who wished to speak in the debate have been able to participate.
  There can be no doubt about the high level of accidents in the construction industry, and there can be no doubt about the need for effective action by all concerned to improve health and safety standards. The construction industry is one of the most dangerous in the country. The Health and Safety Executive's 1987–88 report shows that the number of employees who suffered fatal injuries in all industries totalled 340 and that no fewer than 100 of them were in construction, compared with 96 in all manufacturing industries. The figures in respect of the self-employed and non-employed are even more striking. The number for all industries is 525, of which 157 are accounted for by construction and 100 by manufacturing.
  The figure of 157 deaths in construction for 1987–88 is the highest since 1981. I refer also to the figures for reported accidents per 100,000 employees, the latest of which were published in February with the Employment Gazette supplement, from which one can see that accident rates in construction are among the highest of all the industries included. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) made it clear that, along with all those accidents, there are deaths arising from occupational disease such as asbestosis and bronchitis. The chairman of the Health and Safety Commission, Dr. John Cullen, stated that more people die from contact with dangerous substances and from noise on construction sites than from injuries.
  830
  The Government have a responsibility, and the Minister made great play of the fact that recently there has been an increase in the number of factory inspectors dealing with the construction industry. However, that increase is against the background of a progressive decline in the number of Health and Safety Executive staff and of factory and agricultural inspectors. There has been a decline in qualified and experienced factory inspectors, and all the increases are accounted for by recent new recruits. It is arguable that the additional number of construction inspectors will be less capable of doing the job than would be the case were there a more balanced complement, with the more experienced and qualified inspectors who have left to take other jobs.
  That decline in the executive, for which the Government have been responsible over 10 years, has occurred while the Government have piled additional responsibility upon responsibility on the commission and the executive. I refer to the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1984, responsibility for gas safety including domestic installations, the Road Traffic (Carriage of Dangerous Substances in Packages etc.) Regulations 1986, and the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988, which will shortly come into operation. All those are increased responsibilities and yet, at the same time, year in, year out, there has been a decline in the resources available to the Health and Safety Executive. We welcome the belated improvement, but it is totally inadequate—infinitesimal against what is needed to restore the position. We need a commitment from the Government to increase the amount available to the Health and Safety Executive by a substantial amount each year in order to begin to overcome the problems.
  Against that background of a shortage of factory inspectors, it was probably right to have the much publicised blitz to which the hon. Members referred. However, when a blitz takes place, the people inspecting the sites are unable to do their normal jobs. Inspectors are reallocated to the work instead of carrying out the jobs they should be doing. As I am sure Ministers recognise, an important role of the inspectors is advisory and educational.
  The Government have responsibilities for health and safety in our construction industry. We need a massive increase in the number of inspectors and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said, there is a great need for longer sentences for offenders. Top managers should go to gaol if they are responsible for inadequate health and safety standards that lead to death and serious injury on construction sites.
  Reference has been made to the excellent study, "Blackspot Construction", carried out by the Health and Safety Executive. That points out quite clearly time and again that responsibility for these injuries and deaths lies with the site management, and inadequate supervision and planning of the work places.
  It should be made absolutely clear that responsibility lies in the work place with the workers themselves, in addition to the inspectorate. We deplore the fact that, year in, year out, the Government have enacted legislation to undermine and weaken the trade union movement, which has, and should play, a key role in health and safety in the workplace, particularly on construction sites. It is no use

  831
  the Government talking about the role of the workers and the trade unions and, at the same time, constantly introducing legislation to weaken and undermine them.
  The Government have put private profit before public service and preferred tax cuts to public investment on improved services. The Government have undermined the trade union movement at every opportunity. We are not suggesting that the Government are indifferent to death and injury on building sites, but the Government have not given health and safety in the construction industry the priority that they deserve. That is why we shall be voting for the motion.
  9.53 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): The inevitable constraints of time mean that I shall not be able to do justice to the powerful contributions made by a number of hon. Members. Without the two inevitable exceptions, the contributions made were extremely helpful, and of the sort that we expect to hear.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State called for a debate which went above party and which would bring about some positive suggestions for tackling a very real problem and give a clear message to the industry that it must do better. For the most part, that has been the case and I shall certainly look at Hansard to note the points that have been made, and reply to any specific points as necessary.
  I shall comment shortly upon some of the points that have been made in the debate, but I first want to emphasise two points which are central to the issue of construction safety. First, far too many people are killed while working on sites—hon. Members from both sides of the House have rightly condemned that carnage. Secondly, it is wholly inexcusable because so many—90 per cent. of the deaths—are obviously preventable.
  Yes, construction sites may be inherently dangerous, with large machines, heavy weights and heights, but time and again inspectors report that the true cause of an accident was ignorance, complacency or lack of thought about basic and simple precautions. It is utterly unacceptable that some of those engaged in the construction industry have so little regard for human life and the well-being of their fellow citizens.
  However, there is another reason why this record is so appalling. It concerns an area where the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and the Opposition motion have chosen to try to make cheap political capital, and about which they are mistaken. They have charged the Government with some form of commercial interest in fostering poor safety conditions, but the message that we are trying to get across to industry is that there is every commercial reason to ensure that firms have the highest safety standards. Accidents not only cause pain and suffering but incur extremely high costs—£2 billion per annum—a high proportion of which fall on the construction industry. Young people will soon be in short supply, and the industry's image will do it no good whatever in a difficult recruitment market.
  When inspectors visit sites they find that there is a direct correlation between firms with good safety standards and those that are successful. Those that have poor standards
  832
  often go bust. Mistakenly, their managers think that by cutting corners they can make economies. Such short-sighted attitudes invariably backfire, and the same lackadaisical attitude to running their business leads to economic ruin. A good manager knows that he must ensure that his company performs well in all sectors and that it is counterproductive to cheat on safety.
  In a powerful contribution, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said that safety is a question of "your health or their wealth." He could not be more wrong. There is nothing contradictory or inimical between profits and safety; the two must go hand in hand.
  Mention was made of accident rates, and inevitably the hon. Member for Oldham, West interpreted them in a particular way. The hon. Gentleman seems to think that we do not understand the message. There were 157 fatalities last year and 3,600 major injuries—too many. Like it or not, the hon. Gentleman will have to face up to the fact that the prevention of accidents lies not with the Government but with those who work on sites and primarily, though not exclusively, with employers.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West has a way of presenting figures. I shall make a point from which I take no comfort—it is the sort of thing in which the hon. Gentleman wants to indulge—about the number of fatalities in the construction industry. There were 139 deaths in the boom period of 1986–87 and 157 in 1987–88. Those figures are well below the rates of the last sustained boom in construction. In 1974, there were 166 deaths and in 1975 there were 182. If I adopted the simplistic nonsense of the hon. Member for Oldham, West, I could say, "That is OK. We are doing better and deaths were higher under a Labour Government." I derive no comfort from that, but that is the way in which the hon. Gentleman tried to present the argument. It is not good enough to come to the House with pretensions of office when the best that one can do is to try to attribute accident figures to political opponents. Even by the standards of the hon. Member for Oldham, West, that will not work.
  We understand that the Opposition take a dirigiste view of the courts, but the Government should not lecture courts on how to decide cases. It is the Government's job to ensure that penalties are available for courts to use. If magistrates decide that a case is serious enough to commit to the Crown court, that is where it goes. Companies do not take fines of £750,000 lightly. Such fines make a substantial deficit in a company's accounts. It is about time that people such as the hon. Member for Oldham, West, who pretend to take an interest in these matters, understood that.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State said that the construction industry's fatality record was quite appalling. The misery, desolation and grief that underlie the figures for many families is made more unbearably acute by the fact that many of the accidents were avoidable. When others rise to the occasion, the hon. Member for Oldham, West is more likely to sink to it. Surely this is an issue in which even he could have risen above his usual practice of using and abusing any issue for cheap political points. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) at least did his best to reflect that concern.
  What we need to know from the Opposition tonight, as the debate reaches its conclusion, is which of their two spokesmen more accurately reflects Opposition views. Is it an attempt at common sense or cheap sensationalism; positive action or political posturing; heartfelt concern or

  833
  the usual Oldham claptrap? In a few moments' time we will know the answer to that, but even if students of Labour's past form are unlikely to be disappointed, we could all hope that, just this once, they might conceivably have got it wrong.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 212, Noes 265.

  Division No. 154]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Fatchett, Derek

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Allen, Graham

  Fearn, Ronald

  Alton, David

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Anderson, Donald

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

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Flannery, Martin

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Flynn, Paul

  Ashton, Joe

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Foster, Derek

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Fraser, John

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Barron, Kevin

  Galbraith, Sam

  Battle, John

  Galloway, George

  Beckett, Margaret

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Beith, A. J.

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  George, Bruce

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

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Gordon, Mildred

  Blair, Tony

  Gould, Bryan

  Blunkett, David

  Graham, Thomas

  Boateng, Paul

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Bradley, Keith

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Buchan, Norman

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Buckley, George J.

  Henderson, Doug

  Caborn, Richard

  Hinchliffe, David

  Callaghan, Jim

  Holland, Stuart

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Home Robertson, John

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Howells, Geraint

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Clay, Bob

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Clelland, David

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Illsley, Eric

  Corbett, Robin

  Ingram, Adam

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Janner, Greville

  Cousins, Jim

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Cox, Tom

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Crowther, Stan

  Kennedy, Charles

  Cryer, Bob

  Kilfedder, James

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Lambie, David

  Dalyell, Tam

  Lamond, James

  Darling, Alistair

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Leighton, Ron

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

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

  Lewis, Terry

  Dewar, Donald

  Litherland, Robert

  Dixon, Don

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dobson, Frank

  Livsey, Richard

  Doran, Frank

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Douglas, Dick

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  McAllion, John

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Eadie, Alexander

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Eastham, Ken

  McFall, John

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  McKelvey, William

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  McLeish, Henry

  834

  McWilliam, John

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Madden, Max

  Rowlands, Ted

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Ruddock, Joan

  Marek, Dr John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Martlew, Eric

  Short, Clare

  Maxton, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Meacher, Michael

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Meale, Alan

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

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

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

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Snape, Peter

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Soley, Clive

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Stott, Roger

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Strang, Gavin

  Mullin, Chris

  Straw, Jack

  Murphy, Paul

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Nellist, Dave

  Turner, Dennis

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Vaz, Keith

  O'Brien, William

  Wall, Pat

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wallace, James

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Walley, Joan

  Parry, Robert

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Patchett, Terry

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Pendry, Tom

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Prescott, John

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wilson, Brian

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Winnick, David

  Radice, Giles

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Randall, Stuart

  Worthington, Tony

  Redmond, Martin

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Robertson, George

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Mr. Frank Haynes and Mrs. Llin Golding.

  Rogers, Allan

  Rooker, Jeff

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Alexander, Richard

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Amess, David

  Burns, Simon

  Amos, Alan

  Burt, Alistair

  Arbuthnot, James

  Butcher, John

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Butterfill, John

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Ashby, David

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Carrington, Matthew

  Atkins, Robert

  Carttiss, Michael

  Atkinson, David

  Chapman, Sydney

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Chope, Christopher

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Churchill, Mr

  Batiste, Spencer

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

  Bellingham, Henry

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Colvin, Michael

  Benyon, W.

  Conway, Derek

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Couchman, James

  Body, Sir Richard

  Cran, James

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Critchley, Julian

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Boswell, Tim

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

  Bottomley, Peter

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Day, Stephen

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Devlin, Tim

  Bowis, John

  Dicks, Terry

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Brazier, Julian

  Dover, Den

  Bright, Graham

  Dunn, Bob

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

  Emery, Sir Peter

  835

  Evennett, David

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

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Fallon, Michael

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Favell, Tony

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Irvine, Michael

  Forman, Nigel

  Irving, Charles

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Jack, Michael

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Jackson, Robert

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Janman, Tim

  Franks, Cecil

  Jessel, Toby

  Freeman, Roger

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  French, Douglas

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Fry, Peter

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Gale, Roger

  Key, Robert

  Gardiner, George

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Gill, Christopher

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Knox, David

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Lang, Ian

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Lightbown, David

  Gorst, John

  Lord, Michael

  Gow, Ian

  Maclean, David

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Gregory, Conal

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Moate, Roger

  Grist, Ian

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Ground, Patrick

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Grylls, Michael

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Hague, William

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Needham, Richard

  Hannam, John

  Neubert, Michael

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

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Harris, David

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Norris, Steve

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hayward, Robert

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Paice, James

  Heddle, John

  Patnick, Irvine

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Hill, James

  Pawsey, James

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Howard, Michael

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  836

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Price, Sir David

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Raffan, Keith

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Redwood, John

  Thurnham, Peter

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Riddick, Graham

  Tracey, Richard

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Tredinnick, David

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Trippier, David

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Rost, Peter

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Rowe, Andrew

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Walden, George

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Waller, Gary

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Ward, John

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Watts, John

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Wells, Bowen

  Shersby, Michael

  Wheeler, John

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wilkinson, John

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Wilshire, David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Squire, Robin

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wolfson, Mark

  Steen, Anthony

  Wood, Timothy

  Stern, Michael

  Woodcock, Mike

  Stevens, Lewis

  Yeo, Tim

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Sumberg, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Summerson, Hugo

  Mr. Tony Durant and Mr. Tom Sackville.

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  Mr. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House, deploring the high accident rate on construction sites and noting that 90 per cent. of construction accidents are preventable, recognises that the prime responsibility for safety lies with employers and others on site; acknowledges the vigorous action which the Health and Safety Commission and Executive have taken through enforcement blitzes and publicity campaigns on construction safety; and welcomes the increased provision which the Government has made available to the Health and Safety Executive thereby enabling the Executive to increase the number of inspectors employed on construction work.

  European Community (Weights and Measures)
  10.17 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Francis Maude): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4102/89 on units of measurement; and welcomes the proposals as providing adequate transitional periods to enable businesses and consumers to adapt and become used to the new measurements.
  In 1965 the then Government announced their support to encourage the adoption of metric units as the primary system for weights and measures in the United Kingdom. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who are not remaining for this debate please leave quietly?
  Mr. Maude: That was a decision taken for purely domestic reasons, in response to urging by the CBI and others; it had nothing to do then with possible membership of the European Community. In 1971 the then member states of the Community adopted a directive which established the sole use of the metric system throughout the Community. When the United Kingdom and Ireland acceded to the Community the Government accepted that eventually the metric system should be the only system to be used.
  In consequence, a White Paper on metrication was published in 1972. It stated that all practicable progress towards the full use of the metric system should be made within the next few years, in the interests of economic prosperity. This led to the education system moving to the use of metric units in 1974. As a result, 11 million children since then have been taught only in the metric system.
  Mr. Neil Hamilton: I am interested to hear that the Government now take orders from the CBI. If the situation is as my hon. Friend says, I wonder whether he can tell us why abolition of the Metrication Board was one of the Government's first acts on being elected in 1979.
  Mr. Maude: In the hubbub my hon. Friend may not have heard that I was referring to the Government in 1965 taking steps in response to urging by the CBI. I am now dealing with steps taken by the Government in 1972 and 1974. My hon. Friend will realise that different considerations may have applied then.
  In the late 1970s, discussion began, under the last Government, on proposals for a new directive. The directive was eventually adopted in late 1979, having been modified by the present Government to allow the yard to continue to be used. In its final form, the directive continued to authorise the use of the remaining imperial units in the United Kingdom and Ireland until a date to be fixed by those member states. However, the directive provided that there should be a further directive, to be agreed not later than the end of the 1989, which would set a final date by which the United Kingdom and Ireland should end the use of imperial units. The proposals we are discussing are intended to meet that commitment. They have been brought forward as a result of a binding commitment entered into by the Government, with bipartisan support, in 1979.
  838
  Following the Single European Act, the directive falls to be decided under article 100A by qualified majority, and the United Kingdom and Ireland alone do not form a blocking minority.
  Let us now consider the detail of the commission's proposals. The first proposal covers the mile, yard, foot and inch for road transport purposes, the pint for dispensing draught beer and cider, the pint for milk in returnable bottles, and the acre.
  We and Ireland will be able to continue to authorise those units for these purposes for as long as we wish, without any need for a further EC decision. Therefore, the mile, the pint in the pub, the doorstep pint of milk and the acre will be preserved.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Did my hon. Friend say
  "as long as we wish"
  or will there be a termination date of 1999?
  Mr. Maude: There is no termination date and it will be for the member states concerned to set a termination dale if and when they wish.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: The Minister said that the directive will be determined under article 100A. The Select Committee on European Legislation said in its report:
  "It appears to the Committee, in the light of the Department's response to the second point"—
  it was about article 100A—
  "that there is no impediment to the Commission, if the present proposal is adopted by the Council, subsequently submitting a further proposal, under Article 100A, to fix the date for ending".
  That means the use of this particular group of measures could be ended under article 100A.
  Mr. Maude: There is nothing to prevent the Commission from making further proposals about anything which lies within its competence to do. In the same way, there is nothing to stop anyone making a legislative proposal in this House. However, we are discussing the final step along the road. The Commission has accepted the concerns expressed by our Government and the proposals reflect those concerns. Fears that there will suddenly be another tranche of proposals are misguided.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: Surely it means that the derogation could be ended unilaterally without consultation with us and without our consent.
  Mr. Maude: For the derogation to be ended would require the Commission to make a proposal which would have to be agreed by a qualified majority. That would have to be negotiated in the usual way and, as with this proposal, the United Kingdom and Ireland would not, alone, have a blocking minority. There is no reason to suppose——
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is not for ever then?
  Mr. Maude: Nothing is for ever, as the hon. Gentleman knows. There is no reason to suppose, however, that the Commission has any desire to introduce further measures.
  Mr. David Blunkett: I initiated the early-day motion on this issue and the Minister will know that I should be pleased to hear an unequivocal answer from him about the requirement that a date be

  839
  eventually set. That is the issue tonight. It is not whether there will be a delay in having to fix a date to do away with the pint and the mile but whether, eventually, a date will be set to which a British Goverment, now or in the future, will have to adhere. Therefore, the evil day has been put off, but it has not been put aside.
  Mr. Maude: The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), who is sitting next to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), is familiar with the 1979 directive. It is framed in such a way that this proposal must provide the dates to be set and the only legal means which enables this country to have the final say on when or whether the units are discontinued is the form in which the proposal is expressed. In practical terms, it enables this country to have the last say on whether the units are retained. It has not been easy to find a form of words within the constraints of the last directive that allows that position to come about. It has been achieved, however, and I must now seek to persuade other member states of the Community that it is an acceptable compromise which should be supported.
  The second proposal covers the fathom, the therm, the pint and the fluid ounce for returnable beer, cider and soft drink bottles, and the pound and ounce for goods weighed out for or by the consumer. We would be able to continue to authorise these units for these purposes until the end of the century.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Given that weighed-out loose goods, weighed out from bulk in front of the consumer, are not items which are traded across the Community, what possible reason can there be to require a small shopkeeper to refuse to serve a consumer 5 lb of potatoes or 1 lb of peas from bulk goods? What will happen to the shopkeeper or consumer if, after the set date, the customer asks for, and the shopkeeper serves, 5 lb of potatoes?
  Mr. Maude: Under the present weights and measures legislation, which has been in existence, subject to amendment from time to time, for a long time, it is, and has been for many years, a criminal offence to sell goods in measures which are not authorised under the legislation. The consequence of this directive would be that at the appropriate time—which, if this proposal remains in the directive, would not need to be until the end of the century—we would have to amend our domestic legislation according to these proposals.
  Mr. Beith: What is the answer to my question?
  Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware of the fact that it is possible for the trading standards authorities to prosecute people now who sell goods in quantities and units which are not authorised under the legislation. There is nothing novel about that. [Interruption.] Amendments have been made continually to the list of such authorised units over many years.
  Mr. Beith: Is the Minister seriously saying that he envisages that weights and measures inspectors will prosecute little old ladies for buying 5 lb of loose potatoes after 1999?
  Mr. Maude: It would not be a criminal offence for the customer to buy goods in those circumstances. It would
  840
  be, as it is now, a criminal offence for a trader to sell goods in units which are not authorised, and there is nothing novel about that. The hon. Gentleman should know that. If he is asking whether trading standards officers will do it, my answer is that it will be a matter for those officers. But I should be surprised if, on the day after these measures come into operation, trading standards officers will be stamping around the streets trying to find people selling goods in pounds and ounces. If the hon. Gentleman believes that is a possibility, he has a lesser view than I do of the enforcement officers.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I asked my hon. Friend, in effect, if I was right in believing that what is proposed was fixed until 31 December 1999 and I understood him to say that there was no termination date. Technically that is true. But he went on to say that the pint and the mile could be used until the end of the century. That was precisely the point I questioned him on.
  Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend asked me specifically about the pint for dispensing draught beer and cider and the mile. That was the first proposal I outlined and the answer I gave her was correct. There is no requirement for a termination date to be set. I am now dealing with the second proposal in the draft directive which covers the pint for other purposes—for returnable beer, cider and soft drink bottles—and it will remain possible for the United Kingdom and Ireland to authorise those units until the end of the century. I hope that that makes it clear to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Blunkett: To enable me to sleep easy in my bed, may I ask the Minister to explain into which category will fall the best service we in this country enjoy, the service that is most reliable and which we take for granted—the delivery of our pint of milk?
  Mr. Maude: The pint of milk delivered to the doorstep falls into the first category. It will remain with this country to set an authorisation date, if and when we decide to do that.
  The third proposal covers all the other remaining imperial units set out in chapter three of the 1979 directive. Those could continue to be authorised until the beginning of 1995. Special provisions for the troy ounce for bullion dealing would be made which recognise the international status of that unit. The proposals would also allow imperial units to continue to be used as supplementary indications to the marking in metric units until the end of the century. That would allow dual marking, which would enable us to provide a transitional period for consumers to become fully familiar with those metric units that will be used.
  Mr. James Wallace: I have been reflecting on what the Minister said to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). Does he mean that dairies that deliver milk to the doorstep and also supply supermarkets will have to have different sizes of bottles after 1999 for each type of delivery? Will it be possible for supermarkets to continue to sell pints of milk?
  Mr. Maude: It will be up to dairies to decide what to do. It is already possible for dairies to supply milk in metric units and some do so. It will remain open to dairies to choose which unit to use for doorstep deliveries. The permanent derogation, which is what it amounts to, would

  841
  apply only to milk being delivered in returnable containers. It would be possible for milk to be sold in supermarkets in returnable containers in the same units in which it is delivered to the doorstep.
  Mr. Skinner: Will we be able to buy these things at Harrods?
  I have not finished; that was just an introduction. Is there not something sick about the Common Market? Bureaucrats who are well paid with British taxpayers' money have spent countless hours on this. Every family in Britain pays £16 a week to prop up this unmitigated disaster of a Common Market. The Minister is pouring out a load of gobbledegook based on trying to regulate milk bottles and stop old ladies buying loose tatties. What a state we have got into. The Minister should take it back to the Common Market and tell them to get stuffed.
  Mr. Maude: As always, the hon. Gentleman is full of splendid advice. He should have put those comments to his hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) in 1978–79. Perhaps he did. The directive is the result of a legal obligation and arises from the directive negotiated by the last Labour Government and agreed with modifications and further safeguards by the present Government. It places on the Community an obligation to produce a further directive and agree it by the end of the year.
  Mr. John Fraser: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) did raise the matter with me, but I am afraid that he remains a convinced imperialist.
  Mr. Maude: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) clearly failed to persuade the hon. Member for Norwood at that time.
  We have consulted over 700 interested groups, from industry, trade, enforcement authorities and consumer bodies. Some of those consulted, including the National Consumer Council and the National Federation of Consumer Groups, have urged that the interests of consumers would be better served by the completion of metrication by the end of 1992 with no derogations at all. I cannot agree with that, because the Commission's proposals would allow such further changes as are necessary to be undertaken in a cautious and considered way, with the minimum disruption to consumers or industry. It would allow to continue to be used units for which the public have great affection and in respect of which it cannot be seriously argued that they constitute barriers to trade.
  In respect of those units where such an argument does exist, the proposals allow us to move sensibly and without undue haste. I should stress that these proposals affect the use of imperial units only for the purposes of trade.
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I missed what he said when he was talking about the consultation exercise. In the accompanying documents there is mention of a very disappointing response. In what respect was the response disappointing? How many of the 700 groups that were asked to comment were in favour of what the Commission is suggesting?
  Mr. Maude: There were two responses which were hostile to the spirit of further metrication, a number which were neutral and some, to which I have just referred, which
  842
  urged that we should move more quickly. I do not believe that those representations reflect a widespread view and I do not believe that we should move more quickly than these proposals allow.
  Mr. Kennedy: On a further factual point, given that there were two that were hostile, a few that were non-committal and several that said something else, what were the total number of responses from the 700 that were circulated?
  Mr. Maude: I can probably find how many responses there were. The consultation, which was widespread, did not elicit very strong views in any direction. The volume of correspondence which the proposals generated was not great and it seems to me that this is not an issue on which feelings are as deep as they were some time ago. Metrication has been growing organically. More and more goods are being sold and bought in metric units and as a result people are now very much more familiar with the use of these units.
  Mr. John Garrett: Something just dawned on me, to my mounting horror. We shall not be expected to give litres of blood in future, shall we?
  Mr. Maude: I did not catch the hon. Gentleman's question, but I suspect it was not serious.
  I was saying that these measures apply only to purposes of trade and not to measurements which are only a matter of custom and practice. It would not become necessary, as some people have suggested, apparently seriously, to remeasure cricket pitches in metres and I see no reason why the use of imperial measures for non-trade purposes should not continue for as many years as people wish to use them.
  There will of course be some costs in converting to the metric system. I believe, however, that the moderate nature of these proposals keeps these to a minimum.
  There are also significant savings. The Institute of Production Engineers, for example, estimates the; additional cost of dual manufacture and stockholding at 3 per cent. of turnover.
  I believe therefore that these proposals represent an acceptable compromise and I hope that we shall be able to persuade other member states that they fulfil our legal obligations under the 1979 directive. I hope that the House will endorse the Government's stance on this matter.
  10.38 pm
  Ms. Joyce Quin: It is clear that the draft directive before us today both confirms and reinforces the move to metrication, although it is true that it allows some latitude in this regard.
  The subject of metrication obviously evokes a mixed response in Britain and, indeed—judging from my reading of earlier debates on the subject—in the House. Certainly a variety of views has been expressed on both sides of the House.
  For some, the increasing use of metric measurements seems to strike a blow against the very nature of the British identity. Some feel a strong attachment to the imperial measurement system. Perhaps, like me, they were fascinated by the mysterious, romantic-sounding lists of measurements that used to feature on the back of school exercise books. For others, however, the pace of metrication seems all too slow, and many believe that more

  843
  rapid progress should be made. The timetable for metrication envisaged more than 20 years ago has been put back and many who most feared the move towards metrication at that time would no doubt be agreeably surprised that we are discussing this document tonight. Whatever the different views on the subject, one real danger is that we are in a half-and-half position which is highly confusing. A metric muddle is being created.
  The Minister referred to previous directives on the subject and explained how this one fitted in. He also described the provisions of the directive. I wish to ask him some questions. It seems clear from the Minister's responses to interventions that, although under the directive the United Kingdom and Ireland can fix a time to phase out remaining imperial measurements, there is nothing to stop the Commission itself from introducing a revised directive to make the timetable speedier, if it so wishes. If the British Government fail to come up with a date, presumably that is what the Commission will do. If the Government fix a date that the Commission feels is unrealistically far into the future, will the Minister confirm that again the Commission could take action?
  When the matter was first discussed, it was on the treaty base of article 100, which provided for a unanimous decision by member states, but the present directive will be decided by a majority vote. I have attended a European parliamentary committee which considered the directive and it seemed to me that most of the other countries had little interest in how, when, or even whether the United Kingdom and Ireland chose to phase out imperial measurements. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that that is so.
  Can the Minister also let us know whether, in his discussions on the matter, he has met other EEC Ministers? Many of us feel that too many of these decisions are taken by officials, often in the secretive workings of COREPER, the committee of permanent representatives, and that there is very little political input.
  The mile is one example of a measurement for which the United Kingdom can decide on the changeover date. As the mile is not a barrier to trade, it would be reasonable for the Government to make their own decision on what they want to do. Nevertheless, I should like to know whether they have made any estimate of the cost of changing from the mile to the metric system. Some people feel that the Government are hesitating more on cost grounds than on the principle.
  I am glad that there has been a reference to the pint because it should be made clear, to counter misleading impressions in the press, that doorstep milk deliveries are not threatened by the directive. No doubt the Minister will wish to take the opportunity to stress that again.
  The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) raised a valid point about the sale of loose goods. Surely we do not want to make it an offence in all cases for small local shops to continue to sell by imperial measurements.
  On the point raised by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) about consultation, will the Government tell us whether they plan further consultations on the directive, particularly since the response so far has not been adequate? I note that the
  844
  Government's explanatory memorandum was vague on the cost of changing for shops and firms. Can the Minister give us any further details about that?
  I hope that we could all agree that in implementing the directive there should be no unfair jacking up of prices. I hope that the Government will monitor the situation closely.
  Mr. Beith: The hon. Lady may be aware of what is happening now in petrol garages. The Government have allowed garages to cease displaying the price of petrol per gallon. Some garages took the opportunity in the week when petrol prices rose to stop displaying the price in gallons so the motorist did not know the price per gallon.
  Ms. Quin: The hon. Gentleman's point reinforces the case for vigilance with regard to transferring from one set of measurements to another. Consumer organisations have made that point strongly to me in the past few days.
  Earlier I mentioned the danger of metric confusion. We often see a confusing mixture of measurements in shops. For example, I have seen carpets quoted in metric sizes, but the underlay price quoted in imperial measurements. Many DIY shops sell wood so many feet by so many feet by so many millimetres. The various consumer groups with which I have spoken are all concerned about the confusion. That also applies to consumer groups which are in favour of full metrication straight away, such as the National Federation of Consumer Groups and the Consumers Association, which is less keen.
  I refer the Minister to the interesting work carried out by Lady Attlee and the metric sense campaign. Lady Attlee feels that the way in which metrication is used in Britain at present and the way in which we have introduced systeme internationale measurements has increased the confusion and made metrication less user-friendly or consumer-friendly than it ought to be. She made the point that very often millimetres are used to quote a size which would be much easier to understand if it were expressed in metres and centimetres. For example, the standard size of a bath is apparently given as 1,700 millimetres, while it seems to me and to the metric sense campaign that 1 m 70 cm would be a more reasonable way of expressing the size.
  I hope that the Government will examine the suggestions from the metric sense campaign in trying to present the metrication that we already have in a way that is helpful and not confusing to consumers. That would make necessary changes easier to achieve.
  Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Would my hon. Friend agree—[Interruption.] In this matter, we are all friends in this country against Europe. Does the hon. Lady agree that when we consider organisations which make things user-friendly it makes them sound like pet budgies or lapdogs? Why should it damage a united Europe for this country to do what it wants and for Europe to do what it wants when we bear in mind that half the world will still use imperial measures anyway? Why should it destroy Europe if we do what 95 per cent. of British people want us to do?
  Ms. Quin: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's intervention detracts from the point that I was making. I was simply saying that the consumer has the right to proper information and to have measurements presented to him in an understandable way. The hon. Gentleman

  845
  seems to dislike the phrase "user-friendly", but it is common currency among consumer organisations, as I am sure that he appreciates. [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I should be obliged if the debate at the far end of the Chamber would cease. It shows great discourtesy to the hon. Lady.
  Ms. Quin: The Minister said that children are educated in the metric system. That is true, but when they leave school they step outside into a rather confused environment.
  846
  The Opposition are not officially opposing this take note motion, but we hope that the Minister will listen seriously and reply to questions that I have raised and that other hon. Members will raise during the debate. We do not like harmonisation for its own sake. We want to see a diversity of customs and traditions in the EC, but we recognise that moves to metrication have taken place and that common standards exist among many areas. However, if metrication is to be successful, it needs—I do not apologise for using the expression again—to be more user-friendly than it now is. It is vital that the Government take more fully into account the needs of the consumers as well as those of industry in the decisions that they are taking.
  10.50 pm
  Mr. John Fraser: I give a qualified welcome to the directive and memorandum that the Minister has presented. We should adopt the sort of programme that is being put forward tonight even if we were not a member of the EC. There is every reason for doing it for its own sake, not for the sake of harmonisation or because we happen to be a member of the EC.
  My first qualification, which I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin), is that the use of the systeme internationale in the use of millimetres and other smaller measurements is not always appropriate, but, as a matter of practice, that does not occasion any difficulty. It does not seem to occasion any difficulty in Europe when we go on holiday, and it will not occasion any real difficulty here.
  My second qualification is that the programme prolongs the agony by preserving—for example, in terms of traffic—the mile, the yard and the inch. I see no reason why the heights of bridges that are used by international traffic should not be set out in metres rather than in feet and inches; why the stopping distances on the motorways should not be in terms of 100 m, 200 m and so forth. The golden rule, followed in many other countries, is that if one wants to change from imperial to metric it should be as full and rapid a change as possible. The conversion from one method to another fails so long as one goes along with a dual signification. It is no good trying to have two languages of measurement working at the same time.
  However, there is no reason why the traditional measures of a pint of beer or milk should not be preserved. Or we could have 568 ml, which is exactly the same size. The fact that we change from one system of measurement to another does not mean that we need to change the size or the weight of things; it is simply to change the way in which we measure things, and so I welcome this.
  The case for metrication is overwhelming. First, there is the sheer beauty and simplicity of the metric system, which has been endorsed, embraced and developed by many British scientists. Many of the metric measures are named after prominent British scientists such as Newton. He was around some time ago and had no problems with the metric system.
  A cube with a 10 cm base contains exactly 1,000 cc and 1,000 ml. Filled with water, it weighs exactly 1 kg. If its heat is raised by 1 deg C one has another measurement of heat. Put against something else it is a measurement of force. It is a beautiful and delightful system with a particular simplicity. Anybody who tried to do physics at school, learning foot pounds, will know exactly what I mean.
  Perhaps the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) can say how many square yards there are in an acre.
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark: But I do not need to know that.
  Mr. Fraser: It is very much better that an area of land should be measured in hectares, which are units of 100 metres, rather than in one chain times one furlong, which is 4,840 square yards. I suggest that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, try working out the area of something that measures 3 ft 7 ½ in by 5 ft 8 ½ in. It is impossible to do without using a calculator.
  848
  Metrication does not mean that one has to change the size, speed or weight of anything. It just provides a different and easier set of relationships.
  Every country has changed or is changing to metric, with three exceptions: the United States, Ireland and the United Kingdom. For an exporting industrial nation, we are crazy to pursue a different and more difficult system of measurement. Moreover, two generations or more of our children have been educated in the metric system, and I do not find that pensioners on trips to France, Spain or Portugal have any difficulty coping with metrication. I do not underestimate the intelligence or adaptability of the people whom I represent.
  Furthermore, we have largely changed to metric already. As a result of changes that I made as Minister of State, virtually every prepackaged item of food is sold in metric quantities, as are coal and petrol. I shall illustrate how crazy it is to retain the imperial system in industrial terms. For a long time, this country imposed a huge cost penalty on itself by manufacturing petrol pumps for the rest of the world which dispensed in metric quantities, and which then involved the extra expense of being converted to dispense petrol in imperial quantities, simply because of our own eccentricity. That makes no industrial sense.
  There is no way that we can export in imperial sizes products such as drills and fasteners to other industrial countries, which consider our use of that system to be eccentric, unusable and unacceptable. Our failure to adapt to the metric system says something about our failure as an industrial nation.
  Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to realise that one must take into account also small shopkeepers weighing out 1 lb of raisins. The hon. Gentleman admits that it is his fault that in my constituency small shopkeepers have been visited by weights and measures officers warning that the practice of weighing out a few bags of raisins in advance and putting them on the shelf so that a customer does not have to wait renders those shopkeepers liable to prosecution. Is the hon. Gentleman proud of that?
  Mr. Fraser: Yes, I am, and I shall tell the hon. Gentleman why. If one is to help the shopper make a true price comparison between one item and another, it is no use having that product packaged in a multiplicity of sizes. The right way is that which I introduced for biscuits, for which there was a monstrous arrangement of different sizes.
  Butter has been packaged in metric sizes for a long time. It is sold in packs of 125, 250 or 500 g, which makes it easy to make a price comparison. The same applies in comparing the prices of large and small packets of raisins. The little old lady whom the hon. Gentleman has in mind will get ripped off only if raisins, fruit or whatever come in a range of sizes that make it difficult to compare the price of one packet with another.
  When those changes were made, they enjoyed the total support of consumer organisations across the country. They were made not for any ideological reason but to make life easier for the consumer, in the same way that life is made easier for the consumer when petrol is sold in one single measure instead of in both gallons and litres, which results in enormous confusion. The hon. Member for Selly

  849
  Oak and his supporters—the imperialists who want to embalm and preserve the imperial system—are demonstrating not independence but insularity.
  It would be senseless to drive into metrication overnight, but no one can accuse us of doing that. The French revolution embraced metrication more than 200 years ago. If we moved into the metric system quickly, we would give Japanese scale manufacturers and so on an enormous advantage in coming into our market. That is why it should be phased in over a period.
  There is a beauty, simplicity, ease and saving in the long term in using the metric system. We should endorse it for our own sake. There have been many changes in measurement in the past, and the time has come to make a resolution, over a due period, to adopt the system which the rest of the world is going to use. If we refuse to do that, it says something about us as a manufacturing and exporting country and about our failure to do business with the rest of the world.
  11.2 pm
  Mr. Neil Hamilton: I must admit that when I came to this debate I had not anticipated the kind of orgasmic enthusiasm that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), who is obviously under the impression that he is still the Minister putting forward the measure. At least my hon. Friend the Minister had the decency to appear resigned and incredulous about the measure that he was supporting, but the hon. Member for Norwood actually purported to believe in what he was saying.
  As the hon. Member for Norwood rightly pointed out, 200 years ago one of the consequences of the French revolution was the introduction of metrication and decimalisation in France. Indeed, the French went even further and decimalised the week. The 10-day week was not terribly popular, however, because it meant that people had one day off every 10 days rather than every seven. I have no doubt that, in due course, some earnest committee in the European Parliament and some earnest bureaucrat in the Commission will decimilise all the other things to which we are accustomed—not just the days of the week but clocks, times and everything else.
  I listened to my hon. Friend the Minister who had the misfortune to have to try to make a fist of the subject today, but who is clearly a man of too great sensibility to believe in the case that his position in Government obliges him to put forward. As I listened to him I thought of the Peter Simple column in The Daily Telegraph——
  Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman was in favour of the Common Market.
  Mr. Hamilton: I certainly was not in favour of the Common Market. I was one of the two members of the national executive committee of the Conservative party who voted against it in 1971. I voted against it in the 1975 referendum and to the best of my recollection I have not supported any Common Market measures since I have been in the House. As usual, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is misinformed.
  Mr. Skinner: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that when it came to putting a guillotine on the single European market legislation he was not in the same Lobby as those of us who were against that legislation?
  Mr. Hamilton: When it comes to guillotining the hon. Gentleman and his supporters, I am always to be found in the Government Lobby, but that has nothing to do with the point at issue.
  As I listened to my hon. Friend the Minister, I thought back to Dr. Heinz Kiosk, the chief psychiatric adviser to the plastic stair-rod advisory council, and his effusions in the Peter Simple column of The Daily Telegraph. I contented myself with the knowledge that my hon. Friend did not believe in the case that he put forward.
  I am astonished that the Labour party—which is now attempting to become voter-friendly, in the same way as the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) talked about becoming user-friendly—is supporting this measure, but perhaps I should not be too astonished as it is a highly Socialist and bureaucratic measure. I find it difficult to understand why any Government should wish to legislate for the weights and measures of this country. A free market Government should leave it to consumers to decide the measures in which they wish to buy goods on sale in the shops. If they prefer to buy in pounds, ounces or gallons, why should the Government interfere? That preference does not prejudice the achievement of a single market in the European Community which, by and large, I support because I believe in free trade, and these matters have no bearing on the wider European horizon which, if we believe in it, is supposed to be our reason for membership of the European Community.
  My hon. Friend the Minister referred to consultation. As we know, groups that are consulted by Government to discover what consumers believe often do not represent the views of the man in the street. If we had an opinion poll on whether this measure is acceptable to British people, 95 per cent. or more would be opposed to it.
  I appreciate that power politics are involved here. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, we do not have a blocking minority in the Council of Ministers, so I accept that force majeure, as a consequence of the Single European Act, means that we shall have no influence on what I regard as an important measure.
  My hon. Friend the Minister said that, although we are making it a criminal offence to sell in pounds and ounces or pints and gallons, we have some refuge in the fact that this law will not be enforced. It seems extraordinary that this proposal will be a dead letter as soon as it is introduced.
  I register my regret that the Government, for whatever reason, are giving credence to an unnecessary measure, which goes against the essence of what we have been trying to do since 1979—to elevate the consumer and his choices above those dictated by bureaucrats.
  11.6 pm
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: There is all-party agreement that the Government find themselves in a difficult position here, as they have on other harmonisation measures, especially emotive and traditional ones such as feet and inches and pints and litres. Essentially, within the context of Europe, the Government are trying to square a circle and have it both ways. In that respect, they are handling it as constructively as they can.
  Having listened to the Minister, I suspect that we are stuck with a European fait accompli. As the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said, we do not

  851
  understand how, under the European voting mechanisms, the safeguards to which the Minister referred will be assured.
  Mr. Skinner: What is the Scottish nationalists' view of the issue?
  Mr. Kennedy: I shall come to that in a moment. Only Britain and Ireland are in an imperialistic position, so I do not understand how there will be any safeguard if we accept the spirit and substance of the directive. The Minister is not to blame because the issue was decided a long time ago.
  The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) just mentioned the views of the Scottish National party, to which I do not subscribe, but were an independent Scotland represented on the Council of Ministers it could give the Republic of Ireland and England and Wales the force of its arguments and vote. This would be a good opportunity for Scottish National party Members to make that point, but they are not present.
  On the question of practice within this country, again, the Minister is saying what his hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) has just said is absolutely correct. The Minister has said, "We will introduce this" but in response to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and others he has said, "Don't worry. We will be turning a blind eye to things. We will not be implementing it or following it up." [Interruption.] He is dissenting from that, but he gave the clear impression that it would be technically illegal for a trader to serve loose goods, for example, in the corner shop example mentioned by my hon. Friend. I cannot remember the exact phrase he used, but he spoke about how the inspectors would obviously be treating this with sensitivity, and the impression left with Labour Members, and I think with Conservative Members too, was that it would render nugatory the entire effect of the measure.
  Mr. Maude: I am happy to repeat what I said, although not perhaps in the exact words. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) was perhaps giving the impression that the day after any such measures came into operation there would be jack-booted trading standards officers roaming around the streets, seeking out small shopkeepers who were using imperial measures. All I was saying was that that was absurd. That is not the way in which trading standards officers operate, but that is not to say that this would be a dead letter; it would become a criminal offence for traders to sell in unauthorised units, as it is now, and I stress that we have a Weights and Measures Act which makes it illegal to use certain measures at the moment.
  Mr. Kennedy: It seems to be a ministerial endorsement of circumspect illegality, as far as I can see, or a softly-softly approach. That may be sensible and welcome, but we, as a country, cannot have it both ways.
  Mr. Beith: I never mentioned jack boots. I have never seen a trading standards officer in jack boots. They normally dress rather as hon. Members here are dressed. They simply come along, as I have known them do in my constituency, and challenge traders for illegally dispensing packaged goods in non-metric quantities, and it seems to me certain that those same officers will come along within
  852
  a short time of this legislation coming into force and tell traders that they must stop meeting the requests of old ladies who say, "Please will you give me 5 lb of potatoes". For that situation to prevail in this country seems to be plainly ludicrous.
  Mr. Kennedy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I think, in view of his reservoir of constituency experience, it is clearly something the DTI may want to look at as a matter of policy.
  The Minister spoke about the consultation exercise. I very much agree with the hon. Member for Tatton that the Minister is either misreading the public mood or indulging in what would be quite understandable wishful thinking, given the measure he has to defend and, indeed, clarify for the House, in saying that the response to that consultation exercise would mirror attitudes in the country as a whole. That really is an exercise in wishful thinking by the Minister. Given that public opinion will be, I should have thought, rather strong on these matters, it would be as well either for the Government to launch a fresh consultative exercise or at least to embark on a programme of public education on inevitable changes towards metrication.
  Secondly, in the DTI's own analysis reference is properly made to transitional periods, some of which will stretch over a decade and more. None the less, I hope that the DTI, or the relevant sponsoring departments in other parts of Government, will be sympathetic to any transitional difficulties which industries or small businesses will encounter as a result of having to change working practices and, perhaps, machinery or implements for the conduct of their business. I hope that the Government will respond positively to that point.
  It is obvious that enthusiasm, or the lack of it, for this measure crosses party boundaries. My party will treat this as a conscience issue. The only point on which I seek a categorical assurance is that we shall continue to be able to talk about, to raise glasses of and to down drams well into the future.
  11.15 pm
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I am grateful to be called so that I may apologise for not being here for the whole of the debate.
  It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy), who clearly understands, as only a member of his party could, people who are proposing a schizophrenic situation. He said that his party would treat the issue as a matter of conscience and would vote both ways upon it. I remind him of the words of Mr. Gladstone at the time of the Turkish-Bulgarian difficulties. He said that he regarded it as a great insult that he had been accused of being a democrat.
  If harmonisation, whatever that may mean, is to be undertaken, surely it is unwise to undertake it on the basis of the wrong system.
  Mr. Skinner: Very profound.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I am glad that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) understands that simple concept.
  I was the Member of Parliament who saved the mile. Under the Labour Government of 1974 to 1979 it was to be abolished on the basis that it would be an industrial danger to Britain if the mile were not the same as the kilometre. I asked the Minister how many things were

  853
  measured in miles. I said that we do not measure miles of baked beans or miles of wire. Eventually the mile was saved. I see that the mile that I saved in the face of the idiocies of the then Government's concepts is again under threat.
  If we harmonise measurements, why not get right the concept of the measurements that we intend to harmonise? My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) referred to the fact that during the French revolution there was a 10-day week.
  Mr. Skinner: Not in here.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: If there is one concept on which measurements and mathematics are badly based, it is the repeat factor of 10. The decimal system is idiotic. If 10 per cent. is added to 10, we get 11—a prime factor that is useless. If we take 10 per cent. away from 10, that leads to nine, which is three times three. That is equally useless. A repeat system of counting should be at two squared, two cubed or two to the power of four, which is the best. Very few people understand it, but—
  Mr. Skinner: I am waiting for the hon. and learned Gentleman to get to the mirrored J curve.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: The hon. Gentleman may feed me good lines, but he can do better than that.
  Mr. Skinner: The mirrored J curve was what Woy Jenkins was into.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I do not know what Woy Jenkins was into, but I should be vewy suwpwised if he did not buy his clawet in dozens. At least under the duodecimal system it involves 2 squared by 3. If people are asked how much cake they want, they do not ask for a fifth of it. They say, "Halve it and halve it again", so two is the concept. People count on their fingers not because there are 10 of them, but because they are there. It would not matter if they had three fingers or 23 fingers on each hand, people would still count to 10. People with four fingers still count to 10. It is a fatuous concept that 10 is holy. As a counting system, 10 is the worst figure on which to base trade. It has no concept in sensible measurement or arithmetical relevance.
  When we used the imperial system, at least children in school had to use their minds instead of a calculator or an easy system. Children can do their 10 times table, but it does not exercise their minds; they should know the other tables to understand the importance of arithmetical measurements. The sensible systems—the pint, the yard, the mile—all have much more relevant bases for intelligent measurement than any decimal system.
  We are discussing a European matter. The measurement from which Europe started was the duodecimal system, the Roman system, which was a much more intelligent basic system.
  If we are to change the system to a common system, we should change it to the right system, not to a stupid system. The decimal system is a foolish system. It has no helpful basis in trade; it costs enormous funds because of the complication of its mathematical incidences. If we are to change, let us stand up for a system of counting whereby the change is either at 12 or 6, thus making a major salvation in the costs of industry. In all seriousness, let us not move to something just because we do not understand
  854
  that the repeat system is wrongly based. If we are all to use the same repeat system and the same weights system, let us use the most commercially sensible one.
  11.23 pm
  Mr. Win Griffiths: The absurdity in the mess of arrangements for the use of imperial and metric measurement that we have heard about tonight is principally because the European Community has bent over backwards to take account of British and Irish sensibilities over weights and measures systems.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) said, it would have been far better had we moved much more quickly to the metric system, rather than maintained the imperial system with it. What hon. Members seem to forget is that at least those of us of my generation have children going through school who are being taught the metric system of weights and measures and are perfectly able to cope with all that that means. If there are difficulties for older people like the lady—she could be in my constituency or in the constituency of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon—Tweed (Mr. Beith)—who wants 5 lb of potatoes, the enterprising shopkeeper will sell her 2·27 kg and not worry about what the weights and measures people may say.
  The use of two different systems at present gives rise to absurd situations. For example, as is my wont, I was doing the family's weekly shopping last Saturday at Leo's co-operative retail superstore in Pyle, in my constituency, and I happened to buy some coleslaw, of a reduced dressing variety, loose across the counter. It was sold in imperial units. As I wandered across towards where the prepackaged variety was on sale I thought that I would check to see whether I had got a bargain. Of course, the prepackaged variety was being sold in 227 g packs. Only because I knew that this is as close as we can get to half a pound was I able to make the calculation.
  It would be perfectly easy to have common quantities displayed in both metric and imperial measurements for, say, the next 10 years to enable people, like some here who seem to find difficulty in using the metric system, to use it in an intelligent way. If there is concern about the doorstep pinta, the milkman can sell it as 0·5683 litre. Then we would know that we still had our pinta.
  We are making a lot of fuss about something that is really not all that important provided that the public know exactly what they are getting. There is no need to be afraid of this directive. In fact, there is provision for the measurements that are used most commonly domestically —for example, the pint and the mile—to be protected for a very long time. I anticipate that no hon. Member need worry about being forced to give up the nomenclature "pint" when he is buying in a pub or picking up the pinta at the doorstep.
  This is really a fear of facing the future—things that our children are currently being taught in school. The fuss that we are making about this directive is indicative of the general problems that we face in meeting the challenges of the 21st century.
  11.28 pm
  Mr. Hugo Summerson: I rise to make a brief plea for the continuance of the mixed system. We have a classic example of that system, of course, in the motor car. When W. O. Bentley set out to design his motor

  855
  car in 1919 he said that it would be a 3 litre model. The wheel base was in feet and inches, and the car developed so much horse power—imperial horse power, not metric horse power. From the birth of the motor car this was the system of measurement of power and engine size, and we have all understood it.
  In any case—going from that form of transport to the railway trai—we all know that the gauge of the track in this country is 4 ft 8½ in, and I defy anyone to express that in metric terms. I fear that if one were to go to any British Rail workshop and say, "In future we are going to have tracks of 1·853322 m" there would be even more engines off the rails than there are at present.
  The House will recall that in George Orwell's "1984" Winston Smith bought an old man a drink in a pub which served nothing but litres and half litres. The old man said that half a litre was not enough and that one litre was too much as it set his bladder running. That is a classic example of "metricism". We are faced with a tyranny and hon. Members should remember that poor man in "1984". It is clear that the pint is designed for the British stomach.
  The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) spoke about the little old lady who buys 5 lb of potatoes. Apart from the fact that if she does that with regularity she will be little no longer, she understands what 5 lb of potatoes looks like, as we do. We all understand what a 15-stone or an 18-stone man looks like. If I went to meet a stranger and somebody else told me that he weighed 200 kg I would not have a clue about him. Does that mean he is enormous or little? If I were told that he weighed 15 stone I would know the sort of person for whom I would have to look out.
  I do not like all the talk about "phasing in" as it represents an uncertain process. The next thing will be a proposal, "phased in during two years", that we all drive on the right-hand side of the road. What a recipe for disaster. I suppose that, first, we shall have lorries driving on the right, followed by buses. The whole thing would be a complete muddle.
  I am always worried when I hear of Governments giving "permission" for things as that implies that Governments have more in their gift than they actually have to give. My hon. Friend the Minister should keep a wary eye on the Commission on the other side of the Channel. Any further proposals to do away with the imperial measures, which we all know and which the man on the Walthamstow omnibus understands, will receive short shrift.
  11.32 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I shall be brief as I know that this debate has to end shortly. I want to put down the marker that I do not like the directive and I do not like the idea that the proposal would authorise the United Kingdom and Ireland to fix a date for ending the use of miles, yards, feet and inches, even though the Minister may say that the Government will not exercise that right.
  If this legislature had any sort of adequate scrutiny over the flood of statutory instruments which pour out of Departments at the rate of more than 2,000 per year, it might be arguable that all hon. Members could keep an eagle eye out for any Minister, who is but a pawn in the
  856
  hands of civil servants, slipping one or two subclauses into a subparagraph of a statutory instrument—which is not amendable in any case—to get rid of the mile, the yard, the foot or the inch. In reality, however, this place does not give adequate scrutiny to statutory instruments, and any change to our measurements will be implemented by such means rather than by primary legislation.
  The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments cannot report on the merits of a statutory instrument; it can report only on its technicalities. A statutory instrument cannot be amended and I do not believe that we have the power to keep an adequate grip on Government to stop some surge of ambition by a Minister deciding to metricate. I view the proposal before us with great caution.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) has already said, it is not true that industry has been progressively metricated. We have not, for example, adopted universally the metric thread, which is a basic component of engineering. We consider ourselves to be a manufacturing nation, albeit less so under the present Government. There is American fine thread and unified thread, both of which are a basic requirement for any country exporting motor vehicles. The notion that metrication is a basic prerequisite to building up our manufacturing base to achieve more exports is not universally true. Millions of people use miles, yards, feet and inches as a matter of convenience and we should continue with the duality. If it is convenient for consumers to do that, why not let them do it? Why should we not retain gallons rather than litres as a matter of consumer choice?
  It would be to our advantage in many respects to stay as we are. We would not have to calibrate instruments again. If people want the option of using metric measurements, they can use them, but I object to this creeping harmonisation for no purpose other than the harmonising of everything that the Commission can get its hands on.
  In view of what the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) said about changing the side of the road on which we drive, I warn the House that there is a strong desire on the part of the members of the transport committee of the EEC to make us do that. It is the stated aim of many in the Strasbourg assembly that we should make that change. Let us retain the dual system of weights and measures and let this directive meander on for the next 40 years while we do nothing about it. I hope that hon. Members will take that view and vote against it today.
  11.37 pm
  Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: These debates take place late at night for a good reason—in a sense, they reflect the twilight of the power of the House of Commons.
  Mr. Skinner: You can say that again.
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark: It matters not that we have spoken about this issue for an hour and a half. Indeed, whether or not we vote on it does not matter——
  Mr. Skinner: It matters to us.
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark: —because what is proposed will happen all the same. These debates take place simply to humour us.
  Mr. Skinner: Humour?
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Do you agree, Madam Deputy Speaker. that if the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) wants to take part in the debate he should do so in a civilised way like the rest of us?
  Mr. Skinner: Frankly, I get fed up listening to this sort of hypocrisy from Tory Members who take part in debates on EEC directives and often speak against them, but when it comes to a vote, as it will today, they—and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) in particular—are missing as usual.
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Despite the cleverness of the hon. Member for Bolsover—I have his permission to say how clever he is—it is no good him saying that one is missing from this or that vote on a Common Market issue. Which Government sold this country out?
  Mr. Skinner: I did not vote for it.
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark: It is no good the hon. Gentleman saying that he did not vote for it. He is not the only member of the Labour party.
  Mr. Skinner: Get on with it.
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Madam Deputy Speaker, do you intend to control this debate or is the hon. Member for Bolsover——
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) intend to proceed with his speech?
  Mr. Skinner: That is a good question.
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark: If you intend to allow this sort of hectoring to go on minute after minute, hour after hour, we shall have no debate——
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Selly Oak does his share of hectoring. Does he intend to continue his speech, or shall I call the Minister to reply to the debate?
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I am deeply wounded that you should suggest such a thing of me, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  I repeat that our votes on these directives matter not at all. We are given an hour and a half's debate to humour us. If we voted unanimously against what is proposed, it would still happen. That is why it is a waste of time having these debates and voting at the end of them.
  11.39 pm
  Mr. Maude: This has been a fascinating debate in which contributions have ranged from the crusty reaction of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), to the radicalism of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and the revolutionary approach of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn). Not content merely that we should oppose any further move towards metrication, my hon. and learned Friend thinks that we should unravel the whole system of counting and should abandon 10 as the base for anything. I fall neatly in the middle in this interesting debate.
  I take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) who says that such debates are simply for show and mean nothing. They are important, especially when they take place at an
  858
  early stage in negotiations. That is the case with this debate. Such debates genuinely allow the Government to gauge mood and they inform the negotiating process. I should be disappointed if any hon. Member felt that contributions to the debate are not noted. They are noted and fulfil an extremely important purpose.
  Mr. Bowen Wells: Is it right that this proposal was put forward in an explanatory memorandum in January? My hon. Friend the Minister has taken the opportunity to bring the measure before the House long before the Council of Ministers has to make a decision, which is expected before the end of the year. I congratulate the Minister on bringing this matter to the House so that it can express an opinion.
  Mr. Maude: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That has been our intention and, as I say, matters are at an early stage of negotiation. The European Parliament has not yet made a final decision and there is still some way to go.
  I do not know whether the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) is making her debut on the Opposition Front Bench, but if she is I warmly congratulate her on her appointment. We have faced each other in Committee. She made a distinguished contribution to the debate.
  The hon. Lady asked whether the Commission might produce another proposal, but I have nothing to add to what I have said. As hon. Members know, there is nothing to prevent the Commission from producing further proposals, but there is no reason to suppose that it proposes to do so.
  The form of words used in the group of measures, which it is in our power to retain for as long as we wish, is the most liberal—if I may use that word—that it is possible under law for the Commission to propose. There is no possibility under the law of that being further amended.
  The hon. Member for Gateshead, East and some of my hon. Friends asked about consultation. There were approximately 140 responses to the 700 letters that we sent out. Only two were firmly against the proposals and the others were in favour or neutral. I repeat that the consultation and the fairly wide publicity that the proposals received in the media did not elicit very strong feelings in one direction or the other. On that basis we have gone forward with the discussions.
  The hon. Lady asked whether there would be further consultations. I do not anticipate further public consultations this side of the directive being agreed. At some time in future when domestic legislation has to be amended to give effect to the directive, it will be right to have detailed and extensive consultation about the way in which the directive is implemented and its timing. Of course I give the undertaking that that will take place.
  The hon. Lady asked about costs and whether the mile could be argued to be a barrier to trade. There are those who argue that the continued use of the mile is a barrier to trade. We do not agree that it is a significant one, but car manufacturers have to produce cars with two different distance meters. That is, of course, a trifling inconvenience compared with that of having to put the steering wheel on the other side. None the less, it is argued by some to be a barrier to trade, but it is in our estimation a trifling one.

  859
  The cost of converting road signs into metric units would be very large indeed. It would be in the region, we estimate, of £30 million to £50 million, and clearly that is a powerful reason for not proceeding.
  Mr. Tony Favellrose——
  Mr. Maude: I must not give way because I have only one minute to go and I have a little more to say.
  The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) paid me a slightly backhanded compliment—I hope that I am correct in referring to it as a compliment. He referred to specific requests for transitional periods. A number of those have been made and as far as possible they have been accommodated in the proposals. The hon. Member asked whether he and his constituents would continue to be able to drink drams and I can confirm that they will. I shall be happy to join him for one as soon as the debate is finished.
  It being one and a half hours after commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 ( Exempted business).
  The House divided: Ayes 107, Noes 27.

  Division No. 155]

  [11.46 pm

  AYES

  Amess, David

  Couchman, James

  Amos, Alan

  Cran, James

  Arbuthnot, James

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

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

  Ashby, David

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Atkinson, David

  Day, Stephen

  Baldry, Tony

  Devlin, Tim

  Batiste, Spencer

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Durant, Tony

  Boswell, Tim

  Fallon, Michael

  Bottomley, Peter

  Favell, Tony

  Brazier, Julian

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bright, Graham

  Forman, Nigel

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

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

  French, Douglas

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Burns, Simon

  Gill, Christopher

  Burt, Alistair

  Gorst, John

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Gregory, Conal

  Chope, Christopher

  Griftiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hague, William

  860

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Riddick, Graham

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Harris, David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

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

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Stern, Michael

  Irvine, Michael

  Stevens, Lewis

  Jack, Michael

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Jackson, Robert

  Summerson, Hugo

  Kennedy, Charles

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Lang, Ian

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Lightbown, David

  Trippier, David

  Maclean, David

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Wallace, James

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Waller, Gary

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Wells, Bowen

  Moss, Malcolm

  Wheeler, John

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Neale, Gerrard

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Neubert, Michael

  Wood, Timothy

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Yeo, Tim

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Norris, Steve

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Paice, James

  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory and Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Raffan, Keith

  Redwood, John

  NOES

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  McFall, John

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  McLeish, Henry

  Beith, A. J.

  Meale, Alan

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Nellist, Dave

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Dixon, Don

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Vaz, Keith

  Fyfe, Maria

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Haynes, Frank

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Janman, Tim

  Lewis, Terry

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Livsey, Richard

  Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Dennis Skinner.

  McAllion, John

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4102/89 on units of measurement; and welcomes the proposals as providing adequate transitional periods to enable businesses and consumers to adapt and become used to the new measurements.

  Driver Licensing
  11.56 pm
  The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 10357/1/88 on driver licensing; and endorses the Government's objective of negotiating satisfactory amendments with respect to the drivers of non-commercial minibuses and light goods vehicles, drivers from other Member States resident in the United Kingdom, and disabled drivers.
  The ratio of risk for a passenger travelling in a minibus is less than half that of someone travelling in a car. It is one sixty fifth of someone travelling on a motor bike.
  One part of the Commission's proposals on driver licensing is that minibus drivers should be required to take a public service vehicle test and after the age of 45 should be required to take regular medicals. That is unacceptable. If the British licensing system for minibuses applied throughout the European Community, instead of there being 10 million passenger journeys a year in voluntary minibuses there would be 50 million or more. The groups that benefit from the voluntary minibus system in Britain, often in buses provided by the Lord's Taverners or in the Variety Club's Sunshine coaches, would increase so that children, young people, youth organisations, Church groups, students and the elderly, including war veterans, terms translatable throughout the rest of Europe, would also benefit. That would provide extra advantages, extra mobility and, as I have emphasised, extra safety.
  In considering European Community draft directives we want to maintain and enhance safety and mobility. Other countries will raise other points about this draft directive.
  Mr. Bowen Wells: How could the European Commissioner responsible for this proposal —Mr. Stanley Clinton Davis who used to be a Member of this House—have written a letter claiming that he had steered the proposal through the Commission in the light of the facts that my hon. Friend has just provided for the House?
  Mr. Bottomley: There are some things that I cannot answer. It is common ground between the Commissioner emeritus, myself and hon. Members on both sides of the House that the Mobility Alliance, which represents many of the groups which would be affected by this part of the proposal, has been praised by ex-Commissioner Clinton Davis. If he and I respect the work that it does, we should respect its opinion. I think that it is right to say that the present Commissioner, Mr. van Miert, is willing to look at the matter again. I do not want to turn this into a personal attack and that is why I responded to the rather extraordinary letter of 14 December in the way that I did. That may have been a mistake. Perhaps I should have invited a punch up, but I cannot believe that the evidence is not so clear that in time the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers and, I hope, the Commission will come together and acknowledge that Britain has developed a system of transportation which will be of value throughout the EC and which should be protected in Britain and be allowed to spread.
  Mr. Roger King: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the level of injuries, accidents or deaths is high, given the vehicle densities it is the lowest in Europe?
  Mr. Bottomley: That is right. We are way behind some European countries on pedestrian safety, but we are way ahead in the provision of non-commercial transport for groups with special interests or needs and with community interests such as students. When students go to another college to play water polo—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) may laugh, but that is what I did. If we consider rugby as he suggests, we include a spare man and we will start going above the 16-seat capacity and we are talking about minibuses with between nine and 16 seats.
  There is common interest in this matter throughout the House. Many other countries will have difficulties with parts of the draft directive. I suspect that during the next year or so the Council of Ministers will be finding ways of allowing flexibility, which will be important. If other countries find difficulties when we do not, it is not in our interests to force them to change unnecessarily. They may be trying to protect a position that we may wish to adopt. We may want to learn from their experience. We want to try to bring some of the obvious problems into the open. One of the problems is minibus driver licensing, which is wrong. I hope that there will be unanimity in the House on that, although, sad to day, there was not unanimity in the European Parliament on 14 December when one or two people of other political groups said that the Secretary of State was trying to use deregulation of buses to assist his arguments.
  We want to make it plain that commercial operators of minibuses would be required to have their drivers take the public service vehicle test. It is the volunteer drivers who are important and well worth protecting.
  Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Many hon. Members receive letters from many charitable organisations and we are heartened not just by my hon. Friend's view but by his flexibility. Can he give us a genuine and clear understanding that that flexibility will take place in Europe? The charitable organisations that use the minibuses do an enormous amount of good for hundreds of thousands of people.
  Mr. Bottomley: I think that the message is getting through. Some developments that Britain has pioneered have been copied by others. For example, the orange badge scheme which allows privileges to people with real mobility difficulties has now been copied. In London the air buses between Heathrow airport and the London railway stations each take two wheelchirs. That sort of integrated service is far better than a specialist service. That is the kind of transport spectrum which many people have developed—[Interruption.] That is a sensible expression for those with mobility handicaps. For others we use the word coherent. I am sure that, as the Labour party searches for reality, it will come to adopt that, together with most of the other policies that it is learning from us.
  The key point is that we want to try to spread what is good and right. Something that is as good as or better than going by car or not moving at all needs to be protected.
  Mr. James Wallace: I am sure that the Minister will enjoy the unanimity that he is seeking, but can he give some idea of the extent to which he has discovered, in discussion with his fellow transport Ministers from other Community countries, that the argument that we are advancing is gaining ground?
  Mr. Bottomley: It is difficult to be certain. However, if Members of the European Parliament who spoke against the Government's proposals change their minds, that will help. There were one or two who, as reported in the official journal of the European Parliament of 14 December, made it plain that they were not convinced.
  I do not want to personalise this matter in any way. I know the difficulties that can arise. I see that my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary is in his place, so I may know more very shortly. However, I am sure that in the last month that Commissioner Clinton Davis was working he tried to clear many issues—and bringing the draft directive into the open was important. Nevertheless, a mistake was made. If he could be man enough to say, "I am sorry. I made a mistake over minibus driving licences", that would make a great difference to the staff within the directorate concerned.
  I repeat that I do not want to be personal. When Clinton Davis wrote a rather peculiar letter to me, I turned the other cheek. That may have been a mistake, but it was probably better to go on as I did and to ask him to change his mind and accept the case for safety and mobility, and to join the all-British campaign to maintain the right to drive minibuses on ordinary driving licences—perhaps with the extra assurance of safety that that option will be available only to people with two years' driving experience. That system is one which we think will work for motor bikes of greater power or of larger cubic capacity.
  The Commission's proposal is the latest step in Community plans for harmonisation. Discussions began more than 10 years ago, and the first directive was adopted in 1980. It is intended that the latest initiative will complete the harmonisation process.
  Conformity of licensing systems is generally welcomed. It is good news for drivers—especially those of lorries and buses—who go abroad, as common format licences will be recognised immediately in all member states. The introduction of a single licence showing all driving entitlement offers opportunities for streamlining the existing system to provide a quicker and cheaper service. This should not be achieved at the cost of existing safety standards or of the mobility of sections of the population. A number of serious issues must be resolved before we can agree to the latest proposals.
  The Commission's proposals are supposed to replace and enlarge upon the 1980 directive. There is a long way to go before their adoption. The proposals will need to be discussed in a European Council working group, and negotiations are likely to take many months—I suspect that that means one year or more—to complete.
  Widespread consultations are in progress. The Department is consulting about 800 individuals and bodies. There are three major areas of concern. One is the indefinite recognition of licences issued in other member states. That will cause problems for the driver record, because a category of drivers would be unrecorded. It would cause problems also for the fixed penalty system, because there is no provision for recording endorsements
  864
  on licences issued in other member states. It would cause problems for the courts, because they have no jurisdiction to endorse licences issued by other member states.
  I ought to share with the House the information that a number of other member countries are to examine our system of penalty points and endorsements, because it offers a flexibility that others might welcome.
  Mr. Alan Meale: Italy imposes an age limit of 60 on the drivers of commercial buses and lorries. Will the Minister advise the House if in future negotiations it is attempted to impose such a limit on British drivers?
  Mr. Bottomley: The Department must be open with the House because here and in industry—among unions and employers alike—there is a common interest in working out what makes sense. It is a question of deciding what is right and then ascertaining whether such is possible. I shall certainly be open with the House, as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
  Mr. Meale: The Minister is surely aware that a number of commercial vehicle drivers are aged over 60 and are intending to retire at 65. He must be aware also that a number of the people who offer their services as drivers to voluntary groups are also aged over 60.
  Mr. Bottomley: Without saying that our system is the best in all respects, we try to judge people by their medical condition rather than just by their age. People are different from racehorses.
  Mr. John Prescott indicated assent.
  Mr. Bottomley: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) for agreeing with me. In him we see the new shadow Cabinet spokesman whom we recognised last Friday. I should not say too much about racehorses, having read The Guardian on Sunday and discovered that none of its tipsters put the Grand National winner in the top four.
  The specification of details of conditions attached to drivers with a disability on the licence causes another problem. It is incompatible with the "until aged 70" licensing which we have, because vehicles, adaptations and prostheses are likely to change several times over the life of a licence holder. The proposal would be hurtful to disabled people because their disability will be printed on the licence. It will be difficult to fit the details on computer licences because limited space is available. Of those reasons, I regard the third as the least important and the first two as very important.
  As I have said, there is a problem with the treatment of drivers of minibuses and light goods vehicles. The directive would be disastrous for the voluntary and community transport systems, because volunteers would not come forward if a second test and higher medical standards were required. Dr. Barnardos estimated that it would lose five out of six volunteer drivers with this sort of system. Those who suggest that it is up to Government to pay the cost of extra tests do not understand how the volunteer system works.
  The proposal for the treatment of drivers of minibuses and light goods vehicles is unjustified on road safety grounds because statistics show that travelling in minibuses is safer than travelling in cars. If adopted, the

  865
  proposal would be a missed opportunity for other member states, who could enjoy the benefits of our system. Other points may arise in the light of the consultation exercise.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: Judging from comments tonight and previous discussions in the House on this issue, it appears that the House is behind the Minister in his battles with the European Community. Will he comment on the fact that this matter will be taken under majority voting by the European Community under article 100A? Therefore, of much more importance is whether he has the support of the Council of Ministers.
  Mr. Bottomley: We have not yet reached that stage. I shall share with the House a letter which I have received from Commissioner Karel van Miert, who has taken over as the transport Commissioner. He said that he was much impressed by our case for
  "still more sympathetic consideration in the provision of transport services and of the difficulties which may be experienced by people with restricted mobility".
  That goes slightly beyond the strict charity definition. The Commissioner said that he attached
  "great importance to this issue and would like the Commission to play an active role in this area."
  It seems as though we are regaining some of the ground that should never have been lost. The Commissioner said that he will accept our suggestion to have this important matter discussed—starting with discussions between officials, and then between the Commissioner and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or me. That shows that there is an appreciation of our initiatives on mobility and safety.
  If the rest of the European Community had our road safety record, 40 per cent. fewer people would have died last year. We lead the Community in road casualty reduction and in mobility for those with special needs.
  The United Kingdom is generally able to comply with the directive, without major changes to existing arrangements. The draft directive offers the opportunity to consider changes in tests, other than those required by it, and we shall consider our tests generally in the light of consultations on the directive which are now in progress.
  The basic concept of staging of entitlement for driving lorries, passenger vehicles and trailers is acceptable in principle, but individual cases will need to be considered very carefully. We look forward to the results of the consultation, in which we hope people will participate. In some cases, experience criteria will be preferable to extra tests. We made that compromise on minibuses and it may also apply to motor cycles of more than 400 cc or more than 35 kW in power.
  We agree with the Commission's proposal to limit the size or power of bikes which inexperienced motor cyclists may ride. Considerations of the detailed proposal—whether it should be a cubic capacity or a power limit—are still being considered, and we have an open mind on that.
  We do not accept the need for a separate test before motor cyclists may ride large machines, although I am prepared to continue to give consideration to the motor cyclist who passes the test and then wishes to move on to a larger machine. It may be appropriate to allow the option of an extra test. We shall argue for two years' experience after passing the old motor cycle test before allowing a motor cyclist to ride larger and more powerful machines.
  866
  The Government aim to get the Commission to accept changes that maintain an incentive for drivers to exchange licences issued elsewhere for the United Kingdom version if they are to spend some time in this country. We want to allow descriptions of disabilities on licences and details of prostheses to be in a generalised form compatible with long-period licensing. We want the Commission to allow minibuses and light goods vehicles to continue to be driven on an ordinary car entitlement without a second test or higher medical standards. We are not trying to ease the qualifications for commercial bus drivers, which may have been one of the misunderstandings that occurred in December.
  There are some signs that the Commission is willing to listen to our arguments. We will need to work with other member states, many of which have similar if not identical concerns, in discussions in the Council working group. La the meantime, it is necessary to press ahead with existing commitments under the first directive.
  The Road Traffic (Driving Licensing and Information Systems) Bill will come before the House for Second Reading on Thursday. It will be essential to meet existing commitments, particularly the integration of ordinary and vocational licences to show all entitlements on a single licence. This will be an advantage to professional and vocational drivers. The change will involve a major transformation of both systems. The transfer of vocational licensing to the DVLC will lead to a quicker and cheaper service for lorry and bus drivers as well as improvements to the service for ordinary drivers.
  It is sensible to facilitate the adoption of the best features of the Commission's latest proposals, and we are doing that. I assure the House that the Bill that we shall consider on Thursday does not facilitate the introduction of the proposals that are of concern, especially those on minibuses. It does not sell the pass on these issues; it is drafted on the assumption that our present arrangements will continue. If we are unsuccessful in Brussels—and I do not expect to be—and have to adopt any of the proposals, we will have to return to Parliament before we implement further changes.
  I am grateful for hon. Members' support and I hope that we can spread it so that it becomes universal among our representation in Europe, and I hope that we can get a little change from the Commissioner emeritus, which would make it much easier for the Commission to accept a sensible change that would maintain and enhance safety and mobility.
  12.7 am
  Ms. Joan Ruddock: This is a short but by no means unimportant or insignificant debate.
  The document that we are discussing must be set in the context of the European Commission's efforts to ensure the removal of all obstacles to the free movement of people. As I understand it, we are already at the first stage of that process—a halfway house requiring member states to adopt a common format for the licence, to harmonise their categories of licence and to provide common standards of competence and fitness to drive.
  As the Minister said, part of the Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Bill arises from the

  867
  first directive. Hon. Members will be relieved to hear that I shall keep my remarks on those aspects of the directive brief in anticipation of Thursday's debate.
  We believe that our overriding aim should be the improvement of road safety. It would be disastrous to introduce legislative change simply to save money or for administrative convenience. In other circumstances, we have encountered the contradictory pulls of safety requirements and pressure to cut costs and save money. It is clear that cost-cutting should not be a priority in developing a safe and comprehensive driver licensing system.
  We note that the Government's consultative document on the unified driving licence estimates that the effect of centralising the licence issuing system will be the loss of 100 jobs and savings of up to £1 million a year. Will the Minister give more detail on where the job losses will be? Will he take the opportunity to increase staff at Swansea to reduce delays in obtaining licences, especially passenger service vehicle and heavy goods vehicle licences? Will he give the House the assurance that the reorganisation of licence issuing will not be used as an excuse for a cost-cutting exercise?
  I turn now to the document under discussion, which, as the Minister said, is still subject to negotiation with other member states. The document falls into a number of sections. The basic proposal is that member states should introduce a national driving licence which would be mutually recognised in all member countries. On the face of it, that seems to make sense, and would relieve a foreign national of the need to exchange his or her national licence for a UK licence when resident in this country. However, we foresee, as the Minister has described, problems for the penalty and endorsement system, as no court in one country can award penalty points or endorse a driving licence issued in another country.
  The Minister has informed the House tonight that the Government are pressing for licence holders from other member states living in Britain still to be required to obtain a British licence, and in general we support that position.
  That brings me to the question of driving standards. Members of the Transport and General Workers Union have expressed their concern to me about the possible deterioration of driving standards if a unified drivers' licence with mutual recognition is adopted. In order to prevent such a deterioration it will be necessary to harmonise testing throughout the Community and that testing will need to be to the highest standards. The document we are considering does lay down minimum requirements for drivers' tests, which will mean that in this country, for example, we will have to include a parking test and more theory.
  No doubt in some countries the minimum standards proposed will result in an improvement in driver testing, but we believe that there are problems for us. First, the judgment used in passing or failing applicants will vary from country to country, so a standard of driving which may pass in one country may fail in another. Secondly, we need an assurance that these standards will be implemented as quickly as possible so that any discrepancies in the testing requirements are ironed out. Perhaps the Minister would comment further on these points in his response.
  868
  Harmonisation in licensing also encompasses the reclassification of vehicles and the entitlement to drive, and of course, as the Minister has said, it is this aspect of the document which has generated most controversy, with its proposed new category of vehicles with nine to 16 passenger seats or between 3·5 and 7·5 tonnes in weight. Drivers in this category will have to have not just the car licence, as at present, but a second driving test, and be subject to more rigorous medical conditions than for the standard licence.
  We sympathise very much with those voluntary organisations who are alarmed at these proposals. Their drivers at present, of course, because they do not drive for hire or reward, are able to drive minibuses on ordinary car licences. We recognise, as does the Minister, that the use of minibuses by community groups is particularly widespread in Britain. Some of the organisations in my constituency which would be affected by these proposals have been in contact with me. Age Concern, Lewisham Association for People with Disabilities, the Lewisham Indo-Chinese Community and Pensioners' Link are all organisations that I know well. I know how well they serve our community. The position is unique in Britain, as has been said already tonight, for the extent of innovative and accessible transport schemes which these organisations facilitate. Many of these minibus drivers are women who gain a great deal of confidence and satisfaction from this voluntary work.
  Community transport groups are rightly concerned that many voluntary drivers will be deterred from driving by the prospect of a more stringent test. The organisations themselves will be hard pressed to pay for the necessary training. Many of those organisations—and I must say this to the Government—are filling a gap left by Government underfunding in many cases, left by the deterioration in social service provision and, in rural areas in particular, by the collapse of public transport. These groups are already very short of money, and with the continuing squeeze on local authority finance most of these organisations——
  Mr. David Harris: Is the hon. Lady aware that in many rural areas of Cornwall the number of bus services has increased as a result of deregulation? I agree with her that the voluntary sector provides a valuable additional service. If voluntary organisations were unable to provide that service, it would be a terrible blow to rural communities.
  Ms. Ruddock: I understand that an examination of the provision of bus services in Cornwall showed that there had been a reduction in mileage.
  I repeat that many of the community services are under pressure and are being called upon because of the reductions in public service transport. There is little prospect that the voluntary organisations, given their difficulties, will be able to find the money for extensive training.
  The Minister said that we would not demonstrate understanding of the problem if we sought tonight to obtain a commitment from him simply to pay, but should the Minister be unsuccessful in his negotiations, and should additional training and testing of volunteer drivers be necessary, the Minister must give a commitment that

  869
  voluntary groups will not be faced with the additional cost and that local authorities will not be expected to pick up the bill.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: There has been no suggestion on either side of the House that it would be acceptable to impose a secondary statutory test. Even if the Government paid for all the additional testing, there would be fewer drivers, fewer voluntary minibuses and more people opting for cars, involving greater risk. In addition, more people would have to stay at home. They would lose their mobility. One part of Commissioner Emeritus's letter ought to be buried and never disinterred. Additional statutory testing of minibus drivers in the voluntary sector is not needed.
  Ms. Ruddock: I am prepared to agree with the Minister, but he is not infallible. It will be a majority decision. We cannot be certain of the result.
  We believe that safety should come first. The Minister began by quoting the relevant safety statistics for the minibus and the car. I believe that minibuses do not have as good a safety record as other forms of public transport. They are not as safe as public transport buses. I hope that the Minister will say that he supports greater efforts to reduce minibus accidents and that he will describe the steps that he intends to take to improve minibus safety if he continues to press for a derogation for voluntary minibus drivers from the new test.
  Mr. Bottomley: Passengers in public service buses are more at risk—I suspect because of falls rather than because of crashes and collisions. People in the voluntary sector take great care of their passengers. I pay tribute to the fellow members of my own union who do much of the driving in the public sector and who have been involved in many of the developments in public transport services. I attended a branch meeting of my union this evening. All the time was spent on the dockers' centenary. No mention was made of the dock labour scheme.
  Ms. Ruddock: In principle, we are not opposed to stricter medical tests for drivers who are responsible for the safety of other people or who are in charge of larger vehicles. However, the document specifies certain conditions, such as diabetes. That seems to preclude drivers from holding a passenger vehicle licence if they suffer from that condition. I am no expert in such matters, but it seems unnecessarily restrictive, and I would urge that medical conditions should not be specified in that way but should be left to professional opinion as to whether they constitute a safety risk for a particular individual. Perhaps the Minister will explain his understanding of that provision.
  I shall comment briefly on two further aspects of the document—the proposals for motor cycles and the new requirements for people with disabilities. I am sure that the Minister and I share a deep concern about the accident statistics for motor cycles. As I frequently travel along the Old Kent road in heavy traffic, all too often I see how motorbike accidents occur. Furthermore, research by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory shows that the number of fatalities is higher on big machines than on smaller bikes. The Commission's proposal to introduce a test for 400 cc bikes and above appears attractive. Yet the same motor bike organisations which are supporting compulsory training as proposed in the Road Traffic Bill
  870
  are opposed to the new test. It would be helpful if the Minister could provide a little more detail about any consultation he has had on what he outlined as a compromise of passing the ordinary test and proceeding to ride a bigger vehicle on the basis of two years' experience.
  Finally, I shall make a few comments about the proposal that people with disabilities would need to display on their licences any vehicle modifications or details of any artificial prostheses that they wear. I reinforce the Minister's point that that is a particularly offensive proposal. Any change in vehicle, vehicle technology or physical condition would have to be recorded, increasing the administrative burden. For that reason, I understand that the DVLC in Swansea is opposed to the proposal. How would it be enforced? Would people be stopped to check whether they have an artificial limb? Clearly it is nonsense. Why should disabled people be singled out in that way?
  The Greater London Association for the Disabled opposes the measure because
  "It is personally intrusive and demeaning for drivers to be required to make public that sort of information on a document which is often used for identification and other general purposes".
  I wholeheartedly agree. I support the Government in this matter, and, on what is perhaps an unusual occasion, in general we support the Government on the EC document.
  12.32 am
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: I welcome the Government's objective to obtain satisfactory amendments to cover drivers of non-commercial and light goods vehicles. The EC proposal contains one of the most damaging spin-offs of European proposals for some time. The rigorous tests for voluntary drivers and the stringent medical requirements that would be required by the measure would have a devastating effect on the numbers of volunteers. At present, we rely on thousands of volunteers who are prepared to give up their time to drive minibuses for organisations and who would take a completely different view if they had to undergo difficult tests and medical inspections at frequent intervals.
  I do not believe that the European Commission has taken into account the scale of this sector in the United Kingdom. There are 85,000 minibuses in Great Britain, which is way above the number to be found in other countries. Community transport in Britain alone makes some 10 million passenger journeys each year and 48 per cent. of all minibuses in Britain are used by voluntary organisations and private individuals. Without those voluntary services thousands of elderly and disabled people could become housebound, and many more would be denied their only chance to take part in recreational and sporting activities, to travel outside their homes and to take a holiday. Many thousands of organisations are totally dependent on the use of minibuses with voluntary drivers to transport their members to and from club activities, on outings and on holidays.
  It may be helpful if I cite a few examples from my own constituency of organisations which rely on voluntary drivers. The Gravesend and Northfleet day centres, for instance, are local branches of Age Concern, which has thousands of branches up and down the country. Every day, buses collect old people from their homes and take them to the centres. Many of the drivers are retired, and in all cases they are volunteers. In my constituency there is

  871
  also the Meopham community bus, again driven by volunteers, half of whom are retired. They take local people shopping and link villages not served by scheduled buses. They also provide services to the old people's clubs in the area. Other examples of organisations which rely on voluntary drivers are the Helen Allison school, which serves autistic children, numerous parent-teacher associations, scout groups, Mencap, Cheshire homes and PHAB —Physically Handicapped and Able-bodied groups.
  Who brought forward this extraordinary proposal? It was the then Transport Commissioner—a certain Stanley Clinton Davis, a former and unlamented Labour Member of this House. Mr. Clinton Davis was sent to Brussels, where he promptly went native and has since tried to regulate and regiment everyone from "Ballywhatnot" in the west to the Bosphorus in the east. I found in the Library a quite extraordinary letter from that former Commissioner to my hon. Friend the Minister. It certainly takes some reading. It accuses my hon. Friend of lobbying against these proposals, as though it were a disgraceful thing to lobby and to try to apply democratic pressure on behalf of people in this country. The former Commissioner went on to complain about the kind of people with whom the Minister was lobbying—the Mobility Alliance, an organisation bringing together the Community Transport Association, Help the Aged, Barnardo's, London Community Transport Association, the Lord's Taverners, the Variety Club, the National Union of Students and Youth Clubs (UK). These are all good organisations heavily dependent on minibuses with voluntary drivers, but it seems that they are all extremely suspect to Commissioner Emeritus Clinton Davis, who notes darkly in his extraordinary letter:
  "The Mobility Alliance is enjoying the active support of your Department."
  His reference to "Mrs. Thatcher's Government" seems to imply some form of guilt by association. In his letter to my hon. Friend the Minister he also complains:
  "Any change of these proposals would be dangerous because they merely represent a road safety measure."
  We heard this evening from the Minister exactly how safe our minibuses are by comparison. It may be of interest to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) if I refer to the recent Transport and Road Research Laboratory study, which found the accident rate for minibuses to be no higher than for cars and—this is of considerable significance—far lower than for buses.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: In this matter I have tried to be scrupulously fair, which is why I have not joined in the Clinton Davis bashing. He is a Right-wing Socialist and I am a Left-wing Tory, so perhaps we ought to be working together. The point about the bus statistics is that in general buses are working in inner city areas, where the crash rate is higher, whereas other vehicles tend to get out on to the motorways and other roads which are inherently safer. In dealing with the point that the hon. Lady raised, however, my hon. Friend is correct in saying that, overall, passengers in minibuses are safer than passengers using almost any other form of transport.
  Mr. Arnold: I thank my hon. Friend for emphasising the point about safety, and I admire his restraint in not responding in kind to the letter from Commissioner Clinton Davis. The best that one can say of the
  872
  Commissioner's proposals is that they are bland and have not been thought through. The kindest interpretation is that this is a well-meaning measure that he intended to be his epitaph. It would perhaps be less kind to regard his letter, in particular, as making cheap party political points which I regret to say were echoed by the hon. Member for Deptford.
  What we need to do now is to convince the new Commissioner to think the whole issue through again, and I call on my hon. Friend the Minister to get together with him and sort the whole thing out.
  12.39 am
  Mr. Richard Livsey: The EC document refers to the licences for drivers of European countries and the exchange of those licences, which is necessary as it will not only produce a common standard of driving, but will reduce bureaucracy. The standards of testing, however, should be the same throughout the Community because safety is vital.
  The discrimination mentioned in the document regarding physically handicapped people and the testing of them is unfortunate and must be considered. Mobility for the physically handicapped is an important asset as it enables them to get round, to participate in the community and, therefore, to live a much more normal life.
  The most important part of the document relates to minibuses. In many parts of Britain, particularly in rural areas, public transport is non-existent. In the past 10 years the Government have contributed to the abolition of public transport in many areas.
  Half the 85,000 minibuses that operate in our communities are driven by volunteers. Such minibuses are vital to my community, to that represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and to other rural areas. Given the dependence on volunteer drivers in remote rural areas, it is unrealistic to say that such drivers must be tested unless they carry nine or fewer passengers.
  In Brecon we have a disabled club which has 600 members. That club is served by six buses and they must cover a wide rural area. The elderly are brought to local towns once a week and the disabled are taken to centres and hospitals. Those people would be unable to live a civilised life without the service provided by the minibuses. Many small communities in my constituency now operate their own minibuses and they provide a flexible form of transport for people to visit market towns, their doctors and other essential destinations. Since the loss of support from the Manpower Services Commission, volunteers now play a much more important part in the operation of minibus services.
  Before I entered the House I was a lecturer at an agricultural college, which had six minibuses. All the lecturers, myself included, used to drive students round the country to visit farms, factories, creameries and so on. We worked flexible hours and the students would have been denied the benefits derived from those visits if we had been unable to drive them. It is important to note that not too many restrictions were imposed on us. Other colleges, especially those that teach technical subjects, depend on their minibuses to get their students about. The issue of private contractors is not as simple as some hon. Members have suggested. In some cases part-time drivers assist

  873
  contractors in the evening to take out local people when there is a demand. That is a particular feature of remote rural areas.
  I agree with the Minister about minibus services that assist the elderly and the disabled. Without such services and volunteer drivers, such people would be trapped. They would he unable to go shopping or to enjoy a day out. The mentally disabled would not be taken to places where they can enjoy themselves. This form of transport also enables children to visit the seaside and sports clubs to engage in competitive sports.
  Post buses are important in remote areas, and I am not clear about the position of PSV licences and post bus drivers, many of whom drive royal mail vans. In the highlands and mid-Wales, the post buses run important services. Many of them are minibuses and are designed as such.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Does my hon. Friend agree that this debate provides the Minister with an opportunity to reflect on the extent to which post buses could help to compensate rural communities which are experiencing the downgrading or loss of local post offices? A mobile provision in such areas of the facilities to which my hon. Friend is referring could be of considerable help.
  Mr. Livsey: That is right, and the post bus is a flexible tool in providing services to extremely remote areas. The concept could be developed further.
  I hope that the points that hon. Members have made will be heeded by the Commission and that it will amend the instrument accordingly. The Government must press the issue hard at that level, and the Minister will appreciate that he has the support of Members in all parts of the House in that endeavour.
  12.47 am
  Mr. Roger King: The House is unanimous in stressing that the proposals are not satisfactory. I do not like retrospective legislation of any kind. Since gaining a driving licence at the age of 17, I have driven most categories of vehicles that that licence entitles me to drive, including minibuses and medium-sized goods vehicles of up to 7·5 tonnes gross vehicle weight.
  Because of the peculiarities of British driving legislation, we have become one of the foremost producers of the 7·5 tonne truck, with the Ford Iveco cargo range and the Leyland Daf Roadrunner range, which are pre-eminent in this country. We export them in significant numbers throughout Europe because of the high demand for that type of vehicle, which a driver may drive on his normal driving licence and without having to take a special test.
  I support what has been said, not just about minibuses but about the impact that this legislation may have on British manufacturers of minibuses and other commercial vehicles which hitherto we have been entitled to drive on our normal driving licences.
  There will be a significant effect on the number of people entitled to drive minibuses if everyone must re-sit the driving test to enable them to drive that type of vehicle. The list of requirements in the instrument to enable one to drive a minibus is awesome indeed. For example, paragraph 5(2) on page 27 states:
  874
  "Drivers of vehicles in these categories must demonstrate a knowledge and sound understanding of the fields set out below".
  There follow a number of subjects in which the would-be driver must be knowledgeable, whether or not the vehicle is equipped with the items involved. If one wants to drive a Freight Rover Sherpa van or a Ford Transit minibus, one must know about the effect of wind on the course of the vehicle, rules on vehicle weights and dimensions, driving hours, rest periods and use of tachographs, the principles of braking systems and speed governors. We are talking about the driver of a minibus. He must also know about precautions to be taken when overtaking because of the dangers of splashing spray or mud. He must know how to read a road map and be capable of checking power-assisted braking and steering systems, which are unlikely to be found on such vehicles. He must know how to use various braking systems and a speed governor, which may be fitted but is unlikely to be.
  If category D of the driving test has to be taken before a person may drive a minibus, much new information will be needed by the applicant before he can take the driving test. That alone makes nonsense of that category. The heading "Knowledge" on page 22 is rather intriguing because paragraph 2·2 demands that the applicant for a driving test must have a knowledge of
  "mechanical aspects with a bearing on road safety; in particular they must be sufficiently familiar with, and be able to put right, the most common faults in the steering system, tyres, lights and direction indicators, reflectors, rear-view mirrors, windscreen washers and wipers, the exhaust system and seat-belts;".
  One's mind can run amok on this. What about replacing king pins on the front steering arms of a vehicle? Perhaps one's wife could do it because her licence indicates that she is able to do it. That is nonsense if for no other reason than it is hopelessly impractical to expect any normal person seeking a driving licence to be able to put those items right. Common sense should tell people that something is wrong, but it is nonsense to expect them to have to put matters right. I suggest that something has gone wrong in the translation of the document because I cannot believe that what it says is correct.
  We understand that in the new arrangements the theory part of the driving test will be much more elaborate than that which we are used to in the United Kingdom. Generally, the principle has been for the person being tested to pull up by the side of the road and be asked three or four questions by the examiner on the "Highway Code". I am not sure about the present procedure, but I doubt whether it is any different from what I have suggested.
  The proposals suggest that the theory test will be more elaborate than that. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will say whether he intends this to be a written examination to be taken before a practical driving test. The number of items on which people will be tested on theory precludes the side-of-the-road verbal test arrangement that has been the hallmark of the British driving test for as long as it has been taking place.
  Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether we are to move towards a theoretical element in the driving test. I would not object to such a test because a case can be made for more emphasis on theory. If that means a written test, I would not argue against it.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: In the light of the directive it is sensible to review what we do. It is important to realise

  875
  that any theoretical examination of the driving test in this and other countries shows that we have the simplest driving testing system and that it leads to the safest driving. We should try to avoid having a sort of GCSE in driving. We want people to be able to negotiate the streets without hitting other people and injuring themselves or others.
  Mr. King: I entirely agree. Experience shows that we have produced above-average drivers. Our good record on accidents—high and unacceptable as it is—seems to establish Britain as capable of training and testing its drivers to a high standard. There are grounds for suggesting that we can sub-categorise some of the categories for driving tests and that we can continue with the present arrangements for at least five years at which time the Commission will probably have the right to look again at whether we should all come together in a common cause throughout the European Community.
  So things may not be as black as they are painted. But this is very much the thin end of the wedge and I support what my hon. Friend has said, and more power to his elbow in ensuring that we get a sensible result from what at the moment is a rather impracticable solution.
  12.55 am
  Mr. Garry Waller: As many hon. Members have already said, our standards in this country are high and our casualty rate, although far too high still, is lower than that of other European countries. I believe that our approach, certainly as set out by my hon. Friend the Minister, is that we should not be prepared to compromise our standards in any way. I am delighted that he adopts considerable rigour in fighting our corner over the issue of minibuses and I give him my full support. I do not think there is any need for me to say any more about it because my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and other hon. Members have spoken at some length on the subject.
  There is concern in this country about the issue of interchangeability of the driving licence. I think that many people feel that it might be possible for an individual to escape the consequences of bad driving in the United Kingdom, or anywhere else for that matter, by obtaining a driving licence elsewhere in the Community, perhaps in that member state where obtaining a licence is easiest, and using it permanently here. I am sure that our approach must be that our standards must be maintained, and because we have this system of penalty points and endorsements there may be difficulties in moving towards harmonisation. In doing so we must be prepared to say that our standards are those to which others should aspire, and we should not be prepared to lower ours.
  I want to say a few words about the proposals relating to motor cycles because it is in that respect that the directive seems to be particularly half-baked. Let me remind the House of what is proposed.
  The proposals are, first, the creation of a separate licence for motor cycles over 400 cc—a level which can also be equated in terms of engine power—not to be granted until the applicant has held a licence for motor cycles under 400 cc for two years; secondly, the creation of a separate test for such a licence; and, thirdly, the requirement that all tests for a motor cycle licence should
  876
  be taken on a motor cycle of a capacity of the class of motor cycle that the applicant will become entitled to ride by virtue of obtaining that licence.
  The distinction between motor cycles under 400 cc and those over 400 cc is really not justified. The statement which the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) made about the higher casualty rate among riders of large motor cycles was a little simplistic. The situation is much more complex than she suggested. I do not believe that there is strong evidence that there is a higher casualty rate among riders of cycles over 400 cc. There may be a higher casualty rate for riders of motor cycles over, say, 125 cc, but it is much more complex when one comes to a higher figure.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: It is the earliest weeks and months of motor cycling that are the most dangerous and therefore the greatest risk is on lower powered machines. Our licensing system takes account of that. Once people get to a certain age and maturity, the safety improves, which is why a hell's angel of my sort of age is much safer on a 600 cc bike than someone 20 years younger on a lower powered machine. But I believe there is something in what both my hon. Friend and the hon. Lady are saying.
  Mr. Waller: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. That is why I am so worried about the proposal. It seems to me that introducing the extra tier will constitute a diversion of funding and resources from the training and testing of all motor cyclists during the vital period of their first six months on the road. That should be where we concentrate our effort rather than on moving towards an extra tier. By moving towards an extra higher tier, and requiring those who have already qualified to ride motor cycles of 125 cc or more to pass another test later in their motor cycling career, when they are less dangerous, is bound to damage what should be our primary objective.
  Considerable evidence was provided in this country for the Transport and Road Research Laboratory by Broughton last year, in West Germany by Koch in 1987 and in Denmark by Carstensen also in 1987, which failed to find any correlation between machine size and accident involvement. So we should be careful before we plump for the kind of proposals which the Commission has adopted, which seem to be based on evidence what is at the very least dubious.
  The other practical aspect on which I should like to concentrate is the requirement which appears in the draft directive to take a test on a strange higher capacity machine to gain the qualification to ride it. That seems to be based on the system for learning to ride motor cycles in other countries. Most other member states do not grant provisional driving licences for motor cycles or other vehicles. They have only a single system of a full driving licence. People in member states with such regimes prepare for the full driving licence by completing a specified number of hours' instruction with an authorised driving school. Then they take a driving test; if they pass, a full licence is granted to them. Some people may feel that that system is better than ours, but it appears from the evidence that there is quite a lot to commend our system.
  It is notable that, except when undergoing tuition with a driving school, persons may not drive on the road prior to being granted a full driving licence. The Commission's proposals relating to motor cycle testing are suited to what might be described as the driving school regime, where

  877
  people possibly hire machines. The provisions are not suited to the British position where a rider takes a test on his own machine, after an introductory off-road session.
  The proposals in the draft directive may be counter-productive. The combination of on-road experience and instructor tuition on the rider's own machine has been shown to be more beneficial than off-road testing on a strange machine. The latter often becomes little more than coaching to pass a test. It seems crazy to expect someone to hire a motor cycle to pass a test before he acquiries his own machine. The alternative system does not seem to be suited to the way in which we conduct training and testing. I hope that my hon. Friend will press for the Commission to reconsider that proposal and take account of our system.
  I should like my hon. Friend to answer another question. The consultation paper circulated by his Department on 17 March contained under its description of article 4 the following wording:
  "Sub-categories for motorcyclists not exceeding 400 ccs, exceeding 400 ccs and light motorcycles not exceeding 125 ccs may be provided."
  There seems to be some confusion. It is not clear whether that is a mandatory or discretionary proposal. In some translations the word "may" is replaced by the word "shall". In the most recent versions the word "shall" predominates.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am not sure whether that is certain. We want to opt for "may". If there is this power or cubic capacity limitation, experience generates a greater degree of safety and that would be more suitable and preferable to requiring more motor cyclists to take another test.
  Mr. Waller: I am glad to learn that my hon. Friend the Minister is in favour of a discretionary provision, and I would entirely support that. It would be right for us to adopt our procedure which may differ from that in other countries. I hope that that matter will be clarified, and if there is any doubt I trust that my hon. Friend will press for the directive to take account of what we do in this country.
  I support my hon. Friend the Minister's general approach to this matter. We can be proud of the practical steps that we have taken to reduce road casualties, although there is still an enormous amount to be done. We should be willing to consider trading up where necessary if other countries do things that are worthy of consideration. However, we should absolutely refuse to trade down merely for the sake of unnecessary harmonisation if that involves sacrificing road safety in this country.
  1.5 am
  Mr. Bowen Wells: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on bringing this measure to the House at an early date to obtain the views of hon. Members. On this occasion it is the unanimous view of hon. Members that the directive should be seriously amended before it is brought before the Council of Ministers for decision. I support my hon. Friend the Minister, as have all other hon. Members, in his stand on minibuses. The directive clearly fails the test of safety because travelling in motor cars, the obvious alternative in the voluntary sector, would be more dangerous. It also fails the test of practicability.
  I want to suggest a way in which my hon. Friend the Minister should approach the matter so that he does not
  878
  need the derogation to which the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) referred. Article 100A applies to measures designed to create a single market. Therefore, we need not become involved in licensing minibuses which do not cross frontiers or take part in trade between nations in the European Community. It cannot be necessary to harmonise those licences to create a single market.
  I venture to suggest that the same applies to the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) about motor cycles. Generally speaking, they are not part of the trading system between nations. There seems to be very little reason why there should be a harmonised basis for motor cycle licensing.
  When the Minister argues these matters in Brussels, we should opt for local and country variations to remain and not be interfered with by the directive. In that way the directive could be made much simpler and we could rely on the testing and licensing method of each country and only legislate a European point of view from when matters affect cross-border trade, as was envisaged by the creation of the power in article 100A to make legislation for creating a single market.
  1.8 am
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am very grateful for the support of the House. I suspect that the House will be returning to these issues not simply on Thursday when we debate a dissociated Bill, but as we move forward in our discussions in the European Parliament which has not entirely disposed of these matters. I hope that in its plenary session the European Parliament will find a way to declare that it will support only measures that maintain or enhance safety and mobility. Its consideration of the draft directive and its advice will then be more welcome than if it were simply the people of Europe who were speaking.
  The general conformity of licensing is welcome. In a way this kind of debate tends to focus on areas of disagreement. It is like some of the meetings of the Council of Ministers where people come together to disagree instead of explicitly saying that there are gains. In this measure there are gains for those with vocational licences where the ease of recognition and showing what qualifications have been obtained are important.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) made some important points. I welcome his support, particularly on minibuses. We would not want to take forward his suggestion if we could avoid it because we want conformity and recognition.
  Let me build on the point that my hon. Friend was making that within the aim of conformity we should have some flexibility and respect for the traditions of each country. Britain will not unnecessarily try to force other countries to give up what works for them if we think that it provides a reasonable standard of protection for other member countries. That is the principle that should increasingly be adopted.
  I am encouraged by Commissioner Karel van Miert who will want to bring together the expertise within the EC to try to work together on matters which do not necessarily require legislation but which can improve safety and mobility. I take great comfort from the fact that in 1987 we had the lowest number of road casualties for 34

  879
  years. In the two or three years before that there was no change in law. It was a new awareness that made the big difference. That is one way forward in Europe as well.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) talked about the casualty rate, which is unacceptably high. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set a target of reducing the number of those killed or seriously injured by one third by the year 2000. He will shortly be announcing the figures for 1988, which will be of interest to the House. My hon. Friend is right to point to the fact that it is the results that matter, not the theory of what in an ideal world the provisions would amount to. What will happen on the road? Will more people be killed? Will fewer people be injured ? Can more people move around? Those are the issues that really matter. My hon. Friend made that point clearly in relation to motor cycles.
  I welcome the alliance of motor cycle interests that we have created on training. That will be of enormous value. We are beginning to create a culture among motor cyclists which will transfer the experience and the defensive riding techniques of the mature motor cyclist more often and faster to the younger motor cyclist who is so dramatically at risk.
  I said at the beginning that to travel a mile or a kilometre by motor-cycle is 65 times more dangerous than travelling as a passenger in a minibus. That illustrates the extent of the problem. As my hon. Friend said, whatever is right or wrong on the 400 cc motor bike, or whatever it may be, whether it is a "may" or a "shall"—he appeared to lean more toward "shall" but we shall argue for the "may"—it is for the smaller machine for the younger cyclist that we must make the change.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) is an expert in most motoring interests. I am delighted that the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders has agreed to a meeting where we could take the manufacturers' interests into Europe. Most people in mainland Europe cannot understand that we have 85,000 minibuses in Britain, of which 60,000 to 70,000 are non-commercial minibuses in the voluntary sector. They cannot understand that we have 11,000 minibuses with lifts to take wheelchairs. That is incomprehensible to other countries. If the system as negotiated by Commissioner Emeritus Clinton Davis allowed the development of the voluntary minibus sector, there would be minibuses throughout Europe for scout groups, organisations for the elderly or students and people who want to go on a pub crawl while the driver stays on the wagon. That would be common throughout Europe, but it is not, because the regime that has been suggested does not work. People would be condemned to stay at home or use cars and neither is desirable.
  My hon. Friend also spoke of the Mobility Alliance. It is important for the Government to go on working with the voluntary sector. One thing that we have learnt from local government is that it is possible to work with the voluntary sector to help it. Many county councils have done that. They have said that they do not need a monopoly of the public bus service but want to try to achieve a spectrum of provision to come together and make possible more mobility for those around them.
  I pay tribute to the training schemes that many voluntary organisations run. No one should believe that
  880
  most of the major voluntary organisations take people off the street, give them a key to a minibus and ask them to drive 14 people around one weekend a month. Many voluntary organisations provide very professional training schemes and reassure themselves that their drivers know how to cope with their passengers, their vehicle, and the traffic.
  Commissioner Clinton Davis remarked that because minibuses are longer—often much longer—than cars, their drivers should be required to take the public service vehicle test. The truth is that a car such as the Peugeot 505 family estate is longer than any minibus capable of carrying 14 people. Also, if a licence holder is permitted to drive a van of certain dimensions without being required to undergo a special driving test, why should he be obliged to do so to drive a minibus on the same wheelbase? That does not make sense, and most people understand that now.
  The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) spoke of the importance of handicapped people being allowed to drive vehicles, because otherwise they would be condemned not to share in the community. I pay tribute to MAVIS—the mobility advisory centre at Crowthorne in Berkshire—and to the other advice centres serving the handicapped who drive themselves. I pay tribute also to those who established and have kept going Motability, which makes individual driving possible for many people to whom it was denied before. I pay further tribute to Motability's unleaded petrol campaign, which did so much to wake many of us up to the fact that we were unnecessarily pumping lead into the air, which may harm the development of children.
  The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) helped by providing support across the Chamber for what we are trying to achieve. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) spoke specifically about the letter that I sadly received from the ex-Commissioner. On balance, it is probably right of me not to reply to my hon. Friend in detail. The points made by the Commissioner emeritus were wrong. They misinterpreted the Government's intentions and the unity of the Mobility Alliance delegation. Some of the correspondence in The Guardian made it plain that Socialist councillors from London boroughs wanted to keep politics out of it, and I go along with that. It is better to sacrifice political advantage and to ensure that we continue representing the interests of those with special needs, whether or not they are handicapped.
  The arguments concerning motor cycles revolve on the question of training more than anything else—though engine capacity is also important. I do not go along with all of the interpretations of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley in respect of the Broughton studies. Nevertheless, we can probably work together and reach agreement. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford spoke about moving the administration of vocational licensing from traffic area offices to Swansea. There are about 30 million ordinary licence holders. It is necessary to hold such a licence before one can hold a licence to drive a lorry or bus. There are about I million vocational drivers who are PSV or HGV licence holders.
  It is sensible to handle that work at Swansea, where ordinary licence details are already held on computer. That should lead to a better and faster service for vocational drivers. It is important to recognise that, as a consequence of shifting that work to Swansea, there will be greater demands made of the staff there and less of the staff

  881
  at traffic area offices. It follows naturally that that is the way it goes. I pay tribute to the staff at Swansea, who have lifted their efficiency far higher than most of British industry. Efficiency is the ally of compassion rather than its enemy. We should not judge how good a service is just by the number of staff employed to provide it.
  As to general licensing, even under the Commission's draft proposals, existing driver rights will be preserved in respect of medium-size group vehicles and for minibuses used non-commercially.
  On the driving test, we and other member states challenged the relevance to safety of including in the proposed syllabus map reading, repairs and other aspects mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield. We do not understand the proposals requiring a move towards a written test. We shall probably have to ask a few more oral questions as part of our current testing arrangements.
  The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) asked about the upper age limit for lorry drivers. The Bill that we shall debate on Thursday does not prescribe an upper age limit for lorry drivers. Those aged over 65 will have to renew their licences each year, and produce a medical certificate on renewal. If the directive is adopted, other member states such as Italy—which the hon. Gentleman mentioned—will have to recognise our arrangements. That is a move forward. I do not want to be too diverted by post buses, but if they are used for hire or reward they will need to be driven by someone with a public service vehicle licence. The directive would not change that.
  If we can obtain a change of heart from those Members of the European Parliament who fell on the side of Clinton Davis in December—if they acknowledge the safety and mobility points, and that is confirmed by Stanley Clinton Davis—it will be much easier to work with the openness of the new Commissioner, Karel van Miert, and his staff. We could then work out an arrangement that would be satisfactory to the European Parliament, agreed by the Council of Ministers and confirmed by the Commission as leading to better safety and mobility.
  These are the points on which we rest our case and I hope that the House will pass the motion as an indication that, throughout the country, we support these aims as we consider the draft directive.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 10357/1/88 on driver licensing; and endorses the Government's objective of negotiating satisfactory amendments with respect to the drivers of non-commercial minibuses and light goods vehicles, drivers from other Member States resident in the United Kingdom, and disabled drivers.

  Leeds Urban Development Corporation
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]
  1.21 am
  Mr. Derek Fatchett: When the Government first announced their intention to establish a series of urban development corporations throughout the country, the main reason given was that the areas to be covered by the UDCs would, at that stage, be suffering from a lack of investment and development. That was never the case in Leeds. If there was an argument for a UDC in the Government's own terms in other cities, that has never been and is not now the case for Leeds, which is enjoying probably the most substantial growth of any city outside the south-east. There are those who claim that Leeds, under its Labour-controlled authority, has now become the country's second city, and there are many people in Leeds who would regard it as the first rather than the second city.
  When establishing the UDCs, one of the Governmen t's suggestions was that they perceived some animosity between the local authority and the private sector. That has never been the case in Leeds, which is a success city as a result of the partnership which has developed between the Labour-controlled city council and the private sector. That success and partnership have enabled the city council to attract investment and to bring about the rebirth and renaissance of the city centre and much of my constituency.
  My first point, which is not necessarily central to this debate but needs to go on record, is that if there was ever any justification for a UDC, it could not be justified in Leeds. Under the previous council leader, councillor Mudie, and now under councillor Tricket, Leeds city council has enjoyed much success, taking it beyond the necessity of establishing a UDC.
  The Government's motives and their objectives for the UDC were far more sinister, manipulative and political. The Tories in Leeds know that they have no chance of ever gaining control, but it is essential for Tory patronage, influence and organisation to have some quangos appointed by Government and made up of placemen appointed by Government. That is why a proposal was made for a housing action trust, why we have the task force and why the urban development corporation came about—as part of a much larger agenda to subvert the city council and local democracy. It was a recognition by the Minister of his party's failure to attract votes in local elections in Leeds. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) may find that amusing, but he will not want to make any bets with me about the date when the Conservatives take control of Leeds city council as it will he a long time before that happens.
  There was no need for a UDC, but we now have one in Leeds, and we recognise that it has a potential contribution to make. We hope that it will behave in a socially responsible way, and part of its social responsibility is to consult local business and residents and to be part of the city's government in partnership rather than opposition.
  The UDC should ensure that its decisions are open to public scrutiny and subject to the maximum involvement

  883
  of local community organisations and local business. That is crucial because people and business in Leeds have a right to know what is happening.
  We are discussing major issues that will affect the future of Leeds and its residents for many years. An example of the importance of its decisions is the possible development by Triple Five, a Canadian organisation that has already held talks with the city council and the UDC. According to a UDC press release, the scheme could be worth more than £3 billion. It is a major investment of such significance that it could change the shape of the south central area of Leeds for many years to come. I am not making a judgment on the scheme, but I am asking that the UDC's involvement in it be open so that the public know what is likely to happen and can comment on the way in which it develops.
  Another example is the road scheme for the Richmond hill area of my constituency, which is important for local residents and business. It is important that when the UDC, as the planning authority for the area, puts forward proposals for the development of the road scheme it recognises the legitimate interests of local residents, who have a right to know what the UDC intends. Nobody in the area affected by the UDC's proposals is yet aware of them. I am aware of them because information has begun to be leaked that the UDC is thinking of building a road down East street—on stilts at points—which is probably the worst environmental scheme that could be conceived for the area. There has been no consultation or discussion with local residents. That is not the way in which the Minister would go about his business; it is not the way that the UDC should go about its business.
  Dr. Keith Hampson: If one considers the Kirkstall valley scheme, there is no evidence that the UDC is trying to bypass local community views. Its strategy and proposals are well known to the community and council, and two councillors serve on it. The hon. Gentleman has not shown why, apart from the overall strategy, which should be public knowledge, its detailed scrutiny of often confidential matters should be in the goldfish bowl of public debate.
  Mr. Fatchett: I have already shown that there are important schemes, substantial investment, and substantial local interest involved. I am not saying, and never have, that sensitive commercial interests should be made public. Nobody is saying that, but everybody who has been involved in local government—and I presume that the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West knows the nature of the rules in local government—will recognise that there is secrecy in commercial interest. I recognise that; I am not asking for that.
  In relation to the road scheme, there has been no discussion whatsoever with local residents. There is no commercial interest that stops that discussion, and it is that degree of participation and openness that I am asking for, a basic minimum. The hon. Gentleman, by his reaction, understands the point I am making. There is a potential degree of consensus there, and I hope that the Minister recognises that.
  There is, besides the right to know, a need for openness on the part of the UDC. If it is not open, given the scale of the projects with which it is dealing, there is always an
  884
  argument that there is some lack of legitimacy attributed to the decisions taken by it. Openness gives legitimacy, as does consultation. I would not for a moment suggest that corruption surrounds the UDC. That is not the nature of my accusation. However, if the UDC is open and allows consultation, there is never any question of corruption because we know what is going on. If there is secrecy, it builds up a suspicion that there may be corruption around the organisation. In the UDC's own interest, there is a need for openness. So there are two reasons suggesting that the UDC should change its current practices: the right to know, and the need for openness.
  The UDC makes a number of points in its own defence, but one defence it cannot use is that it is the planning authority; if the planning decisions were taken by local government, Leeds city council, these decisions would be subject to the Local Government (Access to Information Act) 1985. It is a strange paradox that, if there is a major or minor planning decision to be taken by the Leeds city council, that would be open as per the normal practices of local government. If there is a major or minor planning decision to be taken by the UDC, it will be taken behind closed doors. I see no justification whatsoever for that.
  The Minister may say that the legislation does not provide for that access or openness in relation to the UDC. I recognise that, but I also say that the London Docklands UDC already allows openness; it allows journalists to be present at certain meetings, and it allows the public to be present. The Sheffield UDC is moving in exactly the same direction. I hope that the Minister will use his influence and powers to ensure that the Leeds UDC moves further in that direction.
  A further argument made by the UDC is that openness —what the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West called "the goldfish bowl"—leads to inefficiency, but the fact that emerges from the evidence which has come into my possession is that the UDC is itself inefficient. Its secrecy does not breed efficiency; I suspect that its secrecy compounds inefficiency.
  Let me give one or two examples. A firm called South Leeds Builders Merchants Ltd. received a letter from the UDC saying, without consultation or discussion, that that business would be subject to compulsory purchase. That is neither efficient nor the way in which the UDC should behave. The company secretary wrote to his own solicitor and kindly sent me a copy of his letter. I quote from Mr. Foster's letter:
  "To say I am astounded would be an understatement, as you would have thought that someone at The Leeds Development Corporation would have had the decency to forewarn, explain or indeed just discuss the plans affecting our premises and livelihood."
  That inefficiency was recognised by Mr. Martin Eagland, the chief executive of Leeds urban development corporation. He replied on 21 March 1989 to Mr. Foster, the company secretary of South Leeds Builders Merchants Ltd., and made the following point:
  "I do apologise for the fact that you received no prior warning of the Development Corporation's intention to compulsorily acquire the freehold interest in the … site".
  The Leeds urban development corporation ought to have talked to a company that it was about to make the subject of a compulsory purchase order.
  Another example is Chapman Springs, a well-established engineering firm in south Leeds. It is now the subject of a compulsory purchase order without consultation, participation and information. From time to time a

  885
  number of hon. Members find it convenient to criticise the Post Office or British Telecom. They may feel that that was the reason why the Leeds urban development corporation was unable to talk to either South Leeds Builders Merchants Ltd. or Chapman Springs. Both firms are sited within 100 yd of the UDC's offices. I suspect that Mr. Peter Hartley, the chairman, and Mr. Martin Eagland, the chief executive, pass both firms on their way to and from the UDC's offices. A simple courtesy would have been to talk to the two firms. Jobs in two local businesses are at stake. One of the firms wrote to me and said that the Conservative Government pride themselves on their interest in small businesses, so it is difficult to understand how they can allow one of their organisations—the UDC —to behave in such a way.
  Secrecy in the UDC has not bred efficiency. All the evidence suggests that secrecy has bred inefficiency. So far, the UDC's record is a catalogue of inefficiency and secrecy. For the sake of what I believe is important—the continuing development of Leeds—and for the most constructive relationship that is possible between local business. local residents and the city council, I ask the Minister to use his influence with the UDC to ensure that it conducts its business openly and does not continue with its current hole-in-the-wall approach. Such an approach will damage the work of the UDC and local business in Leeds. It is important that openness should be one of the UDC's characteristics. I hope that the Minister will join me in that campaign.
  1.37 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Trippier): I welcome the interest of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) in the subject. I congratulate him sincerely on securing this Adjournment debate. I welcome the valuable contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) to which I shall return later.
  The hon. Member for Leeds, Central has already tabled a number of written questions about the UDC's responsibility for planning. I have been pleased to inform him about the very satisfactory progress being made in Leeds. I thought that his summary of the reasons for establishing the Leeds urban development corporation stretched credulity to breaking point.
  If the hon. Gentleman wants to know precisely why the Government established an urban development corporation in Leeds, he could do no better than to read a pamphlet called "New Life for Inner Cities" which I wrote and which has recently been released. Unfortunately, I cannot give a copy to the hon. Gentleman. It costs £2·50, which I consider to be good value for money. That money will go to the Conservative party. We are always grateful for any contributions that we can get—certainly from Labour Members of Parliament.
  The best illustration that I can give of why the Government set up an urban development corporation in Leeds relates to a meeting that I had with the former leader of Leeds city council, whom I have always liked, councillor George Mudie. He told me of the progress that had been made over the Leeds development company, with which the hon. Gentleman will be familiar. That is the longest gestation period known to man. It had been talked about for four years, and it had been in formation for three years. I asked councillor Mudie when he would appoint a chief
  886
  executive and he said, "Soon". It is crass stupidity for the hon. Gentleman to describe to me and to the House anything to do with the UDC as a catalogue of inefficiency when we have such an example.
  The Government believed that things should move a little more speedily than they have in the urban regeneration for the centre of Leeds. As the hon. Member knows, I visited the development corporation only last month. I was impressed by the way the corporation has started to implement the proposals contained in the strategic plan which it published last October. Land is being brought forward for development in partnership with the other agencies; environmental improvements are under way, and I know the corporation has the needs of both new and existing businesses uppermost in its mind. Those are no mean achievements for a corporation which has been in existence for only nine months. If not now, I hope that at some time in the future the hon. Gentleman will become as enthusiastic about what is being achieved on the ground in his home city as he seems to be about the procedures required to bring that about.
  Before I reply to the more specific points which the hon. Gentleman has raised, the House may find it helpful ill say something about how the UDCs operate and relate that to what the hon. Gentleman has said.
  UDCs have been set up by the Government as single-minded bodies. Their remit is to regenerate rundown urban areas by bringing land and buildings back into use and creating new businesses, jobs, an improved environment, new homes, recreation and leisure facilities. Already they are doing that, and in my view they are doing it very well. But UDCs are not local authorities, and they are not funded through the rating system. The arrangements established to ensure that local authorities are accountable to the local electorate are not therefore applicable. UDCs are funded largely by the Exchequer and they are accountable to Parliament through my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. They are subject to a fairly formidable array of procedures, which includes the Select Committee and Public Accounts Committee systems, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, and the Local Government Act 1988 which brought UDCs' planning activities within the ambit of the Commissioner for Local Administration—the local ombudsman. Each UDC produces an annual report, including a copy of its audited statement of accounts, which is laid before both Houses. Hon. Members will appreciate that those are just some of the arrangements which exist to safeguard accountability to Parliament, but it might help if I explain that when carrying out their development control functions all UDCs are required to operate in the same way as any other planning authority That includes an obligation to carry out consultations and determine applications as laid down in the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988. The list of possible consultees, on any application, can be lengthy. It can include, for example, a local authority, the highway authority, the water authority, and the waste disposal authority.
  Most UDCs have established agency arrangements whereby local authority staff receive and process planning applications. That hardly equates with charges of operating in secret, and perhaps more than anything else shows that, behind the rhetoric, co-operative and mutually beneficial working arrangements can and do exist between UDCs and local authorities, and I welcome that.

  887
  Councillor George Mudie persuaded me that in this context the Leeds city council should act as a planning agency for the UDCs. Apart from that, as the hon. Gentleman knows, at the time I was convinced that it was quite fair and proper that there should be a number of Labour party councillors appointed to the board.
  Mr. Fatchett: The Minister talks in detail about the development control procedures, but one or two of my examples concern broader planning and development matters. I talked about the road scheme and about Chapman Springs in relation to the development of a business park. Those schemes are not covered by the development controls. They are the schemes that should be the subject of much greater consultation and much greater public scrutiny. If the Minister is prepared to persuade his colleagues in the UDC to move in that direction, we are beginning to move towards a consensus, but in relation to the road scheme, for instance, that involves the UDC recognising that my constituents, at a very early stage, have a legitimate voice.
  Mr. Trippier: I should say two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West was very relevant to this case, though I do not think there could be any possible criticism of the consultation that took place. Time permitting, I shall refer to that matter again. Certainly I want to see urban development corporations consulting local people. That is very important if we are to see this form of urban regeneration in that area. If the people themselves do not recognise that that form of urban regeneration is an improvement and that it will benefit them and the area as a whole, clearly the whole policy will have failed. On that matter there is a meeting of minds.
  I do not know specifically about the case of the road network. Obviously I am not directly responsible for the Department of Transport. However, in an effort to be helpful, I shall look at the matter. I am anxious to convince the hon. Member that the UDC is very keen to consult, as are all UDCs. There may have been mistakes, particularly in the case of what I call the first-generation UDCs. One hopes that one can learn from mistakes, and that there will be improvements. But in the case of the second and third-generation UDCs it is perfectly clear that it is a necessary prerequisite for successful urban regeneration that they should carry the local communities with them.
  Of course, circumstances vary from area to area. No two areas are the same, and no two UDCs are the same. It is therefore right that they should have discretion to organise themselves in the best way to achieve positive results. I must stress that all UDCs are well seized of the importance of carrying local opinion with them. Many UDC chairmen and chief executives spend a considerable amount of their time addressing public meetings up and down the urban development areas. I have indicated that I do not for a moment suggest that they have got everything absolutely right; I am not that stupid. It is always easy to find fault from the sidelines, as the hon.
  888
  Gentleman has sought to do. It would be wrong of the Government to be too prescriptive about the way in which the UDCs carry out their business, as the hon. Member and certainly the Campaign for Freedom of Information would suggest. I believe that that is a matter for the UDCs to decide, with the overall arrangements that I have already described.
  Mr. Fatchett: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Trippier: I want to make a final point because we are running out of time.
  A number of decisions will have to be made by the UDCs—decisions that certainly would be commercially confidential. As the hon. Gentleman made a number of political points—and I realise that he might have felt obliged to do so—may I make one important political point from my party's point of view? I find it a bit difficult to take it when any member of the Labour party talks about secrecy or about excluding the press from meetings. My experience in local government—which, I am glad to say, is pretty long—is that the Labour party is the first to exclude the press from meetings of this kind. I am sure that that experience is shared by my hon. Friends.
  Mr. Fatchett: The Minister might be reassured to know that Leeds city council won an award for its willingness to open up and to disclose information. So, in this respect, it is a model authority. The Minister argues that he does not want to be prescriptive. He knows the position taken by the docklands corporation, and he knows the position that Sheffield is likely to take. Will he give the Leeds UDC some indication that it would make sense to move in the same direction as its sister UDCs in docklands and in Sheffield?
  Mr. Trippier: The Leeds city council has won an award for openness. I only wish that it had won an award for speed of inner city regeneration through the Leeds Development Company. I accept that a number of urban development corporations provide the type of access that the hon. Gentleman seeks for the Leeds UDC, and the London Docklands UDC is undoubtedly one. Certainly I shall be very happy to draw to the attention of the chairman and the board of the Leeds UDC the matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised this evening, but I repeat that the Department does not wish in any way to be prescriptive in this regard. It is entirely a matter for the UDC. I personally feel that in practice there can be little or no difficulty, in view of the representation on the board not only from the hon. Gentleman's party but from the private sector, which he was quick to mention.
  I emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West that there will be quite a number of interested parties in Leeds whose best interests might not be served by knowing too much about the confidential matters that are discussed before the board. That is a matter of judgment, principally for the board.
  I hope that in future the hon. Member for Leeds, Central will find himself able to support the Leeds UDC and the work that it does to regenerate that vitally important city.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Two o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Electoral Boundaries (Liverpool)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the timetable for the redrawing of ward and constituency boundaries in Liverpool.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are no immediate plans to review either the ward or constituency boundaries of Liverpool. The Local Government Boundary Commission for England will review the city's external boundaries in its mandatory review of metropolitan district boundaries, due for completion in 1992. The Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England will review the boundaries of constituencies in Liverpool in its general review of constituencies in England, provisionally due to start in 1991.

  Members (Prison Visits)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the procedures that an hon. Member needs to follow when seeking to visit a constituent detained in one of Her Majesty's prisons.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  He or she should contact the governor of the prison, who will normally issue a special visiting order admitting the hon. or right hon. Member to the prison.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Newham, North-East dated 6 March on Paul Higgins.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A reply was sent on 6 April to the hon. Member concerning Mr. Higgins' appeal. A further letter will be sent to the hon. Member as soon as inquiries about Mr. Higgins' treatment in custody have been completed.

  Safer Cities Programme
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the criteria by which London boroughs are selected for the safer cities programme.

  Mr. John Patten
  The criteria used to select safer cities initiatives are that an area must (i) be an urban programme area; (ii) have a high crime rate; (iii) be targeted for Government action and (iv) be willing to participate in the safer cities programme. These criteria apply to all areas selected for inclusion in the programme including the London boroughs.

  Telephone Tapping
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to have included in future 414
  reports made under section 8 of the Interception of Communications Act 1985, details of the number of interceptions made on telephones belonging to (a) hon. and right hon. Members, (b) leaders of trades unions and (c) elected representatives of public bodies.

  Mr. Hurd
  The annex to the report for 1988 of the commissioner appointed under section 8 of the Interception of Communications Act 1985 gave the information concerning the number of warrants issued which the commissioner judged could be published without harming national security. I see no reason to take a different view or to depart from the established policy of successive Governments of not commenting on allegations relating to the interception of communications. The commissioner said in his report he was satisfied from his examination of cases that the issuing of the warrant in each case was justified on one or more of the grounds set out in section 2(2) of the 1985 Act. With regard to allegations of the interception of the telephones of Members of Parliament, the position remains as set out by the then Prime Minister the Lord Wilson of Rievaulx on 17 November 1966 at columns 634–41 and reaffirmed since by successive Governments

  Basildon (Crime Statistics)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Home Department what are the latest crime figures for Basildon and for the same period in each of the last four years.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is published annually in the report of the chief constable of the Essex police and is given in the following table.

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police in Basildon

  Year

  Number of offences

  1984

  11,410

  1985

  10,534

  1986

  13,581

  1987

  13,717

  1988

  12,546

  Arson
  Mr. Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to support the proposed formation of the arson bureau, which was recommended in the Home Office standing conference on crime prevention report "The Prevention of Arson"; what steps have been taken to date; and when the bureau is likely to be running.

  Mr. John Patten
  I believe that such a bureau might make a useful reduction in the problems of arson. It will first be necessary to develop the working party's proposals to see whether a precise basis for an arson bureau can be established which is acceptable to the Government, the insurers and to the business community. Discussions for that purpose are in hand.

  Prisons
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons prisoners Ella O'Dwyer and Martina Anderson, in H-wing of Durham prison, were locked up under rule 43 on 4 March; and for how long.
  415
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Ms. Ella O'Dwyer and Ms. Martina Anderson were removed from normal association with other inmates in the wing for a period of two weeks in the interests of good order and discipline. The authority under prison rule 43 was given by a member of the board of visitors.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what complaint mechanisms there are for prisoners who consider their living conditions to be intolerable.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Prisoners may raise complaints informally with members of the prison staff, but there is a provision under the prison rules for them to see on request the governor, a visiting officer of the Secretary of State, or a member of the board of visitors on any matter. They may also petition the Secretary of State, Parliament or the Queen, write to their Member of Parliament (who may refer a complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration), the European Commissioner for Human Rights, or seek redress through the courts.

  Deportation
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were removed under deportation powers in 1987 and 1988; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  A total of 1,388 persons were removed under the deportation powers in 1988, a 50 per cent. increase on the 923 removed in 1987. While the number of deportation orders enforced in the two years was much the same (776 in 1987 and 745 in 1988), the numbers of supervised departures increased very substantially from 147 in 1987 to 643 in 1988. This increase occurred among those removed under section 3(5)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971 for overstaying or working in breach of their conditions. It reflects the combined impact of more effective administrative arrangements introduced on 1 August 1988 and the provisions in the Immigration Act 1988 which restricted the appeal rights of those who had been here for less than seven years to matters of fact and which also provided authority to meet the cost of all supervised departures.

  The increases in the figures reflect the Government's determination to make every effort to deal quickly and effectively with those who offend against the immigration laws. As was announced when the Government's expenditure plans were published, we intend to increase the resources devoted to enforcement of the immigration laws over the next three years.

  More detailed figures on those removed under the enforcement powers, covering illegal entrants as well as those removed under the deportation process, were published in "Control of Immigration: Statistics—Fourth Quarter and Year 1988" (Home Office Statistical Bulletin 10/89), a copy of which is in the Library.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Kircindeep Singh
  Mr. Bidwell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is yet in a position to write to the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall concerning 416
  the immigration case of Kircindeep Singh in India, mentioned by the Minister of State, Home Office as having been referred to him in a letter dated 6 March.

  Mr. Eggar
  A reply was sent to the hon. Gentleman on 6 April 1989.

  Kampuchea
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will be willing to offer British personnel for an international control mission to monitor a Kampuchean settlement.

  Mr. Eggar
  It is too soon to say what sort of international presence may be required in the event of a Cambodian settlement, and, hence, the nature of a possible British contribution.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he has expressed concern to Prince Sihanouk over the prince's proposal to bring Khmer Rouge troops back into Kampuchea in the context of a settlement;

  (2) with which members of the Khmer Rouge leadership Her Majesty's Government are prepared to deal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have no dealings with the Khmer Rouge leadership. Prince Sihanouk has proposed the inclusion of the Khmer Rouge, but excluding Pol Pot, in an interim Government. If some Khmer Rouge involvement proved acceptable to the Cambodian factions, we would not oppose it, though it is clear that neither Pol Pot himself nor his cronies have any place in a peaceful settlement.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to offer full support for Prince Sihanouk should the prince seek to negotiate with Premier Hun Sen on the basis of backing from the West.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have made it clear on many occasions that we fully support Prince Sihanouk's efforts to bring about a peaceful and durable settlement in Cambodia.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise the subject of Kampuchea with Mr. Gorbachev and Mr. Deng Xiao Ping in advance of their Sino-Soviet summit in May emphasising Her Majesty's Government's concern over the threat to a peaceful settlement posed by the Khmer Rouge.

  Mr. Eggar
  Cambodia was one of many issues touched on during Mr. Gorbachev's visit to Britain on 5–7 April. We keep in close touch with the Soviet and Chinese Governments on this subject.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will propose an amendment to the United Nations' resolution on Kampuchea naming the leadership of the Khmer Rouge as being unfit ever to govern Kampuchea again.

  Mr. Eggar
  The terms of any future United Nations resolution on Cambodia will depend on developments. I hope that, by the next session of the General Assembly, Vietnam will have withdrawn completely from its illegal occupation, as called for in successive General Assembly resolutions.
  417
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the European Council of Ministers last discussed the future of Kampuchea; what issues were raised; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Cambodia is regularly discussed in the context of political co-operation amongst the Twelve. The Twelve support efforts to restore an independent, democratic, neutral and non-aligned Cambodia, and call for early and unconditional Vietnamese withdrawal.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support the United Kingdom has given to the Kampuchea peace talks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have supported the efforts of Prince Sihanouk and the ASEAN, as well as the two Jakarta informal meetings and talks between the factions in France and elsewhere. We have raised the issue among the five permanent members of the Security Council. With our EC partners we have issued several statements.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King),Official Report, 8 March, column 877, that he has placed the matter of Kampuchea on the agenda of the United Nations Security Council, if he will now take the issue forward as a matter of urgency.

  Mr. Eggar
  As my right hon. and learned Friend stated in his reply, the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council will carry forward discussion of Cambodia when they feel it is appropriate.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Thai Government about the future of Khmer Rouge soldiers based in camps on the Thai/Kampuchea border and how the Thais propose to disarm and neutralise the threat of the Khmer Rouge army to peace and development in both Kampuchea and Thailand.

  Mr. Eggar
  We regularly discuss the Cambodian problem with Thailand (and other members of the Association of South East Asian Nations). We believe that the only framework for removing any threat from Khmer Rouge forces is a peaceful political settlement.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will initiate proposals at the United Nations for the Kampuchean refugees in camps in Thailand to be given refugee status and the protection and rights afforded to refugees.

  Mr. Eggar
  These Cambodians are in Thailand as a result of Vietnam's occupation of their country. We hope that they will soon be able to return in safety. The question of refugee status for any individual in Thailand is a matter for the Thai authorities.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will initiate proposals to extend United Nation's protection in the Kampuchean refugee camps in Thailand to ensure that those wishing to leave camps controlled by the Khmer Rouge may do so safely.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have taken a leading role with the Thai Government and the relevant United Nations agencies in 418
  securing proper access by United Nations personnel to Khmer Rouge-controlled camps. The Thai Government do not allow displaced persons in any of the Cambodian camps to leave them freely.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will hold talks with representatives of the People's Republic of Kampuchea;

  (2) if, following the recent establishment by the Government of Thailand and the Government of Kampuchea of a joint committee to oversee economic co-operation, he will send a delegation to Kampuchea to discuss future aid, trade and commercial links between the United Kingdom and Kampuchea.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have no plans at present to alter our policy towards the so-called People's Republic of Kampuchea.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, following Prince Sihanouk's recent statement that the coalition Government of democratic Kampuchea is dominated by the Khmer Rouge, he will seek to have CGDK removed from the United Nations where they occupy a seat.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Lady to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) on 5 December 1988 at column 40.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much has been spent by the Government since 1979 in fighting cases before the European Court of Human Rights up to, and including the hearing of 28 March; how much has been paid for the instruction of lawyers; what are the estimated costs in employees' time, travelling and accommodation costs of officials involved in these cases; how much has been paid out in costs or expenses and compensation by the Government following rulings by the court; and if he will list the sums involved in each case which has reached a ruling stage.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The information requested is given in the accompanying table.

  It is not the practice to publish fees paid to individual counsel in specific cases. The total Government legal costs incurred to date in relation to the 24 cases before the court between 1979 and 28 March 1989 is approximately £215,000.

  It is not possible to estimate the costs in respect of officials' time, travel and accommodation for each of these cases.

  Case

  Compensation paid to the applicant/s

  Costs and expenses paid to the applicant/s (Including proceedings prior to those before the Court)

  £

  £

  Sunday Times

  —

  22,626·78

  Young, James & Webster

  74,917·00

  61,774·00

  Dudgeon

  —

  3,315·00

  X

  —

  64,811·11

  Campbell & Cosans

  3,000·00

  9,577·13

  Silver & Others

  —

  33,066·59

  Campbell & Fell

  —

  13,000·00

  419

  Case

  Compensation paid to the applicant/s

  Costs and expenses paid to the applicant/s (Including proceedings prior to those before the Court)

  £

  £

  Malone

  —

  3,744·10

  Ashingdane

  —

  —

  Abdulaziz, Cabales & Balkandali

  1—

  32,000·00

  James & Others

  —

  —

  Lithgow & Others

  —

  —

  Rees

  —

  —

  Gillow2

  10,735·00

  2,134·00

  Weeks

  8,000·00

  1,793·33

  AGOSI

  —

  —

  Monnel & Morris

  —

  —

  420

  Case

  Compensation paid to the applicant/s

  Costs and expenses paid to the applicant/s (Including proceedings prior to those before the Court)

  £

  £

  Boyle & Rice

  —

  3,450·00

  O

  5,000·00

  9,235·25

  H

  12,000·00

  4,966·55

  W

  12,000·00

  28,246·94

  B

  12,000·00

  12,075·00

  R

  8,000·00

  6,229·50

  Brogan

  3

  1 Approximate.

  2 These sums were reimbursed by the Government of Guernsey.

  3 Judgment awaited.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  714 Certificates
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many section 714 certificates have been issued to the self-employed in each of the last five years; and how many of these have been issued to persons already engaged in full-time employment paying income tax through the PAYE system.

  Mr. Lawson
  There are several types of 714 exemption certificate. 714I and 714S certificates are issued only to self-employed individuals. 714P certificates are issued to partnerships and companies but it is not possible to say how many are issued to each category.

  The numbers of certificates issued, including renewals, in each of the last five years are:

  Year

  7141 & S

  714P

  1984–85

  149,410

  29,877

  1985–86

  164,856

  31,986

  1986–87

  167,316

  32,627

  1987–88

  180,562

  32,074

  11988–89

  187,994

  34,509

  1 to 29 March 1989.

  There is no record of issues to persons already engaged in full-time employment taxed through the PAYE system.

  Whisky (Excise Duty)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish(a) the annual amount of revenue accruing to the Exchequer in real terms from the levying of excise duty on Scotch whisky and (b) the proportion of excise duty which has arisen from whisky production in Speyside, in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lilley
  During 1987–88 an estimated £0·7 billion accrued to the Exchequer from clearances to the home market of whisky produced in the United Kingdom. This figure includes a small amount attributable to production outside Scotland. An estimate is not available of the proportion of the tax borne by production in Speyside.

  Third World Debt
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Her Majesty's Government support the initiative by United States Treasury Secretary Nicholas Brady to provide debt relief to major Third world debtors.

  Mr. Lilley
  The United Kingdom welcomes the recognition that the next phase of the debt strategy can give greater emphasis to debt reduction. It believes that this should not require a transfer of risk from the private to the public sector.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action Her Majesty's Government intend to take, in support of the Brady initiative, to persuade British banks to reduce the debt and the debt service of major Third world debtors.

  Mr. Lilley
  The interim committee of the IMF encouraged the Governments of creditor countries to review the extent to which tax, regulatory and accounting 422
  systems might unnecessarily constrain the participation of commercial banks in debt reduction. It does not appear that such obstacles arise in the United Kingdom, but the United Kingdom has agreed to review its policies in these areas. G7 Ministers agreed that concrete negotiations on debt and debt service reduction are a matter for the debtor countries and the commercial banks.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Her Majesty's Government will support a United States initiative to increase the resources of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank so that greater debt relief can be provided for major Third world debtors.

  Mr. Lilley
  Secretary Brady has not proposed that the resources of the International Monetary Fund or the World Bank should be increased. A general capital increase at the World Bank of $74·8 billion was agreed in February 1988. The United Kingdom share was $3·7 billion. The interim committee has asked the executive board of the IMF to complete its work on the ninth review of quotas with a view to a decision by the board of governors before the end of this year.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, following the International Monetary Fund riots in Venezuela, whether it remains the Government's policy only to assist major Third world debtors who comply strictly with International Monetary Fund adjustment policies.

  Mr. Lilley
  The United Kingdom fully supports the internationally agreed strategy for middle-income debtors which involves the adoption by debtors of appropriate strong adjustment policies supported by the IMF and World Bank in conjunction with the provision of finance by creditors. Economic reform is vital to this process, which aims to restore growth and creditworthiness. The United Kingdom is playing an important role through its financial support to the international financial institutions, through Paris Club reschedulings and the provision of new export credits, and by maintaining and encouraging an open trading system and a favourable world economic environment.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when Her Majesty's Government anticipate that positive flows of resources to the major Third world debtors will be resumed.

  Mr. Lilley
  Future resource flows to the major Third world debtors will depend in large part on the efforts of the countries themselves to repatriate flight capital and attract inward direct investment. The OECD estimates that in 1987 net resource flows to developing countries as a whole less net investment income paid by these countries were positive by $30 billion.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has on what percentage of the pre-tax profits of British banks was accounted for by debt servicing and repayments by major Third world borrowers in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Lilley
  Data are not collected centrally in the form requested.

  Balance of Payments
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the balance of payments deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product in(a) 1974 and (b)

  Mr. Major
  The current account deficit on the balance of payments was equivalent to 3·8 per cent. of GDP in 1974. In 1988 the deficit was equivalent to 3·2 per cent. of GDP.

  £000 (1979 Prices)

  Capital expenditure on Maintained Schools, Voluntary Aided and Special Agreement Schools, Polytechnics and Universities.

  Schools

  Maintained

  Voluntary Aided

  Polytechnics

  Universities

  1979–80

  258,155

  n/a

  19,480

  153,800

  1980–81

  292,157

  n/a

  28,553

  144,600

  1981–82

  200,860

  n/a

  24,128

  138,800

  1982–83

  184,650

  n/a

  24,675

  134,300

  1983–84

  186,021

  13,144

  20,754

  123,900

  1984–85

  188,215

  16,272

  20,633

  122,200

  1985–86

  189,164

  19,381

  23,501

  128,300

  1986–87

  192,245

  16,338

  23,003

  136,700

  1987–88

  1

  18,184

  1

  128,800

  1988–89

  1

  22,955

  1

  130,600

  1 Not yet available.

  The figures above relate to capital expenditure on schools and polytechnics in England whereas the universities figures are for Great Britain and apply to grants made on the advice of the University Grants Committee. Universities also have access to capital funding from other Government Departments, research councils and their own private funds, but such expenditure cannot be separately identified.

  The figures for voluntary aided and special agreement schools show the total value for grant aided capital expenditure, including the governors' contribution of 15 per cent. Figures for the years prior to 1983–84 are not readily available.

  St. Anne's Primary School, Worksop
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science why his department did not approve additional expenditure on St. Anne's primary school, Worksop, as requested by the governors and the Southwell diocesan education committee and Nottingham county council, in their submission to him on 14 September 1988.

  Mr. Butcher
  It was not possible to provide an allocation for this school from the limited resources available because, under the Department's well-publicised criteria, it had a lower priority than the approved statutory proposals for other schools in south Worksop.

  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he intends to take to reduce the split-site operation of St. Anne's primary school, Worksop.

  Mr. Butcher
  It is for the diocese and governors, in consultation with the Nottinghamshire LEA, to decide on priorities for improving educational facilities at this school. Should a scheme to unite the school on one site be submitted with the authority's plans for 1990–91 we shall give it most careful consideration in accordance with the criteria that we apply to all similar proposals.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Capital Investment
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the level of capital investment in each year since 1979 in constant prices in(a) schools, (b) polytechnics, (c) universities.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information available is as follows:

  Aided Schools
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science why his Department refuses to give priority to capital allocation for projects carried out by governors of aided schools unless they are for basic need in housing growth areas and not simply for improvement.

  Mr. Butcher
  Since resources available for providing grant aid are limited, my right hon. Friend has to apply a series of criteria in order to determine which of the many applications he receives should receive priority. These are, first, committed expenditure on projects which are already under way, second, basic need for additional school places in areas of population growth, third, building work which governors have a statutory duty to undertake as a result of proposals approved under section 13 of the 1980 Education Act and, fourth, projects to improve or replace inadequate buildings.

  Under-fives
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the individuals appointed to the recently announced committee of inquiry into the educational experience of under-fives, indicating for each the duration they have taught in(a) a nursery school or class and (b) a reception class.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The members of the committee have been invited to serve in a personal capacity with particular reference to the breadth of the committee's task. Full information on the teaching experience of all the members is not currently available; however, Mrs. Ann Sharp and Ms. Lesley Abbott taught four-year-olds in reception classes for seven years and five years respectively. Ms. Abbott also taught a nursery class for one year and Mrs. Rose Johnson teaches from time to time both reception and nursery classes.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will consider inviting Margaret Clark,
  425
  professor of education at Birmingham university, to serve on the recently announced committee of inquiry into the educational experience of under-fives; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what consideration the recently announced committee of inquiry into the educational experience of under-fives will give to the recent review of research into the education of children under-five written by Professor Margaret Clark which was commissioned by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The committee of inquiry contains suitably qualified academics. I see no need to supplement their expertise other than through the various forms of expert evidence. Among these Professor Clark's review will without any doubt have a prominent place.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) when he expects to publish the Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools' document on quality in the area of education of under-fives;

  (2) what areas of consideration for the recently announced committee of inquiry into the educational experience of under-fives have not already been covered by (a) his Department's commissioned review of research into the education of children under five and (b) Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools' document on quality in the area of education of under-fives; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The report by Her Majesty's inspectorate, expected to be published on 22 May, deals with good practice in maintained schools only. Professor Clark's critical evaluation of the outcome of recent research on the under-fives was not so constrained. Neither study, however, addresses fully these issues which the committee is required to take into account: the diversity of needs and of types of provision; demographic and social factors; the nature of training for teachers and other professional staff involved in the education of children under five.

  Government Data Network
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what considerations his Department has given to joining the Government data network; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  The Department is considering its requirements, and the extent to which these might be met by the Government data network, and will take into account advice from Racal Data Networks Ltd.

  Academic Research Equipment
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when the Advisory Board to the Research Councils' survey of academic research equipment will be published; if he will undertake to place a copy of the report in the Library as soon as it is published; and if he will make a statement on the future funding of university research.

  Mr. Jackson
  I understand that the Advisory Board for the Research Councils will receive a report on its survey of academic research equipment later this month. Publication of the report is a matter for the board.
  426
  As already announced, the Government intend to separate the funding of teaching and research in universities, through the Universities Funding Council, in order to encourage institutions to think more systematically about the quality of their performance in both areas. The level of public funding for university research will be reviewed in the normal way as part of the annual public expenditure survey, and by the UFC, the research councils, Government Departments and other publicly funded agencies.

  Bovine Immunodeficiency Disease
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if his Department has received any applications for the funding of research into the bovine immunodeficiency virus; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  No applications have been received. The Agricultural and Food Research Council's institute for animal health has recently started a small research programme on BIV using existing science budget funds. In addition, the institute has recently been awarded a grant from the Medical Research Council's AIDS-directed programme for work on BIV.

  University Physics Department (Funding)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the level of funding to each university physics department in England and Wales over each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Universities receive public funding in the form of block grants from the Universities Funding Council, which succeeded the University Grant; Committee on 1 April. It is for each university to determine how its block grant, and the other income at its disposal, is distributed between Departments.

  Pupil-Teacher Ratio
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, if he will list in tabular form(a) the number of teachers in each local education authority in England and Wales, (b) the number of pupils in each and (c) the pupil-teacher ratio of each.

  Mr. Butcher
  I shall reply as soon as possible giving the figures for England. Welsh statistics are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Research Vessels
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list, with dates, the home ports of vessels of the British Antarctic Survey during the last 10 years, giving reasons for any change of port.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The British Antarctic Survey vessels, which are both used to supply the survey's bases at the start of each austral summer, sailed from Southampton from 1979 to 1984, and since 1985 have used Grimsby. The change was made for reasons of efficiency in handling cargo, and for economies in the laying up costs of the ships during the summer months.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list, with dates, those ports at which
  427
  refitting or servicing has been carried out on (a) vessels of the British Antarctic Survey and (b) other research vessels of the Natural Environment Research Council.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  British Antarctic Survey vessels have been refitted at yards on the rivers Tyne and Humber exclusively in the last 10 years. Other Natural Environment Research Council vessels have used the following ports:

  Year

  Discovery:—

  Viana do Castela, Portugal

  1988

  Cardiff

  1987

  Falmouth

  1986, 1982

  Tyne

  1979–80, 1983–85

  Humber

  1981

  Charles Darwin:—

  Valparaiso, Chile

  1988

  Singapore

  1987

  Glasgow and Mombasa

  1986

  Falmouth (Commissioned 1984)

  1985

  Challenger:—

  Great Yarmouth

  1988

  Cardiff

  1987

  Southampton

  1986

  Tyne

  1979–82, 1985

  Falmouth (no refit in 1983)

  1984

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many cruises have in whole or in part been undertaken in the last 10 years by research vessels based at Research Vessel Services, Barry, on behalf of departments of the university of Southampton; and what proportions these are of the total of such work.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  During the past 10 years, Southampton university has used NERC ships as sole user for a total of nine weeks. Most cruises in recent years have involved more than one user. In the past three years Southampton university scientists participated in 24 of a total of nearly 120 cruises on Discovery, Charles Darwin and Challenger. Southampton provided the principal scientist on seven of the 24 cruises. It is not possible to calculate the proportion of the total work involved, since figures are not available for the time used where the university was not the main user.

  In Vitro Fertilisation (Report)
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether the report of the Medical

  Table 1

  Student teachers and instructors in maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools (January 1988)

  Student teachers

  Instructors

  LEA

  Full time

  Part time

  Total FTE

  Full time

  Part time

  Total FTE

  Barking

  —

  —

  —

  28

  39

  47·5

  Barnet

  —

  —

  —

  16

  8

  19·3

  Bexley

  —

  —

  —

  10

  5

  12·9

  Brent

  25

  —

  25·0

  —

  8

  3·3

  Bromley

  —

  —

  —

  3

  8

  5·4

  Croydon

  —

  —

  —

  1

  61

  23·6

  Ealing

  —

  —

  —

  12

  12

  17·6

  Enfield

  —

  —

  —

  9

  36

  22·9

  428
  Council into children conceived by in vitro fertilisation, referred to in his answer of 26 July, Official Report, column 210, has yet been published.

  Mr. Jackson
  The report has not yet been published. I understand that the Medical Research Council expects it to be published later this year.

  Schools (Employment Statistics)
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will publish tables giving the most detailed information available, for England and Wales and by local authority, of the number of persons, full and part-time, other than fully qualified teachers, employed in schools including nursery schools and classes, breaking down the figures by nature of responsibilities undertaken and with an estimate of the full year salary costs and of average earnings per employee, at the latest available date;

  (2) what information is collected, and what studies have been made, concerning the number, qualifications and responsibilities of people employed in schools other than fully qualified teachers.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  [holding answer 7 April 1989]: The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy publication "Education Statistics 1988–89 Estimates", a copy of which is in the Library, shows, separately for each respondent local education authority and for primary (including nursery), secondary and special schools, estimated full-time equivalent numbers of and associated expenditure per full-time equivalent pupil on support staff, premises related staff, administrative and clerical staff and mid-day supervisory assistants. It also shows for each authority estimated numbers of unqualified teachers and of school meals service staff broken down into organisers and clerical staff, mid-day supervisors and kitchen and canteen staff. Staff numbers are not broken down into full time and part time.

  The Department collects information by local education authority on the number of student teachers and instructors in schools. The figures for January 1988 are set out in table 1. Local education authorities make returns to the Department of the Environment of their spending on non-teaching staff in schools. Table 2 sets out for 1986–87, the latest year for which firm data are available, spending by LEA on educational support staff, adminstrative and clerical staff and manual staff and on school meals staff. Information on average earnings per employee is not available.

  No other information is collected, and no specific studies have been made, of the number and characteristics of persons employed in schools other than qualified teachers. The information given above is for England only: information for Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
  429

  Student teachers

  Instructors

  LEA

  Full time

  Part lime

  Total FTE

  Full time

  Part time

  Total FTE

  Haringey

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2·0

  Harrow

  —

  —

  —

  10

  30

  19·3

  Havering

  —

  —

  —

  26

  50

  43·3

  Hillingdon

  —

  —

  —

  13

  —

  13·0

  Hounslow

  —

  —

  —

  5

  53

  20·8

  Kingston

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9

  3·1

  Newham

  —

  —

  —

  39

  6

  42·7

  Redbridge

  —

  —

  —

  17

  10

  22·3

  Richmond

  —

  —

  —

  —

  42

  7·1

  Sutton

  —

  —

  —

  4

  3

  6·1

  Waltham Forest

  —

  —

  —

  40

  10

  46·3

  ILEA

  1

  —

  1·0

  154

  1,094

  391·7

  Birmingham

  —

  —

  —

  8

  9

  12·3

  Coventry

  —

  —

  —

  14

  76

  50·7

  Dudley

  —

  —

  —

  12

  3

  13·6

  Sandwell

  —

  —

  —

  6

  6

  9·3

  Solihull

  —

  —

  —

  9

  14

  13·9

  Walsall

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  3·3

  Wolverhampton

  —

  —

  —

  1

  6

  3·5

  Knowsley

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  2·9

  Liverpool

  —

  —

  —

  —

  25

  10·4

  St. Helens

  —

  —

  2·0

  4

  2

  5·3

  Sefton

  —

  —

  —

  3

  14

  8·7

  Wirral

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  0·6

  Bolton

  —

  —

  —

  11

  12

  17·4

  Bury

  —

  —

  —

  4

  3

  5·1

  Manchester

  —

  —

  —

  27

  11

  31·8

  Oldham

  —

  —

  —

  7

  2

  8·0

  Rochdale

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  5·0

  Salford

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  1·6

  Stockport

  —

  —

  —

  5

  3

  6·9

  Tameside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Trafford

  —

  —

  —

  2

  9

  4·7

  Wigan

  —

  —

  —

  13

  1

  13·2

  Barnsley

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  1·3

  Doncaster

  —

  —

  —

  14

  9

  18·5

  Rotherham

  —

  —

  —

  15

  12

  19·8

  Sheffield

  —

  —

  —

  13

  11

  18·5

  Bradford

  —

  —

  —

  19

  9

  27·0

  Calderdale

  —

  —

  —

  8

  3

  10·0

  Kirklees

  —

  —

  —

  27

  21

  36·8

  Leeds

  1

  —

  1·0

  9

  34

  31·1

  Wakefield

  —

  —

  —

  9

  2

  9·8

  Gateshead

  —

  —

  —

  —

  32

  14·1

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  2·8

  North Tyneside

  —

  —

  —

  5

  31

  12·0

  South Tyneside

  —

  —

  —

  8

  —

  8·0

  Sunderland

  —

  —

  —

  8

  3

  9·5

  Avon

  —

  —

  —

  2

  10

  7·6

  Bedfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  25

  27

  36·5

  Berkshire

  —

  —

  —

  17

  26

  27·6

  Buckinghamshire

  —

  —

  —

  12

  14

  17·2

  Cambrideshire

  —

  —

  —

  9

  18

  17·3

  Cheshire

  54

  9

  57·5

  2

  69

  12·3

  Cleveland

  —

  —

  —

  10

  26

  23·1

  Cornwall

  —

  —

  —

  14

  20

  21·1

  Cumbria

  —

  —

  —

  7

  11

  10·4

  Derbyshire

  —

  —

  —

  14

  14

  18·9

  Devon

  —

  —

  —

  8

  30

  17·5

  Dorset

  —

  —

  —

  1

  23

  9·0

  Durham

  —

  —

  —

  40

  11

  43·7

  East Sussex

  —

  —

  —

  12

  16

  16·7

  Essex

  —

  —

  —

  123

  172

  171·0

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  —

  5

  8

  6·8

  Hampshire

  1

  1

  1·2

  49

  88

  85·4

  Hereford and Worcester

  —

  —

  —

  10

  4

  11·7

  Hertfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  43

  76

  73·7

  Humberside

  —

  —

  —

  7

  31

  23·0

  Isle of Wight

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  1·9

  Kent

  —

  —

  —

  26

  40

  42·8

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  —

  5

  31

  18·1

  Leicestershire

  —

  —

  —

  20

  24

  31·0

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  5

  28

  18·6

  Norfolk

  —

  —

  —

  44

  23

  56·1

  North Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  12

  47

  30·0

  Northamptonshire

  —

  —

  —

  34

  36

  48·0

  Northumberland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8

  4·3

  430

  431

  Student teachers

  Instructors

  LEA

  Full time

  Part time

  Total FTE

  Full time

  Part time

  Total FTE

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  —

  —

  23

  1

  23·7

  Oxfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  37

  16·1

  Shropshire

  —

  —

  —

  10

  44

  18·1

  Somerset

  —

  —

  —

  5

  1

  5·1

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  —

  38

  8

  41·8

  Suffolk

  —

  —

  —

  13

  24

  25·7

  Surrey

  —

  —

  —

  7

  17

  14·9

  Warwickshire

  —

  —

  —

  11

  27

  19·8

  West Sussex

  —

  —

  —

  12

  11

  19·1

  Wiltshire

  —

  —

  —

  8

  8

  10·8

  England

  84

  10

  87·7

  1,350

  2,974

  2,317·9

  Table 2

  Expenditure on salaries and wages1 1986–87 financial year

  LEA

  Schools Nursery, Primary, Secondary and Special

  School Meals

  Educational Support Staff2

  Administrative and Clerical Stqff3

  Manual Staff4

  All Staff

  £'000

  £'000

  £'000

  £'000

  Barking

  1,118

  671

  1,907

  1,439

  Barnet

  2,575

  1,049

  3,393

  2,475

  Bexley

  573

  764

  2,710

  1,013

  Brent

  2,551

  635

  4,002

  3,836

  Bromley

  1,218

  850

  2,198

  1,668

  Croydon

  1,359

  1,183

  3,260

  2,610

  Ealing

  2,608

  1,093

  3,017

  1,372

  Enfield

  2,077

  870

  2,918

  1,912

  Haringey

  3,584

  906

  3,668

  3,388

  Harrow

  1,633

  747

  2,559

  1,002

  Havering

  1,255

  884

  3,031

  1,833

  Hillingdon

  1,287

  1,646

  3,188

  1,388

  Hounslow

  2,192

  820

  2,325

  1,968

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  490

  754

  1,056

  917

  Merton

  821

  454

  858

  310

  Newham

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Redbridge

  843

  1,072

  2,546

  1,473

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  848

  288

  1,227

  907

  Sutton

  788

  661

  1,485

  1,108

  Waltham Forest

  2,436

  1,131

  3,191

  1,973

  ILEA

  32,962

  28,499

  65,565

  30,930

  Birmingham

  9,577

  2,850

  9,508

  11,227

  Coventry

  341

  1,554

  4,247

  2,861

  Dudley

  1,507

  1,113

  1,807

  1,941

  Sandwell

  2,965

  925

  3,268

  2,433

  Solihull

  1,564

  553

  1,408

  1,586

  Walsall

  1,952

  1,789

  4,703

  3,355

  Wolverhampton

  2,799

  785

  3,235

  2,234

  Knowsley

  1,050

  586

  2,423

  2,468

  Liverpool

  3,073

  1,476

  8,889

  4,229

  St. Helens

  1,207

  598

  2,050

  2,393

  Sefton

  1,373

  794

  2,797

  2,900

  Wirral

  1,299

  959

  3,263

  2,847

  Bolton

  1,789

  642

  2,760

  2,703

  Bury

  1,007

  415

  1,495

  1,674

  Manchester

  5,031

  1,786

  6,547

  7,645

  Oldham

  1,766

  649

  1,954

  2,438

  Rochdale

  1,420

  906

  2,833

  2,642

  Salford

  1,939

  762

  2,861

  2,400

  Stockport

  1,385

  950

  2,357

  2,603

  Tameside

  2,086

  725

  2,033

  2,878

  Trafford

  831

  514

  2,102

  1,296

  Wigan

  1,398

  1,129

  3,565

  2,978

  Barnsley

  1,461

  775

  2,368

  2,695

  Doncaster

  1,834

  911

  3,768

  3,942

  Rotherham

  1,325

  762

  2,507

  2,849

  Sheffield

  5,425

  1,544

  6,492

  6,547

  Bradford

  4,412

  1,194

  5,544

  4,184

  Calderdale

  1,221

  393

  1,591

  2,179

  Kirklees

  2,583

  1,085

  4,013

  4,543

  Leeds

  4,629

  2,184

  7,257

  7,589

  Wakefield

  2,166

  728

  3,198

  3721

  Gateshead

  1,243

  636

  2,153

  1,858

  Newcastle-Upon-Tyne

  2,904

  938

  2,870

  3,647

  North Tyneside

  1,567

  673

  2,047

  2,092

  432

  433

  LEA

  Schools Nursery, Primary, Secondary and Special

  School Meals

  Educational Support Staff2

  Administrative and Clerical Staff2

  Manual Staff4

  All Staff

  £'000

  £'000

  £'000

  £'000

  South Tyneside

  1,097

  335

  1,501

  1,672

  Sunderland

  2,585

  821

  2,716

  3,346

  Avon

  5,305

  3,021

  7,523

  8,770

  Bedfordshire

  3,149

  2,151

  4,711

  4,798

  Berkshire

  3,759

  2,333

  7,641

  2,537

  Buckinghamshire

  4,766

  2,016

  6,352

  2,961

  Cambridgeshire

  3,557

  1,852

  5,264

  3,613

  Cheshire

  7,224

  3,196

  9,382

  9,103

  Cleveland

  4,540

  1,741

  6,286

  7,827

  Cornwall

  2,296

  965

  3,518

  3,222

  Cumbria

  2,957

  1,139

  4,782

  4,865

  Derbyshire

  8,623

  1,640

  8,823

  11,136

  Devon

  3,717

  1,880

  7,147

  6,751

  Dorset

  2,000

  1,518

  5,332

  1,353

  Durham

  3,666

  1,125

  7,520

  6,302

  East Sussex

  2,709

  2,245

  4,211

  4,278

  Essex

  6,307

  4,610

  13,098

  10,710

  Gloucestershire

  2,491

  1,495

  3,546

  2,873

  Hampshire

  2,005

  9,363

  13,637

  9,623

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,907

  1,766

  5,700

  302

  Hertfordshire

  5,962

  3,589

  9,172

  8,400

  Humberside

  5,823

  2,066

  2,961

  10,240

  Isle of Wight

  806

  417

  1,166

  735

  Kent

  5,186

  5,058

  7,275

  10,275

  Lancashire

  6,032

  3,957

  12,227

  13,511

  Leicestershire

  5,503

  2,945

  8,685

  7,592

  Lincolnshire

  2,888

  1,314

  3,463

  2,404

  Norfolk

  4,022

  1,592

  4,795

  4,703

  North Yorkshire

  3,014

  2,089

  5,484

  5,212

  Northamptonshire

  2,273

  2,348

  4,987

  4,450

  Northumberland

  1,580

  620

  3,416

  3,339

  Nottinghamshire

  7,285

  3,005

  10,734

  9,717

  Oxfordshire

  3,849

  1,426

  4,517

  2,817

  Salop

  1,812

  1,189

  3,684

  3,350

  Somerset

  2,242

  1,364

  3,163

  3,705

  Staffordshire

  6,729

  3,229

  9,677

  6,642

  Suffolk

  2,511

  1,772

  4,288

  3,720

  Surrey

  2,389

  3,623

  7,025

  6,336

  Warwickshire

  2,802

  1,379

  3,266

  3,281

  West Sussex

  2,2391

  1,744

  4,747

  3,302

  Wiltshire

  2,022

  1,448

  5,014

  3,083

  England Total

  295,899

  171,524

  486,435

  401955

  Notes:

  1 The figures quotes are based on LEA returns to DoE on Form RO1

  2 Nursery assistants, nurses and medical staff, laboratory, workshop and technology assistants and techicians employed in schools.

  3 Clerks, typsists, receptionists and telephonists who look after the administrative needs of the education service.

  4 Caretakers, cleamers and midday supervisory assistants.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Advisory Committee on Pesticides
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a list of the members of his advisory committee on pesticides.

  Mr. Ryder
  I published such a list on 26 January 1989, and a copy is lodged in the Library of the House.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any proposals to encourage the replacement of existing intensive farming systems with organic alternatives.

  Mr. Ryder
  It is for individual farmers to decide whether to switch from intensive to organic farming systems. However, I am anxious that our own farmers should meet as large a share as possible of the increasing 434
  demand for organic produce. To this end I encouraged Food From Britain to establish the United Kingdom register of organic food standards which is currently drawing up agreed standards for the production and processing of organic food and is to provide an independent verification system. In addition, our agricultural advisory services now offer specialised advice to organic producers; UKROFS is being consulted on research needs; and the possibility of including an organic option in any extensification scheme that may be adopted under the European Community arrangements is under active consideration.

  Intervention Stores
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the amount of foodstuffs, by weight and at current prices, held in the United Kingdom each year since 1979 under European
  435
  Economic Community intervention policies in the Mr. Ryder; the information requested is as follows: following categories (a) butter, (b) beef, (c) wine and (d) cheese; and if he will make a statement.

  Tonnes

  Butter

  Beef

  Wine

  Cheese

  Year ending

  Held in intervention

  Privately owned and stored against EC aided contracts

  Held in intervention

  Privately owned and stored against EC aided contracts

  1980

  19,148

  4,674

  25,588

  2,055

  Nil

  Nil

  1981

  29

  17,976

  10,247

  2,093

  Nil

  Nil

  1982

  8,830

  26,085

  13,025

  310

  Nil

  Nil

  1983

  108,331

  8,294

  16,781

  365

  Nil

  Nil

  1984

  144,430

  10,097

  52,430

  29,200

  Nil

  Nil

  1985

  201,688

  4,309

  85,029

  7,633

  Nil

  Nil

  1986

  237,632

  7,066

  55,985

  5,970

  Nil

  Nil

  1987

  159,930

  6,118

  54,067

  4,983

  Nil

  Nil

  1988

  24,179

  448

  25,412

  4,357

  Nil

  Nil

  Note: Current valuation figures for intervention butter and beef are £1,422·46/tonne and £1,322·71/tonne respectively.

  Sheep Dips
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the approval process for organophosphate-based sheep dips took into account the regularly occurring residue impurities in technical grade organophosphates.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Yes.

  Veterinary Medicine
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress towards European Community harmonisation of veterinary medicine licensing and distribution.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Common rules making the issue of licences for many veterinary medicinal products conditional upon a satisfactory assessment of safety, quality and efficacy were established in 1981. In February this year the Council received from the Commission proposals to extend the scope of these rules, and to harmonise the records which distributors are required to keep. The distribution system itself would not be affected. An explanatory memorandum (4228/89) has been submitted to the Scrutiny Committee, and I have also asked interested bodies to let me know their views.

  Sole
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the European Community quota for Holland for sole for each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Sole quotas for the Netherlands for each of the last three years were as follows:

  tonnes

  Geographical Region (Zones of International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES))

  1986

  1987

  1988

  III a, b, c, d

  50

  70

  80

  II, IV

  15,050

  10,530

  10,530

  VII a

  300

  330

  275

  VII h, j, k

  80

  80

  80

  VIII a, b

  105

  305

  275

  Total

  15,585

  11,315

  11,240

  436
  Mr. Ryder
  The information requested is as follows:

  Sources:

  Council Regulation (EEC) No. 3721/85 of 20 December 1985—Official Journal of European Communities (OJ) No. L361 of 31 October 1985.

  Council Regulation (EEC) No. 4034/86 of 22 December 1986–0J No. L376 of 31 December 1986.

  Council Regulation (EEC) No. 3977/87 of 21 December 1987–0J No. L375 of 31 December 1987.

  The figures shown above do not take into account quota exchanges.

  In the years 1986, 1987 and 1988 the United Kingdom has concluded important quota exchanges with the Netherlands giving the United Kingdom valuable additional opportunities of sole in the Irish sea, south coast of Ireland area and North sea of 590 tonnes, 430 tonnes and 655 tonnes respectively. So far in 1989 we have negotiated an additional 725 tonnes of sole from the Netherlands through quota swaps.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a list of those pre-1965 pesticide ingredients which have been re-reviewed, indicating in each case the year of re-review and whether or not the ingredient was approved.

  Mr. Ryder
  The information requested by the hon. Gentleman may be found in table 1 of the information paper on the programme for routine reviews of approved pesticides which was made available to the public on 16 March 1989 and a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Of the 36 active ingredients or groups of active ingredients listed in table 1, numbers 2, 5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33 were first cleared for supply and use in the United Kingdom before 31 December 1965.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to complete his re-review of pre-1965 pesticide ingredients.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 23 March 1989 at column 726.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a list of all pre-1965 pesticide ingredients currently in use which have not yet been re-reviewed; and when he expects each ingredient to be reviewed.
  437
  Mr. Ryder
  Such a list is already available in table 3 of the information paper on the programme of routine reviews of approved pesticides, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those pesticide ingredients which he is currently reviewing; and if he will indicate in each case the year of the ingredient's initial approval.

  Mr. Ryder
  Pesticide active ingredients which are currently under review are listed in tables 1 and 2 of the information paper on the programme for routine review of approved pesticides, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. The year in which each was initially cleared is as follows:

  Year

  2-aminobutane

  1972

  Alachlor

  1969

  Bromoxynil

  1967

  Captan

  1962

  Diazinon

  1956

  Dimethoate

  pre-1958

  Dinocap

  1964

  Fenbutatin oxide

  1983

  Fentin acetate

  1965

  Fentin hydroxide

  1964

  Furmecyclox

  1979

  Ioxynil

  1964

  Iprodine

  1976

  Methyl bromide

  1964

  2-Phenylphenol

  1967

  Tecnazene

  1970

  Tributyltin oxide

  1976

  Foot and Mouth Disease
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will identify those European Community countries that vaccinate against foot and mouth disease in cattle.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Cattle are vaccinated against foot and mouth disease in all European Community countries except Denmark, the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to stop the testing for foot and mouth disease by British veterinary staff of imported livestock; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  No tests for foot and mouth disease are carried out on imported livestock. Livestock susceptible to the disease, from countries which have had outbreaks within the last two years or where vaccination is practised, are required to be tested with negative results before export and also to undergo 21 days supervised post-import quarantine. There are no plans to remove these requirements from our import controls.

  Badgers
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further work is necessary before field trials can begin of the tuberculosis vaccine for badgers which has been developed by the Middlesex hospital.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Further work is necessary to check whether accidental contact with the vaccine could lead to desensitisation of cattle infected with tuberculosis so that they would no longer be reactors when tuberculin tested.

  Veterinary Medical Products
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those products which the European Economic Community veterinary medical products committee have recommended as being suitable for product licences for each of the last three years.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The committee on veterinary medicinal products has not yet reached a conclusion on any of the product licence applications referred to it.

  Alphachloralose
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under what circumstances his Department authorises the use of alphacholoralose against wild birds; and how many such licences were granted in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Ryder
  Under section 16(9)(d) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 my right hon. Friend is the appropriate authority for the purpose of issuing licences under section 16(1)(i), (j) and (k) of the Act for the use of prohibited methods to kill or take wild birds.

  In practice my Department issues licences only to local authorities of competent pest control contractors and for a limited number of species. namely feral pigeon, house sparrows and in one case, herring gulls. The number of licences issued in the last three years were:

  Number

  1986

  685

  1987

  738

  1988

  589

  Milk (Testing)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps his Department is taking to ensure that there will be no reduction in the number of milk samples being tested as a result of the closure of research stations in the south-west, the north-west, the south midlands and Kent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The only regular milk testing carried out by my Department is to ensure that untreated milk producers comply with one of the conditions of their licence. This work will not be significantly affected by the closure of certain microbiology laboratories, since the samples in question will be transported to other laboratories. The comprehensive testing carried out by the Milk Marketing Board (which includes monthly testing for brucellosis on behalf of the Ministry) will not be affected at all.

  Research (Funding)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give details of the impact on the Agriculture and Food Research Council of funding reductions already announced; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  Commissions by my Department with the Agricultural and Food Research Council will be reduced by £1·6 million in 1989–90, as part of the £5 million reduction in Government funding which has been
  439
  announced for that year. Decisions on the future programme of commissioned work will depend on the consultations we are currently holding with industry organisations. The implications of changes in funding for the staff and research establishments of the Agricultural and Food Research Council are matters for that organisation.

  Salmonella
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the level of additional funding awarded to the Institute of Animal Health for research on salmonella contamination; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) on 21 March at columns 514–15. My Department was already spending around £700,000 in 1989–90 on research at the Institute of Animal Health on enteric diseases of poultry, including salmonella. Two new salmonella projects have now been added at a cost of £173,000 in 1989–90.

  Veterinary Surgeons
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is proposing to take to consider the supply and demand for veterinary surgeons, particularly in the light of the Riley report.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Consideration of the Riley report is a matter for the Universities Funding Council. I am concerned, however that there appears to be a growing shortage of British-trained veterinary surgeons. After discussions with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Science and for Scotland, I have decided that it would be sensible and prudent to review the demand for veterinary surgeons in both the public service and the private sector. The study will also consider the supply of veterinary education and the demand from home and overseas students and will have regard to the potential funding from the Universities Funding Council and other sources. I shall be announcing the details as soon as possible.

PRIME MINISTER

  Climatic Changes
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Prime Minister what action Her Majesty's Government are taking to arrest world climatic changes.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the Government's reply to the first report from the Environment Committee, Session 1987–88 (Cm. 552).

  The United Kingdom continues to play a full part in international consideration of the climate change issue, in the WMO/UNEP intergovernmental panel on climate change, the EC and in other special fora.

  Budget
  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received regarding the Budget.
  440
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received regarding the Budget.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received regarding the Budget.

  The Prime Minister
  The proposals in the Budget have been widely welcomed.

  EC Fraud
  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received regarding fraud in the European Economic Community.

  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received regarding fraud in the EEC.

  Sir Hugh Rossi
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received regarding fraud in the European Economic Community.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a small number of representations.

  British Intelligence (History)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister when she expects an announcement to be made on the possible publication of the volume prepared by Professor Sir Michael Howard in the series entitled the "Official History of British Intelligence"; what criteria are being used in determining whether publication can take place; whether publication with appropriate deletions is being considered; on whose authority Sir Michael Howard was commissioned to write his volume; what has been the cost to public funds of work on this volume; and what assessment she has made of the utility and cost-effectiveness of the commissioning of official histories on intelligence matters which are not subsequently published.

  The Prime Minister
  The "Official History of British Intelligence in the Second World War" was commissioned in 1971 by the Government of the day. The right to decide on publication of this history, as with all official histories, rests exclusively with the Government. Four volumes of the "History of British Intelligence" have already been published, volume I in 1979, volume II in 1981, volume III, part I in 1984 and volume III part 2 in 1988. The decision about timing and form of publication of the volume commissioned from Professor Sir Michael Howard, the direct cost of which was in the region of £10,000, will be taken in the light of our best judgment of the national interest.

  Griffiths Report
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Prime Minister when she intends to announce the Government's conclusions on the report by Sir Roy Griffiths; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on 6 April.

  Engagements
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 April.
  441
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 April.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 April.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 April.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 April.

  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.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Employee Share Ownership
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what discussions have taken place as to the feasibility of introducing an employee share ownership scheme in any future privatisation that his Department may sponsor.

  Mr. Maude
  When considering any privatisation proposal, the possibility of providing for an employee share ownership scheme is always carefully assessed.

  Regional Initiatives
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he plans to announce any new initiatives to benefit Britain's regions.

  Mr. Atkins
  No. Major changes in the focus of DTI's policies were made early last year. Regional policy now operates within a framework designed to encourage enterprise and economic growth in all parts of the country but with extra help available for firms in the regions.

  Manufacturing Output
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the latest figures he has for the growth in manufacturing output.

  Mr. Atkins
  Manufacturing output in the three months to January 1989 was at a record level, 7 per cent. higher than a year earlier, 11 per cent. above its 1979 average level and 6·5 per cent. above the previous all-time peak year of 1973.

  Import Substitution
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he will take to encourage import substitution by United Kingdom manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It is not for the Government to tell industry what to produce. The greatest encouragement to buy British is the availability of competitive British goods and services. My Department's policies are geared to helping business to achieve this.

  Scotch Whisky
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress has been made towards the 442
  liberalisation of Scotch whisky and the reduction in the rates of import duty and other taxation levied on Scotch whisky in the Korean market.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  We continue to press the Korean authorities on all appropriate occasions, both bilaterally and through the European Community, to remove restrictions on the import of Scottish whisky to Korea. The Korean Government have recently proposed certain steps towards liberalisation of this important market. These proposals are welcome, but some problems remain. Further relaxation is being sought, and the Government will continue to pursue the issue vigorously.

  Distance Measures
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what assessment he has made of the benefits for the United Kingdom resulting from the abolition by the European Economic Community of non-metric measures of distance;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the economic advantages which will result from the implementation of the European Economic Community proposal to abolish non-metric measures of distance.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 10 April 1989]: My Department has made no assessment of the benefits or economic advantages which would result if non-metric measures of distance were abolished. In view of the substantial costs which would be involved in metricating distance and speed road signs and associated equipment in vehicles, the European Commission's proposal to amend the units of measurement directive would allow the United Kingdom to decide whether to phase out the mile, yard, foot and inch for road transport purposes.

  Single Market
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he intends to change(a) the method of collection of trade statistics and (b) the form of their public presentation, as a consequence of the completion of the European Economic Community single market; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 10 April 1989]: I have nothing to add to the reply given to my hon. Friend, the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) on 21 February at column 546 on the method of collection. The presentation of United Kingdom trade statistics after the completion of the single market has yet to be decided.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Lynx
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Attorney-General what representations the Treasury Solicitor has received concerning the self-misrepresentations of Lynx as a charity; what reply he has sent; what further action he will take in the light of continued misrepresentation in relation to donations from the profits deriving from sales of the "Eat Your own Pet Cookbook"; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  On a number of occasions since October 1987 the Treasury Solicitor has received
  443
  complaints from solicitors acting for the British Fur Trade Association about statements, which have appeared in four publications, suggesting that Lynx, a campaigning body opposed to the trade in animal furs, is a charity. On each occasion the Treasury Solicitor has on my behalf made inquiries of the directors of Lynx, as a result of which I have in each case been satisfied that Lynx itself is not responsible for the alleged misrepresentations and has not sought to hold itself out as a charity.

TRANSPORT

  M1 (Traffic Flow)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the current peak hourly traffic flow(a) south bound and (b) north bound on the M1 south of Luton; what was the maximum hourly flow for which the original specifications were drawn up; and what is the current average speed during peak hours in each direction.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The maximum hourly traffic flow recorded in each direction between junctions 9 and 10 of the M1 is 5,200 vehicles. During peak hours congestion may lead to lower traffic flows. There were no hourly traffic flow standards when this motorway, opened in 1959, was designed. Vehicle speeds are not recorded systematically on this stretch of motorway.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will increase the length of the deceleration lane on the M1 to ease the way for traffic leaving the M25.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We are considering what remedial action might be justified. We are aware of some problems of queuing at this point.

  Explosives (Carriage by Road)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on which date he approved the draft Carriage of Explosives by Road Regulations.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  14 March.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he expects that the Governments of Germany and the Netherlands will continue to insist on the provision of locally trained drivers on British vehicles carrying explosives, following the introduction of the new Carriage of Explosives by Road Regulations.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Under the regulations the driver and any attendant must have received adequate training and instruction in the dangers to which the explosives carried may give rise, the action to be taken in an emergency and their duties under the regulations. A written record of the training must be kept. The CBI has prepared an appropriate training course. We intend to use this course as the basis for negotiation of reciprocal recognition with other authorities.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will lay the new Carriage of Explosives by Road Regulations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The new regulations have been laid today; an advance copy of the associated approved code of practice has been placed in the Library.
  444
  Since the regulations are necessarily in part somewhat technical, the Department has also provided the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments with an additional memorandum on the changes being made and the ways in which these seek to improve the pre-1974 health and safety legislation in this particular field.

  In making the regulations in the aftermath of the Peterborough incident, and following further discussion with the HSE, one change has been made to the draft code of practice. The guidance in the proposed code would have allowed the normal requirement for double manning to be waived in certain circumstances and where there was a means of radio communication in the cab. In the light of the discussions in the House on 23 March and additional comments received about the use of new technology to safeguard loads, the Health and Safety Commission has been invited to consider further that proposal.

  The question of mixed loads has been considered again. As I explained in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) on 4 April at columns 66–67, the new regulations aim to ensure that the possibility of ignition of any kind of explosion is not increased during carriage by the mixing of the load and that the consequences of an incident are not made worse by so doing. The main problem is fire, and the point is that high explosives are likely to burn to detonation whether detonators and other items are present or not. The new regulations proposed by the Health and Safety Executive deal satisfactorily with this.

  As explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) on 4 April at column 67, there is a requirement in the new regulations for the route to be followed to be agreed with the relevant chief officers of police when a large load of the most dangerous type of explosive is being carried. To require prior notification or agreement on routes for all dangerous goods, as has been suggested, would involve the emergency services in masses of additional paperwork which would not provide overall benefit in safety terms.

  Employee Share Ownership
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions have taken place as to the feasibility in introducing an employee share ownership scheme in any future privatisation that his Department may sponsor.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend will certainly consider the scope for furthering the Government's policy of encouraging employee shareholdings in any future privatisations that may be sponsored by this Department.

  Road Maintenance
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement outlining the extent to which local authorities have used funds which were originally allocated by his Department for road maintenance for other projects, making specific reference to the situation of the Cheshire county council.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No specific grant is made for local authority spending on local road maintenance. Road maintenance needs are included in the needs assessments used to calculate authorities' block grant entitlements. Authorities have discretion as to how they choose to spend
  445
  their grant. Statistical returns from Cheshire county council suggest that in 1988–89 it budgeted to spend more on local road maintenance than its assessed need to spend.

  HGV Tests
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current waiting period for HGV tests in the north-west; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Between four and six and a half weeks. The wait at some testing stations is longer than we would like because of the rise in demand for tests and the diversion of the work load resulting from the unforeseen need to close the Wallasey testing station. Urgent action is being taken to reduce delays. A replacement for Wallasey opens this summer, and the vehicle inspectorate executive agency is taking on extra staff.

  Ferndown Relief Road
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he is making for reconsideration of the line of route of the Ferndown relief road, following rejection by the Department of the Environment on environmental grounds of the route proposed by Dorset county council.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I understand that Dorset county council is re-examining its proposals following the decision of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to refuse planning permission for its proposed route. It will be for my right hon. Friend to decide whether he wishes to consider any revised route which may be proposed by the county council.

  Ferries (Safety)
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether there is any evidence that the new safety rules for roll-on/roll-off ferries recently introduced by his Department are being avoided by ferries registered in foreign countries but operating from British ports.

  Mr. Portillo
  The recently introduced safety rules for ro-ro passenger ferries, the Weighing of Goods Vehicles and Other Cargo Regulations and the Loading and Stability Assessment of Ro/Ro Passenger Ships Regulations, apply to all foreign-registered ro-ro passenger ferries while in United Kingdom ports with effect from 31 March 1989 and 4 April 1989 respectively.

  I have no evidence of any intent to avoid them.

  Toll Charges
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration he is giving to private funding for a new motorway between Newcastle and the Scottish border; and what is the Government's policy concerning the imposition of toll charges on any part of the national road network.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department is not considering motorway proposals between Newcastle and the Scottish border. We are keen to encourage the private funding of infrastructure and would willingly consider proposals from the private sector. Promoters of privately funded schemes would need to recoup their costs and this would probably involve tolls. There are no plans to impose tolls on existing routes.

  Settle-Carlisle Railway
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he can now announce a decision on the future of the Settle-Carlisle railway.

  Mr. Channon
  I have now completed my consideration of British Rail's proposal to close the Settle-Carlisle railway. Having reviewed all the evidence, I have decided to refuse closure consent for this line as well as for the associated Blackburn-Hellifield line. A number of factors have changed since I announced last year that I was minded to give consent to closure.

  There have been changes in the financial case. For example, following the trial repairs to Ribblehead viaduct that I requested last year, it now seems that it will be much cheaper to repair the whole structure than previously thought, and a new survey by the local authorities suggests that traffic on the line has continued to grow and that significantly more people are travelling for essential purposes. British Rail has estimated that revenue on the line is some 40 per cent. higher in 1988–89 than in 1987–88. I believe that there is scope for increasing revenue further by better marketing of the line and by the pricing of tourist journeys on a more commercial basis. The line may continue to run at a loss, but not necessarily a large one. As required by statute, I have also taken account of new evidence on hardship and the line's importance to the local economy.

  The private sector has shown interest in the line and I want it to be involved in helping to develop it. I have asked the chairman of British Rail to see what private sector involvement can be arranged to make the most of marketing and operating the line.

  The local authorities are committed to co-operating with British Rail and other organisations to support and promote the line. It has been proposed that a trust fund be set up to care for the structures on the line of heritage importance. I support that proposal. I also look to all who have promised to support the line to work together to ensure that it has a successful future and so that the case for closure will not re-emerge.

ENERGY

  Opencast Operations
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he will detail the ex-gratia payments made for community benefit and as a sign of goodwill by British Coal's opencast operations in each year since 1979; (2) if he will explain the changes between 1987 and 1988 in the percentage of the total cost of mining opencast coal in Wales by British Coal devoted to site restoration.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  These are matters for the British Coal Corporation, and I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

EMPLOYMENT

  Restart
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will outline the terms of reference and details of the large restart cohort survey which his Department will be commissioning; if he will explain the
  447
  position of those unemployed claimants who will not be called for restart interviews for the purposes of creating a control group; and whether the survey will be asking questions to find out to what degree claimants feel coerced into participation in employment service schemes as a result of the restart process.

  Mr. Lee
  The terms of reference of the restart cohort study are to look at the effects of restart on its clients and on the operation of the labour market, and to describe how restart is achieving changes.

  The study will be based on a random sample of 16,000 people, selected from those becoming eligible for a restart counselling interview. Information will be collected on their progress after they have had their restart interview. Survey interviews will be held with a random selected group of 5,500 people within the sample. Participation will be voluntary.

  The position of those in the control group is that they will not be invited for a restart interview but they will, of course, have access to the full range of employment service and Training Agency services through the jobcentres and unemployment benefit office networks. Eligibility for programmes will not be affected. Any member of the control group who requests a counselling interview will be able to have one.

  The interview survey will include questions on the characteristics and employment background of clients, and their attitudes to and views of the restart process.

  Bridging Allowance
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people in the Doncaster and Mexborough areas of the county of South Yorkshire have applied for bridging allowance since September 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  From September 1988 to 9 March 1989, the latest available date, 937 young people in the Doncaster and Mexborough areas have received bridging allowance. I am satisfied that there are more than sufficient YTS places in these areas for all young people who apply for them.

  Benefits (Young People)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many 16 and 17-year-olds in Doncaster and Mexborough have lost benefits since September 1988 because they are unemployed or have been unable to take advantage of guaranteed YTS places.

  Mr. Cope
  The guaranteed offer of a YTS place to all 16 and 17-year-olds not in full-time education or employment means that there is now no need for young people to be unemployed. I am satisfied that the training agency has more than sufficient YTS places available in Doncaster and Mexborough for those who apply for one.

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number of unemployed people in the Doncaster and Mexborough areas of South Yorkshire who have been helped to start a business through the enterprise allowance scheme in each year since its inception; and how many of these schemes have failed in each year.
  448
  Mr. Lee
  The information is not available in the form requested. In the area covered by the Wakefield EAS office which comprises Barnsley, Castleford, Doncaster, Mexborough, Pontefract, Thorne and Wakefield, a total of 7,189 unemployed people have joined the scheme from its inception to the end of the 1988–89 financial year.

  In each financial year the figures are as follows:

  Financial year

  Number

  1983–84

  442

  1984–85

  628

  1985–86

  892

  1986–87

  1,519

  1987–88

  1,824

  1988–89

  1,884

  Data on business closure are not available below regional level.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have so far benefited from the employment training scheme; in what particular ways; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Unemployed people clearly recognise the benefits the programme has to offer and the opportunity it provides to help them get a job. By 31 March over 238,000 people had entered the programme. This is a major achievement in the seven months since the programme was launched.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much has been spent advertising employment training.

  Mr. Nicholls
  A total of approximately £10·3 million has been spent on advertising employment training between July 1988 and March 1989.

  YTS
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest fatal and major injury accident rate for participants on YTS.

  Mr. Cope
  The latest available figure for the year ended on 31 December 1988 is 146 per 100,000 trainees.

  Technical and Vocational Education Initiative
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many local education authorities, schools and colleges are currently taking part in the technical and vocational education initiative; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  All education authorities in Great Britain are taking part in the technical and vocational education initiative; at present approximately 2,000 schools and colleges are involved. From September this year, some two thirds of authorities will have moved from the pilot phase to extending the initiative to all their schools and colleges.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to increase the qualifications of competent persons in health and safety matters.
  449
  Mr. Nicholls
  I have no such plans. Requirements for "competent persons" in health and safety law do not normally specify qualifications because competence depends on a number of things including experience, training and personal qualities. Qualifications do not necessarily show that someone is competent for a particular task. Ultimately, whether a person is competent for the purpose depends on the circumstances and is a matter for the courts to decide.

  Skills Training Agency
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement on his timetable to privatise the Skills Training Agency.

  Mr. Cope
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear in his statement on 13 March, it is important for sale to proceed as rapidly as possible. It is not possible to specify a timetable precisely at this stage, but we intend that the sale process should be completed as soon as possible after the relevant provisions of the Employment Bill have received Royal Assent.

  Wage Levels (South-East)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the lowest wage levels reported to the south-east wages inspectorate in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Labour Statistics
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is(a) the current rate of unemployment and (b) the average annual salary of (i) all men in full-time employment, (ii) all women in full-time employment and (iii) all in full-time employment (a) in Great Britain, (b) in England and (c) in the standard English region.

  Mr. Lee
  The latest available information is provided in the tables.

  Unemployment rates in February 1989

  Unemployment as a percentage of the workforce1

  Males

  Females

  All

  Great Britain

  8·0

  4·6

  6·6

  England

  7·4

  4·3

  6·1

  of which:

  South East

  5·0

  3·0

  4·2

  East Anglia

  3·8

  3·1

  3·5

  South West

  5·7

  4·2

  5·0

  West Midlands

  8·1

  5·2

  6·9

  East Midlands

  7·1

  4·4

  6·0

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  9·9

  5·6

  8·1

  North West

  11·9

  6·2

  9·4

  North

  13·3

  6·8

  10·6

  1 Unemployment, seasonally adjusted, expressed as a percentage of the total workforce (the sum of unemployed claimants, employees in employment, self-employed, HM Forces and participants on work-related government training programmes) at mid 1988.

  450

  Average gross weekly earnings of full-time employees on adult rates whose earnings were not affected by absence, April 1988

  Males £

  Females £

  All £

  Great Britain

  245·8

  164·2

  218·4

  England

  248·4

  166·1

  220·9

  of which:

  South East

  283·0

  188·1

  249·5

  East Anglia

  229·6

  150·3

  204·4

  South West

  227·6

  152·2

  202·7

  West Midlands

  225·8

  148·9

  201·2

  East Midlands

  222·5

  145·3

  197·8

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  224·1

  150·6

  201·5

  North West

  231·1

  153·2

  205·5

  North

  223·8

  148·8

  199·3

  Source: New Earnings Survey

  Black Workers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of the work force of each local authority is black.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have been asked to reply. This information is not collected centrally.

ENVIRONMENT

  Housing (Newham)
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many of the 14,000 units of housing for Newham mentioned in the draft strategic planning guidance for London published on 6 March will be for people nominated from Newham's housing waiting list.

  Mr. Trippier
  This is a matter for future decision. The draft guidance proposes the number of additional dwellings in the period 1987–2001 for which Newham should make provision in preparing its unitary development plan. The guidance refers to the use of land not to questions of tenure.

  PSA (Cambridge)
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he had made of the number of additional vehicle journeys into and out of the city of Cambridge that will arise as a result of his transferring Property Services Agency staff and functions from Newmarket to Cambridge, breaking this down into the following categories: staff journeys to and from their homes in and around Newmarket, client journeys by United States Air Force, Royal Air Force and other Ministry of Defence personnel, journeys made to service the construction of Property Services Agency's additional accommodation in Cambridge, and journeys made by contractors and others who service these officials' activities.

  Mr. Chope
  The transfer affects about 35 staff. The additional vehicle movements generated by the transfer will be insignificant in the context of total vehicle movements in Cambridge.

  Housing Action Trusts
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the costs of the examination of the Windmill lane estate in Sandwell for its inclusion in the housing action trust programme.

  Mr. Trippier
  The total cost of the Sandwell housing action trust study completed on 1 December 1988 will not be known until all claims from the consultants have been settled by the Department. We expect the final cost to be less than £105,000, including VAT. The costs of examining the Windmill lane estate, which was one of four covered by the study, are not separately identifiable.

  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the costs of examination of the Cape Hill area of Smethwick for its possible inclusion in the housing action trust programme; and what will be the additional costs for the further examination of that area for treatment under the programme.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Sandwell housing action trust study included an examination of the Windmill lane estate but not of the wider Cape Hill area. For the reasons set out in their report the consultants recommended that a second study should be carried out to examine some further areas. This study is now in progress; the cost of the contract is commercially confidential.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many requests he has received to set up housing action trusts by(a) local authorities, (b) resident associations, (c) tenants' groups or associations, (d) urban renewal agencies and (e) amenity groups; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Trippier
  We have received a number of inquiries from local authorities, tenants and other residents interested in the establishment of housing action trusts. It is for them to decide whether to make their informal approaches public. The latest position on the currently proposed trusts was set out in my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) on 16 March at column 322.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many housing action trusts he expects to be in place in 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) on 16 March at column 322. It will be for the individual tenants to decide whether they want my right hon. Friend to seek Parliament's approval to orders setting up housing action trusts.

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment why the Property Services Agency has recently paid £50 per sq ft to rent space at the Ade1phi, the Strand.

  Mr. Chope
  The PSA acquired the Ade1phi at the behest of the Departments of Health and Social Security as part of a major planned rationalisation of its London HQ accommodation.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the Property Services Agency has 452
  recently examined office properties in docklands, available at under £25 per sq ft, for the location of some central London staff in better and cheaper accommodation than in the west end.

  Mr. Chope
  It is the Government's policy that Departments should review the location of their work with a view to selecting locations offering better value for money, easier recruitment and retention of staff and other advantages. PSA is currently assisting Departments in undertaking their reviews by giving relevant information on property in different locations, including docklands.

  Docklands (Housing)
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the commitment by the London Docklands development corporation in the agreement with the London borough of Newham on affordable rented housing in the borough; and what progress has been made in achieving this.

  Mr. Trippier
  The memorandum of agreement states that"both authorities agree the objective to produce 1,500 social housing units to let at fair rent or thereabouts subject to its achievement being reasonably practicable in all the financial circumstances".

  Negotiations are at a very advanced stage for the provision of approximately 500 units at Winsor park. Discussions are under way concerning further social housing units on other sites in the royal docks.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the number of housing association units of accommodation which will be financed by mixed housing association grant and private finance for the 12 months period commencing 1 April; and if he will break down his estimates by Housing Corporation regions.

  Mr. Trippier
  This information will be available in full only when the Housing Corporation have completed the annual regional allocation process to associations. I have therefore asked the Housing Corporation to respond to the hon. Member direct as soon as that process is completed.

  Housing Act 1988
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many requests he has received under the provisions of the Housing Act 1988 to activate the process of opting out of local authority control by(a) housing associations, (b) private landlords, (c) local authorities, (d) tenants' groups or associations and (e) registered housing co-operatives; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Trippier
  None. The responsibility for approving landlords for the purposes of tenants' choice (part IV of the Act) lies with the Housing Corporation in England and with Housing for Wales in Wales.

  Personal Data
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to introduce regulations
  453
  under the Local Government Finance Act that will allow charging authorities and community charges registration officers to use or disclose personal data for purposes other than those directly related to the community charge; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  No.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will list the uses and disclosures of personal data that can currently be made by charging authorities and community charges registration officers for purposes other than those directly related to the community charge; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  An electoral registration officer may inspect the community charges register of any charging authority. Apart from that no personal data collected for the purposes of community charges registers may be disclosed for any purpose unconnected with the community charge.

  Nuclear Waste (Imports)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the countries that send civil nuclear waste to the United Kingdom; and how such waste is moved in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are no countries that send civil nuclear waste to the United Kingdom.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council properties have been sold to council house tenants in Doncaster metropolitan borough council as a whole since 1979 to date; and what proportion of the total stock of council properties these sales represent in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Trippier
  From April 1979 to September 1988 Doncaster metropolitan borough council reported selling 8,289 dwellings to is tenants. The sales represented the following percentages of the estimated stock at the start of each financial year.

  Percentage of Stock Sold to Sitting Tenants

  1979–80

  Nil

  1980–81

  0·2

  1981–82

  3·9

  1982–83

  8·3

  1983–84

  2·5

  1984–85

  1·7

  1985–86

  1·4

  1986–87

  1·3

  1987–88

  1·8

  11988–89

  1·2

  1 Six months only.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the annual cost since 1979 for South Yorkshire of the publicity material promoting the right to buy council housing and flats; and if he will give in his answer the amount for each local authority.

  Mr. Trippier
  My answer of 6 March to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) at column 454
  427, gave the costs of national publicity to draw the attention of tenants to their right to buy their homes. The expenditure cannot be attributed to particular areas.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response has he received from Nottingham city council to his request for a progress report on implementing the community charge; if he will publish that response; and whether he has received any request for a future survey of costs incurred by the council in implementing the poll tax.

  Mr. Gummer
  We have received a progress report dated 26 January from the Nottingham city treasurer. As requested, it outlines the council's plans for staffing, accommodation, computing, etc. On the question of publication, I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr Cunningham) on 23 January 1989 at column 459.

  The Government have no plans to introduce a poll tax.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the reasons for publishing community charge practice note No. 16 on joint and several liability before community charge practice note 15 on enforcement; when practice note 15 will be published; and what are the reasons for the delay.

  Mr. Ridley
  Practice notes are prepared jointly by the Government and the local authority associations. They are published as they become ready, and no reason was seen to delay the note on joint and several liability, which was numbered 16 on our provisional schedule, simply because No. 15 was not yet ready. Discussions on the practice note on enforcement are taking place in the normal way, and it will be published once these are complete.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the remainder of the leaflets listed in the booklet entitled "You and the Community Charge", dealing with(a) the rebate scheme, (b) students and the community charge, (c) the community charge and second homes, (d) the collective community charge, (e) the appeal system and (f) the business rate, are to be made available.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 10 April 1989]: These are all in preparation and will be published variously over the next few weeks.

  Colliery Slag Heaps
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what responsibility he has for the redevelopment of former colliery slag heaps.

  Mr. Chope
  Responsibility for the redevelopment of former colliery slag heaps is a matter for the developer, subject to the usual planning controls. The Department does provide financial assistance towards the reclamation of derelict spoil heaps in appropriate cases, through the derelict land grant system.

  Littlewoods Cup Final
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will visit the Nottingham Forest v. Luton Littlewoods cup final on Sunday.
  455
  Mr. Moynihan
  My right hon. Friend did not attend the cup final. However, my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Water and Planning and I were present.

  Rates
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will print in the official Report the percentage rate increase in each English shire county between 1984–85 and the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested is as follows:

  County council precepts percentage increase 1984–85 to 1989–90

  Per cent.

  Avon

  54·7

  Bedfordshire

  75·5

  Berkshire

  51·3

  Buckinghamshire

  71·4

  Cambridgeshire

  64·1

  Cheshire

  46·7

  Cleveland

  57·4

  Cornwall

  61·6

  Cumbria

  77·1

  Derbyshire

  64·0

  Devon

  59·6

  Dorset

  50·0

  Durham

  74·0

  East Sussex

  62·8

  Essex

  75·8

  Gloucestershire

  64·3

  Hampshire

  51·8

  Hereford and Worcester

  37·2

  Hertfordshire

  70·5

  Humberside

  73·6

  Isle of Wight

  71·2

  Kent

  52·3

  Lancashire

  69·7

  Leicestershire

  71·1

  Lincolnshire

  56·2

  Norfolk

  61·2

  Northamptonshire

  65·5

  Northumberland

  56·6

  North Yorkshire

  71·2

  Nottinghamshire

  52·8

  Oxfordshire

  77·2

  Shropshire

  67·9

  Somerset

  72·0

  Staffordshire

  53·2

  Suffolk

  53·5

  Surrey

  54·1

  Warwickshire

  76·1

  West Sussex

  54·2

  Wiltshire

  79·0

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by county the percentage annual rate rise from 1981 to 1985 and from 1985 to 1989.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested is as follows:

  County council precepts Average annual percentage increases

  1981–82 to 1985–86

  1985–86 to 1989–90

  Avon

  12·1

  9·8

  Bedfordshire

  7·1

  13·1

  Berkshire

  7·7

  9·4

  Buckinghamshire

  6·0

  12·8

  Cambridgeshire

  6·1

  12·4

  Cheshire

  9·0

  8·6

  Cleveland

  10·7

  9·2

  456

  1981–82 to 1985–86

  1985–86 to 1989–90

  Cornwall

  7·6

  11·8

  Cumbria

  7·7

  12·1

  Derbyshire

  13·6

  11·8

  Devon

  8·0

  11·3

  Dorset

  5·8

  9·3

  Durham

  8·1

  12·4

  East Sussex

  6·9

  11·7

  Essex

  8·4

  13·1

  Gloucestershire

  6·2

  11·1

  Hampshire

  6·5

  9·3

  Hereford and Worcester

  6·7

  7·2

  Hertfordshire

  8·0

  12·5

  Humberside

  12·4

  13·4

  Isle of Wight

  8·4

  12·3

  Kent

  6·8

  9·7

  Lancashire

  6·9

  11·5

  Leicestershire

  10·2

  12·3

  Lincolnshire

  5·7

  10·5

  Norfolk

  7·4

  11·1

  Northamptonshire

  6·9

  11·9

  Northumberland

  8·8

  10·4

  North Yorkshire

  7·3

  12·0

  Nottinghamshire

  14·3

  8·9

  Oxfordshire

  6·6

  13·2

  Shropshire

  6·2

  12·0

  Somerset

  6·1

  13·7

  Staffordshire

  10·7

  8·7

  Suffolk

  6·0

  10·2

  Surrey

  8·2

  10·1

  Warwickshire

  6·8

  13·6

  West Sussex

  7·0

  9·4

  Wiltshire

  8·0

  13·4

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total amount of chlorofluorocarbons used in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and what are the corresponding figures for chlorofluorocarbons substitutes.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Sulphur Emissions
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes he expects in the levels of sulphur emissions in the United Kingdom as a whole over the coming decade; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government are determined to cut sulphur emissions, the largest single source of which is electricity generation. We have a firm commitment, embodied in the European Community's large combustion plants directive, to reduce sulphur emissions from existing power stations by 40 per cent. of the 1980 level by 1998. We have also adopted stringent standards for new plants.

  Local Development Projects
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what local development projects have been undertaken in England; and what are their costs.

  Mr. Trippier
  "Local development projects" does not, in England, refer to any identifiable group of projects.

  Methane Gas (Landfill Sites)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will name the landfill sites identified in the waste management paper No. 27 published in January where a potential danger from methane gas has been identified.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Waste management paper No. 27 is a technical memorandum on methods for dealing with landfill gas. A site survey is presently being conducted by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in conjunction with local authorities and results will be published as soon as possible.

  Water Authority Land Holdings
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements have been made for a review of water authority land holdings.

  Mr. Howard
  My right hon. Friend has appointed, jointly with the nine water authorities in England, the following firms of surveyors, to carry out a review of land holdings:

  Anglian water authority—Jones Lang Wootton

  Northumbrian water authority—Sanderson Townend and Gilbert

  North West water authority—Grimley J. R. Eve

  Severn Trent water authority—Bernard Thorpe and Partners

  Southern water authority—Hillier Parker

  South West water authority—Chesterton

  Thames water authority—Healey and Baker and St. Quintin

  Wessex water authority—J. P. Sturge and Sons

  Yorkshire water authority—Savills

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has appointed the firm of Gerald Eve, jointly with the Welsh water authority. This review will help ensure that the prospectuses of the new water public limited companies contain any information about the land which is relevant to investors' decisions on whether to apply for shares.

  Water plcs (Share Applications)
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to counter fraudulent applications for shares in the new water plcs.

  Mr. Howard
  My right hon. Friend has appointed the firm of Price Waterhouse to advise on procedures for preventing and detecting fraudulent share applications when the water authorities are privatised later this year.

  North West Water Authority
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (I) what representations he has received about the sale of the Turton/Belmont estate by the North West water authority; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to make consent to the North West water authority sale of land on the Turton/Belmont Estate tenanted by the Dunscar Golf Club Ltd. for less than the best price conditional on the offer to that golf club of the parcel of land of which it is tenant for a commercially acceptable price.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 10 April 1989]: I have received five letters expressing concern about the sale. The authority does not need my consent if it obtains best price.
  458
  Otherwise, it is for the authority concerned to apply for consent to dispose of land if it believes this is required. I have received no such application from North West water in respect of the Turton/Belmont estate.

  House Prices
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to what was the annual rate of increase for house prices in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Calderdale in 1988.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 10 April 1989]: Between the last quarters of 1987 and 1988 the price of houses bought with building society mortgages rose at an annual rate of 34 per cent. for the United Kingdom as a whole. Information is not available for Calderdale but the regional index for Yorkshire and Humberside rose by 39 per cent. over the same period.

  Eastbourne Waterworks Company
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by what amount the Eastbourne Waterworks Company has increased its charges since 1 January; which water companies have increased their charges since that date by a larger amount; what powers he has to afford protection to the customers of the Eastbourne Waterworks Company against the price increase; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 7 April 1989]: I am writing to my hon. Friend today.

  London Residuary Body
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will remove Mr. Michael Roberts from his position as a part-time member of the London residuary body; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 7 April 1989]: No.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what qualifications he took into account when appointing Mr. Michael Roberts a part-time member of the London residuary body.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 7 April 1989]: Particular account was taken of Mr. Roberts' financial expertise.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment why he has refused to accept a nomination from the Association of London Authorities to membership of the London residuary body; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 7 April 1989]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not aware of any recent nomination from the Association of London Authorities. He is always prepared to consider suggestions for appointments.

  Greater London Council Heritage Collection
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list the items proposed by the
  459
  London residuary body to be transferred from the Greater London council's heritage collection to the corporation of the City of London; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if his Department has given consent to the transfer of items from the Greater London council's heritage collection to the City of London under the terms of section 67(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1985 as amended by section 162(2)(c) of the Education Reform Act 1988; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what proposals he has received from the London residuary body in respect of the Greater London council's heritage collection under the terms of section 67(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1985 as amended; and what decisions he has made.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 4 April 1989]: The London residuary body has proposed the substantive transfer of portraits and paintings to the Corporation of the City of London. We have made no decisions yet.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the terms of the deed of gift made between the London residuary body and the City of London in respect of items transferred from the Greater London council's heritage collection.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 4 April 1989]: The Corporation of the City of London has agreed to make items reasonably available to the public either by display or, if stored, by inspection on request. Items may also be loaned for public exhibitions.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice was given by his Department to the London residuary body in respect of the transfer of items from the Greater London council's heritage collection to the City of London.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 4 April 1989]: No advice was sought or given.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the terms of the loan agreement between the London residuary body and the City of London in respect of items from the Greater London council's heritage collection.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 4 April 1989]: Terms relate inter alia, to insurance, safe custody, conservation, public display, inspection of stored items, loans for public exhibition and return to the LRB in the event of a permanent transfer not being effected.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what items have been transferred from the Greater London council's heritage collection by the London residuary body to the Victoria and Albert museum.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 4 April 1989]: Three items have been given to the Victoria and Albert museum: an embroidered panel entitled "Flint" by Diana Springall, a porcelain polar bear, and a Victorian carved corner chair.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of each item from the Greater London council's heritage collection sold by the London residuary body at auction: and how much was realised for each item and in total.
  460
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 4 April 1989]: Four items realised in all a sum of £30,195: an antique bookcase, an antique desk and two clocks.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of the items transferred from the Greater London council's heritage collection by the London residuary body to(a) the London borough of Bromley and (b) the Thames Water authority; and what price was paid for each item in total.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 4 April 1989]: Trophies and memorabilia related to Crystal palace were given to the London borough of Bromley as functional successor to the GLC for Crystal palace. A painting of the Thames barrier was given to the Thames water authority as functional successor to the GLC for the Thames barrier.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list each of the bodies which have received or are likely to receive items from the Greater London council's heritage collection since 1 April 1986.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding reply 4 April 1989]: The London borough of Bromley, the Corporation of the City of London, the London borough of Harrow, the Inner London education authority, the London fire and civil defence authority, the Thames water authority, the Victoria and Albert museum, and the purchasers of items disposed of at auction.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Tanzania
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussion his Department is having with the Government of Tanzania to develop a joint project for the mining of coal in that country.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  No such discussions are taking place at present. The Government of Tanzania have not raised this issue with us.

  Kampuchea
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guarantees he has received that the United Kingdom aid provided for the Kampuchean refugee camps in Thailand goes only to those camps to which the United Nations has access and that no United Kingdom aid, either bilateral or multilateral, goes to camps controlled by the Khmer Rouge.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Our assistance, which is provided through the relevant United Nations agencies, is subject to the stipulation that it should go only to the occupants of those camps controlled by the non-Communist elements of the Cambodian resistance. We have received assurances that this stipulation is observed.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will increase the United Kingdom contribution to the UNBRO education and training for Kampuchean refugees in camps in Thailand.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I did so last month by increasing our 1988–89 contribution to UNBRO by £100,000 to £350,000 following an appeal for additional funds based on increased requirements in the camps.

SCOTLAND

  Funding Sources
  Mr. Siliars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list sources of funding to which organisations previously funded by the Manpower Services Commission may apply for assistance.

  Mr. Lang
  The availability of assistance for any particular organisation will depend on its functions and the particular projects in which it is involved.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will list the uses and disclosures of personal data that can currently be made by charging authorities and community charges registration officers for purposes other than those directly related to the community charge; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  Personal data collected for community charges purposes can only be disclosed through inspection of community charges register. The register is available for inspection to the extent specified and for the purposes set out in section 20 of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987, as amended by the Local Government Finance Act 1988, and in regulation 16 of the Community Charges (Registration) (Scotland) (No. 2) Regulations 1988.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in Scotland have(a) registered and (b) not registered for the poll tax; how many have (i) paid and (ii) not paid the poll tax; and how many are currently undergoing court proceedings.

  Mr. Lang
  Registration for and payment of the community charges are matters for individual community charges registration officers and levying authorities (regional and islands councils) respectively and the information requested is not held centrally. However, I understand from figures provided by them that registration is estimated to be approaching 99 per cent. of the adult population. Local authorities have published no figures regarding payment levels.

  Head Teachers
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland over each of the 10 years from 1978 to 1988 how many(a) male and (b) female head teachers of schools in Scotland have left for the following reasons: (a) normal retirement, (b) early retirement, specifying the various reasons for this, (c) death in service, and (d) death within five years of retirement; and how many in each category were from (i) primary schools, (ii) secondary schools, (iii) special schools and (iv) other schools.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is not available.

  Sports Clubs
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what provision is made for rates relief for sports clubs in Scotland;

  (2) what additional funds have been made available to Scottish local authorities to enable sports clubs to obtain 100 per cent. rate relief.
  462
  Mr. Lang
  Full account is taken of the relief that each local authority plans to give to sports clubs when calculating that authority's entitlement to revenue support grant. The cost of such relief in rate income forgone and in extra grant for 1989–90 is estimated to be £3 million.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what meetings he has had since 1 April on the implementation, registration and collection of the poll tax in England and Wales.

  Mr. Lang
  None.

  Health Boards
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairmen and general managers of health boards; and what subjects were discused.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  As part of my regular pattern of meetings I met the chairmen of health boards and of the Common Services Agency on 10 March, when we discussed a wide range of issues relating to the National Health Service in Scotland. I do not regularly meet the general managers as a group, though the Scottish Home and Health Department does.

  Children's Playgrounds
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list in the Official Report those regulations which govern safety requirements in children's playgrounds belonging to local authorities;

  (2) what requirements are imposed on local authorities to ensure that local authorities play areas have yielding ground surfaces below playground equipment including swings and climbing frames;

  (3) what guidance has been given to local authorities regarding safety surfaces in local authority play areas;

  (4) what plans he has to introduce requirements to lay safety surfaces on local authority playgrounds.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There are no regulations governing safety requirements or safety surfaces in children's playgrounds belonging to local authorities. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 requires all playground operators to take all reasonable measures to ensure the safety of such facilities and to report certain accidents to the Health and Safety Executive, which enforces the Act. Additionally, a number of British standards apply to playground surfaces and equipment. I have no plans for further requirements or guidance to local authorities.

  Historic Churches
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any plans to introduce a scheme to assist the Church of Scotland to retain historic churches no longer used for acts of worship and which would otherwise be liable to be demolished; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Churches in Scotland of any denomination may receive historic building repair grant for repairs and restoration, if they are of outstanding
  463
  architectural merit or historic interest. Where a church is no longer used for worship, grant is available to encourage a prospective purchaser to restore the building for a new purpose. Over the past 10 years repair grants awarded to former churches for which new uses have been found have amounted to about £2 million.

  Road Signs
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement outlining current criteria used to determine which forward destinations are shown on road direction signs on primary routes in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  First, places are selected as being of traffic importance because of their value as reference points for drivers to assist them to find the most satisfactory route on long journeys. They are then classed as either super-primary destinations (Edinburgh, Glasgow and Inverness only) or primary destinations (all others). As a rule advance direction signs should contain only one place name for each direction and on primary routes this should be the next primary destination along the immediate route. A super-primary destination may also appear. This rule is not applied so rigidly as to impair the effectiveness of the signing system and occasionally additional primary destinations may appear.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report all places of traffic importance in the Borders region.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  They are Coldstream, Galashiels, Hawick, Jedburgh and Peebles.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects the road signposting of the town of Hawick on that part of the A7 in the Dumfries and Galloway region and on the M6 to be carried out.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  When the proposal to signpost Hawick was agreed in June 1986 it was on the basis of a gradual programme to implement the necessary sign changes over five years, with priority for replacement of these groups of signs that were in the worst state of repair.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report locations of primary route signs situated to the south of the town of Hawick which show (a) Hawick and (b) Galashiels as a place of traffic importance.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Work on amending signposting to the south of Hawick to show Hawick as a place of traffic importance has not yet started in Dumfries and Galloway or Cumbria. However, Hawick has been added to a route confirmatory sign 1½ miles south of Hawick and to an advance direction sign at the A7/B711 junction, both in Borders region. Galashiels appears on primary route signs at the following locations:

  Cumbria

  M6/A7

  Junction 44 (for travellers on A7 northbound, A74 southbound and approaching from Brampton/Carlisle Airport).

  A7

  Harker Park.

  A7

  Blackford (south end and St. John the Baptist Parish Church).

  A7

  West Linton.

  464

  A7/A6071

  Longtown (north and south).

  A7

  Oakbank.

  Dumfries and Galloway

  A7/B7201

  Canonbie.

  A7/B6357

  Canonbie.

  A7/B720

  Hollows.

  A7/B6318

  Skipper's Bridge.

  A7/B7068

  Langholm.

  A7/C76A

  Whitsheils.

  A7/C78A

  Sorbie.

  A7/C77A

  Fiddleton Toll.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to list the town of Hawick as a place of traffic importance alongside the town of Galashiels on road signs from the north within the Lothian region.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I agreed last month that Hawick should be included alongside Galashiels on road signs from the north within Lothian region.

  Petrochemical Development (Peterhead)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the development of the North Collielaw site in Peterhead by petrochemical companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend is not aware of any such proposals at present. Any proposal would be subject to normal planning procedures and, in the first instance, would be the responsibility of Banff and Buchan district council as planning authority.

  Sexual Assaults
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people have been tried in Scotland for sexual assaults of all kinds for each of the past five years for which figures are available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information available is given in the table:

  Year

  Persons called to court

  Persons tried following a plea of not guilty

  1983

  197

  103

  1984

  182

  94

  1985

  221

  126

  1986

  234

  127

  1987

  225

  116

  The term "sexual assaults" includes rape, assault with intent to rape and indecent assault.

  Toll Charges
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he is giving to private funding for a new motorway between Edinburgh and the English border; and what is his policy concerning the imposition of toll charges on any part of the national road network.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No Government consideration is being given to private funding for a new motorway from the border to Edinburgh. My right hon. and learned Friend is aware that a possible extension to
  465
  Scotland of a proposed east coast motorway project from Cambridge to Teesside was mooted to Scottish local authorities by the group of promoting local authorities in England. He understands that the Scottish authorities approached are unlikely to favour considering an extension.

  As to toll charges on any part of the national road network, there are, of course, charges already on, for example, the Forth, Tay and Erskine bridges. Tolls can be an appropriate means of meeting all or part of capital costs.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) successful escapes and (b) unsuccessful escape attempts there have been from prisons in Scotland by category A prisoners in each of the last 10 years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 4 April 1989]: The information is set out in the table.

  Year

  Prison

  Escapes

  Attempted escapes

  1979

  Perth

  1

  —

  1980

  —

  —

  —

  1981

  —

  —

  —

  1982

  Peterhead

  3

  1

  1983

  Peterhead

  —

  1

  1984

  —

  —

  —

  1985

  Peterhead

  —

  3

  1986

  Inverness

  —

  2

  1987

  —

  —

  —

  1988

  —

  —

  —

WALES

  Valleys Initiative
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what representations he has received concerning the voluntary work content of the valleys initiative programme; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what consultations his Department has undertaken with regard to the voluntary effort content of the valleys initiative programme;

  (3) if he will make a statement on the progress of the voluntary effort content of the valleys initiative programme.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Representations have been received from the Wales Council for Voluntary Action and the Mid Glamorgan Association of Voluntary Organisations about community development activity and the development of voluntary services generally in the valleys.

  Consultations are taking place with the county associations of voluntary organisations in Gwent, Mid Glamorgan and West Glamorgan to agree a programme of action for which £100,000 has been set aside in 1989–90. This is in addition to the substantial voluntary sector funding already made available under other headings.

  The urban programme is continuing to provide very substantial support for a wide range of voluntary schemes including those concerned with social services, environmental improvement and business support and advice. In 1989–90 allocations to voluntary schemes benefiting the valleys will total £3 million.

  Good progress is also being made with other schemes identified in the programme and being undertaken by the
  466
  Community Projects Foundation, Groundwork Foundation, Prince of Wales Committee and UK2000, all of which are expected to make an important contribution in the valleys.

  Housing
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures his Department is taking to ensure that changes in his Department's financial provision for housing associations allow the associations in Wales to continue to provide housing for rent to tenants on low wages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The Welsh Office is particularly concerned about the situation facing people on low incomes in Wales. We have accordingly secured Treasury agreement that there will be no maximum rate of housing association grant in Wales this year. This will give Housing for Wales the flexibility that it needs to progress schemes which reflect local needs and costs in every area in Wales and for all categories of people in housing need.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy with regard to the promotion of low-cost home ownership schemes in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  We have asked Housing for Wales for this year to give particular attention to low-cost home ownership schemes, particularly in rural areas. Welsh Office officials have also recently secured a significantlly higher value limit for shared ownership schemes as it is important that this type of development should continue throughout the Principality.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list(a) the number of dwellings owned, (b) the number of dwellings built, (c) the number of dwellings sold and (d) the number of dwellings purchased from the private sector, in each year since 1980 by each housing authority in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is not readily available and I will reply as soon as possible.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the details of each request he has received from housing authorities for special loans to allow them to purchase dwellings from the private sector.

  Mr. Grist
  The Welsh Office has received bids totaling £1·2 million from the following district authorities:

  Aberconwy

  Arfon

  Ceredigion

  Dwyfor

  Isle of Anglesey

  Montgomeryshire

  Preseli (Pembs)

  We are currently considering the applications and hope to announce the actual allocations shortly.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many second homes there are in each district authority area in Wales; and in each case what percentage of the total housing stock they represent.

  Mr. Grist
  Estimates of the number of second homes alone are not available. The Welsh inter-censal survey,
  467
  however, provides an assessment of the percentage of homes identified as definite or presumed second/holiday homes. These figures are given in the following table:

  Second and Holiday Homes 1986

  Number of Second and Holiday Homes

  Second and Holiday Homes as per cent. of District Stock (a)

  Alyn and Deeside

  50

  —

  Colwyn

  960

  4

  Delyn

  280

  1

  Glyndwr

  690

  4

  Rhuddlan

  480

  2

  Wrexham Maelor

  100

  —

  Carmarthen

  490

  2

  Ceredigion

  1,570

  6

  Dinefwr

  290

  2

  Llanelli

  120

  —

  Preseli

  1,950

  7

  South Pembrokeshire

  1,510

  9

  Blaenau Gwent

  50

  —

  Islwyn

  20

  —

  Monmouth

  130

  —

  Newport

  100

  —

  Torfaen

  80

  —

  Aberconwy

  2,040

  9

  Arfon

  1,380

  6

  Dwyfor

  2,860

  21

  Meirionnydd

  3,200

  20

  Ynys Mon

  1,760

  6

  Cynon Valley

  70

  —

  Merthyr Tydfil

  0

  —

  Ogwr

  50

  —

  Rhondda

  20

  —

  Grant applications outstanding at 31 December 1988

  Improvement and conversion

  Repairs

  Intermediate

  Special

  All grants

  Aberconwy

  29

  21

  4

  6

  60

  Alyn and Deeside

  26

  72

  0

  0

  98

  Arfon

  97

  239

  1

  1

  338

  Blaenau Gwent

  1,206

  3,153

  156

  0

  4,515

  Brecknock

  62

  342

  31

  0

  435

  Cardiff

  1,888

  2,994

  334

  159

  5,375

  Carmarthen

  220

  372

  4

  2

  598

  Ceredigion

  131

  866

  36

  0

  1,033

  Colwyn

  172

  77

  0

  4

  253

  Cynon Valley

  180

  1,774

  1,581

  0

  3,535

  Delyn

  12

  62

  4

  0

  78

  Dinefwr

  23

  276

  1

  0

  300

  Dwyfor

  55

  388

  23

  2

  468

  Glyndwr

  174

  184

  60

  0

  418

  Islwyn

  14

  157

  0

  0

  171

  Llanelli

  24

  327

  7

  0

  358

  Lliw Valley

  45

  207

  23

  0

  275

  Meirionnydd

  1

  4

  2

  0

  7

  Merthyr Tydfil

  10

  235

  50

  0

  295

  Monmouth

  3

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Montgomeryshire

  21

  71

  16

  0

  108

  Neath

  221

  472

  20

  1

  714

  Newport

  632

  1,554

  47

  24

  2,257

  Ogwr

  300

  774

  36

  48

  1,158

  Port Talbot (Afan)

  178

  1,196

  14

  0

  1,388

  Preseli

  904

  1,009

  2

  2

  1,917

  Radnor

  89

  190

  21

  0

  300

  Rhondda

  1,196

  3,461

  1,229

  0

  5,886

  Rhuddlan

  63

  19

  1

  0

  83

  Rhymney Valley

  374

  2,237

  78

  0

  2,689

  South Pembrokeshire

  161

  72

  6

  0

  239

  Swansea

  891

  658

  45

  27

  1,621

  Taff-Ely

  141

  151

  26

  41

  359

  Torfaen

  229

  719

  293

  0

  1,241

  Vale of Glamorgan

  8

  926

  3

  2

  939

  Wrexham Maelor

  65

  260

  22

  0

  347

  Ynys Mon

  19

  25

  9

  0

  53

  WALES TOTAL

  9,864

  25,544

  4,185

  319

  39,912

  468

  Number of Second and Holiday Homes

  Second and Holiday Homes as per cent. of District Stock (a)

  Rhymney Valley

  20

  —

  Taff-Ely

  100

  —

  Brecknock

  650

  4

  Montgomeryshire

  1,040

  5

  Radnor

  410

  4

  Cardiff

  50

  —

  Vale of Glamorgan

  260

  1

  Lliw Valley

  70

  —

  Neath

  0

  —

  Port Talbot (Afan)

  40

  —

  Swansea

  460

  1

  WALES

  23,340

  2

  (a)—indicates 0·5 per cent. or less.

  Source: Welsh Inter-Censal Survey 1986.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people are on the waiting lists for accommodation of each housing authority in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The information is not collected centrally.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people are on each housing authority's waiting list for improvement grants in wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The number of home improvement grant applications outstanding at the end of December 1988 is given in the following table:
  469
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the average price of each category of dwelling in each district authority area in Wales; and what are the corresponding figures for each year since 1979.

  Average private sector dwelling prices by type of dwelling: Wales

  000's

  Year

  Bungalow

  Detached house

  Semi-detached house

  Terraced house

  Flat or maisonette in converted house

  Purpose built flat or maisonette

  All dwellings

  1979

  18·5

  26·0

  15·6

  11·4

  13·2

  11·5

  17·1

  1980

  21·5

  29·6

  18·3

  13·6

  16·1

  17·0

  19·4

  1981

  23·5

  32·1

  18·7

  14·5

  12·0

  17·0

  20·2

  1982

  22·8

  33·7

  18·3

  14·6

  17·1

  13·1

  19·7

  1983

  26·7

  36·5

  20·5

  15·9

  19·5

  16·5

  22·5

  1984

  27·1

  37·2

  22·0

  17·6

  15·4

  19·2

  23·7

  1985

  30·2

  41·4

  22·3

  18·3

  17·1

  19·8

  25·0

  1986

  34·8

  42·4

  25·5

  19·8

  18·9

  25·2

  27·4

  1987

  36·8

  48·7

  26·3

  21·3

  22·6

  26·5

  29·7

  1988

  42·4

  59·3

  30·1

  25·7

  24·3

  27·3

  34·2

  Source: Sample Survey of Building Society Mortgages,DOE.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total per capita public spending on housing in(a) Wales and (b) each district authority area in Wales; and what are the corresponding figures for each year since1979.

  Local authority gross expenditure on housing per capita

  Provisional

  1979–80 £/head

  1980–81 £/head

  1981–82 £/head

  1982–83 £/head

  1983–84 £/head

  1984–85 £/head

  1985–86 £/head

  1986–87 £/head

  1987–88 £/head

  Alyn and Deeside

  36·65

  50·97

  48·68

  74·88

  78·30

  80·07

  71·42

  82·49

  88·23

  Colwyn

  60·87

  61·45

  47·88

  58·51

  75·37

  56·02

  63·14

  71·56

  56·04

  Delyn

  48·34

  48·14

  53·85

  62·65

  74·14

  60·59

  61·89

  80·96

  85·32

  Glyndwr

  59·80

  66·65

  63·06

  71·64

  98·99

  93·75

  70·87

  76·98

  78·74

  Rhuddlan

  28·69

  25·99

  29·51

  39·97

  63·23

  40·86

  38·07

  41·78

  49·87

  Wrexham Maelor

  50·58

  60·91

  57·94

  68·91

  84·61

  78·46

  89·43

  106·09

  112·84

  Carmarthen

  77·27

  70·30

  79·22

  106·44

  209·08

  117·92

  102·11

  116·40

  145·68

  Ceredigion

  54·06

  69·78

  59·56

  73·41

  148·99

  85·98

  78·11

  87·01

  78·64

  Dinefwr

  51·50

  49·73

  41·40

  60·28

  96·10

  74·79

  65·24

  75·89

  85·91

  Llanelli

  72·87

  63·43

  54·47

  68·49

  108·30

  102·24

  95·10

  100·19

  114·04

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  55·89

  52·09

  70·34

  82·48

  106·14

  103·88

  84·15

  98·21

  98·14

  South Pembroke

  67·91

  71·38

  63·75

  85·41

  134·09

  134·06

  102·86

  96·08

  140·29

  Blaenau Gwent

  127·67

  157·64

  115·16

  182·66

  221·86

  181·98

  149·33

  215·14

  245·63

  Islwyn

  87·02

  92·12

  82·14

  122·88

  169·67

  169·41

  137·36

  192·33

  241·41

  Monmouth

  57·86

  60·60

  66·74

  87·89

  127·55

  95·42

  112·28

  128·49

  145·89

  Newport

  89·18

  90·18

  95·21

  119·50

  156·08

  125·49

  139·75

  148·96

  190·47

  Torfaen

  84·12

  77·18

  80·54

  121·85

  129·43

  120·39

  105·03

  178·64

  190·91

  Aberconwy

  44·25

  52·36

  43·67

  57·99

  90·61

  79·60

  72·20

  69·19

  72·64

  Arfon

  58·26

  78·11

  83·21

  87·79

  136·13

  108·97

  99·34

  106·43

  116·10

  Dwyfor

  40·37

  44·46

  39·47

  62·06

  144·77

  83·67

  64·18

  61·68

  60·15

  Meirionnydd

  63·14

  54·99

  56·54

  72·24

  159·27

  152·64

  82·75

  87·82

  61·98

  Ynys Môn

  71·73

  70·11

  50·66

  70·35

  143·63

  76·95

  75·47

  95·33

  103·13

  Cynon Valley

  70·22

  62·67

  65·90

  79·35

  109·39

  81·71

  85·72

  115·83

  161·33

  Merthyr Tydfil

  108·93

  97·93

  80·46

  92·96

  132·91

  107·66

  103·53

  127·49

  174·92

  Ogwr

  73·30

  66·69

  62·94

  74·23

  107·63

  101·97

  81·54

  90·50

  69·05

  Rhondda

  100·66

  96·93

  92·63

  119·35

  203·16

  196·69

  139·19

  165·95

  204·32

  Rhymney Valley

  79·65

  88·32

  77·99

  102·06

  118·39

  117·73

  95·46

  130·45

  178·16

  Taff Ely

  82·70

  81·56

  88·93

  109·08

  154·94

  102·42

  84·52

  113·48

  136·36

  Brecknock

  50·12

  48·00

  49·32

  51·46

  95·03

  66·15

  68·81

  86·37

  83·35

  Montgomeryshire

  35·21

  50·84

  36·17

  51·10

  105·66

  67·03

  60·99

  74·36

  86·36

  Radnor

  41·70

  51·61

  46·25

  91·55

  118·22

  68·20

  66·09

  72·73

  81·27

  Cardiff

  76·54

  76·64

  82·47

  99·17

  152·80

  117·31

  123·56

  130·02

  170·59

  Vale of Glamorgan

  53·30

  55·15

  43·67

  71·92

  86·16

  67·34

  51·52

  90·22

  80·07

  Port Talbot

  54·93

  58·92

  59·96

  89·35

  125·88

  119·69

  102·88

  150·96

  222·79

  Lliw Valley

  89·14

  80·97

  73·31

  95·05

  111·13

  87·55

  89·26

  103·20

  119·65

  Neath

  51·92

  53·86

  60·46

  92·88

  116·69

  87·29

  94·39

  112·65

  135·25

  Swansea

  55·15

  63·75

  68·20

  89·19

  112·41

  109·94

  99·87

  110·55

  108·65

  Total Wales

  68·46

  70·82

  68·40

  89·39

  126·58

  104·20

  95·08

  114·35

  131·43

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the total receipts from the sale of dwellings from
  470
  Mr. Grist
  Average dwelling prices are not available by district. The average dwelling prices by type of dwelling for Wales as a whole are shown in the following table:

  Mr. Grist
  The total per capita public spending on housing by local authority, excluding housing benefit, any expenditure by the Housing Corporation and advances under the Housing and Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, for each local authority and for Wales, for each financial year since 1979–80 is shown in the following table:

  their stock by each housing authority in Wales in each year

  471
  since the inception of the right-to-buy policy; and what proportion of those receipts was allocated to the housing budget in each case.

  Local authority capital receipts from sale of dwellings

  £ thousand

  Local authority

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–881

  Alyn and Deeside

  528

  218

  262

  258

  385

  684

  762

  Colwyn

  728

  663

  529

  415

  544

  585

  713

  Delyn

  753

  436

  318

  301

  n/a

  621

  1,046

  Glyndwr

  782

  890

  456

  254

  428

  540

  585

  Rhuddlan

  409

  316

  326

  299

  196

  340

  673

  Wrexham Maelor

  1,997

  1,244

  467

  464

  820

  1,259

  1,669

  Carmarthen

  1,631

  1,269

  919

  880

  528

  670

  804

  Caredigion

  1,562

  1,858

  1,141

  783

  538

  924

  791

  Dinefwr

  700

  544

  276

  220

  364

  634

  596

  Llanelli

  1,562

  1,545

  1,813

  974

  672

  897

  1,234

  Preseli

  2,548

  1,326

  1,376

  822

  832

  753

  981

  South Pembroke

  277

  1,110

  1,416

  562

  440

  n/a

  722

  Blaenau Gwent

  935

  1,313

  756

  507

  n/a

  1,274

  1,429

  Islwyn

  1,652

  8,274

  2,702

  1,615

  1,433

  2,064

  2,270

  Monmouth

  690

  864

  1,326

  1,431

  1,296

  1,422

  2,263

  Newport

  1,217

  1,421

  1,726

  1,727

  2,250

  3,326

  2,668

  Torfaen

  2,688

  2,750

  1,921

  2,137

  1,220

  4,644

  3,393

  Aberconwy

  1,080

  1,206

  697

  464

  526

  663

  629

  Arfon

  1,006

  639

  457

  491

  363

  475

  489

  Dwyfor

  526

  506

  235

  129

  189

  111

  95

  Meirionnydd

  569

  1,081

  618

  293

  239

  257

  419

  Ynys Mon

  1,081

  974

  382

  344

  753

  605

  579

  Cynon Valley

  529

  1,048

  461

  465

  386

  731

  763

  Merthyr Tydfil

  1,361

  1,732

  978

  670

  1,103

  1,411

  1,706

  Ogwr

  1,229

  2,982

  1,614

  1,370

  1,601

  2,486

  3,054

  Rhondda

  362

  171

  191

  132

  243

  365

  375

  Rhymney Valley

  1,884

  2,487

  1,711

  1,258

  1,158

  2,310

  2,159

  Taff Ely

  1,056

  936

  1,694

  1,378

  1,363

  2,067

  2,838

  Brecknock

  1,838

  830

  915

  831

  768

  n/a

  988

  Montgomeryshire

  1,779

  1,183

  698

  452

  530

  846

  562

  Radnor

  692

  658

  655

  246

  272

  215

  522

  Cardiff

  1,312

  5,089

  2,239

  583

  3,777

  7,224

  5,600

  Vale of Glamorgan

  1,127

  1,836

  1,936

  1,485

  1,228

  2,215

  1,970

  Port Talbot

  803

  1,483

  1,607

  1,197

  1,481

  1,917

  2,363

  Lliw Valley

  598

  1,262

  508

  401

  670

  877

  998

  Neath

  1,604

  970

  417

  536

  532

  971

  1,366

  Swansea

  1,067

  1,629

  1,267

  1,139

  1,557

  2,141

  3,545

  Total Wales

  42,142

  54,743

  35,743

  27,513

  48,522

  48,522

  53,619

  1 Provisional.

  n/a = Not available.

  Source: Capital Outurn Return.

  Health Service
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total amount of money raised towards the work of each hospital in Wales from voluntary and charitable sources since 1979.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money has been raised through public appeals, donations and other voluntary and charitable sources towards the cost of each whole body scanner purchased for National Health Service use in Wales since 1979.

  Mr. Grist
  This information is not held centrally.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which National Health Service hospitals in Wales at present have whole body scanner facilities; when the equipment was installed in each case; and which hospitals are planned to be provided with such facilities anew or to replace obsolete facilities.
  472
  Mr. Grist
  The total receipts from the sale of local authority dwellings in Wales for the period requested is shown in the table. The proportion of those receipts allocated to the housing budget is not held centrally.

  Mr. Grist
  The following hospitals in Wales have whole body scanning facilities installed as shown:

  Hospital

  Year of installation

  East Glamorgan Hospital, Church Village

  1988

  Llandough Hospital, Penarth

  1988

  Morriston Hospital, Swansea

  1986

  Nevill Hall Hospital, Abergavenny

  1987

  Royal Gwent Hospital, Newport

  1987

  Singleton Hospital, Swansea

  1989

  University Hospital of Wales

  1984 and 1987

  Velindre Hospital, Cardiff

  1988

  West Wales General Hospital, Carmarthen

  1987

  Ysbyty Glan Clwyd, Rhyl

  1987

  Ysbyty Gwynedd, Bangor

  1988

  Ysbyty Maelor, Wrexham

  1987

  The Welsh Office has at present no plans to provide additional whole body scanning facilities although their availability and disposition is to be reviewed. It will be for health authorities to make appropriate arrangements for the replacement of equipment.
  473
  Dr. Thomas
  to ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether all outstanding disputes with developers and contractors engaged in work on ysbyty Gwynedd have now been resolved satisfactorily; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  All disputes with the designers for this hospital scheme have been resolved but there remain outstanding disputes with contractors for the works.

  The Welsh Health Common Services Authority continues to withhold £130,000 from IDC Ltd. to pay for remedial work to windows and cavities in the residential buildings, where further remedial work may be necessary to modify some staircase balustrades and to repair defective wall ties. Liability for these items has not yet been determined.

  In the main hospital buildings there are items in dispute associated with the quality of the floor screeds in ground floor circulation areas and with the adequacy of fixings for suspended ceilings. These items are the subject of negotiations presently with the main building contractor Kyle Steward Ltd.

  Welsh Language
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he is undertaking to ensure that a sufficient number of qualified teachers are available in Wales in order to implement the provisions of the Education Act 1988 relating to the teaching of the Welsh language.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Work is in hand to estimate the number of teachers who will be needed to teach Welsh in the national curriculum. Officials have met local education authority representatives to discuss how the Welsh language provisions of the national curriculum are to be delivered and these discussions will continue. It is clear that the teaching capacity which will be needed must be met, to a large extent, by a programme of in-service training for existing teachers. Teachers training colleges will play an important part in delivering this in-service training programme.

  The local education authorities training grant scheme includes a national priority category for Welsh language training. In 1989–90 grant is available towards expenditure of £223,000 under this category. Further funding is also being provided from other Welsh Office programmes to assist authorities to increase their present in-service training provision.

  The teaching as a career unit (TASC) and its Welsh-speaking field officer for Wales are making particular efforts to persuade more Welsh speakers to train as teachers. This includes young people leaving school or colleges, and also more mature people seeking a change of career or married women wishing to take up employment.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of whether the financial resources allocated for the coming year to the Welsh language education development committee will be sufficient to allow it to undertake its work during that period; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The resources allocated for 1989–90 are sufficient to meet the Welsh language education development committee's running costs and to undertake a programme for the development of Welsh language education which accords with educational needs. The 474
  grant offer has been accepted by the committee. In so far as the committee's proposals were not consistent with the needs of the national curriculum, or would have duplicated activity already being undertaken, or were deficient in other respects, they did not receive support. Other proposals needed further development taking account of work being undertaken by other bodies and of the extent of existing provision. Proposals for research are still receiving consideration.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to increase funding for the Welsh language development committee; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The funding for the Welsh language education development committee and for its proposed work programme increased from £248,000 last year to £669,000 this year. As previously announced, additional resources are available to support further work on the development of Welsh language education, and discussions on this are continuing. Funding for future years will be decided taking account of the merits of future proposals and the availability of resources.

  Roads
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the progress and future plans for the improvement of the A470.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  This information is set out in "Roads in Wales 1989: Progress and Plans for the 1990s", which was published on 10 April.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was his Department's total expenditure on roads in each year since 1979 in(a) each parliamentary constituency in Wales and (b) each district authority area.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  This information is not available in the form requested.

  Homelessness
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the numbers of people presented as homeless and accepted as homeless in each district authority in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The latest available information relates to the final quarter of 1988. The number of households presented as homeless and accepted as homeless in that period are given in the table:

  Number of households presented and accepted as homeless October—December 1988

  Welsh Districts

  Presented

  Accepted

  Aberconwy

  50

  16

  Alyn and Deeside

  67

  44

  Arfon

  4

  2

  Blaenau Gwent

  75

  63

  Brecknock

  21

  18

  Cardiff

  354

  317

  Carmarthen

  14

  14

  Ceredigion

  32

  11

  Colwyn

  6

  2

  Cynon Valley

  135

  67

  Delyn

  123

  72

  Dinefwr

  19

  19

  Dwyfor

  28

  10

  475

  Welsh Districts

  Presented

  Accepted

  Glyndwr

  3

  3

  Islwyn

  44

  21

  Llanelli

  24

  24

  Lliw Valley

  16

  9

  Meirionnydd

  24

  22

  Merthyr Tydfil

  21

  21

  Monmouth

  93

  48

  Montgomery

  8

  8

  Neath

  87

  87

  Newport

  159

  158

  Ogwr

  125

  118

  Port Talbot

  108

  32

  Preseli

  16

  13

  Radnor

  6

  2

  Rhondda

  47

  47

  Rhuddlan

  24

  20

  Rhymney Valley

  78

  66

  S. Pembrokeshire

  23

  18

  Swansea

  147

  43

  Taff-Ely

  121

  36

  Torfaen

  175

  119

  Vale of Glamorgan

  111

  76

  Wrexham Maelor

  220

  113

  Ynys Mon

  19

  6

  Wales Total

  2,627

  1,765

  (a) under part III of the Housing Act 1985.

  North-South Transport Links
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his Department's progress and plans to improve transport links between north and south Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Information on road links is set out in "Roads in Wales 1989: Progress and Plans for the 1990s" published on 10 April. Public transport services are a matter for British Rail and for the county councils and public service operators.

  Labour Statistics
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average annual salary of(a) all men in full-time employment, (b) all women in full-time employment and (c) all in full-time employment in (i) Wales, (ii) each county in Wales and (iii) each district in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Information for annual average earnings is not collected. The new earnings survey results giving data for average gross weekly earnings are given in the following table. District data are not available.

  Average gross weekly earnings offull·time employees on adult rates —whose earnings were not affected by absence. April 1988

  Male £

  Female £

  All £

  Clwyd

  220·0

  139·1

  195·9

  Dyfed1

  200·4

  145·7

  181·2

  Gwent

  218·8

  150·7

  197·8

  Gwynedd

  204·0

  147·7

  187·3

  Mid Glamorgan

  221·5

  149·4

  198·5

  Powys

  191·2

  3

  182·2

  South Glamorgan

  224·9

  161·3

  203·1

  West Glamorgan2

  220·7

  145·9

  199·6

  Wales

  217·8

  150·3

  196·5

  1 Excluding Llanelli.

  2 Including Llanelli.

  476
  3 Data not publishable due to low sample numbers giving a high standard error.

  Source: New earnings survey April 1988.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current rate of unemployment in(a) Wales, (b) each travel-to-work area in Wales and (c) each district authority area in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for Wales at 9 February 1989 was 8·9 per cent.

  Information on the travel-to-work areas in Wales is shown in the following tables:

  Travel-to-work area

  Unemployment rate (Per cent.)1

  Aberdare

  17·5

  Aberystwyth

  8·1

  Bangor and Caernarfon

  13·3

  Blaenau Gwent and Abergavenny

  13·8

  Brecon

  6·1

  Bridgend

  10·5

  Cardiff

  9·1

  Cardigan

  18·0

  Carmarthen

  6·7

  Conwy and Colwyn

  11·6

  Denbigh

  8·0

  Dolgellau and Barmouth

  11·1

  Fishguard

  16·1

  Haverfordwest

  14·0

  Holyhead

  17·7

  Lampeter and Aberaeron

  13·2

  Llandeilo

  9·7

  Llandrindod Wells

  7·3

  Llanelli

  12·3

  Machynlleth

  11·9

  Merthyr nd Rhymney

  14·1

  Monmouth

  10·5

  Neath and Port Talbot

  10·1

  Newport

  9·5

  Newtown

  6·0

  Pontypool and Cwmbran

  10·9

  Pontypridd and Rhondda

  12·1

  Porthmadoc and Ffestiniog

  10·8

  Pwllheli

  19·0

  Shotton, Flint and Rhyl

  10·6

  South Pembrokeshire

  17·6

  Swansea

  11·8

  Welshpool

  5·9

  Wrexham

  10·0

  1 Unemployment rates quoted are as at 9 February 1989, which are the latest available and are on a basis which does not take into account the self-employed, Her Majesty's forces and those on Government-related training schemes. The corresponding rate for Wales on this basis is 11·0 per cent.

  Unemployment rates are not calculated for districts.

  Lakes (Pollution)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total number of lakes in each county in Wales in which fish life is affected by acidification from acid rain and other sources.

  Mr. Grist
  No categoric answer can be given. Provisional results from a Welsh water authority pilot survey of 37 lakes in Gwynedd located in class I and II catchments (that is, vulnerable to acidification) show that between 8 and 21 per cent. are thought to have suffered fishery decline which could be acid water related.

  Dairy Processing Industry
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those representations which he has received concerning the dairy processing industry in Wales since 1983; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Since 1983 I have received a number of representations about a range of issues affecting the dairy processing industry in Wales.

  Open-cast Coal Sites
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of the planning applications to develop open-cast coal sites submitted in 1987–88 in Wales were for(a) land, which at the time of the application, was being used for agriculture, (b) land which at the time of the application, was being used for forestry, (c) previously undisturbed countryside, (d) land which had previously been mined and (e) land which was already derelict due to previous industrial activity; and, in each case, if he will name the sites and the acreage involved.

  Mr. Grist
  This information is not available centrally.

  Property Sales
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what role his Department played in the sales of former Dairy Crest creameries in Wales, closed since 1979.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  In addition to encouraging bodies such as the Welsh Development Agency and Mid Wales Development actively to seek alternative uses for the plants involved, my Department provided assistance, under section 7 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, to the new owners of the former Dairy Crest creameries at Llangefni, Felinfach and Newcastle Emlyn.

  Year

  Name

  Area (hectares)

  Grid Reference

  Species*

  Woodlands sold in Clwyd

  1982

  Coed y Ffrith

  8·1

  SJ 138 750

  C

  1982

  Land adjoining Cefn Rofft

  1·0

  SJ 008 498

  C

  1983

  Dormitory Wood

  3·0

  SJ 060 728

  B

  1984

  Big Covert

  75·0

  SJ 200 605

  B

  1984

  Coed Jocelyn and Coed Salusbury

  3·7

  SJ 129 710

  C

  1984

  Coed Wynne

  2·3

  SJ 134 715

  C

  1984

  Coed y Moelfre

  16·0

  SJ 180 285

  C

  1984

  Gop Hill

  19·5

  SJ 087 803

  C

  1984

  Plas Nantyr

  23·2

  SJ 155 375

  C

  1984

  Pontymeibion

  2·0

  SJ 198 351

  C

  1984

  Ty Cerrig Wood

  7·0

  SJ 193 414

  C

  1984

  Ochr y Fron

  18·5

  SJ 155 377

  C

  1984

  Lower Blaen y Cwm

  3·0

  SJ 155 372

  C

  1984

  Middle Blaen y Cum

  0·3

  SJ 153 372

  C

  1984

  Blaen y Cwm Wood

  1·4

  SJ 151 372

  C

  1985

  Bodrhyddan Woodlands Woodlands at Cwm Clwyd

  21·0

  SJ 075 765

  C

  1985

  Coed Gaerwen

  18·0

  SJ 020 400

  C

  1985

  Hafodunos

  43·0

  SH 860 677

  C

  1985

  Land Adj Cefn Du Cyffylliog

  0·6

  SJ 045 547

  C

  1985

  Pant yr Eos

  9·0

  SJ 180 285

  C

  1985

  Pt Craignant Wd Bound Adj

  1·8

  SJ 244 345

  C

  1985

  Pt Kinmel Estate Woods

  11·6

  SH 988 758

  C

  1986

  Bodrhyddan Lot 4 Brior and Long Covert

  6·0

  SJ 075 765

  C

  1986

  Bodrhyddan Woodlands Lot 1

  130·0

  SJ 075 765

  C

  1986

  Bodrhyddan Woodlands Lot 3 Rhydorthwy Wen

  3·0

  SJ 075 765

  C

  1986

  Coed Du and Coed Plas Wilkin

  26·9

  SJ 193 664

  C

  1986

  Coed Duon

  12·2

  SJ 086 604

  B

  1986

  Coed Moel Iago

  19·9

  SH 940 702

  C

  1986

  Coed Nant Alyn

  2·3

  SJ 196 662

  C

  478
  In the case of the creamery at Johnstown, the Welsh Development Agency sought and obtained my Department's approval to offer the new enterprise support under the rural conversion grant scheme.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps are taken by his Department to ensure that property sold in Wales by publicly-owned companies is sold to the buyer most likely to bring the greatest economic advantages to the area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The Government's policy is that surplus land should be sold promptly at the current best price.

  WINvest
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the number of inquiries received by WINvest for the nine last quarters for which figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  WINvest has received many inquiries in the period under question, although the number involved has not been recorded. Inquiries are not considered to be a useful indicator of the genuine level of interest in Wales as a location for investment.

  Woodlands
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all woodlands for each county in Wales which have been sold by the Forestry Commission in each of the last seven years indicating for each such woodland the(a) acreage, (b) grid reference and (c) species composition.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  [holding answer 9 March 1989]: The information is given in the following tables:

  479

  Year

  Name

  Area (hectares)

  Grid Reference

  Species*

  1986

  Coed Nant Goch

  7·7

  SJ 083 608

  B

  1986

  Coed Plas y Nant

  29·3

  SJ 160 577

  C

  1986

  Coed Rhos Mostyn

  3·8

  SH 938 674

  C

  1986

  Coed Sodom

  8·3

  SJ 100 723

  C

  1986

  Coed y Fedw Cpt 522

  12·4

  SJ 200 617

  C

  1986

  Fenns Wood

  26·0

  SJ 490 380

  C

  1986

  Hafod Wood

  24·2

  SJ 001 687

  C

  1986

  Oernant

  5·4

  SJ 190 468

  C

  1986

  Plas Nantyr—Coed y Twmpath

  9·0

  SJ 155 375

  C

  1987

  Bryn Gwenallt and Gopa Wood

  47·5

  SH 935 765

  C

  1987

  Garth y Wig

  26·0

  SJ 044 492

  C

  1987

  Land Adj Tan y Graig Boun

  0·1

  SJ 194 361

  C

  1987

  Mostyn Dingle

  14·5

  SH 948 680

  C

  1987

  Coed y Rhos

  9·3

  SJ 198 370

  C

  1988

  Bodrhyddan Woods Lot 2 Coed Penymos

  1·0

  SJ 093 773

  C

  1988

  Fedw Ithel and Coed y Fforest

  16·0

  SJ 099 591

  C

  1989

  Coednant Barcutan

  4·7

  SJ 085 582

  C

  1989

  Pwll Glas

  5·3

  SJ 112 543

  C

  Woodlands sold in Dyfed

  1982

  Allt Disgwylfa and Wern Wood

  20·0

  SN 562 480

  C

  1982

  Belan (Glyn Brochan)

  18·0

  SN 930 816

  C

  1982

  Dyffryn Woods

  6·5

  SN 577 503

  C

  1982

  Gafriw Dingle

  17·3

  SN 477 544

  C

  1982

  Pant Meddyg

  11·4

  SN 482 467

  C

  1982

  Pen-yr-allt Llwyd

  2·0

  SN 478 587

  B

  1982

  Pt Windleway Wood

  0·4

  SN 249 121

  B

  1982

  Ynys Felen Plantation

  5·0

  SN 493 545

  C

  1983

  Caed/Brechfa Package:

  Ty'r Cwm Woodlands

  52·0

  SN 533 342

  C

  Allt Llwyn-Crwn

  27·0

  SN 533 446

  C

  1983

  Castell Geifr

  15·5

  SN 420 587

  C

  1983

  Christmas Wood

  12·0

  SN 774 288

  C

  1983

  Coed Erglodd Fawr

  29·0

  SN 660 915

  C

  1983

  Coed Erglodd Bach

  1·7

  SN 654 909

  C

  1983

  Coed Maesygwandde (Cpt 294)

  15·0

  SN 775 365

  C

  1983

  Forlan and Clover Hill

  21·5

  SN 080 249

  C

  1983

  Glan yr Annell Isaf (Pt)

  5·5

  SN 655 360

  C

  1983

  Gorslwyd

  7·0

  SN 737 763

  C

  1983

  Lletty Twpa

  2·9

  SN 584 486

  C

  1983

  Pantyrhyn/Neuadd Plantation

  13·0

  SN 363 562

  C

  1983

  Part Ciliau Farm

  20·5

  SN 353 560

  C

  1983

  Penyrallt Wood

  9·4

  SN 368 573

  C

  1983

  Rhyd y Pererinion

  2·8

  SN 714 766

  C

  1984

  Banc Grip (Cpt 3)

  5·2

  SN 585 706

  C

  1984

  Cjlrhedyn Isaf (Land Adj)

  4·5

  SN 000 348

  C

  1984

  Ffynon Ddu Wood (Pt)

  27·0

  SN 120 400

  C

  1984

  Glanmarlais/Cwm Marlais

  10·0

  SN 685 330

  C

  1984

  Pt Banc Fonllwyd

  0·1

  SN 562 561

  C

  1984

  Tegfan

  2·9

  SN 547 578

  C

  1984

  Ty-Gwyn Cpt 32

  9·4

  SN 528 646

  C

  1985

  Allt Cwmllynfe

  3·4

  SN 701 337

  C

  1985

  Allt Goch South (Cpt 8)

  0·6

  SN 238 402

  C

  1985

  Allt Lwyd Plantation

  8·9

  SN 526 683

  C

  1985

  Bettws Plantation

  0·8

  SN 593 515

  C

  1985

  Caeo/Brechfa Package Allt Troed y Rhiw

  67·0

  SN 520 350

  C

  1985

  Causeway Block

  34·0

  SM 908 224

  C

  1985

  Crynfryn Pt

  1·3

  SN 583 610

  C

  1985

  Derry Ormond Pt

  1·3

  SN 590 520

  C

  1985

  Land Adjoining North Lodge

  0·1

  SN 564 498

  C

  1985

  Old Pale Package Ffoswine Wood

  17·0

  SN 202 217

  C

  1985

  Old Pale Package Allt Plas y Beili

  7·0

  SN 157 238

  C

  1985

  Talog Package Corn Gafr and Bwlch Gwynt

  35·5

  SN 270 232

  C

  1985

  Talog Package Nant y Castell

  143·0

  SN 450 304

  C

  1986

  Abercych (Pt) Callt Sena and Allt Goch

  23·0

  SN 235 407

  C

  1986

  Allt Crug Garn

  5·3

  SN 519 617

  C

  1986

  Colby Woods Craig y Borion Wood, Little

  39·5

  SN 115 084

  C

  1986

  Colby Woods Craig y Borion Wood and Pendeilo

  0·1

  SN 155 084

  B

  1986

  Cwm Wyre

  60·5

  SN 555 698

  C

  1986

  Dolau Aeron Package Fron Dolau, Allt Dolau and Tain Coed

  42·6

  SN 590 587

  C

  1986

  Noyadd Trefawr

  12·0

  SN 260 458

  C

  1986

  Noyadd Trefawr Allt y Cadno

  4·0

  SN 260 458

  C

  1986

  Old Pale Great Pale and Little Pale

  47·0

  SN 235 150

  C

  1986

  Old Pale Package Upper Newton

  11·0

  SN 270 115

  C

  480

  481

  Year

  Name

  Area (hectares)

  Grid Reference

  Species*

  1986

  Old Pale Package Dolwilym and Glyntaf

  95·5

  SN 170 255

  C

  1986

  Old Pale Package Llanmiloe Woods

  39·0

  SN 253 091

  C

  1986

  Old Pale Package Allt Glog y Fran

  9·0

  SN 243 153

  C

  1986

  Old Pale Package Trevaughan

  8·0

  SN 205 150

  C

  1986

  Old Pale Package The Pale Woodlands

  119·0

  SN 235 150

  C

  1986

  Old Pale Package Windleway

  26·0

  SN 249 118

  C

  1986

  Sealyham Woods

  34·5

  SN 960 273

  B

  1986

  Talog Package Cilhir Uchaf and Talfan Uchaf

  104·0

  SN 325 238

  C

  1986

  Talog Package Castell Mawr

  8·0

  SN 275 273

  C

  1986

  Talog Package Allt Cilfrydin and Blaen y Cwm

  25·0

  SN 355 275

  C

  1986

  Talog Package Llangarth Gynnin

  8·0

  SN 272 218

  C

  1986

  Talog Package Allt Cefn Cloch and Allt Cithin Duon

  41·5

  SN 308 245

  C

  1986

  Talog Package Nant Cwm Rhys

  10·0

  SN 336 305

  C

  1986

  Talog Package Penygraig

  8·0

  SN 278 247

  C

  1987

  Old Pale Package Allt Penlan

  19·0

  SN 206 194

  C

  1987

  Scolton

  9·5

  SN 987 217

  C

  1987

  Sychbant Recreation Area

  9·0

  SN 045 350

  C

  1987

  Talog Package Caeruchedydd

  14·0

  SN 250 272

  C

  1987

  Talog Package Cywyn Wood

  17·0

  SN 336 283

  C

  1987

  Talog Package Allt Cilforch

  22·0

  SN 275 252

  C

  1987

  Pt Allt Penarth

  1·0

  SN 651 407

  B

  1988

  Allt Cae Gwynfys Wood

  8·3

  SN 751 343

  C

  1988

  Castell Gorfod

  22·9

  SN 265 210

  C

  1988

  Castle Hill

  52·5

  SN 623 745

  C

  1988

  Cwm Darren Wood (Ty Canol)

  5·0

  SN 597 072

  C

  1988

  Dan yr Allt

  6·8

  SN 780 350

  C

  1988

  Gwaun Valley Glynwood

  13·5

  SN 008 345

  C

  1988

  Lodge Park

  10·1

  SN 663 937

  C

  1988

  Old Pale Package Glandycross

  14·0

  SN 140 270

  C

  1988

  Panteg, Pencelli and Pontbren

  68·4

  SN 130 390

  B

  1988

  Plas Estate

  141·3

  SN 332 142

  C

  1988

  Talog Package Pant y Maen

  7·9

  SN 272 262

  C

  1989

  Pen-yr-Heol Ddu

  10·2

  SN 661 150

  C

  1989

  Talog Package Plas Parcau

  9·0

  SN 258 279

  C

  1989

  Talog Package Plas Parciau

  6·0

  SN 323 224

  C

  1989

  Talog Package Penrhiwlas

  14·0

  SN 334 265

  C

  1989

  Talog Package Allt Tyddyn

  11·0

  SN 257 294

  C

  1989

  Talog Package Cilhir Uchaf

  5·0

  SN 319 248

  C

  1989

  Coed Glan Leri

  7·2

  SN 622 075

  C

  Woodlands sold in Gwent

  1981

  Penycwarel

  9·0

  ST 175 935

  C

  1982

  Black Vein Washery Land

  3·7

  ST 229 911

  C

  1982

  Llan Pill

  9·0

  SO 451 007

  B

  1982

  The Knoll West Lane Coe

  24·6

  ST 424 903

  B

  1982

  Wern Birs

  13·0

  SO 450 003

  B

  1983

  Cpt 22 Tynffynnon

  2·0

  ST 253 874

  C

  1983

  Tintern Package Lot 6 Talycoed

  77·0

  SO 415 163

  C

  1983

  Lot 13 Manson Grove

  10·5

  SO 496 154

  C

  1983

  Lot 7 Graig Farm Woods

  46·0

  SO 404 223

  C

  1983

  Lot 7 Dyffryn Wood

  9·5

  SO 458 087

  C

  1983

  Lot 12 Clappers Wood

  4·5

  SO 465 185

  C

  1983

  Lot 2 Bourne Wood

  9·0

  SO 458 088

  C

  1983

  Lot 9 Coed y Pwll

  11·5

  SO 440 212

  C

  1983

  Lot 4 Graig Wood

  10·5

  SO 436 080

  C

  1983

  Vineyard Wood and Adj Wood

  2·0

  ST 442 922

  C

  1983

  Whitfield Wood

  2·4

  ST 496 962

  B

  1984

  Barbadoes Wood Pt

  2·0

  SO 527 003

  C

  1984

  Pontypool Park

  19·5

  SO 261 002

  B

  1984

  Rogiett Brake

  3·4

  ST 455 887

  C

  1984

  Tallycoed Court Areas A B

  0·9

  SO 420 149

  B

  1984

  Tallycoed Court WD Area C

  SO 420 149

  B

  1984

  Land at Hafod y Daful

  20·1

  SO 200 047

  C

  1984

  Land at Tormynydd

  0·1

  SO 474 019

  B

  1984

  Ynys Hywell Farm

  48·0

  ST 193 909

  B

  1984

  Tintern Package Lot 8 Highmeadow Wood

  61·0

  SO 412 228

  C

  1984

  Lot 3 Yew Tree Wood

  6·0

  SO 454 087

  C

  1984

  Lot 11 Colebrook Wood

  7·5

  SO 463 183

  C

  1984

  Lot 5 Lower Pen y Clawdd

  24·0

  SO 436 080

  C

  1985

  Tintern Package Lot 10 Tower Hill Wood

  13·5

  SO 454 193

  C

  1985

  Woods at Lower Machen Pt 603

  8·8

  ST 238 879

  B

  1985

  Youngs Grove

  1·3

  SO 532 093

  C

  1986

  Henllys Cpt 32A

  1·5

  ST 273 910

  B

  1986

  Skirrid Blocks Cpt 311

  14·0

  SO 327 168

  C

  482

  483

  Year

  Name

  Area (hectares)

  Grid Reference

  Species*

  1987

  Coed Wern Ddu

  5·0

  ST 489 893

  C

  1987

  Kennels Wood

  4·0

  ST 489 946

  C

  1987

  Skirrid Blocks Cpt 301

  17·0

  SO 327 168

  C

  1987

  Wyelands Estate Cpt 152

  3·0

  ST 520 920

  B

  1987

  Wyelands Estate Cpt 153

  2·7

  ST 520 920

  B

  1988

  Coed Mawr Gotyre

  7·0

  SO 314 065

  C

  1988

  Land at Carno

  2·0

  SO 162 130

  C

  1988

  Graig Wyllt

  12·1

  ST 244 884

  C

  1988

  Part Ffrwd Wood

  2·0

  SO 292 117

  B

  1988

  Pwllmawr Wood

  8·0

  SO 528 103

  C

  1989

  Coed y Trauch, Coed Llyneu

  21·1

  ST 299 856

  C

  1989

  Lower Machen

  7·5

  ST 244 883

  C

  1989

  Poolhead Wood

  5·0

  ST 397 887

  B

  1989

  Trevella Woods

  25·7

  ST 422 978

  C

  1989

  Goytre Wharf (Exchange)

  0·7

  SO 311 064

  C

  Woodlands sold in Gwynedd

  1982

  Land Adj Tyddyn Bach

  1·4

  SH 733 412

  C

  1982

  Land Adj Tyn-Yr-Ardd

  0·7

  SH 779 602

  C

  1982

  TyddynIsaf(Cpt 102)

  27·0

  SH 480 850

  C

  1983

  Abergwynant

  20·5

  SH 680 180

  C

  1983

  Goetre Land

  5·7

  SH 718 244

  U

  1983

  Land Adj Brynprydydd

  0·1

  SH 741 229

  C

  1983

  Llechwedd Melyn

  10·6

  SH 617 988

  C

  1983

  Nannau Estate

  79·3

  SH 735 200

  C

  1983

  Nurse Cae Seren

  7·0

  SH 900 332

  B

  1983

  Parc Top Y Rhos

  19·5

  SH 198 308

  C

  1983

  Penrhos Isaf Land

  2·8

  SH 739 239

  U

  1983

  Pentre Plod

  6·0

  SH 895 304

  C

  1983

  Ty Canol

  28·6

  SH 353 445

  C

  1984

  Bangor By-Pass

  1·9

  SH 580 680

  C

  1984

  Bedw (Cpt 56)

  47·7

  SH 910 310

  C

  1984

  Coed Cae Fali (Pt Cpt 206)

  58·0

  SH 640 402

  B

  1984

  Coed Pen Y Cefn

  16·1

  SH 725 187

  C

  1984

  Cwm Mynach Isaf

  180·0

  SH 685 215

  C

  1984

  Ffridd-Y-Mynydd (Penmaenpool)

  31·5

  SH 693 180

  C

  1984

  Gwydyr Conwy Valley Package

  Coed Pentre Piogod

  1·8

  SH 765 719

  B

  Marle Hall Woods

  12·0

  SH 800 790

  B

  Coed Bryn Goleu

  4·7

  SH 813 700

  C

  Coed Cae Coch

  1·0

  SH 779 651

  C

  Maenen Hall Woods

  21·6

  SH 793 656

  C

  Bwlch y Gwynt

  8·5

  SH 825 606

  C

  Coed Tyn y Nant

  4·4

  SH 814 685

  C

  Bryn Eisteddfod

  21·0

  SH 830 775

  C

  Coed Frongoch

  6·5

  SH 814 690

  C

  Coed Bron Garth

  5·4

  SH 820 793

  B

  Coed y Brain

  10·4

  SH 819 665

  B

  Coed Craflwyn

  5·3

  SH 764 723

  B

  Cefn Llech

  2·9

  SH 809 665

  C

  1984

  Land Adj Ffridd Bryn Coch

  0·8

  SH 694 290

  C

  1984

  Taldrwst (Mynachdy)

  46·9

  SH 300 917

  C

  1984

  Tyddyn Mawr

  2·6

  SH 707 160

  C

  1985

  Aberglaslyn Wood

  28·0

  SH 590 463

  C

  1985

  Abergwynant East Cpt F11

  18·8

  SH 682 176

  C

  1985

  Bryn y Gwin

  4·9

  SH 717 177

  C

  1985

  Caerhun Cpt 88

  1·3

  SH 573 687

  C

  1985

  Coed Cefn Llanfair & Coed Wern

  21·3

  SH 323 336

  C

  1985

  Coed Fron Acre Nant y Rhiw & Coed y Garth

  20·9

  SH 804 696

  C

  1985

  Parc Mawr

  33·9

  SH 760 740

  C

  1985

  Coed Pen y Bryn

  2·9

  SH 812 703

  C

  1985

  Land Adj Esgairwen

  0·6

  SH 763 203

  B

  1985

  Land Adj Nanthir

  2·4

  SH 816 110

  C

  1985

  Maes y Neuadd

  25·1

  SH 620 350

  C

  1985

  Plas Bodafon

  21·0

  SH 480 850

  C

  1985

  Plas Bodafon

  4·0

  SH 477 855

  C

  1985

  Pt Wern Wood (Road imp)

  0·1

  SH 626 418

  C

  1985

  Road Impr at Hafod y Morfa

  0·1

  SH 705 196

  C

  1985

  Rhiwerfa Cpt 1412

  18·1

  SH 670 065

  C

  1985

  Trefriw Service Reservoir

  0·2

  SH 768 634

  C

  1985

  Vale of Ffestiniog (Wernwood)

  14·0

  SH 626 420

  C

  1985

  Vale of Ffestiniog (Hafod Boeth)

  161·0

  SH 635 410

  C

  1985

  Vale of Ffestiniog (Coed Hafod Talog)

  4·7

  SH 625 399

  C

  1986

  Cefn Creuan Cpts 7 and 8

  93·7

  SH 795 195

  C

  1986

  Land at Tyddon Bach

  5·6

  SH 730 413

  C

  1986

  Land Adj Creigiau Isaf

  0·6

  SH 947 391

  C

  484

  485

  Year

  Name

  Area (hectares)

  Grid Reference

  Species*

  1986

  Llwydiarth Exchange

  9·0

  SH 799 084

  C

  1986

  Llwydiarth Plantation

  2·5

  SH 792 111

  C

  1987

  Coed y Green

  5·7

  SH 405 714

  C

  1987

  Dinas Mawddwy Lot 4 Tynypwll

  11·6

  SH 855 155

  C

  1987

  Dinas Mawddwy Lot 3 Tynyceunant

  12·7

  SH 893 163

  C

  1987

  Lot 5 Coed Cefn Coch and Coed y Bwlch

  46·2

  SH 865 143

  C

  1987

  Lot 6 Coed Pant Glas and Bwlch y Garnedd

  36·3

  SH 879 142

  C

  1987

  Lot 7 Tynywern

  10·1

  SH 900 142

  C

  1987

  Dolhendre Wood

  4·0

  SH 855 310

  C

  1987

  Goetre Woodlands

  88·2

  SH 645 185

  C

  1987

  Gwydyr/Conwy Valley Package (Glyn Parc)

  18·3

  SH 770 730

  C

  1987

  Land at Aberangell (Mary Pugh Fields)

  3·0

  SH 835 102

  C

  1987

  Land at Gelligen Fach

  0·4

  SH 742 023

  C

  1988

  Coed Perddwr, Hafod Gwyfs

  52·7

  SH 590 450

  C

  1988

  Land Adj Pen Bryn

  1·1

  SH 556 796

  C

  1988

  Sychnant

  14·4

  SH 707 391

  C

  1989

  Dinas Mawddwy Lot 2 (Plasau)

  58·2

  SH 880 178

  C

  1989

  Llwynbedw Isaf

  5·3

  SH 459 503

  C

  1989

  Madryn Castle Woodlands

  70·8

  SH 285 367

  C

  1989

  Mynogau

  318·8

  SH 830 180

  C

  Woodlands sold in Mid Glamorgan

  1982

  Land at Ffynon Dwyn

  12·4

  ST 053 964

  C

  1983

  Derwen Block

  6·4

  SS 913 824

  C

  1984

  Coed-y-Bedw

  16·0

  ST 112 827

  B

  1985

  Coed Pen y Parc

  13·0

  ST 077 933

  C

  1985

  Ogmore Washery Site

  24·1

  SS 942 894

  C

  1987

  Land at End of Dunraven

  3·7

  SS 955 976

  C

  1988

  Coed Llanfedw

  6·0

  ST 225 862

  C

  1988

  Gelli Feddgaer

  19·0

  SS 952 865

  C

  1988

  Hensol Package

  2·0

  ST 061 831

  C

  1988

  Waun y Gilfach

  37·0

  SS 845 885

  C

  1989

  Moelgilau

  36·0

  SS 904 885

  C

  1989

  Pentre Tips

  27·8

  SS 978 960

  C

  Woodlands sold in South Glamorgan

  1983

  Garn Llwyd

  13·0

  ST 060 715

  B

  1983

  Tair Onen Package—Coed Pen y Breach

  10·0

  ST 048 780

  C

  1984

  Coed Pen y Fforddfawr

  7·0

  ST 030 750

  C

  1984

  Tair Onen Packagc—City Wood

  14·4

  SS 996 782

  C

  1984

  Tair Onen Package—Oak Park Wood

  3·0

  ST 036 803

  B

  1984

  Tair Onen Package—Hill Farm Wood

  2·0

  ST 051 788

  B

  1984

  Tair Onen Package—Coed Breigan

  10·0

  SS 982 926

  B

  1985

  Tair Onen Package—Coed St Hilary

  6·0

  ST 011 732

  C

  1986

  Cwrt-yr-Alla Woods

  128·0

  ST 138 743

  C

  1986

  Tair Onen Package—Coed Horseland

  8·0

  ST 044 723

  C

  1986

  Tair Onen Package Lot 7 Coed Arthur

  26·0

  ST 039 715

  C

  1988

  Barry Link Road Ely Section

  2·2

  ST 153 755

  B

  1988

  Plymouth Wood

  52·9

  ST 153 755

  C

  Woodland sold in West Glamorgan

  1983

  Cadoxton Wood

  41·0

  SS 765 995

  C

  1983

  CPTS 3C D E (Baradychwallt)

  5·3

  SS 790 962

  C

  1983

  Mosshouse Wood

  11·0

  SS 779 981

  C

  1983

  Nicholaston Wood

  27·0

  SS 513 881

  B

  1985

  Hafodheulog Wood

  19·0

  SS 845 847

  C

  1985

  March Hywel (Pt)

  61·0

  SN 758 029

  C

  1985

  Penrhiw Angharad Uchaf

  45·5

  SS 804 995

  C

  1985

  Wern Halog Woods

  4·0

  SS 510 928

  B

  1986

  Hayes Wood

  28·0

  SS 498 987

  C

  1986

  Land for M4

  0·4

  SS 791 869

  C

  1987

  Tarreni Gleison Tip

  2·0

  SN 757 062

  C

  1988

  Derlwyn Opencast Site

  123·0

  SN 880 080

  C

  1988

  Kilvrough Wood

  7·0

  SS 555 892

  B

  1988

  Land at Nant-y-Gwddyl

  10·0

  SN 885 078

  B

  Woodlands sold in Powys

  1981

  Nant y Crach

  2·0

  SO 145 928

  B

  1981

  Birchybank Coppice

  5·7

  SO 080 917

  B

  1981

  The Forest

  3·1

  SO 170 973

  B

  1982

  Alltwnog

  20·2

  SO 018 943

  C

  1982

  Birchen Coppice

  8·5

  SO 265 573

  C

  1982

  Gae Heylin

  2·2

  SO 106 895

  C

  1982

  Cave Wood

  7·0

  SO 313 593

  C

  1982

  Coed Glan Tanat

  0·5

  SJ 148 238

  C

  486

  487

  Year

  Name

  Area (hectares)

  Grid Reference

  Species*

  1982

  Coed y Bedw

  12·0

  SO 050 560

  C

  1982

  Coed y Brain (W) and Lower

  9·3

  SO 110 982

  C

  1982

  GlynlsafWood

  4·3

  SJ 134 036

  C

  1982

  Land at Craig Farm

  2·0

  SN 853 518

  C

  1982

  Lower Cwm y Ddalfa

  9·3

  SO 014 875

  C

  1982

  Lower Wig

  3·0

  SO 125 880

  C

  1982

  Newhouse Wood

  1·8

  SO 145 928

  C

  1982

  Glyn Twymyn

  27·2

  SH 844 042

  C

  1982

  Perth y Bi

  4·1

  SO 213 927

  C

  1982

  Pwll-Iwrch and Pen y Banc

  10·0

  SH 835 011

  C

  1982

  Rook Wood and Tylau Wood

  10·5

  SO 219 408

  B

  1982

  Ty Mawrwoods

  8·0

  SO 144 970

  C

  1982

  View Wood

  5·2

  SO 217 897

  C

  1982

  Wenallt

  2·8

  SH 945 488

  C

  1983

  Carno Wood

  15·0

  SN 983 231

  C

  1983

  Coch y Dwst

  8·0

  SO 055 640

  C

  1983

  Coed y Gwernydd

  13·4

  SJ 115 150

  C

  1983

  Crynfryn and Cae Star

  23·0

  SN 975 625

  C

  1983

  Dolagored Cpt 87

  20·0

  SO 005 550

  C

  1983

  Ffridd Wood

  15·3

  SO 075 900

  C

  1983

  Gwern Dyfnant

  4·0

  SO 232 568

  C

  1983

  Cwgia Lake Woods

  7·5

  SO 054 982

  C

  1983

  Cae Heulen

  61·0

  SN 790 990

  C

  1983

  Penarth Cpt 108

  8·2

  SO 115 529

  C

  1983

  Llwyndyrys

  4·0

  SN 948 843

  C

  1983

  Crybynau Pltn

  11·6

  SN 943 857

  C

  1983

  Clydffanau

  5·4

  SN 980 850

  C

  1983

  Coedcwmheryr and Berthllwyd

  117·4

  SN 948 843

  C

  Coppice

  SN 980 850

  1983

  Rhydolgod

  13·0

  SN 940 680

  C

  1983

  Talgarth Hospital Woods

  8·0

  SO 166 327

  B

  1983

  Ty'n-y-Graig Wood

  3·7

  SO 050 977

  C

  1984

  Allt Fawr

  20·5

  SJ 140 140

  C

  1984

  Brycheiniog Main Block

  634·0

  SO 050 390

  C

  1984

  Coed Erw Ddol

  6·0

  SN 942 543

  C

  1984

  Coed Neuadd

  3·7

  SN 980 562

  C

  1984

  Coed Ty Canol

  4·2

  SN 995 522

  C

  1984

  Esgair Gronwen

  3·6

  SN 876 895

  C

  1984

  Glangwesyn Cpt 30

  9·0

  SN 865 547

  C

  1984

  Gwarallt Wood

  15·0

  SO 006 498

  C

  1984

  Bettws Dingle

  17·0

  SO 226 462

  C

  1984

  Wern Frank Wood

  6·0

  SO 195 335

  C

  1984

  Wood Near Ty'n-y-Cwm

  12·0

  SO 113 310

  C

  1984

  Llwyni Dingle

  5·0

  SO 198 445

  C

  1984

  Tynyrhos Exchange

  4·0

  SN 875 815

  C

  1984

  Cwmfforest Wood

  7·0

  SO 184 298

  C

  1984

  Burnt House Wood

  1·5

  SO 193 446

  C

  1984

  Wood Near Llandefaelog

  6·5

  SO 118 303

  C

  1984

  Hendre Ladis

  29·0

  SN 802 108

  B

  1984

  Llanfechan Wood

  10·0

  SN 978 498

  C

  1984

  Llanwrtyd Package Ffosyrhyddod

  65·0

  SN 885 505

  C

  1984

  Llanwrtyd Package Sugar Loaf

  89·0

  SN 840 431

  C

  1984

  Lluast Cpt 170 (PT) (Land Adj Penywaun)

  2·7

  SJ 023 050

  C

  1984

  Pencae Cpt 24D

  6·0

  SN 893 555

  C

  1984

  Pentrenant Dingle

  9·5

  SO 240 905

  C

  1984

  Tylwch

  26·1

  SN 973 805

  C

  1984

  Banhadlog Woods

  6·3

  SN 972 807

  C

  1984

  Penybank

  7·8

  SN 972 807

  C

  1984

  Glascoed

  8·2

  SN 988 892

  C

  1984

  Penpontbren

  13·8

  SN 972 807

  C

  1984

  Robins Bank Plantation

  3·9

  SN 978 890

  C

  1985

  Cefn Caregog

  4·8

  SJ 152 142

  C

  1985

  Coed Lladron

  28·7

  SO 121 689

  C

  1985

  Cwm Wood

  19·2

  SO 055 955

  C

  1985

  Cwm yr Ychen Cpts 10 and 11

  112·0

  SN 950 760

  C

  1985

  Foel Ortho Cpt 86

  54·0

  SJ 065 217

  C

  1985

  Wood Near Bronydd

  3·0

  SO 224 456

  C

  1985

  Land at Red Lion

  1·5

  SO 066 772

  C

  1985

  Llanwrtyd Package

  6·0

  SN 892 489

  C

  1985

  Mynydd Mawr North

  3·8

  SJ 151 217

  C

  1985

  Mynydd Mawr South

  3·7

  SJ 156 211

  C

  1985

  Mynydd Ty Coch

  10·9

  SJ 143 210

  C

  1985

  Park Wood

  57·0

  SO 166 345

  C

  1985

  Rhosgoch Wood North

  7·3

  SO 024 565

  C

  1985

  Rhosgoch Wood South

  6·4

  SO 023 558

  C

  1985

  Ty Gwyn Plantation and Neuadd Woods

  38·2

  SO 020 560

  C

  1986

  Bailey Bevan

  5·8

  SO 046 650

  C

  488

  489

  Year

  Name

  Area (hectares)

  Grid Reference

  Species*

  1986

  Bryn Hennllys Occs

  69·0

  SN 763 123

  C

  1986

  Coed Bron-y-Fedw and Penarth

  9·4

  SJ 089 032

  C

  1986

  Coed Dolgead

  4·4

  SJ 084 088

  C

  1986

  Hendre-Fach

  2·0

  SO 003 676

  C

  1986

  Land Adj The Kennels

  0·1

  SO 166 968

  B

  1986

  Rhiw-Saeson

  66·0

  SH 900 600

  C

  1987

  Allt Goch

  8·0

  SN 950 973

  C

  1987

  Cefn yr Parc Woods

  8·5

  SO 003 283

  C

  1987

  Dyffryn

  11·8

  SJ 148 133

  C

  1987

  Hay Package Trefeinon Woods

  22·0

  SO 142 298

  C

  1987

  Hay Package College Wood

  4·0

  SO 150 320

  C

  1987

  Hay Package Allt Velindre

  84·0

  SO 195 363

  C

  1987

  Hay Package Forest Wood

  36·0

  SO 207 432

  C

  1987

  Hay Package (Pt) Penylan Wood

  8·5

  SO 209 442

  C

  1987

  Nantyrofferiad (Pt)

  10·7

  SO 031 433

  C

  1987

  Parc Llwydiarth

  0·7

  SJ 020 154

  C

  1987

  Penlan Plantations

  23·8

  SO 037 655

  C

  1987

  Pontbrenddu Cpt 4

  15·0

  SN 948 595

  C

  1987

  Round Wood

  3·3

  SJ 185 098

  C

  1987

  Stonehouse Wood

  8·8

  SJ 182 102

  C

  1988

  Charity Wood

  3·0

  SO 241 210

  C

  1988

  Hay Package Cwm Brychen

  13·5

  SO 256 323

  C

  1988

  Land Adj Park Llwydiarth

  1·0

  SJ 023 153

  C

  1988

  Llanwrtyd Package Maesygwaelod

  18·8

  SN 883 483

  C

  1988

  Penarth Wood

  5·6

  SO 138 918

  C

  1988

  Plantations Near Llandrin Coed Tyddyn

  3·4

  SO 039 545

  C

  1988

  Plantations Near Llandrin Forty Acre Wood

  3·6

  SO 040 556

  C

  1988

  Plantations Near Llandrin Pencerrig East

  1·8

  SO 043 543

  C

  1988

  Plantations Near Llandrin Erw Bant

  2·0

  SO 042 562

  C

  1988

  Plantations Near Llandrin Castle Crab Wood

  2·8

  SO 044 554

  C

  1988

  Plantations Near Llandrin Dugoed Dingle

  16·0

  SO 035 540

  C

  1988

  Plantations Near Llandrin Tyncoed Woods

  23·9

  SO 029 551

  C

  1988

  Plantations Near Llandrin Cwrt yr Alla Wood

  12·9

  SO 085 610

  C

  1988

  Plantations Near Llandrin Pencerrig Wood

  7·8

  SO 040 537

  C

  1988

  Plantations Near Llandrin Cilgwynfydd

  3·5

  SO 041 549

  C

  1988

  Plantations Near Llandrin Newmead Farm 1

  12·8

  SO 055 540

  C

  1988

  Plantations Near Llandrin Coed Mawr

  6·8

  SO 050 545

  C

  1988

  Plantations Near Llandrin Newmead Farm 2

  8·6

  SO 055 536

  C

  1988

  Woodland Near Cathedine

  24·0

  SO 150 259

  C

  * The species composition is not available in any more detail than B for mainly broadleaves, C for mainly conifers and U for unplanted.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all woodlands currently proposed for sale in Wales by the Forestry Commission and state for each such woodland the(a) acreage, (b) map reference and (c) species composition.

  Name

  Area (hectares)

  Grid Reference

  Species*

  Woodlands proposed for sale in Clwyd

  Betws Lodge Wood

  13·50

  SH 928 764

  C

  Coed Pantglas and Coedynant

  26·80

  SJ 090 568

  C

  Coed y Garreg

  22·10

  SJ 133 782

  C

  Nant-y-Ffrith and Gwernto

  153·00

  SH 265 545

  C

  Plas Efenechtyd

  8·30

  SH 104 567

  C

  Woodlands proposed for sale in Dyfed

  Allt Goch

  34·30

  SN 670 810

  C

  Allt Ty Cam

  4·40

  SN 688 802

  C

  Allt Waun Corngan

  11·00

  SN 383 184

  C

  Allt Y Gwreiddyn

  35·0

  SN 675 804

  C

  Blaencennen Cpt 562

  4·00

  SN 699 200

  C

  Caeo/Brechfa Package

  33·00

  SN 585 430

  C

  Caeo/Brechfa Package

  107·00

  SN 670 490

  C

  Cenarth Estate

  58·00

  SN 295 390

  C

  Coed Aberffrwd

  12·30

  SN 685 787

  C

  Coed Cwm Cae

  4·00

  SN 747 867

  C

  Coed Cwm Llety

  3·70

  SN 629 806

  C

  Coed Gault-y-Gyrnig Cpt 295

  800

  SO 808 418

  C

  Coed Rhiwarthen

  9·00

  SN 656 790

  C

  Coed Tan-yr-Allt

  7·50

  SN 513 580

  C

  490
  Mr. Peter Walker
  [holding answer 9 March 1989] The information is given in the following table:

  491

  Name

  Area (hectares)

  Grid Reference

  Species*

  Coed Troed Rhiwfelin

  12·00

  SN 667 780

  C

  Coed y Daren

  12·20

  SN 680 834

  C

  Coed y Gwyryn

  14·80

  SN 635 823

  C

  Coedmore Estate

  56·00

  SN 195 438

  C

  College Wood

  12·00

  SN 345 168

  C

  Craig Clogan Part Cpt 281

  27·00

  SN 726 587

  C

  Cwm Cynfelin

  8·00

  SN 607 856

  C

  Edwinsford Estate

  151·00

  SN 632 346

  C

  Faedre Fawr (Pt)

  6·50

  SN 433 420

  C

  Ffynnon-Rhys (Glan-Nant)

  9·90

  SN 468 513

  C

  Foel Allt Cpt 28 Part

  7·80

  SN 319 399

  C

  Glanmarlais/Cwm Marlais

  9·00

  SN 677 334

  C

  Glanymor

  11·50

  SN 590 835

  C

  Glanyrannell Lot 1 (Alt Isaf)

  16·00

  SN 654 382

  C

  Glanyrannell Lot 2

  10·00

  SN 673 372

  C

  Glanyrannell Lot 11 (Coed Gwynion, Rosehill and Allt y Fron)

  14·30

  SN 683 300

  C

  Glanyrannell Lot 4 (Maestwynog)

  17·90

  SN 690 372

  C

  Glanyrannell Lot 5 (Cwmrilath)

  7·40

  SN 679 335

  C

  Glanyrannell Lot 6 (Cwmmarlais)

  1·00

  SN 684 333

  B

  Glanyrannell Lot 7 (Allt Ysgllbor Yoroth)

  8·10

  SN 701 332

  C

  Glanyrannell Lot 8 (Banc y Llan)

  7·30

  SN 675 715

  C

  Glanyrannell Lot 9 (Goitre)

  28·70

  SN 648 293

  C

  Glynllydan

  8·00

  SN 682 195

  C

  Gwaun Valley Pengegin

  5·90

  SN 008 345

  C

  Letterston Moor

  15·00

  SM 940 288

  C

  Little Treffgarne Wood

  46·00

  SM 965 234

  B

  Llandovery Package (Now split into smaller packages)

  466·20

  SN 770 345

  C

  Llyn Llech Owen

  64·00

  SN 570 150

  C

  Melindwr Hall

  10·00

  SN 686 818

  B

  Motygido/Penllwyber

  21·80

  SN 405 575

  C

  Musland and Lower Broadmoor

  10·00

  SM 942 275

  C

  Nant Cellan Fach

  5·00

  SN 595 843

  C

  Old Pale Package Westmeads Farm

  29·00

  SN 263 093

  C

  Old Pale Package Colston

  10·00

  SN 254 102

  C

  Old Pale Package Gors Fach

  9·00

  SN 165 293

  C

  Orchard Covert

  0·50

  SN 564 992

  B

  Parc-y-Pwll

  22·00

  SM 976 266

  C

  Pentre Euan

  28·00

  SN 090 380

  B

  Penwenallt

  30·00

  SN 206 418

  B

  Plantations near Tynybedw

  31·00

  SN 690 713

  C

  Ridgeway Estate

  15·00

  SN 068 156

  C

  Ystrad Wood

  12·00

  SN 395 189

  B

  Woodlands proposed for sale in Gwent

  Cefyn Mynog

  5·50

  SO 321 068

  C

  Craig and Dorlan Woods

  8·00

  ST 476 986

  C

  Craig Plantation

  2·00

  SO 458 153

  B

  Fruid Wood, Penallt

  2·30

  SO 529 085

  B

  Hayes Goldsmiths Joint WD

  44·50

  SO 525 150

  C

  Kinsons Plantation

  7·00

  SO 525 070

  C

  Land at Nant Hafod Tudor

  1·50

  ST 201 916

  B

  Longditch Wood

  10·00

  ST 380 876

  B

  Newport/Worcester T RD

  4·00

  SO 142 144

  B

  Park Wood (Pt)

  11·50

  ST 251 870

  C

  Risca/Rogerstone By-pass

  2·90

  ST 216 913

  C

  Routs Wood and Great Wood

  35·40

  SO 383 886

  B

  Upper Seven Acres

  5·00

  SO 441 897

  B

  Wilcrick Hill

  7·00

  SO 412 877

  B

  Woodlands proposedfor sale in Gwynedd

  Cadair Ifan coch

  52·40

  SH 790 668

  C

  Coed Gorllwyn and Coed Aber

  16·50

  SH 589 426

  C

  Craig y Gelli (Ynysfor)

  4·20

  SH 591 433

  C

  Cwm Gwared

  42·00

  SH 413 483

  C

  Dinas Mawddwy Lot 7

  1·40

  SH 872 138

  C

  Dinas Mawddwy Lot 1

  4·70

  SH 910 199

  C

  Hafotty and Garreg Fawr

  41·30

  SH 627 436

  C

  Mynydd Rhiw

  60·20

  SH 240 295

  C

  Part Dolfriog

  1·50

  SH 612 457

  B

  Penmachno-NT Lease Exchange

  27·00

  SH 770 535

  C

  Pt Escair-Gawr

  2·00

  SH 822 231

  C

  Woodlands proposed for sale in mid Glamorgan

  Coed Brithdir, Ty'r Capel

  7·00

  SO 138 027

  C

  Coed Wernlys

  6·00

  SS 898 828

  C

  Gelligaer

  32·50

  SS 768 940

  C

  Hensol Package

  24·00

  ST 034 796

  B

  Hensol Package

  6·00

  ST 029 831

  C

  492

  493

  Name

  Area (hectares)

  Grid Reference

  Species*

  Land at St. John's Colliery

  25·00

  SS 883 917

  C

  Pennsylvania

  35·00

  SS 885 832

  C

  Woodlands proposed for sale in Powys

  Allt Newydd

  15·00

  SN 993 343

  C

  Berth Ddu

  9·00

  SN 910 325

  C

  Cefn Hybol

  8·20

  SO 160 966

  C

  Cefn-Derw

  10·10

  SO 141 805

  C

  Cefyn Coed

  8·00

  SN 987 342

  C

  Coed Beili Glas/Cefn Gof

  15·00

  SN 910 325

  C

  Coed Cae Gilbert

  5·30

  SN 882 970

  C

  Coed Mawr

  7·00

  SN 946 306

  C

  Coed-y-Rhiwlas

  19·00

  SN 958 315

  C

  Cwm Lliw

  5·50

  SN 956 298

  C

  Cyfronydd

  7·70

  SJ 145 085

  C

  Dolgau

  290·00

  SN 900 935

  C

  Gamallt

  13·60

  SN 955 712

  C

  Gilfach Plantation

  8·80

  SO 275 662

  C

  Gwern Dyfnant Woods

  11·90

  SO 225 565

  C

  Gwern-f-Figyn

  6·50

  SN 948 309

  C

  Gwem-Illa

  5·00

  SO 220 540

  C

  Gwern-y-Bwlch Cpts 214·216

  32·00

  SN 870 040

  C

  Hay Package

  72·50

  SO 245 355

  C

  Llys Coppice & Penllys Ro

  16·30

  SO 175 218

  C

  Liower Ceulannau

  6·70

  SO 120 875

  C

  Lower Serth Wood

  3·60

  SN 965 695

  C

  Part Black Nursery

  9·80

  SO 210 530

  C

  Pen-y-Bryn

  12·00

  SN 957 306

  C

  Pen-y-Castle Wood (Middle)

  10·40

  SO 135 876

  C

  Pool & Kerry Hil Plantation

  12·90

  SO 135 855

  C

  Scrubby Wood

  8·60

  SO 210 540

  C

  Spite Inn

  36·60

  SN 860 405

  C

  St. Harmon

  1·40

  SN 957 700

  C

  Cefn Fannog

  390·00

  SN 820 510

  C

  Gamrhiw/Garth Bank/Cwmcly

  424·00

  SN 947 507

  C

  Woodlands proposed for sale in soulh Glamorgan

  Hensol Package

  6·00

  ST 057 785

  C

  Hensol Package

  14·00

  ST 037 785

  C

  Hensol Package

  14·00

  ST 033 783

  B

  Hensol Package

  12·80

  ST 160 835

  B

  Hensol Package

  5·00

  ST041 774

  B

  Hensol Package

  6·00

  ST041 791

  C

  Hensol Package

  4·00

  ST 055 783

  C

  Woodlands proposed for sale in west Glamorgan

  Brithdir Wood

  12·00

  SS 719 981

  C

  Briton Ferry Woods

  16·30

  SS 750 930

  C

  Caerau Park

  162·00

  SS 855 955

  C

  Craig Ynysgollen

  10·00

  SN 802 013

  C

  Craigfawr

  52·00

  SS 795 868

  C

  Gnoll Woods

  26·00

  SS 768 985

  C

  Hensol Package

  4·00

  ST 058 779

  C

  Melin Llan Road Improvement

  0·20

  SS 625 993

  C

  Pt. Penllergaer Wood

  20·20

  SN 621 002

  C

  Wern Halog Woods

  16·30

  SS 510 928

  C

  * The species composition is not available in any more detail than B for mainly broadleaves and C for mainly conifers.

HEALTH

  Schizophrenia
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish in the Official Report the number of patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia eligible for after-care under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 and discharged after detention under (a) section 3, (b) section 37 and (c) sections 47 and 48 of the Act.

  Mr. Freeman
  Central statistics for 1986, the most recent year for which figures are held, show the following numbers of discharges with a main diagnosis of schizophrenia from National Health Service mental illness hospitals and units in England immediately subsequent to a period of formal detention under these sections of the 494
  Mental Health Act 1983: (a) section 3, 933; (6) section 37, 236; (c) section 47 and 48, 6. The numbers do not relate to individuals as the same patients may be discharged and readmitted more than once during the year.

  All patients discharged following detention under these sections are eligible for after-care under section 117 of the Act.

  Abortions
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by year from April 1986 to the latest available date the total number of abortions performed under ground five of the Abortion Act 1967 in the Trent regional health authority; and what percentage this represents by year of all abortions performed.
  495
  Mr. Freeman
  I regret that the information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at a disproportionate cost. I will write to the hon. Member with the figures for the most recent year available.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the total number of abortions performed by year in the Trent regional health authority from April 1968 to the latest available date.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is shown in the table for residents of England and Wales.

  Number of terminations performed under the Abortion Act 1967 in Trent regional health authority1 to usual residents of England and Wales, 27 April 1968 to 30 June 1988.

  Year

  Number

  19681 3

  715

  19691

  2,035

  19701

  3,254

  19711

  4,240

  19721

  5,047

  19731

  9,116

  1974

  5,722

  1975

  5,081

  1976

  5,175

  1977

  5,529

  1978

  5,974

  1979

  6,626

  1980

  6,777

  1981

  6,863

  1982

  7,463

  1983

  8,847

  1984

  9,330

  1985

  9,099

  1986

  9,942

  1987

  10,392

  19884

  5,420

  Total2

  132,647

  1 Sheffield hospital region 1968–73.

  2 Total from 27 April 1968 to 30 June 1988

  3 Figure is from 27 April to 31 December only

  4 Provisional figure for I January to 30 June.

  Health Service Expenditure
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the gross domestic product was spent on the National Health Service in each year since 1959.

  Mr. Freeman
  The table shows the percentage of GDP spent on the National Health Service for the years 1959 to 1988. The expenditure figures for 1959 to 1964 have been taken from the report of the Royal Commission on the National Health Service. Figures from 1965 have been derived from the United Kingdom national accounts prepared by the Central Statistical Office.

  Gross expenditure on the NHS as a percenlage of GDP

  Year

  Per cent.

  1959

  3·3

  1960

  3·3

  1961

  3·4

  1962

  3·4

  1963

  3·4

  1964

  3·4

  1965

  3·3

  1966

  3·4

  1967

  3·6

  1968

  3·6

  1969

  3·6

  1970

  3·8

  1971

  3·9

  496

  Year

  Per cent.

  1972

  4·0

  1973

  3·9

  1974

  4·8

  1975

  5·1

  1976

  5·1

  1977

  4·9

  1978

  4·9

  1979

  4·8

  1980

  5·3

  1981

  5·5

  1982

  5·3

  1983

  5·5

  1984

  5·4

  1985

  5·3

  1986

  5·3

  1987

  5·3

  1988

  5·2

  General Practitioner Services
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average cost per patient per annum for general practitioner services.

  Mr. Freeman
  In 1987–88, the latest year for which full information is available, the total cost of the general medical services in England represented an average cost per patient per annum of about £26·50. Including the cost of drugs and appliances prescribed by general medical practitioners, the average cost rises to about £59. These figures exclude any element for the costs of hospital referrals initiated by general medical practitioner, or for the administrative costs of family practitioner committees which manage these and other family practitioner services.

  Benzodiazepines
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the percentage of those currently taking benzodiazepines in the United Kingdom who are addicted to the drug.

  Mr. Freeman
  We do not hold this information centrally.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce a compensation system for people whose lives have been damaged by benzodiazepine addiction.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have no plans to do so.

  Bolvidon
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prescriptions were dispensed for the drug Bolvidon by community pharmacists in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Mellor
  Bolvidon is a branded form of Mianserin hydrochloride. In England in 1987 community pharmacists dispensed 150,200 prescriptions written for Bolvidon. In the same period, community pharmacists dispensed a further 412,100 prescriptions written for Mianserin, in a proportion of which cases they will have supplied Bolvidon.

  Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital patients were infected with methicillinresistant staphylococcus aureus in the last year for which figures are available; how many died; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  In the year to 31 December 1988, 625 hospital patients were infected with methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) with 24 deaths attributable or partly attributable to the infection. High standards of hygiene for both patients and staff, and the thorough cleaning of infected wards, are important for the control of MRSA. A national survey of MRSA is in continual progress conducted jointly by the hospital infection division of the public health laboratory service and the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre with results being available to microbiologists on request.

  Neurosciences Centres (South East Thames Region)
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will announce a decision on the future siting of a neurosciences centre in the South East Thames region.

  Mr. Mellor
  I have today approved the proposal by South East Thames regional health authority to build a new neurosciences centre on Denmark hill, costing more than £27 million. It will bring together the two existing neurosciences units at the Brook hospital, Greenwich and at the Maudsley hospital, thus husbanding highly specialised professional expertise in order to improve the standard of treatment to patients. The centre will be on the Maudsley hospital site, but linked by a bridge to King's College hospital. The future siting of a neurosciences centre has been the subject of many years of study, with resulting uncertainty for the existing units at the Brook and the Maudsley. This decision will bring those years of uncertainty to an end. The health authorities want to improve the services now provided at the Brook hospital and I have asked the region to come back to me at the end of this year with their proposals for a range of hospital provision in the Greenwich district which will meet the needs of local people.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disabled People
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when sections 2, 3, 7, 8(ii) and 11 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 are likely to be implemented.

  Mr. Scott
  We plan to implement section 11 later this year. We have accepted the local authority associations' view that the next priority should be section 7, and detailed work on this is well under way. It will be followed by work on the remaining sections of the Act.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what account will be taken of the need of some people with disabilities for more space or extra rooms in deciding notional market rents for the purpose of housing benefit claims; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Government do not believe that the Exchequer should in general subsidise spare 498
  accommodation through the housing benefit scheme but we accept that some housing benefit claimants, such as the disabled, may need a spare room.

  Under the arrangements from 1 April 1989 for assessment of reasonable market rents, rent officers will indicate whether or not housing benefit claimants are living in accommodation with an excessive number of rooms and, if so, will assess a notional rent for accommodation of an appropriate size. They will take account of the number of people in the household, including any carer living with a disabled person.

  The decision whether to restrict the rent eligible for housing benefit is one for the local authority but, after 13 weeks, it will generally receive subsidy on benefit only up to the level of the rent officer's assessment. However, in the case of a disabled person, the local authority may restrict the eligible rent only if it is satisfied that suitable cheaper alternative accommodation is available and it is reasonable to expect the claimant to move. If the authority cannot restrict the rent, it will receive full, 97 per cent., subsidy up to the level of the rent officer's assessment and 50 per cent. sbsidy on benefit paid above that level. Benefit expenditure not met by direct subsidy is reflected in the rates support grant arrangements.

  Industrial Injuries and Diseases
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the lung diseases which are currently recognised as industrial diseases for the purposes of workers' compensation legislation.

  Mr. Scott
  The lung diseases prescribed for defined occupations under the Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Prescribed Diseases) Regulations are:

  Extrinsic allergic alveolitis (including farmer's lung)

  Poisoning by oxides of nitrogen

  Poisoning by beryllium or a compound of beryllium

  Poisoning by cadmium

  Primary carcinoma of a bronchus or of a lung

  Pneumoconiosis

  Byssinosis

  Diffuse mesothelioma (primary neoplasm of the mesothelium of the pleura or of the pericardium or of the peritoneum)

  Occupational asthma (due to exposure to specified agents)

  Primary carcinoma of the lung where there is accompanying evidence of one or both of the following (a) asbestosis; (b) bilateral diffuse pleural thickening

  Bilateral diffuse pleural thickening

  Lung cancer

  Community Care (Grants and Loans)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will indicate the number of cases in the year end 31 March for the Walthamstow, Leytonstone and Woodrange park offices of his Department in which applications for(a) community care grants and (b) community care loans were turned down.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Such information is available in the Library for the period April 1988 to February 1989. Information for March 1989 will be placed in the Library later this month.

  Central Pensions Office
  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the average waiting time for a
  499
  telephone call to the central pensions office in Newcastle after it has been received at the switchboard before it is answered by the appropriate office;

  (2) what plans there are to improve the speed of response to telephone calls by the appropriate departments at the central pensions office at Newcastle after they have been received at the switchboard.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The average time when the required extension is free is 10 seconds. Information is not collected showing how long it takes to connect to an extension when it is engaged.

  A new telephone exchange and additional lines are to be installed at Newcastle central office later this year which will help to improve response times particularly through automatic re-routing of calls.

  Grants and Loans
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, what are the staff to claimant ratios for social fund departments(a) nationally, (b) in the Northern region, (c) in South Tyneside, (d) in Gateshead, (e) in Newcastle, (f) in Sunderland and (g) in North Tyneside, respectively.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is not available in the format requested. Details are recorded monthly of the staff days spent on social fund activity. Information to 28 February 1989, the latest available date, is given in the table.

  February 1989

  Staff days spent on Social Fund

  Income Support Load

  National

  67,300

  4,395,046

  North Eastern Region

  12,442

  708,675

  North Tyneside

  Gateshead

  276

  21,072

  Newcastle St. James

  206

  14,926

  Newcastle East

  285

  14,514

  Newcastle West

  179

  10,451

  Wallsend

  173

  7,986

  South Tyneside

  Houghton le Spring

  75

  4,363

  Jarrow

  172

  7,515

  North Shields

  160

  10,438

  South Shields

  285

  12,006

  Sunderland North

  374

  18,823

  Sunderland South

  238

  15,389

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications were received in each month since 1 April 1988 for (i) community care grants, (ii) budgeting loans and (iii) crisis loans(a) nationally, (b) in the Northern region, (c) in South Tyneside, (d) in Gateshead, (e) in Newcastle, (f) in Sunderland and (g) in North Tyneside, respectively.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Details of the Department's local offices both nationally and in the north-eastern region are given in this information held in the Library. Details of the offices in the North Tyneside and South Tyneside areas were given in my reply to the hon. Member on 23 March at column 787.

  Changes to the social fund on 11 April 1988 introduced community care grants, budgeting loans and crisis loans.
  500
  Information on the numbers of applications processed for social fund loans and grants, listed by local office, is in the Library.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average time taken by social fund officers to reach a decision on crisis or budgeting loans or community care grants(a) nationally, (b) in the Northern region, (c) in South Tyneside, (d) in Gateshead, (e) in Newcastle, (f) in Sunderland and (g) in North Tyneside, respectively, for each month from April 1988.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The average for budgeting loans clearance times includes the time taken by the applicant to accept or refuse the loan offer. This time may vary from as little as a few minutes up to 14 calendar days.

  The information available is shown in the table:

  Average clearance time (in whole working days)

  Crisis loans

  Budgeting loans

  Community care grants

  April 1988

  National

  0·5

  17·1

  8·7

  North Eastern Region

  1·0

  17·1

  9·0

  North Tyneside

  Gateshead

  1·0

  24·0

  11·0

  Newcastle St. James

  1·0

  7·0

  9·0

  Newcastle East

  1·0

  16·0

  1·0

  Newcastle West

  1·0

  16·0

  14·0

  Wallsend

  1·0

  24·0

  5·0

  South Tyneside

  Houghton le Spring

  6·0

  27·0

  1·0

  Jarrow

  3·0

  14·0

  5·0

  North Shields

  1·0

  8·0

  1·0

  South Shields

  3·0

  40·0

  13·0

  Sunderland North

  2·0

  22·0

  21·0

  Sunderland South

  2·0

  19·0

  1·0

  May 1988

  National

  0·5

  11·5

  4·5

  North Eastern Region

  0·9

  11·6

  4·1

  North Tyneside

  Gateshead

  1·0

  20·0

  3·0

  Newcastle St. James

  1·0

  12·0

  1·0

  Newcastle East

  1·0

  12·0

  1·0

  Newcastle West

  1·0

  4·0

  2·0

  Wallsend

  1·0

  23·0

  2·0

  South Tyneside

  Houghton le Spring

  3·0

  4·0

  1·0

  Jarrow

  2·0

  6·0

  1·0

  North Shields

  1·0

  25·0

  1·0

  South Shields

  6·0

  30·0

  18·0

  Sunderland North

  2·0

  19·0

  6·0

  Sunderland South

  1·0

  16·0

  1·0

  June 1988

  National

  0·6

  11·2

  4·3

  North Eastern Region

  0·8

  11·2

  4·3

  North Tyneside

  Gateshead

  2·0

  11·0

  1·0

  Newcastle St. James

  1·0

  8·0

  7·0

  Newcastle East

  1·0

  9·0

  2·0

  Newcastle West

  1·0

  4·0

  3·0

  Wallsend

  1·0

  6·0

  3·0

  South Tyneside

  Houghton le Spring

  1·0

  3·0

  1·0

  Jarrow

  1·0

  5·0

  1·0

  North Shields

  1·0

  17·0

  1·0

  South Shields

  7·0

  15·0

  6·0

  Sunderland North

  1·0

  19·0

  15·0

  Sunderland South

  1·0

  26·0

  5·0

  501

  Crisis loans

  Budgeting loans

  Community care grants

  July 1988

  National

  1·0

  13·9

  9·7

  North Eastern Region

  1·1

  12·5

  8·7

  North Tyneside

  Gateshead

  2·0

  6·0

  1·0

  Newcastle St. James

  1·0

  6·0

  4·0

  Newcastle East

  1·0

  5·0

  7·0

  Newcastle West

  2·0

  7·0

  4·0

  Wallsend

  1·0

  6·0

  5·0

  South Tyneside

  Houghton le Spring

  1·0

  6·0

  1·0

  Jarrow

  1·0

  23·0

  20·0

  North Shields

  1·0

  22·0

  2·0

  South Shields

  5·0

  19·0

  11·0

  Sunderland North

  1·0

  14·0

  20·0

  Sunderland South

  1·0

  26·0

  9·0

  August 1988

  National

  1·0

  12·8

  9·1

  North Eastern Region

  1·1

  12·1

  8·5

  North Tyneside

  Gateshead

  1·0

  14·0

  2·0

  Newcastle St. James

  1·0

  8·0

  5·0

  Newcastle East

  3·0

  4·0

  1·0

  Newcastle West

  1·0

  5·0

  3·0

  Wallsend

  1·0

  9·0

  10·0

  Soulh Tyneside

  Houghton le Spring

  1·0

  8·0

  5·0

  Jarrow

  1·0

  17·0

  16·0

  North Shields

  1·0

  20·0

  3·0

  South Shields

  4·0

  30·0

  19·0

  Sunderland North

  2·0

  7·0

  7·0

  Sunderland South

  2·0

  9·0

  11·0

  September 1988

  National

  1·2

  16·3

  10·1

  North Eastern Region

  1·3

  16·0

  9·8

  Norlh Tyneside

  Gateshead

  1·0

  11·0

  3·0

  Newcastle St. James

  1·0

  12·0

  7·0

  Newcastle East

  2·0

  11·0

  3·0

  Newcastle West

  1·0

  16·0

  5·0

  Wallsend

  2·0

  13·0

  6·0

  Soulh Tyneside

  Houghton le Spring

  1·0

  9·0

  4·0

  Jarrow

  1·0

  9·0

  5·0

  North Shields

  1·0

  27·0

  8·0

  South Shields

  7·0

  14·0

  12·0

  Sunderland North

  1·0

  18·0

  13·0

  Sunderland South

  2·0

  15·0

  13·0

  October 1988

  National

  1·3

  13·8

  9·0

  North Eastern Region

  1·3

  12·5

  8·1

  North Tyneside

  Gateshead

  1·0

  10·0

  5·0

  Newcastle St. James

  1·0

  8·0

  2·0

  Newcastle East

  1·0

  10·0

  4·0

  Newcastle West

  1·0

  17·0

  5·0

  Wallsend

  2·0

  12·0

  5·0

  South Tyneside

  Houghton le Spring

  1·0

  10·0

  4·0

  Jarrow

  1·0

  11·0

  4·0

  North Shields

  1·0

  25·0

  8·0

  South Shields

  6·0

  19·0

  17·0

  Sunderland North

  1·0

  17·0

  11·0

  Sunderland South

  2·0

  13·0

  13·0

  502

  Crisis loans

  Budgeting loans

  Communiiy care grants

  November 1988

  National

  1·4

  13·3

  8·7

  North Eastern Region

  1·4

  12·3

  7·7

  North Tyneside

  Gateshead

  1·0

  8·0

  4·0

  Newcastle St. James

  3·0

  9·0

  2·0

  Newcastle East

  1·0

  10·0

  6·0

  Newcastle West

  1·0

  5·0

  3·0

  Wallsend

  2·0

  13·0

  4·0

  South Tyneside

  Houghton le Spring

  1·0

  8·0

  4·0

  Jarrow

  1·0

  14·0

  12·0

  North Shields

  1·0

  11·0

  2·0

  South Sheilds

  5·0

  17·0

  11·0

  Sunderland North

  2·0

  16·0

  12·0

  Sunderland South

  2·0

  17·0

  16·0

  December 1988

  National

  1·4

  8·6

  7·1

  North Eastern Region

  1·4

  7·5

  5·8

  North Tyneside

  Gateshead

  1·0

  7·0

  2·0

  Newcastle St. James

  3·0

  5·0

  5·0

  Newcastle East

  1·0

  4·0

  7·0

  Newcastle West

  1·0

  5·0

  2·0

  Wallsend

  1·0

  4·0

  4·0

  South Tyneside

  Houghton le Spring

  1·0

  3·0

  1·0

  Jarrow

  1·0

  10·0

  8·0

  North Shields

  1·0

  14·0

  4·0

  South Shields

  5·0

  8·0

  6·0

  Sunderland North

  1·0

  9·0

  6·0

  Sunderland South

  2·0

  14·0

  11·0

  January 1989

  National

  1·0

  10·6

  6·5

  North Eastern Region

  1·1

  9·9

  6·0

  North Tyneside

  Gateshead

  1·0

  10·0

  4·0

  Newcastle St. James

  2·0

  9·0

  4·0

  Newcastle East

  1·0

  7·0

  6·0

  Newcastle West

  1·0

  5·0

  2·0

  Wallsend

  1·0

  7·0

  6·0

  South Tyneside

  Houghton le Spring

  2·0

  9·0

  7·0

  Jarrow

  1·0

  8·0

  5·0

  North Shields

  2·0

  21·0

  2·0

  South Shields

  3·0

  14·0

  13·0

  Sunderland North

  1·0

  9·0

  6·0

  Sunderland South

  2·0

  17·0

  11·0

  February 1989

  National

  1·0

  9·3

  6·2

  North Eastern Region

  1·1

  8·9

  5·6

  Norlh Tyneside

  Gateshead

  1·0

  9·0

  3·0

  Newcastle St. James

  3·0

  6·0

  5·0

  Newcastle East

  1·0

  8·0

  14·0

  Newcastle West

  1·0

  9·0

  3·0

  Wallsend

  1·0

  9·0

  6·0

  South Tyneside

  Houghton le Spring

  1·0

  10·0

  5·0

  Jarrow

  1·0

  15·0

  11·0

  North Shields

  2·0

  23·0

  1·0

  South Shields

  3·0

  11·0

  6·0

  Sunderland North

  1·0

  9·0

  7·0

  Sunderland South

  1·0

  14·0

  9·0

  All figures are provisional and subject to amendment.
  503
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will publish a breakdown of the money spent from the latest social fund figures for community care grants, in percentage terms;

  (2) what are the latest social fund figures for the community care grants with regard to (a) the allocated budget, (b) the amount spent from the budget and (c) the proportion of successful claims in percentage terms.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Total expenditure on community care grants to the end of February 1989, was £34–1 million, and represented 56–8 per cent. of the budget, arising from 127,121 successful awards. Expenditure in February was over £6 million, representing 110 per cent. of anticipated monthly expenditure.

  Approximately 50 per cent. of all applications received to the end of February were successful. The average success rate has gradually improved from the early months of the scheme and in February was 56 per cent. The largest identifiable reason for refusal is that the applicant is not in receipt of income support.

  Incomes
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table, based on the 1979 and most recently available family expenditure surveys, showing the average weekly net incomes, that is, gross income including non-means-tested state benefits less income tax and national insurance contribution, of each of the following family types(a) one adult, non-retired, (b) one man, one woman, non-retired, single wage, (c) one man, one woman, non-retired, two-wage, (d) lone parents, (e) one man, one woman, one child, single-wage, (f) one man, one woman, one child, two-wage, (g) one man, one woman, two children, single-wage and (h) one man, one woman, two children, two-wage.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The figures requested are as follows:

  Average net income

  £ per week

  1979

  1986

  (a) One adult, non-retired

  48

  89

  (b) One man, one woman, non-retired, single wage

  84

  176

  (c) One man, one woman, non-retired, two wages

  121

  251

  (d) Lone parents

  53

  106

  (e) One man, one woman, one child, single wage

  94

  175

  (f) One man, one woman, one child, two wages

  113

  248

  (g) One man, one woman, two children, single wage

  100

  197

  (h) One man, one woman, two children, two wages

  121

  255

  Notes:

  1. Net income is defined as gross income from all sources less income tax and national insurance.

  2. "Wage" has been defined as any earnings from employment and self-employment.

  3. Categories (a) and (d) differ from the other categories in that they include all people in these family types; both earners and non-earners.

  4. Figures are given in cash terms rounded to the nearest pound.

  5. Figures are derived from the FES which is a sample survey and are subject to sampling error.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give an estimate of the average number of people receiving statutory sick pay at any one date in the year, for each financial year from the introduction of the scheme in 1983–84 to the most recently available year.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information to enable such an estimate to be made is not collected. However, I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on 23 March at columns 790–91, which gives the recorded payments of statutory sick pay in each year since its introduction. The average length of a statutory sick pay spell is about three weeks.

  International Peto Foundation
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals exist to provide finance for an international Peto foundation in Hungary for the purposes of rehabilitation of the brain-injured; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir McNair-Wilson) on 17 March at column 394.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing his estimates of the number of male and female employees expected to pay national insurance contributions (a) in a full year under the April 1989 regime, and (b) in a full year under the proposed October 1989 regime, together with the forecast number of employees and the amount of their contributions at each rate; and if he will divide the figures between those contracted-in and those contracted-out.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 7 April 1989]: The information is as follows:

  Average number of Class 1 contributors for thefull year 1989–90 under both April 1989 and October 1989 regimes (millions)

  Rate per cent.

  Male

  Female

  Total

  STANDARD RATE

  Contracted-in

  5

  0·3

  1·4

  1·7

  7

  0·5

  1·3

  1·8

  9

  3·8

  1·7

  5·5

  Total

  4·6

  4·4

  9·0

  Contracted-out

  5

  —

  0·1

  0·1

  7

  0·1

  0·2

  0·3

  9

  6·8

  2·8

  9·6

  Total

  6·9

  3·1

  10·0

  Total standard rate

  11·5

  7·5

  19·0

  REDUCED RATE (MARRIED WOMEN)

  Contracted-in

  3·85

  —

  0·5

  0·5

  Contracted-out

  3·85

  —

  0·3

  0·3

  Total reduced rate

  —

  0·8

  0·8

  505

  Rate per cent.

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Total Class 1 contributors

  11·5

  8·3

  19·8

  Estimated Full-year yield under the April 1989 regime (£ billions)

  Rate per cent.

  Male

  Female

  Total

  STANDARD RATE

  Contracted-in

  5

  —

  0·2

  0·2

  7

  0·2

  0·4

  0·6

  9

  3·9

  1·3

  5·2

  Total

  4·1

  1·9

  6·0

  Contracted-out

  5

  —

  —

  —

  7

  —

  0·1

  0·1

  9

  6·5

  2·2

  8·7

  Total

  6·5

  2·3

  8·8

  Total standard rate

  10·6

  4·2

  14·8

  REDUCED RATE (MARRIED WOMEN)

  Contracted-in

  3·85

  —

  0·1

  0·1

  Contracted-out

  3·85

  —

  0·1

  0·1

  Total reduced rate

  —

  0·2

  0·2

  Total Class 1 contributions

  10·6

  4·4

  15·0

  Contracted-out yields are net of the 2 per cent. incentive payments which are payable under the 1986 Social Security Act.

  Estimated Full-year yield under the October 1989 regime (£ billions)

  Male

  Female

  Total

  STANDARD RATE1

  Contracted-in

  3·4

  1·5

  4·9

  Contracted-out2

  5·5

  1·9

  7·4

  Total standard rate

  8·9

  3·4

  12·3

  REDUCED RATE

  Contracted-in

  —

  0·1

  0·1

  Contracted-out

  —

  0·1

  0·1

  Total reduced rate

  —

  0·2

  0·2

  Total Class 1 contributors

  8·9

  3·6

  12·5

  1 All Class 1 contributors paying NIC at the standard rate will pay 2 per cent. of the lower earnings limit and 9 per cent. of earnings in excess of the lower earnings limit (or 7 per cent. if contracted-out) up to the upper earnings limit.

  2 Contracted-out yields are net of the 2 per cent. incentive payments which are payable under the 1986 Social Security Act.

DEFENCE

  Navy Retention Rates
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to improve retention rates in the Royal Navy.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to improve retention rates in the Royal Navy.
  506
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to improve retention rates in the Royal Navy.

  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to improve retention rates in the Royal Navy.

  Mr. Neubert
  Present emphasis is on alleviating the effects of time spent at sea. We introduced last October a long service at sea bonus—now to become a monthly allowance—and are giving the seagoer financial help so that he can get home more often. Maximum notice of impending seagoing appointments and drafts is given, to help domestic and personal planning, and we prescribe minimum periods ashore between sea drafts.

  More generally, a tri-service review was recently conducted aimed at making allowances more relevant to current and prospective needs. The effect, over a period, should be beneficial to retention.

  Gulf Operations
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Navy vessels are currently deployed in the Gulf; and what impact this has on their availability for other duties.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Navy vessels are currently deployed in the Gulf; and what impact this has on their availability for other duties.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply that I gave earlier today to the hon. Members for Eccles (Miss Lestor) and for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett).

  Nuclear Submarines
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the role of emergency planning units in relation to the operation of the British nuclear submarine fleet and Royal Navy procedures for dealing with a nuclear submarine accident in a near port.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The response to a serious accident involving the reactor of a Royal Navy submarine in or near port would be a joint one, including local authority emergency planning units, the Ministry of Defence nuclear accident response organisation, the civil emergency services, and other government departments. The procedures for dealing with accidents are discussed in local liaison committees by the various authorities involved, and are embodied in public and special safety schemes.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many nuclear-powered submarines are currently held by Warsaw Pact and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries; at what rate these stocks are being increased; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are currently 210 nuclear-powered submarines in service with the Warsaw Pact and 165 with NATO. Since 1980, NATO and Warsaw Pact production rates for nuclear-powered submarines have been broadly similar, averaging five to six vessels per year.

  Conventional Forces
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the implications for United Kingdom forces levels in western Europe of progress being made at the conventional force limitation negotiations in Vienna.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The negotiations on conventional armed forces in Europe opened in Vienna on 6 March. It is therefore too early to say what will be the implications for our armed forces of any reductions which may be agreed.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much more in real terms his Department has spent on conventional defences since 1978–79.

  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much more in real terms his Department has spent on conventional forces since 1978–79.

  Mr. Younger
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer given today to my hon. Friend the Member for Boswell (Mr. Tredinnick).

  Mr. Carttiss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he now intends responding to Mr. Gorbachev's announcement of a unilateral cut in conventional forces.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We welcome the announced reductions, responding to NATO's long-standing concerns. If implemented, they will be a major step towards removing conventional imbalances in Europe. However, significant imbalances will still remain, and we shall need to maintain our capability to deter aggression while pursuing our goal of conventional stability.

  Exercise North Star
  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what lessons have been learnt as a result of the recent North Star exercise.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what lessons have been learnt as a result of the recent North Star exercise.

  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what lessons have been learnt as a result of the recent North Star exercise.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Exercise North Star 89, a United States national maritime exercise with multinational participation, including the United Kingdom, took place from 6 to 15 March 1989. Detailed assessment and evaluation of the exercise is currently being undertaken by the United States authorities and the NATO countries which participated. From a United Kingdom viewpoint, early indications are that the exercise was a success.

  Soviet Union (Nuclear Submarines)
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made concerning Soviet submarine nuclear fleet modernisation.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Soviet Union continues to modernise its nuclear submarine fleet. Five Typhoon and five Delta IV nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) have been completed and further units are 508
  expected. Typhoon, the world's largest SSBN, is armed with 20 8,000 km range, SS-N-20 submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBNs). The Delta IV is equipped with 16 SS-N-23 SLBNs. Five units of the Oscar class of cruise missile firing submarine (SSGN) have been completed so far, each equipped with 24 SS-N-19 anti-ship cruise missiles with a range of 550 km. More advanced and quieter nuclear attack submarines (SSNs) are being produced, such as the Akula and Sierra classes. The Akula will probably carry the SS-N-21, 2,500 km range, sea-launched cruise missile.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made concerning Soviet short-range nuclear forces modernisation.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made concerning Soviet short-range nuclear forces modernisation.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Soviet Union has modernised some 95 per cent. of its SNF systems in the course of the last five years and it has begun the process of transferring these new systems to its Warsaw Pact allies. The extent of this modernisation and the large number of weapons which the Soviet Union has available in this category enable it to fill any gaps in its capabilities which will be created by the elimination of missile systems under the INF Treaty. In Europe at present the Warsaw Pact has some 1,450 SNF missile launchers and some 7,000 artillery systems which are capable of firing nuclear as well as conventional and chemical munitions, compared with 88 NATO SNF launchers and some 2,500 NATO artillery systems which are assigned to the nuclear role.

  Defence Policy (Representations)
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from Scotland on defence policy since 11 March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from Scotland on defence policy since 11 March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Younger
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter).

  RAF Bruggen
  Mr. Heffer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to visit Royal Air Force Bruggen.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to visit Royal Air Force Bruggen.

  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to visit RAF Bruggen.

  Mr. Younger
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply that I gave today to the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley).

  Royal Navy (Expenditure)
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much more in real terms his Department has spent on the Royal Navy since 1978–78.

  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much more in real terms his Department has spent on the Royal Navy since 1978–79.

  Mr. Younger
  Up to the end of 1987–88, £4·5 billion more had been spent on the Royal Navy, in real terms, than would have been spent if spending had remained at the 1978–79 level. This takes into account GDP inflation and excludes expenditure on both the Falklands garrison and nuclear strategic forces.

  British Army of the Rhine
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to visit the British Army of the Rhine.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to visit the British Army of the Rhine.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to visit the British Army of the Rhine.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to visit the British Army of the Rhine.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has plans to visit BAOR in the autumn; part of this visit will be in the company of his German colleague, Dr. Scholz.

  Army (Expenditure)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much more in real terms his Department has spent on the Army since 1978–79.

  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much more in real terms his Department has spent on the Army since 1978–79.

  Mr. Younger
  Up to the end of 1987–88, £5 billion more had been spent on the Army, in real terms, than would have been spent if spending had remained at the 1978–79 level. This takes into account GDP inflation and excludes expenditure on the Falklands garrison.

  European Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met his West German counterpart to discuss progress on the European fighter aircraft project; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave the hon. Member on 7 February at column 657.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations he has had with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation European fighter aircraft management agency in the last three months.
  510
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultation he has had with North Atlantic Treaty Organisation European fighter aircraft management agency in the last three months.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  MOD officials have frequent meetings with representatives from NEFMA to discuss all aspects of the European fighter aircraft development programme.

  Defence Export Services Organisation
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received on the work of the Defence Export Services Organisation.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received on the work of the Defence Export Services Organisation.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  A considerable number of letters and representations are received from hon. Members and members of the public covering many different viewpoints including, of course, appreciation of the good work of the Defence Export Services Organisation (DESO) in helping to secure significant defence exports.

  Non-provocative Defence
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he intends adopting a strategy of non-provocative defence.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  NATO's military strategy, to which the United Kingdom is committed, is entirely defensive.

  Sea Harriers
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects work to commence on the conversion of the Royal Navy's fleet of Sea Harrier FRS 1 air defence fighters to FRS 2 standard.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Work to update the Sea Harrier began in 1983 at British Aerospace for the aircraft conversion and Ferranti for the Blue Vixen radar. The first FRS 1 aircraft will be delivered to British Aerospace for conversion to FRS 2 standard in 1990.

  Defence Efforts (Western Europe)
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his west European counterparts on the need to improve upon existing levels of defence efforts.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has regular bilateral and multilateral discussions with his western European colleagues on NATO's defence plans and the contributions made by each ally. For example, the equitable sharing of roles, risks and responsibilities within the Alliance was dicussed at the meetings of the Eurogroup and defence planning committee between 30 November and 2 December 1988.

  British Forces (NATO)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of British forces are under North Atlantic Treaty Organisation command.
  511
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Most British forces are committed to NATO, but in peacetime they normally operate under national command. However, some RAF squadrons are under NATO command in peacetime and details of these are given in annex C of volume 1 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1988" (Cm. 344-I).

  AOR Programme
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the auxiliary oiler replenishment programme.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 10 January at column 675.

  Belgian Defence Minister
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to meet the Belgian Defence Minister; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to meet the Belgian Defence Minister; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Younger
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply that I gave the hon. Members for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) and for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) earlier today.

  Free Fall Nuclear Bomb
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on a replacement for the free fall nuclear bomb.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  For credible deterrence, nuclear weapons must be kept effective and up to date. The United Kingdom's free-fall bombs are no exception, and we are continuing to study a number of options for their replacement around the turn of the century.

  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects a decision to be reached regarding the claim for compensation from the nuclear test veterans.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on 7 February at column 672.

  Westland plc
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met the chairman of Westland plc; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend's last meeting with Sir Leslie Fletcher at the Ministry of Defence was on 22 February this year. Their discussions at this meeting are treated as confidential, as are all private discussions between the Secretary of State and senior representatives of our contractors.

  RAF (Expenditure)
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much more in real terms his Department has spent on the Royal Air Force since 1978–79.
  512
  Mr. Younger
  Up to the end of 1987–88, £9 billion more had been spent on the Royal Air Force, in real terms, than would have been spent if spending had remained at the 1978–79 level. This takes into account GDP inflation and excludes expenditure on the Falklands garrison.

  Defence Expenditure
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he intends to bring the United Kingdom defence expenditure in line with the NATO average.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Both in money terms and as a percentage of GDP, United Kingdom defence expenditure is substantially above the NATO median. The United Kingdom defence budget is planned to rise over the period to 1991–92; taking into account the latest reported budgetary plans of other members of the Alliance, the United Kingdom is likely to remain among the highest-spending nations.

  US Defence Secretary
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to meet his new United States counterpart; and what issues he plans to discuss with him.

  Mr. Younger
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) today.

  Fishing Boats
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received concerning incidents involving fishing boats and submarines.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Letters continue to be received from fishermen's organisations and from other interested groups and individuals about a number of incidents in which submarines are alleged to have been involved.

  Nuclear-free Zones
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what weight he gives to declarations of local authorities that their areas are to be regarded as nuclear-free zones in deciding on disposition of naval vessels.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The disposition of naval vessels is a matter which affects national security, and as such it must remain the responsibility of central rather than local Government. A defence policy can be effective only if applied on a national basis.

  Arms Control
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on seeking arms control agreements in those areas where NATO has a technological lead over the Warsaw Pact.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The principal cause of instability in Europe is the imbalance between the conventional forces of NATO and the much larger conventional forces of the Warsaw Pact. Relative advantages in particular technologies are difficult to assess, subject to change, and
  513
  do not themselves necessarily compensate for such numerical imbalances. NATO's objective is to eliminate imbalances in the most threatening systems in Europe, thus enhancing security at a lower level of forces.

  Amazonia (Forest Fires)
  Mr. Tam Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will meet the Minister of Defence of Brazil, General Leonidas, to discuss the feasibility of British military aircraft and their pilots being loaned to Brazil for participation in forest fire fighting in Amazonia.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has no plans to seek a meeting with General Leonidas, who met Ministers for talks at the Ministry of Defence in the course of his visit to the United Kingdom in November 1987. The British armed forces have no aircraft suitable for fighting forest fires.

  Royal Arsenal, Woolwich
  Mr. John Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the sums spent on maintenance, repairs and improvements to his Department's land and buildings at the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, during each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Neubert
  The sums spent on maintenance, repairs and improvements by my Department within the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich (the Directorate General of Defence Quality Assurance and MOD lodger units) during the last 10 years were as follows:

  Year

  Maintenance and Repair £000

  Improvements £000

  1979–80

  1,125

  188

  1980–81

  1,083

  277

  1981–82

  1,212

  300

  1982–83

  1,552

  357

  1983–84

  1,802

  471

  1984–85

  2,272

  715

  1985–86

  1,785

  1,593

  1986–87

  1,846

  1,584

  1987–88

  1,749

  2,427

  The improvements from 1985–86 include expenditure needed to house DGDQA units moved from Harefield, Middlesex and Garland road, Plum stead.

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the total area of the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, already declared surplus to requirements and the area of(a) the Royal Arsenal west and (b) the Royal Arsenal east to be released for redevelopment after the relocation of the Directorate General of Defence Quality Assurance.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The total area of Royal Arsenal, Woolwich is approximately 94 acres; 12 acres in Royal Arsenal west have already been declared surplus to requirements. A further 67 acres in Royal Arsenal west and 15 acres in Royal Arsenal east would be released for redevelopment after the relocation of the Directorate General of Defence Quality Assurance.

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of his Department's discussions with the London borough of 514
  Greenwich about the future redevelopment of that area of the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, already declared to be surplus to requirements.

  Mr. Neubert
  Preliminary discussions with the London borough of Greenwich have now been held on site and we plan to have a further meeting shortly where the discussion will widen to include possible uses of the entire area of potentially surplus land at Royal Arsenal west. This follows the decision announced on 9 March 1989 to move the Director General of Defence Quality Assurance from Woolwich to Teesside, a proposal at present the subject of consultation with the trade unions.

  I will keep the hon. Member informed of progress.

  Directorate General of Defence Quality Assurance
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the total estimated cost of transferring the Directorate General of Defence Quality Assurance from Woolwich Arsenal to Stockton on Tees and the individual costs of the major elements in the relocation package;

  (2) what was the total estimated cost of relocating the Directorate General of Defence Quality Assurance at Woolwich Arsenal.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Competitive contracts will be let in connection with these proposals and therefore it would not be prudent to disclose departmental estimates of costs. Nevertheless a recent investment appraisal revealed that the net present values after 25 years and of the costs and benefits that vary with the three options studied were:

  £ million

  Continuation on two sites at Woolwich and one at Bromley

  212

  Collocation at Royal Arsenal west, Woolwich

  188

  Collocation at Teesside

  178

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimates he has made of the numbers of(a) mobile and (b) non-mobile staff likely to transfer from Woolwich to Stockton on Tees with the Directorate General of Defence Quality Assurance and the numbers he expects to recruit on Teesside.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  All staff who wish to transfer with their work would be given the opportunity to do so. Our current impression is that up to about 600 staff, mainly mobile, might transfer from Woolwich and Bromley and other MOD sources and that 900 staff, mainly non-mobile and including 250 apprentices, would be recruited on Teesside.

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the other departments currently located with the Directorate General of Defence Quality Assurance at Woolwich Arsenal, indicating the numbers currently employed at each.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The other departments currently located with the Directorate General of Defence Quality Assurance at Woolwich Arsenal and the numbers currently employed at each are as follows:

  Department

  Number of employees

  Naval Publications Store

  92

  Air Publications and Forms Store

  109

  RAF Movements Unit (London)

  33

  515

  Department

  Number of employees

  RAF Signals Unit

  194

  Ministry of Defence Police

  50

  British Library

  25

  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise

  49

  National Maritime Museum

  4

  Civil Service Catering Organisation

  12

  Property Services Agency

  66

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent on the design of a new headquarters building and on other preparations for the relocation of the Directorate General of Defence Quality Assurance at Woolwich Arsenal.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  As I indicated in my answer to the hon. Member on 20 April 1988 at columns 503–4, £300,000 was spent on sketch plans for a new headquarters building at the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, for the Quality Assurance Directorate (Ordnance). The identified costs of doing studies on other buildings are £120,000. The departmental costs of the staff carrying out a feasibility study and an investment appraisal on the future location of the Directorate General of Defence Quality Assurance were incurred in the normal course of their work and have not been separately identified.

  Bristol University (Research)
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) past, (b) present and (c) future planned research projects at Bristol university funded wholly or in part by his Department.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It is not our policy to list details of these arrangements; it is for the universities themselves to give details of any involvement that they might have.

  Military Vehicles (Explosives)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide details of the location of, ammunition carried, injuries suffered, and damage to vehicles sustained in the collisions and breakdowns of military vehicles carrying explosives that occurred on 13 December 1982, 11 January 1983, 11 December 1983, 3 December 1984, 13 May 1985, 3 December 1986, 22 July 1986 and 27 April 1988, as listed in his answer of 10 May 1988,Official Report, columns 103–4.

  Mr. Neubert
  None of the collisions or breakdowns listed resulted in injury. Minor damage was, however, sustained by vehicles involved in four of the incidents. Details of the locations are as follows:

  Date

  Route

  Location

  13 December 1982

  A17

  Lincolnshire

  21 June 1983

  A17

  Lincolnshire1

  11 July 1983

  M4

  Near Junction 131

  19 October 1984

  Not known

  Tidworth to Bulford1 Range Road, Hampshire

  13 May 1985

  Not known

  Not known

  3 December 1985

  Not known

  Cardigan, Dyfed1

  516

  Date

  Route

  Location

  22 July 1986

  A38

  Haldon Hill, Devon

  27 April 1988

  A38

  St. Budeaux, Devon

  1 The dates of these incidents were previously incorrectly recorded.

  It is not our practice to provide details of ammunition carried. The remainder of the information requested is not available.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide details of the locations, type of amunition carried and measures taken to extinguish the fires on lorries loaded wih ammunition listed in his answer of 10 May 1988,Official Report, column 104, that occurred on 24 October 1984, 1 May 1986 and 30 January 1988.

  Mr. Neubert
  The incident listed on 24 October 1984 occurred near RAF Chilmark in Wiltshire and the incident listed on 1 May 1986 on the M25 20 miles west of Chelmsford. Details of the measures taken to extinguish the fires are not recorded.

  For the details of the incident on 30 January 1988, I refer the hon. Member to the answer on 27 April 1988 at column 204. It is not our practice to provide details of ammunition carried.

  RAF Upper Heyford
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when, pursuant to his answer of 7 March 1989,Official Report. column 515, he next expects to visit RAF Upper Heyford.

  Mr. Neubert
  I intend to visit RAF Upper Heyford on 19 April to announce the results of the full study into the costs and implications of realigning the runway there.

  Women
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to alter the rules which prevent women serving in the Army from doing so in combat zones.

  Mr. Neubert
  It remains our policy that women should not be employed in direct combat roles.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards women serving in Her Majesty's Forces who have had children; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  Women with children may apply to join the armed forces. They will be accepted provided that they can satisfy the normal recruitment criteria and show that adequate provision has been made for the care of their children while on duty.

  Recruitment (Advertising)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give for the last five years for which information is available, the cost of advertising campaigns for recruitment into all three branches of the armed forces.

  Mr. Neubert
  The information is as follows:
  517

  £

  1984–85

  17,351,000

  1985–86

  8,202,000

  1986–87

  9,109,000

  1987–88

  9,402,400

  1988–89

  214,854,200

  1The figures for 1984–85 includes not only expenditure on the services' recruitment advertising but also expenditure on some civilian recruiting, range firing notices and defence sales advertising. It is not possible, given the passage of time, to identify the service element alone.

  2This figure is an estimate as final figures for 1988–89 have not yet been brought to account.

  Note:

  All figures are at outturn prices.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the estimates for the cost in the current year of the advertising campaigns for recruitment into all three branches of the armed services.

  Mr. Neubert
  The figures for the current financial year (1989–90) have yet to be finalised. I shall write to the hon. and learned Member when they become available.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to privatise his Department's research facilities at Aldermaston and Porton Down; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No.

  Next Steps Initiative
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to turn any other of his Department's research establishments into executive agencies under the Government's next steps initiative.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) on 16 March, column 274, which defined our current plans for executive agencies within the research establishments. In common with other Departments we shall be looking for further opportunities to gain increased efficiency and value for money under the Government's next steps initiative.

  Safety Critical Systems
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department's new standards for safety critical systems, DefStan 0055, will require mandatory adherence to formal methods for written software; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The draft defence standard (DefStan 0055) covering the use of software in safety critical 518
  applications in defence equipment has yet to be issued for consultation. The extent to which formal methods will be mandatory will be resolved as part of the consultation process.

  Safety-related Software
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions are taking place between his Department and the Health and Safety Commission in relation to safety-related software; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In formulating our approach to safety-related software, officials from the MOD have been—and are—involved in discussions with a wide range of agencies, including the Health and Safety Executive which is the operating arm of the Health and Safety Commission.

  Live Submarine Projectiles
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the recent finding of a live submarine projectile on St. Bees beach; and what instructions are issued to submarine commanders in respect of practising with live projectiles.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I understand that the object found on St. Bees beach, Cumbria, was not a submarine projectile but a submarine smoke float. This is a small pyrotechnic device released by a submarine during an exercise which emits smoke upon reaching the surface, thereby indicating the position of the submarine.

  Live projectiles, such as missiles or torpedoes, are fired by submarines only on the high seas and a notice of intent is always issued beforehand. Such ammunition is never fired if any surface vessel or aircraft is in the area.

  Irish Sea (Incidents)
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many incidents have been reported in the Irish sea involving submarines and fishing boats in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The number of incidents involving Royal Navy submarines and fishing vessels in each of the last five years is as follows:

  Number

  1984

  1

  1985

  0

  1986

  0

  1987

  1

  1988

  14

  1 Includes 2 yachts.

  There have been no incidents so far this year.

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

National Aviation Security Committee
Baroness Stedman Baroness Stedman asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are responsible for setting up the National Aviation Security Committee, and, if so, whether they will list the organisations from which the membership is drawn.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the National Aviation Security Committee is a consultative and advisory committee established by the Department of Transport. In addition to government departments, the police and the Civil Aviation Authority, the membership consists of representatives of the British civil aviation industry and its users. Currently, the industry and user representatives are drawn from BAA, the Aerodrome Owners Association, the Joint Airports Committee of Local Authorities, British Airways, Monarch Airlines, British Midland Airways, Dan Air, the Transport and General Workers Union, the British Airline Pilots Association and the Air Transport Users Committee.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I regret that my noble friend Lady Burton is not present to hear such a satisfactory reply to her pleas on behalf of the consumer representatives on the committee. I am sure that she will be delighted to read the Minister's reply in Hansard.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister tell us what is the function of the National Aviation Security Committee? It seems a pretty extensive one and the representatives surely cannot get down to much detail, given the number of people who appear to be on the committee.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said in my original reply, the function is a consultative and advisory one. This is a very useful body in that respect and it is perhaps notable that the United States Department of Transportation is now setting up a similar committee in the United States.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has said, the information given by the Minister is extremely interesting and valuable. He referred to the fact that the body is an advisory and consultative body. Is there any proposal to make its decisions mandatory, or should a separate
126
organisation be established which will have mandatory security control over both airports and airlines?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, there is no proposal to make NASC's recommendations or advice mandatory. That is for the Department of Transport, which is responsible for aviation security. Obviously, it is useful for us to be able to discuss that matter with the representatives whom I mentioned in my original Answer in order to seek their views and to receive suggestions from them, but it must remain a ministerial responsibility to make the decisions.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us believe that security in our airports is bad and that we now realise why? It is because there are so many members on the committee which is supposed to look after that matter.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I regret the noble Lord's question. Security in our airports is not bad at all. It is as good as, or better than, security almost anywhere else in the world. Admittedly, there are always ways of tightening it up and no doubt there always will be, but we do our best.

Employment: NOP Survey
2.40 p.m.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they intend to publish the full text of the NOP survey referred to in paragraph 2.2 of the Green Paper Removing the Barriers to Employment.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, a summary of the results of the survey which was carried out for the Employment Department by NOP Market Research Limited was published on 20th March, and copies of that summary have been placed in the Library. An Article containing a full analysis of the survey will be published in the Employment Gazette later this year.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Will he tell us whether the article in the Employment Gazette will explain how after 830 people, 350 of whom replied and 200 of whom said that they were in a pre-entry closed shop, the Government reached the figure of 1.3 million? Will the article in the department's Employment Gazette tell us that? Will he tell us why the question was asked, not whether people were in closed shops but what would happen if they left—a question that they could not possibly answer? Will it tell us why such a ridiculous question was asked and, on the basis of that extremely doubtful survey, why the Government want us to treble the number of workers in pre-entry closed shops?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the survey was carried out by a very reputable company in that field and the work was done on a scientific and proper basis.

127
As the noble Lord will be aware, the techniques for taking samples and producing conclusions of that kind are very sophisticated these days, and those sophisticated techniques were used on that occasion.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is it not a fact that the Green Paper sets out a remedy for those people denied a job because they do not belong to a union? Will the Minister be good enough to tell the House what plans the Government have for providing remedies for individuals who cannot obtain jobs because they belong to unions?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is abudantly the case that to maintain massive restrictions upon entry to various industrial enterprises by virtue of some requirement to join a union is no way to provide additional employment opportunities. The fact of the matter is that loosening the constraints upon the closed shop in one way or another increases employment opportunities for all concerned.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that what he has just said applies to many professions, for example, the legal profession?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that is a very interesting supplementary question, but it does not arise directly from the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, has the noble Lord studied the important proposals for additional employment opportunities made on Saturday by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales? As the noble Lord is the spokesman for Wales in this House I am sure that he is close to his right honourable friend and therefore will agree with everything that he said. Will he say what consideration is being given to Mr. Peter Walker's very important speech?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am of course a government spokesman in this department and not just a spokesman for individual departments.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, that is about the poorest answer that the noble Lord has given in this House.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that his scientific survey is completely contradicted by three much more scientific surveys based on 3,600 replies which completely disprove everything in his report?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am aware that the noble Lord is a very distinguished practitioner in this field. I am sorry that my right honourable friend did not engage his services to produce this particular survey. I know that the noble Lord has produced some important works on this matter. I dare say they were prepared on a different basis. However, we are quite persuaded that the techniques used to produce these figures, which are very comprehensive, were the right ones and have produced the right results.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, will the Minister say whether it is the intention to produce the whole of the report rather than sections of it for the consideration of this House?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, to be truthful there is no report as such. What there is—and I have seen it—is a very voluminous collection of computer print-outs in the form of figures with the results of the analysis. A much more meaningful document will be the article which will appear later this year in the Employment Gazette. It will be a full analysis of the survey producing all the relevant figures.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I think that the Minister owes it to the House to give a more precise answer to my question. Will he say whether or not he agrees with the proposals made by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales in his speech on Saturday?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, from what I have seen of the accounts of my right honourable friend's speech, it related to economic policy generally and that is not the matter addressed by this Question.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not the case that the noble Lord's right honourable friend dealt in detail with the creation of new opportunities in employment, which is related to this Question? I ask the noble Lord whether he agrees with his proposals. That is very relevant to the Question.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have not had a chance to study my right honourable friend's speech in detail but if it proposes new employment opportunities in Wales then that is much to be welcomed.

The Blandford Fly
2.46 p.m.
Baroness Sharpies Baroness Sharpies asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in the biological war against the Dorset Fly.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, the Government have approved an application by the North Dorset District Council for a small-scale trial of the biological insecticide BTi against the Dorset or Blandford Fly, as it is more commonly known. This trial will take place in a side channel of the River Stour as soon as conditions permit.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. If this attack on the Blandford Fly is successful, will there then be a full-scale attack launched next year on a larger area of the River Stour?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if this trial is successful urgent consideration will be given to a future larger scale trial, possibly encompassing the whole river. It will depend on this year's trial.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Is it a fact that this fly has had the effect of polluting and depleting a number of the Dorset rivers? If that is the situation can the Minister tell the House whether privatisation of water will help in that regard?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Baroness has taken an excellent opportunity but I am afraid that her premise is wrong. This particular fly prefers fast-flowing rivers.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, can my noble friend assure the House that this insect, which is clearly most unpleasant, is not on any list of endangered or protected species, and that its total extinction far from being lamented would be the cause of celebration, not least in Dorset?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I can confirm to my noble friend that it is not an endangered species. It is a very nasty little piece of work indeed.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Minister referred to the control of the Blandford Fly by insecticides. Is there any work being undertaken on the control of the fly by the use of insect predators?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I referred to what is described as a biological insecticide which is in fact a spore ingested by the fly which then eats up its insides, as it were.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, can the Minister say what are the bad effects on people bitten by the fly?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it can produce large bites which can cause very nasty side effects. They have been reported as nausea, diarrhoea and arthritis-like symptoms.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, does my noble friend think that this fly might respond to the same treatment as that given to its celebrated European cousin, the Spanish Fly?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, that would have to be the subject of another trial. I think that we should deal with this one first.

Carriage of Explosives
2.49 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress is being made in changing the regulations governing the carriage of explosives in the United Kingdom.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic will today lay the Road Traffic (Carriage of Explosives) Regulations 1989. These regulations introduce new controls over the carriage of explosives by road and come into force on 3rd July.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. The serious and tragic accident in Peterborough is no doubt still under inquiry. Are the Government completely satisfied that the regulations already prepared are best formulated to meet all likely situations, in particular concerning mixed loads and the marking of vehicles?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the new regulations will deal with the problem of mixed loads and with labelling. As with all Health and Safety Executive regulations, they will be reviewed after 12 months of use. If any improvements can be made to them, they will be made.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, these are very important regulations. Will they be made by affirmative resolution, or by the negative procedure? That would appear to be a very important matter. According to a Written Answer given by his ministerial colleague, Mr. Peter Bottomley, in the Commons Hansard of 22nd March, in 1986–87 there were 101 accidents involving heavy goods vehicles carrying hazardous substances, and in 1987–88 there were 68. Is the noble Lord aware of the nature of those hazardous substances. In how many instances were explosives being carried?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, without notice I cannot give a breakdown of the accidents. There have been very few accidents involving explosives in this country. The last major one was in 1957. Since then there have been seven or so minor incidents which have not involved an explosion. The order is indeed by negative procedure.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that this Question also covers the carriage of atomic and other toxic waste—by road and rail? Can he tell the House what safeguards there are for the movement of such dangerous materials on our railways? One sees these trains regularly; for example from Hampstead Heath. What are the safeguards that the Government place on such movements.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is nothing to do with this Question.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that about four years ago in a demonstration British Rail crashed at 100 miles per hour a train that was packed with atomic waste and there was no explosion? It was just a lot of smoke.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that may be the case but it has nothing to do with the new regulations either.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I should like to press the Minister. I appreciate that he cannot give an answer now. However, this order will be of the utmost importance. We do not wish to take up the time of the House having a prayer to annul it. Will he therefore urge government managers that the order should proceed by affirmative resolution?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not certain how we would save the time of the House either by having a prayer or by approving the order by affirmative resolution. These regulations are made under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. At the time it was obviously thought that such orders should proceed by negative resolution, and that remains the case.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, does that Act not apply to the carriage of atomic and other waste?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the regulations to which I have referred, about which my noble friend asked me, have nothing whatever to do with the carriage of atomic waste. They refer to the carriage of explosives. I thought that had been made perfectly clear.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Companies Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the order of commitment of the Police Officers (Central Service) Bill will be discharged.

Buckinghamshire County Council Bill [H.L.]
2.54 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Kingston upon Hull City Council Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Companies Bill [H.L.]
2.55 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of Tuesday last, that the House do now again resolve itself into a Committee upon the Bill in respect of Part V.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into a Committee upon the Bill in respect of Part V.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee (on Recommitment) accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. C18:
After Clause 96 insert the following new clause:
("Written resolutions of private companies.
.—

(1) Chapter IV of Part XI of the Companies Act 1985 (meetings and resolutions) is amended as follows.

(2) After section 381 insert—

"Written resolutions of private companies
381A.—

(1) Anything which in the case of a private company may be done—

(a) by resolution of the company in general meeting, or

(b) by resolution of a meeting of any class of members of the company,

may be done, without a meeting and without any previous notice being required, by resolution in writing signed by or on behalf of all the members of the company who at the date of the resolution would be entitled to attend and vote at such meeting.

(2) The signatures need not be on a single document provided each is on a document which accurately states the terms of the resolution.

(3) The date of the resolution means when the resolution is signed by or on behalf of the last member to sign.

(4) A resolution agreed to in accordance with this section has effect as if passed—

(a) by the company in general meeting, or

(b) by a meeting of the relevant class of members of the company,

as the case may be; and any reference in any enactment to a meeting at which a resolution is passed or to members voting in favour of a resolution shall be construed accordingly.

(5) Any reference in any enactment to the date of passing of a resolution is, in relation to a resolution agreed to in accordance with this section, a reference to the date of the resolution, unless section 381C(4) applies in which case it shall be construed as a reference to the date from which the resolution has effect.

Written resolutions: supplementary provisions.
381B.—

(1) A resolution may be agreed to in accordance with section 381A which would otherwise be required to be passed as a special, extraordinary or elective resolution; and any reference in any enactment to a special, extraordinary or elective resolution includes such a resolution.

(2) Nothing in section 381A affects any enactment or rule of law as to—

(a) things done otherwise than by passing a resolution, or

(b) cases in which a resolution is treated as having been passed or a person is precluded from alleging that a resolution has not been duly passed.

(3) Section 381A has effect notwithstanding any provision of the company's memorandum or articles.

(4) Section 381A has effect subject to the exceptions specified in Part I of Schedule 15A; and in relation to certain descriptions of resolution under that section the procedural requirements of this Act have effect with the adaptations specified in Part II of that Schedule.

Rights of auditors in relation to written resolution.
381C.—(1) A copy of any written resolution proposed to be agreed to in accordance with sections 381A shall be sent to the company's auditors.
(2) If the resolution concerns the auditors as auditors, they may within seven days from the day on which they receive the copy give notice to the company stating their opinion that the resolution should be considered by the company in general meeting or, as the case may be, by a meeting of the relevant class of members of the company.
A written resolution shall not have effect unless—

(a) the auditors notify the company that in their opinion the resolution—

(i) does not concern them as auditors, or

(ii) does so concern them but need not be considered by the company in general meeting or, as the case may be, by a meeting of the relevant class of members of the company, or

133

(b) the period for giving a notice under subsection (2) expires without any notice having been given in accordance with that subsection.

(4) A written resolution previously agreed to in accordance with section 381A shall not have effect until that notification is given or, as the case may be, that period expires.".
(3) After section 382 insert—
"Recording of written resolutions.
382A.— (1) Where a written resolution is agreed to in accordance with section 381A which has effect as if agreed by the company in general meeting, the company shall cause a record of the resolution (and of the signatures) to be entered in a book in the same way as minutes of proceedings of a general meeting of the company.
(2) Any such record, if purporting to be signed by a director of the company or by the company secretary, is evidence of the proceedings in agreeing to the resolution; and where a record is made in accordance with this section, then, until the contrary is proved, the requirements of this Act with respect to those proceedings shall be deemed to be complied with.
(3) Section 382(5) (penalties) applies in relation to a failure to comply with subsection (1) above as it applies in relation to a failure to comply with subsection (1) of that section; and section 383 (inspection of minute books) applies in relation to a record made in accordance with this section as it applies in relation to the minutes of a general meeting.".").
The noble Lord said: This is the first of a series of new clauses which aim to simplify the procedures under which private companies operate. Their basic aim is deregulatory, but we have taken care to ensure that there are safeguards to prevent abuse.
There are two central planks to the reforms. First, new provisions make it clear that a private company has the right to substitute the unanimous written agreement of its shareholders for resolutions of shareholders made at a general meeting. Secondly, a private company is enabled to opt out by unanimous resolution—either written or at a meeting—of as many of certain company law requirements as it chooses. This latter option has come to be described as the "elective regime".
The reforms originated in proposals worked out by the Institute of Directors' working group on company law reform, and I should like to put on record the Government's appreciation for the group's work. The present proposals also benefit from comments made on the original proposals by such bodies as the Law Society, the Law Society of Scotland, the Institutes of Chartered Accountants, the Chartered Association of Certified Accountants and organisations representing many small firms. All of these bodies supported the main thrust of the Institute of Directors' proposals and made some valuable comments on the way that they night be put into practice. In the event, we have decided, at least at this stage, not to allow the opting out of as many of the provisions of company law as the Institute of Directors originally thought might be desirable. But we do propose to give all private companies the option of entering the elective regime, and not just owner-managed companies as was originally proposed.
The basic propositions behind the reforms are that certain of the requirements of company law are not necessarily apt for the circumstances of every company and that the members of some companies may welcome the opportunity to dispense with certain requirements which may, in their case, have
134
little meaning or utility and may for them be no more than unnecessary formalities. This might perhaps be most often the case for small companies where the management is the same, or nearly the same, as the owners. We fully accept that not all the members of private companies will be happy that their company should take advantage of these freedoms, and that when there is not so close an identification between members and management, the requirements which could be dispensed with can play an important role in protecting members' interests. Every member will, however, effectively have a veto for both the written resolution procedure and entry into the elective regime will require the unanimity of members. Other safeguards are also provided in the new clauses to protect members' interests.
I shall have more to say on the elective regime when I introduce the relevant new clauses. I think that it might be helpful to the Committee if I say a few words about the broad effect of this first new clause. I shall have some more detailed comments to make in response to the amendments which Members opposite have put down to the new clause.
The new clause concerns the manner in which shareholders may make resolutions. It provides that anything which may be done by resolution of the company in general meeting, or by resolution of a meeting of a class of shareholders of the company, may be done by a resolution in writing signed by or on behalf of all the members of the company entitled to attend and vote at the meeting. The Committee will want to know that in several decisions the courts have ruled that such decisions are valid in place of resolutions at meetings, so what we are doing here is scarcely novel. We propose to legislate to make the position clear so as to remove any doubts about resolutions in particular cases where the courts have not yet had to make a decision, and in order to reassure owners of small companies about the lawfulness of such procedures.
There is a particular safeguard in this new clause to protect shareholders' interests. Essentially the clause preserves the rights of auditors under Section 387 of the Companies Act to be heard at a general meeting on business which concerns them as auditors. A copy of all proposed written resolutions must be sent to the company's auditors and if a resolution concerns them as auditors, they may give notice that in their opinion the resolution should be considered by the company in general meeting. If the auditors did give such notice, the resolution would not have effect. Other safeguards are provided in the next new clause.
I hope that the Committee will agree with us that this is a worthwhile deregulatory reform for private companies. I beg to move.
3 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. C18, Amendment No. C19:
Subsection (2), in the proposed new section 381 A, in subsection (1), line 7, leave out ("and without any previous notice being required").
The noble Lord said: The Committee will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for explaining the general thrust behind the two sections, if I may call them that, that we are to deal with

135
this afternoon. The first is the written resolution procedure and the second is the selective regime procedure. Almost all the amendments that I and my noble friends will be moving are probing amendments. The reason we asked for a recommitment of this set of new government amendments was that we felt that it would not be sensible for this Chamber to deal with this matter on a Report basis.
We have no particular difficulty about the concept of written resolutions. Nevertheless there are some difficulties about the details. I hope that as we go through our proceedings this afternoon the Government will be able to reassure the Committee that our worries are unfounded. I address myself now to Amendment No. C19. The question arises on a written resolution as to whether there should be any previous notice. The government amendment as drafted suggests that there should not necessarily be any previous notice but that a written resolution can be moved, adopted and signed as set out in the amendment and there it is. Nobody is any the wiser. It can all be done in 30 seconds. The problem is that a company does not only consist necessarily of ordinary shareholders. It may consist of a variety of classes of shareholder and also, if it is trading, a company will have creditors in the normal course of business. It would be odd if the creditors, to take that class, were to be faced by a written resolution which would normally be the cause of notice in a general meeting, without having had the opportunity to comment. It would equally be odd if some of the shareholders in another class were to be faced with such a resolution without any previous notice.
Let me give an example of what I mean. In many cases over the past 10 years we have had rescue operations of companies, sometimes public companies which have been turned into private companies as a result of the rescue operation. A bank or a rescuing financial institution has taken preference shares in the company and at the same time has lent a lot of money. It has done so to preserve the company's balance sheet. As the amendment stands, in such a case the ordinary shareholders could, as long as they do not affect the class of preference shareholder, without any previous notice being required pass a resolution in written form as long as it is properly accomplished according to the amendment which might in certain circumstances prejudice the interests of the preference shareholders and the bank as creditor. The same is true not on rescue operations but on management buy-outs. In such cases, as the Committee will know, there may be many varieties of financing and what is known as "mezzanine financing" (to use the jargon) which involves an equity element where the mezzanine financier could be prejudiced if he does not have proper notice of what the ordinary shareholders propose to do by written resolution. I hope that the Government will think very carefully before proceeding with this, or at least produce arguments to show that they have considered the various difficulties that might arise. I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I too thank the Minister for his introductory remarks about the amendments
136
which have been showered upon us during the last few days. I have no difficulty about the general scene of these amendments dealing with private companies. As the Minister mentioned the action of the Institute of Directors, perhaps I should declare an interest in that for many years I have been a member of the Institute of Directors, and I am also on the management committee of the Welsh branch of the Institute of Directors.
I have put my name to all these amendments and therefore it may save time if I say that I agree with all the amendments from Amendment No. C19 to Amendment No. C29. I agree especially with the explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, who has such great experience in these matters, that it would be going too far in the regulatory activities of the Government in the new Section 381A(1) that action could be taken,
"without any previous notice being required".
In these circumstances, I support the amendment to delete those words.
Lord Mottistone: I am told that these amendments have been considered by the Small Businesses Council of the CBI, in the sense that it considered the DTI's consultative document based on the Institute of Directors' proposals. As a result of that consideration, the CBI tells me that it agrees in principle with the introduction of written resolutions for private companies and with the elective regime for private companies as outlined in the original consultative document. However, this is in part due to the lack of time to consider these amendments, and the CBI would like to examine the reasons put forward in today's debate to see what action, if any, to take in relation to recommending any other amendments in the future. In principle the CBI and I agree with the kind of amendments that the Government have put before us.
Lord Strathclyde: I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on the introductory new clause to our new procedure. I do not believe that we ought to insist, as does the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, on prior notice being given of a resolution. Given the procedures already laid down in the new clause, that appears to be unnecessary.
By virtue of new Section 381A(2), a member has to have given to him a document which accurately states the terms of the resolution, so that he can consider it. He is not then forced by the procedure to make a decision by a particular time, as he would be, in the nature of things, if the procedure were a resolution in a meeting. Because the procedure itself does not impose a particular limit on the period of the members' consideration, it need not itself require a period of notice of the resolution. Moreover, a requirement of prior notice would prejudice the ability of companies to pass resolutions under this procedure at short notice.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, gave as a specific example the case of a preference shareholder. Where preference shareholders are entitled to vote they will be able to sign a written resolution under this section. Otherwise shareholders do not have the right to vote on a resolution at a meeting and, therefore, they are not required to sign a written resolution.

137
Furthermore, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, raised the question of creditors. There is nothing odd in that because creditors would not receive the notice as under existing law they do not receive the notice of meetings.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I do not believe that the noble Lord has addressed the points that I made. I accept that under his amendment preference shareholders will be able to vote on matters affecting their rights. That is perfectly clear; I can read the amendment. But where ordinary shareholders pass resolutions which may affect not the rights of preference shareholders—because they are enshrined in a document setting out the terms of the preference—but the rights of certain general interests of the company they may affect the value of the preference shareholders' investment.
Equally, where there is notice, creditors of a company make certain that they receive the notice and they may be the same people. That is why I specifically put forward the rescue operation where a preference shareholder is also a lender to the company on a secured or unsecured basis. Even if he is not a preference shareholder, he will still keep his eyes open and make sure that he receives the notice.
I should like to give the noble Lord another example. Any banker operating in any organisation up and down the country will make sure that, as part of the loan agreement with the company, he receives the document relating to general meetings. That is normal procedure because he is a creditor and is entitled to do so. For the ordinary shareholder to be able to pass resolutions in general meetings without prior notice could—I do not say that it will—easily prejudice the interests of both preference shareholders and creditors. That is the point that I am trying to make.
Lord Strathclyde: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, misunderstands the position. There is no desire to change the existing law; we are merely changing the procedure. Therefore, the existing rights of preference shareholders, creditors or bankers will still exist under the new procedures.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I understand that there is no question of changing the existing law and that the same rights will apply. All that concerns me is that creditors and different classes of shareholders should have proper notice of what the ordinary shareholders decide to do. That does not appear to be difficult to achieve. It would help to ensure that, when written resolutions are finally agreed, they would not upset the creditor or preference shareholder.
I am not trying to change the law relating to the rights of such people and I understand that the Government are not trying to do so. I should merely like the procedure to be tempered by a regard for the other class of shareholders and the creditors.
Lord Strathclyde: I do not believe that this is a matter to be put in statute. As the noble Lord has
138
said, creditors can insist, as a matter of contract, on receiving copies of the proposed resolutions. Existing contracts can be changed. Ultimately this must be a matter for the creditors and not for Parliament.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Before the Minister sits down, I should like to ask whether his argument is not an odd one. We shall come to the new Section 381B(3) later in the Marshalled List, but it is relevant now. The legislation will change the law because, notwithstanding what has been agreed in the articles, the rule of such resolutions as that in new Section 381A being allowable without previous notice will be a rule of law. It stands, notwithstanding any provision in the articles of association, and therefore there will be a serious and important change in the law. Perhaps the Minister can give a good reason for that, other than that it is deregulatory.
Lord Strathclyde: The subsection referred to by the noble Lord does not affect any contract that the creditor may have with those to whom he lends money or with the company. Secondly, the noble Lord asked for more justification for not accepting the amendment. Ultimately the prior notice will negate the whole purpose of the reform in that it will delay the procedure. One of the aims is to make procedures quicker and more efficient for companies.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: Perhaps I may intervene and give a further example because I do not believe that the Minister has dealt with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. In private companies it often happens that somebody lends money to the company. There are no debentures or preference shares; merely a loan to the company. I ask rhetorically whether that person's position would be jeopardised if action was taken without real notice of his position.
I do not know whether that is an example which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, had in mind when he referred to creditors. I believe that the Minister has in mind a creditor similar to someone from a grocer's shop. I am concerned about the man who has helped the company by lending money without requiring a contract or shares. His position is perfectly understood by the directors.
Lord Strathclyde: Surely, it is for the person who has lent the money to decide on what conditions he will do so. If he says that he must have a copy of all written resolutions which arise, that is, fair enough. However, that is his decision and not one which needs to be set down in law.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: The Minister is describing a caveat emptor position for the person who lends the money. It often happens that a company is in a difficult situation and a wealthy member of the company lends money without any contracts, lawyers and so forth. Everyone understands the position and it is a gentlemen's agreement. As a lawyer I know that gentlemen's agreements cause a great deal of trouble. However, in this case the person involved should not be prejudiced.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord spoke of a "member of the company" lending money. If he were a company member he would have received the resolution in the first place. If he did not wish to agree to it he would not need to do so. Again, that would be a decision entirely for him.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The Minister has given away his position by saying that what would happen in the event would be that, by contract, the creditor would require notice of any written resolution before it came up. That is exactly what would happen. It does not help to have in a statute the phrase "without any previous notice" when by contract the whole matter will be rendered null.
I advise the Government to reconsider the amendment. I see that they are not prepared to reconsider. We have had an interesting debate but I do not believe that the Government have a shred of a case. Nevertheless, we shall look at the matter again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. C18, Amendment No. C20:
Subsection (2), in the proposed new section 381A, subsection (1), at end insert ("if the same had been held at the time such resolution has effect").
The noble Lord said: This is a somewhat complex amendment. We notice that the government amendment provides that the written resolution may be signed by the member or on his behalf. The government amendment does not make clear who is to have authority to sign on behalf of a member. Is it intended to be limited to persons in whose favour a member has given a power of attorney or, in the case of a corporation, to a duly authorised representative? Who is empowered to sign on behalf of a member?
It may take quite a long time to obtain the signatures of all members because many private companies have large numbers of shareholders. If a new member appears on the register after the resolution has been circulated, presumably that member's signature will have to be obtained. That position would be made quite clear if the terms of this amendment were accepted. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I do not believe that there is any problem with the existing wording of the government amendment, and I think that the noble Lord's amendment could only cause confusion.
I confirm that our policy is that the resolution has to be signed by all of the members of the company, including those who become members after the process of signature of the resolution has commenced, but before it is finished. This is achieved by the existing wording of the government amendment.
New Section 381A(1) provides that those who must sign are those who are entitled to attend and vote at the date of resolution. New Section 381A(3) tells us that that date is when the last member signs it. It follows that the resolution cannot have effect
140
until all the members of the company at that date who are entitled to attend and vote have signed it.
As to the question of authority to sign, that is determined by general law and it is not necessary to spell out anything here. The Government believe that this section is crystal clear.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Again, I do not find those arguments convincing. I do not understand that the words "on behalf of" mean in general law what the Government seem to think they mean. "On behalf or means someone who is specifically empowered. I am unhappy that the Government do not accept this amendment, which does not come from me but from outside advisers. I very much hope that the Government will look again at the arguments and perhaps consult more widely to see whether their position is as strong as they think it is. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. C18, Amendment No. C21:
Subsection (2), in the proposed new section 381A, subsection (1), at end insert ("and no resolution shall have effect until it has been so signed").
The noble Lord said: Again, this is to make sure that the resolution has been signed and that it does not have any effect until such time as it has been signed. The reality of the matter in commercial terms is that information will become known once a written resolution is circulated—and as I said before, it may take quite a long time to obtain the signatures of all shareholders whether of one class or of ordinary shareholders only. People might start to take action on the basis that the resolution was concluded. I believe that to clarify the proposed government amendment, it would be useful to include the words of my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: Again, we feel that these words are a wholly unnecessary addition to the Bill. The first part of new Section 381A(1) sets out the effect of what a resolution in this form is to have. The second part defines the form of the resolution which is to have that effect. The resolution is one
"in writing signed by or on behalf of all the members of the company who at the date of the resolution would be entitled to attend and vote"
at the relevant meeting. Since, by definition, the resolution has to be signed in the prescribed manner and by the prescribed people, it must be apparent that a resolution cannot have the consequences provided in the first half of the subsection if it has not been so signed. Therefore, I believe that the situation described by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, would never arise and that, therefore, the amendment is redundant.
Lord Williams of Elvel: We are having an argument about what happens in the real commercial world. My own belief is that once a written resolution has begun to circulate among members of a private company, many other people will start to take measures if it were a relevant resolution such as to affect the creditors of the company, which is what I

141
am concentrating on in this series of amendments. I believe that this amendment is necessary to make sure that creditors of the company realise that nothing can be done until the resolution is properly signed in the manner suggested by the government amendment. I do not believe that the amendment is unnecessary but I believe that it is helpful and clarificatory.
Lord Strathclyde: With leave, perhaps I can briefly say that directors are not entitled to act on the basis of the resolution unless they know that all relevant signatures have been obtained, and neither is anyone else allowed to act on that resolution. People do not take commercial decisions on the basis of pure rumour.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Lord says that other people are not allowed to act but, commercially, other people will act. For example, the bank might pull the plug if it sees a resolution, written and signed by nine out of 10 members, affecting its interest. While awaiting the last signature, the bank might say that it will call in its loan and that will be the end of it.
Lord Strathclyde: With great respect, how does that differ from the present situation, where a resolution has to be circulated well in advance? I do not believe that the noble Lord understands exactly what we are trying to do here which, as I said earlier, is to make it easier and more efficient for companies to run their internal affairs. The provision is perfectly clear, and we do not believe that the amendment is necessary.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I will tell the noble Lord how it differs from what happens at present. When a resolution is circulated well in advance the bank—if I may use that as an expression for the general creditor—has an opportunity to go to the ordinary shareholders and say that if they pass a resolution which affects the bank's interest, it will pull the plug. That is why the first amendment was so very important. At present, without previous notice, there will be written resolutions circulating and the bank may well say that it will take that action. My amendment is helpful and clarificatory, but if the Government are going to refuse all amendments and all suggestions from this side of the Committee then there is nothing we can do other than to have debates of this nature.
Lord Strathclyde: I should just like to make a very brief point. It is most kind of the noble Lord to bring these points to the attention of the Government and we try to discuss them in a fair manner. Later on we shall reach amendments with which the Government will agree. However, this amendment does not seem to add very much to the Bill.
Lord Williams of Elvel: We have had a discussion and I believe that the noble Lord has registered my points, as I have registered his. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. C18, Amendment No. C22:
Subsection (2), in the proposed new section 38 IA, in subsection (2), line 2, leave out ("a") and insert ("an identical").
The noble Lord said: This, again, is a small amendment. The document to which signatures are to be applied, need not in the words of the government amendment, be on a single document, provided that each is on a document which accurately states the terms of the resolution. In these days of photocopying, I should have thought it perfectly in order to say that the document on which the signatures should appear should be identical between all members of the company.
In my view, when a written resolution is produced by a private company, it would not be out of order to insist that it should be photocopied, that the photocopy should be certified by an appropriate officer of the company—the chairman of the board, or whoever it is—and that that is the copy which should be signed. To have a document which may be a manuscript document which says, "well, other members have decided", may accurately state the terms, but to have that signed does not seem to be good enough. Therefore, again as a clarificatory amendment, I offer this to the Government. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has obviously put an enormous amount of thought and work into bringing forward these amendments. Again, it is no disrespect to the noble Lord that the Government do not see them as being entirely necessary. I am afraid that the same has to be said for this amendment.
I doubt that we should prescribe that the documents which members sign must be identical in every respect. The purpose of the reform is to allow for more flexibility and informality in the proceedings of private companies, and it would seem to impose an unnecessary degree of rigidity to insist that the documents are identical. I imagine that in many cases private companies will, as the noble Lord said, wish to use the one document or photocopies of the one document, but I am not convinced that we need to insist on that if companies find other documents more convenient or that they should not be allowed to do so.
I give an example. A company may well want to write a letter to each of its shareholders. It may have only half a dozen shareholders. It may want the letter to go also to, say, the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Lloyd. It may say further down the letter that it is a resolution. Under the noble Lord's amendment, that would not be possible.
Lord Williams of Elvel: No, but it would be perfectly possible to append to the letter a copy of an identical document. It will need just one extra piece of paper to give an absolute guarantee that members know exactly what they are signing. I see the noble Lord objects to one extra piece of paper, which seems rather odd because that does not seem to impose a great burden.
Lord Strathclyde: It is not a great burden, but the very fact that it is an unnecessary burden surely must be enough to accept that we do not need it. It is important that the member is made fully aware of what the resolution says. That is already achieved by the requirement in this subsection that the document accurately states the terms of the resolution. That is what counts.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: The practical reality of the situation has been emphasised and I hesitate to keep rising when the Government seem to have no idea of what actually happens. Therefore, I should have thought that this amendment in particular is justified for practical purposes.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Before the Minister responds, may I put forward an example? I know that the Government have given enormous thought to this clause, so they have perhaps thought of this example. Take the case of shareholder No. 1 who signs version "A" on Monday, and then the case of shareholder No. 2 on whose behalf perhaps, we must remember, version "B" is signed on Tuesday. If shareholder No 1 does not like the look of his version, can he withdraw his signature from the first version in favour of the second? What procedures are there in respect of the differences that are put to shareholders?
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord, Lord Kilgerran, is beating the Government over the head about being out of touch with reality, but I am not sure what practical realities the noble Lord has in mind that the Government have not already addressed.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, a requirement that the document is identical would mean that the resolution could not be changed where there is any significant discrepancy in the form of the documents; otherwise, this would lead to a field day for lawyers.
Lord Williams of Elvel: It cannot be changed. That is presumably what the Government wish—to have two pieces of paper, one of which may state the resolution and the other a version of the resolution not significantly changed. Can the Minister answer my noble friend's question on whether a shareholder can withdraw a signature on the first document in favour of the second, both of which accurately state the terms of the resolution?
Lord Strathclyde: If both documents accurately state the terms of the resolution, once a shareholder has agreed to it presumably there would be no reason for him to want to withdraw that agreement. Likewise, in the existing situation of a meeting, once a vote is taken the matter is decided. There is no question of a shareholder saying, "Sorry, I did not mean to do that".
Lord Williams of Elvel: Let me give the noble Lord an example from real life. There is a resolution which states this, that and thus. It is in specific form. That will be one document. There may be a letter from the chairman of the company to the members saying,
144
"Here is the resolution and appended below is an explanation of what this resolution is all about and why we are doing it".
Shareholder No. 1 may sign the first resolution but he may see the second piece of paper—the chairman's letter—and say, "I would rather sign that, because by doing so I endorse what the chairman says, and I understand that by doing so I will commit the chairman to his explanation of the resolution". Therefore, the two documents are different, though both accurately state the resolution.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord, Lord Williams, gives an example that he says is indicative of the real world. I am not sure that that is entirely true. The example suggested by the noble Lord would not in any way affect the original government amendment.
I must point out again that we are introducing reforms for small companies. Generally speaking, these reforms are widely and fully supported. Their purpose is to reduce paper shuffling and unnecessary procedures. All the Opposition amendments are complicating what are essentially simple and voluntary proposals for companies to do that.
Lord Williams of Elvel: On the contrary, the Opposition's amendments are designed to make sure that the law in its final form does not give rise to endless disputes and to make the procedure perfectly simple and clear. However, if the Government are determined not to accept the amendment, then the Government are determined. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. C18, Amendment No. C23:
Subsection (2), in the proposed new section 381A, in subsection (3), line 2, leave out ("last") and insert ("first").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment designed to ascertain the exact timetable that the Government have in mind for the signing of resolutions and what happens if, for example, a shareholder is incapacitated or the shareholders register changes in the middle of the whole procedure. I should be grateful if the Minister could kindly let the Committee know what the Government intend in this respect. I am sure that he has a brief which will explain. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: It is apparent from new Section 381A(1) that a proposed resolution does not become a resolution until it is signed by or on behalf of all the relevant members. It seems to us unsatisfactory to enact that such a resolution be dated prior to its fulfilling the conditions of being such a resolution. That is what the amendment states. I know that the noble Lord says that it is simply a probing amendment. Given the examples mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, perhaps I may briefly explain. If a shareholder has moved or cannot be reached in order to sign the document, then the resolution cannot take effect. It can only do so when all the relevant members have signed the document.

145
I believe that that generally explains what we are trying to say.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Can the Minister tell me what will happen if a shareholder has signed a power of attorney to a third party and then revokes that power of attorney during the course of the passage of the resolution?
Lord Strathclyde: So long as the resolution was not signed by the attorney before the power of attorney was revoked, then he will retain his right as being the original shareholder and without the power of attorney. If it were signed first of all, then the original power of attorney would remain.
Lord Williams of Elvel: If the last member does not sign, does the resolution carry on in vacuo?
Lord Strathclyde: Whatever happens, if one member does not sign the resolution, then it cannot be carried.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I do not understand how this will work. What is the time limit? This is a technical matter but it is important to get it right. A shareholder may sign a power of attorney. He is spoken to by other shareholders and the attorney may have signed the resolution. What are the possibilities? Other shareholders may say to him, "It is a very bad resolution and your attorney has signed it on your behalf". What are the shareholders's powers to withdraw the signature if he feels that he does not like the situation but his attorney, who has been given the power to sign, has done so? If the resolution is held up because of the failure of one shareholder to sign, does that mean that the resolution is in vacuo for all eternity?
Lord Strathclyde: As I understand it, the situation is that once a shareholder has signed the resolution, whether through the power of attorney or not, then he has committed himself to the resolution. It needs just one shareholder not to agree to it. In those circumstances the resolution simply does not occur. As the noble Lord said, it is in vacuo until such time as that final shareholder accepts the resolution. Then it can carry on in the normal way. Alternatively, the company can call a meeting and carry out the procedure under the existing system.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. C18, Amendment No. C24.
Subsection (2), in the proposed new section 38I B, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: It seems that here there is a serious change in the law. A written resolution can take place even though the articles of association of a company specifically forbid it. As regards articles of association I have always understood that it is
146
for the shareholders to define how they wish their company to be regulated and governed. To apply a new amendment of this kind to override the articles of association is going beyond what the Government intend. I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: As a lawyer, I am most surprised by the wording of the subsection of the new clause which reads:
"Section 38IA has effect notwithstanding any provision of the company's memorandum or articles".
That is overriding. I console myself at this stage with the thought that the amendment before the Committee is one with which the Minister will have some sympathy.
Lord Strathclyde: I rise to oppose this amendment. First, it would leave the law unclear as to whether a company is to be able to act by unanimous written resolution even if its memorandum or articles forbid it. Secondly, I believe we should allow the unanimous agreement of the members to override any contrary provision in the memorandum or articles. If we make no provision, then the courts would have no clear indication as to whether Section 381A is to have effect notwithstanding any provisions of the company's memorandum or articles. The courts would have to balance the statutory freedom granted by the new Section to act in this way against any contrary private law restrictions of the company's. This is a question which we ought to decide and then give a clear indication to the courts as to our intentions. I think this subsection decides the question in the right direction.
The important thing to bear in mind is that the resolutions in question have to be agreed by every single and relevant member of the company. That being so, why should the unanimous view of the current members as to the procedures under which the company operates be overriden by provisions in the company's memorandum or articles which were perhaps inserted many years ago by different members? I am fortified in this view by the thought that it would be within their powers for all of the members to decide to amend the articles by written resolution and that is clearly what they would favour given their agreement to a written resolution which does not comply with the provision of the articles.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Like the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, I find this a strange clause. I find it even more strange having heard the Minister's explanation. In trying to get rid of this subsection, in his customary way my noble friend is on the side of freedom. On the other hand, the Government's so-called deregulation becomes yet another nanny state provision. There is a perfectly clear way of meeting every point that the Minister has put forward. If the company wishes, it can change, through a vote comprising three-quarters of its shareholders, the articles in order to adopt this way of proceeding.
The Minister said that the Government can see no good reason why anyone should wish to change anything in the articles or memorandum of association. I do not believe that we can be so wise.

147
Commercial parties either in the past or today, may have very good reason why they wish to say in their memorandum or articles of association, "We do not wish to proceed in this manner". I am not terribly fond of family companies, but even in that instance I do not see why they cannot say so if they wish. The section should make it clear that the articles can be altered to adopt this way of proceeding from now until Domesday if it is so wished. There is no lack of clarity if it is made elective. Seventy five per cent. of the members can always alter the articles and there is no problem about doing that. The Government will not allow a company that has articles in this form. I cannot understand why they should wish to prohibit that in a regulatory manner. It does not seem to be sensible for commerce; nor is it a sensible set of principles to put forward. The Minister should look much more carefully at my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: I have two objections to leaving it to the members to delete the provisions in the articles or the memorandum and relying on them to do so. This new procedure is about doing away with bureaucracy. Given the evident views of the members of the company, altering the memorandum and the articles would be an unnecessary formality. We have to bear in mind the kind of companies that this reform is particularly designed to help. The owners of small private companies may not appreciate that there are provisions in the articles or memorandum which will need altering if their unanimous and written resolutions under this new procedure are to be effective. They may not have ready access to good legal advice. We should remove this trap for them and the requirement for unanimity is a more than adequate safeguard.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I become more astonished than ever by the arguments which the Government put forward in the name of deregulation. It seems to me that amending the articles of association of private companies is the simplest thing in the world. If there has to be unanimous agreement to a resolution, to obtain unanimous agreement to amending the articles seems to me to be a piece of cake. However the Government have a majority here and in another place and if they are determined to have that procedure I have no doubt that they will succeed in getting it.
I should like the Minister, if he would be so kind, to look at the matter more carefully in the light of the arguments which my noble friend Lord Wedderburn and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, have advanced. In the meantime, while he is looking at it, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. C18, Amendment No. C25:
Subsection (2), in the proposed new section 381C, in subsection (2), line 1, leave out ("as auditors").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is also a probing amendment intended to discover the
148
intentions of the Government. I understand the meaning of the word "auditor". I find difficulty in understanding the meaning of the words "auditor as auditor." They imply that there is somebody called an auditor who is not an auditor in certain circumstances but is an auditor in other circumstances. I am not clear in what circumstances the resolution may or may not concern, and what the criteria are for deciding whether the resolution concerns, the auditors as auditors. Is it simply that they are accountants to the company? In many private companies the auditor is the accountant as well as the auditor. Or is it because they have some statutory position? Can the noble Lord explain?
Furthermore, the reference to auditors:
"stating their opinion that the resolution should be considered by the company in general meeting,"
seems rather vague. If auditors, as auditors, are required to state their opinion, in what form are they required to state that opinion? Are they required to make a telephone call, to write a letter or a document, or to move a Motion in your Lordships' House? What is the appropriate procedure? Those are points on which I should be grateful for some clarification from the noble Lord. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps I may first make a general point concerning the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, before he withdrew the previous amendment. Of course we listen, and continue to look at all the words which noble Lords have spoken in the course of the debate. The process of examining legislation we put forward does not change because we happen to approve an amendment now.
As regards Amendment No. C25, we do not think that auditors should be put in the position of having some more general veto, going beyond matters which concern them as auditors, over whether or not a resolution should have to be considered in a general meeting. We have no reason to believe that auditors are especially fitted for that task or that they would be happy to take it on. Such a more general veto might even deter companies from using the unanimous written resolution procedure, and that would frustrate our purpose.
We are making a purely mechanical adaptation of the present right of auditors to be heard in a general meeting contained in Section 387 of the 1985 Act. That right extends only to parts of the business of the meeting which concerns the auditors as auditors. I do not believe that we ought to give auditors a wider role in the context of the new procedure. I should also remind the Committee that here we are only recognising, formalising and clarifying a procedure which companies may use at present. Auditors do not have a general veto over it. For example, if it is a resolution affecting the appointment of the auditors as auditors, then it affects them as auditors. I think that the noble Lord understands the point I am trying to make. I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I fully understand the point that the noble Lord is trying to make because it appears in Schedule 15. That is quite clear.

149
However, I have still not received an answer to my question as to when auditors are auditors and when they are not auditors. I do not understand the situation. I am sorry to reiterate a question, but perhaps I may do so regarding my question: how are the auditors as auditors—whatever that means—to state their opinion?
Lord Strathclyde: In answer to the question as to who decides what auditors are or what auditors are not, it is for auditors themselves to decide whether they are affected as auditors. After all, they are in the best position to do so.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps I may explore that point further. So it is the auditors who have to decide; it is up to the auditors to decide whether or not they are affected in some way as auditors. Therefore they might well say, "we think that this resolution affects the creditors of the company and, as auditors, we are bound to say that that could affect the company's solvency". That is in their position as auditors, is it? It is rather different from what the Minister said about the auditors' right of audience at a general meeting.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I invite the noble Lord to look at that part of the Act, in this splendid volume which I have in my hands and in particular Chapter 5 which concerns the position of auditors. The noble Lord referred to one of the sections in this Part of the Act. I thought that the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, supports the amendment very strongly. It seems to me that the words "as auditors" are totally unnecessary.
Lord Strathclyde: The words "auditors as auditors" are taken from Section 387. There is nothing new in them. Auditors have experience of their duties. The auditors' decision is subject to test in the court.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: The noble Lord is relying on a parallel with Section 387 of the Companies Act 1985. Is it not a fact that the phraseology of matters which concern the auditors as auditors comes at the end of the first subsection, so that there are two parts? The first part relates to the fact that they shall receive all notices and communications relating to a general meeting. If they have the notice then, under the second part, they can go to the meeting and concern themselves with matters which concern them as auditors. Now that they do not receive notices the position is quite different. Therefore, in relation to Section 387, my noble friend's amendment has renewed force because the first part is not included in the new regime.
Lord Strathclyde: I think that we are widening the discussion. I am keen to bring it back to the amendment. If the auditors object to the written resolution the company can put the resolution to a meeting under the existing procedure. The point about written resolutions is that they go to the auditors in the first place for the auditors to decide whether anything needs to be done.
Lord Williams of Elvel: That is contrary to the provision in the amendment "without any previous notice".
Lord Strathclyde: I do not see how that follows.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Because the auditors have previous notice.
Lord Strathclyde: No, they do not have previous notice. They receive the resolution at the start of the procedure for all the members of the company to receive the resolution. It is not prior notice.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I do not understand how they can give seven days' notice that the matter should be considered at a meeting without having had seven days in which to consider the matter. This is an odd amendment.
This is the third time I have put the question: can the noble Lord say in what form auditors should state their opinion?
Lord Strathclyde: The auditors can state their objections in a number of ways, almost in any way they want. The noble Lord used the examples of by telephone or by letter, or by inclusion in a resolution. I think I am correct in saying that it can be in any form which the auditors find appropriate.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved as an amendment to Amendment No. C18, Amendment No. C26:
Subsection (2), in the proposed new section 381C, in subsection (3), leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: Assuming that we understand the expression "auditors as auditors"—and that is a fairly large assumption—it seems to us odd that they should be entitled to have the resolution considered at a meeting, whatever the nature of the resolution may be. I say that because taken literally—indeed, we must take the statute as proposed literally—it could mean that auditors could require a resolution on any matter to be considered at a meeting. In the spirit of deregulation, is that not perhaps going a little too far? It may be that the intention is that subsection (3) should refer to resolutions concerning auditors as auditors. If that is so, then the Government should clarify that point. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: The effect of this amendment is that, even if the auditors do not consider that the resolution concerns them as auditors, or that it does not need to be considered in the relevant meeting, nevertheless the resolution will not have effect until the period of seven days from the day the auditors receive the resolution expires. That is because the new Section 381C(3) provides that a written resolution shall not have effect unless the period for giving a notice under subsection (2) expires without any notice having been given in accordance with

151
that subsection, and the notice that subsection refers to is notice of their opinion that the resolution should be considered by the company in the appropriate meeting.
I cannot believe that any purpose would be served by requiring this delay. The only purpose of the seven-day period is to enable the auditors to consider the resolution and, if necessary, demand that it go before a meeting of the company, at which they have the right to be heard. There is no need for any further delay once the auditors have indicated that the resolution does not concern them as auditors or that they do not consider that it need be considered by the company.
Perhaps I may continue and say that auditors can only require resolutions which concern them as auditors to be considered at a meeting. If Members of the Committee would kindly look at the words "does so concern them", contained in subsection (3)(a)(ii), they will see that they refer back to subsection (3)(a)(i).
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am not sure that the noble Lord is right in thinking that auditors do not have, under his drafting, a general right to ensure the effect of any resolution, whether or not it concerns them as auditors. If, as auditors, they decide that a resolution—for example, in regard to the selling of a factory, or whatever it may be—is something in which they as auditors can properly take an interest, they can, within literal interpretation of what the Government have put forward in the amendment, ensure that it is put into a general meeting. The noble Lord seemed to imply that my interpretation, and that of my advisers, of what the Government propose is wrong. If that is the case, I should be grateful if he would look carefully at what I have said. I suggest that subsection (3)(a) could be reworded along the following lines:
"It does not concern them as auditors; or, if in their opinion, the resolution does concern auditors but need not be considered",
and so on. Indeed, there is some wording which one could propose. Moreover, I think that there is probably a need for a similar provision in Section 381A(5). However, having alerted the Government as to our concerns, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. C18, Amendment No. C27:
Subsection (3), in the proposed new section 382A, in subsection (1), line 4, leave out ("(and of the signatures)").
The noble Lord said: Again, by way of clarification, we cannot quite see why the record of the signatures should be put into the minute book. If the resolution is properly carried—presumably, it will be certified as so carried—then why should there be evidence that all the signatures have been put in? I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: The reason for the requirement that a record of the signatures be kept is that it should provide some check against fraud. Under the
152
unanimous written resolution procedure the directors will be responsible for drawing up the resolution, distributing copies of it and checking the responses. There is an obvious opportunity for misconduct here which we think would be discouraged by a requirement that records of the signatures are kept. A parallel provision is not necessary when decisions are taken in general meeting because the procedure then is inherently more open. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that deterring misconduct of this sort should be our objective.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Of course, I am all in favour of deterring misconduct. However, I do not quite follow the noble Lord's argument. If the resolution is properly signed, sealed and delivered, why should it be necessary to record the names of the people who signed and the signatures, bearing in mind that they are all, possibly, signing different documents which may accurately reflect the terms of the resolution. Surely one cannot have the actual signatures in the book; one just has a record of the names of the people who have signed. I cannnot see how that provision really helps matters very much.
Lord Strathclyde: The point is that there is a requirement to maintain the signatures in the book — —
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but perhaps I may ask him this. Does that mean, as regards these signatures, that each member must sign the book? Or, does it mean that there is a record of the names of those members who did in fact sign the resolution?
Lord Strathclyde: Yes, it is a record of the members who signed the resolution.
Lord Williams of Elvel: With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, that does not constitute signatures.
Lord Strathclyde: No, it does not. The way the provision is worded is as follows:
"The company shall cause a record of the resolution (and of the signatures)".
Perhaps there is a drafting point here which we have not quite got right. A record is necessary as evidence in the event of a dispute as to whether all the members did in fact sign the resolution. The requirement is not to keep a record of who signed the resolution. Indeed, the text does not stipulate names of signatories; it is the actual signatures, or a true copy of them, which must be kept.
As I said, perhaps there is a problem here with the drafting. Obviously it has caused a certain amount of confusion. I shall look again at the matter but, in the meantime, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful that the noble Lord has finally accepted that there is a problem in this respect. In my view there is a real problem here. We do not know whether it is the signatures themselves; a record of who signed the resolution; whether they must be original signatures

153
or where all the documents must be kept. However, the noble Lord has been kind enough to say that he will look again at the matter. I think that he is right to do so. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. C18, Amendment No. C28:
Subsection (3), in the proposed new section 382A, in subsection (I), line 5, leave out ("a book") and insert ("the same book and").
The noble Lord said: Again, this amendment is almost in the nature of a drafting point, but nevertheless it is a point of some importance in that what normally happens in companies is that there is a minute book. Indeed, that is so, but there is one minute book; there are not five or six of them. It seems to me that if we have "the same book" in the same way as we do in respect of minutes of proceedings, it would really clarify exactly what the Government intend to introduce here. I beg to move.
Baroness Phillips: As a hard-working company secretary of a trade association, I begin to wish that I had not come this afternoon because I have a feeling that I have been breaking the law. I have carefully studied the Companies Act, but I must confess that I had never thought of my accountant as also my auditor. They are two separate people. At the annual general meeting my accountant has a definite role which is not necessarily confined to the figures that he presents as an auditor and in sending out notices. I am in the throes of changing the articles of association. I have given the 21 days' notice. I thought that I had done all the right things. I now have to go back to find out whether I have been doing the right things under the existing law, because the penalties for not doing the right things are frightening. I have no wish to be arraigned in court and tried, no doubt, by one of their Lordships whom I condemned last week and therefore be condemned to the Tower, presumably.
We are talking about a book. That surely cannot be right because, as my noble friend Lord Williams said, one is always meticulous about one's minute book. It is vital and goes with the company documents. I find it strange that we are now to have a book. The chances are that that book will be lost. At some later stage there will be an opportunity for someone to do something that is confusing. I find the proposal misleading.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: I find myself in the same position as the noble Baroness. When I first entered the other place I was advised that it was easy to vote for the Government if one did not know what one was voting for, and that, above all, one should never listen to the arguments. I have rather dropped in this afternoon, and I think that I shall quickly drop out. I feel that this is a great deal of unnecessary rigmarole. It will be extraordinarily difficult for company secretaries to be sure that they understand the law. I am afraid that we may once again be making criminals out of honest men for no good purpose.
Lord Strathclyde: I hope that we have not frightened off the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, so that she leaves. I enjoyed her intervention. I do not believe that she is breaking the law in any way so far, but she should perhaps not take my word for it. The matter is complicated. Perhaps I may now bring in my noble friend Lord Rippon. As I have already said, with these amendments we are 1rying to make life easier for companies and auditors. The amendments tabled by the Opposition raise complexities which the Government do not feel exist.
Perhaps I may clarify the point on the amendment. The reason the existing text says "a book" is that Section 382 of the Companies Act, which deals with minutes of meetings, says that they are,
"to be entered in books kept for that purpose".
A company could keep different books for proceedings of general meetings, meetings of directors and meetings of managers. Thus there is no same book in which to keep the record of the resolutions and signatures. The important point is that they should be kept in a book and kept in the same way as minutes of proceedings. That is achieved by the present word.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I wish to echo the words of my noble friend Lord Rippon. I wonder where all this stuff emerged from. After the 78 minutes during which we have been discussing these matters, I am left with one or two great regrets. First, the Government should be much more careful in how they amend their own Bills. Secondly, I am sorry that they are not more careful when agreeing to recommittals on a wide scale, because that invites trouble. I cannot say that I am anything other than depressed at—I take the word used by my noble friend—the rigmarole that we have in front of us. I can only say that it is extraordinary that having listened to the Government's arguments, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has been unable, despite all that is going for him, to enlist my sympathy.
I find myself somewhere between the two. I am betwixt and between—lost—but with no sympathy for any of this. We are being plunged into a massive rigmarole. I cannot but feel profound sympathy for those in small companies who have to wade through the rigmarole in practice.
Lord Chelmer: Perhaps I may add, as someone who for many years practised as a solicitor, that those private companies which have got round to keeping minutes—they are considerably in the minority—have for many years just signed the minutes at the end of the day without any further to-do.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Those companies to which the noble Lord referred, which merely sign the minutes at the end of the day, were infringing the Companies Act. They were obviously unaware of what the Companies Act 1985 said. The Minister referred to Section 382 of the Companies Act. Subsection (1), as he rightly said, allows for books, but, as Section 382 says, they are different books of

155
meetings that take place. It is only reasonable that one should have different types of books for different types of meetings. It is perfectly clear when one reads the provision that minutes of proceedings at general meetings are, as is normal practice, kept in a minute book. Companies generally keep a minute book for the purpose. Although I am sorry that I do not have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, the amendment is one which the Government would do well to consider.
Lord Strathclyde: I shall be brief. I thank my noble friends who have spoken. I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Peyton was here at the start of the recommittal proceedings 80 minutes ago, but I said that the proposals had come from the Institute of Directors, which had spent an enormous amount of time consulting various companies so as to make the procedures relating to small private companies far easier and less complicated than they have been. I believe that we have done that. If we have spent some time discussing the proposals, it is purely to ensure that all noble Lords taking part in the Committee understand what we are trying to do. I hope that I have been able to do that. I have explained my reservations about the amendment. We shall obviously read what the noble Lord has said, but at the moment I do not mean to change what I have said.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the Minister for at least reading what noble Lords have said about this amendment in Committee. This is the last amendment that I have tabled to the government amendment. In speaking generally to the government amendment, I say that we have no objection to the principle of the matter, but, on the other hand, as the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, said, it is extremely complex. I do not understand how private companies will understand what it all says and what it all means. I hope that my noble friend Lady Phillips will not contravene the law in future. She has had an assurance from the Minister that she is not contravening the law at the moment. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. C18, Amendment No. C29:
Subsection (3), in the proposed new section 382A, in subsection (2), line 1, leave out ("purporting to be").
The noble Lord said: I apologise to the Committee for saying that Amendment No. C28 was the last amendment. There is of course Amendment No. C29, which, again, is almost a drafting amendment. Should it not be that the record is signed by the director of a company or the company secretary rather than purport to be signed? It is odd to have in a statute a provision for a record which is not properly signed, and a provision for a record which may be signed by somebody quite different who has nothing to do with the company but who purports to be that director or secretary. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I think that the noble Lord is trying to make this more complicated than it is. The purpose of the provision is to remove possible doubts about the status of the record of resolutions and signatures. A record purporting to be signed by a director or by the company secretary is to be evidence of the proceedings in agreeing to the resolution. But it is only evidence. It can of course be shown that the record is false.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I shall have to read what the noble Lord has said. Perhaps we can discuss these matters outside the Chamber: there is no point in continuing the argument. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. C18 agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. C30:
After Clause 96, insert the following new clause:
("Adaptation of procedural requirements in relation to written resolution.
.—(1) In the Companies Act 1985 the following Schedule is inserted after Schedule 15—
"SCHEDULE 15A
WRITTEN RESOLUTIONS OF PRIVATE COMPANIES
PART I
EXCEPTIONS
1. Section 381A does not apply to—

(a) a resolution under section 303 removing a director before the expiration of his period of office, or

(b) a resolution under section 386 removing an auditor before the expiration of his term of office.

PART II
ADAPTATION OF PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
Introductory
2.—(1) In this Part of this Schedule (which adapts certain requirements of this Act in relation to proceedings under section 381(A) —

(a) a "written resolution" means a resolution agreed to, or proposed to be agreed to, in accordance with that section, and

(b) a "relevant member" means a member by whom, or on whose behalf, the resolution is required to be signed in accordance with that section.

(2) A written resolution is not effective if any of the requirements of this Part of this Schedule are not complied with.
Section 95 (disapplication of pre-emption rights)
3.—(1) The following adaptations have effect in relation to a written resolution under section 95(2) (disapplication of pre-emption provisions), or renewing a resolution under that provision.
(2) So much of section 95(5) as requires the circulation of a written statement by the directors with a notice of meeting does not apply, but such a statement must be supplied to each relevant member at or before the time at which the resolution is supplied to him for signature.
(3) Section 95(6) (offences) applies in relation to the inclusion in any such statement of matter which is misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular.
Section 155 (financial assistance for purchase of company's own shares or those of holding company)
4. In relation to a written resolution giving approval under section 155(4) or (5) (financial assistance for purchase of company's own shares or those of holding company), section 157(4)(a) (documents to be available at meeting) does not apply, but the documents referred to in that provision must be supplied to each relevant member at or before the time at which the resolution is supplied to him for signature.
Sections 164, 165 and 167 (authority for off market purchase or contingent purchase contract of company's own shares)
5.—

(1) The following adaptations have effect in relation to a written resolution—

(a) conferring authority to make an off-market purchase of the company's own shares under section 164(2).

(b) conferring authority to vary a contract for an off-market purchase of the company's own shares under section 164(7), or

(c) varying, revoking or renewing any such authority under section 164(3).

(2) Section 164(5) (resolution ineffective if passed by exercise of voting rights by member holding shares to which the resolution relates) does not apply; but for the purposes of section 381A(I) a member holding shares to which the resolution relates shall not be regarded as a member who would be entitled to attend and vote.

(3) Section 164(6) (documents to be available at company's registered office and at meeting) does not apply, but the documents referred to in that provision and, where that provision applies by virtue of section 164(7), the further documents referred to in that provision must be supplied to each relevant member at or before the time at which the resolution is supplied to him for signature.

(4) The above adaptations also have effect in relation to a written resolution in relation to which the provisions of section 164(3) to (7) apply by virtue of—

(a) section 165(2) (authority for contingent purchase contract), or

(b) section 167(2) (approval of release of rights under contract approved under section 164 or 165).

Section 173 (approval for payment out of capital)
6.—

(1) The following adaptations have effect in relation to a written resolution giving approval under section 173(2) (redemption or purchase of company's own shares out of capital).

(2) Section 174(2) (resolution ineffective if passed by exercise of voting rights by member holding shares to which the resolution relates) does not apply; but for the purposes of section 381A(1) a member holding shares to which the resolution relates shall not be regarded as a member who would be entitled to attend and vote.

(3) Section 174(4) (documents to be available at meeting) does not apply, but the documents referred to in that provision must be supplied to each relevant member at or before the time at which the resolution is supplied to him for signature.

Section 319 (approval of director's service contract)
7. In relation to a written resolution approving any such term as is mentioned in section 319(1) (director's contract of employment for more than five years), section 319(5) (documents to be available at company's registered office and at meeting) does not apply, but the documents referred to in that provision must be supplied to each relevant member at or before the time at which the resolution is supplied to him for signature.
Section 337 (funding of director's expenditure in performing his duties)
8. In relation to a written resolution giving approval under section 337(3)(a) (funding a director's expenditure in performing his duties), the requirement of that provision that certain matters be disclosed at the meeting at which the resolution is passed does not apply, but those matters must be disclosed to each relevant member at or before the time at which the resolution is supplied to him for signature.".
(2) The Schedule inserted after Schedule 15 to the Companies Act 1985 by the Companies (Mergers and Divisions) Regulations 1987 is renumbered "15B"; and accordingly, in section 427A of that Act (also inserted by those regulations), in subsections (1) and (8) for "15A" substitute "15B".").
The noble Lord said: This new clause introduces a new schedule into the 1985 Companies Act. The new schedule essentially falls into two parts. The first part provides that two kinds of resolution are not to be capable of being dealt with under the
158
unanimous written resolution procedure. They are a resolution to remove a director and a resolution to remove an auditor before their respective terms of office have expired. It is probably best if I forswear detailed comments upon these two exemptions until we have heard why the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, opposes them.
The second part of the new schedule adapts certain requirements of the Companies Act to the procedure for unanimous written resolution. The adaptations are various but one thread in them is that they require the disclosure of certain matters to relevant members before or at the time the resolution is sent to them for signature. We see these as rather mechanical adaptations to the Companies Act which are consequential on the underlying policy to allow unanimous written resolutions. They have been supported by those who commented on the unanimous written resolution procedure, and indeed we are grateful to some of these commentators, the Law Society in particular, for suggesting them. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. C30, Amendment No. C31.
Subsection (1), in the proposed new Schedule 1 5A, leave out Part I (EXCEPTIONS).
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. C31 deals with the exceptions in Part I of the new schedule. It seems to us in looking at the amendment that this part is not necessary. The phrase "auditors as auditors"—an expression which I do not clearly understand, but it is in the government amendment which the Committee has now adopted—allows auditors to make sure that the written resolution shall not have effect unless they notify the company that everything is in order and that it does not concern them as auditors.
Therefore paragraph 1(b), the removal of auditors in the schedule, clearly has something to do with "auditors as auditors". It cannot be anything else. Paragraph 1(a), regarding the resolution removing a director before the expiration of his period of office, I should have thought automatically concerned auditors as auditors. That is because they will want to know, if they are auditors, exactly what the reasons are and they will take note of them.
Our view is that these two exceptions are covered by the government amendment which the Committee previously adopted. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: Our purpose in excluding these resolutions from the general permissive power for the company to decide matters by unanimous written resolution was to ensure certain safeguards for shareholders.
The two resolutions which are exempt from the unanimous written resolution procedure are those which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, pointed out provide for the removal before the expiry of their terms of office of directors or auditors respectively. We feel that there is always the possibility in those cases that there may be matters relating to the circumstances of their removal from office which ought to be brought to the attention of the members. This is especially so in the case of the auditors, but a

159
director who is dismissed may also have information bearing on his dismissal which members would like to be aware of. If the resolutions were put before a meeting of the company, existing provisions of company law would give a director and the auditors the right to be heard.
Notwithstanding what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said about the rights of auditors as auditors, they may not necessarily feel that, when it comes to the removal of a director, shareholders should be made aware of that fact. That is why this exception has been made, as a safeguard for shareholders.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Even accepting the noble Lord's argument for paragraph (a), surely paragraph (b) must be of concern to auditors as auditors if they are to be removed. So is that really necessary?
Lord Strathclyde: It is accepted that there is some overlap between these provisions. However we regard a decision by a company to remove its auditors before the expiry of the term of office to be such an important step that it is not appropriate for it to be done by a written resolution. That is the message of this provision. It should not lie with the auditor himself to decide whether a meeting should be held though in most cases he could have required one under Section 381C.
Lord Williams of Elvel: It seems to me that certainly paragraph 1(b), and almost certainly paragraph 1(a), are redundant. However, if the Government wish to have them in the Bill, then they will do so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. C30, Amendment No. C32:
Subsection (1), in the proposed new Schedule 15A, in paragraph 2(1)(a), line 1, leave out ("or proposed to be agreed to").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. C32 challenges the definition of a written resolution. As I understood the discussion that took place on the matter, a "written resolution" is a resolution which is signed in the appropriate manner in accordance with the new government amendments, but not one which is, as it were, in draft because it has no particular effect. The words
"or proposed to be agreed to",
would seem to imply that a draft is also included in the definition of "written resolution". I wonder whether that is right. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: The drafting of Part II of the new schedule does not work unless a written resolution is to include a resolution proposed to be agreed to in accordance with the new Section 381A.
A number of the adaptations of the procedural requirements in the Companies Act concern information which is to be supplied to relevant members in lieu of them being given it at or before a meeting of the company. To take the example of the adaptation of Section 95 made by paragraph
160
3 of the schedule, this provides that the requisite statement by directors in connection with the disapplication of pre-emptive rights must be supplied to the relevant members. If we look at sub-paragraph (2), we can see that the information must be supplied,
"at or before the time at which the resolution".
It is apparent from the earlier references in this paragraph that that means the written resolution,
"is supplied to him for signature".
Since by definition the written resolution cannot at that point be one agreed by the members, the definition of "written resolution" needs to encompass one proposed to be agreed in accordance with the new Section 381A. I hope that the noble Lord finds this explanation helpful.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Does this mean that a written resolution includes a draft, which may change?
Lord Strathclyde: I shall go a little further by explaining why this particular wording has been adopted. It was not necessary that this approach was adopted, but the draftsman found it convenient to do so. This definition applies only to Part II of the schedule. As I said, it simplifies the drafting of the schedule.
Lord Williams of Elvel: As I understand it, for the purposes of Part II of the schedule, a written resolution can include a draft which can subsequently be changed. Will the noble Lord confirm that I am correct?
Lord Strathclyde: That question was one that had previously escaped me. In looking at my notes perhaps I should say that when a draft is proposed it is not a draft which, in itself, may be proposed as the ultimate wording. A draft is a draft and a firm proposal is a firm proposal. So I am not sure that the question of the noble Lord arises, because I think there is confusion here between what a final resolution is and whether or not there can be a draft resolution. A draft resolution is, of course, not a final resolution. The final resolution would go out to each of the members.
Lord Williams of Elvel: There certainly is confusion. I shall read the terms of the Government amendment. It states that:
" 'a written resolution' means a resolution agreed to, or proposed to be agreed to".
In other words the Government are talking about a draft which can be modified and changed and then is finally agreed to. There may be three shareholders in a private company, for example, who sit around a table, without prior notice, and decide they do not like paragraphs one and two and that they will amend paragraph three of a resolution. They decide that that is what they will agree to finally, but the original proposal was a draft. Am I right or am I wrong?
Lord Strathclyde: Provided the draft is ultimately proposed, that is fair enough.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved as an amendment to Amendment No. C30, Amendment No. C33:
Subsection (1), in the proposed new Schedule 15A, in paragraph 2(1)(b), line 2, leave out ("in accordance with that section").
The noble Lord said: Again, in terms of pure drafting points, we cannot quite understand why these words are necessary. If it would simplify the legislation at all, we would rather have words out than in. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: As the noble Lord just said, this is a mere question of drafting. But we prefer to include in the Bill the words that the noble Lord would have omitted. They paint the full picture, and establish beyond doubt that it is the requirements in new Section 381A which govern who is to sign the resolution and thus who is a "relevant member".
Lord Williams of Elvel: Is the noble Lord simply saying that it is necessary to include these words to make the definition of "relevant member" clear, or is he saying that the Government would rather have these words in simply in order to make the legislation a bit fatter than it would otherwise be?
Lord Strathclyde: No, not at all. Their inclusion is simply to make things clearer. The schedule states that certain persons are not to be regarded as being entitled to attend to vote at meetings, therefore they are not to sign. If the suggestion is that the reference should be to, "that section and this schedule", the provisions of the schedule the noble Lord mentioned, such as those of paragraph 5(2), would operate by way of adaptation of new Section 381A(1). Therefore, it is only necessary for paragraph 2(1)(g) to refer to that section. I hope that has made the matter clearer.
Lord Williams of Elvel: It has just about made it clearer. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. C30, Amendment No. C34:
Subsection (1), in the proposed new Schedule 15A, in paragraph 3(1), line 3, leave out ("provisions") and insert ("rights").
The noble Lord said: This is entirely a drafting amendment. It seems to us that the Government's amendment has the rubric of the new clause wrong here. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: At last I am happy to accept this correction to the short title for Section 95. I am grateful to the Committee for spotting the error.
On Question, amendment to the amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. C30, Amendment No. C35:
Subsection (1), in the proposed new Schedule 15A, in paragraph 3(2), line 3, leave out ("at or").
The noble Lord said: I suppose that if, on average, I can win one amendment out of 20 or so, we are not doing too badly. In moving this amendment, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. C38, C40 and C42. The concern is that at the time at which the written resolution is supplied, a member may be faced with the resolution and with the proposition that all other members have signed it, and he is asked for his signature. There could be some undue pressure, which I think would be undesirable, put on the remaining member to sign the resolution.
I shall speak to the different parts of the Bill which these amendments seek to change. This factor is not so important in our view in paragraph 4, because it is presumably in the interests of all members that there should be financial assistance for the purchase of the company's own shares. It is perhaps not so very important for paragraph 5(3), but in our view it becomes quite important in sub-paragraph 7 which deals with the approval of the director's service contract. In our view it would be wrong to have a written resolution presented to all members without notice, if a service contract is to be approved. In many private companies directors are members and members are directors, and the question of service contracts is quite a sensitive one. We shall come to another amendment on this matter later on.
We should like to see sufficient notice given for approval of a resolution, particularly on directors' service contracts. We suggest that 15 days' notice should be given, as this occurs elsewhere in the Government's amendment. However, as I said, all these amendments are grouped and the same point is relevant in all cases. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: There is no need to require that the appropriate statement or documents are sent to a relevant member before the time at which the resolution is supplied to him for signature. In the case of a resolution dealt with at a meeting, there is a fixed occasion at which a member has to cast his vote, so it has been thought necessary to provide for a period of notice to give him time to consider all the relevant information. However, in the case of the unanimous written resolution procedure under Section 381A there is no set time by which the member must decide one way or the other. Perhaps at this point I should say that, with the permission of the Committee, I am speaking to Amendments Nos. C35, C38, C40 and C42. I hope that that will be in order.
The member may spend as much time as he likes examining the information and considering his position under the unanimous written resolution procedure. If the resoluton itself must be passed by the company within a certain period of time, as is the case with Section 155, then there is an existing incentive on the directors to supply members with information in advance in case the members delay in signing. In the circumstances, all that the legislation need provide is that he is supplied with the statement

163
or documents at or before the time at which the resolution is supplied to him for signature. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, will therefore accept what I have said and see that his amendments are unnecessary.
Lord Willams of Elvel: Can the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, respond specifically to the point about directors' service contracts, which I think is really the most important amendment? In our view, it is quite wrong that the written resolution should be presented to a member at the time at which the signature is required when it relates to directors' service contracts. This is the most important point and I should be very grateful if the noble Lord could comment on that.
Lord Strathclyde: I believe I am right in thinking that we shall discuss service contracts and directors on Amendment No. C43, but that does not matter at the moment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: This one is not about whether there is a conflict of interest, which is the object of Amendment No. C43. It is the timing when the resolution is presented to members about directors' service contracts.
Lord Strathclyde: The essential point to make here is that there is no need to provide for notice of a resolution under that provision. If the shareholder is not happy, he need not sign. He can take as long as he likes to make up his mind and can ultimately consult his legal advisers. The main point is that nobody has to sign a resolution, whether it affects directors' contracts or anything of greater importance. It does not need to be agreed.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I understand the noble Lord's point. I am still concerned that in real life what will happen is that a service contract will form the object of a resolution which will be presented and members' signatures will be required at a particular time. It will be very difficult in the context of a private company for the last shareholder not to sign. However, perhaps the noble Lord will kindly read what I have said. I do not think we need carry this argument any further at this moment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. C30, Amendment No. C36:
Subsection (2), in the proposed new Schedule 15A, leave out paragraph 3(3) and insert—
"(3) A person who knowingly or recklessly authorises or permits the inclusion in a statement supplied under subparagraph 2 above of any matter which is misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years, or to a fine, or both.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is in substitution for sub-paragraph 3(3) of the schedule on the question of disapplication of pre-emption rights. The amendment simply attracts the wording of the Companies Act 1985. It seems to us that, where it
164
is possible to use wording that is used in previous legislation, it is wiser than inventing new wording. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I presume that this change is intended to have no substantive effect. Although I understand the noble Lord's concern that the offence and penalty are set out on the face of the provision rather than by reference, I would not favour this amendment. It is important to recognise that the substantive provision is Section 95. This paragraph is just concerned with adapting that section to the circumstances of the unanimous written resolution. In the circumstances, it is quite right that the penalties and offence are applied by reference to the relevant subsection. That is the normal way of applying provisions like this and it is adopted throughout this schedule.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Again, I shall have to read what the noble Lord has said in response to our amendment. I am afraid that I was a bit distracted. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. C30, Amendment No. C37:
Subsection (2), in the proposed new Schedule 15A, in paragraph 4, line 5, after ("supplied") insert ("individually").
The noble Lord said: Again, this is a small drafting point but it seems to us that in the case of joint shareholders, which occur quite frequently in private companies, each of the joint shareholders should themselves be individually supplied with the documents in question. There is a complication where there are joint shareholders, and if there is to be just one copy to the relevant member, who could be husband and wife, there is something not quite right. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I understand from what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has said that his intention is that each relevant member must receive an individual copy of the appropriate documents. I can see no reason why we should insist on that. The important thing is that the appropriate documents are supplied to the relevant member, and that is provided by the text of the government amendment. I imagine that in most instances the company will supply individual copies of the documents, but I can also see that in a small closely-knit company it might on occasion be convenient for the company to pass round the documents attached to the resolution which the members sign. I do not think we ought to lay down too precise and bureaucratic a procedure for the circulation of the documents.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am not sure that it is a bureaucratic procedure. It is simply making sure that everybody who is relevant in a broad sense should at least have a copy of the document. If the noble Lord and the Government feel that they do not wish to ensure that, they are entitled to feel that. But it seems to me that the whole question in written

165
resolutions of joint shareholders or shares in joint names is one which has not been properly addressed. I am sure that the Government will be giving thought to that whole problem, because they will be receiving representations on the issue from a number of bodies outside this Chamber. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. C38 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. C30, Amendment No. C39:
Subsection (2), in the proposed new Schedule 15A, in paragraph 5(2), line 3, leave out from ("apply") to end of line 5.
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks, as it were, to put back into the voting, members who may be beneficiaries of payments out of capital. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. C41, which is broadly the same point. It seems to us to be somewhat unfair to exclude members who may benefit from voting on the resolution or from signing the resolution. After all, in a general meeting, as I understand it, if there is a case of approval of payments out of capital or repurchase of shares it is possible for members to vote at that meeting. Unless the noble Lord corrects me on that point, as he may do, I do not see why they should be prohibited from signing a written resolution if they are allowed to vote when such a matter arises at a general meeting. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: With permission, I, too, should like to speak to this amendment and Amendment No. C41.
We see the provisions which the noble Lord's amendment would partly delete as straighforward, mechanical adaptations of existing sections in the Companies Act relating to resolutions at a meeting. The sections in question make a resolution ineffective if it is passed as a result of the exercise of voting rights by a member holding shares to which the resolution relates. Our new schedule disapplies that rule in respect of the unanimous written resolution procedure—otherwise such a resolution could never be passed here—but provides that, for the purposes of that procedure, a member holding shares to which the resolution relates shall not be counted as one whose signature is needed to obtain unanimity on a written resolution. The noble Lord's amendment would delete the latter part of that adaptation.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Have I understood the noble Lord correctly? Does that mean that that person is entitled to sign the resolution and that his signature qualifies, but that his signature is not necessary? Is that the right interpretation?
Lord Strathclyde: I appreciate what the noble Lord says, but, for example, in a case where unanimity, not a majority, is required, it is not a question of an interested party's vote swaying the decision. Therefore, it does not matter if an interested party has a vote. However, I think that one needs to consider two points. First, since, inevitably, the
166
person with the interest in the shares will vote in favour of the resolution, is it necessary for the company to have to obtain his signature? We are, after all, seeking to create a simplified, less trouble-some procedure. Secondly, is it appropriate that a person with an interest in the shares should be seen to be voting on a resolution that affects him. I suggest that the Committee ought at least to pause before accepting that idea. As to the noble Lord's specific question, the individual concerned may sign, but his signature is not entirely necessary.
Lord Williams of Elvel: But his signature is valid. If he signs for, say, 30 per cent. of the company, he may sway the vote, as the noble Lord said. It seems to me that, if the signature is valid, we are back to the problem—the noble Lord's second point—of whether he should be able to sign in the first place. I believe that he should be able to do so. When the noble Lord replies to that point, will he reply to my question; namely, whether, if a general meeting were held on such a matter, any shareholder could vote or whether an interested shareholder is precluded from voting at that meeting?
Lord Strathclyde: On the point of a general meeting, I believe it is right that any shareholder can vote whether or not he has an interest.
As for the noble Lord's first point about whether or not someone can sign and whether a signature is valid, that goes back to the crux of the matter. No one can swing the vote by signing, because it is unanimity that is important. That is what is required and there is not, therefore, the possibility of swaying a vote either one way or the other.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Is the noble Lord's belief that a shareholder is entitled to vote at a general meeting on this subject confirmed?
Lord Strathclyde: Yes.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I thank the noble Lord for that reply. He talked about the crux of the matter. As I understand it, we now reach the point at which, because it is a question of unanimity, whether someone has 30 per cent. or 1 per cent. does not in fact make any difference.
Lord Strathclyde: Yes; I believe that, in principle, that is correct.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. C40 to C42 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. C30, Amendment No. C43:
Subsection (2), in the proposed new Schedule 15A, after paragraph 7 insert—
("7A. For the purposes of a written resolution under paragraph 7 above, a director whose service-contract is the object of the resolution shall not be regarded as a member who would be entitled to attend and vote.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment addresses itself to possible conflicts of interest between a member, who may at the same time be a director and negotiating a service contract, and other members of the company. The purpose of the amendment is to make sure that the director in question, whose service-contract is the object of the resolution, shall not be considered as part of that group which constitutes unanimity on a written resolution. I believe that the arguments for that are quite self-evident and I hope that the Government will feel able to consider the amendment favourably. I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: It seems to me that the objectives of the amendment are perfectly clear. They are very reasonable, and common sense should prevail with regard to this amendment. Section 319 of the Companies Act 1985, a copy of which I have in my hand, deals with:
"Director's contract of employment for more than 5 years."
So far as I understand it, the Government's amendment in relation to paragraph 7 is headed:
"Section 319 (approval of director's service contract)".
In those circumstances, it seems to me perfectly right, just and proper—to use as many synonyms as I can introduce—that a director whose service contract will be for a period of employment of more than five years and who is the object of the resolution:
"shall not be regarded as a member who would be entitled to attend and vote".
It seems to me that, when a man has a service contract of that type, he should not be able to attend proceedings dealing with those matters, or to vote.
Lord Strathclyde: In the provisions in this schedule we have simply been adapting provisions in the Companies Bill, which deal with resolutions in a meeting, to the particular circumstances of the unanimous written resolution procedure. In the case of Sections 164 and 174 of the Companies Act, there are provisions which render ineffective resolutions passed in reliance on the exercise of voting rights—
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: The noble Lord is reading very quickly from his brief. To which sections of the Companies Act did he refer? I am trying to follow.
Lord Strathclyde: I apologise if I skipped past the relevant sections a little too quickly. I mentioned Sections 164 and 174 of the Companies Act. Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that they are provisions that render ineffective resolutions passed in reliance on the exercise of voting rights by a member holding shares to which the resolution relates. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has modelled his amendment on the adaptations that we have made to the procedures in those sections. However, in the case of the subject of his amendment, a resolution approving a contract of employment of more than five years for a director, there is no analogous provision in the underlying law. Section 319 does not render ineffective resolutions passed by the exercise of voting rights held by interested directors. I suggest that it would be unhappy to enact that
168
interested directors are not to be counted as entitled to attend and vote when there is no analogous provision in the underlying law. I hope that that explains the position fully and that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has been able to look up the reference in the volumes next to him and may be able to agree with what I have said.
5.p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I should very much like to agree with the noble Lord on certain matters. It would certainly save a lot of time if I could do so. He mentioned Section 164 of the Companies Act 1985. I see from a quick reading of that section that in the margin it notes that it is dealing with "authority for off-market purchase". I do not quite see the relevance of Section 164 in relation to the brief read out by the noble Lord so far as concerns this amendment. That may of course be entirely due to my ignorance.
I do not wish to embarrass the noble Lord by asking difficult questions at this stage of the proceedings and I see that there is some difficulty about receiving an answer. I see that there is close consultation going on among his advisers. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to think about the matter and bring it up on another occasion. I am quite happy to continue speaking in an attempt to save him some trouble, but perhaps I have raised a difficult point. I apologise. I should have given notice of a difficult question but I had no idea that the answer would be concerned with authority for off-market purchase. It is very easy for someone like myself to continue talking in order to save the noble Lord some embarrassment but perhaps he can now answer my query.
Lord Strathclyde: It is very kind of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, to speak in that way. Certainly he normally gives me notice of a difficult question but occasionally he asks difficult questions to which I do not have the answers immediately to hand. Perhaps I may explain what I meant in the case of Sections 164 and 174.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I did not ask what the noble Lord meant. I should like to know what is the relevance of Section 164 of the Companies Act 1985 in regard to this matter. Perhaps I am somewhat premature in asking this question but that is the information I am seeking.
Lord Strathclyde: The relevance is that we adopted Section 164(5) in paragraph 5. To say that more fully, in Sections 164 and 174 there are provisions which render ineffective resolutions placed in reliance on voting rights by a member holding shares to which the resolution relates. We have adapted these in earlier parts of the schedule concerning the written resolution procedure. There is an equivalent power to adopt in Section 319.
I hope that that answers the query of the noble Lord. If for some reason it does not do so I shall be delighted to look further into the matter. Obviously it is an issue that has raised a certain amount of discord.

169
Finally, perhaps I may say that if the noble Lord would look at paragraphs 5(2) and 5(3) of the government amendment he will see that they are explanatory.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Explanatory of what?
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I regret having to raise this matter but it is entirely the Minister's fault for having mentioned this section. So far he has not indicated which part of the section is relevant. Four notes have come to him on this matter. Is this not really a matter on which we should ask him to consider further? We also shall consider the matter further. Without any commitment this is a matter that should be dealt with at a later stage. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Williams, agrees with this course. I shall be guided by him as to the precise course to be taken.
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps I may, for a moment or two, pre-empt both Members of the Committee who wish to speak. I am sorry about this confusion. If one turns to paragraphs 5(2) and 5(3) of the amendment I believe that one will see that the situation is self-explanatory.
Lord Williams of Elvel: As I understand it, and my understanding may be quite wrong, the Government are saying that where there are provisions in the Companies Act 1985 for certain procedures in general meeting of members, those procedures are being adapted for the written resolution regime; but where there are no procedures laid down in the Companies Act 1985 the Government are effectively making them up. So when the noble Lord refers to Section 164 of the Companies Act 1985, he means that there are procedures there which have been adopted for the written resolution regime but there are no procedures for voting on directors' service contracts in the Companies Act 1985 and there are no analogous procedures, so they have to make them up. I understand that that is what the Government are trying to do.
That does not in any way affect my point about a director whose service contract is being voted on at a general meeting of shareholders. It is not illegal for him to vote, but if he is a shareholder he would normally abstain from voting through a conflict of interests, and quite correctly so. It seems to me that my amendment which takes him out of the procedure for written resolution would be founded on practice if not on actual legality, as explained in the Companies Act 1985.
Lord Strathclyde: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for clarifying what I had originally been trying to say earlier. He put it very well. With regard to his second point, if there is widespread concern in the Committee about the position of interested directors—and I feel that probably there is such concern—I should be prepared to examine without commitment the case for amending Section 319 itself.
That would also involve looking at other provisions in Part X of the Act but I repeat that it
170
would not be right to put this provision in the paragraph which adapts the law to the circumstance of the unanimous written resolution procedure when there is no corresponding provision in the underlying law. I said that I shall look again at this point without commitment. For the time being I hope that that will satisfy the Committee.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. When looking at this problem he might also consider the Companies Act 1985 itself and the provisions for public companies and whether interested directors should be allowed to vote in this matter as shareholders. As he rightly says, there is nothing in that Act at the moment. It may be something that the Government may wish to introduce at a later stage and perhaps in another place. However, I am grateful to the noble Lord for accepting that there are worries on this side of the Committee about the conflicts and for his assurance that he will look again at this matter.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. C30, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. C44:
After Clause 96, insert the following new clause:
("Election by private company to dispense with certain requirements.
—(1) In Part IV of the Companies Act 1985 (allotment of shares and debentures), in section 80(1) (authority of company required for certain allotments) after "this section" insert "or section 80A"; and after that section insert—
"Election by private company as to duration of authority.
80A.— (1) A private company may elect (by elective resolution in accordance with section 379A) that the provisions of this section shall apply, instead of the provisions of section 80(4) and (5), in relation to the giving or renewal, after the election, of an authority under that section.
(2) The authority must state the maximum amount of relevant securities that may be alloted under it and may be given—

(a) for an indefinite period, or

(b) for a fixed period, in which case it must state the date on which it will expire.

(3) In either case an authority (including an authority contained in the articles) may be revoked or varied by the company in general meeting.
(4) An authority given for a fixed period may be renewed or further renewed by the company in general meeting.
(5) A resolution renewing an authority—

(a) must state, or re-state, the amount of relevant securities which may be allotted under the authority or, as the case may be, the amount remaining to be allotted under it, and

(b) must state whether the authority is renewed for an indefinite period or for a fixed period, in which case it must state the date on which the renewed authority will expire.

(6) The references in this section to the maximum amount of relevant securities that may be allotted shall be construed in accordance with section 80(6).
(7) If an election under this section ceases to have effect, an authority then in force which was given for an indefinite period or for a fixed period of more than five years—

(a) if given five years or more before the election ceases to have effect, shall expire forthwith, and

(b) otherwise, shall have effect as if it had been given for a fixed period of five years.".

(2) In Chapter IV of Part XI of the Companies Act 1985 (meetings and resolutions), after section 366 (annual general meeting) insert—
"Election by private company to dispense with annual general meetings.
366A.—(1) A private company may elect (by elective resolution in accordance with section 379A) to dispense with the holding of annual general meetings.
(2) An election has effect for the year in which it is made and subsequent years, but does not affect any liability already incurred by reason of default in holding an annual general meeting.
(3) In any year in which an annual general meeting would be required to be held but for the election, and in which no such meeting has been held, any member of the company may, by notice to the company not later than three months before the end of the year, require the holding of an annual general meeting in that year.
(4) If such a notice is given, the provisions of section 366(1) and (4) apply with respect to the calling of the meeting and the consequences of default.
(5) If the election ceases to have effect, the company is not obliged under section 366 to hold an annual general meeting in that year if, when the election ceases to have effect, less than three months of the year remains.
This does not affect any obligation of the company to hold an annual general meeting in that year in pursuance of a notice given under subsection (3).".
(3) In the same Chapter, in sections 369(4) and 378(3) (majority required to sanction short notice of meeting) insert.—
"A private company may elect (by elective resolution in accordance with section 379A) that the above provisions shall have effect in relation to the company as if for the references to 95% there were substituted references to such lesser percentage, but not less than 90%, as may be specified in the resolution or subsequently determined by the company in general meeting.".").
The noble Lord said: This new clause introduces a new procedure for private companies to elect to dispense with or modify certain internal procedural requirements. Two of the permitted modifications of the existing statutory requirements are relatively minor but the proposed right to dispense with the holding of annual general meetings is a significant new facility.
The first change (Section 80A) is a modification to Sections 80(4) and 80(5) of the 1985 Act. The new provision permits private companies by election to cease to be subject to the present statutory maximum duration of an authority to allot shares—namely; five years—and instead to take authority for longer fixed periods or for an indefinite period.
The second change (Section 366A) concerns an election to dispense with the holding of annual general meetings under Section 366 of the 1985 Act. This reform, together with the dispensation from laying accounts in general meetings already contained in new Section 253(1), as introduced in Clause 15 of the Bill, are the two most significant reforms in this package.
In many small private companies where all the shareholders may be directors the holding of an annual general meeting may be something of an unnecessary formality. The elective regime recognises that and provides alternative arrangements for dealing with the business of general meetings.
For many companies, the business conducted at an annual general meeting will consist of the appointment of directors, the laying and discussion of accounts, the appointment of auditors, the declar-
172
ation of dividends and any special resolutions. For many small companies the appointment of directors does not require discussion and they will in future be able to be appointed by unanimous written resolution. We have already dealt with the alternative arrangements for laying and consideration of the accounts in Clause 15 of the Bill. Further provisions will be introduced during later stages of the Bill to deal with the appointment of auditors. It is intended that arrangements will be made to enable appointments to last indefinitely until either party seeks to revoke the arrangement. Other resolutions normally taken at general meeting will be able to be dealt with by unanimous written resolution.
The other dispensation concerns the arrangements for calling meetings at short notice. At present the consent of 95 per cent. of members is needed for a meeting called on notice shorter than the period provided by statute to be regarded as having been duly called. In future it is proposed that private companies may elect that this figure be reduced to a lesser percentage of the members, which can be between 90 per cent. and 95 per cent.
The Government believe that these measures will introduce a valuable element of flexibility into the management of small companies. A further objective is to bring the law into line with commercial reality. We must face the fact that for many small companies some of the requirements affected by these new clauses may either be disregarded or be meaningless rituals. There is no value in retaining a fiction which does not correspond with what actually happens.
We have taken care, and have listened hard to advice from outside, to protect the interest of individual minority shareholders. There is no reason to suppose that small, family controlled, companies are exempt from temptations for some shareholders to put undue pressure on others or disregard their interests. We have therefore inserted a number of safeguards through which individual shareholders can protect their own interests. We do not believe that our proposals leave minority shareholders any worse off than does the existing law. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. C44, Amendment No. C45:
Subsection (1), in the proposed new section 80A, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: I hope that the Committee will understand that my amendments were tabled before the re-committal decision was taken. Therefore in a sense they are Report style amendments. The objective of C45 was to elicit a debate on the general principle of the election by private company on the duration of authority. It was not intended in any way as a substantive amendment to leave out subsection (1) of the new Clause 80A because that would make nonsense of the clause.
I was grateful to the noble Lord for spending time on this new proposal. In his introduction he said that in the Government's view the minorities would not be disadvantaged by the elective regime. I wonder whether that can be sustained as a serious

173
argument. The problem arises when a private company, such as we have here, wishes to issue securities. It may issue securities for the purposes of an acquisition or for other means. It may do so under an ordinary resolution. That is all very well so long as the minorities are not opposed to that. Normally if it were a new issue of securities, rather than one which was authorised already, it would require a special resolution to increase the capital of the company.
The issuance of securities under ordinary resolutions is always a matter of difficulty, in particular when they are issued to third parties for acquisition or, in some cases, simply for cash. The pricing of those securities is always a matter of controversy. I am wondering aloud whether the fixed period is not a sensible arrangement: that every five years there is a procedure, in public and private companies, to make sure that the minorities have an opportunity to say, "No, we really wish to maintain our position" in such cases where there is a problem—as there frequently is—between minority and majority shareholders.
I should be grateful if the noble Lord could alleviate my concerns on the question of minorities. In general we have no great problem with what the Government are proposing. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I hope that I shall be able to alleviate the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I have already explained that new Section 80A permits private companies to elect to alter the statutory maximum duration of an authority to allot shares from five years to a longer fixed period or an indefinite period. This section has been included in the package because it is a measure which affects only the internal procedures of a company.
For private companies we see that there is no particular case for limiting the authority to allot shares beyond five years. Arguably it represents a not entirely satisfactory compromise between the need to protect investors from the subsequent dilution of the value of their shareholdings and the wish to limit statutory constraints by allowing the authority to remain valid over a period. This proposal will enable companies to make their own choice of how long to fix the period.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I congratulate the Minister on his wishes to make these matters much more flexible for small companies. I should like to read what the noble Lord has said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and to see whether the matter should be brought up at a later stage.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I am sure he recognises that this is a quite difficult problem and that there is an uneasy balance. I shall consider again, as will the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, what he has said. If necessary we can come back to the matter later. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. C44, Amendment No. C46:
Subsection (2), in the proposed new section 366A, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. C46 deals with election by private companies to dispense with annual general meetings. This is a much more substantive provision in our view than the duration of authority for issuing securities. What is the point of having an annual general meeting? It is to allow all shareholders—be they majority, minority or minuscule shareholders—to raise matters, to move resolutions as appropriate, to discuss with their board of directors the conduct of the company, and indeed to call the board of directors to account.
There are many private companies in this country which have a number of shareholders. It is not simply the case that a private company is a two, three or four shareholder company. There are many very large private companies with a great number of shareholders. The removing by majority vote—that is the meaning of the word "election"—of the right for shareholders to come along at an annual general meeting and to complain about their directors seems a fairly major step. I beg to move. The noble Lord wishes to correct me?
Lord Strathclyde: I wished to remind the noble Lord that to get into the elective regime is still a unanimous procedure. Therefore all shareholders must agree to the proposal that there need not be annual general meetings.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry. I stand corrected. Nevertheless shareholdings change in private companies. Whereas there might have been unanimity among a group of shareholders in year one, by year three, with a totally different group of shareholders, that unanimity may not be there. Can the election be cancelled? Does it have to be cancelled by unanimity? How will all that work?
Lord Strathclyde: I do not want to speak at too great length. This is clearly an important point concerning annual general meetings. New Section 366A introduced by the clause permits an election by private companies to dispense with the holding of an AGM. The Government believe that this new provision will relieve many small companies of an unnecessary burden, and the proposal has been widely welcomed. Careful consideration has been given so as to ensure that there are other means to deal with the business previously conducted at AGMs and also safeguards to permit any individual member to call for an AGM to be held in any particular year. That covers the point that the noble Lord raised; I point him to new Section 379A. Similarly if auditors are concerned that there is reason to call an AGM, they will have power to do so.
We have reflected carefully on what function an AGM may serve, particularly to small private companies, where the directors may often also be the only shareholders. As I mentioned earlier, all the business conducted can be undertaken by other means. We accept that some companies may consider the meeting to be an opportunity to reflect

175
on each year's performance, but that is a matter for them to choose. Some may argue that it provides a discipline in encouraging the completion of annual accounts, but there are already other provisions in company law to ensure that this is done and the department has been taking other steps to ensure better compliance.
I return briefly to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, concerning the elective regime and its unanimity. Election is removable by ordinary resolution; that is, it needs only a bare majority, and that is outlined in new Section 379A(3).
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I raise one point in relation to the proposed amendment. The Committee will see that under new Section 366A,
"A private compant may elect (by elective resolution in accordance with Section 379A)",
but there still exists in new Section 379A the suggestion that that may be done not only without a meeting but without any previous notice being required. Consequently in those circumstances it is going rather a long way in deregulation to dispense with the holding of annual general meetings where no notice had been given.
Lord Strathclyde: There is no need for notice to be given for an annual general meeting which is not to take place. Where the matters that would normally be dealt with by an annual general meeting are already being dealt with by a written resolution, as we already discussed earlier—I believe that the noble Lord perhaps was not in the Chamber when we discussed it—there is no need for prior notice.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, had a winner while I was absent. That might encourage me to go away again.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for clearing up one or two matters. I now see that he is quite right in pointing me to new Section 379A, which we are about to discuss. Nevertheless the new minorities, if there is a change of circumstances, will not be able to carry an ordinary resolution to defeat the elective resolution, so the problem still remains on the table. I do not believe that there is much virtue in pursuing this argument. The noble Lord has been kind enough to give us a full justification of what the Government intend, so we can move on to other matters. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. C44, Amendment No. C47:
Subsection (3), line 7, leave out ("90%") and insert ("5%").
The noble Lord said: The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, alluded to the object of this amendment. If the whole exercise is designed to make it easier to give short notice for meetings, I cannot see that reducing from 95 to 90 per cent. is of any significance whatsover. However, the Government no doubt have come down on the side of 90 per cent. and I
176
should be grateful if the noble Lord will tell us why. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: Being a great deregulator, there is a temptation to agree with what the noble Lord proposes in his amendment. However, it might be helpful if I were to explain some of the background to this proposal. The original suggestion from the Institute of Directors was that the proportion of members required to consent to the calling of a shareholders' meeting at short notice should be reduced from 95 per cent. to a lower figure. The institute did not specify the figure. In the public consultation exercise, the Government proposed that the proportion required should still be a substantial majority, and suggested 75 per cent. However, several of the bodies consulted felt that 75 per cent. was too low: 90 per cent. is therefore the proposed compromise figure. I believe that it was proposed by the Law Society. We are therefore talking of companies moving—by unanimous vote, let us remember—from a situation where one shareholder in nineteen can unaided block a proposal to hold a meeting at short notice, to one where one shareholder in nine can do so unaided. Given the safeguards surrounding the whole regime, I do not consider that to be unreasonable. That is why the Government chose 90 per cent.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: The noble Lord said that certain organisations had suggested to the Government that 95 per cent. was too high and that 75 per cent. was too low, but the noble Lord has not given us any reason why that figure has been adopted by the Government. Is it just one of these occasions where a number has been picked out of the sky with no reason? I should have thought that 75 per cent. was still too high and that we should go much lower. Nevertheless, perhaps the noble Lord will tell us why that figure has been chosen as a result of recommendations from outside organisations.
Lord Strathclyde: I could perhaps answer that in the shape of a question to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. Does he feel that it is important that whatever figure is chosen it should reflect a majority of the shares?
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I have put my name to this amendment and I shall stick to the 5 per cent., unless the noble Lord can change my mind on the matter.
Lord Strathclyde: If it is the wish of the Committee, we shall be happy to look again at this figure. But the Government feel that it is important that there should be a majority of members of companies in favour. A reduction would open up the possibility of ordinary resolutions being passed at meetings called at short notice in circumstances where proper notice had not been given permitting further attendance and where a simple majority in favour would not have been obtainable. Given that, I hope that noble Lords will be able to withdraw their amendment.

177
Finally, we wish to move by consensus in this area, as the Government so often do. Ninety per cent. is a figure upon which we have found consensus. In the light of our discussion, that appears not to be the case, so perhaps we should discuss the matter further.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: Can the noble Lord explain why the figure of 75 per cent. was thought to be too low? He said that, according to representations they had received, that appeared to be the case.
Lord Strathclyde: I cannot say exactly why the bodies consulted considered it to be too low. I am not sure of their reasoning. However, I shall look into the matter to see whether the Government believe their suggestions to be fully justified.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am glad that he will look at the matter again because the present amendment as drafted does not appear to take us very far.
The noble Lord has announced that the Government frequently wish to achieve consensus. That is a new political doctrine about which I have not previously heard in relation to the Government. No doubt things will change according to the noble Lord's statement. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. C44 agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. C48:
After Clause 96, insert the following new clause:
("Elective resolution of private company
— (1) Chapter IV of Part XI of the Companies Act 1985 (meetings and resolutions) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 379 insert—
"Elective resolution of private company
379A.—(1) An election by a private company for the purposes of—

(a) section 80A (election as to duration of authority to allot shares),

(b) section 253 (election to dispense with laying of accounts and reports before general meeting),

(c) section 366A (election to dispense with holding of annual general meeting), or

(d) section 369(4) or 378(3) (election as to majority required to authorise short notice of meeting),

shall be made by resolution of the company in general meeting in accordance with this section.
Such a resolution is referred to in this Act as an "elective resolution".
(2) An elective resolution is not effective unless—

(a) at least 21 days' notice in writing is given of the meeting, stating that an elective resolution is to be proposed and stating the terms of the resolution, and

(b) the resolution is agreed to at the meeting, in person or by proxy, by all the members entitled to attend and vote at the meeting.

(3) The company may revoke an elective resolution by passing an ordinary resolution to that effect.
(4) An elective resolution shall cease to have effect if the company is re-registered as a public company.
(5) An elective resolution may be passed or revoked in accordance with this section, and the provisions referred to in subsection (1) have effect, notwithstanding any contrary provision in the company's articles of association.".
(3) In section 380 (registration of resolutions), in subsection (4) (resolutions to which the section applies), after paragraph (b) insert—
"(bb) an elective resolution or a resolution revoking such a resolution;".").
The noble Lord said: The new clause inserts a new Section 379A after Section 379 of the Companies Act. The new section provides the procedural framework to enable private companies to elect to modify or dispense with statutory requirements mentioned in the previous new clause and also in Clause 15 of the Bill.
The new provisions provide for election to be made by a resolution (referred to as an "elective resolution") which is passed by all the members entitled to attend and vote. It is necessary to give 21 days' notice in writing of an elective resolution. An elective resolution may, however, be revoked by ordinary resolution. Elective resolutions are to be registered in the same manner at Companies House as are the other resolutions mentioned in Section 380(4). I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. C48, Amendment No. C49:
Subsection (2), in the proposed new section 379A, subsection (2), line 5, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak also to Amendment No. C50. The amendments are designed to ensure that the elective resolution has proper legitimacy. The first paragraph of Amendment No. C50 is designed to ensure that the board of directors of the company recommend what is about to take place. The second paragraph provides that there should be a confirmatory meeting to ensure that everyone in the company has fully understood the issue and has the right of exercising some kind of impeding action if, after reflection, the majority of members disagree with what took place at the original meeting.
I believe that the first paragraph of Amendment No. C50 is more important than the second. Nevertheless, it did not appear to be worth drafting two separate amendments and I rolled them into one. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I should like to speak to the same amendments as the noble Lord. The effect of these amendments would be that two additional conditions are required before an elective resolution becomes effective. The first is that the resolution be recommended by the board of directors. In the type of small owner-managed company for whom the new clauses are intended to benefit, in many instances the board of directors may also be all, or virtually all, of the members. We therefore consider that in many cases the condition will be an unnecessary complication.
But where a resolution is proposed by a person who is not a director and has the support of all the members of the company who are entitled to vote, it is difficult to see why the directors should have a right to block the resolution even if this could be

179
seen as consistent with their duty to act in the interests of shareholders.
The whole purpose of the elective regime is to give the company greater autonomy in determining its own procedures, and "the company" for this purpose, as for any purpose, means its members.
The second condition—that an elective resolution be confirmed 21 days later at a further general meeting—would, in our view, introduce a more serious obstacle which could well make the elective regime less attractive to small companies and frustrate the whole subject of the exercise. The purpose of these new clauses is to dispense with the holding of unnecessary meetings so that companies can get on with their real business. Their purpose is also to avoid fictional or meaningless meetings which nobody actually wants. We do not want to end up by replacing one fiction with another. We do not think much would be gained by such a meeting. An elective resolution can only be passed unanimously. Why should it be supposed that the members were unable to know their own minds on the first occasion and be obliged to reconsider? There are already other safeguards to allow calling meetings in special circumstances and it would take only an ordinary majority resolution to revoke or modify the regime. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw these amendments.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I entirely agree that we should endeavour to remove fictional matters as far as possible. However, I do not understand his reasons for dismissing paragraph (c) of Amendment No. C50. Perhaps he will explain.
Lord Strathclyde: Let us suppose that there was an instance where the shareholders of a company wanted to act in a particular way but it would be feasible for the board of directors not to agree. I believe that it would be wrong if, under the amendment, the board of directors was able to stop the resolution coming forward. I am sure that basically the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, agrees with me.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I find the argument difficult to sustain. The directors of a company, private or public, are appointed or elected in order to serve the interests of the shareholders and to run the company. They are entrusted with the conduct of the company. I believe that in such matters it would be normal to have a board recommendation on a resolution and that shareholders should properly be suspicious if there is no such recommendation.
If a majority of shareholders disagree with the board of directors, the remedy is easy and close to hand; they can change the board of directors. Therefore I do not believe that paragraph (c) of Amendment No. C50 poses a great problem for the Government. I am surprised that the Minister dismissed it in such a manner.
Lord Strathclyde: It does not create a great problem for the Government but, for the reasons which the noble Lord pointed out, it is unnecessary. I can add no more to what I have already said. We are creating a situation in which shareholders ultimately have the power. There is no requirement for the board of directors to agree a resolution. Directors are entrusted with the conduct of companies because shareholders cannot do everything themselves. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, spoke of normality, but I do not think that the amendment necessarily deals with that. In an extraordinary situation where shareholders may be unanimous, why should the board of directors have a veto on that unanimity?
Lord Williams of Elvel: If the shareholders are unanimous then they can remove the board of directors, but when shareholders are not unanimous, which is normally the case, it would help to have a recommendation from the board of directors. However, I see that the noble Lord has set his face against this amendment and I do not wish to prolong our discussions further. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. C50 not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. C48 agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. C51:
After Clause 96, insert the following new clause:
("Power to make further provision by regulations.
.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision enabling private companies to elect, by elective resolution in accordance with section 379A of the Companies Act 1985, to dispense with compliance with such requirements of that Act as may be specified in the regulations, being requirements which appear to the Secretary of State to relate primarily to the internal administration and procedure of companies.
(2) The regulations may add to, amend or repeal provisions of that Act; and may provide for any such provision to have effect, where an election is made, subject to such adaptations and modifications as appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate.
(3) The regulations may make different provision for different cases and may contain such supplementary, incidental and transitional provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate.
(4) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument.
(5) No regulations under this section shall be made unless a draft of the instrument containing the regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.").
The noble Lord said: This provision is included so that the list of provisions set out in new Section 379A introduced by the previous clause may be further extended. I should emphasise that this power only permits the inclusion of such provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to relate primarily to the internal administration and procedure of companies. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: This new clause is again one which allows the Secretary of State, by order, to vary primary legislation. We might just as well have had a new clause saying that the Secretary of State, by regulations, may make any provisions which he

181
feels fit to relate primarily to the internal administration of companies and not even bother with government Amendments Nos. C48, C44 and so on.
I said before, and will say again, that we object to this type of clause going into the statute. If the Government wish to amend the statute then they should come forward with primary legislation to do so and not leave it to a Secretary of State, however well intentioned he may be, to issue an order which is discussed in your Lordships' House but on which no amendments are allowed and no Division is taken. I feel that the Government should withdraw this new clause which allows the Secretary of State to amend primary legislation.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I strongly support that suggestion. Whenever one sees a clause in a Bill saying that the Secretary of State may do something by regulations, one is always suspicious of the position arising from that. I believe that this is a very poor way of amending primary legislation. The procedures which occur when regulations come before the House make it very difficult to amend them. Primary legislation should be included in the Act.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I know that some of my noble friends have misgivings and distaste about giving Ministers the power to change primary legislation by regulation. In this instance, I am not quite clear about the effect of this new clause. Am I right in thinking that the operation of subsection (2) is governed entirely by subsection (1), and that the freedom given to the Secretary of State to add to, amend or repeal provisions is not so wide as it appears if taken on its own? I should be obliged to my noble friend if he can confirm that thought.
Lord Strathclyde: I thank my noble friend Lord Peyton for that intervention and for giving me the opportunity to clarify the point he raised. What he said was correct. The regulations in subsection (2) are governed by subsection (1).
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, suggested that we would be able to change the procedures for entering the regime by this order. That is not the case. This regulation-making power only enables a change of the contents of the regime. Why do we need that regulation-making power? The IOD working party suggested that a small number of other provisions might be included. The department asked for opinions from other bodies when we consulted, but views were expressed that, for the time being, those provisions should not be included. Nevertheless, it would be a pity if further changes could not be made until there was another opportunity for primary legislation. Therefore, I hope that Members of the Committee will agree with the situation that I have outlined. In the next few years there may be very good sense in adding slightly more scope to the regime, and that can be done easily and neatly and with discussion on an affirmative resolution.
Lord Tordoff: Perhaps I may ask for further clarification of subsection (2) because that refers to:
"May add to, amend or repeal provisions of that Act"
It may be governed by subsection (1) but the wording seems to me to go much wider than that.
Lord Strathclyde: I am sorry if the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, feels that that is the case. That is not my reading of it. Subsection (2) is governed by subsection (1). The power is not to amend the whole regime or Act, only to add to those parts of the Act to which the regime itself applies.
Lord Tordoff: Is there any possibility that the Government could put those words on the face of the Bill, because it does not say that? I accept that that is the intention of the Government. However, we on this side are constantly being accused of using strange words in amendments; and this does not seem to me to be as specific as the noble Lord said it was.
Lord Strathclyde: I shall certainly look at the clause again to see whether it needs any clarification, but my noble friend Lord Peyton seemed to understand it as did I. I shall certainly look at ways of clarifying exactly what it is we are trying to do; but at present my feeling is that the clause is clear and no amendment is needed.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I object to the principle of this clause and not merely to the drafting, although I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is quite right in what he said. However, the principle is objectionable. Just because the Institute of Directors has some more ideas and wishes to persuade the Secretary of State that it is right, so that that can be translated into a new part of the Companies Act seems to me objectionable. That is why I object to it.
5.48 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. C51) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 121; Not-Contents, 61.

DIVISION NO.1

CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Buckmaster, V.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Butterfield, L.

Allerton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Alport, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Ampthill, L.

Carnock, L.

Arran, E.

Cathcart, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Chelmer, L.

Bauer, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Belstead, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Blake, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Blatch, B.

Cottesloe, L

Blyth, L.

Craigavon, V.

Borthwick, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Broadbridge, L.

Digby, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Dundee, E.

183

Elibank, L.

Mostyn, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mottistone, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Mountevans, L.

Ferrers, E.

Munster, E.

Ferrier, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Fortescue, E.

Nelson, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L,

Newall, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Norfolk, D.

Gray of Contin, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Greenway, L.

Onslow, E.

Halsbury, E.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Orkney, E.

Harvington, L.

Pender, L.

Havers, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Henley, L.

Piatt of Writtle, B.

Hertford, M.

Rankeillour, L.

Hesketh, L.

Redesdale, L.

Hives, L.

Rees, L.

Holderness, L.

Richardson, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Rochdale, V.

Hooper, B.

Rodney, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

St. Davids, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Ingrow, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Joseph, L.

Shannon, E.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Kimball, L.

Stockton, E.

Knutsford, V,

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strange, B.

Lawrence, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Long, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

McFadzean, L.

Suffield, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Swinton, E.

Margadale, L.

Terrington, L.

Marley, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Trafford, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Trumpington, B.

Tryon, L.

Merrivale, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Middleton, L.

Wise, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Wynford, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Attlee, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Aylestone, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Barnett. L.

Kennet, L.

Birk, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Blease, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Longford, E.

Butterworth, L.

McNair, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mishcon, L.

Molloy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Dean of Beswick, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rea, L.

Ennals, L.

Seear, B.

Ezra, L.

Sharpies, B.

Galpern, L.

Shepherd, L.

Glenamara, L.

Simon, V.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Somers, L.

Gregson, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Grey, E.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Grimond, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Hacking, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hampton, L.

Underhill, L.

Hanworth, V.

Walston, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Whaddon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

White, B.

Hughes, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hunt, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Jay, L.

Jeger, B.

Winstanley, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.56 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. C52:
After Clause 96, insert the following new clause:
("Composition of Boards
. At the end of Part IX of the Companies Act 1985 (Companies' Management; Directors and Secretaries, their Qualifications. Duties and Responsibilities) insert the following new section—
Composition of Board
310A. At least one-third of the directors of a public company shall be non-executive, nominated for election by members of the company representing in aggregate not less than 10% of the voting capital; the role of non-executive directors shall be defined in the company's Articles of Association." ").
The noble Lord said: At a previous Committee stage on this Bill we had a discussion about non-executive directors. It was argued at the time that it would be a mistake to put the position of non-executive directors into statute, not least because the definition of a non-executive director was unclear. The amendment seeks to deal with that argument.
The amendment also introduces what I think is a somewhat novel element which I should like to explain. We on this side of the Committee believe that there is only one real advantage in the present system of takeover bids. The threat of a takeover bid—I believe there are a number of cases which one could cite in evidence—sharpens the management of the company. If a company feels that it is threatened by a bidder certain things happen and, in practice, the company becomes rather better managed.
The evidence also shows that if the takeover bid goes ahead the resulting merger is not necessarily successful. Therefore, we are seeking a method to ensure that the management of a company can be affected by the same sort of sanctions, or sanctions of the same strength, as a threatened takeover bid. Consequently, I have introduced the notion of non-executive directors not simply being appointed by the existing chairman and board but being nominated for election by substantial bodies of shareholders. Clearly, by so nominating and, indeed, removing nominations if they felt it necessary, shareholders would be exercising a proper control over non-executive directors.
The non-executive director would therefore have as his power base in the company the fact that he was nominated by a large group of shareholders and subsequently elected. He would not have as his power base the fact that he was a friend of the chairman or of the present board of directors. That is a new element that I should like to put before the Committee.
My second point is that every company will have a different view of what non-executive directors should do. I do not believe there is a clear definition of the functions of non-executive directors. Indeed, I doubt whether there can be a clear definition which ranges across all industries and all sectors of the market. I have therefore included in the amendment a provision that the function of non-executive directors should be defined by the company itself—that is, by the shareholders—by writing a definition

185
into the articles of association of the company. That would allow great flexibility for the shareholders to decide what sort of non-executive directors they need, what their functions should be and how they should perform them. The non-executive directors would be guided by those articles.
I have chosen the figure of one-third of the directors of a public company not because I am wedded to that figure. I do not believe it makes very much difference whether it is one-quarter or one-half. I am also aware that the directors of every company have general responsibilities as directors ad not responsibilities to individual groups of shareholders. I do not in the least ignore the problems of the proportion of non-executive directors and of the general responsibility that directors have to a public company. Nevertheless, I feel that our system of governance of companies will be substantially advanced if we can ensure that groups of shareholders representing not less than 10 per cent. of the capital, but, important shareholders, can be more directly involved, They will be nominated and elected by people to whom they can talk directly concerning the management of the company. The present situation would be substantially advanced by that procedure and also if the role of a non-executive director can be defined by the shareholders themselves and by the company when the articles of association are written.
I believe that this is an important amendment. The problem of whether companies should have non-executive directors will not go away. That is something we shall be considering not only as this Bill goes through the Committee stage but as we deal with the Report stage and also when the Bill goes to another place. It is a matter that we shall have to come to terms with in our system. I advance this formulation as being one way of doing so. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: It is widely accepted that non-executive directors can be useful to a company. I recall the discussions that we have had previously. The Government said that it was not a good thing to have non-executive directors included in any kind of statutory form. I am attracted to this amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, he is not wedded to the fact that one-third of the directors should be non-executive. In my view the following part of the amendment will ensure, in the noble Lord's happy phrase, that the system of government of companies will be strengthened. Non-executive directors will be nominated for election by members of the company and not, as happens these days, by the chairman of the company alone. I should have declared an interest in that at the present time I am a non-executive director of three companies.
The other attraction is that there is a minimum percentage of those who will be capable of voting. It will be not less than 10 per cent. of the voting capital. The most important part of the amendment is that the role of these non-executive directors will be defined in the company's articles of association. As
186
I said earlier, the management of companies will be greatly strengthened by an amendment of this kind.
Lord Mottistone: I agree with one point only raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. He said that this is an important amendment. I believe that it is extremely dangerous. It is yet another attempt similar to those that we have seen in recent months to strike at the effectiveness of the unitary board. I shall direct my remarks particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I shall endeavour not to speak to a brief but to what he said. Does he not believe that having some people on a unitary board who are selected by statute and nominated by a group of shareholders, as he explained it, is dangerous for the cohesion, co-operation and efficiency of the board?
Like the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, I have to declare an interest. I am non-executive director of two companies and the chairman of one. The members of the boards of those two companies are there because each has something to contribute. They are not there because they are old school chums of the chairman or anything like that. I believe that was faintly suggested. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will not press that point. I wish to dispel that idea because there is no question of it. We want efficency. The point that worries me is that if this amendment is accepted as it is proposed, there is a risk that non-executive directors may become stooges of the shareholders who have nominated them.
It may be argued that that will not be so and that they will be independent members of the board. The board has a comprehensive and joint responsibility for its own actions. The noble Lord said that not only can the shareholders concerned nominate somebody, but they can also have him removed from the board. That is a very serious risk. In trying to achieve this—though I hope he will not proceed with it—I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will seriously try to avoid the risk of people becoming the stooges of other people. That is the fatal flaw in this amendment.
As regards the question of whether the proportion of non-executive directors should be one-third, all the people who have advised me over a period of time concerning companies that I have worked for or companies of which I have been a member of the board agree with the noble Lord that one-third non-executive directors is about right. In the past 20 years I have never met anybody who has not said that we should have that kind of figure. But I do not see why it needs to be in the statute because it is not essential. There must be some companies for which it is not suitable to have a third, but more or less. To include a figure is probably unwise. There is not a tremendous advantage in it. It seems that the creation of the statutory non-executive director is almost entirely designed to arrange for some other kind of control of the company other than with the shareholders exercising control in the present way.
At the moment shareholders control the company in the traditional way by what they do at the annual general meeting. More importantly, they control it by selling the shares of the company if they believe that it is no good. The question of trying to

187
manipulate by whatever means what is really an executive body for making a success of a company strikes me as something that only creates greater inefficiency. Therefore it would not be good for British business.
I hope that the Committee will agree with me that the amendment is extremely dangerous and should be rejected. I hope very much that the efforts on the part of the Opposition to control the non-executive directors and move in the Vredeling direction in due course will be dropped and that the Opposition will help us try to make sure that British business becomes even more efficient than it already is.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: In view of the noble Lord's great experience in this matter, and particularly as he tells us that he represents the CBI, can he explain what he means when he says that the amendment is dangerous? I did not gather what the danger was. Perhaps he was referring to the unitary position of the board. Perhaps the noble Lord does not quite appreciate what happens at many board meetings. Matters may be resolved eventually but many board decisions are majority decisions rather than unitary ones.
Lord Mottistone: The danger I see is that the proposal would make the ordinary unitary board more inefficient. There is a risk that some of its members would be stooges of the people who nominated them. That is what I believe is dangerous. I believe the whole concept to be dangerous. But the real danger in this way of proceeding is that the people concerned would not, or could not, be independent in the true sense. Some of them will be, but they could be subject to manipulation from outside.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am grateful to the noble Lord for clarifying his position.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Before the noble Lord, Lord Stratchlyde, explains the government position, perhaps I can respond to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. I accept it as a very serious contribution to what is a very important debate. No doubt he and I have differences of opinion—clearly so on this matter. I do not believe that my amendment is a danger to companies. As I have said, I believe that it would improve companies' management. I am seeking that end. It may be a danger to what I call—if there any—establishment boards of directors, which are cosy and stitched up. The noble Lord, Lord Motttistone, says that there are not; but there may be one or two from time to time.
Perhaps I should declare an interest. Like the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, I am a non-executive director of a number of companies. In the case of at least two of those companies, which are public companies, I am appointed by a controlling shareholder. That fact does not relieve me of my responsibilities as a director of a public company. However, it means that the shareholder in question can ask me how the company is doing, what is going on, how the management is performing and how the
188
conduct of the company is being handled. It seems to me wholly desirable that shareholders should take much more interest in the conduct of companies which they own than they do at present. I hope that the noble Lord and I are at one in saying that shareholders should take more interest in the management of companies. I believe that this amendment represents one way of doing so.
Lord Mottistone: Perhaps I may respond to that point. The best advice that I ever received concerning a large public company was that its board should be made up of about one third executive directors, one third non-executive directors with wide experience of many businesses—like the noble Lord—and one third principal shareholders. That is the best balance, but God forbid that that should be laid in statute. That formula happens to suit several companies but not every one.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is seeking. He would like shareholders to take more interest in the affairs of a company and how it is managed. I believe that that applies with particular force to institutional shareholders, who far too often are absent and detached and who take an excessively short-term interest. They ought to take a longer-term view. However, I doubt very much whether the proposal put forward by the noble Lord will achieve that end.
I share the view of my noble friend Lord Mottistone. For a section of the board to be indebted for their positions to a group of shareholders would be very wrong and very dangerous. There is a temptation—of which politicians should be the first to be aware—to trim sails to popular winds. A director who owed his place on a board to a particular section of shareholders would be placed in a very dangerous position. He could, unnecessarily and wrongly, be a thorn in the flesh of his colleagues in order to draw attention to himself and his qualities, about which there might be serious doubts.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I accept that it is matter for serious discussion whether this is the way to achieve what I wish. However, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, will accept that nothing sinister is intended; there is no question of "reds under the bed".
Lord Mottistone: Not yet.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Lord says, "Not yet". Here we go again. That is a classic reaction. Almost anything that is moved by the Opposition is thought to have some sinister motive. This is a perfectly ordinary attempt, as the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, has said, to make large and institutional shareholders more responsive to their companies and board directors more responsive to their shareholders. As I said in my introductory remarks, I believe that we should have some better method, other than mergers and takeovers, of ensuring that managers are kept up to the mark. This is one of the ways of doing that.
Lord Strathclyde: The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is interesting. He has obviously put a great deal of hard work into its drafting. However, I do not think that it will come as any surprise to the noble Lord if I tell him that we shall not accept it. Perhaps I may also say to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, who, in his opening remarks, referred to the Government's view of this type of amendment as discussed in Committee, that fortunately the noble Lord, Lord Williams, withdrew his amendment before the Government had an opportunity to respond. Nevertheless, he is quite correct as to the general gist of how we would have responded.
The effect of this proposal would be to establish a legal distinction between the executive and non-executive directors of public limited companies by requiring the appointment of individuals to serve specifically in the latter capacity on the boards of all public companies. It would also, as the noble Lord has explained, set the number of such directors at one-third of those on the board in each case.
The Government are opposed to these proposals and it may more readily help the Committee to understand the reasons for our opposition if I explain the background to our thinking on the subject. We are well aware that in recent years there has been growing tendency to advocate the appointment of non-executive directors. They are seen as being able to provide an objective view on many of the issues which are put before the board for its consideration. They are also seen as being in some circumstances better placed than executive directors to carry out certain tasks, not least because they can often bring a wider breadth of experience and knowledge to the decision-making process than can their executive colleagues.
The Government are fully in favour of those developments and would encourage companies to make greater use of non-executive directors. Nevertheless, it is a far cry from advocating the voluntary adoption of such measures to imposing them on companies through legal compulson. Companies must be given the freedom to decide for themsleves what structures, appointments and allocations of responsibility are appropriate to their particular circumstances. To attempt to take these decisions for them will result in some cases in hindering them in the proper pursuit of their activities and will in many other cases result only in a half-hearted and ineffectual compliance. The mere existence of non-executive directors will not, for example, guarantee that they will be independent figures, in a position of genuine influence, even if specific responsibilities are allocated to them.
The final point that I should like to put before the Committee for consideration is this. Company law in this country has traditionally made no distinction between non-executive and executive directors. It has laid equally upon them both the fundamental requirement to operate with care and skill and in good faith. If the board abuses its position the law already provides remedies to the shareholders to whom it is responsible. I appreciate that this amendment is aimed at improving the management
190
of companies, not at remedying defects in the present law, but it is a simple fact that you cannot legislate for good management in business matters any more than you can in other fields.
I hope, therefore, in the light of what I and my noble friends behind me have said, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for what he said. Indeed, as he said, the response he gave was not unexpected. I hope that he and the Government accept the fact that we are trying to address a problem which does exist. Moreover, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, indicated that there was a genuine problem in getting shareholders to be more interested in the conduct of the companies which they own rather than simply selling their shares and walking away, taking a short-term view of the matter.
I hope that Members of the Committee on the opposite side will also recognise that within the context of the unitary board, it is possible to have different interests represented. Indeed, it happens on many occasions. It is still a unitary board. Directors are still responsible for the whole company and also responsible to the body of shareholders. Nevertheless, there are different interests represented.
The concept of defining a non-executive director seems to me most happily placed in the company's articles of association. I say that because I believe that the role of a non-executive director will vary from company to company. Indeed, there is no way that you can define across the board what a non-executive director is. In my view shareholders should have the right to ask particular tasks of non-executive directors.
However, having launched this issue, I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote. I believe that the debate has been useful. I hope that Members of the Committee on the opposite side will recognise that I moved the amendment in an attempt to be constructive rather than destructive. the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. C53:
Before Clause 97, insert the following new clause:
("Form of articles for partnership company
In Chapter I of Part I of the Companies Act 1985 (company formation), after section 8 (Tables A, C, D and E) insert—
"Table G.
8A—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe a Table G containing articles of association appropriate for a partnership company, that is, a company limited by shares whose shares are intended. to be held to a substantial extent by or on behalf of its employees.
(2) A company limited by shares may for its articles adopt the whole or any part of that Table.
(3) If in consequence of regulations under this section Table G is altered, the alteration does not affect a company registered before the alteration takes effect, or repeal as respects that company any portion of the Table.
(4) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject Lo annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".").
The noble Lord said: With leave, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to the related amendment, Amendment No. C54 tabled in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Peston. Noble Lords will remember that previously in Committee strong support was expressed for the idea of making enabling provision for a table G, which was put forward in an amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Onslow. I promised to consider the matter further, with a view to bringing forward suitable enabling proposals at a later stage.
As I said then, the Government have done a great deal, especially through their privatisation and tax policies, to foster the greater involvement of employees in their companies. Nine of the last 10 Budgets have improved the financial regime by applying to employee share ownership arrangements; indeed, in the last Budget there was an important proposal for a new corporation tax relief for a company's contributions to an employee benefit trust. So this amendment to facilitate the development of partnership companies should be seen against the background of an accelerating movement by the Government to provide conditions where the benefits of employee ownership can emerge freely.
The amendment makes provision for the Secretary of State to have express powers to bring forward a new model set of articles of association which would be appropriate for a partnership company. This model set of articles would be known as table G. As Members of the Committee will know, the existing model set for ordinary companies is known as table A. A partnership company would be free to have table G or to modify it to its own preference—or indeed to have a version of table A as at present if it wished. As advocates of the idea have pointed out, the main advantage to companies is that the availability of a model set saves them substantial cost when drawing up their articles of association.
It would be the Government's intention, once this enabling provision is enacted—assuming the provision receives the support indicated for it—to consult with interested parties on the drafting of an appropriate table G, and to bring the resultant proposals before Parliament under the secondary legislation proposals set out in the Government's amendment.
There is one point of detail I should like to mention on the eventual content of table G itself. Those who have expressed support for the provision of such a table have suggested that it should cater specifically for companies where a majority of its shares are held by, or on behalf of, its employees. I do not envisage any particular difficulty about including that point in the table. But we have deliberately avoided using the word "majority" or any other specific proportion in the definition of a partnership company in the enabling power in the amendment before us.
Members of the Committee will see that we have referred to "a substantial extent". This is because we consider that a specific proportion in the definition in the enabling legislation would be unduly restrictive on the operative of a partnership company if, for example, the level of employee
192
ownership of its shares inadvertently fell below the specified level. It is in the interests of partnership companies not to have this enabling definition too tightly drawn.
The noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Peston, have suggested that the Government's proposals for using the negative resolution procedure for obtaining Parliament's approval of the detailed wording of table G in due course should be replaced by the affirmative resolution procedure. It has long been the practice that regulations prescribing table A—and for that matter tables C, D and E—are subject to the negative resolution procedure. It would seem quite out of proportion for the proposed new table G to be subjected to affirmative resolution, especially when it is bound by its very nature to be applicable to comparatively few companies and is purely optional for them.
I believe that the most effective course for getting the detail right is full prior consultation with interested parties. I have already undertaken that such consultation will take place and, accordingly, I hope the noble Lords will withdraw their amendment in order to permit progress on the Government's amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. C53, Amendment No. C54:
In the proposed new section 8A, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) No regulations under this section shall be made unless a draft of the instrument containing the regulations has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, began his presentation of Amendment No. C53—to which I shall also speak—with a somewhat discursive paragraph on the Government's commitment to employee shareholdings. We noted when the Companies Bill was first published that it contained no such commitment. However, thanks to the persuasive efforts of the Opposition, and also noble Lords on all sides of the Committee, the Government have now conceded that amendments will be brought forward for employee share ownership plans. Moreover, as the noble Lord rightly pointed out, in the Budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer decided to make such arrangements more tax efficient than they would otherwise be.
The Government are slightly dragging their feet and are being pushed along by those of us on this side of the Committee. We welcome that fact. Indeed, we think that that is the right way for the Government to go. Again, this is an amendment which has been brought forward by the Government—I refer to Amendment No. C53—in response to pressure from noble Lords in this Chamber, including the Opposition, and we are glad that they have succumbed to that pressure.
The reason I am moving Amendment No. C54 while speaking to Amendment No. C53, is that table G, as it turns out, will be a rather particular sort of table. The noble Lord quite rightly pointed out that the procedure for regulations under Section 8 of the Companies Act 1985 is by negative resolution.
I accept that logically one might expect new table G to be under the same formula. Nevertheless, it will be a rather special table, and the object of making the procedure affirmative rather than negative is to ensure that we have a chance to have a look at it to ensure that the Government have lived up to their word before the table is finally in law.
If the Government can give us some sort of undertaking, as the Minister seemed to be verging on, that all interested parties will be consulted—interested parties include the Opposition—that becomes a rather different matter. We have had some difficulty in obtaining consultations from the Government. We are an interested party before legislation is introduced into this place. I should like to feel that there is middle ground between my amendment and the pure negative procedure, because table G is much more important than the other tables mentioned in Section 8 of the Companies Act 1985. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m
The Earl of Onslow: I must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, on taking credit for the amendment that I moved in Committee. Nicking one's opponent's clothes is normally a Conservative Party habit, but at least we have tried to do it when they have been bathing and not standing watching. On this occasion I have been standing watching. However, that does not stop me from being grateful for the noble Lord's support in Committee. In Committee I said, "Yippee". On this amendment I say, "Yippe". I have knocked one "e" off the word "yippee" because of the introduction of the word "substantial".
When the Government write the articles, I hope that they will include the word "majority" because "substantial" is a word that can be argued over. It is peradventure, Lord, that there be 99 just men in all of Sodom and Gomorrah. We know how good Abraham was at arguing about the substantiality of the just men in Sodom and Gomorrah. "Substantial" is a word which lacks definition. "Majority" is clearer to everyone. Apart from that minor cavil, I thank my noble friend for giving so much support to the Opposition's amendment.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: One minor point which arises from my noble friend's remarks is that I believe the search for the just men applied to Nineveh rather than Sodom and Gomorrah. If my noble friend cares to check, I believe he will find that I am right.
My aversion to and distaste for the introduction of the power to regulate applies to and arises from its use to change primary legislation. I feel no inclination to support the amendment, because I dislike the prospect of this place combing through the draft of table G. It will be a painful and prolonged occupation. If I may say this without giving offence to anyone, experience this afternoon has been some indication of just how painful a detailed discussion in this place on a draft of table G might be. I am pleased that it will not be part of primary legislation.
194
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, at some earlier stage in the Bill, that affirmative procedures are of limited use and small comfort to us in this place.
Lord Tordoff: I do not wish to enter into a theological argument with noble Lords opposite. It is perhaps sad that the Bench of the right reverend Prelates is not occupied. A question that I should like to ask the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, privately on some occasion is that I know what went on in Sodom but I never found out what they were doing in Gomorrah.
Once again, we have secondary legislation coming. We should have a chart on the wall to clock up the number of times the Government put secondary legislation onto the statute book.
Lord Strathclyde: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I was surprised at the tone of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, who I felt was being rather self-righteous. As my noble friend Lord Onslow pointed out, the bringing forward of the amendment is a result or the considerable hard work that he put into it rather than that of the noble Lord, Lord Williams. He accused the Government of dragging their heels with a certain amount of pride. He made it sound as though we were being dragged forward kicking and squealing to the Dispatch Box on a whole range of proposals which he believes we should enact.
There is no pride on our part. When we feel that we have done something wrong or that the Bill could be improved, we take the proper steps. We feel that that is the correct way to govern. The noble Lord said that he had not been getting very much consultation. If he does not believe that the consultation that we have so far had has been worth while— —
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps I may clarify one point. I do not mean to criticise the noble Lord. He has been courteous on the Bill. Nevertheless, many things were going around before the Bill was published. None of them came to the Opposition. The same happened with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill, the Consumer Protection Bill and the Financial Services Bill.
Lord Strathclyde: That all happened before I became involved. The noble Lord asked whether we would consult him in advance about any further amendmends to table G. Yes, our proposals for the form of the amendment have already been discussed. When we have a text available for further consultation, a copy will be sent to the noble Lord. We shall be more than happy to discuss it further if he so wishes, and, likewise, with the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, who I know is equally interested.
My noble friend Lord Onslow questioned the word "substantial" as opposed to "majority". In my opening remarks I said that I did not envisage any particular difficulty about including that point in the table. At the moment we do not wish to be any more precise than the word "substantial". I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Peyton and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, disagreed with the secondary legislation that we were introducing to make that

195
provision possible. Again, as I said in my opening remarks, the point is that with table G we are pursuing— —
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Will my noble friend forgive me for interrupting? He has totally misunderstood me. I am sorry if I was obscure. I have obviously caught the habit from someone. I was saying that I believed table G to be wholly appropriate for secondary legislation. My objections to primary legislation apply here. I thought I went so far as to say that to introduce table G into this place for detailed amendment would be a nightmare from which I would resile with horror.
Lord Strathclyde: I apologise. I completely misunderstood what my noble friend said. He has clarified the point. Perhaps I should say no more on that matter except to refer the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, to what my noble friend just said.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the Minister for his response to my amendment. I look forward to being consulted on the draft of table G as I look forward to being consulted, as he promised, on the draft of the ESOP amendments, which, as I understood from Committee, are being given the highest priority. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. C53 agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. C55:
Insert the following new clause:
("Abolition of requirement to have company seal
—(1) In Chapter III of Part I of the Companies Act 1985 (a company's capacity; the formalities of carrying on business), after section 36 insert
"Sealing of documents.
36A.—(1) A company need not have a common seal.
(2) The following provisions apply to a company whether or not it has a common seal.
(3) A document signed by a director and the secretary of the company and expressed (in whatever form of words) to be executed by the company has the same effect as if it were under the company's common seal.
(4) A document so executed which—

(a) is intended by the person or persons making it to be a deed, and

(b) makes that fact clear upon its face (in whatever form of words),

has effect, upon delivery, as a deed; and it shall be presumed, unless a contrary intention is proved, to be delivered upon its being so executed.
(5) In favour of a purchaser a document signed by persons purporting to be persons holding the offices of director and secretary of a company shall be deemed for the purposes of subsection (3) to have been so executed and, if the conditions specified in subsection (4)(a) and (b) appear to be satisfied, to have been delivered upon its being so executed.
For this purpose a "purchaser" means a purchaser in good faith for valuable consideration and includes a lessee, mortgagee or other person who for valuable consideration acquires an interest in property.
(6) Subsections (2) to (5) of this section do not extend to Scotland.".
(2)After section 37 insert—
"Pre-incorporation contracts and obligations.
37A.—(1) Where a contract or obligation purports to be entered into or undertaken on behalf of a company, or by a person as agent for a company, at a time when the company has not been formed, then, subject to any agreement to the contrary, the contract or obligation has effect as one entered into or undertaken by the person purporting to act for the company or as agent for it and he is personally liable on the contract or obligation accordingly.
(2) As respects England and Wales "obligation" in subsection (1) means an obligation arising by virtue of an instrument under seal or having effect, by virtue of section 36A above, as if under seal.".
(3)In section 39(1) of the Companies Act 1985 (power of company to have official seal for use abroad), after "A company" insert "which has a common seal and" and for "the common seal of the company" substitute "its common seal".
(4) In section 40 of the Companies Act 1985 (power of company to have official seal for sealing securities, &c.), after "A company" insert "which has a common seal" and for "the company's common seal" substitute "its common seal".
(5) In section 41 of the Companies Act 1985 (authentication of documents), omit the words from "and need not" to the end.
(6) In section 350 of the Companies Act 1985 (company seal), for subsection (1) substitute—
"(1) A company which has a common seal shall have its name engraved in legible characters on the seal; and if it fails to comply with this subsection it is liable to a fine.".").
The noble Lord said: The new clause is deregulatory. It enables all companies to dispense with the obligation to have a company seal to execute certain documents. Under the new provision a document signed by a director and the secretary and expressed to be executed by the company will have the same effect as if it were under seal. The Government are committed to reducing unnecessary burdens on business and there are no good arguments for retaining the formality of the use of a physical seal. However, if any company wants to continue using its common seal, it may of course do so. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. C55, Amendment No. C56:
Subsection (1), in the proposed new section 36A, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: The Committee will appreciate that, as before, these amendments were tabled when we thought we were going to be discussing the Report Stage, so some of them are in the nature of a clause stand part debate. That is the case with Amendment No. C56.
When moving Amendment No. C55, the noble Lord said that the Government could see no point in companies having common seals, if I understood him correctly. In that case, why should companies continue to have common seals at all? Why not simply say, "Let's do away with common seals". Why do we have to have the possibility that they may or may not have a common seal; that there is an alternative? It depends how they go about it. Why not abolish the whole thing altogether? I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I am not quite sure what point the noble Lord was trying to make. He asked why we should allow some companies to retain the seal. Is that right?
Lord Williams of Elvel: The point that I was making was that if the Government believe that a common seal is not necessary and that documents can be properly verified and properly established without the use of a common seal, why have common seals at all. Why do we have the alternative, "You can have one if you want or you needn't have one if you don't want"? That is what I understand the amendment to mean.
Lord Strathclyde: The amendment is quite plain. It is an abolition; there is no need to have a common seal. Maybe I am being very stupid; I do not understand what the noble Lord is trying to say. There is no requirement to have a company seal; therefore companies can cease to use one unless they particularly want to.
Lord Williams of Elvel: But companies can still have a seal if they want apparently. My question is very simple. Why not do away with the whole idea of company seals in one go?
Lord Strathclyde: It is just that we allow people to make a choice. Some people are very fond of their seals and may feel it is part of their tradition. There is no good reason for taking seals right out of the legislation. All we are doing is to allow companies that do not wish to use them any more not to do so.
Lord Prys-Davies: Does that mean that if a document is presented to a lawyer, he must obtain a copy of the articles of the company in order to be sure whether or not a document needs to be sealed?
Lord Strathclyde: Generally speaking, that is absolutely correct, except that I should point out that the situation is slightly different in Scotland, where the seal is not being abolished yet.
Lord Prys-Davies: But henceforth if a document is presented to a lawyer, in each and every case he will have to have access to the articles of that company to know how the company is to authorise the document. That is the problem which I see if we abolish the need for the seal.
Lord Strathclyde: The Government do not see that the problem arises at all. It does not seem to be a significant part of any difficulties arising out of the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Then how does the lawyer to whom my noble friend referred identify whether the company has properly executed a document?
Lord Strathclyde: As I said in my opening remarks—and perhaps this is the cause of the confusion—where the seal would have been used, the document must be signed now by a director and the secretary.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Therefore, we have to know whether the director and the secretary are properly authorised to do so by the company.
Lord Strathclyde: The director and the secretary are authorised to do so by virtue of this Bill. The new Section 36A(3) is a complete protection for third parties. Third parties have no need to inspect the articles. Provided the new formulations are satisfied, the document will be properly executed.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I think that we must examine this further because it does not seem to be quite right. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved, as art amendment to Amendment No. C55, Amendment No. C57:
Subsection (1), in the proposed new section 36A, in subsection (3), line 1, leave out ("a director and the secretary") and insert ("two directors").
The noble Lord said: We had a discussion earlier at the Committee stage about the role of the secretary. We decided, and I think the Government accepted, or the Government decided and we accepted, that the secretary would not in future be entitled to sign accounts in the way in which the Government originally proposed when the Bill was printed. I was concerned to make sure that the secretary, whose powers are still undefined or whose role is undefined, was the proper person to sign one of these documents. It is an important function. I think we should probably prefer it to be two directors rather than the secretary. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: There are several reasons why the Government intend that documents executed as if they were under seal should be signed by a director and the secretary. The first is that in Section 282(3) of the Companies Act 1985 a private company need only have one director, whereas every company is required by Section 283 to have a company secretary who is distinct from the directors. In many companies the secretary is also the company's legal adviser and is often entrusted with the company seal. But the essential point is that the requirement to have a signature by a director and the company Secretary is the only way of ensuring two signatures, and for this reason I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Yes, I think that the argument about the single director company is probably conclusive in this case. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. C58 and C59, as amendments to Amendment No. C55, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. C55 agreed to.
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking moved Amendment No. C59A:
Before Clause 97, insert the following new clause:
("Exemptions from liability
.—

(1) Section 310 of the Companies Act 1987 (provisions exempting officers and auditors from liability) is amended as follows.

(2) In section 310(2) for "sub-section" substitute "sub-sections".

199

(3) After section 310(3) insert—

"4(4) This section does not apply to any policy of insurance in indemnifying any officer or auditor of the company against any liability referred to in subsection (1) whether the policy is effected or the premium thereunder is paid by the company or any subsidiary." ").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I should point out that the wrong year has been given; it should be the Companies Act 1985 and not the Companies Act 1987. Section 310 of the Companies Act 1985 renders void any provision which exempts any officer or auditor of a company from, or indemnifies him against, any liability which would otherwise attach to him in respect of any negligence, default, breach of duty or breach of trust of which he may be guilty in relation to the company.
It is common for insurance cover to be effected to cover directors against liabilities which they may incur in their capacity as directors. The need for such insurance has increased greatly in recent years as a result of both the increase in the number of statutory provisions which impose personal liability on directors and in the amount of litigation, particularly for companies involved in the United States. Such insurance is, therefore, commonly effected by companies to cover both their directors and the directors of their subsidiaries.
Therefore, one can approach the matter in this manner. It must be against the public interest for officers or auditors of companies to seek to avoid the consequences of their negligence or breach of statutory duty or breach of trust. However, it must be in the public interest that when a director, for example, has committed an act of negligence, he should be insured so that the person who suffers damage as a result of the negligence of that director may have a better opportunity to obtain compensation.
Unfortunately, since this provision reached the statute book, there has been doubt as regards whether insurance cover falls into that prohibited exemption which is now set out in Section 310. There has been concern particularly that Section 310 may invalidate such insurance insofar as it relates to the company's own directors, if the company effects the cover in this country, and pays the premium and the cover includes liabilities of the kind referred to in the section.
These doubts have caused serious practical difficulties over the years. In July 1986 the Law Society's Company Law Committee submitted a memorandum to the Department of Trade and Industry which summarised the difficulties and suggested that the law should be clarified so as to make it clear that the section did not apply to the effecting of insurance cover by companies for the benefit of their directors. Although the department issued a consultative document in February 1988 on possible changes to the law, it appears, certainly at this stage, that the Government have decided that no action should be taken. This is causing concern, as I have already indicated, to the Law Society's Company Law Committee. It is also causing concern in some quarters in the CBI. In those circumstances,
200
it is thought to be desirable for the law to be clarified. That is why I have tabled this amendment.
In considering this amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, kindly drew to my attention a factor about it and expressed his concern. The noble Lord was concerned that if insurance cover also extended to cover acts of wrongdoing by the director—that is to say when he was acting wrongfully in breach of duty or dishonestly in breach of trust—it would clearly be wrong in those circumstances for the law to validate an insurance policy covering that form of wrongdoing. I am happy, therefore, to tell the Committee that public policy and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, stand together and that it would be in breach of public policy for an insurance policy to be valid in those circumstances, and in particular for it to cover a director against his own fraud or a criminal act.
The amendment therefore does not affect the possibility that the ground of public policy may invalidate an insurance policy, as the ground is independent of Section 310. All the amendment does is to make it clear that Section 310 does not apply. As I have already said, it remains the case that the policy may be voidable on some other ground. I hope I have managed to explain the issues clearly. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): Amendment proposed, to insert the new clause as printed on the Marshalled List with the exception of the misprint "1987", which should be "1985".
Lord Mottistone: The CBI advised me on this matter. I feel that the legislation needs to be altered here, as the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, said. However, the CBI finds it difficult to decide on exactly the form that an amendment to alter the legislation should take. I should be grateful to hear the comments of my noble friend on the Front Bench to show the Government's thinking on this matter at the moment. All one can say definitely is that some changes are necessary. It is another matter whether the changes in this amendment are the precise changes that are needed.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I understand there is some kind of an inquiry taking place into this matter at the moment. I believe the inquiry is either within the CBI or between the CBI and the Government. I have heard about that inquiry, although I do not know the details of it.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that something needs clarifying here. It would be absurd if a company could not pay insurance premiums for the protection of its directors from the results of negligence. The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, kindly sought my view on this amendment before speaking to it. He correctly summed up my view. The problems of breach of duty or breach of trust, for which insurance may be voidable on public policy grounds, seem to me to be that breach of duty or breach of trust, as I understand it, are not defined in a totally clear manner in jurisprudence; that is by the courts. There is some residual confusion about

201
what the terms really mean. Therefore, the circumstances under which an insurance policy may be voidable are not, to my mind, entirely clear.
However, generally I support the position taken by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, that directors should be protected and companies should be allowed to use their own funds in order to provide that protection, as long as the protection is for reasonable purposes and not for any criminal or fraudulent activity. Perhaps the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, is the right one to deal with this matter. But, if not, if another amendment could be formulated along those lines it would certainly carry our support.
Lord Strathclyde: I have listened with considerable interest to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, and those other Members of the Committee with an interest in this subject.
The Government have been aware for some time that there is said to be a degree of uncertainty regarding aspects of the interpretation of Section 310 of the Companies Act, particularly as regards the potential voidability of insurance policies taken out by, or on behalf of, the officers or auditors of a company against the liabilities specified in the section.
For this reason, my department went out to public consultation on this section last year, both to clarify how it is interpreted in practice and also to determine what changes, if any, were thought appropriate given that the business climate has, in some respects, changed considerably since the section was enacted in 1928, particularly as regards the frequency of litigation.
In the light of our analysis of the responses to this consultation exercise, we concluded that the case for an amendment to the Act on this subject was less strong than other matters which were competing for space in the Bill. However, having listened to the comments which Members of the Committee have made, I can give an undertaking that the Government will re-examine this question sympathetically. Given appropriate safeguards, we accept that some relaxation could be helpful towards facilitating the provision of insurance cover for directors at a reasonable cost, thus avoiding the situation in which the threat of litigation deters able people from accepting appointments as directors.
The reason that we are not prepared to accept this amendment as it stands is that there are sound arguments for including certain safeguards where it is proposed that the insurance payment should be made by the company itself. This is because in such circumstances it would ultimately be the shareholders' money that would be used to insure the directors against claims which might be made against them for failure in a duty to the shareholders. Against this background we consider it wholly reasonable that company funds should only be used to pay for such policies where the prior approval of the shareholders, given annually at the general meeting, has been obtained. We also believe that such payments come within the category which should receive full disclosure in the directors' report.
202
As I have said, the Government would be prepared to consider the question before deciding whether to bring forward an amendment in another place.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Will the noble Lord clarify that matter? Is he undertaking to bring forward an amendment in another place?
Lord Strathclyde: No, I am not giving a commitment. I am simply saying that we shall consider the matter further, having regard to the discussion that has taken place today in this recommitment.
7 p.m.
Lord Hacking: I confess that I should have liked the Government to be a little more positive. There is no disagreement about the proper purport of Section 310 and there is no disagreement about the proper role of insurance to cover directors in the right circumstances—as discussed in our short debate. There is also no disagreement now from any side of the Committee that there is a certain amount of uncertainty. All that this provision is seeking to do is to create clarity in the law. In those circumstances, it is somewhat disappointing—though I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for agreeing to consider this matter further—that he could not go further and say, at least in principle, that—defective though this amendment may be—the Government are prepared nonetheless at some stage in the passage of this Bill to bring forward their own amendment. Having expressed my disappointment, which I hope has been noted by the Minister, I beg— —
Lord Williams of Elvel: Before the noble Lord decides what to do with the amendment, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, would like to say anything more about the Government's intention on this matter. Is it merely to consider without any commitment? Is it to consider with commitment?
Lord Strathclyde: Since the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has asked me so directly and so nicely, perhaps I can say, no, we do not guarantee to bring forward an amendment at the next stage in this House, but we will look at the situation very sympathetically. It is likely that we will be able to bring forward an amendment in another place, when the Bill goes there. But we cannot at this moment make an unconditional commitment to take it any further.
Lord Hacking: I have heard what the Minister said. I shall not delay noble Lords further, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 97 [Disclosure of interests in shares]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The next amendment is No. C60, and I should like to remind the Committee that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. C61 to C63.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. C60:
Page 93, line 40, leave out from beginning of line to end of line 34 on page 94 and insert ("( ) Section 210 is repealed.").
The noble Lord said: No one who has listened to our debates on this Bill would dream of saying that our legislative procedures were dictated by a desire for expedition. I do not think anybody could deny that they are fairly slow moving. There is therefore some room for surprise that the quality of the end result very often leaves a great deal to be desired. It is, I suppose, less surprising that on these occasions the parents of these Bills—that is, the senior Ministers whose names are attached to the Bills and whose names appear as sponsors of amendments—are not always there parading their pride of parenthood. That is something which one must regret. Nor is it altogether surprising that governments, having exprienced these slow moving procedures of Parliament, tend to look with favour upon other more convenient methods of achieving their ends, and regulations are a very easy short cut.
It will be within the recollection of noble Lords that in February I moved a precisely similar amendment to this and it was narrowly defeated on a Division. I hope therefore that that fact—my optimism remains almost eternal—will have prompted my noble friend on the Front Bench to give further consideration to the dislike which has been expressed by many noble Lords towards altering primary legislation by regulations. The disclosure provisions contained in the Bill have been thoroughly discussed, aired and decided and I would very much regret it if now the Government, given the power of regulations, were to alter the decisions in that manner.
My noble friend adduced three arguments in favour of this regulatory power. First, he said that these provisions were currently alterable by regulation. That is not an argument which commends itself to me, nor, I think, to many in the Chamber, because I very much regret it. My noble friend also pleaded that similar powers existed in many other statutes. Again, that is of no comfort to me. I regret that the power is as widespread as it is. The third argument which my noble friend put before noble Lords in favour of this power was that of flexibility. In most contexts, I would very warmly welcome a plea by Ministers in favour of the virtues of flexibility. It is not one that they are always in the habit of practising with the utmost assiduity, but I am glad to hear that my noble friend regards flexibility as a virtue. But I wonder how, and to what extent, the Government have it in mind to practise it in this instance.
The most important point about these disclosure provisions is that the percentage, which has been changed now under this Bill—in primary legislation, in other words—to 3 per cent., has, I think generally been found to be satisfactory. I ask my noble friend how he justifies having a power to alter that. I imagine it very unlikely that the Government would want to lower it further to, say, 2 per cent. Therefore I wonder how he justifies the existence of this power.
As regards the next amendment, which provides for affirmative resolution by both Houses of
204
Parliament, as I have already said this afternoon I endorse the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, that affirmative procedures are not of much use to us here, because it is not customary for us to divide upon them, nor could we amend them or do anything of the kind. Therefore it seems to me that the Government are merely giving a very inexpensive power to an important principle, whereas I had hoped that they would go further in this instance and say that they did not need, and ought not to have, the power of secondary legislation where Parliament had already made its intentions very clear. I beg to move.
Lord Marshall of Leeds: I ask the Committee to oppose this amendment on the basis that the amendment deletes the new Section 210A, which confers a power on the Secretary of State to amend certain provisions of Part VI of the Companies Act 1985; that is, on the question of the disclosure of interests in shares. It also repeals Section 210 of the Act. I do not want to elevate it to the seriousness with which my noble friend referred to it just now, but I am opposed on the grounds that the existing provisions for disclosure are quite satisfactory in most respects, and that the new Section 210A is unobjectionable in all respects. For those reasons, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mottistone: I understand that we are speaking to Amendments Nos. C61, C62 and C63 as well as to Amendment No. C60. Amendment No. C63 stands in my name. To comment upon the amendment of my noble friend Lord Peyton, I must confess that I, too, am of the opinion that it is much too sweeping and goes much too far in taking out both Sections 210A and 210. I shall not seek to comment further except to say that there seems no good reason for sweeping away so much. It is not just a bit of regulation here and there.
As to my amendment, I am delighted to see that, in his Amendments Nos. C61 and C62, my noble friend the Minister has achieved, in a slightly more elegant way, exactly the same results. I am most grateful.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, on Section 210A, as he will be aware from our discussion in Committee. As he has pointed out, I also referred earlier this afternoon to the affirmative procedure and said that I did not think that it was very useful for us at present. I wonder whether—I speculate aloud—the usual channels might try to make the affirmative procedure a little more useful for us than it is at the moment. I intend to raise that matter from this side. I am sure that the usual channels will operate. I do not know whether that will be by allowing possible amendment or possible Division, and I do not take a position on that at the moment. However, I believe that, if we are to have an affirmative procedure, it must be more than just a talking shop or a debate. We must be able to influence what goes in the order.
In so far as something can be achieved, I welcome the government amendment. In so far as it is a

205
question of substituting one debate for a non-debate, the government amendment does not seem to achieve all that much, but I suppose that we must be grateful for small mercies.
Lord Strathclyde: I am grateful to all who have taken part in this brief debate, particularly my noble friends, Lord Marshall of Leeds and Lord Mottistone. I am particularly grateful for the thanks of my noble friend Lord Mottistone for our amendments.
With permission, I too should like to speak to Amendments Nos. C60, C61, C62 and C63. My noble friend Lord Peyton referred to the slowness of legislative procedure. He has a far greater knowledge and experience of those sorts of parliamentary procedure than I have; so I am sure that he is correct in what he says. However, I am sorry that he felt it necessary to criticise, in a very nice way, my noble friend the Secretary of State Lord Young of Graffham who, I know, would very much have liked to be here to listen to my noble friend's proposals. However, I am afraid that he is in China, trying to win more business for British industry. I hope that my noble friend will feel that that is a perfectly correct way for him to behave as Secretary of State.
Lord Tordoff: Perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me for intervening. He made an interesting comment about the purpose of the Secretary of State's visit to China. I thought that the Government always insisted that they did not interfere in business matters.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord is quite correct. However, the Government sometimes ease the path of industry to make sure that it can do what it says it can do.
As my noble friend Lord Peyton pointed out, this amendment is identical to one upon which there was a Division in Committee on 21st February. I do not intend to take up the Committee's time by repeating the points which I have already made on this matter and which my noble friend mentioned. I simply ask him not to call upon the Committee to decide twice upon the same matter, particularly in the light of the amendments tabled in the name of my noble friend the Secretary of State which appear next on the Marshalled List.
The separate amendments tabled in the names of my noble friends the Secretary of State and Lord Mottistone would have precisely the same effect. They would make all the regulation-making powers in new Section 210A subject to the affirmative procedure. The Government amendments fulfil a commitment made in Committee. At that time we said that we would prefer to table our own amendments since the one tabled by my noble friend Lord Mottistone would leave us with two subsections making different provisions in new Section 210A subject to the affirmative procedure. The same argument applies to the amendments before us today. It is not a great point of principle, but, since the government amendments will leave us with fewer words, I hope that, as my noble friend has suggested, he will agree with us.
206
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, made a point about the affirmative resolution procedure. He said that he would discuss it further through the usual channels. I hope that he will do so, but, as a general point, I hope that he does not feel that the affirmative procedures that we have at the moment are quite as useless as I felt he was trying to indicate.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: In view of the remarks of my noble friend and the wonderful way that he performs his heavy duty, I offer, by way of gratitude and appreciation, my withdrawal of the amendment. At the same time, I should say that my remarks concerning our noble friend the Secretary of State should not be interpreted as a criticism. When I come to criticism, I mean something a little more powerful than anything I said this afternoon. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. C61 and C62:
Page 94, line 27, leave out ("subsection (1)(b)") and insert ("this secti6n").
Page 94, leave out lines 31 to 34.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move these amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. C63 to C65 not moved.]
Clause 97, as amended, agreed to.
7.15 p.m.
Clause 98 [Annual Returns]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. C66:
Page 96, line 19, leave out from ("elected") to ("a") in line 20 and insert ("—

(i) to dispense under section 253 with the laying of accounts and reports before the company in general meeting, or

(ii) to dispense under section 366A with the holding of annual general meetings,").

The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential on the provisions introducing the elective regime that we have already considered. It requires the annual return of a company that has passed an elective resolution to dispense with the holding of annual general meetings to state that fact. The amendment also tidies up the existing requirement in the Bill for the return to state that, if it be the case, the company has elected to dispense with the laying of accounts in general meeting. We envisage that, when the shuttle document which is proposed by Companies House is introduced, it will contain boxes which a company can tick in order to give the required information. The reason why this information should be contained in the annual return is that it enables new members of a private company to easily establish if an elective resolution has been passed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. C67 not moved.]
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. C68:
After Clause 98 insert the following new clause:
("General provisions as to meetings and votes.
In section 370 of the Companies Act 1985 (general provisions as to meetings and votes), at end insert—
("(7) No meeting of a public company shall take place on Easter Sunday or on the 24th, 25th December in any year".".
The noble Lord said: I have three amendments tabled in the Marshalled List. Only one of them—the last—has the marginal note "Shareholder Protection" against it. Nevertheless, all three amendments are concerned with the protection of shareholders. Small shareholders have lacked adequate protection for a long time. Their numbers have been swollen by a whole host of new and—in shareholding terms —smaller shareholders as a result of the privatisation issues that have taken place over the past few years. Most of those new shareholders are effectively locked into their holdings as a result of the massive increase in minimum commissions that has occurred since the Big Bang, a phenomenon that shows no signs of abating.
The new regulatory organisations, cumbersome and bureaucratic though they are, provide a good deal of protection but there are still too many loopholes. The object of these modest amendments is to plug up a few of the smaller loopholes. Amendment No. 68 is a very much more modest version of an amendment that I moved at the first Committee stage. Its object was to prevent the tiny minority of unscrupulous companies—and I acknowledge that it is a tiny minority—from calling general meetings of the company at awkward and inconvenient times in order to minimise attendance and minimise the possibility of uncomfortable questions being asked by shareholders and above all by the press.
By "unscrupulous companies" I do not mean only those which are positively dishonest but also those which stay just within the law but where, for example, the directors have awarded themselves massive increases in salary, bonuses and perks at the same time as having mismanaged the company to such an extent that the profits are halved or even disappear altogether and the dividend is passed.
In such cases it is obviously in the directors' interests to hold the annual general meeting, or the EGM if such is required, at a time when as few as possible of the shareholders can attend and the eagle eye of City editors is diverted elsewhere. Christmas Eve is a prime example of such a time, bearing in mind that no newspapers are published on Christmas Day and those published on Boxing Day do not normally carry City pages.
Earlier I mentioned privatisation issues. I freely acknowledge that the directors of British Telecom, British Steel, British Gas, British Airways, and so on, would never be guilty of such sharp practice. But even if fewer of them—perhaps only one in 500 or one in 1,000 quoted companies—behave in this way, it is still a loophole that ought to be plugged.
The amendment which I moved at the first Committee stage went much wider than this one, attempting to forbid public company meetings on or immediately preceding Bank Holidays, or in the very
208
late or very early hours of other days, particularly on Sundays, and so on. Various Members of the Committee expressed the view that this was much too restrictive. I took on board what they said and accordingly made this amendment approximately one-tenth as ambitious, seeking only to ban public company meetings from being held on Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, Boxing Day or Easter Sunday.
Let me emphasise that this amendment applies only to public companies. Private companies—which I suppose include the vast majority of family companies, in particular those in which the majority of members might be of non-Christian faiths; let us say Jewish, Moslem, Hindu or Buddhist—would be free to hold their meetings at any time they wished, even at 3 a.m. on Christmas Day if they so desired it.
This amendment applies strictly to public companies, which is as it should be. When this Chamber and the other place debated the various shops Bills, we were constantly told by the bishops, most of the Opposition and a substantial section of the Conservative Party, that certain days should be kept special and sacrosanct so that families could assemble together. For the great majority of people in this country, if there are any days of the year that fall into the category that I have just mentioned, they are the four days that I have chosen for this amendment. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I must apologise to the Committee. I omitted to ask the Committee if it would care to agree that Clause 98, as amended, should stand part of the Bill. I put that Question now. Is it the Committee's pleasure that Clause 98, as amended, stand part of the Bill?
Clause 98, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Whereas the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, in Committee was indeed rather wide, I suspect that his present amendment is rather too narrow. I should like to find a compromise between the two. I believe that it is right to stop public companies from holding meetings on Bank Holidays and Easter Sunday. However, I think that one has to be consistent and take all Bank Holidays into the list of prohibited days as well as those mentioned by the noble Lord.
The line has to be drawn somewhere. I believe that the Government will need to think rather carefully, if they decide to accept the principle of the amendment that there should be prohibited days, before deciding where that line is drawn and which days should be prohibited. I feel that there is a case for having some form of prohibited day but I am bound to say that I am not quite sure where the line should be drawn.
Lord Grantchester: I remember that when I was in practice one public company convened an important meeting for Christmas Day, to be held somewhere in Greenland. The court had no difficulty at all in holding that that was an invalid convening of the meeting because the directors are under a duty at all times to act bona fide in the interests of the company as a whole. Therefore I suggest that that underlying principle imposed upon directors—namely, to act

209
bona fide in the interests of the company as a whole —should prevent them from convening meetings on impossible dates at impossible places.
Lord Strathclyde:As I indicated when the noble Lord moved a very similar amendment in the earlier stage of the Committee, the Government are not convinced that the present legal arrangements regarding notice for meetings and their conduct are inadequate or should be subject to more detailed regulation. In particular, it should be borne in mind that on occasion there may well be pressing and valid reasons for holding a meeting on a date which would be proscribed by this amendment.
I have in mind, for example, the very tight deadlines which sometimes have to be imposed in connection with takeover proposals. In such situations we believe that the minimum period of notice required for such meetings and the right to appoint a proxy provide adequate safeguards forth shareholder. This amendment would make it necessary for all public companies to take specific powers in their articles of association to provide for the emergency situation.
In general, for this type of proposed change to company law there needs to be serious consideration of the position and views of all involved parties and, if change is to be contemplated, it should be on the basis of evidence of real and widespread abuse. The Government do not believe that those criteria have been met on this amendment.
Lord Monson: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for his support. It is true that the amendment is probably drawn too narrowly. Unfortunately, one often has to draw amendments narrowly in order to have any chance whatsoever of having them accepted. I am grateful also to my noble friend for his very interesting contribution. However, whether the court would make the same finding in every case, one cannot be certain. One hopes that it would do so, but nothing can be guaranteed in this world.
I must say that I am disappointed in the noble Lord's reply. He spoke of pressing and valid reasons. That might apply to extraordinary general meetings; it could not possibly apply to an AGM. There is no pressing and valid reason for an AGM suddenly to be held on Christmas Day. Frankly, I do not think that that is a convincing argument.
There is abuse. It does not happen very often but it does occur. It is true that meetings are not often held on Christmas Day itself but they are sometimes held late on Christmas Eve when it is known that the directors have something to hide or something about which to feel ashamed. It would be an interesting exercise if, over the next year or so, the noble Lord's department could monitor how many companies hold meetings on the days that I have mentioned and how those companies fare in terms of performance compared with the majority of companies.
However, this is not the amendment about which I feel most strongly. Perhaps it will be taken up by
210
someone in another place, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Long: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I propose that we do not return to this business until 8.30.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Common Land (Rectification of Registers) Bill
7.31 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Electricity Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Parking Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Police Officers (Central Service) Bill [H.L.]
7.32 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged. (The Earl of Arran.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.32 to 8.30 p.m.]

Companies Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee (on recommitment) in respect of Part V.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 69:
After Clause 98 insert the following new clause:
("Proxies.
In section 372 of the Companies Act 1935 (proxies), after subsection (3) insert—
"( ) Whenever a public company with an issued and fully paid share capital in excess of £2·5 million issues any notice to its shareholders calling a meeting of the company, such notice shall be accompanied by a reply-paid form of proxy." ")
The noble Lord said: This is another adaptation of an amendment which I moved at Committee stage, but it is a much less drastic variation this time round. Some 15 or 20 years ago quite a few companies, even including a number of blue chip companies, failed to send their shareholders reply-paid proxy forms in advance of company meetings, thereby discouraging them from exercising their democratic rights, except on those very rare occasions when a shareholder thought that his vote might tip the scales and so make it worthwhile for him to stand in a long Post Office queue for a stamp to put on a proxy card.
I first started to raise the matter 12 or 13 years ago and, probably more through coincidence than as a result of any agitation on my part, virtually every blue chip company and most smaller public companies now send out reply-paid cards or envelopes. This makes even less excusable a refusal of a tiny minority to fall into line with the great majority. At the previous Committee stage, the Government opposed my amendment on the ground that it was unfair to that small minority of public companies which did not have business reply facilities. That was a valid and reasonable objection, and therefore this time I have confined the provisons of the amendment to public companies with an issued share capital in excess of £2.5 million.
Very few companies of that size do not have or could not easily secure business reply facilities. Yet, since the first Committee stage I have received the annual reports of two BES companies in which I have invested, one with an issued share capital of more than £65 million and the other with an issued share capital of almost £10 million, yet no reply-paid cards were included with the documentation. I have also received similar documents from a public company with an issued share capital of about £50 million. While I have reservations about the latter—it is a Bermuda-based company and therefore is able to get away with things which a UK-based company would not be able todo—I have no quarrel with the way in which the two BES businesses are being run. They produce very good results; but I believe that I and my fellow shareholders should be able to vote for or against the re-election of directors, the re-appointment of auditors, the adoption of accounts and so on without putting ourselves to trouble or expense, given the substantial size and worth of the companies concerned.
When he was speaking to Amendment No. C15 the other day, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, reminded us of what is legally the essentially democratic nature of a company. He emphasised that directors are elected and not appointed. In any democratic election the higher the number of votes cast the more truly democratic the vote is. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I should like to support this amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has said, the general practice is to send out reply-paid proxies, but there are exceptions to the rule. I believe that it is sensible for the Companies Act to ensure that there can be no illegal exceptions. The whole
212
business of the shareholding democracy gains greater importance as we consider the possibility that building societies will convert themselves into plcs. If the Abbey National converts itself into a plc, according to the estimates—I have no idea whether the estimates are right, but let us assume that they are—5 million extra shareholders will be entitled to express an opinion on matters arising at any general meeting of the company. This presumably will continue, if wider share ownership (whatever that really means) continues to spread. I should have thought that the noble Lord has a serious and genuine point in saying that it is no good having shareholders—this returns to the theme that we were discussing earlier this afternoon—unless those shareholders participate in the affairs of the company. Small shareholders especially find it annoying to receive proxy forms which they have to stamp themselves. In my view it is a legitimate expenditure of shareholders' money to ensure that shareholders have a right to express their opinion without extra expense.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran:I too support the amendment, and I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for not being in my place at the beginning of his speech. For the same reasons as those given by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, it is my belief that this is an important amendment because, if shareholders receive a reply-paid form, it will encourage them to take some interest in the company. I know several shareholders. If they receive a proxy which is accompanied by a reply-paid form they will read the papers, make up their minds and post the form. If it is not pre-paid, they do not bother about it and do not reply. I support the amendment.
Lord Grantchester:I support the amendment. I have just one reservation in relation to the wording, however. I believe that the notices sent out by a company should be accompanied by a reply-paid form of proxy for posting only in the case of those shareholders who are entitled to attend and vote at meetings. Notices are normally sent out to shareholders generally, but that is a minor point.
Lord Strathclyde: I can add not a great deal to what I said to the noble Lord in the course of the Committee stage debate on this Bill when he moved a similar amendment which would have imposed this obligation on all public companies, as opposed to the more limited number exceeding the threshold which he has specified in the present amendment.
As I said on that occasion, the law presently provides that every notice calling a meeting of the company must contain a statement, with reasonable prominence, that a member entitled to attend and vote is entitled to appoint a proxy. Moreover, the Stock Exchange listing requirements stipulate that listed companies should send all persons entitled to vote at meeetings proxy forms with provision for two-way voting. The only effective addition therefore is that a reply-paid form should be included.

213
As the noble Lord said in the earlier debate, the large majority of public companies already follow this practice. Indeed, it could be said to be in the interest of the management of the company to do so because in that way it receives a better response to the proxies it seeks. But even if a company does not voluntarily do this, it is not easy to visualise circumstances in which a shareholder who is sufficiently interested to want to appoint a proxy would be deterred from doing so by the cost of a second class postage stamp or by the necessity of having to go out and buy one. I must therefore conclude, as I did on the last occasion, that the substance of this proposal seems to be entirely a matter for the internal organisation and running of the company's affairs and its relationship with its own shareholders. I am sorry to say that I still do not consider that this is a matter for legislation.
Lord Williams of Elvel: But are not the Government committed to shareholder democracy? Are not the Government committed to the idea that shareholders should take an interest in the affairs of their company? Is it not a proper use of shareholders' funds to promote that?
The Earl of Kinnoull: I should like to ask the Minister whether, under company law, there is a definition of a small shareholder. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, cited the case of the Abbey National. Under the rules of that society a member must hold either £100 or £250 in order to vote. I do not know whether, when the society is converted to a company, the same rule will apply or whether the member with an investment of £10 will be able to vote.
Lord Strathclyde: I thank my noble friend for that interjection. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, asked whether the Government are fully committed to shareholder democracy. Of course they are. We can see that by the massive increase in the number of shareholders of all types over the past 10 years.
The noble Lord says that this is a proper use of shareholders' funds. Surely it must be for the company to decide whether that is the case. If a large or small company wishes to interest its shareholders as much as possible in its proceedings, it can decide whether to issue a reply-paid proxy form. If the shareholder wishes to receive reply-paid forms he can change company and buy shares in one which offers them. On the other hand, if he is satisfied with the present situation, that is good enough.
I still maintain that if a shareholder has sufficient interest to become involved in a company to read the report and accounts and wishes to send a proxy vote, it cannot be too much to ask him to buy a stamp in order to do so.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran:I hesitate to criticise the Minister in relation to his brief. He has borne a great deal very well during the course of the Bill. He has done a splendid job in many ways. However, he says that if a shareholder does not receive a reply-paid proxy form he should give up his shareholding and find a company which does. How does he do so? How can he find out whether a company supplies
214
reply-paid forms? Surely it is difficult to do so. I believe that in this case the noble Lord's approach has been most unrealistic from a commercial point of view.
Lord Dormand of Easington: The Government frequently boast about the increase in the number of shareholders, and the Minister has done so once again. Surely it follows that shareholders must take an interest in the company's affairs. In other words, it is "a good thing" that shareholders should do so. Therefore, ought not the Government to take an initiative in encouraging that trend and support the amendment? Does the Minister find any illogicality in my suggestion?
8.45 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: The Government genuinely support all companies which wish to send shareholders reply-paid proxy forms. But we shall not legislate for that because it must be a matter for the internal management of the company. If the company wishes to encourage more shareholders by providing reply-paid forms—as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, believes theycan—that is a decision for the company. The Government have made a commitment to a shareholder democracy by privatising certain companies and running the economy in a certain way during the past 10 years. That is their commitment to shareholder democracy. I am not convinced that reply-paid proxy forms is a further commitment to shareholder democracy.
Lord Williams of Elvel:The noble Lord must recognise that simply privatising British Gas, TSB, water or electricity is not a commitment to shareholder democracy. It certainly is a commitment to wider share ownership but not to shareholder democracy. If you are a government committed to shareholder democracy you must follow that through by providing shareholders with the ability and the means to take advantage of the facilities offered by the company in exercising their proper right in interesting themselves in the affairs of the company. That is a commitment to shareholder democracy and not wider share ownership per se. One can have wider share ownership with millions of passive shareholders.
If the Government are serious about the issue they should encourage the noble Lord in his amendment. If they are not, and wish simply to have wider share ownership without proper democracy, they will refuse the amendment. However, they cannot claim that they are encouraging shareholder democracy by privatisation or wider share ownership unless they follow through. If the noble Lord argues that it is not a subject for legislation I must say that, my goodness! the Bill legislates on practically everything else and it is about time that we legislated on shareholder democracy.
Lord Mottistone: Are we really talking about a 14p stamp? This seems to be a most ridiculous argument! I have a great deal of respect for the noble Lord, Lord Monson, in other ways, more so than I respect many other noble Lords.

215
I believe that it is rubbish to argue about a 14p stamp as though it will make the Government's view about shareholder democracy real. Democracy lies inhaling many people being able to take part in various activities, such as being shareholders and being able to post a proxy form if they wish. Whether or not that is paid for by the company is a matter for the company. One cannot put that into legislation; it is an abuse of legislation. It is absolute rubbbish. I am sorry, but do not let us continue to argue. One of the reasons why I am speaking is to try to stop other noble Lords from speaking, because this is so silly!
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Lord started us all! Who pays for a postal vote in a general election?
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is wrong; we are not arguing about a 14p stamp. We are arguing about the fundamental principle of encouraging people to respond to papers which they have received by saying, "Here is a stamp. It must not be wasted". Therefore they will take an interest. I am afraid that I must differ strongly from the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone.
The Earl of Kinnoull: Does the Committee agree that the real principle is about democracy or overdemocracy? I believe that the amendment seeks overdemocracy. It is the right of every shareholder to attend a meeting, raise issues and table a resolution on which he can vote. Shareholders have a perfect right to do so, and we are not interfering with that principle. What my noble friend is seeking is that the rights of companies and those in charge of them should be a litte more flexible.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, particularly mentioned the Abbey National. The cost of sending out circulars to all its members is absolutely vast. I am not sure that any real democracy is achieved by that. What happens with overdemocracy is chaos and nothing is achieved at all. In a democracy, shareholders who feel strongly about something can attend the annual general meeting; they can, and indeed do, raise resolutions. We can all recall annual general meetings going on for seven or eight hours while democracy was having its say. Therefore, at this time of night, I do not believe that that argument is very forceful.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Earl. I am not sure that I recognise the expression "overdemocracy". That is a new one on me. However, I shall read what the noble Earl said.
The point about Abbey National is that that seems to me to be a proper expenditure of shareholders' funds. The shareholders are the owners of the company. Therefore, the 14p stamp is not paid for by the Government or anybody other than the shareholders themselves. That is the point. Why should the shareholders not spend that money on informing themselves?
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: Perhaps I may also cross swords with the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, in what
216
he said about overdemocracy. I suppose that there exists something called "underdemocracy" in his argument. He says that any shareholder can go along to a meeting, and of course he can. We know that. However, it may be a long way and very expensive for the shareholder to go there. He may be committed to other things. But if the shareholder has a proxy vote with a stamped addressed reply he will feel that he is participating in the functioning of the company, and surely that is of national interest.
Lord Carter: Is the Minister aware that there is an area of corporate activity which is a true democracy, and I refer to the co-operative movement. I am involved in a number of agricultural co-operatives where there is a genuine shareholder democracy, namely, one man one vote.
Baroness Lockwood: What about women?
Lord Carter: I do beg my noble friend's pardon. I should have said that it is one person one vote. It is standard practice always to include a reply-paid form for the member to return, and as a result of that there is a very high response.
Lord Monson: I am extremely grateful to the many Members of the Committee who have spoken in favour of this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, in particular has got to the heart of the matter and to the true definition of "shareholder democracy", which the Government and their supporters have not. With all respect to the Government, they have not grasped the reality of this.
The Minister asked whether it is too much to ask shareholders to go out and buy a stamp. Yes, it is too much: unless they believe that there is a genuine chance of their vote having some practical effect. However, if a shareholder owns 500 shares in a company capitalised at £100 million, he knows perfectly well that his vote is extremely unlikely to have any such effect. He may be able to register a protest, but there is no point spending hours waiting in a post office queue in order to register a protest which has no practical effect.
The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, asked whether or not we are talking about a 14p stamp. We are not talking about the stamp butte time and trouble of queueing. Not everyone is fortunate enough to work in the Palace of Westminster where there are two post offices within 50 paces or so which are open until late in the evening.
The Government also talk about this being a matter of the internal organisation of companies. The Government do not have a laissez-faire attitude towards company law; otherwise, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, there would not be this Companies Bill at all. They regulate companies' attitude and behaviour towards shareholders in a number of ways. This amendment merely adds very slightly to that burden, if burden it can truly be called. After all, we are talking about democracy. It is rather as if the Government are saying that in a General Election in some constituencies the polling booths should be impelled to close at 5 p.m. and others at 10 p.m.; that there should be one polling

217
station for one area of 400 square miles but 20 polling stations in another and so on. If you truly believe in a democracy you regulate matters so that the democracy functions smoothly.
The real question is: why cannot the tiny minority of people who do not behave well in this matter—and I believe they are down to about 1 per cent.—bring themselves into line with the rest'? Ninety-nine per cent. of companies find reply-paid proxies no trouble to send out. Why cannot the remaining 1 per cent. be brought into line?
I am extremely tempted to divide the Committee but I have drawn the short straw by moving the amendment which comes up immediately after dinner, and there are not many people in the Chamber to hear the argument. Also, as my noble friend reminded me, there is one slight technical imperfection in the amendment. It might therefore be better to reintroduce a finely honed and polished amendment at the next stage; perhaps with more names to it. I may then seek a decision when there are more people in the Chamber. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood moved Amendment No. C70:
Before Clause 99 insert the following new clause:
("Private company proxies
In section 372(1) of the Companies Act 1985 (proxies) leave out "in the case of a private company".").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment was considered at an earlier Committee stage. Since that time the Department of Trade and Industry has undertaken a process of consultation and no doubt the Minister will be advising us of the extent of the consultation as well as the results of his reply.
As Members of the Committee will no doubt appreciate, the purpose of this amendment is to extend to shareholders of public companies the same rights as exist in private companies; that is, when appointing a proxy, the proxy will have the right both to vote and speak at a general meeting. That would also put the individual shareholder on the same footing as the corporate shareholder because when a corporate shareholder appoints a representative to attend at a general meeting, that representative has the right both to speak and vote.
I was interested to hear the Minister reaffirm on the previous amendment that the Government are committed to shareholder democracy. At the earlier stage when speaking to this amendment I said that I was conscious of the changes which are taking place in the sense that more and more small shareholders are coming on the scene, and it is important to ensure that their views are put to the general meetings of the company.
I also pointed out at the time that very often within a family, if there are family shares the name of the husband is the name on them. Even if he wanted to appoint his wife to attend the general meeting if he was unable to do so, she as a proxy would not be able to speak although she could vote. That would be so even if the shares were family shares.
In some cases that could apply to joint shareholders. The department's consultative document which says that both joint shareholders could attend and speak at company meetings states:
"unless there are specific provisions to the contrary in the articles of association of the particular company concerned".
In other words, the junior partner in the shares (that is, the woman, as "Mrs." invariably follows "Mr." when names are being entered) could be prevented from speaking at such meetings.
Building societies have already been referred to. That is certainly the case with many building societies where the principal shareholder, where there are joint shareholders, has the right to attend meetings and to speak. A second shareholder does not have such a right. Conversely, we are thinking in terms of women shareholders. Many may also want to appoint another woman as their proxy to put a point of view at a general meeting. That is not possible in all cases in the present situation. This is not just a women's isue; it is a general issue. Nevertheless, it affects women more than it affects men. As I said in the earlier Committee stage, many women's organisations are increasingly concerned about this problem. I hope that some of them have indicated their views to the Minister.
In his response to the previous discussion the Minister made much of the problems that could be experienced by chairmen at meetings, perhaps caused by organised pressure groups. I believe the Fawcett Society, in its response to the consultative document, pointed out that the control of meetings is very much a matter which a competent chairman should have no difficulty in handling. I also suggest that in any case the problem could be minimised by limiting the number of shareholders for whom a proxy could speak.
I understand that the Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators sees no insuperable problems in this amendment. Indeed, the institute supports it. According to some of its members, plcs which follow a policy of giving proxies the right to speak have encountered no difficulties. On those grounds, I hope that the Minister will on this occasion see fit to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: The noble Baroness has made some good points about family and joint shares but I do not think this amendment deals with that as such. Presumably private companies are limited in what they can do. Whether or not that is so, this amendment goes too far.
I am interested to note the clause heading in the amendment. It is, I believe, misconceived because it refers to "Private company proxies" but we are in fact speaking about company proxies generally. The amendment is adding public companies to private companies. It is a small point, but— —
Lord Williams of Elvel:Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. The present Companies Act allows proxies to speak at meetings of private companies but not public companies.
Lord Mottistone: That is the point I make. The word "private" should therefore be removed from the clause heading. It is misleading. However, I do not want to waste time as we have already wasted far too much time.
The point at issue, as we have been reminded and as has been made clear to us, is that public companies are a more natural target than are private companies, primarily because they are more in the public eye. As a result, they are more liable to be abused by interest groups who may "proxy shop". I have never heard the term before. These groups send letters to persons listed on the register as shareholders, inviting them to assign their proxy to the person in pursuit of a certain objective which might be political or for a special interest.
That procedure can upset the whole purpose of the meeting to the detriment of the shareholders who are attending for the purpose of ascertaining how the company is progressing. Companies are vulnerable to such treatment. We all know that it happens. I am talking about old history, but it could happen where companies are operating in South Africa. An abuse could occur where people holding proxies could intervene, if allowed to, in the board meetings of such companies and promote the view that it is bad to trade in South Africa. That maybe a genuine view but it is nothing to do with the orderly meeting of a public company. That is not the purpose of the meeting. Therefore, it is important not to have this misuse of proxies, particularly for public companies. Private companies are not so vulnerable, for obvious reasons.
I can see the argument put by the noble Baroness about families and I have sympathy for it, but perhaps we can find another formula. It is much better, at the moment at any rate, that public companies are protected from such abuse, which is an abuse of democracy. It is all very well to speak about the importance of democracy for shareholdings, and so on, provided it is not abused. The amendment will provide an opening if it is accepted without qualification. Therefore, I very much hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment and consider an improvement which she, or perhaps someone on her behalf, can try in another place.
Baroness Lockwood: By proxy.
Lord Mottistone: That is right, but in the meantime I hope that the Committee will resist the amendment.
Baroness Seear: I am sure that I am one of the people for whom the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has less respect. He will certainly have less respect after I have finished, as I am going greatly to disagree with what he said. The noble Lord's idea of democracy seems to be that it is genuine democracy provided it agrees with the powers that be. I can well undertstand that some of these proxies make a considerable nuisance of themselves, but that is the price that one pays in democracies.
If a person is a shareholder or speaking with the consent of one as his proxy and the shareholder is
220
worried about the way the company is being run, I cannot see that there is anything wrong or that there is an abuse of democracy in raising the point. It is a funny kind of democracy that does not allow someone to say he or she does not like what is going on. That is what democracy is all about. It is perfectly absurd to put this forward as a reason why one should not pursue the main purpose of this amendment, which is to deal with a very out-of-date matter; namely, where there is "Mr. and Mrs." the "Mrs." is not allowed to act as a proxy though they are joint shareholders.
It may well be, in modern circumstances, that she put up more of the money for the shareholding than he did. If that is the case it is perfectly absurd that she cannot vote because of the convention in this country that you do not say "Mrs. and Mr." but "Mr. and Mrs." I hope that the Committee will overlook this extraordinary personal view of democracy held by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and support the amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: I undertook at an earlier stage of the Committee to consider and consult further on the amendment then moved by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that proxies should be permitted to speak at meetings of public companies as well as those of private ones. I believe that at the time I indicated a certain amount of sympathy with what the noble Baroness was saying. Perhaps I have become less sympathetic since then. I shall try to explain why by answering at some length.
In the time available since then we have taken the opportunity to sound opinions from industry and other major organisations interested in company law and considered the matter in the light of the results and the views already expressed by Members of the Committee. Prior to 1947 there were no specific provisions in legislation concerning the rights of proxies to speak. One of the recommendations of the Cohen Committee on company law amendments that reported in June 1945 was that for all companies limited by shares a proxy should have the right to speak as well as vote on behalf of his principal. Otherwise the right to appoint a proxy would lose a good deal of its value. However, during the Committee stage of the Bill that became the 1947 Act the right of the proxy to speak was limited to private companies in response to representations that the character of public companies' meetings might be entirely changed and business delayed by speeches from professional agitators or counsel briefed on their behalf.
Private companies were treated differently because it was felt that there was less risk of such an eventuality and partly because it was thought more likely in the case of a private company that an individual shareholder might need to make his or her voice heard, but would find it difficult to attend the meeting in person. At the time of the Cohen Committee the position of war widows who had inherited shares in private companies was also an influential factor. In Committee I also said that I was interested in the noble Baroness's expression of concern on behalf of women's groups. I was certainly impressed by the case that the noble Baroness made.

221
However, on doing some research I find that the situation is not as unfavourable as the noble Baroness implied. I understand that where there are joint shareholders—for example, husband and wife—unless there are specific provisions to the contrary in the articles of association of the company concerned, each of the joint shareholders (the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, also mentioned this) is entitled in his or her own right to attend and speak at meetings of public and private companies. In those circumstances there will be no need for one of the joint shareholders to appoint the other as his or her proxy to enable that joint holder to speak.
We have had a chance to consider the position of women further with the Fawcett Society, which the noble Baroness mentioned, besides other women's interests groups. There is some support for the idea that the proposed change may encourage women to play their part in the running of companies because it would allow women whose husbands are sole shareholders in public companies to get themselves appointed as proxies to attend and speak at meetings. That may be so, but at the moment it remains a matter for conjecture. I would far rather rely on the more direct encouragement that the Government are giving through their policy initiatives on privatisation, taxation and employee share ownership to women and all other individuals to own shares in their own right.
I have listened carefully to the further debate in Committee today. I acknowledge the strong feelings that exist on this issue on both sides of the Chamber. However, during our consultation following discussion at the earlier stage we learnt that major companies continue to regard the risk of increased delay and disruption to the business of meetings as a very real one. We have concluded therefore that the case for a change in the law has not been conclusively made and that the change proposed would not necessarily be in the interests of shareholders as a whole.
The noble Baroness made a specific point about corporations being allowed to appoint proxies who could speak on their behalf. However, corporations are artificial and can appear at meetings only through their representatives. Therefore I believe that the comparison is not fully justified.
I have sought to answer as fully as possible the call made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in Committee for an explanation by the Government of the present position. The fact that he needed to inquire and that I could not immediately enlighten him strongly demonstrates that this subject has not been the focus of any pressure for change in recent years either from within or outside the Government. I also note that successive governments since 1947 have been content with the law as it stands.
Nothing here affects the key right of a proxy to tender a vote. There will always be a range of views on the matter. I regret that the Government find the case for change insufficiently persuasive. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Leaving aside the party political broadcast about privatisation helping women, which I find rather extraordinary, is the noble Lord not aware that the Law Society has communicated with the Department of Trade and Industry saying that it is neutral with regard to this subject? The society is perfectly happy with the present law but would be perfectly happy if the amendment were accepted.
Secondly, speaking as a professional agitator, perhaps I may tell the noble Lord that if I want to agitate the simplest thing for me to does to buy one share in a company and go to a meeting and agitate. That is what I should do. All this stuff about proxies and proxy shopping has nothing to do with the real world.
Baroness Lockwood: I am very disappointed with the Minister's response. I think that he and the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, made very heavy weather of the question of abuse of shareholders' rights. As I indicated, I believe that it is possible to cope with any such situation. A "proxy shop", as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, put it, would obviously go to all shareholders. If one made it clear that one person could speak for perhaps only two or three proxies the situation could be contained and the problems which the noble Lord mentioned could be mitigated. Therefore, I feel that that issue has been exaggerated in the arguments against the amendment.
Secondly, I was disappointed but not at all surprised when the Minister said that he had consulted industry and major organisations interested in company law. When I saw the consultation paper I expected that that would be the extent of the consultation. I do not think that the Minister made a point of consulting women's organisations, but perhaps I do him an injustice.
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps I may intervene very briefly. We did not have a great deal of time for full consultation and therefore the department did not contact the full consultation list. However, we contacted 12 of the more important of the representative bodies and organisations as well as women's groups with an interest in promoting the involvement of women in business. I am not sure whether or not that answers the noble Baroness's question fully, but we did our best in the time allowed.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him whether he consulted the Fawcett Society. On 21st February the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, said:
"In particular the Fawcett Society is campaigning for qualifying women to take up their rights at meetings of companies and alerting them to the problems they face if they are joint shareholders within the family".—[Official Report, 21/2/89; col. 624.]
Did the Minister consult the Fawcett Society?
Lord Strathclyde: Yes.
Baroness Lockwood: The response to the consultation represents the status quo and comes largely from companies which may be perfectly satisfied with the present arrangements and which, perhaps like the Law Society, would be neutral and have no objections to changes. I feel that the points that I have made have not been taken fully into account.
I was also disappointed when the Minister said that the research that he had undertaken had made him more unfavourably disposed to my amendment than he had been previously. I saw nothing in his argument which warranted any further disaffection towards my amendment. He did not say anything of substance, he merely reiterated the point that I had made about joint shareholders having the right to attend and speak and vote at meetings provided there were no specific provisions in the articles of incorporation of the particular company. That is the whole point. If a company decides that it will not accept the right of joint shareholders to full participation, that is what will happen.
Therefore, I do not think that the Minister has thrown any new light on the subject. I am most disappointed at his response. However, I shall read carefully what has been said before deciding what action to take at a later stage of the Bill's proceedings. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 99 [Statement by person ceasing to hold office as auditor]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. C71:
Page 98, line 23, after (") insert ("customers").
The noble Lord said: We embark here upon a statement which could be made by a person ceasing to hold office as an auditor. In the Bill as drafted, under the new Section 390A, the auditor may, or shall, make a statement, if he is removed from office, about anything which he considers should be brought to the attention of members of the company. The provision goes on to state that the auditor should also bring to the attention of the creditors of the company anything which he wishes. Therefore, in the Bill as drafted, the Government have already moved away from the idea that auditors are only responsible to the members of the company—and rightly so. I say that because auditors, if they are removed, have a responsibility not just to members of the company, but also on a wider canvas. Moreover, the Government have included creditors in that wider canvas.
The reasons for the removal of the auditor could easily be sinister; but of course they could equally be benign. It seems to us that if an auditor makes a statement about matters which should be brought to the attention of the members and the creditors there may be some difficulty. For example, there may be some problem with the company's products, with the company's production mechanisms or with the company's ability to sell its products without infringing the law, perhaps the Consumer Protection Act 1987, which the auditor points out to the company,
224
whereupon he is removed from office. Thereafer, however, he wishes to bring such matters to the attention of the customers. I say "customers" because that is the widest expression which comes to my mind. It seems to me that the people who buy the products of a company, as well as the people who lend money to the company and those who own the company, have a right to be informed if the auditor who is being removed thinks that there is something which ought to be brought to their attention. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde:I am not sure that it would be entirely apt to add customers to the persons whose interests an auditor must bear in mind when considering whether the circumstances of his ceasing to hold office as auditor should be brought to their attention. Auditors are not normally regarded as having a duty to customers of a company. Of course, many customers of a company will be creditors of it as a result of their dealings with it and the existing provisions will ensure that the auditor will consider them when deciding whether to make a statement
If a person is neither a creditor nor a member of a company but merely a customer of it, I find it difficult to see what matters of particular interest to him an auditor could reasonably be expected to be aware of as a result of carrying out his functions as auditor. Moreover, by adding the word "customers" to this provision, we would be implying that an auditor ought to know of things which were relevant to persons other than members or creditors.
Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said, the Government have not in fact moved away from this idea. Indeed, creditors are already included in the existing Section 390. Section 390A in effect merely applies the existing provision in Section 390 relating to resigning auditors.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The Minister will no doubt have read the Consumer Protection Act with great care.
Lord Strathclyde: No doubt.
Lord Williams of Elvel: That Act deals with pricing, misleading price indications and product liability. It can have a massive effect upon a company's finances. That is something in which auditors will have an interest. If they do not have an interest, they are not being very good auditors. With the arrival of the Consumer Protection Act, which follows the European directive and so I agree that we must have it, there are interested parties other than members and creditors. I still maintain that it would be appropriate, if an auditor feels that there is something that someone who is buying a company's product needs to know which the company is not doing and which results in the auditor's removal, that the auditor should be entitled to speak out.
Lord Strathclyde:I am not sure that I have much to add to what I have already said. The Government do not agree with the noble Lord's point of view. We have stated from where we started and what we are doing with the clause.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry that the Government do not agree with my point of view. I do not believe that the Government have even started to understand the argument. I hope that the Government will think again and look at this matter, because the Consumer Protection Act changes the role of auditors. Auditors are policemen in the Banking Act and the Building Societies Act and, to a certain extent, in the Companies Act. However much one may not like that situation, nevertheless they are. A company's finances can be affected dramatically by the Consumer Protection Act. Auditors should be able to report upon that matter. Does the Minister have anything else to say?
Lord Strathclyde: Auditors may have interests in many things, but they do not need to be added to the statutory duty. Matters of general interest will often be of interest to creditors. I believe that I have said enough now.
Lord Williams of Elvel:I hear what the Minister says. There is clearly a disagreement. Nevertheless, at this time of night I shall not pursue the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. C72:
Page 99, line 11, after ("(4)") insert ("a").
The noble Lord said: I am afraid that I failed to move the amendment at an earlier stage in Committee. It seems to rectify a drafting point in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I am delighted to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 99, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 100 agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. C73:
After Clause 100 insert the following new clause:
("Extended period for application to declare dissolution of company void.
—(1) Section 651 of the Companies Act 1985 power of court to declare dissolution of company void) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) omit the words "at any time within 2 years of the date of the dissolution".
(3) After subsection (3) add—"
(4) Subject to the following provisions, an application under this section may not be made after the end of the period of two years from the date of the dissolution of the company.
(5) An application for the purpose of bringing proceedings against the company—

(a) for damages in respect of personal injuries (including any sum claimed by virtue of section 1(2)(c) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 (funeral expenses)), or

(b) for damages under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 or the Damages (Scotland) Act 1976,

may be made at any time within the period of 20 years from the date of the dissolution; but no order shall be made on such an application if it appears to the court that the proceedings would fail by virtue of any enactment as to the time within which proceedings must be brought.
(6) Nothing in subsection (5) affects the power of the court on making an order under this section to direct that the period between the dissolution of the company and the making of the order shall not count for the purposes of any such enactment.
(7) In subsection (5)(a) "personal injuries" includes any disease and any impairment of a person's physical or mental condition.".
(4) The above amendments do not apply in relation to a company which was dissolved more than two years before the commencement of this section.").
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 151A and 152A. The amendment to Section 651 of the Companies Act 1985 will enable the courts on a relevant application to declare void the dissolution of a company within a period of 20 years after the date of dissolution, rather than two years as is presently the case.
I believe that there has been some confusion. I understood that the amendments were grouped. They do not have to be. I shall move Amendment No. C73 only this evening. We can discuss the other amendments on another day, or we can assume that they have been spoken to. I shall do whatever the noble Lord wants.
Lord Williams of Elvel:I am afraid that I was unaware of the grouping that the Minister announced. I should be grateful if he would speak to Amendment No. C73 tonight, and speak to the other amendments on another day.
Lord Strathclyde: I am always eager to please the noble Lord. I shall do as he suggests.
We have become aware that persons who might have a claim against a company, and consequently its insurers, for damages as a result of personal injuries or under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 or the Damages (Scotland) Act 1976 have had difficulties in pursuing their claim where following its liquidation the company has been dissolved. For instance the person may have contracted a disease in the course of his employment which may take many years to become apparent. At present an application for the dissolution to be held void must be made within two years, and we are concerned about the restrictive nature of the current provisions.
The amendment seeks to overcome the present problem by extending the existing two-year time period to 20 years for applications to be made by those suffering personal injury. I am certain that your Lordships will approve the steps we are taking. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. C73, Amendment No. C74:
Line 4, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: I am grateful to the noble Lord for introducing his Amendment No. C73. It seems to us that the provision in the Government's new amendment raises all sorts of difficulties in the period of dissolution. There must be a cut-off point and our view is that the original Act had got it just about right. I cannot see that the noble Lord has very persuasive arguments for amending or omitting the words,
"At any time within 2 years of the date of dissolution".

227
If the noble Lord could expand on what he said, perhaps we might be persuaded. However, his argument does not seem to be very persuasive at the moment.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran:I agree that there seems to be no case yet made out for removing the phrase,
"At any time within 2 years of the date of dissolution".
It may be that I am not up to date with the law on this matter, there may be some recent case which the noble Lord has in mind. Perhaps he would explain a little further why it is necessary to omit these words.
Lord Strathclyde:I am faintly astonished by the comments of the noble Lords who have just spoken. I thought that they would probably welcome the proposal as protecting those who might have been injured or have contracted a disease which has taken a long time to become apparent.
The noble Lord wished me to expand but I am not really sure what more I can say. To me it was perfectly clear what we were trying to do—to extend the period from two to 20 years. That seems to me to be perfectly sensible, almost humanitarian. Rather than my going again through everything I have already said, perhaps the noble Lord will read my remarks.
If I may go on a little further, briefly, Section 651 of the Companies Act 1985 presently empowers the court, upon the application of a liquidator or any other interested person, to make an order within two years of the dissolution of a company declaring the dissolution to be void. The two-year time limit has proved to be very restrictive in cases where persons (often former employees) seek to take proceedings against the company (with a view to pursuing its insurers) in an action for personal injury, where for instance they have contracted a disease (as I have already said) in the course of their employment and wish to have the company restored for that purpose.
I hope that that answers the question of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd. The amendment will help to cater for the problems that currently exist in this area, which were highlighted in the recent decision of Bradley v Eagle Star Insurance Co. Ltd, where the House of Lords held that, because through lapse of time a dissolved company could not be restored to the register, it could not be sued. Since the establishment of the company's liability was a necessary prerequisite before a claim under the company's insurance policy could be made, it was impossible for the injured party to pursue the company's insurers. I hope that that settles the matter for the time being.
Lord Williams of Elvel:I see now what the noble Lord and the Government are driving at. Far be it for me to oppose any humanitarian instincts of the Government, rare as they are, but it seems to me to pose certain administrative problems if the period is extended from two to 20 years. That is the only point I am making. We are, after all, dealing with a Companies Bill.
Lord Strathclyde: That is true, but the administrative changes or problems will be sorted out in
228
Amendments Nos. 151A and 152A when we get to them.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am grateful to the noble Lord for having told me about the case of Bradley v Eagle Star. I suppose that is a recent case although I have no knowledge of it. But for what reason has the period been extended to 20 years? There must be some particular cases concerning certain classes of personal injury involved. Are we talking about miners' injuries? What kind of injuries have arisen to lead to this extension to 20 years?
Lord Strathclyde: The example I used was that of an employee contracting a disease which perhaps had not made itself apparent. I must say that I am not entirely sure why a period of 20 years has been chosen, but that seems to be a reasonable length of time, and I find it totally acceptable.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: However, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, it would give rise to tremendous administrative difficulties.
Lord Strathclyde: Sometimes we have to allow for greater administrative difficulties in order to make something slightly more humanitarian.
Lord Williams of Elvel: It is always welcome when the Government are prepared to face administrative problems for humanitarian reasons. I certainly do not quarrel with that and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. C73 agreed to.
Clause 101 [Abolition of doctrine of deemed notice]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. C75:
Page 101, line 5, at end insert—
("(4) Nothing in this section affects the operation of section 198 of the Law of Property Act 1925 as it applies by virtue of section 3(7) of the Land Charges Act 1972 (under which the registration of certain land charges under Part XII, or Chapter III of Part XXIII, of this Act is deemed to constitute actual notice for all purposes connected with the land affected).").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is the same in effect to one aspect of the amendment to new Section 397(5) in Clause 81 that was agreed on Report. As in new Section 397(5) it is necessary to ensure that the change in the doctrine of notice in Clause 101 does not affect Section 198 of the Law of Property Act 1925. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: I believe that I dealt with this amendment or the relative amendment in Part IV of the Bill. We understand that it runs on from that amendment, so we welcome it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Grantchester): The Question is that Clause 101, as amended, stand part of the Bill. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is to speak to that.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone: moved Amendment No. C76:
Leave out Clause 101.
The noble Lord said: I thought I was going to be done out of it!
The Government introduced this clause when we were really in Committee. It outlines that:
"A person shall not be taken to have notice of any matter merely because of its being disclosed in any document kept by the registrar of companies (and thus available for inspection) or made available by the company for inspection".
The clause concerns the abolition of the doctrine of deemed notice. This abolition derives from the recommendations of the Diamond Report on Security Interests which has recently been issued by the Department of Trade and Industry. I am advised that the CBI believes that it is premature to introduce this clause prior to full consultation on the Diamond Report which forms the basis of a radical restructuring of the law of security interests.
It is believed that the doctrine of deemed notice is a fundamental concept in English law and should only be abolished, if at all, when the full consultation process on the Diamond Report has been completed. I hope very much, therefore, that my noble friend the Minister will agree that the Government should withdraw the clause at this stage in order that the consideration of the Diamond Report will not commence with the Government having already decided on the outcome of the consultation. It seems illogical, hurried and unnecessary.
Although at this late stage my noble friend may not be able to tell me that he will agree to this amendment, I hope that he might undertake to tell the Secretary of State that this is a matter of concern and that, on reflection, the Government might feel able to follow the advice that I am seeking to give them and deal with the Diamond Report properly without trying to sneak this into the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I thank my noble friend Lord Mottistone for his words. I sincerely hope that he will not press his amendment. I will take a great deal of note of what he has said in support of it. He might be reassured to know—and I sincerely hope he is—that we are continuing to discuss the topic of notice with the Law Society both in relation to new Section 397(5) in Part IV of the Bill and to Clause 101. I shall ensure that his concerns are considered in the context of those discussions. This is a very complex area of law, and we are fully aware of the need to get it right. I hope that my noble friend will seek to withdraw his amendment.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Clause 101, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 102 [Rights of inspection and related matters]:
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking moved Amendment No. C77:
Page 101, line 37, at end insert—
(" "Members' rights to damages.
723B.— (1) No member of a company shall be debarred from obtaining damages or other compensation from the company in respect of a relevant claim by reason only of his being or having been a member of the company.
(2) In this section "relevant claim" means a claim for damages arising either in contract or in tort (including a claim for an indemnity under any agreement for an indemnity in respect of loss resulting from a breach of warranty or misrepresentation) in connection with the subscription or purchase by the member, or by any other person from whom the member acquired the shares in question, of any shares in the company," ").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. It is a little time since I sought from your Lordships the abolition of the rule in Houldsworth v. City of Glasgow Bank. The last time I sought the abolition of this rule was rather late on a July night in 1986 during the passage of the Financial Services Bill.
In case the noble Lord, Lord Williams, or other noble Lords have forgotten what the rule is, let me very briefly remind them. It is usually expressed in terms that a subscriber for shares in a company cannot claim for damages for misrepresentation or breach of warranty against the company unless he rescinds his contract of allotment. This rule was applied against the unfortunate Mr. Houldsworth after the bankruptcy of the City of Glasgow Bank and it prevented him from claiming some very substantial damages—somewhere in the region of £200,000, which must have been a lot of money in those days. As a result of the application of that rule, because the unfortunate Mr. Houldsworth had not rescinded his contract of allotment he was prevented from getting damages before the court.
When I last sought from your Lordships the abolition of the rule of Houldsworth v. City of Glasgow Bank, supported, as I like to recall, by the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Morton of Shuna, who then carried the cause from the Opposition Benches during the passage of the Financial Services Bill, I was successful in persuading the Government to abolish the rule in Houldsworth v. City of Glasgow Bank in so far it applied to certain aspects of the Financial Services Bill. In particular, the amendment was accepted by the Government under which the rule did not apply to mis-statements in listing particulars or prospectuses under Parts IV and V of the then Financial Services Bill. There are many documents which are not covered by that. Shareholders are offered shares in all sorts of documents which are neither listing particulars nor prospectuses, and it is for that reason that I have come back to your Lordships to ask for a more extensive abolition of the rule in Houldsworth v. City of Glasgow Bank.
The full argument in support of that case has already been presented to the Minister in a long memorandum from the Law Society. I shall not read that memorandum to the Committee, nor shall I attempt to summarise it. I have tried to explain the main issue and I think that I can leave the matter there.
At this stage of the evening, I have a very modest request for the Minister. I do not ask him to accept my amendment or to give any undertaking to produce his own amendment during the passage of the Bill in this Chamber or in another place. I merely ask him to confirm that the Government are willing to enter into full consultation on that problem with the good hope that it can be resolved, and that an

231
amendment can be moved at a later stage during the passage of the Bill, either in this Chamber or in another place.
If the Minister is prepared—as I understand he is—to give that confirmation, I need not trouble the Committee any further, unless any noble Lord wishes to address the Committee further on the unfortunate circumstances of Mr. Houldsworth in 1980, when he was unable to gain the substantial damages that he sought from the courts.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: Interestingly, the CBI has advised me about another case, not the case quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. The CBI believes that it raises a number of questions that go to the heart of the ruling in Foss v. Harbottle and would like to review that question after hearing the reasons advanced, with the intention of coming back at a later stage. This amendment is obviously a lawyer's paradise. They will have lots of fun in another place, even if we do not have all the fun here.
Lord Strathclyde: We are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for dealing both clearly and much more briefly than he might have done with the complexities of a case that not only continues to provoke articles in the learned journals, but to exercise the minds of lawyers advising companies. I shall try to be similarly clear and brief.
First, I say to my noble friend Lord Mottistone that we shall no doubt look into the case that he mentioned. Secondly, to deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, all I shall say for the moment is that the case for the amendment is sufficient to justify further consideration and discussion which, as the noble Lord indicated, has already been embarked upon.
Lord Hacking: In the circumstances, I am most happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 102 agreed to.
Clause 103 ["Subsidiary", "holding company" and "wholly-owned subsidiary']:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. C78:
Page 103, line 2, after ("remove") insert ("either").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendment No. C79.
This is a relatively small point in the definition of a subsidiary. I believe—and this is my experience—that certain boards have the rule that, if there is a split 50-50 vote, the chairman will have a casting vote. It seems to me that paragraph (b) as drafted at the top of page 103 of the Bill, would make a little more sense if that position were recognised. Clearly, a company which has the ability to appoint half the board of directors of whom one is chairman, and therefore has the casting vote in the event of a 50-50 split, is a company that controls the subsidiary. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord has suggested that the amendments are needed because the existing definition of a subsidiary does not provide for the case where one company has the right to appoint half the board of directors of another company, including the chairman who has a casting vote in the event of a tied vote. We agree that one company should be a subsidiary of another in such circumstances since this gives effective control. However, we believe that the Bill as drafted already achieves this end and I shall go on to describe how.
New Section 736 (1)(b) provides that one company is the subsidiary of another where that other is a member of it and has the right to appoint or remove a majority of the board of directors. If the Bill gave no further interpretation of this expression I would agree that an amendment on the lines proposed by the noble Lord would be helpful. However, new Section 736(3) explains that, in this context, the right to appoint or remove a majority of a board of directors is not simply a question of counting heads but means:
"the right to appoint or remove directors holding a majority of the voting rights at meetings of the board".
Take the case therefore of a board of directors of four members, one of whom is the chairman with a casting vote. A company which has the right to appoint or remove the chairman and one other director will meet the condition in subsection (3) and will therefore be the holding company and the other its subsidiary. In the light of that explanation, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel:I am grateful to the noble Lord. If the DTI lawyers think that the Bill satisfies my point, I am not unreasonably happy that that should be the case. It will be interesting to see whether they are right. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. C79 not moved.]
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. C80 and C81:
Page 104, line 15, after ("company") insert ("—(i)").
Page 104, line 16, at end insert (", or
(ii) if any shares in that other company are held by a person acting on behalf of the company or any of its subsidiaries.").
The noble Lord said: These amendments parallel exactly a minor change made to the definition of a subsidiary undertaking in Part I of the Bill. They close a possible loophole in new Section 73(6). I beg to move Amendments Nos. C80 and C81 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. C82 to C84:
Page 104, line 24, leave out from second ("any") to ("to") in line 25 and insert ("enactment (including any enactment contained in subordinate legislation within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978)").
Page 104, line 26, leave out from ("shall") to ("be") in line 27 and insert (", subject to any express amendment or saving made by or under this Act,").
Page 105, line 5, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: With the agreement of the Committee I shall move these amendments en bloc. These are highly technical amendments but, as I shall explain, one of them is of some importance.
The first two amendments clarify the wording of Clause 103(2). This provides that references to "subsidiary" or "holding company" in other enactments are to be taken as references to those terms as defined in the Bill rather than as originally enacted in the Act—except where there is an express amendment or saving provision in the Bill or in regulations made under subsection (4).
Amendment No. C84 is important for the interpretation of private agreements which use the expressions "subsidiary" and "holding company" by reference to their meaning in companies' legislation. These terms are used widely in articles of association and in commercial agreements.
The changes to the definition of a subsidiary made by the Bill mean that there will be a significant number of cases where companies will be subsidiaries of another company under the new definition but not under the old definition, and vice versa. One issue which this raises is the interpretation of private agreements which pick up on these Companies Act definitions. Our aim is to leave existing private instruments to be interpreted according to their tenor on an individual basis. Specifically, we do not wish to make a presumption in legislation that the new definition should automatically be substituted for the old in interpreting such agreements. I beg to move Amendments Nos. C82 to C84.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 103, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. C85:
After Clause 103, insert the following new clause:
("Shareholder protection.
. Monies owing to a shareholder of a company shall not, without his prior consent in writing, be retained by the company for its benefit, whether on the ground that the cost of distribution might exceed the value of the sum distributed or otherwise, unless the sum so owing is less than one pound.").
The noble Lord said: This is the last of my shareholder protection amendments. It is also one that we did not have time to discuss in depth previously because of the lateness of the hour, although the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, indicated briefly his sympathy for it. Once again, alas, the hour is relatively late but that is the way it goes.
It has been quite a long time since the earlier Committee stage. I think that I had therefore better spell out the arguments again. The Committee will be aware that when a company makes a rights issue the new shares that are not taken up are normally sold by the company making the rights issue on a nil-paid basis, and the proceeds after the expenses of sale are then distributed to the shareholders concerned. They are distributed unless the proceeds amount to less than a certain figure, in which case they tend to be retained for the benefit of the company.
Exactly the same thing can and does happen when companies are taken over, or when there is a capital reorganisation of one kind or another. This did not matter so much when the cut-off point below which the moneys owing to the shareholder which were not sent to him was £1 or less. Latterly we find that all sums of less than £2, and often £2.50, are being withheld. Soon no doubt this minimum will rise to £4 or £5.
The excuse for this is alleged to be the benefit of the company. However, I remind the Committee that the company belongs to its shareholders. This means that some shareholders are being robbed for the benefit of others: it does not matter that the theft is only a petty one. Furthermore, it sets an extremely dangerous precedent. If it is too costly to the company to send out small capital sums which are due to the shareholders then it must equally be too costly to the company to send out small amounts of income due to the shareholders.
Many net dividend payments amount to less than £2.50. For example, if one held £1,000 worth of Racal Telecom shares-305 shares at today's price of 328 pence—one's net dividend for the entire year including both interim and final dividends would be £3.90. The same applies to other high-flying companies mainly involved in the business of technology. Would the Government, I wonder, suggest that these companies should be entitled to withhold these dividend payments because it is too costly to send them out to the shareholders.
What about annual reports? These weighty and usually glossy tomes must generally cost well over £2.50 to print, bind, package and post. Shall we next see boards of directors deciding to stop sending these to any shareholder who cannot prove that he or she has a university degree or at least an A-level in English and maths on the grounds that it would otherwise be wasted on the uncomprehending recipient and that the money would be better retained for the benefit of the company?
We should remember that most public companies are actively seeking a greater number of small, individual shareholders because they know that the Tatters' well-known loyalty and inertia will help to protect the company and its directors from the acquisitive instincts of predatory institutions. That is fine, but the companies concerned must take the rough with the smooth and not try to deprive these new shareholders—convenient and yet at the same time inconvenient, from the point of view of the company—of what is theirs for the sake of saving a few pence. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: As I said at an earlier stage in Committee, before recommitment, I believe that this is an interesting and quite important point. It may be a minor point in terms of the whole corpus of company legislation, but we should do well to pay attention to it. I am not convinced that the drafting of the amendment is wholly to my taste. Nevertheless we certainly support the thrust of the amendment.
Lord Strathclyde:I have listened with interest to the words spoken. In fact it was not until this amendment was tabled for the Committee stage debate that the Government were even aware that there was any concern about this issue. Since then we have looked at the different categories of payments which are made to shareholders by companies, and if one leaves aside the question of dividends, most occasions which lead to funds accruing to the account of shareholders seem likely to be the subject of resolutions at general meeting, when shareholders would have a chance to consider this aspect of any proposals and vote on them accordingly. There're also general safeguards in Section 459 of the Companies Act which enable a member of a company to apply to the court for an order on the grounds that the company's action is unfairly prejudicial to some of the members. The Government are accordingly doubtful as to whether it is appropriate to initiate legislation in this area, particularly as it has not been established that there is any real problem concerning abuse of sums retained by companies.
Turning to the question of the treatment of dividend payments, the proposal is not so straightforward as it may initially appear to be. Before any change could be justified it would be necessary to establish the impact of such a proposal on the way tax on dividends is treated in the hands of the company and the shareholder, and on the ranking of members vis-à-vis creditors in a winding-up. Again, in the absence of any evidence that there is a problem with respect to dividends, the Government do not consider legislation to be the appropriate step to take.
Lord Monson: Once again I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for indicating his assent for the principle of the amendment, even if not for its precise detail. I shall study what the Mnister has said, but I do not think he can seriously expect that a shareholder who is aggrieved at not receiving £2.50 will go to the trouble of applying to a court under Section 459, whether on his own behalf or that of others. It is not as if the company and the shareholder are on a level playing field—a term much used nowadays. The shareholder is in a weak position compared with the director of a company.
I have cited dividend payments as an example of what might happen if this precedent became established. Far be it from me to say that dividend payments should be withheld, on any account. I do not think they should: I believe that the noble Lord has misunderstood me. I am suggesting that capital distributions be brought into line with dividend payments, not the other way round. Nevertheless I shall study what the noble Lord has said. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that the drafting is probably imperfect, but I am glad that everybody understands what I am trying to get at: that was the point of my tabling this amendment. It needs more work, but I warn the Government that I may return again at the next stage with another amendment along these lines. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 104 agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported (in respect of Part V) with amendments.
10.5 p.m.
Report received.
Schedule 14 [Minor amendments of the Companies Act 1985]
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 147:
Page 206, line 7, at end insert—
("Removal of restriction on transfer of shares
.—(1) In section 456(3) of the Companies Act 1985 (removal of restrictions by order of court), in paragraph (b) (order where shares to be sold) —

(a) for "sold" substitute "transferred for valuable consideration", and

(b) for "sale" substitute "transfer".

(2) In section 454(2) and (3) (which refer to section 456(3)0)) for "sell" and "sale" substitute "transfer".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment relates to Part XV of the Companies Act 1985 which concerns orders made to restrict the transfer of specified shares and the exercise of other rights relating to those shares. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 147A:
Page 206, line 21, at end insert:
("Companies' registered numbers
For section 705 of the Companies Act 1985 (companies' registered numbers) substitute:
"Companies' registered numbers.
705.— (l) The registrar shall allocate to every company a number, which shall be known as the company's registered number.
(2) Companies' registered numbers shall be in such form, consisting of one or more sequences of figures or letters, as the registrar may from time to time determine.
(3) The registrar may upon adopting a new form of registered number make such changes of existing registered numbers as appear to him necessary.
(4) A change of a company's registered number has effect from the date on which the company is notified by the registrar of the change; but for a period of three years beginning with the date on which that notification is sent by the registrar the requirement of section 351(1)(a) as to the use of the company's registered number on business letters and order forms is satisfied by the use of either the old number or the new.
(5) In this section "company" includes—

(a) any oversea company which has complied with section 691 (delivery of statutes to registrar, &c.), other than a company which appears to the registrar not to have a place of business in Great Britain; and

(b) any body to which any provision of this Act applies by virtue of section 718 (unregistered companies).".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 147B and 147C. The amendment enables the registrar of companies to adopt a new form of companies' registered numbers and to change a company's registered number on the introduction of a new form. The purpose, to which subsections (2) and (3) of new Section 705 gives effect, is simply to enable the

237
registrar to add to existing numbers by computer, additional figures or letters, commonly referred to as "check digits", in order to improve the speed and accuracy with which information can be retrieved and correlated. This will help enable Companies House to spot when someone searching for information is given the number of a company incorrectly and will result in a better service being given to the public.
The amendment takes into account that changing existing numbers in this way could cause expense and inconvenience to companies which are required to show their registered number on all business letters and order forms. Subsection (4) therefore allows for a three-year period during which a company can use either the old or the new number on its stationery. There is nothing magical about three years. The period needs to be long enough for the vast majority of companies to use up existing stationery stocks but should be no longer than necessary. In our judgment three years strikes the right balance.
One of the amendments to this amendment, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Peston, would increase that period to five years. I should, however, listen to the noble Lord's arguments before commenting further. I hope that he does not comment at too great a length.
[Amendments Nos. 147B and 147C, as amendments to Amendment No. 147A, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 147A agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 147D:
Page 206, line 21, at end insert—
("Meaning of "office copy" in Scotland
In Part XXVI of the Companies Act 1985 (interpretation), after section 743 insert—
743A. References in this Act to an office copy of a court order shall be construed, as respects Scotland, as references to a certified copy interlocutor.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in a number of places the 1985Companies Act provides for an office copy of a court order to be produced or delivered. In Part IV of the Bill two further such provisions have been added on Report. We are taking this opportunity to provide for the correct Scots equivalent of the term "office copy", which is "certified copy interlocutor". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes past ten o'clock.

  IRAQ: HUMAN RIGHTS
  IRAQ: HUMAN RIGHTS
  AIDS SUFFERERS: WELFARE ARRANGEMENTS
  AIDS SUFFERERS: WELFARE ARRANGEMENTS
  DRINKING WATER: EC DIRECTIVE
  DRINKING WATER: EC DIRECTIVE
  NATIONAL RIVERS AUTHORITY: REGIONAL COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
  NATIONAL RIVERS AUTHORITY: REGIONAL COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP